sign in sign up
<<
Home , Carmen Saliare, College of Pontiffs, Collegiality, Commentarii, Dea Dia, Devotio

4

Roman

1. “By and the Romans Reached Their Present Eminence”

The strength of rested on a number of foundations. Among these were its extraordinarily vital political culture and its capacity to sustain warfare for extended periods of time. Previous chapters have emphasized these features, but in this chapter and the next, focus shifts to less obvious sources of Rome’s strength, namely the special character of its society whose dual foundations were the household and the civic religion of the city.

Roman Religiosity

During the period of the Republic, outsiders were struck by the religiosity of the Romans. In the second century b.c., , a Greek statesman and historian who lived much of his adult life in Rome, claimed that it was “scrupulous fear of the gods that kept the Roman commonwealth together” (6.56). A century or so later another expatriate Greek, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, was also impressed by the concern of Romans for religion. Writing about the second , Dionysius noted that as a result of Numa’s activities, Rome possessed more religious observances than any other city “Greek or non-Greek, even among those who thought of themselves as most god- fearing” (2.63). Needless to say, Romans themselves promoted the belief that fidelity to their oaths and treaties and their general reverence for the gods explained their imperial success. “The gods look kindly on these qualities, for it was by pietas and fides that Romans reached their present eminence” declared the consul Q. Marcius Philippus in 169 b.c. ( 44.1). summed up this viewpoint succinctly:

I am convinced that [the first king of Rome] by establishing the auspices (auspicia—the arts of divination) and Numa [the second king] by establishing the () laid the founda-

86 chapter 4. roman religion • 87

tions of our state which surely could never have become so great unless we had taken such care to placate the immortal gods. (Cicero, De natura deorum 3.5–6)

We should not, however, assume that when Romans referred to religion they had the same thing in mind that we might have.

2. Religion: Ancient and Modern Assumptions

“True” Religion: Modern and Ancient Assumptions

popular assumptions: sincerity Expectations about the nature of religious belief and behav- ior are deeply ingrained in the cultures of all societies. Even among modern Western non-religious people, assumptions about the supposedly “true” nature of religion are often simply projections of impressions left over from two thousand years of culturally embedded Judaeo-Christian religious practice. Among such assumptions, especially in the United States, is the belief that “true” religion is characterized above all by sincerity of belief. Rituals, being merely external acts, degrade true religion. Prayer should not be just words recited by rote. “Hypocrisy” is the charge most often directed at religious people who are judged to have failed to live up to the moral dictates of their religion or are perceived to be “insincere” or inconsistent in their beliefs. “True” religion is held to be well-attuned to the ever-changing needs of the individual, and unlike “organized” religion, pro- motes unconditional love; it is neither dogmatic nor judgmental.

separation of church and state Another characteristic feature of contemporary Western reli- gious practice that is popularly assumed to be true of all is the existence of a professional clergy and the separation of the affairs of religion and the state. From this perspective, politicians and clergy are assumed to pursue distinct professions in segregated, autonomous institutions. The church is the realm of the sacred, the state of the secular, the two being fundamentally distinct are- nas of human activity. It causes no surprise, therefore, to Westerners if groups of men and women band together to form voluntary communities—such as monasteries, convents and communes—that follow their own, self-devised sets of rules, independent and often in rejection of society at large.

believers think otherwise: the master code of reality Modern believers, of course, would amplify, qualify or reject many of these presuppositions, beginning with the individualistic assump- tions of popular belief noted above. The great monotheistic faiths are all, by definition, ritualistic, communal and, in their own self-understanding, based on truth, not . Believers are ritually initiated into and sustained by their membership in the people of Israel, the Christian Church, or the Muslim Umma. Their primary identities derive from their association with their fellow believers. Divine revelation, seen as the master code of reality, is mediated through each of the faith communi- ties and interpreted according to sophisticated modes of analysis developed by them over millennia. In none of the monotheistic faiths is there a belief that the individual meets the divine in a purely one-on-one relationship independent of the believing community.

truth claims Adherents of the Abrahamic religions—Judaism, and Islam—assert that their beliefs are true. These truths, they claim, are not the projections of human longings to make sense of the universe or the products of some form or other of self-deception. Rather, they faithfully reflect the direct revelations of God in history through historical acts such as the Exodus from Egypt or through the words of the prophets or other inspired writers. Monotheism, its followers believe, 88 • part i: the rise of rome was not the cultural product or discovery of humans but the result of God’s own self-revelation. Abraham, Moses and the other prophets did not find God as a result of their own religious quests; instead, it was God who initiated the action of self-revelation in personal encounters in historically verifiable times and places. At the core of the three faiths’ belief systems is the conviction that God’s revelations produce universal and eternally valid truths about God’s nature, the nature of humanity, of human society and of the natural order. The truthfulness of God’s revelation alone is what validates the authority of the faiths. The words of Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, enshrined in sacred writings and traditions, transcend locale, time, and human culture. The intervention of God in human affairs as recorded in sacred scriptures is understood to produce a true understanding of how the events of history have, and are, unfolding and how eventually history will end. In varying degrees the three faiths empha- size orthodoxy (correct belief) and (correct behavior). Of the three, Christianity has, for theological reasons, greater concern with orthodoxy than do Judaism or Islam. Though has a peripheral role in Judaism and Islam and animal sacrifice was practiced by Jews until the destruction of the Temple in a.d. 70, none of the monotheistic faiths consider animal sacrifice central to their worship traditions.

True Religion for the Romans: What it Was Not

Romans and most other ancient peoples would have regarded all or almost all of the presuppositions and assertions about the nature of religion set out above as bizarre, irrational, and potentially danger- ous. The truth claims of the Abrahamic religions, the singularity of the divine, the infallible ability of sacred writings to provide moral guidance, the absence of animal sacrifice, the autonomy of the faith community and much else were, in fact, taken as challenges to the established order as soon as monotheistic Christianity emerged as a major force in the Empire.

no all-powerful god The gods of the Romans were neither omnipotent nor omnipresent. Many of them were extremely powerful, and at the head of the pantheon of gods was the most powerful, but none equaled the omnipotence or singularity of the god of the later monotheistic faiths. Except in the teaching of some schools of philosophy, there was no universal, all-powerful divinity. The idea of a god who existed outside the universe and was its creator was abhorrent to the philosophers for whom matter was eternal and could not have been created. That Christians came at some point to argue that the cosmos was created out of nothingness (ex nihilo) was seen as (yet another) proof of their irrationality.

no creeds Unlike the monotheistic faiths, Roman religion had no developed creeds and closely related ethical codes. Beliefs were not formalized and expressed in philosophical language or in language borrowed from sacred texts, nor was moral behavior expressly connected with divine revelation. Roman religion was not a matter of truth but of social cohesion. It was authentic if it affirmed and sustained the community. The efficacy of prayer and sacrifice was not related to the inner attitude or moral character of those praying or offering sacrifice, but to the exact enactment of rituals and the precise wording of prayers. Religious belief and practice did not focus on the after- life, but resolutely on the here and now. The cultivation of the gods was expected to lead to happi- ness and material success in this present world, not in a world to come. Pietas may have resulted in moral rectitude, but that was not its principal aim. Rome had no sacred books containing truths held to be normative and valid for all aspects of life and worship. There were neither independent religious hierarchies nor autonomous religious institu- chapter 4. roman religion • 89 tions. Despite the reputation of ancient for toleration, Rome did not allow the existence of privately organized and publicly unapproved religious associations. There was a single, all encom- passing state or civic religion. Communication with the gods was too important to be left in private or amateur hands or for the gods to be cultivated by untraditional rituals conducted by unsupervised groups of citizens.

