Sibylline Books and military disasters

[Epictetus]

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:

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?

[Jona Lendering]

I thought he was referring to the fourth century AD, which seemed to me sufficiently plausible not to ask further questions.

[Epictetus]

But right after my quoted sentence Cameron mentions Maxentius consulting them prior to the Battle of the Milvan Bridge in 312 and Julian before his Persian expedition in 361.

(As a side note, this is one problem I seem to be having with Cameron: muddled writing. If he was referring to some specific incident, or time period, or person, or whatever, he should have specified that in his statement. I'll get to this issue when I finally finish reading and write a review.)

Edit: I see in one of his notes a hint of disbelief regarding Julian. I'm not finished with this chapter - perhaps he later debunks those episodes, too. That might be a possibility, but again, if this is the case he should have been clear at the outset instead of a blanket statement portrayed as fact with no explanations.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Werent the remaining original sybilline books destroyed by Stilicho ?

Apparently the versions of late antiquity were those invented by Alexandrians.

M.VIB.M.

[Epictetus]

Werent the remaining original sybilline books destroyed by Stilicho ?

Apparently the versions of late antiquity were those invented by Alexandrians.

M.VIB.M.

Cameron suggests that Stilicho actually burned some of these "unofficial" Sibylline books. He bases this on Demougeot, who in 1952 pointed out that Stilicho probably wanted to get rid of a prophecy that implied a current event, which was probably something predicting the end of Rome. With barbarians almost literally at the gate this prophecy would have quite an impact on public opinion. The official books had been neutered, starting with Augustus, so probably had nothing so inflammatory as predicting the end of Rome.

You should read this book. I know how passionate you are about this pagan - Christianity topic. I bet you would enjoy it.

[Jona Lendering]

You should read this book. I know how passionate you are about this pagan - Christianity topic. I bet you would enjoy it.

Yes, Henk, I agree with David, you will certainly appreciate it. There's something to think about on every page. I haven't read such a challenging book in a long time - challenging in more than one meaning.