---
title: "On Divination · De divinatione"
author: "Cicero"
translator: "William Armistead Falconer"
languages: [la, en]
shelf: "Classical Latin"
section: 7 of 9
url: https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-de-divinatione/7/
cite: "Cicero, tr. William Armistead Falconer, On Divination · De divinatione, section 7. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-de-divinatione/7/"
---

# On Divination · De divinatione

*Cicero, tr. William Armistead Falconer*

Can the future be known? Cicero’s brother Quintus defends omens, dreams and oracles; Cicero takes them apart.

> Latin: ed. William Armistead Falconer, from the Perseus Digital Library (canonical-latinLit, phi0474.phi053, CC BY-SA 4.0).

> English: William Armistead Falconer, from the Perseus Digital Library (phi0474.phi053.perseus-eng1). Notes are not included.

> Rows follow the references the two texts share (books, chapters and sections), cut where both reach the end of a sentence.

## 7. Book II · sections 61–90

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-de-divinatione/7/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-de-divinatione/7/#p-N

[¶0] 61. "If I were to ask Chrysippus the causes of all the phenomena just mentioned, that distinguished writer on divination would never say that they happened by chance, but he would find an explanation for each of them in the laws of nature. For he would say: ' Nothing can happen without a cause; nothing actually happens that cannot happen; if that has happened which could have happened, then it should not be considered a portent; therefore there are no such things as portents.' Now if a thing is to be considered a portent because it is seldom seen, then a wise man is a portent; for, as I think, it oftener happens that a mule brings forth a colt than that nature produces a sage. Chrysippus, in this connexion, gives the following syllogism: 'That which could not have happened never did happen; and that which could have happened is no portent; therefore, in any view, there is no such thing as a portent.'

> Latin: 61. “Quorum omnium causas si a Chrysippo quaeram, ipse ille divinationis auctor numquam illa dicet facta fortuito naturalemque rationem omnium reddet: ‘Nihil enim fieri sine causa potest; nec quicquam fit, quod fieri non potest; nec, si id factum est, quod potuit fieri, portentum debet videri; nulla igitur portenta sunt.’ Nam si, quod raro fit, id portentum putandum est, sapientem esse portentum est; saepius enim mulam peperisse arbitror quam sapientem fuisse. igitur ratio concluditur: ‘Nec id, quod non potuerit fieri, factum umquam esse, nec, quod potuerit, id portentum esse; ita omnino nullum esse portentum.’”

[¶1] 62. This is illustrated by the story of a clever response made by a certain diviner and interpreter of portents. A man referred to him for interpretation as a portent the fact that a snake was seen at his house, coiled about a beam. ' That was not a portent,' said the diviner; ' it would have been if the beam had been wrapped around the snake.' By this answer he said plainly enough: ' Nothing that can happen is to be considered a portent.' "You refer to a letter, written by Gaius Gracchus to Marcus Pomponius, stating that Tiberius Gracchus, father of Gaius, caught two snakes in his house and called together the soothsayers. And why a conference about snakes rather than about lizards or mice? You answer, 'Because we see lizards and mice every day; snakes we do not.' As if it makes any difference how often a thing happens if it can happen at all! And yet what surprises me is this: If the release of the female snake was to be fatal to Tiberius Gracchus and that of the male was to be the death of Cornelia, why in the world did he let either snake escape? For Gaius in his letter does not state that the soothsayers expressed any opinion as to the result if neither snake had been released. 'Be that as it may,' you reply, 'death overtook Gracchus.' That is granted, but his death was caused by some very serious illness and not by the release of the snake. Besides, soothsayers are not so unlucky that their predictions never come true—even by accident!

> Latin: 62. “Quod etiam coniector quidam et interpres portentorum non inscite respondisse dicitur ei, qui quondam ad eum retulisset quasi ostentum, quod anguis domi vectem circumiectus fuisset: ‘Tum esset,’ inquit, ‘ostentum, si anguem vectis circumplicavisset.’ Hoc ille responso satis aperte declaravit nihil habendum esse portentum quod fieri posset.” “‘C. Gracchus ad M. Pomponium scripsit duobus anguibus domi comprehensis haruspices a patre convocatos.’ Qui magis anguibus quam lacertis, quam muribus? ‘Quia sunt haec cotidiana, angues non item.’ Quasi vero referat, quod fieri potest, quam id saepe fiat. tamen miror, si emissio feminae anguis mortem afferebat Ti. Graccho, emissio autem maris anguis erat mortifera Corneliae, cur alteram utram emiserit; nihil enim scribit respondisse haruspices, si neuter anguis emissus esset, quid esset futurum. ‘At mors insecuta Gracchum est.’ Causa quidem, credo, aliqua morbi gravioris, non emissione serpentis; neque enim tanta est infelicitas haruspicum, ut ne casu quidem umquam fiat, quod futurum illi esse dixerint!”

[¶2] 63. "I should, of course, marvel at that famous story you got out of Homer about Calchas predicting the years of the Trojan War from the number of sparrows—if I believed it! In a leisure moment I thus translated what Agamemnon in Homer says about this prophecy:
Be patient, men; with fortitude endure
Your grievous tasks till we can ascertain
If what our Calchas prophesies be true,
Or only idle fancies of his breast.
For all who have not left the light of day,
In gloomy shades to dwell, retain these signs
Imprinted on their minds. When Aulis first
Was decked with Grecian fleets, which carried death
For Priam, ruin for Troy, we stood about
The fountains cool and sought to please the gods
With gold-crowned bulls on smoking altars laid.
Beneath the plane-tree's shade, whence gushed a spring,
We saw a frightful dragon, huge of size,
With mighty folds, forth from an altar come,
By Jove impelled. It seized some sparrows hid
Within the plane-tree's leafy boughs and eight
Devoured; the ninth—the mother bird—began
To flutter round and utter plaintive cries:
From her the cruel beast her vitals tore.

