25011175

The Organization of Roman Religious Beliefs Author(s): Charles King Source: Classical Antiquity, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Oct.
, 2003), pp. 275-312 Published by: University of California Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25011175 Accessed: 16/05/2010 09:40
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Classical Antiquity.
http://www.jstor.org
CHARLES KING
The Organization Religious Beliefs
of Roman
Abstract: This studywill focus on the differences in theway thatRoman Paganism and Chris tianity organize systems of beliefs. It rejects the theory that "beliefs" have no place in the Roman religion, but stresses the differences between Christian orthodoxy, inwhich mandatory dogmas define group identity, and the essentially polythetic nature of Roman religious orga nization, inwhich incompatible beliefs could exist simultaneously in the community without conflict. In explaining how such beliefs could coexist inRome, the study emphasizes three main conceptual mechanisms: (1) polymorphism, the idea that gods could have multiple identities with incompatible attributes, (2) orthopraxy, the focus upon standardized ritual rather than standardized belief, and (3) pietas, theRoman ideal of reciprocal obligation, which was flexible enough to allow Romans to maintain relationships simultaneously with multiple gods at varying levels of personal commitment.
Indeed the centrality of "religious belief" in our culture has sometimes

led to the feeling that belief shared by all human beings. out of the experience no necessary place which This is a distinct and natural capacity which is of course is nonsense. "Belief" as a and Saint Paul had of the Risen That is, the question
religious term is profoundly Christian in its implications; itwas forged

the Apostles
Lord. The emphasis which "belief" gives to spiritual commitment has

in the analysis of other cultures.
As
the ideas
in this article
have
been
gestating
for many
years,
Iwould
like to acknowledge
my
debt
to various scholars who read earlier forms of my arguments (which were sometimes ratherdifferent from the current form). Even in cases where we disagreed, I found the exchanges valuable. Final responsibility is of course my own. Thanks to Richard Saller, Rachel Fulton, Walter Kaegi, Alan Bernstein, Ian Morris, Alice Christ, Tom Dousa, Rodney Stark, the editor and readers of this journal, and (for proofreading) Fenita andCharles King andChristopher Gardner. Classical Antiquity. Volume 22, Number 2, pages 275-312. ISSN 0278-6656(p); 1067-8344 (e). Copyright ? 2003 by The Regents of theUniversity of California. All rights reserved. Send requests for permission to reprint to:Rights and Permissions. University of California Press, 2000 Center Street, Ste 303, Berkeley, CA 94704-1223.
276
CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY
Volume 22/No. 2/October 2003
about the "realbeliefs" of theGreeks is again implicitly Christianizing.

-Simon R. F. Price'
The above statement asserts that the concept of "belief" is intrinsicallyChris

tian and that merely raising the issue in relation to the Greeks (and, by implication,
Romans) isChristianizing. Elsewhere, Price has described the application of the word "belief" to the Roman religion as "anachronistic."2This challenge to the
use of the term belief has become been ment seems widely overdue. is not original to Price and derives from the arguments religion about of
the anthropologist Rodney Needham.3 Through Price's work, though, the idea
employed The by scholars issue of the Roman about a debate and it has even A reassess but terminology, endorsed by at least one general textbook the Empire.4
is not simply
rathera question of theunderlying assumptions on which Christianity andRoman Paganism rest andwhether those assumptions share common ground.
Needham quently and Price are correct that modern Western scholars are quite fre the products of a Judeo-Christian of other religious upbringing One and that a dispro also needs to ac
portionate familiaritywith Christian ideas has a potential to produce excessively

Christianized interpretations religious traditions.
knowledge an opposing problem, however, for the assumption thatChristianity represents a radical breakwith other (or earlier) religious concepts could itself be
the product simply evidence will serve of a Christianizing a priori bias in favor of Christian of ideas within uniqueness. Christianity One cannot constitutes religion does or that are assume that the presence
of the absence therefore
of those ideas in another of the word to a broader
tradition. "belief" to which ideas. to the Roman that framework discussion It will of the conceptual be argued here "belief"
The discussion framework
of the applicability as an entry point religion
of the Roman
and the degree against
does not share common the arguments
ground with Christian
that have been employed
the use of the word
1. Price 1984: 10-11. The occasional use of theword "belief" in a latermulti-author work (Beard,North, and Price 1998) may suggest thatPrice is softening his views somewhat, though even thatwork speaks of "deep feelings and beliefs aboutman's relation to universal forces-that seem to be missing from the religious life of theRomans" (p. 49). 2. Price 1980: 29. 3. Needham 1972. 4. The textbook isWells 1992: 244, citing Price's work on 306. Others: Phillips 1986: 2697 2711, 2772; Dowden 1992: 8. Tatum 1993: 13 speaks of a time "before Price brought the word to classicists languishing in the darkness."That line does not seem intended as irony, for he also calls Price's arguments "undeniably clear." Feeney 1998: 12-46 offers amore flexible model of Roman "genres of belief," but his failure to define "belief' makes itunclear what hemeans when he says that it is inappropriate to discuss theLudi Saeculares in termsof "personal belief" (28-38). Feeney notes thatAugustus was refocusing the Ludi on different gods than in earlier occurrences of the festival, and thatboth the official Acta of the games andHorace's poem about them contain a wide range of Augustan political symbolism and allusions toGreek literature,but underwhat definition of "belief" would any of these factors be incompatible with a belief that the gods towhom the offerings were being given would act to help theRoman people if theywere pleased with the offering?
KING:The Organization of Roman Religious Beliefs
277
not self-consistent, and the calls to banish the term from Roman studies seem premature, for the term "belief" is appropriate and useful for describing some aspects of theRoman religious experience, particularly in regard toRoman prayer.
One should stress, though, with that the question the question of the presence of how beliefs or absence of beliefs It is should not be confused can be organized.
within their mutually incompatible frameworks for theorganization of beliefs that fundamentaldistinctions between the nature of Roman Paganism andChristianity
can be seen. The Roman Pagans did not merely lack the Christian focus on
orthodox sets of beliefs, but possessed specific alternative mechanisms for the organization of beliefs that allowed clusters of variant beliefs to exist within Roman society without conflict. I.BELIEF
It is necessary term, applying Western language "belief" a consistent of to begin with the word "belief" itself. Is it appropriate to write
about "belief" in a scholarly discussion of religion?Rodney Needham rejected the

two main the Nuer meaning arguments. people makes of First, he argued the Sudan. that the term was he argued thought intrinsically into the that the word "belief" upon op and Christian has a wide and that, for example, range of definitions it could Second, for analysis. each other, which not be translated
inWestern
and that the lack of
the term useless contradict
For Needham,
does not reallymean anything in particular.5

Needham's words fiable concept above) two arguments it derives Lord," for they depend the Apostles
posing premises. If "belief" is specificallyWestern or Christian, or if (in Price's

from the "experience then itmust Otherwise, If a word it could in Phillips' assessing practiced and Saint Paul or not the could The to Rome. one same He con had of the Risen have a specific meaning how would definition, or at least an identi then how language? theories insisting
range of meanings. is Christian? or not arises
one know whether
has no specific be rendered application the Roman
know whether contradiction asserts clude
into the Nuer of Needham's religion also
that scholars that Romans
in terms of "beliefs" will
"empty
cult acts," while "belief."6 "belief"
that "belief"
is undefinable. Surely, though, the (alleged) consistency of application would

require a consistent Needham's Donald more complex Davidson's usage of the word against work on semantics two arguments than equating have also do not work well that translating a concept could in a direct word-to-word individually. concepts is far in translation.
has shown
individual words to show
To show culture
that a word B, one would
from culture A represents
that does not exist not be paraphrased
that the concept
5. Needham
1972:
14-39
and 64-135.
6. Phillips 1986: 2697-2711. For the theory of "empty cult acts," see the works he cites on 2697n.56.
278
CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY
of culture B using of culture the concept concepts existed
Volume 22/ No. 2/ October 2003

that already existed in culture B. If idea would that a culture prove of the
into the language one used
the language
B to describe
an allegedly
untranslatable difficult to prove
in order to ask whether a concept show nothing argument
in culture B, such a description thus be extremely culture, Nuer past.7 Moreover, culture, even if it was even
itself be a form of translation. of the modem about era, much the Romans. have
It would
does not or could not exist did not exist
in any given
less of the distant The Romans
if one could
that "belief"
in the modem separately
that would
are not the Nuer, to formulate Neither "belief"
and the absence To make
belief would
to be demonstrated one would Pagan
for each culture. a definition Needham
about Rome,
still have evidence.
of "belief"
and test it against Roman It is also strange altemative Price makes word an argument recognized to understand consistent or how
nor Price presents because
a definition clear enough for such a purpose.8

to argue that the word exists should be abandoned
different scholars have applied the word differently in different contexts. No

term of analysis heavy quite that does because not also have it has too many Both would How Needham also be a range of usages. once argued possible and Dan that the Sperber of meanings, use of the term "ritual," but Jack Goody similar to Needham's.9
"ritual" should be abandoned that other the logic
terms of analysis of this argument. if scholars
subject
to a range alone
interpretations, but both insisted that "symbolism" was exempt.'? It is difficult

can "symbolism" about what on the subject." be a is tool for analysis do not agree views "symbolism"
to interpret
it? Certainly,
there are many every substitute a priori definition
If a lack of
unanimity in definition disqualifies theword "belief" from scholarly use, then the
same problem Rather more useful with modern also disqualifies to propose usage, term that has yet been proposed. about belief, that would it seems of Roman of belief be consistent than continue debating a general assumptions
and then show its applicability
to the interpretation
evidence:
Definition: Belief is a conviction that an individual support. (or group of individuals) holds a Roman mother
independently
of the need for empirical
For example,
7. Davidson 1984: 183-98. 8. Needham rejects the possibility of a definition. Price 1984: 10 defines "belief" as "religio animi." The Latin seems intended to evoke Catholicism, but the only definition of religio animi thatPrice offers is that it is the "interiorized beliefs and feelings of individuals."Defining "belief" as "interiorized beliefs" seems inadequate. 9. Goody 1977. Another fine example of multiple meanings in terminology isBynum 1995, describing the vast range of meanings of theword "body" inmodern scholarship. 10. Needham 1975: 10; Sperber 1975: 50. 11. Much of Sperber 1975 is devoted to attacking other theories about definitions of symbolism. For a range of other views: Toren 1983; Foster andBrandes 1980; Freud 1966 [1917]; Turner 1967; Levi-Strauss 1975; Spiro 1979; Skorupski 1976; Boyer 1993; Todorov 1982; Penner 1995; and Morris 1992: 17-21.

from the Republic mother asserts power used a tombstone to name (plural) jealousy to express this belief about
279
the death of her
daughter: "Ibelieve (credo) that some deity or anotherwas jealous of her."''2 The
does not attempt beliefs that gods and the requisite the god exist to whom she refers, but her statement had both the No part of this scenario and that one of those gods
to kill her daughter.
about the gods lends itself to verification, but themother nonetheless presents her conviction that the scenario is true.
One to support person itwill belief. predicting the existence should stress that the lack of a need evidence. Modem for empirical might could evidence have is not the by another tools for to believe part of that of time
same thing as a lack of empirical their convictions, the weather, in the absence rain. A belief of evidence.
Believers science
some evidence many
but the same position
be reached satellite
has provided a weather as to allow
but still one does not need in such a way a belief for testing
can be formulated that it will the belief.
it to be tested, but
of a mechanism
is not an essential
If one believes
rain "on Tuesday,"
then the passage
will prove or disprove
If one believes
that world
peace will be achieved
"someday," thenproving or disproving thebelief would be difficult or impossible. Far from being "implicitly Christianizing," belief is not even intrinsically connected with religion or religious concepts. A modern American might believe
in any number of secular positions, just as a Roman like Ammianus Marcellinus
(23.6.67) could believe that theChinese (aboutwhom he knew close to nothing) were a completely peaceful people who never fought wars. Still, specifically religious beliefs tend to be unusually devoid of a mechanism for testing their validity, for any supporting evidence that could be cited would itself be filtered through additional beliefs.'3 Propertius (4.7.1-12) presents an appearance by his
dead girlfriend evidence would the contents in a dream. Some but there essential. scholars A belief have could also attempted that an element be no more to link "belief" of dynamic to the idea of "will,"'4 would need to be had that a person is no reason assertion in a dream as evidence else's dream of life after death. Accepting because there is no way or the ability of a dead person Propertius' either to appear itself be an act of belief to verify
of someone
than an assumption
12. My trans. from text of Warmington 1940: 22: quam nei esset credo nesci[o qui] inveidit deus. Needham 1972: 40-50 presents an exclusively Judeo-Christian account of the development of the terminology of "belief,"without discussing thePagans. That itwas not theChristians thatgave the verb credo itsmeaning of "believe" is therefore itself a point worth making. There is no noun constructed on the same root, but theword opinio often has the sense of "belief" as I am defining it here. Cf., for example, Cicero Div. 2.70. Even in English, it is difficult to explain the difference between the cognate "opinion" and "belief." 13. I do not mean that it is impossible to construct religious beliefs that are capable of being tested,merely that it is relatively uncommon. See discussion ofWiebe 1977. 14. This idea is central toPojman 1986, which is almost entirely aboutChristianity. Cf. Needham 1972: 81-86.
280
CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY
absorbed unconsciously and never questioned. The central element is not the conscious assertion of belief, but rather the existence of a conviction in the absence of a need for verification.
It may Price further clarify the concept of "belief" against belief. to contrast Sperber the definition held that
I have given above with Dan Sperber's theory of "symbolic knowledge," which
invoked as part of his argument that the human
mind divided knowledge between "encyclopedic knowledge"-the knowledge of material things-and "symbolic knowledge"-knowledge based upon the con ceptual associations of symbolism. According to Sperber, any statement by a religious participant concerning gods or theirpowers should be classified as sym bolic knowledge. Thus, the statement would not reflect a true conviction that supernaturalpowers exist or could affect theworld, but instead should be seen merely as a pattern of symbolic description about theparticipant's society:
Cults devoted to the gods of a pantheon seem at first glance to be homage show, which for in
rendered to supernaturalbeings of which nothing in experience rationally

