07-13-2011, 10:16 AM
I am reading Alan Cameron’s The Last Pagans of Rome. I’ll post a review in the existing review thread when I finish, but at the moment I have a problem with one of his statements.
In one section he dismantles the idea that the Sibylline Books were “associated in the post-Constantine period with militant paganism.” He systematically attacks all the supposed “proofs” of this, including an episode in the Historia Augusta’s biography of Aurelian. At one point Cameron writes:
What? It seems to me that many, if not most, of the times the Sibylline Books were consulted throughout history concerned “military problems.” Moreover, Cameron himself lists several times they were consulted during actual or potential military disasters.
I’ve read this entire passage again and again, checked every single relevant footnote, and still have no idea what Cameron is talking about. Either he is mistaken, this is a typographical error, or I don't understand his statement.
Any ideas?
In one section he dismantles the idea that the Sibylline Books were “associated in the post-Constantine period with militant paganism.” He systematically attacks all the supposed “proofs” of this, including an episode in the Historia Augusta’s biography of Aurelian. At one point Cameron writes:
Quote:The writer [of HA] was apparently unaware that the books were not consulted about military problems…
Cameron, The Last Pagans of Rome, pg 214
What? It seems to me that many, if not most, of the times the Sibylline Books were consulted throughout history concerned “military problems.” Moreover, Cameron himself lists several times they were consulted during actual or potential military disasters.
I’ve read this entire passage again and again, checked every single relevant footnote, and still have no idea what Cameron is talking about. Either he is mistaken, this is a typographical error, or I don't understand his statement.
Any ideas?
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
www.davidcord.com