> Latin: 63. “Nam illud mirarer—si crederem—quod apud Homerum Calchantem dixisti ex passerum numero belli Troiani annos auguratum; de cuius coniectura sic apud Homerum, ut nos otiosi convertimus, loquitur Agamemnon:
ferte, viri, et duros animo tolerate labores,
auguris ut nostri Calchantis fata queamus
scire ratosne habeant an vanos pectoris orsus.
namque omnes memori portentum mente retentant,
qui non funestis liquerunt lumina fatis.
primum ut vestita est classibus Aulis,
quae Priamo cladem et Troiae pestemque ferebant,
nos circum latices gelidos fumantibus aris,
aurigeris divom placantes numina tauris,
sub platano umbrifera, fons unde emanat aquai,
vidimus immani specie tortuque draconem
terribilem, Iovis ut pulsu penetrabat ab ara;
qui platani in ramo foliorum tegmine saeptos
corripuit pullos; quos cum consumeret octo,
nona super tremulo genetrix clangore volabat;
cui ferus immani laniavit viscera morsu.”

[¶3] 64. Now when the mother and her tender brood
Were slain, the son of Saturn who had sent
The dragon forth, took it away; and then
Did change its form into enduring stone.
In fear we stood and watched the monster strange,
As midst the altars of the gods it moved.
Then Calchas, full of courage, thus did speak:
'Why paralysed with sudden fear, O Greeks?
These signs divine were sent by Jove himself.
And though these tardy signs were long delayed,
Their fame and glory will for ever live.
The number of the birds ye saw destroyed
By horrid tooth, portends how many years
Of war we shall endure in front of Troy.
The tenth year Troy will fall and then her fate
Will satisfy the Greeks.' Thus Calchas spoke
And what he prophesied ye see fulfilled.

> Latin: 64. “
hunc, ubi tam teneros volucris matremque peremit,
qui luci ediderat, genitor Saturnius idem
abdidit et duro formavit tegmina saxo.
nos autem timidi stantes mirabile monstrum
vidimus in mediis divom versarier aris.
tum Calchas haec est fidenti voce locutus:
‘quidnam torpentes subito obstipuistis, Achivi?’
‘nobis haec portenta deum dedit ipse creator’
‘tarda et sera nimis, sed fama ac laude perenni.’
‘nam quot avis taetro mactatas dente videtis,’
‘tot nos ad Troiam belli exanclabimus annos;’
‘quae decimo cadet et poena satiabit Achivos.’
edidit haec Calchas; quae iam matura videtis.”

[¶4] 65. But, pray, by what principle of augury does he deduce years rather than months or days from the number of sparrows? Again, why does he base his prophecy on little sparrows which are not abnormal sights and ignore the alleged fact—which is impossible —that the dragon was turned to stone? Finally, what is there about a sparrow to suggest 'years'? In connexion with your story of the snake which appeared to Sulla when he was offering sacrifices, I recall two facts: first, that when Sulla offered sacrifices, as he was about to begin his march against the enemy, a snake came out from under the altar; and, second, that the glorious victory won by him that day was due not to the soothsayer's art, but to the skill of the general.

> Latin: 65. “tandem vista auguratio est ex passeribus annorum potius quam aut mensuum aut dierum? autem de passerculis coniecturam facit, in quibus nullum erat monstrum, de dracone silet, qui, id quod fieri non potuit, lapideus dicitur factus? postremo quid simile habet passer annis? de angue illo qui Sullae apparuit immolanti, utrumque memini et Sullam, cum in expeditionem educturus esset, immolavisse, et anguem ab ara extitisse, eoque die rem praeclare esse gestam non haruspicis consilio, sed imperatoris.”

[¶5] 66. "There is nothing remarkable about the so-called portents of the kind just mentioned; but after they have happened they are brought within the field of prophecy by some interpretation. Take, for example, your stories of the grains of wheat heaped into the mouth of Midas when a boy, and of the bees which settled on the lips of Plato, when he was a child—they are more remarkable as guesses than as real prophecies. Besides, the incidents may have been fictitious; if not, then the fulfilment of the prophecy may have been accidental. As to that incident about Roscius it may, of course, be untrue that a snake coiled itself around him; but it is not so surprising that a snake was in his cradle—especially in Solonium where snakes are attracted in large numbers by the heat of the fireplaces. As to your statement that the soothsayers prophesied a career of unrivalled brilliancy for Roscius, it is a strange thing to me that the immortal gods foretold the glory of a future actor and did not foretell that of Africanus!

> Latin: 66. “Atque haec ostentorum genera mirabile nihil habent; quae cum facta sunt, tum ad coniecturam aliqua interpretatione revocantur, ut illa tritici grana in os pueri Midae congesta, aut apes quas dixisti in labris Platonis consedisse pueri—non tam mirabilia sint quam coniecta belle; quae tamen vel ipsa falsa esse, vel ea quae praedicta sunt, fortuito cecidisse potuerunt. De ipso Roscio potest illud quidem esse falsum, ut circumligatus fuerit angui, sed ut in cunis fuerit anguis, non tam est mirum, in Solonio praesertim, ubi ad focum angues nundinari solent. quod haruspices responderint nihil illo clarius, nihil nobilius fore, miror deos immortales histrioni futuro claritatem ostendisse, nullam ostendisse Africano!”

[¶6] 67. "And you have even collected the portent-stories connected with Flaminius: 'His horse,' you say, 'stumbled and fell with him.' That is very strange, isn't it? And, 'The standard of the first company could not be pulled up.' Perhaps the standard bearer had planted it stoutly and pulled it up timidly. What is astonishing in the fact that the horse of Dionysius came up out of the river, or that it had bees in its mane? And yet, because Dionysius began to reign a short time later—which was a mere coincidence—the event referred to is considered a portent! 'The arms sounded,' you say, 'in the temple of Hercules in Sparta; the folding-doors of the same god at Thebes, though securely barred, opened of their own accord, and the shields hanging upon the walls of that temple fell to the ground.' Now since none of these things could have happened without some exterior force, why should we say that they were brought about by divine agency rather than by chance?