religious identity at rome Religion for Romans did not mark out a separate identity for the individual such as being a Jew, Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim or non-believer, does in modern societies. On the contrary, just being a Roman citizen meant being fully invested in the whole spec- trum of truths, rituals and practices that were special to Rome. The Romans thought of themselves as a political and juridical community made up of human and divine partners with legally codified, mutual obligations toward each other. Religion was a form of justice in which humans had claims on the gods and vice versa. Thus Cicero could argue against the Epicurean claim that if there was no evidence of divine interest in human affairs, there could be no reverence for the gods:

What reason is there for insisting that humans should worship the gods if the gods [as the Epi- cureans claimed] not only show no concern for men nor do anything for them at all?…. Indeed what devotion (pietas) is owed to a person from whom you have received nothing?… Pietas is justice to the gods. But how can there be any justice between humans and the gods if there is no community among them? (De natura deorum 1.115–116)

Religion was an integral part of citizenship and vice versa. Citizenship without religious belief and practice was unthinkable for Romans. The informal education acquired by growing up in a Roman household and subsequently acting as a citizen provided every Roman with an adequate theology of the gods and of the universe and a correspondingly comprehensive explanation of how humans fitted into this environment and how they should behave. Ethics and morality were not subsets of religious doctrines, but derived from the ancient practices of the community, the —the ways of the ancestors. The ideology of citizenship could not imagine, let alone tolerate, the existence of reli- gion as a separate and independent sphere of life apart from that of the community at large.

immobility: the limits of the civic religion What was true of Rome was also true of every other state in the Mediterranean: Athenians and only Athenians had full access to the religions of Athens; only Carthaginians could participate fully in ’s religious life and so on. For these reasons the religion of the state was not portable in the way the great monotheistic faiths characteris- tically are. Civic cults were rooted in particular places. The rituals of individual cities reflected cen- turies of dealing with their gods. Over the years new rites were introduced as necessity demanded, or old rites were modified to cope with new situations. The activities of gods and their needs were noted and written down so that records of past rituals that were effective could be consulted later, should the same god manifest him or herself. Every city was filled with a mixture of old and new sacred areas, temples, shrines, statues, and altars to the gods. Some were so ancient that their func- tions had been forgotten. Then there was the problem of unknown but active, unidentified deities. To be sure they had not neglected any power, the Athenians had a shrine to the Unknown God. Where the gods were concerned it was better to be on the safe side.

no personal choice All Romans came under the protection of Rome’s gods so naturally and unquestioningly they participated in Rome’s religious rituals. “Let no one have gods separately… unless they have been recognized publicly” said Cicero (Laws 2.19). “Conversion” from the state or 90 • part i: the rise of rome

The Gods Cannot be Moved

In 390 B.C. the was defeated and Rome itself captured and sacked by a marauding band of Celts. The traditional explanation was that the generals had not performed the proper ritu- als before the battle. The catastrophe was a psychological and political turning point in the history of the city and in the aftermath of the disaster there was talk of moving to a new site, the recently captured Etruscan city of . The idea was squelched by the dictator Camillus who pointed out that Rome was forever tied by its religious connections to the site on which the city had been originally founded “with all due auguries and auspices.” The speech is the work of Livy composed centuries after Camillus but it enshrines key elements of Roman religiosity that go back to Rome’s earliest days. When you see such striking instances of the effects of honoring or neglecting the divine, do you not see what an act of impiety you are about to perpetrate, and indeed, just at the moment we are emerging from the shipwreck brought about by our former irreligiosity? We have a city founded with all due observance of the auspices and augury. Not a spot in it is without religious rites and gods. Not only are the days for our sacrifices fixed, but also the places where they are to be performed. Romans, would you desert all these gods, public as well as private? Contrast this proposal with the action that occurred during the siege and was beheld with no less admiration by the enemy than by yourselves? This was the deed performed by Gaius Fabius, who descended from the citadel, braved Gallic spears, and performed on the the solemn rites of the Fabian family. Is it your wish that the family religious rites should not be interrupted even during war but that the public rites and the gods of Rome should be deserted in time of peace? Do you want the Pontiffs and (priests of the individual gods) to be more negligent of public than a private individual in the anniversary rite of a particular family? Perhaps someone may say that either we will perform these duties at Veii or we will send our priests from there to perform the rituals here—but neither can be done without infringing on the established forms of worship. For not to enumerate all the sacred rites individually and all the gods, is it possible at the banquet of Jupiter for the [when statues of the gods were brought out of their temples and a banquet set before them] to be set up anywhere else other than the Capitol? What shall I say of the eternal fire of , and of the statue which, as the pledge of empire, is kept under the safeguard of the temple [the statue of Athena, the Palladium, supposed to have been brought by from ]? We talk of sacred rituals and temples—but what about priests? Does it not occur to you what a sacrilege you are proposing to commit in respect of them? The Vestals have but one dwell- ing place which nothing ever caused them to leave except the capture of the city. Shall your Virgins forsake you, O Vesta? And shall the Dialis by living abroad draw on himself and on his country such a weight of guilt every night [this priest was supposed to never leave Rome]? What of the other things, all of which we transact under auspices within the [the sacred boundary around Rome]? To what oblivion, to what neglect do we consign them? The , which deals with questions of war; the at which you elect consuls and military —when can they be held under auspices except where they are accustomed to be held? Shall we transfer them to Veii? Or shall the people, for the sake of the assemblies, come together at great inconvenience in this city, deserted by gods and men? ... chapter 4. roman religion • 91

Though your courage may go with you, the fortune of this place certainly cannot be transferred. Here is the Capitol, where a human head was found which foretold that in that place would be the head of the world, the chief seat of empire [a play on words; head in is caput]. Here, when the Capitol was being cleared with augural rites, the gods and , to the great joy of your fathers, refused to be moved. Here is the fire of Vesta, here the sacred shields of which fell from heaven. Here the gods will be propitious to you—if you stay. (Livy 5.52). civic religion was not an option. There was no choice when it came to the cults of the state. A citizen was simultaneously and instantaneously on birth or on being naturalized as a citizen a member of the Roman juridical and religious community. As part of their civic responsibility, citizens were expected to participate in the main festivals of the ritual or liturgical year; not to do so was to risk being branded an atheist or a misanthropist—a hater of human society. For good reason those who did not participate in the worship of the gods were regarded as dangers to the community: Failure to honor the city’s gods might bring down their anger not just on the errant individual but on the state as a whole. Tolerance was not a when it came to the religious responsibilities of citizens.

family coercion Equal compulsion to conform existed within families where all members were bound by religious traditions handed down from generation to generation. In his book on model legislation, Cicero emphasizes the continuity within the family of traditional religious rituals: “Let Romans worship in private those whose worship has been duly handed down from the ancestors” (Laws 2.19). Children growing up in a Roman household were not free to cast off or opt out of family traditions; they were, rather, understood to be the indispensable bearers and perpetuators of precious family traditions from one generation to the next: “the sacred rites of the family will be forever” (Laws 2.22). In turn, these observances and ceremonies, if faithfully maintained, guaranteed the survival of the family. For such reasons Roman family life was profoundly conservative. The paterfamilias, the head of the Roman household, was father, priest and ruler (with his wife, the materfamilias) of his little state which he (and she) ruled with despotic power backed up by ancient legal tradition and societal support. The fact that the worship of the or spirit of the paterfamilias was an intrinsic part of family ceremonial suggests the importance of religion in sustaining Roman family structures.