attests the existence. But a symbolic interpretation would that these gods function as signals example (a' la Dumezil) their reciprocal relations have for meaning a set of categories of which men represent to themselves their own society.'5 Few What scholars beyond literal mean Sperber The if any scholars would symbolically is unsatisfactory deny a wide that religious ceremonies
by means
and prayers can possess associations. "symbolist" meanings actually is itself illustrates.
and express
range of political position,
or socio-cultural and that of other
about Sperber's
such as John Beattie, the literal. Rather, in all cases, eliminating forces belief,
is that they do not just suggest a priori can affect the possibility their world.'6 argument by the Dorze
additional
they assert the primacy
of the symbolic Such people
reading over the
that worshippers a position of Ethiopia: from Sperber
that supernatural on religious is describing
dependent
as the following
a ritual performed
sacrificer talks to his ancestors. He takes a sheep, strokes its back three times, throws it to the ground on its right side, slits its throat, wets his hand in its blood and sprinkles it before him so that the ancestors will consume it. No ancestor is present, neither to hear the sacrificer, nor to observe the correctness of his gestures, nor to drink the blood.'7 are presenting dead persons in a particular Sperber with are present way, a complex series of interlocking wish the ceremony blood Sperber concedes the sacrificial beliefs. to be in some that
The Dorze Invisible performed way
at the ceremony,
and are consuming
that is not visible
to the eye or measurable.
Although
15. Sperber
1975:
5. Cf. Price
1984:
7-1
1.
16. Cf. Beattie 1966 and the rebuttals by Penner 1986: 646-49; King 1998: 31-40; and Stark 1999: 273-74. 17. Sperber 1975: 111.
281
theDorze assert the presence of the ancestors "literally,"Sperber's interpretation of the ceremony requires that theDorze-at some higher level of mentality understand that theirown statements are only symbolic knowledge, not a descrip tion of the physical world. "No ancestor is present," says Sperber, presenting the statement as an objective reality that theDorze must, at some level, acknowledge.
It is important more prove there. One but it serves certainly to stress does that Sperber's position is also a belief. beliefs He can no they are them, that all of that the dead ancestors not have little purpose are absent than the Dorze can prove to analyze a priori
to share a people's an argument
to construct
that assumes begs
worshippers agree subconsciously with a scholar's own belief that supernatural

forces cannot exist. To take such a position as a given merely the question
how the religious participant views his or her role. "Belief" is superior to Sperber's "symbolic knowledge" as a category of
analysis about universe. of snow it asserts Beliefs prayer actions in that "belief" divine power "There will this winter" divine agency does not require the analyst to disassociate and "Jupiter will statement is religious an assertion statements send a lot because about the from assertions of practical this winter" second The forces, applications in the material
be a lot of snow are both beliefs. for natural
but it remains
physical operation of theworld.

in the existence present of gods and in the practical religion, that gods can and will one of several applications respond of their power prayer, for to requests with recorded are not merely in the Roman world. Consider but essential to Roman
is predicated in the material
on the belief
prayers
that Cato
(Agr 141.2-3):
I beg and entreat you to be well disposed toward me and I have ordered an offering of pigs, sheep, toward our house and household. and bulls to be led around my field, land, and farm on account of this request, so that you may prevent, ward off, and remove sickness, both seen and unseen, and barrenness and devastation, and damage to crops and bad and and so that you may permit my legumes, grain, vineyards, weather, shrubbery to grow and turn out well. Preserve my shepherds and flocks unharmed and give good health and strength to me, my home, and to purify my farm and land and field For this purpose, household. tomake an expiatory offering, as I said, be increased by these offerings suckling pigs, sheep, and bulls that are to be offered. Father Mars, for same reason, be increased by these offerings of suckling pigs, sheep, bulls. '" our and of this and Father Mars,
18. My trans. from text of Mazzarino 1962: Mars pater, te precor quaesoque ut sies volens propitius mihi domo familiaeque nostrae, quoius re ergo agrum terram fundumque meum suovi taurilia circumagi iussi, uti tumorbos visos invisosque, viduertatem vastitudinemque, calamitates intemperiasqueprohibessis defendas averruncesque; utique tufruges, frumenta, vineta virgultaque grandire beneque evenire siris, pastores pecuaque salva servassis duisque bonam salutem vale tudinemque mihi domofamilaeque nostrae; harumce rerumergo, fundi terrae agrique mei lustrandi
282
CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY
There are doubtless a number of levels at which this ceremony functions symbolically. For example, its performance likely reinforces theworshipper's
role as paterfamilias Why Cato would and owner of the farm on which it takes place. Still a purely ritual and does to
symbolic interpretation is not sufficient to explain the specific form of the prayer.
such a symbolic else? Why representation take the form of a religious toward not something is the ritual directed from sickness the god Mars? Why
ask for protection
and bad weather
if he is not attempting
gain protection from sickness and badweather? There were certainlymany other non-religious ways theRomans could have reinforced patriarchy, landownership,
or other prayer affect exists, related concepts. believes world. set of beliefs, not merely that the deity Mars that the god to beliefs before attention to the actions of the person praying, to persuade type. These Whatever symbolic baggage known it may as Mars carry with whose power it, the can still conveys the material that the worshipper is asking Mars to help his farm because
the worshipper
that there is a being
The prayer reveals an interlocking but also that he is paying he can grant requests, grant a request, one can believe the belief Any are interdependent. that gods that it is possible
for the one praying the belief power.
and that Mars wants One must answer
a sacrifice
of a particular
first internalize
that a god exists
that the god has any specific prayer before the attention requires catch
One must believe deity.
first internalize
one could divine
that any particular some action or from
prayer or offering would prayer whose
of any particular power
stated goal
to initiate
would, as prerequisites, require underlying beliefs in the existence, powers, and

responsiveness and Roman between of the deity, whether entirely. Thus, Paganism at the general the prayer was Pagan there is common to examine level of belief. or Christian some other religion ground between To define other factors. Christianity
the differences
the two religions,
it is necessary
II. BELIEFS, No religion
VARIATIONS,
AND
ORGANIZATION beliefs among each of its partici impossibility. denomination and which mem Still, to sets of
has ever achieved and perhaps possibility Christianity
fully uniform uniformity
pating members,
absolute
is a practical
it is not unusual within assert the theoretical creeds Roman and teachings accept Paganism bers must
for the leaders of any given uniformity is supposed to endorse
of theological
by promulgating
that every member
as a prerequisite
for participation
lacked a similar concept of multiple overlapping
of membership
in their religious organization. and a similar emphasis allowing instead It is in the differing
on the need the coexistence
for participants
to share a particular
set of beliefs,
sets of variant beliefs.
lustrique faciendi ergo, sicuti dixi, macte hisce suovitaurilibus lactentibus inmolandis esto; Mars pater, eiusdem rei ergo macte hisce suovitaurilibus lactentibus esto.
ofRoman Religious Beliefs KING: Organization The
283
manner inwhich the two religions organized sets of beliefs that the fundamental difference between the two religions is to be found.
Christianity is one of a group of religions (also including Judaism and Islam)
thatdefine themselves throughdogmas and orthodoxy.A dogma is a belief asserted by a particular sect or religious organization as a defining element of membership
in that organization. optional. system negative For "Jesus Dogmas are tied to ideas of group is a Christian to the dogmas Jesus, identity, and they are not it is a belief and a is the son of God" a positive it is right value dogma because
essential tomembership in the category "Christian."Orthodoxy is the overall

of assigning value of one's own group to worship to the beliefs (whether or not they are dogmas) but wrong of any other group. Apollo.
the Christian,
to worship
Orthodoxy erects barriersbetween sets of beliefs by stressing the correctness of a

particular of beliefs. which defines common Orthodoxy a particular set of dogmas. provides an example literal sense, have a single of amonothetic defining structure for organizing (as the color a set in "red" held in In its most the term "monothetic characteristic set" would be one Orthodoxy
all the members
the set "4redobjects"). by every member is an attempt set of beliefs
By extension,
the term "monothetic" to the makeup
can be used of other sets.'"
to classify
any set that can be defined to produce vis-a-vis
by any specific
group of features
of the set, in opposition
such a set of beliefs any other
by defining membership and by stressing the
in a religious organization through an emphasis on the exclusive correctness of

set of beliefs need for each member tianity and Islam will ever had the practical so some degree and places, as a matter may vary in the degree of policy of the organization always ability be greater to regulate always to endorse in theory the entire set of those beliefs. than practice. No religion has
One should emphasize that themonothetic character of religions like Chris

every single belief held by every member, the same religion at different times their differences threat (e.g., re
of variation will to which when
be present.20 Moreover, to assert orthodoxy not to emphasize choose
it attempts
and conflicting
sects may threatened
by some perceived
common
modern secularism).
Nevertheless, set of doctrines views. those The even if the practical in intent. Each represents reality falls short of the theory, orthodox sect of Christianity asserts salvation in opposition ligions are monothetic leadership that its particular to other That the the sect is still
the truest path to human on its interpretation
of each sect maintains are, based
that it has the right to define what of religious scripture. that are a condition America, that validity
true doctrines
leadership
also can define choose
the exact nature of those doctrines level of detail some degree If, as is often have true in modern of validity,
for membership leaders might concedes
in the sect at whatever to assert.
or comprehensiveness
that its rivals' beliefs
19. The term "monothetic" is borrowed from biological taxonomy. See Needham 1975. 20. See Poole 1986: 413-23.
284
CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY
imperfect, and the sect's theologians will be happy to explain the superiority of theirown doctrines. This assertion of superiority is also the justification for their As sect's existence as a separate organization.21 themonothetic approach requires
each member to endorse the doctrines of the sect, a genuine difference in beliefs
could be a crisis, requiring the church hierarchy to suppress dissent, modify its views, or face schism.22
Orthodoxy is not an intrinsic part of religion. It is a product of particular
historical contexts that promote claims of exclusive religious truth. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam had specific reasons for emphasizing the exclusivity of
their beliefs. The earliest Jews were claiming trying to set themselves off as a separate upon traditional
culture from thepolytheistic religions of theNear East. Christianity would attempt

to set itself off from Judaism, Jewish theology, and, to be an improvement similar claims and Islam would in the process, sect's claim later make defined against both Judaism to the beliefs truth was at
andChristianity.Moreover, sectswithin each of these religions competed against

each other essential any point define themselves in opposition of their rivals. Each to the process of holding a monopoly on religious
of that sect's development
and to its own self-definition of development Within Rome
in that development.23 and Greeks with lacked similar patterns type of orthodoxy. Pagans and did not itself, Roman that a similar
The Romans themselves
priests did not attempt to systematize their beliefs as a form of self-definition.