> Latin: 67. “Atque etiam a te Flaminiana ostenta collecta sunt: quod ipse et equus eius repente conciderit; non sane mirabile hoc quidem! evelli primi hastati signum non potuerit; timide fortasse signifer evellebat, quod fidenter infixerat. Dionysi equus quid attulit admirationis, quod emersit e flumine quodque habuit apes in iuba? quia brevi tempore regnare coepit, quod acciderat casu, vim habuit ostenti! ‘At Lacedaemoniis in Herculis fano arma sonuerunt, eiusdemque dei Thebis valvae clausae subito se aperuerunt, eaque scuta, quae fuerant sublime fixa, sunt humi inventa.’ Horum cum fieri nihil potuerit sine aliquo motu, quid est, cur divinitus ea potius quam casu facta esse dicamus?”

[¶7] 68. "You mention the appearance—a 'sudden' appearance it was—of a crown of wild herbs on the head of Lysander's statue at Delphi. Really? And do you think the crown of herbs appeared before their seeds were formed? Besides, the wild herbs, in my opinion, came from seeds brought by birds and were not planted by human agency. Again, imagination can make anything on top of a head look like a crown. 'At the same time,' you say, ' the golden stars in the temple of Castor and Pollux at Delphi fell down and were nowhere to be found.' That appears to me to have been the work of thieves rather than of gods.

> Latin: 68. “At in Lysandri statuae capite Delphis extitit corona ex asperis herbis, et quidem subita.? Censes ante coronam herbae extitisse quam conceptum esse semen? autem asperam credo avium congestu, non humano satu; iam, quicquid in capite est, id coronae simile videri potest. quod eodem tempore stellas aureas Castoris et Pollucis Delphis positas decidisse, neque eas usquam repertas esse dixisti,—furum id magis factum quam deorum videtur.”

[¶8] 69. I am indeed astonished that Greek historians should have recorded the mischievous pranks of the Dodonean ape. For what is less strange than for this hideous beast to have turned over the vase and scattered the lots? And yet the historians declare that no portent more direful than this ever befell the Spartans! "You spoke also of the Veientine prophecy that 'if Lake Albanus overflowed and emptied into the sea, Rome would fall, but if held in check Veii would fall.' Well, it turned out that the water from the lake was drawn off—but it was drawn off through irrigation ditches—not to save the Capitol and the city, but to improve the farming lands. ' And, not long after this occurred, a voice was heard,' you say, 'warning the people to take steps to prevent the capture of Rome by the Gauls. Therefore an altar was erected on the Nova Via in honour of Aius the Speaker.' But why? Did your' Aius the Speaker,' before anybody knew who he was, both speak and talk and from that fact receive his name? And after he had secured a seat, an altar, and a name did he become mute? Your Juno Moneta may likewise be dismissed with a question: What did she ever admonish us about except the pregnant sow?

> Latin: 69. “vero Dodonaeae improbitatem historiis Graecis mandatam esse demiror. minus mirum quam illam monstruosissimam bestiam urnam evertisse, sortes dissupavisse? negant historici Lacedaemoniis ullum ostentum hoc tristius accidisse!” “Nam illa praedicta Veientium, ‘si lacus Albanus redundasset isque in mare fluxisset, Romam perituram; si repressus esset, Veios.’ Ita aqua Albana deducta ad utilitatem agri suburbani, non ad arcem urbemque retinendam. ‘At paulo post audita vox est monentis ut providerent ne a Gallis Roma caperetur; ex eo Aio Loquenti aram in nova via consecratam.’ Quid ergo? Aius iste Loquens, cum eum nemo norat, et aiebat et loquebatur et ex eo nomen invenit; posteaquam et sedem et aram et nomen invenit, obmutuit? idem dici de Moneta potest; a qua praeterquam de sue plena quid umquam moniti sumus?”

[¶9] 70. "Enough has been said of portents; auspices remain and so do lots—I mean ' lots' that are drawn, and not those uttered by prophets, and more correctly styled ' oracles.' I shall speak of oracles when I get to natural divination. In addition I must discuss the Chaldeans. But first let us consider auspices. 'To argue against auspices is a hard thing,' you say, 'for an augur to do.' Yes, for a Marsian, perhaps; but very easy for a Roman. For we Roman augurs are not the sort who foretell the future by observing the flights of birds and other signs. And yet, I admit that Romulus, who founded the city by the direction of auspices, believed that augury was an art useful in seeing things to come— for the ancients had erroneous views on many subjects. But we see that the art has undergone a change, due to experience, education, or the long lapse of time. However, out of respect for the opinion of the masses and because of the great service to the State we maintain the augural practices, discipline, religious rites and laws, as well as the authority of the augural college.

> Latin: 70. “Satis multa de ostentis; auspicia restant et sortes eae, quae ducuntur, non illae, quae vaticinatione funduntur, quae oracula verius dicimus; de quibus tum dicemus, cum ad naturalem divinationem venerimus. etiam de Chaldaeis; sed primum auspicia videamus. ‘Difficilis auguri locus ad contra dicendum.’ Marso fortasse, sed Romano facillimus. Non enim sumus ei nos augures, qui avium reliquorumve signorum observatione futura dicamus. tamen credo Romulum, qui urbem auspicato condidit, habuisse opinionem esse in providendis rebus augurandi scientiam (errabat enim multis in rebus antiquitas), quas, vel usu iam, vel doctrina, vel vetustate immutatam videmus; retinetur autem et ad opinionem vulgi et ad magnas utilitates rei publicae mos, religio, disciplina, ius augurium, collegi auctoritas.”

