sed the question in the senate of the revival of the
haruspices and their art--such part of it, at least, as might seem worth
preserving--"ne vetustissima Italiae disciplina per desidium
exolesceret."[651] And strange to say, though in fact no part of this
ancient Italian discipline was in the least worth preserving, it
survived in outward form into the fourth century of the empire.[652] We
read with astonishment in the code of the Christian emperor Theodosius,
that if the imperial palace or other public buildings are struck by
lightning the haruspices are to be consulted, according to ancient
custom, as to the meaning of the portent.[653] Thirteen years after the
death of Theodosius, in 408, Etruscan experts offered their services to
Pompeianus, prefect of Rome, to save the city from the Goths. Pompeianus
was tempted, but consulted Innocent, the Bishop of Rome, who "did not
see fit to oppose his own opinion to the wishes of the people at such a
crisis, but stipulated that the magic rites should be performed
secretly." What followed is uncertain. "The Christian historian says
that the rites were performed, but were unavailing; the pagan Zosimus
affirms that the aid of the Tuscans was declined."[654] So hard died the
futile arts of the most unfruitful of all Italian races.

NOTES TO LECTURE XIII

[594] Stanley's _Jewish Church_ (ed. 1906), vol. i. p.
398 foll.

[595] _Hist. de divination dans l'antiquite_, vol. i. p.
7 foll.; divination is "contemplative," magic "active."
But this learned author did not deal with divination
except as it existed in Greece and Italy; and in view of
our present extended knowledge this differentia is not
instructive.

[596] See Tylor's article in the last edition of the
_Encyclopaedia Britannica_, and his _Gifford Lectures_,
Pt. ii. ch. iv.; Haddon, _Magic and Fetishism_, p. 40.
Bouche-Leclercq, _Hist. de divination dans l'antiquite_,
vol. i. p. 7, distinguishes divination from magic; but
his knowledge of the subject was limited to civilised
races.

[597] Mr. Marett seems doubtful about it: see his
_Threshold of Religion_, pp. 42 and 83. In the latter
passage he says that it may or may not be treated as a
branch of magic, and may be "originally due to some dim
sort of theorising about causes, the theory engendering
the practice rather than the practice the theory." I
should doubt whether, w