There was served have been intellectuals schools authority no organization a partial exception, like Cicero, who for Roman putting could to join and no core dogmas philosophical of doctrines was not binding ideas from as litmus tests for membership. The Greek schools might in opposition on Roman the different
forth programs pick and choose Ancient
to each other, but the exclusivity as suited his individual equivalent
of those doctrines purposes.24
philosophy theology,
had no doctrinal nor did any other
to that demanded
by Christian
21. For a convenient example (out of many thatcould be cited) see Clendenin 1997, inwhich an Evangelical Christian explains the doctrinal errors of theRussian Orthodox Church.More generally, one could look at the regularpattern of Christian denominations defining theirdifferences according to issues such as apostolic succession, purgatory, transubstantiation, the filioque clause, the role of baptism, the role of "works," the veneration of saints, etc. 22. For a general discussion of these patterns, and the problem of schism, see Stark and Bainbridge 1987: 121-53, though I do not agree with the authors' position that they are describing the conduct of all religions. The supporting examples are overwhelmingly Judeo-Christian, and they are therefore analyzing a specifically dogmatic/orthodox pattern of religious organization. What would "schism"mean to Scipio? 23. Frend 1984 illustrates the frequent doctrinal conflicts in the early church, and a broader history of the church, like that of Schaff 1910, shows the long-term repetition of patterns of theological self-definition at the expense of "heretic"minority sects. Historically, Islam may be less focused on heresy thanChristianity, but some similar patterns can be found inHodgson 1974. For a recent discussion of the conflict of sects within Roman-era Judaism, seeMeier 200 1. 24. For Roman use of philosophy in general, see Rawson 1985. On Cicero, see, for example, Glucker 1988 and the studies collected inFortenbaugh and Steinmetz 1989.
285
religious mechanism. The result was a system that allowed a level of diversity in beliefs that a dogmatic system likeChristianity would find unthinkable. When theRomans encountered foreign peoples, they likewise did not erect firmbarriersbetween theirgods and beliefs and those they encountered elsewhere. If anything, Roman religious history is the history of assimilating and adapting the religious concepts of their neighbors. Romans frequently worshipped local
gods when Thus, convenience the Roman they entered foreign areas, identified Roman gods with the gods of or
other peoples, and imported theworship of certain outside cults toRome.25

the term "Roman with religion" does not refer to a single of beliefs moment. and practices organization to a set of beliefs people fixed boundaries, but it is rather just a term of modem that existed among Likewise, nor does the term "Pagan," which it require all Pagans to
to refer to the aggregate at any particular
I employ throughout this paper to refer to participants in the Roman religion,

does not imply membership in an organization,
have similar beliefs. Without the restrictions of orthodoxy, variant and even contradictory beliefs could exist side by side in overlapping sets of beliefs scattered throughout themany worshippers of the Roman community. Such a structure requires a differentmodel. It is not monothetic, but ratherpolythetic.
A polythetic no individual set is one that is defined by overlapping points of resemblance, of the set, and with so that there is no finite set of characteristics member any other members of the set. The shared by all members ultimately
of the set has to share any one specific idea derives
characteristic
from the taxonomic
theories of the eighteenth-century botanist Michel Adanson, but was shaped into its modern form by two rather disparate thinkers, Ludwig Wittgenstein, the analytic philosopher, andMorton Beckner, a biologist studying taxonomy.26 Beckner's model is the standard formulation:
A class is ordinarily defined by reference to a set of properties which
are both necessary and sufficient (by stipulation) formembership in the

to define a group K in terms of a set G class. It is possible, however, of properties f1, f2, ..., Suppose we have an f, in a different manner. of individuals aggregation (we shall not as yet call them a class) such
that: 1)Each one possesses a large (but unspecified) number of the properties
in G
25. See the studies collected by Henig andKing 1986; and cf. North 1976; Feeney 1998: 25-28; Dum6zil 1970: 2.407-45; Palmer 1974: 153-7 1;Basanoff 1947; and Wissowa 1912: 85-86. Ido not mean thatRomans never defined outside religions as undesirably foreign, merely that therewas no consistency in doing so, and no attempt to assert a specific set of Roman beliefs in opposition to those of others. Augustus complimented Germanicus for not sacrificing to the Jewish God while in Jerusalem (Suet. Aug. 93). If the passage shows the emperor's disapproval of the Jews, the nature of the compliment suggests that other Romans were happy to sacrifice to Jerusalem's most
prominent local deity and that there was no Roman prohibition against doing so. The same passage
also mentions thatAugustus himself was inducted into theGreek Eleusinian Mysteries. 26. Needham 1975: 349-57 gives a short history of the concept.
286
CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY
2) Each 3) No f in G is possessed f in G is possessed by large numbers by every individual

of these individuals; in the aggregate and
By the terms of 3), no f is necessary for membership in this aggregate.... If n is very large, itwould be possible to arrange the members of K along a line in such a way that each individual resembles his nearest neighbors
very closely and his further neighbors less closely. The members near
the extremes would resemble each other hardly have none of the f's in G in common.27 at all, e.g., they might
The polythetic set provides a useful model for the distribution (and disunity) of beliefs within theRoman religion. If one thinks of the total number of religious
beliefs nature Roman that existed of in Roman culture at any time as a set, then no one Roman sets (the religions B, beliefs of other peoples).
possessed the entire set, and no finite and specific group of beliefs defined the
the set in opposition beliefs 4, 5, and 6; and Roman and Romans Romans to other D, beliefs A could possess 1, 2, and 3; Roman 2, 3, and 4; Roman of the four has the dissimilar beliefs. of the of the overlap through
C, beliefs Nevertheless, subsets beliefs
5, 6, and 7. None because
same exact beliefs, of belief.
A and D could have extremely
they are all part of the same set (religion) A and D are linked
in the same system
they share with B and C.
Thus, highly dissimilar beliefs could coexist in theRoman community, even in regard to the same category of deities. Ovid (Fasti 2.597-616) could present
the lares as the children them as a manifestation Varro Romans single with (cited by Arnobius seems logically mother, supernatural of a nymph of Adv. Nat. incompatible and neither equation which ambiguity named 3.41). with Lara, view but Festus also (108L) asserted describes earlier by of a which the the to the exist. lares deified the deified dead, The a view
that the lares were seems
viewing
them as the children the Greek Dioscuri, layer of associations the imperial could about
of these views
fully compatible
another variation-the of the lares Augusti, of lares, including
of the lares with added another Thus,
can be found worship concept
in some Roman
art. Moreover,
the Imperial
era also brought lares were
about whether
same gods Participation
as the lares of the household.28 in the worship about
a range of beliefs beliefs
of the lares did not require acceptance lares, and the overall set of Roman
of a particular
fixed set of beliefs
27. Beckner 1959: 22-23. For other similarmodels, cf.Wittgenstein 1960: 77-185; Sokal and Sneath 1963: 11-20; Needham 1975; Rosch andMervis 1975; and, specifically applied to religion, Poole 1986. One should note also that there is a great deal of contradictory jargon in the literature. Beckner uses "polytypic" rather than "polythetic," a termcoined laterby P.H. A. Sneath 1962. Rosch and Mervis followWittgenstein inusing the term "family resemblance." Poole 1986: 428 lists several other equivalent terms thathave been used by scholars. 28. Waites 1920: 251-55 discusses the Dioscuri equation. For a broader discussion of the overlap of the characteristics in the sets lares, larvae, manes, andmaniae, see King 1998: 470-92. On artistic representations that interweave the imperial and domestic lares and genius, see Breen 1997: 139-231.
287
would not have been held by any one individual.Rather, individualRomans held diverse sets of beliefs, which might overlap with each other, but which did not have to coincide with any orthodox paradigm of correctness. One Roman could
share some beliefs quite dissimilar in their views about lares with one neighbor three Romans and share other beliefs might also agree about
lareswith another neighbor, although the views of those two neighbors might be
to each other. All (or disagree) of another god (or gods).
Beliefs from different periods could also coexist. That new ideaswould have appeared periodically was likely inevitable, but one implication of the lack of
an orthodox framework that defined correct beliefs of at any given moment the community would is that not the introduction of a new belief in one segment
necessarily have removed older beliefs from other parts of the community. The innovation could instead simply increase theoverall diversity of theRomans' sets
of beliefs. Still, when centuries, Over time, it is possible with that certain beliefs investigation not to declare separated did fade away completely, than this study can give by a few decades it to be an "evolution" community, it. or even when even and that possibility scholars may warrant more should be cautious actually
confronted
two variant beliefs
itmay merely be further "accumulation." The evidence is seldom sufficient to

say that an older belief when one finds evidence framework, personal of an orthodox to choose multiplied capital overlapping distinctive the making could have organization above), models, frequently webbed probability them. for variation of gods The Roman of belief, among the overlapping was the aggregate sets of beliefs of Romans of huge can be in the of it to by hundreds city alone. subsets and hundreds religion and it was used of thousands disappeared from the Roman individual of a new one among new beliefs set of beliefs, Romans. In the absence as a part of saw fit
could be adopted inwhatever
or rejected
any given Roman's The possibilities
manner
that Roman
numbers that made
that aggregate
as a whole
as a set. Wittgenstein of rope. Only the quality
the metaphor
of a rope. Ropes
are made fibers
up of fibers, but the presence of being
of any individual rope.29
fiber would
not be essential of individual of Roman of Beckner
the overlapping the polythetic element
of large numbers set as a model
One weakness assumes not even
of using that every
religious (quoted and equal birds may
is that the model, of occurring
at least in the pure formulation in any given seldom contexts presents
set has equal weight studied. All
in the set. Reality
such straightforward to fly is still a more disagree ground. that lares
in the biological characteristic
that Beckner
not fly, and everything occurring feet. Likewise, were
that flies is not a bird, but the ability of membership example, in the preceding inways Ovid
in the set "bird" than having and Festus might beliefs
about whether Both positions
the lares were
the deified dead, but there was other common that assumed underlying
formulated
29. Wittgenstein 1960: 87.
288
CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY
existed, had power, and desired acts of worship. Logically, the more general belief
that the gods existed must have been more widespread beliefs about the specific nature of that existence, than the multitude of variant required for all of those variants
the core belief that lares existed as a prerequisite. Moreover, even in the absence of an enforced orthodoxy, one would still expect some religious beliefs to be more widespread than others. People living
together in a community are going to be constantly observing each other and
exchanging ideas.Over time, it is likely that such communication would produce a higher degree of consensus about some beliefs thanothers. The regular perfor
mance were of rituals to the gods would not central to the underlying also reinforce Y premise beliefs that were specific to that that ritual (i.e., god X can solve problem in return for offering of any ritual might Z), but beliefs receive
less (or less
consistent) reinforcement. Even in the Roman religion, some beliefs would be more common thanothers. The original polythetic model of theRoman religion needs to be refined so as to accommodate clusters of beliefs of varying intensity and distribution. One
can achieve "fuzzy" monothetic some experimental this by combining set, which psychology. be more the model is a model of the polythetic drawn set with the so-called logic and upon that be used be low or "graded" from mathematical
The "graded" common
set is still a set that does not depend but it acknowledges and thus some that a given
or finite criteria, heavily
and so it is still polythetic, than others
criteria will
factors will Rosch would with
"graded" more a set would more likely
in establishing
the nature of the set.30 Eleanor that has high of a given cue validity
the term "cue validity" appear to be present
to refer to the probability Something in any example
criterion
(cue) of
frequently.
set than something
cue validity.3'
Conceiving difference between validity validity of religions in terms of graded of beliefs Christian is Lord" sets allows a further insight into the between the organization of beliefs. dogmas. in Christianity teaching cue validity and that in Roman maximum the highest dogmas cue cue is
Paganism. The orthodoxy of Christianity depends on imposing sharpdichotomies

the cue validity on mandatory if one imposes have "Jesus can only
is a Christian.
The maximum
of Christian
30. Rosch 1978; Zadeh 1965; Lakoff 1973; Kempton 1978; Ortony 1979. Poole 1986 pioneered the idea of combining it with the polythetic set in the study of religion. I should stress that the data are insufficient to reduce the distribution of beliefs in theRoman religion to the type of formal mathematical equation that Zadeh puts forth, but the general idea of a set graded by degree of importance remains a useful conceptual tool. 31. Rosch 1978: 30-31: "Cue validity is a probabilistic concept: the validity of a given cue x as a predictor of a given category y (the conditional probability of y/x) increases as the frequency with which cue x is associated with category y increases and decreases as the frequency with which cue x is associated with categories other thany increases.... The cue validity of an entire category may be defined as the summation of the cue validities for that category of each of the attributes of the category. A category with high cue validity is, by definition, more differentiated from other categories thanone of lower cue validity."
289
balanced by the imposition of minimum cue validity for any belief contrary to
the dogmas. "Mars is Lord" has a cue validity so low it is completely excluded
from the set "Christian." Paganism avoids extreme contrasts of cue validity. The worshippers have overlapping polythetic sets of beliefs. Those beliefs may not agreewith each other,
but nevertheless is possible the sense they may have would equal validity to have does within the Roman cue validity community. than others effort It in to the for some Pagan that those beliefs beliefs a higher not require
be held by more members
of the community,
but such an increase
in cue validity
a corresponding than thought
reduce the cue validity of other beliefs. If, for example, more Romans happened
to think that the lares were deified over dead, there was the other. Variant the children of a nymph for asserting beliefs they were coexist no mechanism the correctness could simply of one view in the
or even contradictory
broader "set" of the community. How would itbe possible to study such a system?One could studyChristianity
in terms of official the Pagans, a different doctrines (at least of a particular of the "graded generalizations in surviving or beliefs would sect at a particular moment is that it does suggest aspects of Roman of for in
time). The lack of orthodoxy makes such an approach unfeasible when studying
but one of the values strategy for making set" model about certain
religious thoughtby examining differences in the cue validity of beliefs. As noted,

one observable belief multiple phenomenon sources held is that there are variations in common as a prerequisite belief that all depend variations upon a belief are constructed
each of the specific variations. Logically, a single underlying belief upon which
be amore widespread One could therefore than any of in the Roman the individual the overall beliefs An manes, held variations based upon it, and itwould have a higher cue validity
"set" of the Roman in common dead.
religion.
approach
religion through the study of clusters of beliefs, examining sets of variations for
by all the variants. cluster can be seen in the Roman worship of the di the power lost. The Several Roman texts attribute whose to the manes name is now example the deified of a belief
to postpone the death of theirworshippers.32One inscription (CIL 6.30099 = CE