[¶10] 71. "In my opinion the consuls, Publius Claudius and Lucius Junius, who set sail contrary to the auspices, were deserving of capital punishment; for they should have respected the established religion and should not have treated the customs of their forefathers with such shameless disdain. Therefore it was a just retribution that the former was condemned by a vote of the people and that the latter took his own life. ' Flaminius,' you say,' did not obey the auspices, therefore he perished with his army.' But a year later Paulus did obey them; and did he not lose his army and his life in the battle of Cannae? Granting that there are auspices (as there are not), certainly those which we ordinarily employ—whether by the tripudium or by the observation of the heavens— are not auspices in any sense, but are the mere ghosts of auspices. "'Quintus Fabius, I wish you to assist me at the auspices.' He answers, ' I will.' (In our forefathers' time the magistrates on such occasions used to call in some expert person to take the auspices—but in these days anyone will do. But one must be an expert to know what constitutes ' silence,' for by that term we mean 'free of every augural defect.'

> Latin: 71. “Nec vero non omni supplicio digni P. Claudius L. Iunius consules, qui contra auspicia navigaverunt; parendum enim fuit religioni, nec patrius mos tam contumaciter repudiandus. igitur alter populi iudicio damnatus est, alter mortem sibi ipse conscivit. ‘Flaminius non paruit auspiciis, itaque periit cum exercitu.’ At anno post Paulus paruit; num minus cecidit in Cannensi pugna cum exercitu?, ut sint auspicia, quae nulla sunt, haec certe, quibus utimur, sive tripudio, sive de caelo, simulacra sunt auspiciorum, auspicia nullo modo.” “‘Q. Fabi, te mihi in auspicio esse volo.’ Respondet: ‘audivi.’ (Hic apud maiores nostros adhibebatur peritus, nunc quilibet. autem esse necesse est eum,qui, silentium quid sit,intellegat; id enim silentium dicimus in auspiciis, quod omni vitio caret.”

[¶11] 72. To understand that belongs to a perfect augur.) After the celebrant has said to his assistant, 'Tell me when silence appears to exist,' the latter, without looking up or about him, immediately replies, 'Silence appears to exist.' Then the celebrant says, 'Tell me when the chickens begin to eat.' 'They are eating now,' is the answer. But what are these birds they are talking about, and where are they? Someone replies,' It's poultry. It's in a cage and the person who brought it is called “a poulterer,” because of his business.' These, then, are the messengers of Jove! What difference does it make whether they eat or not? None, so far as the auspices are concerned. But, because of the fact that, while they eat, some food must necessarily fall from their mouths and strike upon the ground (terram pavire),— this at first was called terripavium, and later, terripudium; now it is called tripudium—therefore, when a crumb of food falls from a chicken's mouth a tripudium solistimum is announced to the celebrant.

> Latin: 72. “intellegere perfecti auguris est.)” “autem, qui in auspicium adhibetur, cum ita imperavit is, qui auspicatur, ‘Dicito, si silentium esse videbitur,’ nec suspicit nec circumspicit; statim respondet ‘silentium esse videri.’ Tum ille: ‘Dicito, si pascentur.’ ‘Pascuntur.’ Quae aves? aut ubi? ‘Attulit,’ inquit, ‘in cavea pullos is qui, ex eo ipso, nominatur pullarius.’ Haec sunt igitur aves internuntiae Iovis! pascantur necne quid refert? ad auspicia; sed quia, cum pascuntur, necesse est aliquid ex ore cadere et terram pavire—‘terripavium’ primo, post ‘terripudium’ dictum est; hoc quidem iam ‘tripudium’ dicitur. igitur offa cecidit ex ore pulli, tum auspicanti tripudium solistimum nuntiatur.”

[¶12] 73. "Then, how can there be anything divine about an auspice so forced and so extorted? That such a practice did not prevail with the augurs of ancient times is proven by an old ruling of our college which says,' Any bird may make a tripudium.' There might be an auspice if the bird were free to show itself outside its cage. In that case it might be called 'the interpreter and satellite of Jove.' But now, when shut up inside a cage and tortured by hunger, if it seizes greedily upon its morsel of pottage and something falls from its mouth, do you consider that is an auspice? Or do you believe that this was the way in which Romulus used to take the auspices?

> Latin: 73. “Ergo hoc auspicium divini quicquam habere potest, quod tam sit coactum et expressum? antiquissimos augures non esse usos argumento est, quod decretum collegi vetus habemus omnem avem tripudium facere posse. igitur esset auspicium si modo esset ei liberum se ostendisse; tum avis illa videri posset interpres et satelles Iovis. vero inclusa in cavea et fame enecta, si in offam pultis invadit, et si aliquid ex eius ore cecidit, hoc tu auspicium aut hoc modo Romulum auspicari solitum putas?”

[¶13] 74. Again, do you not think that formerly it was the habit of the celebrants themselves to make observation of the heavens? Now they order the poulterer, and he gives responses! We regard lightning on the left as a most favourable omen for everything except for an election, and this exception was made, no doubt, from reasons of political expediency so that the rulers of the State would be the judges of the regularity of an election, whether held to pass judgements in criminal cases, or to enact laws, or to elect magistrates. "'The consuls, Scipio and Figulus,' you say, 'resigned their office when the augurs rendered a decision based on a letter written by Tiberius Gracchus, to the effect that those consuls had not been elected according to augural law.' Who denies that augury is an art? What I deny is the existence of divination. But you say: ' Soothsayers have the power of divination'; and you mention the fact that, on account of the unexpected death of the person who had suddenly fallen while bringing in the report of the vote of the prerogative century, Tiberius Gracchus introduced the soothsayers into the Senate and they declared that 'the president' had violated augural law.

