77 committed by an anonymous Vestal at 28.11.6 which was attributed to human error,

and the anonymity does not seem to be random .146 The Vestal, who apparently continued in her duties, was not ‘named and shamed’: presumably ritual error, however undesirable, was not taken to be such a threat as moral failure in a priestess. This principle applies equally to the Flamines: the only minor flam en named in the text is Floronia’s partner in disgrace, L. Cantilius, at 22.57.3. However the underlying tone is of reverence for the Vestals: they are praised at 5.40.7, along with the nameless Flamen Quirinalis, for their selfless care for the sacra of the res publica. Like the anonymous Vestal, they are not named while their care for their duties is being performed. By keeping them anonymous, Livy places the minor flam ines, Vestals and collegiate priests beyond criticism. Only when they descend from propriety do they become individuals again.147

The anonymity of the priests in action merges them with the ‘eternal’ image of Rome; even more than other (annual) processes, they form part of the very substance of the city over time, impersonal ever-present servants of the ephemeral. The perspective portrayed is senatocentric: just as they did not hear individual priests debating interpretations, nor do we. Thus is their integrity also placed beyond reproach: we cannot take issue with particular points of discussion, we must accept or reject their diagnosis as it comes, which stands in sharp contrast with the frequent debates in the senate.

145 This does not seem to be the case at the beginning of book 41, where there is a lacuna of about eight chapters (Luce (1977) 121). Periochae 41.1 records that ignis in aede Vestae extinctus est: this was apparently taken as a prodigy. See also Obsequens 8: incendio circa forum cum plurima essent deusta, aedes Veneris sine ullo uestigio cremata. Vestae penetralis ignis extinctus. uirgo iussu M. Aemilii pontificis maximi flagro caesa negauit ulterius interiturum. supplicationibus habitis in Hispania et Histria bella prospere administrata. Levene 104 suggests that “possibly the mere mention of the prodigy by the Periochae suggests its importance to Livy’s narrative”.

146 It could plausibly be argued of course that Livy found omissions in the record and that his account merely reflects this. However, given the consistency in connection with other priesthoods, it does not seem unreasonable to maximise the argument. If it does reflect the way that records were kept, then the argument that it was inappropriate to name a Vestal who had not committed moral errors would simply apply more generally.

147 The major flamines are often named in a political context, e.g. on their being appointed to a magistracy, but they are not named in a ritual context except in the case of C. Claudius, the Flamen of Jupiter, who resigned his office in a most exemplary manner at 26.23.8 after committing a ritual error.

The three priesthoods which appear the most frequently are the haruspices and the

duumuiri sacris faciundis (later the decemuiri (Livy 6.37.12 & 6.42.20: hereafter, simply

decemuiri although in the earlier period they did only number two) and the pontifices.148 Though they have different jurisdictions, their presentation shares certain common features.

The decemuiri, as Livy himself informs us, were consulted when ordinary expiation was not considered to be sufficient:

[Q u in tu s F a b iu s M axim u s] p e r u ic it ut, q u o d non f e r m e d e c e rn itu r n isi

cum ta e tra p r o d ig ia n u n tiata sunt, d e c e m u iri lib r o s S ib y llin o s a d ire

iu beren tu r. (22.9.8)

The task of the decemuiri is to consult the Sibylline Books of Fate149 and prescribe suitable expiation.150 Notices of their appearance, as we also found with Livy’s delivery of prodigy lists, is varied151 but the procedure alluded to is consistent. They are summoned in their official role by the senate,152 they report back, and the senate follows

148 For details of these priestly groups see Dumezil (1970) 594-610. BNP 18-30 is a good overview with full references to older bibliography. Particular (recent) studies: MacBain 43-59 on the haruspices; Linderski (1986) on augures\ Vaanggard (1988) on flamines. The decemuiri became the quindecemuiri

under Sulla according to Servius (Aen. 6.73) and are first attested in a Caelius’ letter to Cicero (Fam.

8.4.1) dating from 51 B.C.. See now also Scheid (1998b) on the records and practices of the decemuiri; North (1998) on the pontifices; Giovanni (1998) on the augures & Beard (1998) on religious archival process in general.

149 The story o f the old woman who sold the three remaining books to Tarquin after burning six o f the original nine is not found in L ivy’s extant text, though it is possible that he alluded to it in his full work: it is recorded by Gell. 1.19; Lact Inst. 1.6.10-13; Serv. Aen. 6.72; Dion Hal. 4.62; Zonaras 7.11.1; Tzetzes, On Lycophron 1279. See further Gage (1955) 24-38, 196-204, 432-61, 542-55, 677-82; Parke (1988) 190-215. Phlegon of Tralles claims to record part o f such an oracle (FGrH 257 F36 X).

150 “The responses of the Sibylline books recorded in Livy consist almost entirely o f ritual prescriptions” (North (1990a) 54).

151 E.g. pestilentia ciuitatem adorta coegit senatum imperare decemuiris ut libros Sibyllinos inspicerent

(7.27.1); or ob cetera prodigia libros adire decemuiri iussi (21.62.6); cum decemuiri libros inspexissent

(22.1.16); eorum prodigiorum causa libros Sibyllinos ex senatus consulto decemuiri cum adissent, renuntiauerunt (36.37.4); etc.

152 Orlin (1997) 86’s analysis and conclusions that “consultation o f the Sibylline books [only] followed the announcement o f prodigies” is too simplistic, as his own discussion shows; he is too rigid in requiring the Roman state to need prodigy reports as a “pretext”. For a discussion of the evidence for these procedures in Cicero and Dion. Hal., see Scheid (1998b) 13-17; for the accidental destruction o f the

79