CHAPTER FIVE

THE ROMANIZATION AND POLITICIZATION OF CIVILIM RELIGION lnterpretatio Interpretatio Romana, as already noted, is the Roman articulation of an alien religion, 1 the Roman attempt to make sense of foreign prac• tices and beliefs (Tacitus, Germania 43). 2 Roman soldiers identified Celtic (473) and Eastern (425) gods with their own deities, and native Britons saw Roman gods as manifestations of indigenous Celto• Germanic cults (470). J. Webster argued that name pairing was mostly performed by Romans and Romanized Briton (e.g., 469). 3 This prac• tice was seen as essential to avoid ambiguities: Apollo must be addressed by his local name.4 Three points deserve emphasis. First, interpretatio was an ancient process, by no means confined to the northwest frontier." Romans

1 .J. \Vebster, "Interpretatio," 153, 156. \Vebster interprets the process as a one• sided power play, initiated by the in-comer. 2 This leaves a broad margin for misinterpretation. A misunderstanding of native deities can lead to erroneous, misleading equations, and it has been seen that Celtic deities can be equated with more than one Roman god (e.g., Cocidius Mars, Cocidius Silvanus). These equations are probably meant to emphasize one function or another. One must keep in mind that Roman gods are not as obviously multivalent as deities of non-Roman pantheons (n.b., Cato, de Agricultura 139-14· l). It must also be noted that Roman gods had complex and overlapping functions, and a soldier could just as easily misinterpret his own gods as those of his enemy. i J. \Vebster, "Interpretatio," 159. \Vebster claims that name pairing was con• ducted by Roman not Celt. :.fany but not all worshippers, who utilized interjnetatio were Romanized. Mars is equated with non-Roman gods by Celts ('470, 472, 474, 603, 606, 6 l 3, 616), and by Romans, soldiers worshipping corporately (597, 598), by Roman, with the tria numina (520, 588, 604, 605, 614, 6191 and without (551, 558, 577, 584, 611, 615, 617). An overwhelming majority of inscriptions, with and without interpretatio, omits the dedicator"s name. The two most interesting cases art' 519 and 585 in which two Celtic gods arc equated. A Romanized Aelius Sccundus worshipped ~fogons Vitiris (519); Vernostonus Cocidius received homage from Virilis who identified himst'lf as Germanus (.~B.'ii. + Henig, Relzgion, 66. Consider also the detailed prayer formula, which invokes a god by all his names (or whatever name he wishes at this time) and uses his proper address (or whereYer he happens to be), thus avoiding ambiguity and loopholes, in case the god does not wish to be bothered or will not expend the ent'rgy to col• lect his mail: Burkert, Greek Relzr;ion, 7 3-7 5. ; Henig, Religion, 66. ROMANIZATION AND POLITICIZATION OF RELIGION 159 had already adapted Greek myth, equating their own gods with the Olympians. Nor was Etruscan influence lacking. 6 Second, interpretatio was not merely the process by which the Roman imperialist religion replaced indigenous practices. Both systems were changed. Military victory resulted in the defection of local gods who would, in turn, become Roman, hence the ritual procedure of evocatio (Macrobius 3.9.7-8):

Si deus, si tutela, teque maxime, ille qui urbis huius populique tutelam recepisti, pre• car venerorque veniamque a vobis pcto ut vos populum civitatemque Carthaginiensem deseratis, loca templa sacra urbemque eorum relin• quatis, absque his abeatis eique populo civitati metum formidinem oblivionem iniciatis, proditique Romam ad me meosque veniatis, nos• traque vobis loca templa sacra urbs acceptior probatiorque sit, mihiquc populoque Romano militibusquc meis pracpositi sitis ut sciamus intel• lagamusque. si ita fcceritis, vovco vobis templa ludosquc facturum. In cadcm verba hostias fieri oportet auctoritatemque videri extorum, ut ca promittant futura ... For example, wheel iconography was incorporated into Jupiter Optimus Maximus monuments (134, 139, 140, 188, 210, 212), and many local deities received temple cults in accord with Roman prac• tices (e.g., Antenociticus, Cocidius, Sulis Minerva). The resulting rit• ual was mostly Roman in form (dedicated altars, cult statues, temples) and tone (the epigraphy survives in Latin), and many of the worship• pers are Roman or Romanized (tria nomina, Latinate gentilica); non• Roman flavor surfaced in iconography and symbolism. For example, Mithraism differed much from its Persian roots. 7 Mithras of the Roman army was a Roman god, wholly acceptable to the gods of the Capitoline. Finally, the average worshipper probably did not dis• tinguish between Roman and non-Roman gods, or even "official" and "private. "ll Officers and soldiers often worshipped "foreign" gods, treating them as fully Roman. Furthermore, few enlisted men (that is, the majority of the standing army) would have enjoyed the benefits of an elite, classical education~unlikely would they have made subtle distinctions in myth or theocracy. Our soldier, like his

,; Dumezil, Roman Religion, 625 696. Etruscan religion did not entirely shape Roman practices, which derived from a well-structured lndo-European belief and ritual sys• tem. Yet Romans considered much of their practice Etruscan, notably haruspicium (Cicero Div. 2.49). 7 Gordon, "Cumont," 215-248. " l\fac~fullcn, Paganism, 80-81; Henig, Rel(1;ion, 88-94; Henig, "Throne," 228.