Citation with stable link: Philip A. Harland, 'Babylonian and Persian wisdom: Various authors on reception and expulsion of Chaldeans, Magians, and other foreign experts at Rome (first century CE on),' Ethnic Relations and Migration in the Ancient World, last modified May 21, 2024, https://philipharland.com/Blog/?p=17901.
Ancient authors: Valleius Paterculus, Compendium of Roman History 2.24.3 (link); Valerius Maximus (early first century CE), On Superstition 1.3, as summarized by the later Epitomes of Nepotianus (link) and Paris (link); Tacitus (ca. 109 CE), Annals 2.27; 3.22; 12.22; 12.52; 16.14 (link); Plutarch (early second century CE), Sulla 5, 37 and Gaius Marius 17, 42 and Galba 23.4; Suetonius (ca. 120 CE), Tiberius 36; Nero 34; Vitellius 14 (link); Ulpian (ca. 200 CE), as cited in Mosaicarum et romanarum legum collatio, 15.2.1 (link); Dio Cassius (early third century CE), Roman History 49.43.5; 57.15.7-9 (link).
Comments: This post gathers together accounts about foreign experts in the city of Rome, especially experts in Chaldean (e.g. astrology) and Magian (e.g. incantations) skills (with help from an excellent article by Ripat 2011). They are roughly ordered by the date of composition. Much of the evidence reflects the negative viewpoints of particular elite authors, including several stories of senatorial actions and occasional expulsions. As Pauline Ripat argues, there is very little evidence for the plausibility or effectiveness of mass expulsions of Chaldeans or astrologers and Magians. Despite the negative portrayal in many of the sources, the stories themselves point to a significant, if not popular, place for experts in foreign, eastern practices in the city of Rome itself. So Roman perspectives on wise barbarians from the east are varied. Even a Chattian (“German”) expert in divination is involved at one point, in connection with emperor Vitellius.
Works consulted: P. Ripat, “Expelling Misconceptions: Astrologers At Rome,” Classical Philology 106 (2011): 115–54 (link); H. Wendt, “Iudaica Romana: A Rereading of Judean Expulsions from Rome,” Journal of Ancient Judaism 6 (2015): 97–126.
This post is part of the Romans and Roman authorities on foreigners from the east series:
- Babylonian and Persian wisdom: Various authors on reception and expulsion of Chaldeans, Magians, and other foreign experts at Rome (first century CE on) (current post)
- Judeans: Valerius Maximus on the 139 BCE expulsion with “Chaldeans” (link)
- Judeans, Egyptians, and Magians: Various authors on Tiberius’ actions against foreign practices 17-19 CE (link)
- Judeans and Celts: Various authors on Claudius’ actions against foreigners in the 40s CE (link)
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Velleius Paterculus (late first century BCE-first century CE)
[Magians predict Sulla’s success and fame, ca. 94 BCE]
(2.24.3) Sulla had now settled affairs across the sea. Ambassadors came to him from the Parthians (he was the first of the Romans to be so honoured) and among them some Magians (magi) who, from the marks on his body, foretold that his life and his fame would be worthy of a god. Returning to Italy he landed at Brundisium, having not more than thirty thousand men to face more than two hundred thousand of the enemy [in the civil war]. [Compare the story of Chaldeans coming to Sulla in Plutarch, further below]
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Valerius Maximus (early first century CE)
[Earliest supposed expulsion of foreign Chaldeans, along with Judeans, 139 BCE]
(1.3) Cornelius Hispalus expelled from the city [Rome] the Chaldeans and ordered them to leave Italy within ten days and not to attempt to sell their foreign knowledge. The same Hispalus banished the Judeans, because they attempted to transmit their sacred rites to the Romans, and he abolished their individual and communal altars (Epitome of Nepotianus (fourth-fifth century CE [?]).
Cn. Cornelius Hispalus, praetor peregrinus when M. Popilius Laenas and L. Calpurnius were consuls, ordered the Chaldeans by an edict to leave the city and Italy within ten days, since by a false interpretation of the stars they perturbed petty and foolish minds, making profit from their lies. The same praetor forced the Judeans, who attempted to infect the customs [of Romans] with the cult of Jupiter Sabazius, to return to their homes (Epitome of Paris (fourth century CE [?])