> Latin: 74. “de caelo servare non ipsos censes solitos, qui auspicabantur? imperant pullario; ille renuntiat. sinistrum auspicium optimum habemus ad omnis res praeterquam ad comitia; quod quidem institutum rei publicae causa est, ut comitiorum vel in iudiciis populi vel in iure legum vel in creandis magistratibus principes civitatis essent interpretes.” “‘At Ti. Gracchi litteris Scipio et Figulus consules, cum augures iudicassent eos vitio creatos esse, magistratu se abdicaverunt.’ Quis negat augurum disciplinam esse? divinationem nego. ‘At haruspices divini quos, cum Ti. Gracchus, propter mortem repentinam eius qui in praerogativa referenda subito concidisset, in senatum introduxisset, non iustum rogatorem fuisse dixerunt.’”

[¶14] 75. Now, in the first place, do not understand that by 'the president' they meant the president of the prerogative century, for he was dead; and, moreover, they could have told that by conjecture without the use of divination; or, in the second place, perhaps, they said so by accident which is in no wise to be left out of account in cases of this kind. For what could the Etruscan soothsayers have known, either as to whether the tabernaculum had been properly placed, or as to whether the regulations pertaining to the pomerium had been observed? For my part, I agree with Gaius Marcellus, rather than with Appius Claudius —both of whom were my colleagues—and I think that, although in the beginning augural law was established from a belief in divination, yet later it was maintained and preserved from considerations of political expediency.

> Latin: 75. “vide ne in eum dixerint qui rogator centuriae fuisset; is enim erat mortuus; id autem sine divinatione coniectura poterant dicere. fortasse casu, qui nullo modo est ex hoc genere tollendus. enim scire Etrusci haruspices aut de tabernaculo recte capto aut de pomeri iure potuerunt? assentior C. Marcello potius quam App. Claudio, qui ambo mei collegae fuerunt, existimoque ius augurum, etsi divinationis opinione principio constitutum sit, tamen postea rei publicae causa conservatum ac retentum.”

[¶15] 76. But we shall discuss the latter point at greater length in other discourses; let us dismiss it for the present. "Now let us examine augury as practised among foreign nations, whose methods are not so artificial as they are superstitious. They employ almost all kinds of birds, we only a few; they regard some signs as favourable, we, others. Deiotarus used to question me a great deal about our system of augury, and I him about that of his country. Ye gods! how much they differed! So much that in some cases they were directly the reverse of each other. He employed auspices constantly, we never do except when the duty of doing so is imposed by a vote of the people. Our ancestors would not undertake any military enterprise without consulting the auspices; but now, for many years, our wars have been conducted by pro-consuls and propraetors, who do not have the right to take auspices.

> Latin: 76. “de hoc loco plura in aliis, nunc hactenus.” “Externa enim auguria, quae sunt non tam artificiosa quam superstitiosa, videamus. fere avibus utuntur, nos admodum paucis; alia illis sinistra sunt, alia nostris. ex me Deiotarus percontari nostri auguri disciplinam, ego ex illo sui. immortales! quantum differebat! ut quaedam essent etiam contraria. ille eis semper utebatur, nos, nisi dum a populo auspicia accepta habemus, quam multum eis utimur? rem administrari maiores nostri nisi auspicato noluerunt; quam multi anni sunt, cum bella a proconsulibus et a propraetoribus administrantur, qui auspicia non habent!”

[¶16] 77. Therefore they have no tripudium and they cross rivers without first taking the auspices. What, then, has become of divining by means of birds? It is not used by those who conduct our wars, for they have not the right of auspices. Since it has been withdrawn from use in the field I suppose it is reserved for city use only! "As to divination ex acuminibus, which is altogether military, it was wholly ignored by that famous man, Marcus Marcellus, who was consul five times and, besides, was a commander-in-chief, as well as a very fine augur. In fact, he used to say that, if he wished to execute some manœuvre which he did not want interfered with by the auspices, he would travel in a closed litter. His method is of a kind with the advice which we augurs give, that the draught-cattle be ordered to be unyoked so as to prevent a iuge auspicium.

> Latin: 77. “nec amnis transeunt auspicato nec tripudio auspicantur. Ubi ergo avium divinatio? quae, quoniam ab eis, qui auspicia nulla habent, bella administrantur, ad urbanas res retenta videtur, a bellicis esse sublata.” “Nam ex acuminibus quidem, quod totum auspicium militare est, iam M. Marcellus ille quinquiens consul totum omisit, idem imperator, idem augur optimus. quidem ille dicebat, ‘si quando rem agere vellet, ne impediretur auspiciis, lectica operta facere iter se solere.’ Huic simile est, quod nos augures praecipimus, ne iuge auspicium obveniat ut iumenta iubeant diiungere.”

[¶17] 78. What else does a refusal to be warned by Jove accomplish except either to prevent an auspice from occurring, or, if it occurs, to prevent it from being seen? "Your story about Deiotarus is utterly absurd: ' He did not regret the auspices given him as he was setting out to join Pompey. They caused him to continue in the path of loyalty and friendship to the Roman people and to perform his duty; for he valued his reputation and glory more than kingdom and riches.' I dare say; but that has nothing to do with auspices. For the crow could not tell Deiotarus that he was doing right in preparing to defend the liberty of the Roman people. He ought to have realized that of himself, and in fact he did.

> Latin: 78. “est aliud nolle moneri a Iove nisi efficere ut, aut ne fieri possit auspicium, aut, si fiat, videri?” “Nam illud admodum ridiculum, quod negas, ‘Deiotarum auspiciorum, quae sibi ad Pompeium proficiscenti facta sint, paenitere, quod fidem secutus amicitiamque populi Romani functus sit officio: antiquiorem enim sibi fuisse laudem et gloriam quam regnum et possessiones suas.’ Credo equidem, sed hoc nihil ad auspicia; nec enim ei cornix canere potuit recte eum facere, quod populi Romani libertatem defendere pararet; ipse hoc sentiebat, sicuti sensit.”

