Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T05:15:05.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conservatism and Change in Roman Religion*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2013

J. A. North
Get access

Extract

The conservatism of the Romans in matters of religion is a generally accepted truth and it is in many ways a very obvious truth. I have no intention of denying it. They set a very high value on their religious tradition; they sought to preserve and reproduce the ceremonies and customs inherited from their ancestors; they thought it wrong and even dangerous to abandon or neglect the many gods, goddesses and sacred places of which the city was full; they had no ideological framework which would have enabled them to think in terms of reforming and improving the national cult, as opposed to reviving and restoring it.

I say that this is an obvious truth, because some degree of conservatism in this sense seems to be an inevitable feature of the type of Graeco-Roman paganism of which the Roman State cult is one example. A system in which the emphasis falls primarily on the performance of ritual acts—not on the worshippers' belief, or religious emotions and experiences, or on theology or ethics—such a system inescapably makes it a primary value, though not necessarily the only value, that the known ritual should be successfully repeated. This in turn must imply some implicit respect for the past and for the tradition from which the ritual emerged. For the Romans of any generation, the real validation of their religion lay in the fact that it had worked: that their ancestors had won battles, survived crises, eaten dinners, begotten children and expanded their power by the practice of the self-same rites and ceremonies as they practised themselves. For the Romans of the last generation of the Republic, it was a fact that their ancestors had won more battles and eaten better dinners than anybody else.

Type
Research Article
Information
Papers of the British School at Rome , Volume 44 , November 1976 , pp. 1 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © British School at Rome 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 N.H. xiii 10Google Scholar: videmusque certis precationibus obsecrasse summos magistratus et, ne quod verborum praetereatur aut praeposterum dicatur, de scripto praeire aliquem rursusque alium custodem dari qui adtendat, alium vero praeponi qui favere linguis iubeat, tibicinem canere, ne quid aliud exaudiatur, utraque memoria insigni, quotiens ipsae dirae obstrepentes nocuerint quotiensve precatio erraverit; sic repente extis adimi capita vel corda aut geminari victima stante. For a detailed analysis of this passage and its context cf. Köves-Zulauf, T., Reden und Schweigen (Munich, 1972), 21 ff.Google Scholar; and for Pliny's own religious attitudes in particular, cf. op. cit., 29 ff.

2 de H.R. 23: An si ludius constitit, aut tibicen repente conticuit, aut puer ille patrimus et matrimus si tensam non tenuit, si lorum omisit, aut si aedilis verbo aut simpuvio aberravit, ludi sunt non rite facti, eaque errata expiantur, et mentes deorum immortalium ludorum instauratione placantur. Cf. Arnobius, Adv. Nat. v. 31Google Scholar for a later adaptation of the same point. On instauratio, RE Suppl. v. 612; Wissowa, G., R. u. K2, 454 f.Google Scholar; Tromp, S. P. C., De Romanorum Piaculis (Diss. Amsterdam, 1921), 66 ff.Google Scholar; Boyce, A. A., TAPA 68 (1937), 165Google Scholar; de Sanctis, G., St. d. Rom. IV. ii. 1. 335 ff.Google Scholar

3 Val. Max. i. 15; Plut., Marcellus 5Google Scholar.

4 Most notoriously in 163–2 B.C., on which see Cic., , de div. i. 33 ff.Google Scholar; ii. 74; de N.D. ii. 10–11Google Scholar; Plut., Marcellus 5. 1–3Google Scholar; Val. Max. 1. 1. 3. The fundamental discussion of the legal point at issue is that of Valeton, Mnemosyne 18 (1890), 209 f.Google Scholar, 264 f.

5 Pol. vi. 56. 8; Dion. Hal. ii. 63; Plut., Marcellus 4–5Google Scholar.

6 The incident has been much discussed: cf. especially, Marx, F. C., RhM 39 (1884), 65 f.Google Scholar (who raised almost all the fundamental questions and arguments): Bilz, K., Die Politik des P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (Stuttgart, 1935), 42 f.Google Scholar; Aymard, A., Deux anecdotes, Mélanges de la société toulousaine d'études classiques 2 (1946), 101 f.Google Scholar; Scullard, H. H., JRS 50 (1960), 68Google Scholar; Astin, A., Scipio Aemilianus, 325 f.Google Scholar = Appendix X. The point I am making here was already seen by Marx, and Aymard's challenge to it is very effectively dealt with by Astin's discussion.

7 So, Bilz loc. cit.

8 He first published his discovery, without attracting very much attention, in Recherches de science religieuse 39 (1951), 17 ffGoogle Scholar. Cf. also, Nouvelle Clio 5 (1953), 249 f.Google Scholar; REL 36 (1958), 109 f.Google Scholar; Hommages a J. Bayet (Collection Latomus 70), 172 f.Google Scholar; Archaic Roman Religion I. 85 fGoogle Scholar.

9 De div. ii. 77.

10 Paulus-Festus 226 L2: ‘iuge(s) auspicium est, cum iunctum iumentum stercus fecit’; that is to say, the bad omen will be avoided if the oxen are unyoked at the critical point.

11 CIL i.21Google Scholar =ILLRP i.3.

12 The fundamental dissertations on the pontifical and augural books were by Preibisch, P., Quaestiones de libris pontificiis (Bratislava, 1874)Google Scholar and Regell, P., De Augurum publicorum libris (Bratislava, 1878)Google Scholar; they have just been republished together with the authors' editions of the fragments as Two Studies on the Roman Pontifices (Arno Press, 1975Google Scholar) and Roman Augury and Etruscan Divination (Arno Press, 1975)Google Scholar. Also see, Wissowa, , R.u.K.2, 513Google Scholar; 527; Rohde, G., Die Kultsatzungen d. römischen Pontifices (Berlin, 1936Google Scholar = RGVV xxv); Norden, E., Aus altrömischen Priesterbücher (1939)Google Scholar.