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Tacitus, Annals (ca. 109 CE)
[Libo Drusus’ consultation of Chaldeans and Magians and the subsequent decree of expulsion, ca. 16-17 CE]
(2.27-32) At just about the same time [ca. 16-17 CE, i.e. under emperor Tiberius], a charge of revolutionary activities was laid against Libo Drusus, a member of the Scribonian family. I will describe in some detail the origin, the progress, and the end of this matter, as it marked the discovery of the system destined for so many years to prey upon the People’s affairs. Firmius Catus, a senator, and one of Libo’s closest friends, had urged that short-sighted youth, who had a tendency towards absurdities, to resort to the promises of the Chaldeans (Chaldaei), the sacred rites of the Magians (magi), and the society of interpreters of dreams. Catus pointed to Libo’s great-grandfather Pompey, to his great-aunt Scribonia (at one time the wife of Augustus), to his cousinship with the Caesars, and to his mansion crowded with ancestral portraits. Catus also encouraged Libo in his luxuries and loans. To bind him in a yet stronger chain of evidence, Catus shared in Libo’s sexual excesses and his embarrassments. . . [omitted details about the framing and the controversy ending in Libo’s trial and suicide, which is followed by Tacitus’ sketch of outcomes, including the following]. . . . Other resolutions of the senate ordered the expulsion of those who calculate [movements of celestial phenomena] (mathematici) and Magians (magi) from Italy. One of their number, Lucius Pituanius, was flung from the Rock. Another named Publius Marcius was executed by the consuls outside the Esquiline Gate according to ancient custom and at sound of trumpet.
[Trial of Aemilia Lepida for adulteries, poisonings and consulting Chaldeans, ca. 20 CE]
(3.22) At Rome, in the meantime, Lepida, who, over and above the distinction of the Aemilian family, had Sulla and Pompey for great-grandparents, was accused of pretending to be a mother by Publius Quirinius, a rich man who was childless. There were complementary charges of adulteries, of poisonings (venena), and of inquiries made through the Chaldeans (Chaldaei) with reference to the Caesarian house. The defence was in the hands of her brother, Manius Lepidus. Despite her infamy and her guilt, Quirinius, by persisting in his harmfulness after divorcing her, had gained her a measure of sympathy.
It is not easy to understand the emperor’s [Tiberius’] sentiments during this trial, since he so effectively inverted and confused the symptoms of anger and of mercy. He began by requesting the senate not to deal with the charges of treason. Then he lured the former consul, Marcus Servilius, with a number of other witnesses, into stating the very facts he had apparently wished to have suppressed. Lepida’s slaves, again, were being held in military custody. He transferred the slaves to the consuls, and would not allow them to be questioned under torture upon the issues concerning his own family. Similarly, he exempted Drusus, who was consul designate, from speaking first to the question. By some this was read as a concession relieving the rest of the members from the need of assenting: others took it to mark a sinister purpose on the ground that he would have ceded nothing except the duty of condemning.
[Agrippina falsely accuses her rival Lollia for consulting Chaldeans and Magians, ca. 49 CE]
(12.22) In the same consulate, Agrippina [the Younger, wife of emperor Claudius], fierce in her hatreds and infuriated against Lollia as her rival for the emperor’s hand, arranged for charges and prosecutor against her with the charges about Chaldeans (Chaldaei), about Magians (magi), and about application to the image of the Clarian Apollo for information as to the sovereign’s marriage. Without hearing the defendent, Claudius delivered a long exordium in the senate on the subject of her family distinctions, pointing out that her mother had been the sister of Lucius Volusius, her great-uncle Cotta Messalinus, herself the bride formerly of Memmius Regulus (her marriage with Caligula was deliberately suppressed). Then Claudius added that her projects were pernicious to the state and she must be stripped of her resources for mischief, and that it would be best, therefore, to confiscate her property and expel her from Italy. Accordingly, out of her immense estate five million sesterces were saved to cover the cost of her exile.
