Whenever I see [divination](https://newsletter.eleanorkonik.com/divination/) %%[[2021-06-14 Divination]] %%, augury, oracles, and [prophecies](https://eleanorkonik.com/prophecy-foretellings-true/) in fictional media, it always seems so overblown. The example that always comes to mind for me is the oracle scene in _300,_ which was basically a three minute soft-core porn cut. I saw _300_ in theaters and liked it well enough until that scene, but honestly a lot of storytellers really lean into the opportunity to make divination out to involve some really over-the-top visuals. In storytelling, divination and prophecy is usually presented as either some kind of decadent magic or pure chicanery. It's rare that the phenomenon is treated with anything resembling cultural sensitivity — the closest example I can think of off the top of my head is the _Kushiel's Legacy_ series by Jacqueline Carey. Even then, I'm not sure I've ever seen it handled as a matter of fact reality of life, which is what I tried to do with _Liminal._ Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction, but often, fiction exaggerates reality for dramatic effect. The more I read about genres like magical realism, though, the more I like the idea of psychic powers and magic being relegated to the background — just like how scientific advancements like electricity and cars fade into normalcy for most of us. The thing is, though... the "pure chicanery" angle has some pretty interesting historical antecedents. When I last wrote about [divination](https://newsletter.eleanorkonik.com/divination/) %% ( [[2021-06-14 Divination]] ) %% for this newsletter — as part of the research for this story, actually, which was originally written back in June — I touched on the role of augury in Rome. Since then, I haven't been able to get what I learned out of my mind. Here's the summary I gave y'all then: > In Rome in the 50s B.C.E., abuse of religious obstruction [became a politicized veto](https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1536&context=etd). Magistrates (previously unable to perform augury) no longer had to see the relevant omen, they could just declare an intention to "watch the sky" in order to stymie the assembly; they didn’t even have to be present for the thing the vote was trying to stop. Normally I'm reluctant to publicly wade into discussing contemporary politics, because it's very easy for political discourse to suck the joy out of everything positive in one's life, but I am actually intensely interested in politics. Like a lot of people, knowledge of history is one of the ways I orient myself when it comes to political discourse. I find it reassuring to be able to look into the past and say "okay, this upsetting thing I just learned about has happened before: a parallel exists and I can see how people at the time handled it." Every situation is of course unique, but when I read about the absolutely cynical way that Roman auguries were handled, it reminded me of issues facing Congress in the USA — which is to say, [the increase in partisan obstructionism](https://www.jstor.org/stable/43285346). So, let's take a moment and look at how auguries impacted the Roman Empire. Originally, only augurs (a specific type of religious figure) had the power of "obnuntiatio," which is basically a religious right to obstruct a legislature change. An augur could declare, based on "unfavorable auspices" like lightning or thunder, that a particular day was unfit for legislative action. This allowed religious leaders (who were pretty much always part of the aristocratic class) to effectively delay and block legislation. Eventually, this power was extended to the magistrates, which meant more people could obstruct legislation. Then magistrates didn't even bother to claim they had actually _seen_ an unfavorable sign. All they had to do was say they planned to keep an eye out for one. The aristocracy (aka the patrician class) weaponized this once rarely-seen power so effectively that it ground Roman politics to a halt. During the run-up to the fall of the Republic, which is to say when Caesar and Pompey were politically active, elections were sometimes delayed for months. It led to _literal anarchy_ when no elections were held but Consulships expired, which led to a bunch of violence in the city, including the burning of the senate building. Eventually, the senate just appointed Pompey to the Consulship by fiat. It's a classic case of exploiting a political system but here's the thing, people have been exploiting political systems since literally the dawn of political systems. %% [[Human Exploitation of Political Systems]] %% Back around the 1000 BCE in much of sub-Sarahan Africa, society was run by clan chiefs. Since clan chiefs had relatively few practical prerogatives, this mostly worked fine. Then communities started to get ahold of more cattle. Some chiefs took advantage of their role as community judges to build their own personal cattle herds. Since men were in charge of the cattle herds, this even led to decreased gender equality — fewer and fewer women were able to become chiefs. More importantly, greater access to this new kind of property led to the creation of social classes; wealthy chiefs cemented their power via marriage. People whose daughters were married to a chief had reason to want chiefs to stay in power, after all. The rise of herding had a similar impact on steppe cultures. Cattle and sheep were more important for [sacrifices](https://newsletter.eleanorkonik.com/sacrifice/) %% [[2021-09-27 Sacrifice]] %% for eating; funerary feasts and ceremonial festivals basically became [symbols of power](https://newsletter.eleanorkonik.com/sea-prince/) and prestige. Stef's story is fundamentally one of imperialism and conquest. She doesn't just bestride the divide between priest and prophet, she wields _political_ power. Like Hernán Cortés, like Alexander III of Macedon, she has the power to order a "do-or-die" invasion. She is a warrior-priestess, spiritual sister to the battle nuns of Mark Lawrence's [Red Sister](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25895524-red-sister) — but also a leader. The question is, are her insights the product of divination or deceit?