1508) portrays husband "Spare, vows a husband addressing his dead wife, girl, to give offerings to the wife for as long as she will so that for many sustain his life:
I ask, spare your husband, the due offerings the wife
years, with wreathes,
he can give Priscilla,
that he promised."33 the secretary ab epistulis to the emperor
Similarly (but not identically), Statius (Silv. 5.1) described the death of
of Abascantus,
32. For the powers of themanes andRoman prayers to them, see King 1998: especially 246-58, 336-80; on terminology used to describe the deified dead, see 116-24, 226-33; on who worshipped which dead, see 259-325. 33. parcas, oro, viro, puella parcas, ut possit tibiplurimos per annos
cum sertis dare iusta quae dicavit.
290
CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY
Volume
22/No.
2/October
2003
Domitian. Abascantus erected (5.1.228-37) statues of his wife in the form of a goddess, implying an intent toworship, aswould have been customary anyway
at the annual festival Although praying (Elysium) Statius' beliefs her husband lives of the Parentalia.34 (iuvenis, Priscilla too will keep her husband will She will accomplish alive. see that this by "There he is a young man 5.1.247) (senex, at the funeral, Priscilla point
to be an old man
5.1.262).
to other gods of the dead from her vantage with a suppliant right hand she prays about
in the underworld:
to the Fates
for you (Abascantus), on certain continue to
and for you she placates poem that they hold
the rulers of sad Avernus.... the dead wife both depend could in common, On that a dead and deified wife this foundation, of the nature however,
and the epitaph
interact with her surviving husband and, specifically, that she could extend the life
span of the living husband. in how Priscilla the authors has a primarily as wifely to have one can see variations Statius' She just as of the is no conceived and role of the dead wife.
intercessory devotion. she was the power
role, like the saints of later Christianity. for her husband in her own after death, the wife right. There
helps her husband by persuading other powers to sustain him. Statius presents
her motive she prayed epitaph husband, between She prays alive for him while (5.1.72-75). By contrast,
seems
of life and death her motive
mention of other powers or intercessorymediation. She herself will "spare"her

and the author presents the dead wife for doing so in terms of the offerings author stressed
shewill receive, not marital loyalty.Whereas Statius had stressed the continuity
and her living personality, into something more the epitaph's the transformation The specifically other Roman additional wives between of the wife agree like the gods of the temples, to exist after death in a way
primarily interested in ritual offerings.

two authors extend belief, multiple that people can continue beliefs of that allows them to affect the lives of living worshippers lifespan. These The two examples power and that the dead can above also agree on an
the human
can also be found in several the dead was held by dead The agreement within could allow that each of specific a dead wife her husband completely
texts and contexts.36
that the life-sustaining by dead ancestors in the community. about Roman could Thus, texts suggests
and not simply
from earlier generations. These views
that these beliefs
had a high cue validity points of agreement of the afterlife, to acknowledge in a cluster
the overall for a degree attributed belief variations possessed
set of beliefs to the deified
of generalization in common
and the powers
dead, but one would
also need
that is held
itself be manifested an agreement about what
of lower cue validity.
that a dead wife characteristics to become
could sustain
the living does not require an agreement nor about how exactly would alive. No one variation have
she achieved sufficient
the goal of keeping cue validity
34. King 1998: 420-28.

35. Silv. 5.1.258-60: Ibi supplice dextra/pro te Fata rogat, reges tibi tristis Averni/placat....
36. See King 1998: 246-58, 336-38.
291
dominant. Modern scholarship needs to acknowledge both the common ground

and the variations in the Roman particular scholarship belief that exist within does the belief cluster itself, "di manes." invalidate century, or weaken there was Warde any the
One should stress, though, that the existence of multiple variations of belief
community not, in and of In the early with in belief for an individual worshipper. There scholars is a long tradition like William in modern Fowler
of suggesting
otherwise.
twentieth
theory of "empty
cult acts" associated treated variations at the festival or cared what Failure
and H. J. Rose, which for the god worshipped no Roman simply absence comment either knew acting about
as proof of the absence Rose
of Roman that all the
interest in any belief. Noting that various Roman sources give different names
of the Lupercalia, the ceremony was concluded with about and they were is thus equated
out of habit. the diversity
to agree on details views
of belief.37 A more
recent variant of this idea can be seen in Paul Veyne's of Roman of the afterlife:
No generally accepted doctrine taught that there is anything after death

other than a cadaver. Lacking a common doctrine, Romans did not know
what to think;consequently they assumed nothing and believed nothing.:

Veyne cluding function here equates that Romans the validity of beliefs about with their degree because of uniformity, that belief is necessary. produce some beliefs mandate for had by the con
lacked beliefs approach framework,
the afterlife
they did not agree can only
on the specifics.
Veyne's
requires
an assumption
in an orthodox
but no such assumption might need
The Roman religion consisted of worshippers holding disunified polythetic

sets of beliefs. that were uniformity powers believe, lives. more meant The overlap common of these sets of beliefs than others, but of an individual the lack of an orthodox
that the beliefs
not be affected thought
variant beliefs
held by another Roman.
A man who believed
that the di manes
to preserve
life in their own right and a man who basis, thought they were that honoring the lares were the children the manes another of a nymph
they preserved their dead that
life by posthumously invoking the help of other supernaturalbeings could both

on a practical A Roman who thought could while could help preserve form of the deified could both believe needed
and one who the lares were Worshippers Lupercalia
important
guardians about
of the home who
to be worshipped. or the god of the that could
disagree all agreeing
the nature of the god Mars
that these gods existed
and had powers
37. Rose 1933. One should stress thatRose does not mean simply that theremight have been individualswho participatedwithout having beliefs about the god of the festival (asmight be trueof some individuals even in aChristian ceremony) but that the festival continued for centuries without anyone having a clear belief about what theywere worshipping. Phillips 1986: 2697n.56, collects citations to other "empty cult act" arguments of this sort. For a subtler view of theLupercalia, see Wiseman 1995. 38. Veyne 1997: 219. Veyne also insists (210-17) that only poor people inRome believed that any gods actually existed, while thewealthy "did not believe in them at all" (215). Thus, he is basically asserting the "empty cult acts" position, at least for the upper class.
292
CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY
benefit the lives of worshippers. Rather than searching for orthodox doctrines in
the Roman religion (or seeing their absence as a weakness) it is better to study
clusters of beliefs in the understanding that each individual variation could be important to the belief holder's understanding of how to obtain the benefits that Rome's pantheon of gods could offer that individual.39
III. MECHANISMS This overlapping study has presented sets of beliefs, structure a model only 1: POLYMORPHISM to describe Paganism as an aggregate of
and it has so far attempted in terms of Paganism's
to explain
the existence
of such a religious
lack of an orthodox
linkage between the group identity and the correctness of beliefs. It might, however, seem excessively Christianizing to define another religion solely by
its lack of Christian mechanisms. It is not enough to define a negative. What
positive mechanisms did theRoman religion possess thatprevented ormitigated conflicts between theholders of different beliefs, so thatvariations could coexist?
What was the central of dogmas? these issues: emphasis focus of the Roman How did Iwill religion's leadership, loyalty if it was function not the within a help assertion to address the issue of religious here highlight framework and pietas,
system of endless the orthoprax
variation?
three mechanisms that Iwill the Roman concept
that will
the conceptual of the priests,
call "polymorphism," of reciprocal
obligation. A significant factor in helping to prevent religious conflict within Rome's

polythetic mean certain situation, provided distinct mixture of beliefs was the Romans' more tendency to view their gods By "aspect," to influence as I polymorphous, a particular themselves that is, possessing persona-a through more and under name name, than one form or aspect. that it performs in the Roman could context. and a propensity religion
the idea that a god, at the moment elements of human life. Deities
an act of power, possesses could manifest to in a particular that one prayed of polymorphism diversity. that were If
a set of attributes,
than one aspect. name, in a different
The god one prayed be the same god This concept
a particular
to under a different
a counter-balance or even contradictory
to the fragmenting forms and even multiple could be equated
nature of polythetic aspects, with directly
gods could have multiple
then beliefs
each other, and any
39. This method of studying clusters of belief would also be applicable to the study of modern polytheistic religions. For example, Tooker 1992 studied the religion of theAhka people of Burma andThailand. She spoke to severalAhka who asserted that a particular ceremony would remove rats, but they disagreed about which supernaturalpower caused the rats to depart. Like Veyne, Tooker
concluded that the lack of agreement showed a lack of belief, but it shows only a lack of orthodoxy.
All theAhka in question believed that the ceremony produced supernatural power that removed rats; they simply disagreed about the specifics. It seems more useful to invoke themodel of a belief cluster, inwhich a single underlying belief (that the ceremony removes rats) serves as the common foundation formultiple specific variations of equal validity.
293
resulting logical inconsistency could be dismissed as an attribute of polymorphic divinity. Polymorphism provided a way to interpretvariations in belief that did not require selecting one single correct answer from among the variants. An excellent illustration of polymorphism is a prayer thatCatullus wrote to
the goddess Diana, in which he points out that she has helped the Romans inmany forms and under many You are called names: by those suffering the pains of childbirth.
Juno Lucina
You are called powerful Trivia and Luna with the counterfeit light.You,
out the path of the year at a monthly goddess, measuring pace, fill up the home of the farmer with good produce. May you be hallowed by whatever to do in the name pleases you, and, as you were accustomed past, may you protect the people of Romulus with good aid!4o The poet goddess equates Diana with the goddess and with of childbirth, themoon-goddess Juno Lucina; with the
of the crossroads,
Trivia;
Luna, who measures
out the months experience.
for farmers. The names
refer to the same being, but she can manifest name pleases you" allows for the possibility the goddess
herself in different forms, each holding power over different areas of the human
The phrase "by whatever has other names. wording.4' provides that the goddess similarly cautious Catullus does not wish to offend
by assuming he knows which identity she prefers. Other surviving prayers show
The chain of equations a similar list, equating does not stop with Catullus. and Juno Lucina, adds a whole equates Juno, Varro (LL 5.68-69) Luna, Diana,
but adding Proserpina. (De Civ. D. 7.24) quotes Tellus,
The inclusion
of the queen of the underworld
new layer of associations lacking fromCatullus' list. Why stop there?Augustine

another passage Earth. Varro of Varro from a lost work, which (LL 5.67)
Proserpinawith the hearth-goddess Vesta; with Ops, goddess of plenty; andwith

the goddess Mother also equates Tellus with
wife of Jupiter.
40. Catullus 34.13-24, my trans. from the text of Eisenhut 1983: tuLucina dolentibus luno dicta puerperis, tupotens Trivia et notho es dicta lumineLuna. tu cursu, dea, menstruo metiens iter annuum rustica agricolae bonis tecta frugibus exples. sis quocumque tibiplacet sancta nomine, Romulique, antique ut solita es, bona sospites ope gentem! 41. For example, from the prayer for the devotio that Macrobius (Sat. 3.9.6-13) claims was
recited the deity at the end of in a grove the Third Punic War: "or by whatever other name si dea it is proper es). to call you"
(sive vos quo alio nomine fas est nominare). Cato (Agr. 139) gives the formula for sacrificing to
"whether you are a god or a goddess" (si deus,
294
ANTIQUITY CLASSICAL
Varro quotes lines by Ennius goddess Ceres presenting equating (LL 5.64). Ceres,