later: some relaxation In the last two centuries b.c. as the cohesion of the Roman Republi- can state declined, Romans were able to exercise more personal choice in their religious inclinations. The gradual diversification of society through the weakening of the power of the paterfamilias, the growing emancipation of women, and the rise of a large class of ex-slaves allowed more individual initiative in the private sphere of religion. Personalized religions such as the mystery cults of Isis, Sarapis and Mithras, which involved initiation and special knowledge of and attachment to a par- ticular god or goddess, attracted many inhabitants of the highly diverse and socially fragmented Rome of the Late Republic. These new religions, however, added rather than detracted from the older cultural traditions of Rome; they were additions or accretions, not replacements. The state cults in many respects became even more spectacular—and attractive—than in the past with the introduction by ambitious politicians of magnificent games and spectacles. Gladiatorial fights, wild beast hunts, processions, huge sacrifices, and public banquets became standard features of the state cult and one of its main supports. Only when the resources of the state were no longer adequate to sustain the great festivals could it be said that Roman religion declined. This, however, did not hap- pen until late in the imperial period. 92 • part i: the rise of rome

3. Roman Religion

True Religion for the Romans

nothing is “natural” Events that we categorize as wholly “natural” such as storms, earth- quakes, crop failures, and diseases were not regarded as such by Romans or other ancient peoples. In the Roman world there was no simple division between the purely “natural” world and the universe of the gods. Gods were everywhere, in everything, and responsible for everything. For the Romans the blight that often struck their crops was the god Robigus. The goddess was responsible for the growth of fruit, for grain. Jupiter, Rome’s principal god, was the giver of light under the title of Jupiter Lucetius and of rain as Jupiter Elicius. As Jupiter Fulgur he sent lightning. Rivers, lakes, springs, caves, and woods were all inhabited by spirits. “Trees are the temples of the gods,” wrote , a writer in the early Empire and adds, “We worship forests and their silence more than images of gold and ivory” (Natural History 12.3). The poet promised the spirit of his favorite spring that he would “dye its icy waters” with the “scarlet blood” of a sacrificed goat (Odes 3.13). Boats were not allowed on Lake Vadimo north of Rome because of its holiness. Society itself was object of divine intervention, sometimes on a massive scale. In battle the gods granted success to one side or the other. Cities and civilizations fell because gods believed they were neglected. The politician and historian argued that the bitter civil wars of his times were the result of Roman pride, cruelty, “neglect of the gods and avarice which regarded nothing as too sacred to sell” (Catiline 10.4). His contemporary, the orator Cicero repeated this idea in a court speech claiming that “the immortal gods sent lamentable civil war on the as punish- ment for their offenses” (Marcellus 18). Given this approach to the natural world and human society, it is understandable that the aim of Roman religion was to establish some kind of control over the unpredictable but not meaning- less events of everyday life and persuade the gods to cooperate in human affairs. The divine was uncanny and unpredictable, but not unknowable. the gods could be cultivated or cajoled into favoring an individual or a state. If a god or gods (a goddess or goddesses) were known from past experience to be responsible for a particular aspect of life—Mars for victory in war, Ceres for a good crop—then it was not just sensible but imperative to cultivate these gods. It was a somewhat different matter if the responsible deity was not known, but there were ways, long established by tradition, of appealing to and appeasing even unknown gods. In any case, the cultivation of the gods was not an optional extra providing some kind of psychological refuge from a confusing, heartless world, but an essential duty of individuals and society. The maintenance of good rela- tions with the divine world—the deorum (literally, “peace of the gods”)—was one if not the preeminent aim of Roman statecraft. There were two basic aspects of the practice of Roman religion. The first was the accurate diag- nosis of events and the second the development of a correct response to them. Centuries of experi- ence in dealing with the divine resulted in the creation of a large traditional store of knowledge on how to please the gods. It was carefully recorded and passed on in written and oral form from gen- eration to generation. When, however, efforts to identify the right deity had been made and prayers been offered and sacrifices performed, then the proper attitude to take, said Horace, was to pile logs on the fire, break out a bottle of wine and “leave everything to the gods.” Don’t worry about the future; enjoy winter and summer nights, make love (Odes 1.9).

the centrality of animal sacrifice The centrality of animal sacrifice to ancient religion and its absence from monotheistic religious practice highlights their vast differences. That the sacrifice chapter 4. roman religion • 93 of animals and sometimes humans was pleasing to the gods and could placate their anger was taken as self-evident throughout antiquity.1 Animal sacrifice was practiced everywhere, even in Judaea, until the destruction of the temple in a.d. 70. Vast numbers of animals—160,000 over three months at the accession of the emperor Caligula to the throne—were sacrificed in honor of the gods at the festivals that occurred on a regular basis throughout the year. Such festivals, financed by the state and sometimes by individuals, were wel- comed by the citizenry because—among many reasons—the meat of the sacrifices, distributed free to all participants, was a welcome relief from their almost entirely vegetarian diet. In addition to sacrifices, the more important festivals were marked by processions, horse and chariot races, animal hunts, and theatrical performances, and later in the Republic by gladiatorial fights. By the second century b.c. the festivals had become complex enough to require the services of a special college of “Three Priests for Feasts,” the triumviri , later expanded to seven members, who provided advice on rituals and ceremonies to the magistrates who administered the festivals. Membership in the college of epulones was eagerly sought by politicians seeking visibility with the voters.

calendars and festivals The cultic calendar in the Republic had 58 festivals devoted pri- marily to agricultural deities. Under the Empire the number of these festivals expanded hugely until the emperor put a cap of 97 on the number allowed. in addition to the festivals there were games () performed in honor of the gods. These consisted of theatrical performances (mimes, farces, pantomimes, comedies, tragedies—ludi scaenici) and chariot racing (ludi circenses). By the first century b.c. there were 57 days of these games. April, for example, was almost exclusively devoted to them. In 204 b.c. the Ludi Megalenses were instituted in honor of , the Great Mother goddess, to celebrate Rome’s final victory over Hannibal. They ran from April 4 to 10 and were noted for their dramatic performances. Then from April 12 to 19, the Ludi Ceriales were held in honor of the grain goddess Ceres, followed shortly afterward by the Ludi Florales from April 28 to May 3. September was another good month for games with the Roman Games (the ), famous for their horse races and chariot races, running from September 5–19.

munera The practice of elite families honoring their dead members by staging fights to the death was extended in the Later Republic as gladiatorial munera to the population at large. These munera—the term implied the discharge of duties to the dead—served to advertise the giver’s wealth and generosity as well as to promote his political career and the glory of his family. In the first century the munera grew in magnificence and extravagance as their vote-getting potential was realized by competing political dynasts.

