Peter Jones

The Treasury’s prophecies

Roman auspices were probably more reliable than Treasury forecasts

Already a subscriber? Log in

This article is for subscribers only

Subscribe today to get 3 months' delivery of the magazine, as well as online and app access, for only £3.

  • Weekly delivery of the magazine
  • Unlimited access to our website and app
  • Enjoy Spectator newsletters and podcasts
  • Explore our online archive, going back to 1828

The historian Livy made a character assert, ‘Who does not know that Rome was founded under auspices, and under auspices it conducts all its affairs, in war and in peace, at home and on the battlefield?’ And his history suggests an impressively accurate strike-rate from the professionals: after all, the Roman Empire did last for some 700 years.

Another was the haruspex, where haru– meant ‘guts’ (it is cognate with ‘hernia’). Whip a liver out of a sheep, and he would consult his liver chart to tell you whether the omens were good or bad.

Then there were the Sibylline books. The story was told that the Sibyl offered nine of them to Tarquinius Superbus (‘Arrogant’), the last king of Rome. He said the price was too high, but after she had burnt six of them he crumbled and paid the same price for the last three. Their contents were a closely guarded secret, and they were consulted only when disaster threatened, in order to avert it. Rumour has it that they found their way into Margaret Thatcher’s handbag, and she passed them on in sacred trust to the Mayor of London.

The fact is that the whole in-out debate is about the future, which no mere mortal can know. So: Treasury forecasts or Sibylline books? Given the age and track record of the Sibylline books, that’s where the clever money should go.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in