The Frontiers of Graeco-Roman Religions: Greeks and Non-Greeks from a Religious Point of View
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE FRONTIERS OF GRAECO-ROMAN RELIGIONS: GREEKS AND NON-GREEKS FROM A RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW Elena Muñiz Grijalvo Ancient Greeks seemed to be very concerned about who was Greek and who was not. At least, this is what we can infer from the great number of literary sources which dealt with the topic in one way or another. From Herodotus’ Histories to,say,Tatian’sAddress to the Greeks (to give just one example of extremely opposite genres and aims), the frontier of Greekness was an important issue not only to the Greek mind, but also to the minds of other intellectuals from all over the oikouméne.However, Greekness was rarely systematically defined. The features of Greekness could be found in all forms of art, and covered areas from descent and language to more general ways of life.1 In this general picture religion played a key role, or, to be more precise, some religious aspects did. In the fifth century bc Herodotus wrote“sothatthingsdonebymannotbeforgottenintime,andthat great and marvellous deeds, some displayed by the Hellenes, some by the barbarians, not lose their glory” (.). His approach to these two large groups, “Hellenes” and “barbarians”, set a kind of agenda for those intending to describe new peoples. Among the categories that could be explored when dealing with a foreign people, religion occupied a privileged position. Herodotus focused on a handful of religious aspects to explain the distance between they-barbarians and we-Greeks. The result was not a clear picture of what Greek religion actually was, nor even of what religion meant for Herodotus. It was more a way of establishing the limits of Greek religion with respect to non-Greek peoples, in order to make the intellectual frontiers of the Greek world explicit. As we will see, the ethnographical categories drawn by Herodotus proved to be lasting. Authors repeatedly tried to set the limits of the Greek world by focusing on quite similar subjects to describe other peoples. However, this continuity in the ethnographical religious approach did 1 Well-known definitions of Greekness are Herodotus ..; Isocrates, Panegyricus ; Dionysius of Halicarnassus ..; Dio Chrysostom .. Elena Muñiz Grijalvo - 9789004215030 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 12:15:26AM via free access elena muñiz grijalvo notmeanthatGreekreligionwasalwaysthesame,nor(andthisismy point here) that the frontier of Greek religion was always set at the same place.Theaimofthispaperistoanalysehowreligionwasusedasaway of constructing different limits for the concept of Greekness. After abrief sketch of Herodotus’ work as a starting point, I will focus on Strabo’s Geography, firstly to show how he broadened the limits of Greek religion, so that it could be understood as “Graeco-Roman religion” instead, and secondly to show how the device was intended to set frontiers not only between Greeks and barbarians, but also between Greeks (or Graeco- Romans) and non-Greeks within the Roman Empire. Analysis of religion in Herodotus is becoming increasingly frequent in studies of his work.2 This is not surprising as the amount of religious data concerning not only the foreign peoples Herodotus describes, but also the Greeks themselves, is indeed remarkable. However, what we read in Herodotus is not an accurate picture of what Greek religion was actually like. No matter how much we read into it,3 he had no intention of doing so.Aswehaveseen,hewasmerelytryingtoofferhisaudienceanaccount of the deeds of Greeks and barbarians alike, and of the causes which led to the Persian wars. To achieve his goal, he considered it necessary to digress, focusing on the different peoples which had to do with either the barbarians (i.e. Persians) or the Greeks. The result is, as has been pointed out, a “patterned display provided by the range of cultures”, in which Greece is not to be understood without barbarians, and vice versa.4 2 Works including analysis of religion in Herodotus are: G. Lachenaud, Mythologies, religion et philosophie de l’histoire dans Herodote (Lille ); E. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian (Oxford ); S. Scullion, “Herodotus and Greek Religion”, in C. Dewald— J. Marincola (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus (Cambridge ), – ; W. Burkert, “Herodot als Historiker fremder Religionen”,in G. Nenci—O. Reverdin (eds.), Hérodote et les peuples non-Grecs (Genève ), –; P. Cartledge, “Ancient and modern contestations of Hellenism”, Bulletin Institute Classical Studies (), –; J. Redfield, “Herodotus the tourist”, Classical Philology (), –. Specifically about religion in Herodotus: F. Mora, Religione e religioni nelle Storie di Erodoto (Milano ); J. Gould, “Herodotus and religion”, in S. Hornblower (ed.), Greek Historiography (Oxford ), –; T. Harrison, Divinity and History. The religion of Herodotus (Oxford ); J.D. Mikalson, “Religion in Herodotus”, in E.J. Bakker—I.J.F. de Jong— H. van Wees (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Herodotus (Leiden-Boston ); J.D. Mikalson, Herodotus and Religion in the Persian Wars (Chapel Hill ). 