religion: knowledge is power Romans, Greeks, or other “pagans” were not without belief systems just because they did not philosophically systematize them or because they failed to inter- nalize their convictions in the manner of the monotheistic faiths. A better approach to understanding Roman religion is to recognize that their religious beliefs and practices followed different psycholog- ical, epistemological, and cultural patterns. Romans (with the exception of significant numbers of the elite toward the end of the Republic) truly believed in the gods (though not necessarily their ),

1Humans were sacrificed only in extreme circumstances, and in time the practice came to be regarded as uncivilized. In the Republic, Romans had recourse on three occasions to . Later they rejected the practice and stamped it out wherever they encountered it. Apart from legendary memories and mythology, there is no record of human sacrifice in Greek history. The monotheistic tradition of ancient Israel vigorously opposed the practice of child sacrifice in Canaan. 94 • part i: the rise of rome and the efficacy of rituals. Even the skeptical among the elites believed in a special providence that sustained Roman greatness. What some among the elites of this later period found unsatisfactory were the modes of expression of the ancient civic cults such as augury and animal sacrifice. They questioned, for example, how the examination of the entrails of animals (technically extispicium or extispicy) or the flight of birds could reveal the will of the gods. “Why snakes and not mice or lizards?” remarks Cicero sarcastically at one point in his book on divination (de div. 2.62). No one, however, believed that society could be sustained without religion to hold it together. Out and out atheists in the modern sense of the term were rare and they generally kept their ideas to themselves.

religio defined The root of the Latin term religio is ligare, meaning to bind or tie together, to unite. For Romans, religio implied the existence of a community of gods and humans bound to each other by mutual obligations. In the case of the civic religion of Rome, religio was summed up by Cicero as the performance of rites, the taking of the auspices (divination), and the consultation of the Sibylline Oracles (de nat. deorum 3). Religio involved another concept: The idea of the “the justice of the gods,” that is, knowledge of what was due the gods and what was involved in the maintenance of proper relationships with them. It was seen as analogous to “the justice of parents,” that is, what was due to one’s parents as expressed by the Latin term pietas. Cicero sums up the parallel as follows:

Justice (iustitia) is the portion of virtue we display towards each other in society, whereas religion (religio) is virtue shown towards the gods, and what is shown towards parents is (pietas). (Classification of Oratory, 78)

More generally, religio could also be described as the sum total of cults practiced at Rome, and even more expansively as the whole of human relations with the divine.

division of divine powers Religio required a sense of awe and scrupulous regard for the dig- nity of the gods. However, internal attitudes toward rituals and prayer were largely irrelevant. The Romans and their gods did not analyze or judge religious behavior by modern canons of authenticity, sincerity, and moral uprightness. What mattered was the precise performance of rituals according to established traditions—assuming such traditions existed. The gods, however, were innumerable and frequently unidentified or even unidentifiable. In the bad days of the late Republic, Horace plain- tively asks what gods the Roman should approach to prop up “their tottering empire.” Should they invoke , or Mars? Since Vesta no longer heeded them, what prayers should the Vestals virgins use? (Odes 1.2). The gods possessed varying degrees of power in different areas of specialization such as war, health, wealth, fertility, and so on. Prayers, vows, and sacrifices needed to be directed to the cor- rect god (or goddess) in exactly the right form in the right place. With the right “knowledge of the gods” (cognitio deorum), it was possible to communicate and negotiate with the gods and, if neces- sary, assuage their anger; hence the importance of individuals or groups of individuals who knew the rules, formulae, and rituals of traditional religion. At the same time it was recognized that such knowledge needed constant updating as Licinius, of 209 b.c., argued when he declared that “a right or privilege was based not upon musty precedents dug out of old chronicles but in each case, upon recent usage or custom” (Livy 27.8). If rituals failed to produce the desired result or were judged to have been incorrectly performed or accidentally vitiated, they were repeated. In 217 b.c., the Romans suffered a crushing defeat at chapter 4. roman religion • 95 the hands of Hannibal at the Battle of Lake Trasimene, and in response vowed a Sacred Spring () to be performed five years later should the “republic of the Romans have been preserved” (Liv. 22.10). Rome did survive and the sacrifice, which involved the killing of all the animals of the herds born that spring, was duly performed (at one time the rite probably included the killing of all humans born at that time). However, in 194 b.c. it was discovered that the original ver sacrum had been incorrectly pronounced and therefore the whole, very expensive ritual had to be repeated (Liv.33.44). Instances of up to 10 repetitions of failed rituals are known. Fraud sometimes crept into the process, repetition being encouraged “generally by those who benefited from the repetitions” (Dio 60.6)—meaning those who supplied the sacrificial animals. There were occasions, however, when individuals or the state were completely baffled as to what divine power was operative in a given situation and help had to be sought from outside. After two disasters in 216 b.c., the loss of the to Hannibal and the violation of the Vestal Virgins Opimia and Floronia, the Senate sent a delegation to Delphi to “inquire what prayers and supplications were necessary to placate the wrath of heaven” (Livy 22.57). The Senate did have suf- ficient cognitio to know what to do with the offending Vestal Virgins: one was buried alive and the other, to avoid this traditional mode of execution, committed suicide. The man who had debauched Floronia—who turned out to have been the secretary of the college of priests—was beaten to death by the chief priest (). Livy says nothing about the other male offender. Perhaps he was not as notable a figure as the secretary and so his name was not worth noting. In practice, cognitio deorum was a combination of the accumulated personal experience of mem- bers of the colleges of state-appointed priests and their ability to access books recording the past interventions of known deities. Those in possession of such knowledge and who were authorized by their position as magistrates or heads of households to exercise it were indispensable figures in both public and private spheres. Order and stability in both the public realm of the state and the private of the household depended on correct, up-to-date knowledge of what the gods willed.

aspects of cognitio deorum For Romans, evidence of the activity of the gods had to be expe- riential. Proof of the efficacy of rituals and prayers came from the fact that over time they had demonstrated their reliability in winning divine favor. One writer late in the Empire period put it this way:

In so far as all reason lies in darkness where the gods are concerned, whence more properly can knowledge of the gods come from than recollection and evidence supplied by things that turned out well? (Symmachus, Relatio 3.8)

In other words, since the realms of the gods were inaccessible to mortals, the only way to under- stand the gods and their mysterious ways of dealing with humans was by analyzing how they had acted in the past. Thus, for example, that Rome had turned out well was self-evident, and although some intellectuals were inclined to look for non-religious explanations for its success or to reduce the explanation to something bland like Fate or Providence, the most common opinion was that Rome was great because of its reverence for the gods. This reverence was, in turn, rewarded by the gods. Clearly, therefore, fundamental to maintaining Rome’s standing in the world was the con- tinuous and exact cultivation of relations with the gods as dictated by past precedent—where such existed. Knowledge of what was due the gods was the key. If Rome was great, then, it was because Romans possessed a lot of accurate information about the gods and had been faithful in fulfilling their needs and desires. 96 • part i: the rise of rome

When a Temple Needed Repairs: The Right Kind of Knowledge

The following suggests the legal formality of Roman religious practice and the kind of knowledge that was necessary for its proper functioning. The Arval Brethren (Fratres Arvales) were an ancient priestly college made up of 12 members chosen by cooptation from senatorial families. Their principal religious responsibility was the guardianship of the temple and sacred grove of , a fertility goddess, located at a site a few miles outside Rome. Less is known about the activities of the Brethren in the Republic, but inscriptions from Empire times suggest the same rituals were in use in both periods. In a.d. 183 for example, the college learned that a fig tree was growing in the roof of the temple of Dea Dia. It needed to be removed and the roof repaired. This might sound like a job for contractors but that was not the case when the issue concerned a sacred building or holy grove. First an official report (relatio) along with a proposed remedy had to be presented to the college by the presiding officer (magister). Only then could contracts be let. After that, expiatory rituals had to be performed, beginning with a procession around the grove. Then two cows, two rams, and two sheep were sacrificed followed by more individual sacrifices to the following, hierarchically arranged list of gods and goddesses:

Dia Dea—two cows —two rams Jupiter—two sheep Mars—two rams —two ewes The Divine God-or-Goddess—two ewes The Divine Virgins—two ewes The Divine Servants—two sheep The —two sheep The —two sheep The God-or-Goddess who Protected the Grove—two ewes Fons—two sheep —two sheep Vesta—two sheep The Mother of Vesta—two ewes Adolenda, Conmolenda, Deferunda—two ewes

At the shrine of the Caesars: 16 sheep to the 16 divi (divine Emperors).

