compiled a list of prodigies based on Livy. Cicero deals with prodigies in his work
On Divination(De divinatione). Other authors mention prodigies only occasion-
ally. Examining the sources for prodigies proves to be a thorny problem. In Livy’s
narrative prodigies are isolated phenomena. It is widely accepted that Livy had his
information about prodigies, probably with the historian Valerius Antias as inter-
mediate, from priestly lists, especially the commentarii pontificum, published every
year in the whitened board (tabula dealbata) of the pontiffs and finally published as
annales maximi. Andreas Bendlin pointed out the weaknesses of this theory. First,
it does not explain the prodigies expiated by priesthoods other than the pontiffs,
and secondly, the contents of the tabula dealbataare highly debatable and might
not include prodigies and/or their expiation. Therefore, it is plausible that the
information about prodigies was handed down in a list kept by the senate. Even so,
constructions of prodigy reports for political or literary reasons are always to be
reckoned with (Bendlin 2005: 88 –9). Thus, in the search for a coherent general
structure much is plausible but not definitely verifiable.
The beginnings of regular expiation of prodigies are difficult to assert. Between
250 and 50 bc, prodigies are mentioned every second year on average. The first
prodigy in Livy’s account is a rain of stones in the Alban hills during the reign of
Tullus Hostilius (Livy 1.31.2– 4). Although every recorded event at such an early
time in Roman history should be doubted, Livy’s notice may at least indicate that
prodigies were expiated before 249 bc. What changed in the middle of the third
century bcwas the frequency and the political quality of prodigies.
Some types of prodigies occurred only in relatively short periods. Seventeen
prodigiaconcerning celestial lights occurred between 113 and 100 bc, nine cases of
miscarriage occurred in 98 –90 bc, weapons in the skies only in the second half of
the second century bc, statues of gods sweating only in the first century bc, bee
prodigies exclusively 118 –111 bc. Once a strange event had been accepted by the
senate as a prodigium, it was likely that another sign of the same kind would soon
be related. At the same time, such signs seem to lose their divinatory quality after
some years. Not every earthquake or lightning became automatically a prodigium.
Why a sign was accepted as a prodigium, why others were not, and how many signs
were rejected during a year is beyond explanation, because of the scarcity of the sources.
What remains is a few cases of pragmatism.
Two cases may demonstrate the pragmatic attitude of the senate. After the report-
ing of numerous earthquakes in 193 bc, the consuls announced that on any day on
which an earthquake had been reported, no one should report another earthquake
(Livy 34.55.4). In 173 bc, a plague of locusts was expiated together with further
prodigies by sacrifices and a supplication. When immense swarms of locusts invaded
Apulia the following year, a designated praetor was sent to Apulia to organize col-
lecting the locusts (Livy 42.10.7– 8). Thus, the locusts of 172 bcwere not regarded
as a prodigy. Although the senate held ultimate power in the process of expiating
a prodigy, it would be missing the point to interpret the Roman prodigy system as
having been controlled by cynical and unscrupulous senators leading the dumb masses.
Prodigies were not expiated because of the superstitious masses; prodigies com-
municated subtle messages.
294 Veit Rosenberger