Ops with As Varro both had the earth and with also linked Ops to
the agricultural texts
Proserpina (see above), he thus equates Ceres with Proserpina. There are other
that do the same, not Proserpina, as the queen of the
underworld. Statius (Theb. 4.459-60) refers to the goddess of the underworld as "Deep Ceres" (profunda Ceres), and Ceres is linked to the dead in sources describing several rituals, including the opening of themundus and the porca praecidanea.42 Servius mentions a little known ceremony called the "Weddingof Orcus," which commemorates themarriage of Ceres (not Proserpina) to the ruler
of the underworld.43 by noting As this list of equations whom Virgil began with Diana, Statius makes it is fitting to end it (Ach. 1.344-48) amajor power in that she too can be linked to the underworld. (Aen. 6.117-18)
equates Diana with Hecate,
the underworld. This list of divine equations illustrates several phenomena. The sheer number
of ways that different goddesses could be equated is an example of polythetic
variation, showing overlapping sets of variant beliefs. Not only does the list of equated goddesses present several differentways to view thenature and attributes
of each beliefs individual about which goddess, goddesses such as Diana should or Ceres, but it also shows varying be equated together and, by implication,
variations in the respective jurisdictions over which the goddesses held sway. The list also illustrates theway that the idea of polymorphism can eliminate conflicts
between goddess incompatible with scenarios. scenario, Varro records a long series of equations to other writers, Ops of one but he another. He attributes some of the variations with
does not pick a favorite equate Ceres with it is possible can be equated do not simply Varro married and Juno of Ceres may
and he does not give any indication and Proserpina Varro's the goddess approach depends
that he sees a (and thus, to that identities each other When virgin) equation equation is carefully expand the a goddess
reason not to equate both Ceres Proserpina). for goddesses directly with to stress have different
on an assumption and that those
to have multiple each other. that the goddesses names,
identities, being
It is important links Diana
identified
with with The Such
but distinct The
personas
and attributes.4 (another
and Proserpina, only also logical
he is equating raises
a virgin goddess of Vesta
to the ruler of the underworld. (another wife) and Proserpina
addition with
the level of complications. daughter. than the Christian The Christian and Christians
identifies mother contradiction theology, open-ended.
an equation
not be a greater and limited
Trinity's Trinity cannot
of father and son, but it is far more defined by Christian
42. King 1998: 350-57, 387-89. 43. Servius adGeorg. 1.344.Wagenvoort 1980: 137-40 notes the existence of Greek parallels, i.e., theGreek god Hades marrying Demeter and not, asmore frequently stated, Persephone. 44. For this reason, I prefer the term "polymorphism" (many forms) to "polyonymy" (many names), a termused byMacMullen 1981: 90.
295
Trinity by equating Jesus with Neptune. The Pagan system rested on the idea
that the number large. Any of aspects a deity possessed was unknown and possibly quite deity could potentially be amanifestation of a number of other deities,
though different Romans would not necessarily agree about which deities were aspects of one another.45 Divine polymorphism had various attractions and applications. Multiple
aspects allowed specificity relevant in prayer, to one's as one could pray to the aspect of the god not that seemed most situation: Diana as goddess of childbirth,
moon. Roman religious practice could separatedeities into separate goddess of the attributes andworship each in separate temples-Jupiter Propugnator, not Jupiter Optimus Maximus or Jupiter Fulgur; Venus Genetrix, not Venus Verticordia or Venus Victrix.46This subdivision of deities could also explain why prayers failed
to bring results. One had prayed to the wrong aspect. Catullus' formula "by
whatever name pleases you" tried tominimize the possibility of such error.The same formula hints at another benefit. Polymorphism could reduce the amount
of ceremonial equated with obligation each other, that each worshipper prayed to Diana, owed the gods. If deities could be had three her to have then it was not necessary mentioned to worship them all separately.
In one prayer, Catullus other manifestations,
that the goddess that allowed
and then included
a broad formula
any number of additional identities. Polymorphism could also have the opposite effect, increasing the number of
gods by adding new aspects the Greeks, traditions That they simply could adopted Greek myths to existing equated paradigms. When of the Greek allowing which the Romans gods with religious deities could encountered their own innovation and to be some
as descriptions
of the attributes of their own gods. Dissimilar together, precisely
thus be grafted ever defined
presented as tradition.
no Roman be equated with
which other deities created an ambiguity that could itself be useful for those
who wished to introduce the worship of new gods or change the focus of existing
ceremonies. Feeney 1998: 28-31 has recently emphasized thedegree towhich the emperorAugustus reworked the infrequentlyheld Ludi Saeculares, changing them
from ceremonies for Jupiter, changed in honor of the chthonic Terra Mater, gods Dis Diana, and Proserpina participant to ceremonies Augustus said with have Juno Regina, and Apollo. Clearly,
the emphasis
of the Ludi, but could
a Roman
45. Wiedemann 1990: 64-78 rejects the idea of multiple aspects in theRoman religion, citing Palmer 1974: 3-56, who studied different regional cults in Italy devoted to Juno. Palmer pointed out that while the goddess had the same name (Juno), she had distinct attributes at each site. Palmer is right to point out thatdifferent aspects of a deity may have incompatible attributes, but the passages fromCatullus andVarro (cited inmain text above) show that incompatible attributeswere no barrier to direct equation of one deity with another. It is also worth noting that some of the distinct attributes thatPalmer attributes to the various Junos are polymorphic equations with other goddesses, including theGreek Hera, theRoman Venus, and even the Semitic goddess Astarte (Ishtar). 46. On the temples to Venus and Jupiter's many incarnations, see Richardson 1992: 165-67, 218-28, 408-11.
296
CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY
certainty that thegoddesses worshipped in theAugustan ritualwere different from Proserpina when, earlier in theRepublic, Varro had alreadymade the cluster of
equations innovation. Proserpina could = Tellus allow = Diana = Juno = Ceres? even (See citations above.) Polymorphism a degree of continuity in the case of substantial
At the same time, however, polymorphism could also allow compartmen talization of borrowed traditionswhenever itwas convenient. Christian church
fathers Jupiter liked to point to mythological stories of sexual of Roman activity deities by gods like and Venus as proof of the unworthiness for worship in Pagan to suggest their certain
(e.g., Arnobius Adv. Nat. 3.27-28; 4.22). Many of the sexual behaviors in ques
tion (incest, society worship. whom The modem pursuing of Krishna adultery, rape) would have been as unacceptable of such stories for humans as they would If there was have been for the Christians, a form of Jupiter who as the protector forms, shepherd but there is nothing the Greek
that the Pagans
felt that the attribution
to their gods affected Zeus
shared with
tales of lustful or incestuous conduct, therewas also JupiterOptimus Maximus,

one could worship god could have many equivalent of the Roman was where state (e.g., CIL 6.32323). a matter of context. A popular stories of Krishna and his persona in Hinduism,
can be found
love affairs with
girls have no detrimental to defuse religious
effect on the worship tensions within the
as a major Hindu
deity.47
Polymorphism
served as a safety valve
community and, indeed, to prevent conflicts from developing in the first place. Within theRoman community's polythetic variety of beliefs, any Roman would
have been aware of multiple but there was understood there was the deity was no need Faunus, the Lupercalia no need religious interpretations of different equated of the nature of many to argue. gods, for the holders and another between views If one Roman deity Pan,
to be in honor of the god Inuus, and another believed the god with the Greek could the variations.48 supernatural They being, all be right, (108L) for gods
to choose
for the god could possess multiple identities. IfOvid (Fasti 2.597-616) thought
the lares were thought the children the deified of a particular dead, but Festus valid, they were the two scenarios alone asserted were both equally
could have multiple identities with incompatible attributes. Indeed, according

to Arnobius (Adv. Nat. 3.41), Varro that the lares had a
47. Dimock andLevertov 1967: xiv and 77-79. The Hindu idea of theavatar shareswith Roman thought the premise that gods can have many forms with distinct personas. It differs in having a much more elaborate theological framework, forHinduism is amuch more dogmatic and scripturally based form of polytheism than theRoman religion. Rome had no text equivalent in authority to the Bhagavad Gita, inwhich Krishna claims to be the same god as Vishnu, Indra, and Shiva. Hindu theologians also sometimes assert that all gods aremanifestations of a single deity. Cf. Sen 1961: 20-21, 37-38. Such all-encompassing pantheism can be found in theRoman world in the cult of Isis (e.g., Apuleius Met. 11.5) and in certain late-Roman philosophical traditions thatwere influenced by Plato (aboutwhich seeWilken 1984: 94-196), but it is not found inmainstream Paganism of the early Empire. 48. Wiseman 1995 collects the citations.

single mother and that they were the deified dead, and then added several
297
other
possibilities, equating the lareswith the curetes, with theSamothracianDigiti and might arise in these equationswere the Idaeandactyli. Logical contradictions that
manifestations of divine nature, and the gods did not have to function according to
human rules of consistency. As a conceptual framework, divine polymorphism countered cultural trends
that might lead toward the formation model. When of an orthodox disagreed religious system by providing of a the an alternative to assert differences two Romans about their understanding for they could understand aspects
deity, they could bothworship according to theirpersonal beliefs without theneed

that one was right and the other wrong, as a focus in their views upon different of the same divine
power. Christians of theRoman empire rightly recognized polymorphism to be incompatiblewith theirown (moremonothetic) understanding of doctrine. There are diatribes against polymorphic equations of Roman deities in thewritings of Augustine (De Civ. D. 7.7-13, 23-24), Minucius Felix (Oct. 22.5-23.1), and Arnobius (Adv.Nat. 3.41-42).
Arnobius to admit which he said was an ex-Pagan convert to Christianity, and he was candid enough consistency on the Pagan they wished was important on the points existed (3.42). response, to have to the that and that the Pagans would that they would many not forms assert not concede simply the need for doctrinal he imagined form What
his own criticism
was based
(3.42). When
that the gods had whatever to manifest.
had a "form of their own
type" (formam and however Pagans was all the various had power:
sui generis). to reconcile conflicting
The gods they wished scenarios
the contradictions, had of authors proves
but to focus they do exist"
in common,
that the gods
"The consensus
IV. MECHANISMS Itwould "anything possessed festivals.49 times when disputes. unable Romans be going
2: OFFICIAL
ORTHOPRAXY attitude toward religion was The Roman that
too far to assert that Roman lacked times religious and a religious in which
goes," There Still,
or that Rome were also
authorities. religious such of
religion and were that the the details followed, toward ritual of
a variety of priests the Romans
calendar marking
the dates of various developed conflicts to settle religious themselves,
conflicts religious
invoked political of a recent over priests of disputes the Roman to accept.
and legal mechanisms study of the nature there were procedure
the authors in which required
to find examples were
the deities over
or examples
put forth a creed
of beliefs
Instead, that accepted control
disputes
of ritual procedure, jurisdictional alternative for the whole religious
accusations hierarchies
had not been
battles over who would community.
ritual procedure, the priests'
and hostility right to define
that challenged
The nature of these disputes
reveals
the priorities
49. On the festivals and calendar, see Sabbatucci 1988 and Scullard 1981.
298
CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY
Rome's priests. They were focused on orthopraxy, the correctness of ritual, rather thanorthodoxy, the correctness of belief.5" Like polymorphism, orthopraxywas amechanism thatprovided an alternative to a focus upon asserting exclusive sets of beliefs as the organizing principle
of religious activity. Some scholars have viewed a focus upon ritual rather
simplistically as being an alternative to the belief in supernatural beings, but

such a view were does not explain the frequency with which on the powers of the gods Imperial for a invoked.5 James L. Watson's Watson presents research a model the religion of Late
China offers a more sophisticated interpretation,which shows many parallels

with Roman practice. of a system that "allowed
high degree of variations within an overarching structureof unity."An extremely varied and diverse collection of religious beliefs was present in the community. Insteadof attempting to reconcile the contradictions of those beliefs and assert an orthodox theology, the state priests instead focused on encouraging conformity in ritualpractice. Thus, religion could still provide a degree of cultural unity through
common performance of uniform of the rituals by members rituals by priests of of the community and regular while a performance could could be on behalf of the community, The same
wide range of beliefs about the specific nature of the gods being worshipped
left to the discretion by the individual held different participant. beliefs model rituals of be employed those who within the context
state-encouraged ritual conformity.52

As Evelyn entirely the belief Moreover, promote ability could remove S. Rawski rightly stressed, Watson's from specific the business ceremonies of orthopraxy beliefs. does not It merely the religion of promoting
Orthopraxy still depends on limits the assertion of beliefs to certain categories.53

that the gods want any ceremony general to address leave beliefs to be performed a particular invoked in a particular purpose will and that god's priest of the I way and that it is possible for humans to know exactly which to accomplish of the god being the prayer. is that the orthoprax interpretation toMars and orthopraxy rituals the gods want.
that is intended in the existence orthodoxy of beliefs
the problem between
that motivated
The difference worshipper and wanted above), once
large categories a specific
to the discretionary the basic points in Cato's prayer
the priest had affirmed ritual offering.
that the god had power (in section ability also in the deity's the worshipper
Thus,
the prayer required
that the worshipper
share a belief
and willingness
to help a farm, but it did not matter whether
50. Beard, North, and Price 1998: 99-108, 211-44. The college of pontiffs regulated the form of private rituals, like funerals and rites for the deified dead, as well as state-sponsored ceremonies. See Livy 1.20.5-7 andCicero Leg. 2.48-57. For a general discussion of thepontiffs and other Roman priests, see Beard andNorth 1990: 17-71, 177-255; and Szemler 1986. 51. Staal 1979. Cf. rebuttal by Penner 1985. 52. Watson 1988: 3-19, quotation from 16. Cf. Rives 1999: 152-54 on Rome in the era of Decius. 53. Rawski 1988: 20-26. More generally, cf. Penner 1985: 12-13.