[Furius Scribonianus exiled for consulting Chaldeans on the death of the emperor, ca. 52 CE]
(12.52) In the consulate of Faustus Sulla and Salvius Otho, Furius Scribonianus was driven into exile on a charge of inquiring into the end of the sovereign by the agency of Chaldeans (Chaldaei). Scribonianus’ mother Vibidia was included in the arraignment, on the ground that she had not acquiesced in her former misadventure — she had been sentenced to relegation. Camillus, the father of Scribonianus, had fought in Dalmatia, a point considered by the emperor as a credit for clemency, since he was sparing this hostile stock for a second time. The exile, however, did not long survive: the question whether he died by a natural death or from poison was answered by rumours according to their various beliefs. The expulsion of those who calculate [movements of celestial phenomena] from Italy was ordered by a drastic and impotent decree of the senate. Then followed a speech by the emperor, commending all who voluntarily renounced senatorial rank owing to straitened circumstances: those who, by remaining, added impudence to poverty were removed.
[Pammanes the exiled expert in the skill of the Chaldeans, 66 CE]
(16.14) When Gaius Suetonius and Luccius Telesinus were consuls [at Rome in 66 CE], Antistius Sosianus, who had, as I have said [Annals 14.48], been sentenced to exile for composing scurrilous verses about Nero, heard of the honour paid to informers and of the emperor’s eagerness for bloodshed. Reckless by temperament, with a quick eye for opportunities, Sosianus used the similarity of their fortunes in order to ingratiate himself with Pammenes.
Pammenes was an exile in the same place and, due to his fame in the skill of the Chaldeans [i.e. astrology], had a wide network of friends. Sosianus believed there was good reason that messengers were constantly coming to consult Pammenes, to whom, as he discovered at the same time, a yearly pension was allowed by Publius Anteius. He was further aware that Pammenes’ affection for Agrippina had earned him the hatred of Nero; that his riches were admirably calculated to inspire greed; and, that this was a circumstance which proved fatal to many.
So Sosianus intercepted a letter from Anteius and stole the papers concealed in Pammenes’ archives, which contained Anteius’ birth and career [i.e. a horoscope]. Encountering the calculations with regard to the birth and life of Ostorius Scapula, Sosianus wrote to the emperor [Nero] to say that, if he could be granted a short break from his banishment, he would bring him serious news that would help to keep him safe. For Anteius and Ostorius had designs upon the empire, and were peering into their destinies and that of the prince.
Fast ships were sent out immediately, and Sosianus arrived quickly. The moment his information was divulged, Anteius and Ostorius were regarded not merely as incriminated but as condemned. This was so much the case that not a single person would become signatory to the will of Anteius until Tigellinus came forward with his sanction, first warning the testator not to defer his final dispositions. Anteius swallowed poison but, disgusted by how slow it was working, found a speedier death by cutting his arteries.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Plutarch, Lives (early second century CE)
[Chaldeans’ accurate predictions about Sulla, ca. 94 BCE]
(Sulla 5) As Sulla lingered on the banks of the Euphrates, he received a visit from Orobazos, a Parthian, who came as an ambassador from king Arsakes, although up to this time the two peoples had held no intercourse with one another. This also is thought to have been part of Sulla’s great good fortune, that he should be the first Roman with whom the Parthians held conference when they wanted alliance and friendship.
On this occasion, too, it is said that he ordered three chairs to be set, one for Ariobarzanes [of Cappadocia], one for Orobazos, and one for himself, and that he sat between them both and gave them audience. For this the king of Parthia afterwards put Orobazos to death. While some people commended Sulla for the superior stance which he assumed with the barbarians, others accused him of vulgarity and ill-timed arrogance.
It is also recorded that a certain man in the retinue of Orobazos, a Chaldean, after looking Sulla intently in the face, and studying carefully the movements of his mind and body, and investigating his nature according to the principles of his peculiar skill, declared that this man must of necessity become the greatest in the world, and that even now the wonder was that he consented not to be first of all men. When Sulla came back to Rome, however, Censorinus brought a lawsuit against him for bribery, alleging that he had collected large sums of money illegally from a friendly and allied kingdom. However, Censorinus did not put in an appearance at the trial, but dropped his impeachment.