[¶18] 79. Birds indicate that results will be unfavourable or favourable. In my view of the case Deiotarus employed the auspices of virtue, and virtue bids us not to look to fortune until the claims of honour are discharged. However, if the birds indicated that the issue would be favourable to Deiotarus they certainly deceived him. He fled from the battle with Pompey—a serious situation! He separated from Pompey—an occasion of sorrow! He beheld Caesar at once his enemy and his guest —what could have been more distressing than that? Caesar wrested from him the tetrarchy over the Trocmi and conferred it upon some obscure sycophant of his own from Pergamus; deprived him of Armenia, a gift from the Senate; accepted a most lavish hospitality at the hands of his royal host and left him utterly despoiled. But I wander too far: I must return to the point at issue. If we examine this matter from the standpoint of the results—and that was the question submitted to the determination of the birds—the issue was in no sense favourable to Deiotarus; but if we examine it from the standpoint of duty, he sought information on that score not from the auspices, but from his own conscience.

> Latin: 79. “eventus significant aut adversos aut secundos. auspiciis video esse usum Deiotarum, quae vetat spectare fortunam, dum praestetur fides. vero, si prosperos eventus ostenderunt, certe fefellerunt. e proelio cum Pompeio—grave tempus! ab eo—luctuosa res! Caesarem eodem tempore hostem et hospitem vidit—quid hoc tristius? cum ei Trocmorum tetrarchiam eripuisset et adseculae suo Pergameno nescio cui dedisset eidemque detraxisset Armeniam a senatu datam, cumque ab eo magnificentissimo hospitio acceptus esset, spoliatum reliquit et hospitem et regem. labor longius; ad propositum revertar. eventa quaerimus, quae exquiruntur avibus, nullo modo prospera Deiotaro; sin officia, a virtute ipsius, non ab auspiciis petita sunt.”

[¶19] 80. "Then dismiss Romulus's augural staff, which you say the hottest of fires was powerless to burn, and attach slight importance to the whetstone of Attus Navius. Myths should have no place in philosophy. It would have been more in keeping with your rôle as a philosopher to consider, first, the nature of divination generally, second, its origin, and third, its consistency. What, then, is the nature of an art which makes prophets out of birds that wander aimlessly about—now here, now there—and makes the action or inaction of men depend upon the song or flight of birds? and why was the power granted to some birds to give a favourable omen when on the left side and to others when on the right? Again, how, when, and by whom, shall we say that the system was invented? The Etruscans, it is true, find the author of their system in the boy who was ploughed up out of the ground; but whom have we? Attus Navius? But Romulus and Remus, both of whom, by tradition, were augurs, lived many years earlier. Are we to say that it was invented by the Pisidians, Cilicians, or Phrygians? It is your judgement, then, that those devoid of human learning are the authors of a divine science!

> Latin: 80. “Omitte igitur lituum Romuli, quem in maximo incendio negas potuisse comburi; contemne cotem Atti Navi. debet esse in philosophia commenticiis fabellis loci; illud erat philosophi potius, totius auguri primum naturam ipsam videre, deinde inventionem, deinde constantiam. est igitur natura, quae volucris huc et illuc passim vagantis efficiat ut significent aliquid et tum vetent agere, tum iubeant aut cantu aut volatu? cur autem aliis a laeva, aliis a dextra datum est avibus ut ratum auspicium facere possint? modo autem haec aut quando aut a quibus inventa dicemus? Etrusci tamen habent exaratum puerum auctorem disciplinae suae; nos quem? Navium? At aliquot annis antiquior Romulus et Remus, ambo augures, ut accepimus. An Pisidarum aut Cilicum aut Phrygum ista inventa dicemus? igitur humanitatis expertis habere divinitatis auctores!”

[¶20] 81. "'But,' you say, ' all kings, peoples, and nations employ auspices.' As if there were anything so absolutely common as want of sense, or as if you yourself in deciding anything would accept the opinion of the mob! How often will you find a man who will say that pleasure is not a good! Most people actually call it the highest good. Then will the Stoics abandon their views about pleasure because the crowd is against them? or do you think that the multitude follows the lead of the Stoics in very many matters? What wonder, then, if in auspices and in every kind of divination weak minds should adopt the superstitious practices which you have mentioned and should be unable to discern the truth?

> Latin: 81. “‘At omnes reges, populi, nationes utuntur auspiciis.’ Quasi vero quicquam sit tam valde quam nihil sapere vulgare, aut quasi tibi ipsi in iudicando placeat multitudo! quisque est qui voluptatem neget esse bonum? plerique etiam summum bonum dicunt. igitur eorum frequentia Stoici de sententia deterrentur? aut num plerisque in rebus sequitur eorum auctoritatem multitudo? mirum igitur, si in auspiciis et in omni divinatione imbecilli animi superstitiosa ista concipiant, verum dispicere non possint?”

[¶21] 82. Moreover, there is no uniformity, and no consistent and constant agreement between augurs. Ennius, speaking with reference to the Roman system of augury, said:
Then on the left, from out a cloudless sky,
Jove's thunder rolled its goodly omen forth.
But Homer's Ajax in complaining to Achilles of some ferocious deed or other of the Trojans, speaks in this wise:
For their success Jove thunders on the right.
So we regard signs on the left as best—Greeks and barbarians, those on the right. And yet I am aware that we call favourable signs sinistra, or 'left-hand' signs, even though they may be on the right. Undoubtedly our ancestors in choosing the left side and foreign nations the right were both influenced by what experience had shown them was the more favourable quarter in most cases.

> Latin: 82. “autem est inter augures conveniens et coniuncta constantia? nostri auguri consuetudinem dixit Ennius:
tum tonuit laevum bene tempestate serena.” “At Homericus Aiax apud Achillem querens de ferocitate Troianorum nescio quid hoc modo nuntiat:
prospera Iuppiter his dextris fulguribus edit.
Ita nobis sinistra videntur, Graiis et barbaris dextra meliora. haud ignoro, quae bona sint, ‘sinistra’ nos dicere, etiamsi dextra sint; sed certe nostri ‘sinistrum’ nominaverunt externique ‘dextrum,’ quia plerumque id melius videbatur.”

