Editing Numa Pompilius (section)

==Story of the books of Numa==
Livy narrates that, in 181 BC, while digging in the field of the ''[[Scriba (ancient Rome)|scriba]]'' L. [[Petilius]] at the foot of the [[Ianiculum]], peasants found two stone coffers, eight feet long and four feet wide, inscribed both in Latin and in Greek characters, one stating that Numa Pompilus, son of Pompon, king of the Romans was buried (there) and the other that Numa's books were inside it. When Petilius after the advice of his friends opened it, the one that was inscribed with the name of the king was found empty, the other containing two bundles each of seven books, not complete but looking very recent, seven in Latin dealing with pontifical law and seven in Greek of philosophy as it was in that remote past.

The books were shown to other people and the fact became public. Praetor Q. Petilius, who was friends with L. Petilius, requested them, found them very dangerous to religion and told Lucius he would have them burnt, but he allowed him to try and recover them by legal or other means. The scriba brought the case to the tribunes of the plebs, and the tribunes in turn brought it to the senate. The praetor declared he was ready to swear an oath that it was not a good thing either to read or to store those books, and the senate deliberated that the offer of the oath was sufficient by itself, that the books be burnt on the ''Comitium'' as soon as possible and that an indemnity fixed by the praetor and the tribunes be paid to the owner. L. Petilius though declined to accept the sum. The books were burnt by the ''victimarii''.

The action of the praetor has been seen as politically motivated, and in accord with the Catonian reaction of those years.<ref>F. Sini ''Documenti sacerdotali di Roma antica. I. Libri e commentari'' Sassari 1983 p. 22 n. 75.</ref> It is relevant though that some of the annalists of those times or only a few years later, do not seem to show any doubt about the authenticity of the books.<ref>The sources on the episode are collected in G. Garbarino ''Roma e la filosofia greca dalle origini alla fine del II secolo a. C.'' Torino 1973 I pp. 64 ff.</ref> The whole incident has been critically analyzed again by philologist E. Peruzzi, who by comparing the different versions, strives to demonstrate the overall authenticity of the books.<ref>E. Peruzzi ''Origini di Roma'' II. ''Le lettere'' Bologna 1973 pp. 107 ff. as cited by Sini.</ref> By contrast, M.J. Pena's position is more reserved and critical.<ref>M. J. Pena "La tumba y los libros de Numa" in ''Faventia'' '''1''' 1979 pp. 211 ff. as cited by Sini.</ref>

Francophone scholars A. Delatte and J. Carcopino believe the incident to be the result of a real initiative of the pythagoric sect of Rome.<ref>A. Delatte "Les doctrines pythagoriciennes des livres de Numa" in ''Académie royale de Belgique, Bulletin de la classe de la classe des lettres et des sciences morales et politiques'' '''22''' 1936 pp. 19–40; J. Carcopino ''La basilique pythagoricienne de la Porte majeure'' 1926 p. 185 as cited by Dumézil ''La religione romana arcaica'' Milano 1977 p. 447 n. 8.</ref> The fears of the Roman authorities should be explained in connection to the nature of the doctrines contained in the books, which are supposed to have contained a type of ''physikòs lógos'', a partly moral and partly cosmological interpretation of religious beliefs that has been proven by Delatte to be proper of the ancient pythagorism. Part of it must have been in contradiction with the beliefs of fulgural and augural art and of the ''procuratio'' of the prodigies.<ref>Delatte p. 33 as cited by Dumézil p. 447.</ref> Most ancient authors relate the presence of treatises of pythagoric philosophy, but some, as [[Gaius Sempronius Tuditanus|Sempronius Tuditanus]],<ref>Pliny ''Natural History'' XIII 87 as cited by Dumézil p. 447 n. 8.</ref> mention only religious decrees.<ref>Dumezil p. 447 n. 8.</ref>