After the repairs were completed an identical set of sacrifices were performed. The mysterious Adolenda, Conmolenda, Deferunda were the goddesses presiding over the physical removal, chopping up and burning of the fig tree. All told 108 animals, almost all sheep, were sacrificed and eaten. (Commentarii Fratrum Arvalium qui Supersunt (Rome,1998), #94

Prodigies and What they Meant

what did the gods want? In general, it was easy enough to figure out what the gods wanted. Because they were like humans—although frighteningly more powerful—they wanted first and foremost, honor and respect. In this respect the relations between gods and humans resembled the relations between ordinary people and very powerful individuals such as kings or great patrons. The difficulty lay in the particulars: Which gods or goddesses were to be honored and how was this to be done? If offended, how were they to be propitiated or appeased (if offended they were—yet another problem)? When the consul Claudius Marcellus wished to build a temple to Honor and Virtue in chapter 4. roman religion • 97 fulfillment of a vow he had made earlier, the college of priests argued against it on the grounds that if a prodigy (some out-of-the-ordinary event) occurred in the temple they would not know what to do about it because they had no ready information on how the god or goddess who sent the prodigy was to be to be propitiated ( 1.1).

prodigies Despite the destruction of so much ancient literature, part of a book devoted to prodigies that occurred in Rome and Italy between 190 b.c. and 12 b.c. has survived. It is full of reports of monstrous animal and human births, buildings and statues being struck by lightning, rains of blood, sacrifices where the organs of animals were missing, odd animal behavior, and the like. In 188 b.c., for example, there was a shower of stones on the at Rome. In 163 b.c., a swan glided into the temple of Victory and eluded those who tried to capture it. The same year at Caere a pig was born with human hands and feet, and children were born with four feet and four hands (, A Book of Prodigies, 2, 14). All were seen, by definition, as having nega- tive implications for the state. Prodigies, however, could also have import for individuals. In 133 b.c. the revolutionary Tiberius Gracchus stubbed his toe on the threshold of his house when leaving to attend an assembly; crows subsequently dropped tiles at his feet. Neglecting the warnings, Gracchus continued stub- bornly on and was duly murdered at the public assembly over which he was presiding (Obsequens 27a). A similar fate overtook Julius , who also disregarded . The night before his death the doors of his bedroom opened mysteriously and his wife Calpurnia was awakened by the moon- light streaming in. Later a sacrificial animal was found without a heart (Obsequens 66). None of these omens dissuaded Caesar from attending a meeting of the Senate where he was stabbed to death by fellow senators.

managing prodigies Since prodigies occurred on a regular basis and were taken to indicate that something had gone wrong with the relations with the gods, some system had to be developed to interpret them and decide what needed to be done to placate the god, goddesses, or gods in question and restore the pax deorum. A related and not necessarily subordinate aim was to prevent panic among the population at large, which took omens seriously. The question was how to do this effectively. Rome was a highly politicized community and its ruling class had no desire to see an independent body of full-time, professional priests come into existence to manage religious affairs. Given the importance of religion to the state such a body of priests would inevitably acquire power independent of the political system. The blending of religion and politics was a major achievement of Roman statecraft. It was done without turning religion into politics under the guise of religion or allowing religion to the political realm. Over the years, successive generations of Romans developed an elaborate admin- istrative system to handle omens and prodigies, run festivals, maintain temples, perform rituals, justify wars, incorporate new cults, and generally see to the maintenance of pax deorum, the contract between the gods and the citizens of Rome. As the Senate was the focus of political life in Rome, it was also the focus of the administrative and interpretive aspects of its religious life.

practicalities of melding of religion and politics The key components of the power of public officials at Rome were and auspicium. The first of these was the full and complete power of the Roman people delegated to a consul and some other magistrates for a specifically desig- nated time period; auspicium was delegated to magistrates at the same time they received their impe- rium. Auspicium was the right—and obligation—to take the auspices before any major undertaking: Magistrates were expected to watch for lightning in particular parts of the sky or the flight of birds 98 • part i: the rise of rome or the behavior of other animals on the assumption that such events and activities revealed the divine will; they presided over sacrifices, religious festivals, the dedication of altars and temples, and so on. This intimate mixing of political and religious power is one of the characteristic features of Roman politics, perhaps surprising for us but not for Romans. Surviving lists of priests coincide well with the lists of Rome’s most successful politicians and generals. cicero matter of factly reflects this cultural understanding of the intrinsic connection between politics and religion when he said in a speech:

Nothing is more striking among the divinely inspired institutions created by our ancestors than that the worship of the immortal gods and the highest interests of the state should be in the same hands. In this way the most distinguished and revered citizens are able to bring about the welfare of religion by the good administration of the state, and of the welfare of the state by the wise interpretation of religion (De Domo 1).

His comments caused no surprise among the audience he was addressing, the college of priests. Cicero could take for granted that, like himself, some of the most distinguished members of the political class would also be priests who shared the belief that it was their collective responsibility to see to the pax deorum, the good ordering of relations between gods and humans. Tales of religious misbehavior of magistrates from the past gave emphasis to their weighty reli- gious responsibilities. One such popular story told of the sacrilegious actions of the magistrate and admiral, Appius Claudius. Just prior to a crucial battle with the Carthaginians, Claudius ordered the consultation of the sacred chickens who were supposed to reveal the will of the gods by gobbling up grain thrown in front of them. When they refused to do so Appius ordered them to be thrown