[¶22] 83. What a conflict this is! In view, then, of the differences between different nations in the responses, in the manner in which observations are made and in the kinds of birds and signs employed, need I assert that divination is compounded of a little error, a little superstition, and a good deal of fraud? "And to these superstitions you have actually joined omens! For example: ' Aemilia told Paulus that Persa was dead and her father accepted this as an omen.' ' Caecilia said that she surrendered her seat to her sister's daughter.' Then you go on and speak of the order of silence, favete linguis and the 'prerogative,' or omen of the elections. This is indeed turning the artillery of one's eloquence and learning against oneself! For while on the watch for these 'oracles' of yours could you be so free and calm of mind that you would have reason and not superstition to guide your course? Now, if a person in the course of his own business or conversation should make some remark, and a word spoken by him happened to apply to what you were doing or thinking, do you really believe that such an accident should cause you either fear or joy?

> Latin: 83. “quanta dissensio est!? quod aliis avibus utuntur, aliis signis, aliter observant, alia respondent, non necesse est fateri partim horum errore susceptum esse, partim superstitione, multa fallendo?” “Atque his superstitionibus non dubitasti etiam omina adiungere. ‘Aemilia Paulo Persam perisse, quod pater omen accepit.’ ‘Caecilia se sororis filiae sedes suas tradere.’ Iam illa: ‘Favete linguis’ et ‘praerogativam,’ omen comitiorum. est ipsum esse contra se copiosum et disertum! enim ista observans quieto et libero animo esse poteris, ut ad rem gerendam non superstitionem habeas, sed rationem ducem?? si quis aliquid ex sua re atque ex suo sermone dixerit et eius verbum aliquod apte ceciderit ad id, quod ages aut cogitabis, ea res tibi aut timorem afferet aut alacritatem?”

[¶23] 84. When Marcus Crassus was embarking his army at Brundisium a man who was selling Caunian figs at the harbour, repeatedly cried out,' Cauneas, Cauneas.' Let us say, if you will, that this was a warning to Crassus to bid him 'Beware of going,' and that if he had obeyed the omen he would not have perished. But if we are going to accept chance utterances of this kind as omens, we had better look out when we stumble, or break a shoe-string, or sneeze! "Lots and the Chaldean astrologers remain to be discussed before we come to prophets and to dreams.

> Latin: 84. “M. Crassus exercitum Brundisi imponeret, quidam in portu caricas Cauno advectas vendens ‘Cauneas’ clamitabat., si placet, monitum ab eo Crassum, ‘caveret ne iret’; non fuisse periturum, si omini paruisset. si suscipiamus, pedis offensio nobis et abruptio corrigiae et sternumenta erunt observanda.” “Sortes restant et Chaldaei, ut ad vates veniamus et ad somnia.”

[¶24] 85. And pray what is the need, do you think, to talk about the casting of lots? It is much like playing at morra, dice, or knuckle-bones, in which recklessness and luck prevail rather than reflection and judgement. The whole scheme of divination by lots was fraudulently contrived from mercenary motives, or as a means of encouraging superstition and error. But let us follow the method used in the discussion of soothsaying and consider the traditional origin of the most famous lots. According to the annals of Praeneste Numerius Suffustius, who was a distinguished man of noble birth, was admonished by dreams, often repeated, and finally even by threats, to split open a flint rock which was lying in a designated place. Frightened by the visions and disregarding the jeers of his fellow-townsmen he set about doing as he had been directed. And so when he had broken open the stone, the lots sprang forth carved on oak, in ancient characters. The site where the stone was found is religiously guarded to this day. It is hard by the statue of the infant Jupiter, who is represented as sitting with Juno in the lap of Fortune and reaching for her breast, and it is held in the highest reverence by mothers.

> Latin: 85. “igitur putas de sortibus? enim sors est? prope modum, quod micare, quod talos iacere, quod tesseras, quibus in rebus temeritas et casus, non ratio nec consilium valet. res est inventa fallaciis aut ad quaestum aut ad superstitionem aut ad errorem. ut in haruspicina fecimus, sic videamus, clarissimarum sortium quae tradatur inventio. Suffustium Praenestinorum monumenta declarant, honestum hominem et nobilem, somniis crebris, ad extremum etiam minacibus, cum iuberetur certo in loco silicem caedere, perterritum visis irridentibus suis civibus id agere coepisse; itaque perfracto saxo sortis erupisse in robore insculptas priscarum litterarum notis. est hodie locus saeptus religiose propter Iovis pueri, qui lactens cum Iunone Fortunae in gremio sedens mammam appetens castissime colitur a matribus.”

[¶25] 86. "There is a tradition that, concurrently with the finding of the lots and in the spot where the temple of Fortune now stands, honey flowed from an olive-tree. Now the soothsayers, who had declared that those lots would enjoy an unrivalled reputation, gave orders that a chest should be made from the tree and the lots placed in the chest. At the present time the lots are taken from their receptacle if Fortune directs. What reliance, pray, can you put in these lots, which at Fortune's nod are shuffled and drawn by the hand of a child? And how did they ever get in that rock? Who cut down the oak-tree? and who fashioned and carved the lots? Oh! but somebody says, ' God can bring anything to pass.' If so, then I wish he had made the Stoics wise, so that they would not be so pitiably and distressingly superstitious and so prone to believe everything they hear! This sort of divining, however, has now been discarded by general usage. The beauty and age of the temple still preserve the name of the lots of Praeneste—that is, among the common people, for no magistrate and no man of any reputation ever consults them; but in all other places lots have gone entirely out of use.