viewed Mars even connected as a war-god, Mars or also identified Mars with the Greek deity Ares,
299
or
to the god of the Lupercalia
and thus equated
him with Pan,
Faunus, Inuus, and other "gods of sexual energy and desire."54Thus, orthopraxy contributed to the existence of "graded"polythetic belief clusters by reinforcing general beliefs about the gods and their powers while allowing a proliferation of disparate interpretations about the specific natures of those gods. The priests would not define the nature of Mars, and Romans with different beliefs could perform the same ritual.
In practice, approach the Pagan focus upon orthopraxy to please produced a rather different be found in to the activity of attempting a deity than would
an orthodox system like Christianity. Christians operate on the assumption that their possession of a particular set of correct beliefs is desirable to the deity that
they worship and that the deity is judging them according to the degree that they
properly possess and endorse those beliefs. Thus, to please the deity to a greater degree, or to respond to some perceived sign of divine displeasure, would involve purifying one's personal set of beliefs, strengthening one's endorsement of central dogmas while attempting to expunge other unorthodox, impure, or simply less religious ideas from one's mind. Even when religious behavior involves ritual,
it is presented of American Savior?" as an expression evangelists of a set of beliefs. you accepted in the Eucharist desired. Thus, regularly?" The gods wanted sought ceremonies the favorite question and is "Have Jesus Christ as your Lord
not "Do you participate were what
For the orthoprax Pagans, carefully performed rituals, not carefully purified
sets of beliefs, the gods were If the benefits displeasure, or to consult would be more appeared, A the deities to respond
conducted in specific ways, and if the ceremonies were properly conducted

supposed with the benefits by worshippers. of divine carefully, the benefit ritually did not appear, or there was then the solution was some authority pleasing to perform like a pontiff problem did closely offerings. some perceived the ceremony to determine indication again more
if some other ceremony context. When
to the deity
in that particular disappeared, beliefs
or the perceived to the gods
then the gods had been (section pleased I above), with
satisfied and had reciprocated accordingly."5

sacrifice involve but there was if the existed, of the that not they no assumption worshipper's Ritual gods' had powers, that the gods would beliefs more needed and wanted be more the sacrifice that the gods with
resembled Variations
some postulated in beliefs
ideal set of beliefs.
participants
to agree with
each other only
about other aspects the belief
nature could coexist be pleased
as long as they were by the ceremony of priests
all compatible
the gods would even personally could draw upon
in question. Worshippers For procedural who
would details,
need to be experts on ritual procedure. the authority
such as the pontiffs,
could consult
54. Wiseman
1995:
16; quotation
from p. 8.
55. See Ogilvie 1969: 41-52 and Linderski 1993, citing examples from Livy.
300
CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY
written records of earlier rituals andwho could add to the accumulation of those precedents by innovating if a specifically appropriateprecedent was lacking.56 The ideas of polymorphism and orthopraxywere intertwined and interdepen dent. Polymorphism provided a device to link togetherdisparate beliefs as directly equivalent, and the orthoprax focus on common ritual action provided the glue thatheld those linkages togetherwithout requiring all participants to sharemore
than the general and would belief that in situation Z god Y wanted was ritual X to be performed also an element of the reward those who did so. Polymorphism
underlying rationale for orthopraxy. If the gods could have multiple identities with incompatible attributes, and itwas impossible to know how many identities
any given sense deity possessed, then the gods' natures were unknowable and itmade and that they to concentrate only on basic points: that the gods had powers
wanted offerings. Other attributes could be left undefined, and therewas no reason to choose a single correct answer from the clusters of variations in circulation.
It is true that there were threat was regulate motivated Even still primarily cult limits on the variation of beliefs in Rome, but even priests were to not
when theRoman government took action against sects it found threatening, the
one of bypassing of beliefs. beliefs the authority North's that the Roman of Rome's authorities ritual, not in a violation by objections the persecution willing to Bacchic analysis of the suppression
of the Bacchic
in 186 BC has shown
but rather by a fear of the autonomous fits this pattern. even Pliny the Younger that he did
organization and leadership of theBacchic cult.57

of the Christians were, was perfectly their religious an organization middle the control G. E. M. Christians the religion, huge amounts to torture Christians, though he admitted Pliny knew was their own
not know what Christians of mostly
and that, after questioning (Ep. 10.96). What who had to perform or religious out, surviving
them, he did not find that they were in the outside for often As the outside accept but but as leaders, met They were sacrifices, to worship. They were could
ideas threatening and refused political pointed "gods"
poor people
of the night,
standard sacrifices. authority perform asked
of Rome's
and were
threatening
that reason. The Pagans de Ste. Croix rejected do not specify which
demanded
that the Christians were being
texts about
the persecutions
the Christians conceived in beliefs
all the gods but their own, within
it did not matter. the framework
as the Romans of variation
of religion.58
The Romans
of their rituals,
56. On innovation, see North 1976, and cf. Beard andNorth 1990. The pontiffs had no specific religious training prior to assuming the priesthood, but they had access to the accumulated written records of prior rituals, and they were being called upon to comment on the proper form of those rituals. It seems reasonable to assume that theywould acquire a high level of expertise about ritual procedure during a tenure thatwould last years. The amateur nature of Rome's priesthoods should not be exaggerated. 57. North 1979. 58. Ste. Croix 1974: 216-17. He also stresses that therewas no specific law or legalmechanism underwhich theChristians were persecuted. Itwas done under the prerogative of magistrates (and emperors) as those rulers saw fit.
301
they could not accept thewholesale substitution of a different set of rituals or a different set of priests. Still, even Christianity's overt challenge to the orthoprax authority of the
Roman priests did not bring a consistent response from the Pagans, for there was
no regularprocedure to deal with such problems, and enforcement was largely left up to the discretion of individual emperors or even individual local officials. The
persecution of Christians was sporadic and localized and, even in the city of Rome
itself, hardly consistent in its application.Moreover, the Jews, who also had their own religious hierarchy,were normally tolerated inways that theChristians were not.59 Phillips characterized the Roman leadership's attitude toward improper
religious priests suppress attempt activity as being one of "I know sort of action, the religion itwhen I see it." The government never a systematic might to any to
occasionally find a religious organization threatening to the control of the state

and take some all competing to define what but there was policy never any creed forms of religious ought hierarchy, and there was
to be in detail or to establish
which everyone should adhere.6' Within the framework of accepting the priests' right to define ritual procedure, enormous amounts of variation in belief could
coexist, and even that right to define ritual was not always asserted aggressively.
V. MECHANISMS 3:PIETAS
The polymorphic multitude of beliefs and orthoprax about qualities of the Roman to coexist while religion allowed a the gods)
the nature of the gods gods mean
emphasizing
need for ritualofferings. The gods (inwhatever form)wanted offerings (in specific
forms), but there were than any one Roman the idea of being model a model it equally flexible for the proper that they also useful enough also more Roman (and variant forms of Roman could have worshipped relationship frequently pietas between employed regularly. One might in such a framework. and gods was in familial religion. and political It was while demanding humans ask then what The Roman that of pietas, contexts.6" enough time
loyal to the gods would
The very qualities in its obligations
that made as a model
a useful model
for a family were what made at the same
for the Roman ongoing a much
to reinforce to accommodate
ritual activity, greater
range in the number
and degree
of possible religious obligations than a monotheistic religion like Christianity could accommodate.
The Roman (A) concept of pietas had several components: PIETASWAS RECIPROCAL.
59. 60. 61. Latinae
Compare Frend 1984 and Ste. Croix 1974, on theChristians, toGruen 2002, on the Jews. Phillips 1991. Cf. Phillips 1986: 2733-52. For a full rangeof citations, see entries onpietas and itsderivatives in theThesaurus Linguae or in any of several computerized databases like Pandora that allow forword searches.
302
CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY
As Richard Saller has shown in his work

on the Roman family, to be pius was but rather that
not simply
to be obedient
to some authority
(like a father, for example),
to be in fulfillment
of one's obligations
toward another party in a relationship
was understood to be reciprocal, so that the other party could and should offer benefits in return as the relationship continued over time.62In familial contexts, pietas emphasized themutual support that family members could provide each other at different points in their lives. One story used to illustrate familial pietas describes a daughterwho breastfed her own imprisonedmother, just as themother
once fed her as an infant (Pliny NH 7.121; Val. Max. 5.4.7). Pietas with the gods
was also reciprocal. The gods could give benefits to humans, but humans gave offerings and reverence to the gods. Both sides of the reciprocitywere assumed to be importantby participants in the ongoing worship.63
One should stress that being a model were in a state of reciprocity for the interdependence to gods; citizens citizens. Likewise is different of parties were from being in unequal to the held equal. Often relationships. Citizens pietas was
Humans
not equal
not equal
state; childrenwere not equal to theirparents, but their interestswere interwoven.

needed the state, but the state also needed in his family unit, but he would in a wide variety of ways. and spouse A paterfamilias the balance of power nevertheless need the support in religion, Roman
of his children
worshippers assumed theirgods tobe farmore powerful than themselves, but they nevertheless believed that they could offer gods things that the gods wanted or
needed. Cato prays god "be increased" toMars (macte) for aid for a farm (Agr. 141.2-3), as a result of the offering. but he also prays the unequal The power was
but the relationshipwas reciprocal.

(B) THE OBLIGATIONS OF PIETAS WERE AND BINDING THAT THROUGHOUT WAS THE OFTEN LENGTH OF A GIVEN OR RELATIONSHIP, EVEN PERMANENT RELATIONSHIP
OF LONG-TERM
DURATION.
In familial birth. As assumed other Saller pietas
contexts,
pietas
was
supposed
to occur
naturally
as a result of as a naturally or some of the in which the length This as The by is
has shown, to be present or adoption
legal
texts
in the Digest
treat pietas
occurring obligation for relatives to support each other's interests, and the jurists
even when the emancipation blood relatives to exist a relationship of being together of children after birth throughout legal mechanism expected, technically might was but pietas binding BC separated introduce element in the eyes
law. Marriage pietas was of
still supposed
that relationship
as an intrinsic
in that relationship. can be found mutual of in writing (2.13.19).
idea of natural pietas early degree to which
the family rhetorical
as the first-century doubtless
treatise Ad Herennium into practical but the existence
this ideal of pietas varied
translated in practice,
support the ideal
family members
62. Saller 1988. 63. Note the heavy emphasis placed on reciprocity in theRoman religion by Linderski 1993.
303
nevertheless important.Pious reciprocitywas supposed to be ongoing as long as the relationship continued to exist, and failure to uphold the obligations of pietas
would be a negatively defined action in Roman society.'M Pietas with the gods
could also involve perpetual reciprocal obligation, a reciprocity between deities who were supposed to be immortal and generations of Roman worshippers. It
was over certainly possible for new gods worshippers to be introduced and for rituals to change a high into time, but for Roman inherited reciprocal ongoing at any given moment generation.65 Thus, in history,
percentage of the gods being worshipped and ceremonies being performedwould

have been an ongoing from an earlier relationship pietas was one could be born with the gods, which itwas one's pious duty to of the deity who had been
continue.
To violate to risk the wrath
deprived of theworshipper's contribution to the reciprocity. Plautus (Aul. 1-27) has a larfamiliaris explain its relationshipwith threegenerations of worshippers. The grandfather and granddaughterworshipped faithfully and received rewards, but the intervening father neglected the lar and suffered negative consequences accordingly.
Plautus a whole as essential be attributed Carm. was describing to maintain a single family, crisis, but for the Roman with the gods of religious continuity could crop failure, neglect The community as the need proper pietas be presented could (e.g., and its
for survival. to divine
A military
or other problem obligations of society
anger over human Maximus 1.1.16-21).
Livy 22.57; Cicero Marcell.

3.6; Valerius
18 and Verr. 4.114; Ovid Fasti 2.547-56; Horace
prosperity depended on theRoman people maintaining their end of the reciprocal relationship, and doing so perpetually.
Roman authors placed (1.1.8) priority great importance the gods upon the continuity favored given It was 1.19-20) such claims of worship. the Romans the performance likewise rou at the very begin or Aeneas was not had never Some a Va is lerius Maximus of rituals greater insisted that the reason concerns the gods (1.1.9-15). created (Livy, of
that they had never tine for the Romans ning of their history (Ovid Fasti always solid, 2.543-46).
neglected to claim by figures Even
and had always
than other
that their rituals were such as King Numa if the historical was a way of insisting reality
their assertion
that the gods continuity.
been neglected, times, archaeology worshipped
at least not since before can even support claims Jupiter
the beginning of long-term
of the Republic. location
The Romans for over
Capitoline
at (approximately)
the same
thousand years.66
64. Saller 1988, especially 399-403. 65. On continuity and change in general, see North 1976. For the introduction of new gods, see Ogilvie 1969: 114-15 and, somewhat differently, Basanoff 1947. 66. On the pre-Republican first temple toCapitoline Jupiter, see Cornell 1995: 102, and for later versions, Richardson 1992: 221-24.
304
CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY
The idea that the safety of the Roman

community depended upon continuity an exceptional of rank (1. 1.9), killed family responsible of
worship Maximus members
meant
that a high valuation examples
was placed who
on those who made gave up privileges their grief
effort to see thatRome's obligations to its gods were not neglected. Valerius
collected of Romans risked personal injury (1. 1.1 1), and put aside for recently that they were
(1. 1.15) in order tomake
sure that ceremonies
for performing were performed properly. One pontifex refused to interrupt a temple dedication thathe was conducting even when itwas suddenly announced
that his son had died the fact that Valerius to please was the gods, an important (5.10.1). is holding The historicity continuity of the stories is less important than them up as examples of ideal conduct. that the gods' The need the gods, reciprocal
and to maintain duty, for failure
in a pattern of pleasing
to do so could mean
benefits and protections would not be forthcoming. Still, theRomans' concept of loyalty to their gods was ratherdifferent from a Christian concept of religious loyalty, which is built around monotheistic exclusiveness. From a strictly Christian point of view, Pagan religious loyalty
contained emphasis there was Romans much somewhat on the need a notable had so many paradoxical elements. On the one hand, of worship. aspects of could On there was a great for perpetual gods continuity in some the other hand, individual worship. them all.
lack of continuity them all regularly
that no Roman
have worshipped
less worshipped Likewise, discussing of alternative Thus, The to Quirinus,
over a long period,
and few, if any, of the theorist Rodney that is, that the to the farm, or in to help to pray his
regularlyoccurring rituals involved thepersonal participation of thewhole Roman

population. Stark when of gods existence or pray one could note an issue raised by religious polytheism gods made in general. price" a farmer or neither, which it will deity each Stark argued god instead of worship of any individual individual could pray choosing continuity to worship deity, that an abundance less essential
lowered
the "exchange in Rome, or both, need
worshipper.67
to Ceres
to Mars the many
some other god. the ability
to maintain
did not preclude
to pick and choose these phenomena, of pietas:

COULD LINK
from among
Rome's pantheon.
To assess of the concept
(C)
be useful
to discuss
three further qualities
PIETAS
PARTIES
IN MULTIPLE
RELATIONSHIPS
SIMUL
TANEOUSLY.
(D) PIETAS COULD LINK AND BOTH INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS, ALLOWING FOR BOTH INDIVIDUAL COLLECTIVE RECIPROCITY.
67. Stark 1999: 274-75. He does not develop this point in regard toRome, but makes several unusual statements aboutGreece, e.g. that "mostGreek gods were notoriously undependable," and that "Zeus was ... not very concerned about human affairs." He does not cite any Greek sources, nor does he explain how he ismeasuring religious dissatisfaction if long continuity of worship is not evidence of the reverse.
305
(E)
IN A CASE WHERE PARTIES, AND THE
PIETAS
LINKED
AN
INDIVIDUAL DID TO NOT
IN RELATIONSHIPS HAVE TO BE OF EQUAL COULD BE
TO MULTIPLE STRENGTH, RANKED
THE RELATIONSHIPS OBLIGATIONS OF OWED
EACH
PARTY
IN A HIERARCHY
IMPORTANCE.
Pietas a wide who
was
not exclusive.
Just as a family member simultaneously, chose to give whom
could be linked by pietas could maintain to Ceres rather multiple
to
range of relatives (for whatever not being reason) disloyal
so a Roman his offering
pious relationshipswith multiple gods without that implying disloyalty. A farmer

than to on Mars was toMars, the same Roman might worship
another occasion. Thus, pietas is rather different from Christian monotheistic ideas of religious loyalty, wherein devotion to the one deity precludes worship
of any other.
Pietas could also be collective, linking individuals to groups. Children (as a group) might have collective obligations to parents, and citizens (collectively)
owed pietas worshipper god, or even could sacrifice actually sources a whole 4.905-32) his history, These munity Equally portray to the state. Likewise, with multiple toMars the entire Roman the ceremony individual 4.1.10; (Livy Roman pietas with the gods could link an individual to any individual god. Cato Roman as only one person to one or more community some activity (Ovid Fasti community to end Apollo com side of of the Thus, gods, but also link a group of Romans community (as a unit) household, or priests although sacrificing or to assist of the whole (2.131) "boys"
to an individual
on behalf of his whole leaders
performed
(Agr. 141). On a broader of those gods
scale, numerous
gods, while that would did not have
invoking
the protection interest
for the Roman like agriculture
(Val. Max. or war
Livy 41.16.1; 1. 32.6-10).
CIL 6.32323), on behalf Paterculus
be of broad to come and Horace examples
to the community, Prayers Velleius
from priests. (Carm. show
offers one to worship
1.21) urges unidentified could
andDiana on behalf of thepopulus.

that the Romans conceive of the Roman with member up the Roman of individuals. eternal (as a whole) importantly, and might as being one side of a reciprocal that the rituals to be conducted between by each relationship individual any god.
they show
that made
that reciprocity community there was of worship gods. As the collective commitments. might Romans (Livy 22.57).
did not need
be conducted
only by a small number the ideal of maintaining Romans was maintaining that the Romans and bolster
no contradiction and the reality long as someone pietas displeasure If there was If life was
continuity all of their then in their
that individual in the community with would suggest
did not worship
the worship, were failing
of the Romans
all of those gods was being upheld. Only at Cannae, then the Romans in some way and the with satisfied,
a sign of divine investigate assumed
a disaster,
like the defeat
the possibility running
of neglect smoothly,
their worship
then the gods were an appropriate
that they were maintaining
level of pietas
all theirdivine protectors.
306
CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY
It is also intrinsic to the concept of pietas

that one's piety did not have to
have equal force in all cases, for it could apply to different types of relationships,
and one could state as more to rank pietas and wife Ovid Met. obligations some gods rank them in a hierarchy important between of importance. When relatives important Valerius Maximus and seemed husband pia, of other with the (inpietate
collected illustrationsof pietas, he regarded theobligations thatcitizens owed the

than those between brothers as more (5.6, praef.), impiety" than that between at the expense
(5.5, praef.). 8.477),
One could even be "pious as less central. one could mass also have
through
that is, advance worship,
one set of obligations
that one regarded than others,
In day-to-day than a cousin.
a stronger
bond of pietas ties with uphold
just as one could have of Roman
stronger religious
familial
a father
The collective
activity would
overall pietas of the community with its gods, but individualworshippers were under no obligation toworship any particulargod, and could thereforeconcentrate on worshipping those deities that seemed most central to theirpersonal situation. If Romans had limited budgets for sacrificial animals, or limited time to spend conducting rituals, theywould have concentrated their resources on theworship
of those gods whose Both many with powers they believed to be most relevant to their lives. that pietas de the focus of worship the most gods, and the amount relationship of personal with (Aul. of pietas offerings also effort
manded could vary quite a bit, depending on theworshipper's circumstances. For

Romans, intensive the gods would 1-27). have been suggested of a re the household household like the lares and manes, lar familiaris worship to make for the very reasons
by Plautus' particular sponsibilities going
story of
the angry would had
Only members
that household's regular
lares. So the practical fell heavily because ways
of maintaining who
the reciprocity gods were
on the members no one else was the gods of first and away the welfare
of the household, resort, because household (Val. Max. went
to do so. The household their specific Juvenal
in many prayed could
zone of supernatural Romans 12.99-114) 385-87)
influence was even
of their family of worshippers. 2.4.5; (Tibullus 1.1.19-24). II above).
to lares for their health in situations ensure that a wedding livestock the lives of essential to of that
and their safety Lares
from the family home smoothly (Cato Agr. 2. 1; Tibullus their freedom the welfare their worshippers
1.10.15-32). Manumitted Likewise, Thus,
(Plautus Aul.
or look after a farm or the family's slaves would the manes the household was could sustain gods were
thank the lares for
(Horace Sat. 1.5.66). (section of the family,
and their worship of gods outside or location, of specific by a prayer
the specific
obligation would
particular household.
A given Roman's matter of perceived interests, problems, set of beliefs of an offering, worship need occupation, major the household combined with largely be a particular to invoke or a vow need and thus be dependent deities. on the worshipper's A Roman who wished an offering benefit.
his or her particular
about the powers accompanied
the power of Rome's
temple deities
could do so, making for a specific
Such worship

not occur on any regular basis, a daily burning specific and might be infrequent or something or even a response less frequent, an offering
307
to a one
time crisis.68 There was also worship associated with occupations, which might be
of incense before work, like weddings. like an annual to a god like
sacrifice at the harvest. Other gods (often lacking temples) were associated with
occasions A Roman might make Hymenaeus (Cat. 61) only quite rarely in a lifetime, if at all.
Even within the context of the same situation, different Romans might make different decisions about worship, for the clusters of beliefs about the natures of Rome's gods meant that theremight be substantial variation in their beliefs
about believed Ceres the powers that Mars instead, both of a given was Mars god to address powerful with war equally a given god problem. his If one Roman and another offerings toward to the of either the most primarily were to help farm,
farmer associated option would
and preferred possible, pietas
to make
options
and the exercise of the community
still contribute
to the overall
god in question. Thus, individual and collective pietas combined to form a complex model
of practical their overall maintaining make show offerings the same worship. success At was the level of the community, due to their collective pietas of their worship, the Romans with believed that By of all their gods. the continuance
the continuity
they had assured
the gods' reciprocal benefits. At the individual level, pietas obligated Romans to
to the gods, but it did not require them toworship frequency Romans of ritual offerings engaged and whose to each god in a variety power every god, nor to concentrating they that they did worship.
Instead, relevant
individual
of ritual activity,
theirworship most intensively on those deities whose sphere of power was most
to their situations could best provide the benefits
specifically desired. Individual desires for divine benefits led to individual acts of worship through which worshippers sought to obtain those benefits through reciprocal interaction with the gods. The cumulative effect of all of those individual expressions
of pietas, community worship. worship with though, Even was to maintain of the collective gods, pietas whom overall between the Roman of that deity's might in fact of worship would and each deity in the case great and to assure during the collective a lifetime, continuity
the wedding regularly, (1.1.8)
an individual continuity
infrequency took place
was assured. Weddings have received Romans. Thus,
so the gods of weddings people, insisted, was the Romans
regular worship even
from the Roman
just not the same individual did not neglect all of them by to to as being gods. mechanism
as Valerius Maximus if, individually, mass
any of their gods, nor all worshipping which the overall the collective benefit
they were
neither worshipping thus a conceptual could with be presented
the same gods. Pietas of the community between
a very disunified reciprocity
of ritual behavior as a whole, the Roman
each act contributing
people
and their many
68. See, in general, Ogilvie 1969: 24-52.
308
CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY
VI. CONCLUSIONS To attempt two hypothetical seriously other ill. One is a Roman to tie together individuals, is a Christian, Pagan, who some of the strands of the above argument, who I are
will conclude here by offering a comparison between the religious strategies of

both of whom is making are the fathers of children to heal his children, for healing prayer who prays to his deity a similar and the
to the god
Aesculapius. How would the experience of making these prayers be different for
the two men? At existed, the basic Both had level of offering fathers would to heal That stressing. the prayer the children, would Pietas itself there would capable be conceptual praying and as of to or start of hearing the Pagan similarities. responding the Christian underlying believe that the god to whom and was be as true of they were
the power to prayer. is worth
these points
and orthopraxy
are not alternatives and the major Both premise
holding beliefs. The reciprocity of pietas would be meaningless without an

belief that the gods exist and can reciprocate, favorably if pleased.
orthopraxy-that gods want certain rituals to be performed-likewise

the ability of the god to reciprocate
assumes
fathers would
from the belief that their respective gods could help them. The practical application of that belief would, however, involve greater
differences. or promising offerings would want The Pagan would offerings. to initiate approach want his prayer with to extend worshipped well an emphasis pattern establish on giving of giving god, he a basis the He would the giving an ongoing
to the god, or, if he had not previously of offerings, a Roman to reciprocate. place emphasis to perform The offering might on the need the sacrifice
that particular
so that he could
for the god sacrifice. priest would
be in the form of an animal precise ritual forms, likely insisting by
If the Pagan consulted
priest about his best course of action, to observe benefit, correctly would
that any failure it. If the Pagan repeating that he had made
result in the god rejecting respond
did not receive a mistake.
the desired
he would
the offering
and attempting
to perfect
his ritual form on the assumption for healing and he might to other gods continue believe name. it to on his prayer thus allow
The Pagan might appeal to other gods
have already made his appeal These in addition.
similar prayers to Aesculapius,
like the lares prior to making toAesculapius. that Aesculapius for the possibility The Christian to the mercy is possible element
other prayers had no bearing gods as he wanted. forms, to be addressed and his prayer might concentrate as all-powerful. be accompanied of divine
He could pray to as many had other polymorphic that the god would had only one god, of a being prayer not usually
He also might by a different
prefer
and thus would that he defined could be the main
on appealing Although by rituals has its own for an
and generosity that a Christian
for healing
of some sort, ritual would of reciprocity,
focus. Christianity
but it is based
on the exchange
benefits
309
exclusive monotheistic loyalty of a sort the Pagan would not offer and for an intensive concentration on orthodox beliefs. If theChristian consulted a priest about how he could become more pleasing to his god, thepriestwould not coach him on ceremonial technique, butwould rather urge him to purify his own personal set of beliefs by expunging any beliefs that would not, in the church's view, be pleasing to thatgod. Likewise, theChristian should attempt to become more religious, not in the sense of performing more rituals, but of discarding preoccupations with any secular activities thatdistracted him from Christianity's core beliefs, so that he would become more worthy of divine intervention. If one multiplied the number of Christians and Pagans in the sample, the differences would increase.Christian beliefs may not be entirely uniform, but, at leastwithin a given denomination, theyhave a common referencepoint in standard theology. By contrast, theRoman Pagans focused instead on standardized rituals in an overall pattern of reciprocity.Aside from the belief thatAesculapius could
heal the sick and that he wanted particular ceremonies, itwould not matter what a
given Roman believed Aesculapius was like. A vast number of variant beliefs could and probably would have existed simultaneously in overlapping polythetic clusters. The more gods (and aspects of gods) thePaganworshippers invoked, the larger the total range of variant beliefs would have become. Christian orthodoxy simply could not accommodate thatdegree of variationwithin itsmore monothetic framework.The Christian emphasiswould have been on reducing variation in their community, by intensifying their focus on core orthodox dogmas. Thus, it is thedisparate patterns of organizing beliefs, ratherthan thepresence or absence of beliefs, thatdefine thedifference between Paganism andChristianity,
and that difference in the participants' in organization approach would have translated even into a practical situation difference to worship, in a similar like a prayer
offered for a sick child.