Priests Advise, Magistrates Perform Rituals

We might expect priests to perform sacrifices and offer prayers and officials to watch respectfully. Roman magistrates, however, not priests, possessed auspicium (the authority to take the auspices) while priests acted in an advisory capacity providing specialized information about rituals. A good example occurred at a critical moment during a battle in 340 b.c. The battle was going badly for Rome so the commander, Decius Mus, decided to undergo the rarely performed ritual of , that is he would dedicate or hand himself over—together with his enemies—as human sacrifices to the gods. It was essential that the ceremony of dedication be executed correctly because if the wrong formula was used the whole act would be ineffective. Hence he turned to a priest on his staff for the exact formula of devotio. The ritual was duly performed and Decius charged into the opposing ranks and was killed. The enemy army was thrown into disarray and the Romans won the battle. Note the wide spectrum of gods—some unidentified but assumed to be present— addressed together with their hierarchical ordering. The consul Decius called out to Marcus Valerius: “We need the help of the gods, Marcus Valerius. You are a priest of the Roman people—dictate the formula whereby I may devote myself to the gods to save the legions.” The priest told him to put on the purple edged , veil his head and with one hand extending from the toga touch his chin while standing on a spear at his feet and repeating “Janus, Jupiter, father Mars, , , Lares, New Gods, Native gods, Deities who have power over us and our enemies… I honor you and seek your favor and ask that you advance the might and victory of the Roman people…. As I have pronounced these words, even so on behalf of the Roman nation… and of the army… do I devote myself and with me the legions and auxiliaries of our enemies to the gods of the Underworld and to Earth (Livy 8.9). chapter 4. roman religion • 99 overboard saying (supposedly), “Well, if they won’t eat, let them drink!” Predictably he went on to lose the battle. Omens were neglected at the peril of the individual and of the state.

the senate has the final word The Senate through its colleges of priests acting as kinds of committees, controlled the exercise of religion at Rome. As a collective, authoritative body the Senate reserved to itself final authority in matters of religious discipline and interpretation. In the second century b.c., for example, when a cult of Dionysus (Bacchus for the Romans) spread in Italy, the Senate ordered it suppressed as a threat to the Republic. The cult devotees met at night, had male and female, slave and free members, bound themselves by oaths, and had their own officials, meet- ing places and funds. As such they were seen as a potential or actual political movement operating outside the boundaries of existing law. However, the Roman authorities also recognized that there might be some concern among the population at large that if in fact the god Dionysus was revealing his presence among his followers, it might be dangerous to overreact. Most were familiar with the fate of Pentheus, king of Thessaly, who in mythical times was torn to pieces by frenzied Bacchants when he interfered with Dionysiac rituals. What might happen to Rome if a duly authorized agent of the state overstepped his jurisdiction and enraged Dionysus? To prevent any insult to the god, the presiding consul preemptively proclaimed a dispensation for Rome’s agents:

Nothing has a more deceptive appearance than corrupt religion. For when the of the gods [i.e., their divine authority and power] is advanced as a shield for crimes, then fears creep into the mind lest in punishing human misdeeds we may end up violating something of divine law which has become entangled with these misdeeds. From this scruple you are freed by the innumerable edicts of the pontifices, the decrees of the Senate and finally the answers of the diviners [harus- pices]. (Livy 39.16)

In other words, the Senate in its role as supervisor of the civic religion of Rome took it upon itself to absolve in advance any mistakes made by its enforcers while acting on its behalf against the cult. Another interesting illustration of the Senate’s supervisory role dates from the Late Republic when the general Cornelius was campaigning in Greece. After Sulla won a great victory, the custodians of the temple of the hero Amphiaraus (one of the legendary Seven Against Thebes) in the city of Oropus north of Athens extended special honors to Sulla and to Rome. The general was delighted because he was about to depart on a campaign in Asia Minor and Amphiaraus, who was credited with prophetic powers, had apparently prophesied Sulla’s victory in Asia. In thanks Sulla vowed to grant Amphiarus’s temple a large, tax-free tract of land. However, after Sulla’s death the publicans (Roman tax collectors) attempted to collect taxes from this land on the ground that being only a hero Amphiaraus was not truly a god, “and so therefore it lay within the jurisdiction of the publicans to collect taxes from these estates.”2 The Senate, however, concluded the case in favor of the temple by decreeing that Amphiaraus was, in fact, a god. The power to make such definitive decisions regarding religion eventually ended up in the hands of the emperor when the Republic came to an end. Thus the conscientious, administratively minded emperor Claudius decided to tidy up the calendar by abolishing many festivals and sacri- fices because “most of the year was being devoted to them as a result of which the treasury suffered no small loss” (Dio Cassius 60.6), yet another demonstration that, whether in the Republic or the Empire, state security, religion, politics, and finances were inextricably intertwined at Rome. All equally came under the control of the state.

2Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 747 100 • part i: the rise of rome

4. Religion and Politics

Features of the Religious Administrative System

Roman priests were not fulltime “clergy” in the modern sense of the word; they combined their religious duties with their other, multiple political, military, and social responsibilities. They were not chosen particularly for their holiness, their ethical commitments, or their training in theology. Priesthoods lasted a lifetime and, with the notable exception of the Vestal Virgins and the priestess of Ceres, were restricted to men. 3 A distinguishing feature of Roman priesthoods was their interaction with the Senate and with the yearly magistrates. As we have already seen, the Senate had final responsibility for making religious decisions, but the priests who advised the Senate had full authority for interpreting sacred laws and rituals within their own jurisdiction. The final feature of the religious administrative system was provided by the annually elected magistrates who actually executed decisions of the Senate by taking the auspices, dedicating temples, making public vows, holding games in fulfillment of these vows, and so on.

Priests did not belong to independent, self-monitoring organizations as they do in contemporary Western religious life. They were, rather, subject to collegiality, the general guid- ing principle of Roman public life. Like magistrates, priests were organized into colleges (or some- times into groups called sodalities) with specific responsibility and competence in certain areas of religion. No single priest had a corner on the interaction between Rome and the gods, but shared that responsibility with other members of the group of priests to which he belonged. It was the job of the colleges to investigate unusual occurrences—prodigies—once they had been brought to the college’s attention, and report back a recommendation (a relatio) to the Senate. Not all recommen-

priests

magistrates

senate The close connection between priests, magistrates, and the Senate was a special char- acteristic of the Roman State.

3The wives of the priest of Jupiter (the ) and the king of rites () were essential to the performance of some of their husbands’ duties so that, in a sense, they shared their husbands’ priesthoods. In the case of the flamen Dia- lis, the connection between the married couple and the priesthood was so close that when the flaminica Dialis (the flamen’s wife) died, the flamen had to resign his priesthood. chapter 4. roman religion • 101 dations were accepted as valid by the Senate; its discretionary powers extended to denying that a particular event was in fact a prodigy. Even priests who had specific responsibilities for the ritual of a particular deity such as the major flamines—priests of Jupiter, Mars, and Quirinus—were limited in their freedom of action by membership in the .

priest politicians It would be ludicrous to imagine that any modern head of state or depart- ment chief should be required as part of his or her official duties to preside over animal sacrifices (slaves did the actual killing of the animals), offer public prayers, make vows, and so on, yet this kind of activity was normal and obligatory for Roman magistrates. , an important sup- porter of and later his successor as the lover of , presided as a member of the fraternity over the sacrifice of goats and a dog at the festival, and then with his fellow fraternity brothers, ran practically naked around the striking bystanders with leather thongs. The meaning of this festival was lost on most Romans of the time but the rituals were still dutifully performed. The great re-founder of Rome, Caesar , sacrificed nine female lambs and nine female kids to the Fates and a pregnant sow to Mother Earth at the , a major festival which was the centerpiece of his reforms. He later offered specially prepared cakes in honor of the goddess of childbirth Iliythia, and with his closest associate, Agrippa, sacrificed a bull and a cow to Jupiter and Juno respectively. These were not random ritual acts, but carefully researched ceremonies authorized by the respective priestly colleges. Professional clerical priestly and political careers coincided; priesthoods of one kind or another were an integral part of the career path of politicians (the ). Indeed, one of the high- est offices a Roman politician could attain was that of pontifex maximus, chief priest of the Roman religion. Julius Caesar regarded the position of pontifex maximus as an important office in his politi- cal career, telling his mother when he stood for the office he would return either as High Priest or not at all (because he would have to leave the city to dodge the creditors who had bankrolled his election bid) (, Caesar 13). Cicero was inordinately pleased when he became a member of the College of , though later he developed serious doubts about the validity of augury. The highest achievement of a Roman politician and general was the celebration of a triumph when, for a day, he became a god or close thereto, and offered the booty from his victorious campaign to Jupiter, the head of the pantheon of gods at his temple on the .