13 HTR 32 (1939), 83 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar= Essays on Religion, 481 f.Google Scholar He was arguing that this tradition of high priestly authority lay behind the characteristic development of the Western as opposed to Eastern tradition of Christianity; thus, where the priest in the Orthodox Churches says ‘N. is baptised (absolved) in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’, in the Latin Church the formula is rather ‘I baptise thee (absolve thee) in the name….’

14 Livy, xxii. 10: ‘Velitis iubeatisne haec sic fieri? Si res publica populi Romani Quiritium ad quinquennium proximum, sicut uelim (uou)camque, salua seruata erit hisce duellis, quod duellum populo Romano cum Carthaginiensi est quaeque duella cum Gallis sunt qui cis Alpes sunt, turn donum duit populus Romanus Quiritium quod uer attulerit ex suillo ouillo caprino bouillo grege quaeque profana erunt Ioui fieri, ex qua die senatus populusque iusserit. Qui faciet, quando uolet quaque lege uolet facito; quo modo faxit probe factum esto. Si id moritur quod fieri oportebit, profanum esto, neque scelus esto. Si quis rumpet occidetue insciens, ne fraus esto. Si quis clepsit, ne populo scelus esto neue cui cleptum erit. Si atro die faxit insciens, probe factum esto. Si nocte siue luce, si seruus siue liber faxit, probe factum esto. Si antidea senatus populusque iusserit fieri ac faxitur, eo populus solutus liber esto.’ For full discussion of the incident and its implications, cf. Heurgon, J., Trois Etudes sue le ‘Ver Sacrum’ (Collection Latomus XXVI, 1957), 36 ff.Google Scholar

15 Livy xxxi. 9. 7 f.

16 Cf. loc. cit. 9. 10: ‘Octiens ante ludi magni de certa pecunia voti erant, hi primi de incerta’, which seems to commit him firmly to the pontifex maximus' view of the facts.

17 ‘Posse rectiusque etiam esse pontifices decreverunt.’ For an admirable discussion of the textual and other problems of the passage and for earlier bibliography, cf. John Briscoe's Commentary, ad loc. He, however, accepts the view that both sides in the dispute are acting from political motives; I find this entirely implausible, but, in any case, my present point is not affected, since it is the possibility of changing the rules in which I am interested, not the reasons for doing so. See further Piganiol, A., Recherches sur les jeux romains (Strasbourg, 1923), 81 ff.Google Scholar; Scullard, H. H., Roman Politics 2 (Oxford, 1973), 87 f.Google Scholar; Cassola, F., I Gruppi politici (Trieste, 1962), 410Google Scholar; Schlag, U., Regnum in senatu (Stuttgart, 1968), 149 f.Google Scholar

18 Gellius, AulusN.A. x. 15. 16–17Google Scholar: ‘sine apice sub divo esse licitum non est. sub tecto uti liceret, non pridem a pontificibus constitutum Masurius Sabinus scripsit et alia quaedam remissa, gratiaque aliquot caerimoniarum facta dicitur’. For a similar relaxation cf. the decree of the pontifices quoted by the Emperor Tiberius, , Tacitus, Annals iii. 71Google Scholar.

19 Livy xxvii. 25. 7; Plut., Marcellus 28Google Scholar. Cf. Latte, , RRG, 200; 235 f.Google Scholar; de Sanctis, op. cit., 302.

20 It was vowed by Marius after his victory over the Cimbri and the Teutones, : CIL I 2 p. 195Google Scholar elog. xviii =ILS 59; cf. Vitr.iii.2.5; vii praef.17; Val. Max. 1.7.5. There are many problems connected with the cult: Latte, , RRG, 236Google Scholar; Weinstock, St., Divus Julius (Oxford, 1971), 231Google Scholar.

21 For a survey, cf. e.g. Dumézil, G., Archaic Roman Religion, II 599 fGoogle Scholar.

22 Pliny, , N.H. xi. 186Google Scholar. The date was apparently preserved in terms of the rex sacrorum of the day, Albinus, L. Postumius: MRR i. 196Google Scholar; cf. Momigliano, A. D., Quarto contributo alla storia degli studi classici etc. (Rome, 1969), 401 f.Google Scholar

23 On the history of the Sibylline Books, Diels, H., Sibyllinische Blätter (Berlin, 1890)Google Scholar; Hoffmann, W., Wandel u. Herkunft d. Sibyllinische Bücher in Rom (Diss. Leipzig, 1933)Google Scholar; Latte, , RRG, 160 f.Google Scholar; Radke, G., Gymnasium 66 (1959), 217 f.Google Scholar; id., RE s.v. Quindecimviri, xxiv. 1115 f.

24 ii. 378.

25 The underlying hostile assumptions can be clearly seen in two of the most influential accounts of the development of republican religion this century—W. Warde Fowler's The Religious Experience of the Roman People (cf. especially, Chapters XII–XIV) and Kurt Latte's Römische Religionsgeschichte (especially, Chapters VIII–X). Both these books are, of course, deeply influential on the account of Toynbee mentioned above. G. Dumézil, op. cit., here as elsewhere, offers a valuable corrective to generally accepted views; cf. especially, 102 ff.

26 Cic., de div. i. 27 f.Google Scholar; ii. 73–4; de leg. ii. 33Google Scholar; de N.D. ii. 9Google Scholar. Varro, , Ant. rer. div. iGoogle Scholar, fgt. 2a Ag.(=August. C.D. vi. 2)Google Scholar.

27 Varro, , de L.L. vi. 19Google Scholar: ‘nunc vix nomen notum paucis’. Cf. Latte, , RRG, 137Google Scholar.