University of Nebraska at Omaha
cwking@mail.unomaha.edu BIBLIOGRAPHY
Basanoff, V. 1947. Evocatio: Etude d'un rituel militaire romain. Paris. Beard, Mary, and John North, eds. 1990. Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World. Ithaca. Beard, Mary, John North, and Simon Price. 1998. Religions of Rome. Vol. 1.Cambridge. Beattie, John. 1966. "Ritual and Social Change." Man n.s. 1: 60-74. Beckner, Morton. 1959. The Biological Way of Thought. New York. Boyer, Pascal, ed. 1993. Cognitive Aspects of Religious Symbolism. Cambridge. Breen, Carolyn C. 1997. "Tibullus Illustrated: Lares, Genius and Sacred Landscapes." Ph.D. Dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University.
310
CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY
Perspec Bynum, Caroline. 1995. "Why All the Fuss About the Body? A Medievalist's tive." Critical Inquiry 22: 1-33. Clendenin, Daniel B. 1997. "Why I'm Not Orthodox." Christianity Today Jan. 6: 33-38. Cornell, T. J. 1995. The Beginnings of Rome. London. Davidson, Donald. 1984. "On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme." In Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, 183-98. Oxford. Dimock, Edward C., Jr., and Denise Levertov. 1967. In Praise of Krishna: Songs from the Bengali. New York. Dowden, Ken. 1992. Religion and the Romans. London. Dumezil, Georges. 1970. Archaic Roman Religion. 2 vols. Trans. Philip Krapp. Chicago. Eisenhut, Werner, ed. 1983. Catulli Veronensis Liber. Leipzig. Feeney, Denis. 1998. Literature and Religion at Rome: Cultures, Contexts, and Beliefs. Cambridge. Fortenbaugh, William W., and Peter Steinmetz, eds. 1989. Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos. New Brunswick. Foster, Mary LeCron, and Stanley H. Brandes, eds. 1980. Symbol as Sense: New Approaches to theAnalysis of Meaning. New York. Frend, W. H. C. 1984. The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia. . Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis. Trans. James Freud, Sigmund. 1966 [1917] Strachey. New York. Glucker, John. 1988 "Cicero's Philosophical Affiliations." In John M. Dillon and A. A. Long, eds., The Question of "Eclecticism": Studies in Later Greek Philosophy, 34-69. Berkeley. Goody, Jack. 1977 "'Against Ritual': Loosely Structured Thoughts on aLoosely Defined Topic." In Sally F. Moore and Barbara G. Myerhoff, eds., Secular Ritual, 25-35. Amsterdam. Gruen, Erich S. 2002. Diaspora: Jews Amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge, Mass. Henig, Martin, and Anthony King, eds. 1986. Pagan Gods and Shrines of the Roman Empire. Oxford. Hodgson, Marshall G. S. 1974. The Venture of Islam. 3 vols. Chicago. Kempton, Willett. 1978. "Category Grading and Taxonomic Relations: A Mug is a Sort of Cup." American Ethnologist 5: 44-65. King, Charles. 1998. "The Living and the Dead: Ancient Roman Conceptions of the Afterlife." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago. Lakoff, George. 1973. "Hedges: A Study inMeaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts." Journal of Philosophical Logic 2: 458-508. Levi-Strauss, Claude. 1975. The Raw and the Cooked: Introduction to a Science of Mythology. Vol. 1. Trans. John and Doreen Weightman. New York. Linderski, Jerzy. 1993. "Roman Religion in Livy." InWolfgang Schuller, ed., Livius: Aspekte seines Werkes, 53-70. Konstanz. MacMullen, Ramsay. 1981. Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven. Mazzarino, Antonius, ed. 1962. M. Porci Catonis: De Agri Cultura. Leipzig. Meier, John P. 2001. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume Three: Companions and Competitors. New York. Morris, Ian. 1992. Death Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge. Needham, Rodney. 1972. Belief Language, and Experience. Chicago. and Consequences." Man n.s. . 1975. "Polythetic Classification: Convergence 10: 349-69.
311
North, J.A. 1976. "Conservatism and Change in Roman Religion." PBSR 44: 1-12. . 1979. "Religious Toleration in Republican Rome." PCPhS 25: 85-103. Ogilvie, R. M. 1969. The Romans and Their Gods in the Age of Augustus. New York. Ortony, Andrew. 1979. "Beyond Literal Similarity." Psychological Review 86: 161-80. Palmer, R. E. A. 1974. Roman Religion and Roman Empire: Five Essays. Philadelphia. Penner, Hans H. 1985. "Language, Ritual andMeaning." Numen 32: 1-16. . 1986. "Rationality and Religion: Problems in the Comparison of Modes of Thought." Journal of theAmerican Academy of Religion 54: 646-71. 1. 995. "Why Does Semantics Matter to the Study of Religion?" Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 7: 221-49. Phillips, C. Robert, III. 1986. "The Sociology of Religious Knowledge in the Roman Empire to A.D. 284." ANRW 2.16.3: 2677-2773. . 1991. "Nullum Crimen sine Lege: Socioreligious Sanctions on Magic." In Christopher A. Faraone and Dirk Obbink, eds., Magika Hiera, 260-76. New York. Pojman, Louis P. 1986. Religious Belief and theWill. London. Poole, Fitz John Porter. 1986. "Metaphors and Maps: Towards Comparison in the Anthropology of Religion." Journal of theAmerican Academy of Religion 54: 412 57. Price, S. R. F. 1980. "Between Man and God: Sacrifice in the Roman Imperial Cult." JRS 70: 28-43. 1984. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult inAsia Minor. Cambridge. Rawski, Evelyn S. 1988. "A Historian's Approach to Chinese Death Ritual." InWatson and Rawski, 20-34. Rawson, Elizabeth. 1985. Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic. Baltimore. Richardson, L., Jr. 1992. A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. Baltimore. Rives, J.B. 1999. "The Decree of Decius and the Religion of Empire" JRS 89: 135-54. In Eleanor Rosch and Barbara B. Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. "Principles of Categorization." Lloyd, eds., Cognition and Categorization, 28-48. Hillsdale, N.J. Rosch, Eleanor, and Carolyn B. Mervis. 1975. "Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories." Cognitive Psychology 7: 573-605. Rose, H. J. 1933. "De Lupis, Lupercis, Lupercalibus." Mnemosyne 60: 385-402. Sabbatucci, Dario. 1988. La religione di Roma antica, dal calendariofestivo all'ordine cosmico. Milan. Saller, Richard P. 1988. "Pietas, Obligation and Authority in theRoman Family." In Peter Kneissl and Volker Losemann, eds., Alte Geschichte und Wissenschaftsgeschichte: Festschriftfiir Karl Christ zum 65. Geburtstag, 393-4 10. Darmstadt. Schaff, Philip. 1910. History of the Christian Church. 8 vols. Reprinted 1985. Grand Rapids. Scullard, H. H. 1981. Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic. Ithaca. Sen, K. M. 1961. Hinduism. Harmondsworth. Skorupski, John. 1976. Symbol and Theory: A Philosophical Study of Theories of Religion in Social Anthropology. Cambridge. Sneath, Peter H. A. 1962. "The Construction of Taxonomic Groups." InG. C. Ainsworth and P.H. A. Sneath, eds., Microbial Classification, 289-332. Cambridge. Sokal, Robert R., and Peter H. A. Sneath. 1963. Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco. Sperber, Dan. 1975. Rethinking Symbolism. Trans. Alice L. Morton. Cambridge.
312
CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY
81: Spiro, Melford E. 1979. "Whatever Happened to the Id?"American Anthropologist 5-13. Staal, Fritz. 1979. "TheMeaninglessness of Ritual." Numen 26: 2-22. Stark, Rodney. 1999. "Micro Foundations of Religion: A Revised Theory." Sociological Theory 17: 264-89. Stark, Rodney, and William Sims Bainbridge. 1987. A Theory of Religion. New
Brunswick.
Ste. Croix, G. E. M. de. 1974. "Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?" InM. 1. Finley, ed., Studies inAncient Society, 210-49. London. Szemler, G. J. 1986. "Priesthoods and Priestly Careers inAncient Rome." ANRW 2.16.3:
2314-31.
Tatum, W. Jeffrey. 1993. "Ritual and Personal Morality in Roman Religion." Svllecta Classica 4: 3-20. Todorov, Tzvetan. 1982. Theories of the Symbol. Ithaca. Tooker, Deborah D. 1992. "Identity Systems of Highland Burma." Man n.s. 27: 799-819. Toren, Christina. 1983. "Thinking Symbols: A Critique of Sperber." Man n.s. 18: 260-68. Turner, Victor. 1967. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca. Veyne, Paul. 1997. The Roman Empire. Trans. Arthur Goldhammer. Cambridge, Mass. Wagenvoort, Hendrik. 1980. Pietas: Selected Studies in Roman Religion. Leiden. Waites, Margaret C. 1920. "The Nature of the Lares and Their Representation inRoman Art." AJA 24: 241-61. Remains of Old Latin IV:Archaic Inscriptions. Cambridge, Warmington, E. H., ed.1940. Mass. Watson, James L. 1988. "The Structure of Chinese Funerary Rites: Elementary Forms, Ritual Sequence, and the Primacy of Performance." InWatson and Rawski, 3-19. Watson, James L., and Evelyn S. Rawski, eds. 1988. Death Ritual in Late Imperial and Modern China. Berkeley. Wells, Colin. 1992. The Roman Empire. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Mass. Wiebe, Donald. 1977. "Is Religious Belief Problematic?" Christian Scholar's Review 7: 23-35. and Religious Co-Existence: Thomas. 1990. "Polytheism, Monotheism, Wiedemann, Paganism and Christianity in the Roman Empire." In Ian Hamnett, ed., Religious Pluralism and Unbelief: Studies Critical and Comparative, 64-78. London. Wilken, Robert L. 1984. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. New Haven. Wiseman, T. P. 1995. "The God of the Lupercal." JRS 85: 1-22. Wissowa, Georg. 1912. Religion und Kultus der Rcmer. 2nd ed. Munich. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1960. Preliminary Studies for the "Philosophical Investigations" Generally Known as the Blue and Brown Books. 2nd ed. New York. Zadeh, L. A. 1965. "Fuzzy Sets." Information and Control 8: 338-53.

25011175

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

25011175

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Organization of Roman Religious Beliefs Author(s): Charles King Source: Classical Antiquity, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Oct.

The Organization Religious Beliefs

Indeed the centrality of "religious belief" in our culture has sometimes

religious term is profoundly Christian in its implications; itwas forged

Lord. The emphasis which "belief" gives to spiritual commitment has

Volume 22/No. 2/October 2003

about the "realbeliefs" of theGreeks is again implicitly Christianizing.

The above statement asserts that the concept of "belief" is intrinsicallyChris

portionate familiaritywith Christian ideas has a potential to produce excessively

of the absence therefore

of those ideas in another of the word to a broader

The discussion framework

of the applicability as an entry point religion

and the degree against

does not share common the arguments

ground with Christian

that have been employed

the use of the word

KING:The Organization of Roman Religious Beliefs

about "belief" in a scholarly discussion of religion?Rodney Needham rejected the

and that the lack of

the term useless contradict

does not reallymean anything in particular.5

posing premises. If "belief" is specificallyWestern or Christian, or if (in Price's

range of meanings. is Christian? or not arises

one know whether

has no specific be rendered application the Roman

know whether contradiction asserts clude

into the Nuer of Needham's religion also

that scholars that Romans

in terms of "beliefs" will

cult acts," while "belief."6 "belief"

is undefinable. Surely, though, the (alleged) consistency of application would

individual words to show

that a word B, one would

from culture A represents

that does not exist not be paraphrased

that the concept

Volume 22/ No. 2/ October 2003

into the language one used

untranslatable difficult to prove

in order to ask whether a concept show nothing argument

does not or could not exist did not exist

less of the distant The Romans

in the modem separately

are not the Nuer, to formulate Neither "belief"

and the absence To make

to be demonstrated one would Pagan

for each culture. a definition Needham

still have evidence.

nor Price presents because

a definition clear enough for such a purpose.8

different scholars have applied the word differently in different contexts. No

"ritual" should be abandoned that other the logic

terms of analysis of this argument. if scholars

interpretations, but both insisted that "symbolism" was exempt.'? It is difficult

there are many every substitute a priori definition

and then show its applicability

of the need for empirical

KING:The Organization of Roman Religious Beliefs

to kill her daughter.

some evidence many

but the same position