> Latin: 86. “Eodemque tempore in eo loco, ubi Fortunae nunc stat aedes, mel ex olea fluxisse dicunt, haruspicesque dixisse summa nobilitate illas sortis futuras, eorumque iussu ex illa olea arcam esse factam, eoque conditas sortis, quae hodie Fortunae monitu tolluntur. igitur in his potest esse certi, quae Fortunae monitu pueri manu miscentur atque ducuntur? quo modo autem istae positae in illo loco? quis robur illud cecidit, dolavit, inscripsit? ‘Nihil est,’ inquiunt, ‘quod deus efficere non possit.’ Utinam sapientis Stoicos effecisset ne omnia cum superstitiosa sollicitudine et miseria crederent! hoc quidem genus divinationis vita iam communis explosit; fani pulchritudo et vetustas Praenestinarum etiam nunc retinet sortium nomen, atque id in volgus.”

[¶26] 87. And this explains the remark which, according to Clitomachus, Carneades used to make that he had at no other place seen Fortune more fortunate than at Praeneste. Then let us dismiss this branch of divination. "Let us come to Chaldean manifestations. In discussing them Plato's pupil, Eudoxus, whom the best scholars consider easily the first in astronomy, has left the following opinion in writing: 'No reliance whatever is to be placed in Chaldean astrologers when they profess to forecast a man's future from the position of the stars on the day of his birth.'

> Latin: 87. “enim magistratus aut quis vir illustrior utitur sortibus? ceteris vero in locis sortes plane refrixerunt. Carneadem Clitomachus scribit dicere solitum, nusquam se fortunatiorem quam Praeneste vidisse Fortunam. hoc divinationis genus omittamus.” “Ad Chaldaeorum monstra veniamus; de quibus Eudoxus, Platonis auditor, in astrologia iudicio doctissimorum hominum facile princeps, sic opinatur, id quod scriptum reliquit, Chaldaeis in praedictione et in notatione cuiusque vitae ex natali die minime esse credendum.”

[¶27] 88. Panaetius, too, who was the only one of the Stoics to reject the prophecies of astrologers, mentions Anchialus and Cassander as the greatest astronomers of his day and states that they did not employ their art as a means of divining, though they were eminent in all other branches of astronomy. Scylax of Halicarnassus, an intimate friend of Panaetius, and an eminent astronomer, besides being the head of the government in his own city, utterly repudiated the Chaldean method of foretelling the future.

> Latin: 88. “etiam Panaetius, qui unus e Stoicis astrologorum praedicta reiecit, Anchialum et Cassandrum, summos astrologos illius aetatis, qua erat ipse, cum in ceteris astrologiae partibus excellerent, hoc praedictionis genere non usos. Halicarnassius, familiaris Panaetii excellens in astrologia idemque in regenda sua civitate princeps, totum hoc Chaldaicum praedicendi genus repudiavit.”

[¶28] 89. "But let us dismiss our witnesses and employ reasoning. Those men who defend the natal-day prophecies of the Chaldeans, argue in this way: ' In the starry belt which the Greeks call the Zodiac there is a certain force of such a nature that every part of that belt affects and changes the heavens in a different way, according to the stars that are in this or in an adjoining locality at a given time. This force is variously affected by those stars which are called 'planets' or 'wandering' stars. But when they have come into that sign of the Zodiac under which someone is born, or into a sign having some connexion or accord with the natal sign, they form what is called a 'triangle' or 'square.' Now since, through the procession and retrogression of the stars, the great variety and change of the seasons and of temperature take place, and since the power of the sun produces such results as are before our eyes, they believe that it is not merely probable, but certain, that just as the temperature of the air is regulated by this celestial force, so also children at their birth are influenced in soul and body and by this force their minds, manners, disposition, physical condition, career in life and destinies are determined.

> Latin: 89. “Sed ut ratione utamur omissis testibus, sic isti disputant qui haec Chaldaeorum natalicia praedicta defendunt. quandam esse, aiunt, signifero in orbe, qui Graece ζωδιακός dicitur, talem ut eius orbis una quaeque pars alia alio modo moveat immutetque caelum, perinde ut quaeque stellae in his finitimisque partibus sint quoque tempore, eamque vim varie moveri ab eis sideribus, quae vocantur errantia; cum autem in eam ipsam partem orbis venerint, in qua sit ortus eius, qui nascatur, aut in eam, quae coniunctum aliquid habeat aut consentiens, ea ‘triangula’ illi et ‘quadrata’ nominant. cum tempestatumque caeli conversiones commutationesque tantae fiant accessu stellarum et recessu, cumque ea vi solis efficiantur, quae videmus, non veri simile solum, sed etiam verum esse censent perinde, utcumque temperatus sit aer, ita pueros orientis animari atque formari, ex eoque ingenia, mores, animum, corpus, actionem vitae, casus cuiusque eventusque fingi.”

[¶29] 90. "What inconceivable madness! For it is not enough to call an opinion 'foolishness' when it is utterly devoid of reason. However, Diogenes the Stoic makes some concession to the Chaldeans. He says that they have the power of prophecy to the extent of being able to tell the disposition of any child and the calling for which he is best fitted. All their other claims of prophetic powers he absolutely denies. He says, for example, that twins are alike in appearance, but that they are generally unlike in career and in fortune. Procles and Eurysthenes, kings of the Lacedaemonians, were twin brothers.

> Latin: 90. “O delirationem incredibilem! non enim omnis error stultitia dicenda est. etiam Diogenes Stoicus concedit aliquid, ut praedicere possint dumtaxat, quali quisque natura et ad quam quisque maxime rem aptus futurus sit; cetera, quae profiteantur, negat ullo modo posse sciri; etenim geminorum formas esse similis, vitam atque fortunam plerumque disparem. Procles et Eurysthenes, Lacedaemoniorum reges, gemini fratres fueunt.”