[Chaldean predictions about Sulla’s death, ca. 78 BCE]
(Sulla 37) Sulla not only foresaw his own death, but may be said to have written about it also. For he stopped writing the twenty-second book of his Memoirs two days before he died. In that work, he says that the Chaldeans foretold him that, after an honourable life, he was to end his days at the height of his good fortunes. He says also that his son, who had died a little while before Metella, appeared to him in his dreams, wearing regular clothing, and asked his father to put an end to anxious thoughts, and come with him to his mother Metella, there to live in peace and quietness with her. . . [omitted remainder].
[C. Marius’ travelling Syrian diviner, ca. 104-100 BCE]
(Marius 17) Marius was delighted to hear of such expressions, and tried to calm the soldiers down by telling them that he did not distrust them. However, because of certain oracles he was waiting for the right time and place for his victory. Actually, he used to have a certain Syrian woman named Martha reverently carried around in a conveyance. She was said to have the gift of divination, and he would make sacrifices at her instruction. She had previously been rejected by the Senate when she wished to appear before them with reference to these matters and predicted future events. Then she entered into the presence of the women and gave them proofs of her skill. This was particularly the case with the wife of Marius, at whose feet she sat when some gladiators were fighting and successfully foretold which one was going to be victorious. As a result of this, Martha was sent to Marius by Marius’ wife, and was admired by him. She was regularly carried along with the army in a conveyance, but she attended the sacrifices clothed in a double purple robe that was fastened with a clasp and carrying a spear that was wreathed with fillets and chaplets. This kind of display caused many to doubt whether Marius, in exhibiting the woman, really believed in her, or was pretending to do so and merely acted a part with her.
[Octavius’ consultation of Chaldeans and others judged negatively, ca. 87 BCE]
(Gaius Marius 42) But Octavius was persuaded by certain Chaldeans, sacrificers, and interpreters of the Sibylline books to remain in the city, on the assurance that matters would turn out well. For it would seem that this man, although he was in other ways the most sensible man in Rome, and most careful to maintain the dignity of the consul’s office free from undue influence in accordance with the customs of the country and its laws, which he regarded as unchangeable ordinances, had a weakness in this direction. He spent more time with begging priests (agyrtai) and diviners than with men who were civic leaders and soldiers. This man, then, before Marius entered the city, was dragged down from the speaker’s platform by men who had been sent on before, and he was butchered. We are told that a Chaldean chart was found by his chest after he had been killed. Now, it seems very unaccountable that, of two most illustrious commanders, Marius should succeed by regarding divinations, but Octavius should be ruined.
[Otho’s entourage of Chaldeans and diviners, ca. 68-69 CE]
(Galba 23.4) Therefore Otho was not without apprehension for the future, and fearing Piso, blaming Galba, and angry with Vinius, he went away full of various passions. For the diviners (manteis) and Chaldeans who were always around him would not suffer him to abandon his hopes or give up altogether, particularly Ptolemaios, who dwelled a lot on his own frequent prediction that Nero would not kill Otho, but would die first himself, and that Otho would survive him and be emperor of the Romans (for now that he could point to the first part of the prediction as true, he thought that Otho should not despair of the second part). Above all, Otho was encouraged by those who secretly shared his resentment and annoyance on the ground that he had been thanklessly treated. Moreover, most of the adherents of Tigellinus and Nymphidius, men who had once been in high honour, but were now cast aside and of no account, treacherously went over to Otho, shared his resentment, and spurred him on to action.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Suetonius (ca. 120 CE)
[Part of a list of Tiberius’ reforms, including actions against those practicing foreign rites and astrology, ca. 16-19 CE]
(Tiberius 36) Tiberius abolished foreign ceremonies, especially the Egyptian and the Judean rites, forcing all who were addicted to such superstitions (supersitiones) to burn their sacred vestments and all their paraphernalia. Those of the Judeans who were of military age he assigned to provinces with a less healthy climate, ostensibly to serve in the army. The others of that same descent group (gens) or of similar beliefs he banished from the city, on pain of slavery for life if they did not obey. He banished those who made calculations concerning the stars (mathematici) [i.e. astrologers] as well, but pardoned those who begged for indulgence and promised to give up their practice.