3 And no matter how optimistic one chooses to be, as is the case with Mikalson , op. cit. (n. ), , who claims that “his Histories (. .) may reasonably be claimed to be the best and richest single source for Greek religion as it was practised in the classical period”. 4 Redfield , op. cit (n. ), . Elena Muñiz Grijalvo - 9789004215030 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 12:15:26AM via free access the frontiers of graeco-roman religions Herodotus conceived the world as a system formed by the combination of peoples who were different from each other. A conscious effort to describe the constituents of his system can be found in his work, although he always focuses on what made the difference between them. This is probably why Herodotus concentrated on certain matters and not on others, including when referring to religion. One of the easiest ways to underline the differences between two peoples is to describe what is patently obvious: their customs, what they do, especially what they do as a people and in public, and in the religious domain this means rituals. Herodotus’ concern about ritual probably had a lot to do with this.5 In addition, of all the rituals, sacrifice is what he commented on most extensively. The two richest descriptions of sacrifice are those of Persians and Egyptians. In both cases, but especially in Persian sacrifices, he chooses to center on what was definitely non-Greek. And thus he says explicitly that Persians “do not build altars or kindle fire, employ libations, or music, or fillets, or barley meal” (..), and continues to explain how “to pray for blessings for (oneself) alone is not lawful for the sacrificer” (..); or that “no sacrifice can be offered without a Magus” (..). There is also a similarity in his description of Egyptian sacrifices. After dwelling at large on how “they instituted customs and laws contrary for the most part to those of the rest of mankind” (..), he gives examples of some bizarre Egyptian habits. Finally, he gets to religion, where special attention is paid to sacrifice and the way of killing and preparing the animal to be consumed: “they cut its throat, and having done so sever the head from the body. They flay the carcass of the victim, then invoke many curseson its head,which theycarry away. Wherethereis a market, and Greek traders in it, the head is taken to the market and sold; where there are no Greeks, it is thrown into the river” (..–). As a rule, it seems that when Herodotus commented on a ritual, it was because there was often a Greek reference that was clearly different from the foreign one.6 The opposite may also be true: it seems that he 5 We will probably never know to what extent his real concept of religious things had to do only with ritual. This is an important issue, which will not to be dealt with here. But I think that we should be a bit more cautious than Gould , op. cit. (n. ), , when he observes “how strikingly it (Herodotus’ work) underlines for us the extent to which he and, one might guess, the majority of Greeks, defined their own religion to themselves and understood its significance largely in ritual terms”. 6 This is what may explain that, in his descriptions of other sacrifices, Herodotus stresses such things as the way of slaughtering the victims. When he describes Scythian Elena Muñiz Grijalvo - 9789004215030 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 12:15:26AM via free access elena muñiz grijalvo brings up details about Greek religion because they explicitly show the differences between two peoples (every piece of information about Greek religion, therefore, should be considered in this light). But essentially the difference was not so great. To his mind, what characterised the Greeks or any other people was not that they had different customs, but that they went about them in different ways. As Scheid has observed, ancient authors thought that “everywhere people made sacrifices, prayers, and vows, celebrated sacred games, and built sanctuaries (. .) But one thing made the difference between the religions of the world: the governing rules, those small details, choices, and postures which gave each system its originality”.7 Herodotus was therefore prepared to admit that the realm of religion was common to all civilised people:8 in his words “I believe that all men are equally knowledgeable about (the gods)” (..). Consequently, no signs of superiority will be found in Herodotus regarding Greek religion. Admittedly, his work shows his deep pride in being Greek: “from old times the Hellenic stock has always been distinguished from foreign by its greater cleverness and its freedom from silly foolishness” (..). But religion had little to do with this. As has been observed, Herodotus’ implicit aim “was to promote not Greek ethnic triumphalism but Greek ethno-political solidarity”.9 To achieve this, it was not necessary for Greek rituals to be older or better than the others: they just had to be felt as Greek.