The Priestly Colleges

With some significant exceptions, most priests were not attached to particular temples or deities, but belonged to groups of fellow priests in colleges or brotherhoods which had designated superviso- rial responsibilities. There were three major colleges—the College of Pontiffs, the Augurs, and the Fifteen—and a larger number of minor ones.

Religious Places and Times

places Places became sacred either by human action or by the intervention of the gods. Exam- ples of the latter abound in Roman history. During a battle in 496 b.c., the Roman general vowed a temple to the Castors—the twin sons of Zeus, —if he was victorious. (If the gods failed to deliver on their part of the bargain, the human bargainer was released from his commit- ment). The battle was won by the Romans and soon afterwards the Twins were seen watering their sweaty horses in the Roman at the spring sacred to the goddess , thus indicating they had accepted the vow and that the promised temple should be built nearby. The temple was duly 102 • part i: the rise of rome

The Priestly Colleges Priesthood Number Responsibilities Augurs 16 by Augurs interpreted (divined) signs such as thunder, lightning, (Augures) Caesar’s the flight of birds, the behavior of certain animals. They had the time responsibility for integrating messages sent by the gods with Rome’s political life. Pontiffs 16 by The college of pontiffs was presided over by the pontifex maximus, (Pontifices) Caesar’s the Chief Priest who was elected from among the priests of the time college. The college had a mix of secular, sacred and domestic responsibilities. It supervised rituals and festivals and was the main repository of divine law. It also took care of the calendar and supervised adoptions, wills, and burials. Vestal 6 The Vestals maintained the cult of Vesta in the Forum but had ritual Virgins duties in many festivals. Flamens 3 major Major: priests of Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus. (Flamines) 12 minor Minor: the names of only 10 of these are known, including the priests of Ceres and Flora. The duties of these priests were associated with the rituals of the individual deities to whom they were assigned. Sacred 1 At the fall of the monarchy his powers were assumed by the pontiffs. King He possessed only residual minor functions such as announcing (Rex sacrorum) the dates of movable feasts. He was excluded from political office. The Fifteen for 16 by The college was responsible for the custody of the Sibylline oracles. Ritual Actions Caesar’s Sibyls—women who uttered ecstatic prophecies—were found (Quindecimviri time throughout the Mediterranean in antiquity. According to legend, one sacris faciundis) of Rome’s early kings, Tarquinius , bought three books from the Sybil of Cumae (near Naples). They contained lists of prodigies and prescriptions for rituals to respond to them. At times of crisis they were consulted, but only at the direction of the Senate. The college also supervised non-Roman cults in Rome. The Seven for 10 by Supervised the rituals of the games and the organization of the Ritual Meals Caesar’s feast of Jupiter at the Roman and Plebeian Games. (Epulones) time priests 20 Were responsible for rituals associated with the declaration of war (Fetiales) and peace. Diviners 60 Not an organized college until the Late Republic, the haruspices (Haruspices) possessed special training and knowledge in the remediation of prodigies. They were also experts in interpreting the entrails of animals (extispicy) sacrificed to the gods, could tell whether an animal was properly sacrificed or not, and presided over the butchering of the sacrificed animal, indicating what portions of the sacrifice were to be delivered to the gods and which could be eaten by worshippers. chapter 4. roman religion • 103

Trajan’s panel, Extispicy The image shows the preparation of the slaughtered animal in preparation for the examination of its entrails by the Roman priest or magistrate in the ritual known as extispicy. constructed and its sorry remains can still be seen at the east end of the Forum. Another place in the Forum was rendered sacred by a prodigy in 362 b.c. In that year, a huge chasm appeared in the middle of the Forum which no amount of backfill could close. Theharuspices were consulted and announced that it could only be shut by offering “that which was Rome’s main power” (Livy 7.6). After puz- zling over this mysterious pronouncement, the young Marcus Curtius, who was well known for his bravery, decided he knew what the oracle meant. He donned his armor, mounted his horse and leaped into the chasm which thereupon closed. The place was subsequently known as the Lacus Curtius, the lake or pond of Curtius. Its undistinguished remains can also still be seen in the Forum. By the ritual of augury, profane space could be set aside and rendered sacred. Temples and shrines are obvious examples of augurated spaces, and Rome itself was augurated at its founding by the establishment of a boundary known as the pomerium. Within this boundary, a magistrate’s imperium was not valid and arms could not be carried. All matters having to do with war or leader- ship in war such as the election of consuls and declarations of war had to be conducted outside this area. Domi et militiae—“at home and abroad”—was a phrase used to designate the two realms of Rome’s principal activities, the conduct of civil affairs and warfare. The former was to take place in a demarcated area where disputes were to be settled peacefully, without recourse to weapons, while the latter, the realm of disorder and danger, allowed for the use of force. The gods had a vested interest in all activities, private as well as public, but were thought to be particularly interested in political deliberation. Thus the Senate could only meet in a templum, that is, a space that had been properly marked out by augural rituals. Templa included actual temples where the Senate met on occasion, as well as its own meeting place, the , on the north side of the Forum. The place where the people met, the , just in front of the curia in the Forum, was also a templum. 104 • part i: the rise of rome

people and events Individual people could also be designated by augury, as was the case with Rome’s first ruler Romulus. Because the founders of Rome were twins there was no clear indication which of them had seniority, and it was thus decided “to let the tutelary gods of the place decide which should rule” (Livy, 1.6). The brothers accordingly took their places on two hills, Romulus on the Pala- tine and his brother Remus on the Aventine. Remus was the first to receive a sign: a flight of 6 vultures, but soon afterwards Romulus saw 12 and was duly hailed as king. Thus did the gods of Rome, to this point unknown, reveal their preference for a ruler of the population that was to inhabit the site. In addition to places and people being augurated, all public acts were accompanied by the taking of the auspices. These included legislation, elections, the taking of the census and military opera- tions of all kinds, the building of temples, and the founding of colonies. These activities had to have the sanction of religion, and failure to observe the proper forms of augural ritual could invalidate them and require their repetition. In 59 b.c. Julius Caesar’s co-consul Bibulus announced he “was looking for signs” while Caesar, contrary to Bibulus’ wishes, was passing reform legislation. This announcement guaranteed, of course, that Bibulus would discover inauspicious signs and hence whatever legislation Caesar passed would be invalid. Despite the threat, Caesar went ahead anyway, and suspicion ever after hovered over the validity of his laws.

the demarcation of time: the calendar In addition to space being divided between sacred and profane, so time itself was broken up into time set aside for ordinary daily activities and time set aside for the worship of the gods. For us, the calendar is such a commonplace of daily life that we neglect the power it has to shape culture, a point not lost on the authors of the French Revolution who attempted to replace the old Christian calendar with a wholly new one. The Western or Grego- rian calendar remains to this day a microcosm of Western history and continues subtly to shape not just the cultures of Western countries but those of countries around the globe, despite the fact that many of them have their own traditional calendars.