[Emperor Nero’s murder of his mother, the haunting, and his consultation of Magians to evoke her shade]
(Nero 34) Nero’s mother [Agrippina the Younger] offended him by strict surveillance and criticism of his words and actions, but at first he confined his resentment to frequent endeavours to bring upon her a burden of unpopularity by pretending that he would abdicate the throne and go off to Rhodes. Then depriving her of all her honours and of her guard of Roman and German soldiers, he even forbade her to live with him and drove her from the palace. After that he passed all bounds in going after her, bribing men to annoy her with lawsuits while she remained in the city, and after she had retired to the country, to pass her house by land and sea and break her rest with abuse and mockery. Finally, terrified by her violence and threats, he determined to kill her . . [omitted details of attempts at murdering his mother and other details resulting in success in murdering her]. . . . Yet he could not either then or ever afterwards endure the stings of conscience, though soldiers, senate and people tried to lift his spirits with their congratulations. For he often admitted that he was hounded by his mother’s ghost and by the whips and blazing torches of the Furies. He even had rites performed by the Magians, in an attempt to summon her shade and beg it for forgiveness. Moreover, in his journey through Greece he did not try to take part in the Eleusinian mysteries, since at the beginning the godless and wicked are warned by the herald’s proclamation to go away.
[Emperor Vitellius’ actions against astrologers and others and consultation of an expert in Chattian divination, 69 CE]
(Vitellius 14) Vitellius delighted in inflicting death and torture on anyone whatsoever and for any cause whatever, putting to death several men of rank. These were fellow students and comrades of his, whom he had solicited to come to court by every kind of deception, all but offering them a share in the rule. Vitellius did this in various treacherous ways, even giving poison to one of them with his own hand in a glass of cold water, for which the man had called when ill with a fever. Besides that, he spared almost none of the money-lenders, contractors, and tax-gatherers who had ever demanded of him the payment of a debt at Rome or of a toll on a journey. . . [omitted some dastardly actions]. Vitellius even killed some of the common people, merely because they had openly spoken negatively about the Blue faction [in the competitions], claiming that they had ventured to do this from contempt for him and hoping for a change of rulers.
But he was especially hostile to writers of lampoons and to astrologers, and whenever any one of them was accused, he put him to death without trial, particularly enraged because after a proclamation of his in which he ordered the astrologers to leave the city and Italy before the first day (kalends) of October, a sign was posted, reading: “By proclamation of the Chaldeans, God bless the State! Before the same day and date let Vitellius Germanicus have ceased to live.”
Moreover, when his mother died, Vitellius was suspected of having forbidden her from being given food when she was sick, because a woman among the Chattians [i.e. a people northeast of the Rhine], in whom he believed as he would in an oracle, prophesied that he would rule securely and for a long time, but only if he would survive his parent. Others say that through weariness of present evils and fear of those which threatened, she asked for poison from her son, and obtained it with no great difficulty.
Cf. Tacitus, Annals 62: Under Vitellius, “The astrologers were banished from Italy.” Also see Dio Cassius below.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Ulpian, Proconsular Functions (ca. 200 CE)
[Reference to several imperial actions against astrologers, Chaldeans and prophets]
(Mosaicarum et romanarum legum collatio, 15.2.1, citing Ulpian, book 7) “Those who calculate [movements of celestial phenomena] (mathematici) [i.e. astrologers] and prophets (vaticinatores)“:
Moreover, a ban has been put upon the crafty imposture and persistent persuasions of those who calculate [movements of celestial phenomena; i.e. astrologers]. Nor has this been forbidden them today for the first time. Rather, the prohibition is long standing. In fact, there is a decree of the Senate passed in the consulship of Pomponius and Rufus [ca. 16-17 CE] which prescribes that those who calculate [movements of celestial phenomena], Chaldeans, prophets, and others who engage in similar practices should be exiled (literally: interdicted from fire and water) and have all their property confiscated. And if the offender is a foreigner (externarum gentium), he is to be punished by death.
It was irrelevant whether the knowledge or the exercise and practice is punished. The ancient authorities in fact said that practice and not mere knowledge was forbidden. This view afterwards changed. We must not hide from ourselves that there have been times when these skills so crept into use that they were even publicly practised and advertised. But this was due to the disobedience and audacity of those who had been observed to have had recourse to or practised the skills, rather than to any legal sanction.
Nearly all the emperors have, time after time, issued interdicts which forbid meddling with such meaningless things, and those practising them were punished in accordance with the character of the consultation. If the emperor’s health was their subject of the consultation, death or other severe punishment was inflicted. The penalty was lighter where the enquiry concerned the consulter’s own health or that of his relatives. This last group also includes prophets, though they, too, must be punished, because they sometimes exercise their reprehensible skills to the prejudice of the public peace and the Roman empire.
Finally, there is extant a decree of the late emperor Antoninus Pius, to Pacatus, legate of the province of Lugdunum. Since the rescript is quite long, I have stated only these few, relevant words. Actually, the emperor Marcus [Aurelius] deported to the island of Syros one who, in the sedition of Cassius, took on the role of prophet, and made many statements as though under divine inspiration. Certainly we should not to allow men of this character to go unpunished, who, pretending that they have divine messages, make or circulate announcements, or pretend that others have this knowledge.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Dio Cassius, Roman History (early third century CE)
[Expulsion under Agrippa, ca. 33 BCE]
(49.43.5) Besides doing this [a long list of improvements for Rome], Agrippa drove out the astrologers (astrologoi) and howlers of chants (goētai) from the city.
[Tiberius’ interest in divination but expulsion of (Chaldean) astrologers and (Magian) howlers of chants, ca. 16-17 CE]
(57.15.7-9) Moreover, Tiberius was always in the company of Thrasyllos and made some use of divination (manteia) every day. Tiberius became so proficient in the subject himself, that when he was once instructed in a dream to give money to a certain man, he realized that a lower spirit (daimōn) had been called up by howling chants (goēteia), and so Tiberius put the man to death. However, regarding all the other astrologers (astrologoi) and howlers of chants (goētai) and any practising divination in any other way whatsoever, he put to death those who were foreigners (xenoi) and banished all the citizens that were accused of still practicing at the time following the previous decree by which it had been forbidden to engage in any such technique in the city. Yet to those that obeyed immunity was granted. In fact, all the citizens would have been acquitted even contrary to his wish, had not a certain tribune prevented it. This was a particularly good illustration of the democratic form of government, to the degree that the senate, agreeing with the motion of Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso, overruled Drusus and Tiberius, only to be thwarted in its turn by the tribune.
[Emperor Vitellius banishes astrologers, who accurately predict his death, 69 CE]
(64.1.4) Vitellius, upon reaching Rome and arranging affairs to suit him [in the wake of rivalry with Otho], issued an edict banishing the astrologers and commanding them to leave the whole of Italy by a certain specified day. They answered him by putting up at night another notice, in which they commanded him in turn to depart this life before the end of the very day on which he actually died. So accurate was their prediction of what would come to pass.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Source of translations: F.W. Shipley, Velleius Paterculus, Compendium of Roman History. Res Gestae Divi Augusti (Cambridge, MA: HUP, 1924), public domain (passed away in 1945); Valerius Maximus translation by Harland; C.H. Moore and J. Jackson, Tacitus: Histories, Annals, 4 volumes, LCL (Cambridge, MA: HUP, 1925-37); J.C. Rolfe, Suetonius, volume 1, LCL, volume 1 (Cambridge, MA: HUP, 1914); Ulpian in M. Hyamson, Mosaicarum et Romanarum Legum Collatio (London: Oxford University Press, 1913), 129; E. Cary and H.B. Foster, Dio’s Roman History, 9 volumes, LCL (Cambridge, MA: HUP, 1914-27), all public domain, all adapted by Harland.