the calendar and roman politics The was a compendium of days that, apart from indicating when religious festivals were to be celebrated, also determined when public business could be conducted; politicians could not decide on whim to schedule a vote for a particular piece of legislation. A period of 25 days was required to elapse between the proposal of a law and its passage, but the Roman calendar offered a major obstacle course to potential lawmakers. December and Janu- ary, for example, were good months for the passage of legislation, but and April were clut- tered with nefasti, days on which legislative assemblies could not meet (see box below). If a veto or other delaying tactics by the opposition was anticipated—which was often the case—the legisla- tive calendar could be stretched out for months even if there was strong support for whatever measure was being proposed. Tribunes, who had only a year in office, had to be highly organized or lucky if they were to pass legislation before their time ran out. In 133 b.c. the inelasticity of the calendar con- tributed to the downfall of the tribune Tiberius Gracchus, whose controversial land legislation was held up by the obstructive tactics of his opponents. Unable to circumvent these roadblocks Tiberius turned to unorthodox tactics to pass the measure. The bill passed, but the mode of its enactment split the political class and led to rioting in which Gracchus was killed. His legislation and subsequent assassination was thought by many Romans to mark the beginning of the downfall of the Republic.

war War required religious sanction before it could be engaged in justly. The month of March, named after and dedicated to the god of war, Mars, coincided with the opening of the campaign- ing season and was particularly rich in ceremonies relating to war. At the Quinquartus festival on chapter 4. roman religion • 105

The Roman Calendar for April

This much simplified calendar for April shows how few days marked by the letter C (Comitialis) were available for meetings of the legislative assembly. Courts could meet on days marked F. N and NP indicated days on which legislative assemblies could not be held. Politicians plan- ning to offer legislation had to spend a good deal of time studying the calendar to determine the optimum time to present their bills to the assembly. The letters A-H marked off 8 day periods with market days on the 9th. The Kalends always designated the first of the month, the Nones the 5th or 7th in months of 31 days, and the Ides the 13th or 15th in 31 day months.

1. A. KALENDS F 12. D. N 23. G. F 2. B, F 13. E. IDES NP 24. H. C 3. C, C 14. F. N 25. A. NP 4. D, C 15. G. N 26. B. C 5. E, NONES N 16. H. NP 27. C. C 6. F N 17. A. N 28. D. C 7. G, N 18. B. N 29. E. C 8. H, N 19. C. NP 30. F C 9. A, N 20. D. N 10. B, N 21. E. NP 11. C, N 22. F. N

March 19, the elite Salian “dancing priests,” a sodality made up of 24 members of the patrician class, conducted a procession through Rome dressed in the archaic garb of ancient warriors, each carry- ing a sword, a spear, and a shield. The shields had particular significance because one of them was supposed to have fallen from heaven as a gift from Jupiter. At certain places on their route, the stopped and performed elaborate ritual dances while beating their shields and singing the ancient “Song of the Salians” (the Carmen Saliare), fragments of which, although unintelligible to us, sur- vive. There was a repeat performance in at the end of the campaigning season. Thus the year religiously bracketed—and legitimated—war for Romans, in particular for young Roman males.

Summary and Conclusion

All states, ancient as well as modern, have to deal with the relationship between what is held to be sacred and what is profane, between religious and secular realms. Should these realms be closely connected or separated? If closely related, should one realm be in command of the other—and if so, which? If separate, what level of independence should be accorded to each? As has been argued throughout this chapter, the notion of a fundamental separation of politics and religion was alien to ancient cultures. Nevertheless, states around the ancient Mediterranean found different ways of blending their political and religious institutions. Some allowed quasi inde- pendent priesthoods to manage their own temples and properties, while others strictly controlled the whole apparatus of religion and subordinated it to state authority. In pharaonic Egypt, the Pha- raoh was both priest and ruler, combining in his own divine person supreme religious, military and political functions. Assyrian and Babylonian kings who did not regard themselves as divine had 106 • part i: the rise of rome constantly to deal with powerful priesthoods and temples. In ancient Israel and Judah, permanent hereditary priesthoods supported legitimate kings but the institution of prophecy, which was unique in the form it took in these lands, frequently challenged both priests and kings. In terms of political culture, Greek city-states were closer to Rome than were the states of the Ancient Middle East. The nature of the Greek world, which was made up of over a thousand cities scattered throughout the Mediterranean and Black Sea areas, makes possible only rough generaliza- tions about the interaction there of religion and politics. As a rule, religious practice was closely integrated with all aspects of political, social, cultural, and economic life. Most Greek cities had a number of priesthoods which lay in the hands of ancient lineages or families, while other priests were either elected or selected by lot depending on whether the individual city inclined toward oli- garchy (election) or democracy (lot). Greek priests could be male or female and were chosen from among the whole citizen population, generally for specific lengths of time. By contrast, Romans devised a much more fully integrated mix of politics and religion. There were no hereditary priests. Priests were appointed for life and were chosen from the senatorial and equestrian elites, not from the general population. Priesthoods themselves were highly valued by the competitive aristocrats of Rome and were treated as prizes by individual politicians in their passage through the cursus honorum. With the exception of the Vestal Virgins and the priestess of Ceres, Roman priests of public cults were all male. The Senate managed religious affairs through its col- leges and sodalities of priests and reserved all final decisions to itself. In their approach to politics and citizenship, Romans were generally more innovative and flex- ible than were their Greek counterparts. Greek cities prized their citizenship and its rewards, and were very slow to extend the franchise for fear of seeing their citizen privileges diluted or their political culture changed. Rome, on the other hand, was an expansionist state from early times and extended citizenship routinely (though in varying forms and in selective fashion) to its conquered subjects. With citizenship came integration within Rome’s political and religious institutions. In addition, colonies of Romans and scattered throughout Italy solidified Rome’s military grasp on the peninsula and provided subject populations with first-hand examples of Roman religious practices and the advantages of the franchise. In the course of time, this meant that Roman religious authority and culture as well as political and military control extended throughout the peninsula. In its own way, the incorporation of non-Romans within the sacred spheres of Roman life was as revolutionary as its liberal granting of the franchise. Just as Rome was able to break the assumed nexus between geographical location, culture, and citizenship that undergirded Greek political prac- tice, so Rome was also able to break the apparently indissoluble bond between cult and place. One of the results of this political and cultural breakthrough was the strengthening of the inte- grated, central power of the Roman state. Roman political leaders did not have to contend with major institutions located outside the immediate apparatus of the state or powerful priesthoods with their own independent cultural traditions and political agendas. Ambitious but frustrated Roman aristocrats were never able to challenge their fellow competitors for power from a parallel state. At the same time, Rome was able to harness to its needs the prodigious energies deriving from religious belief. Polybius and other outside observers of Rome were right when they gave special credit to Rome’s unique religious arrangements for its political prowess. When the Republic finally collapsed and the emperors became sole rulers of the state, they assumed the title of pontifex maximus, and by becoming members of all the important colleges of priests they reassembled the religious powers originally held in combination by the kings but carefully distributed among different colleges during the Republic. Thus the emperors came to dominate Roman religion as effectively as they dominated Rome’s political arena.