Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T07:28:08.048Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social and Psychological Interpretations of Graeco-Roman Religion: Some Thoughts on the Ideal Benefactor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

T.R. Stevenson
T.R. Stevenson*
Affiliation:
The University of Auckland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the past couple of decades, scholarship on Graeco–Roman religion has been dominated by an approach which emphasises the social function of religion rather than matters relating to emotion and belief (Part I below). There is much in the new approach which is enlightening, but for various reasons it should not be allowed to supersede the traditional or psychological approach completely (II). In particular I would like to argue in this paper that the phenomenon of cult for mortals in the Graeco-Roman world can only be understood through a combination of the two modern approaches, because the figure of the ideal benefactor, which I take to underlie cult for mortals, presumed both a concern for relationship structuring and an emotional response. Indeed, the ambiguous interface between the social plane and the psychological plane was fundamental to the success and persistence of such cult (III).

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 30 , November 1996 , pp. 1 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 1996

Access options

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

References

1 Recently, for example, in the monumental and influential Cambridge Ancient History: North, J.A., ‘Religion in Republican Rome’, CAH 7.22 (1989) 573–624Google Scholar; Beard, M., ‘Religion’, CAH 9 2 (1994) 729-68Google Scholar. See also Dowden, K., Religion and the Romans (London 1992)Google Scholar, and the excellent survey by Bremmer, J.N., Greek Religion [Greece & Rome New Surveys in the Classics, 24] (Oxford 1994).Google Scholar

2 E.g. Latte, K., Römische Religionsgeschichte2 (Munich 1967)Google Scholar; Scullard, H.H., Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic (London 1981).Google Scholar

3 For references, see Lewis, N. and Reinhold, M., Roman Civilization. Sourcebook I: The Republic2 (New York 1966) 66 ff., 129 ff., 480 ff.Google Scholar

4 North, J.A., ‘Religion and Politics, from Republic to Principatc’, JRS 76 (1986) 251.Google Scholar

5 Cf. Price, S.R.F., Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge 1984) 10-11, 13–19, etc.Google Scholar

6 Cf. Burkert, W., Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical, trans. Raffan, J. (Oxford 1985) 8Google Scholar.

7 Polyb. 6.6-12; Cic, . Div. 2.70Google Scholar; Dion. Hal. 2.6.

8 Wardman, A.E., Religion and Statecraft among the Romans (London 1982)Google Scholar; cf. the arguments of North, J.A., ‘Conservatism and Change in Roman Religion’, PBSR 44 (1976) 1–11.Google Scholar

9 An approach which goes back to Varro, on whom see Jocelyn, H.D., ‘Varro's Antiquitates Rerum Divinarum and Religious Affairs in the Late Roman Republic’, Bull. John Rylands Libr. 65 (1982) 148–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 North, J.A., ‘Religious Toleration in Republican Rome’, PCPhS 205 [n.s. 25] (1979) 85–103.Google Scholar

11 Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G., Continuity and Change in Roman Religion (Oxford 1979) 9–11Google Scholar; cf. Beard, M., JRS 71 (1981) 203-5.Google Scholar

12 J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz (n. 11) 20.

13 Ibid. 29.

14 Beard, M., JRS 71 (1981) 204-5.Google Scholar

15 S.R.F. Price (n.5) 247.

16 Cf. Clark's, Gillian review of Easterling, P.E. and Muir, J.V. (eds.), Greek Religion and Society (Cambridge 1985)Google Scholar: LCM 10.7 (Jul. 1985) 107-8.Google Scholar

17 Dr Ehrhardt thinks that some of the problem here may be due to the fact that it is often pietist or post-pietist Protestantism that has been taken as the ‘Christian’ norm.

18 On this fundamental topic, see Berger, P.L. and Berger, B., Sociology: A Biographical Approach2 (Harmondsworth 1976)Google Scholar; Burke, P., Sociology and History (in Bottomore, T.B. and Mulkay, M.J. [eds.], Controversies in Sociology: 10) (London 1980)Google Scholar; Hopkins, K., Conquerors and Slaves (Cambridge 1978), esp. 252-3 (for bibliography)Google Scholar; Hopkins, K., ‘Rules of Evidence’ (review of F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World, 31 B.C.-A.D. 337), JRS 68 (1978) 178-86 (esp. 180)Google Scholar; Shaw, B.D., ‘Social Science and Ancient History: Keith Hopkins In Partihus Infidelium’, Helios 9 (1982) 17–57Google Scholar; Finley, M.I., Ancient History: Evidence and Models (Harmondsworth 1985) 1–6.Google Scholar

19 Clark (n.16) 107.

20 E.g. the Lemuria: Ov, . Fasti 5.419 ff.Google Scholar

21 Hor, . Sat. 2.6.66Google Scholar; Ov, . Fasti 2.631Google Scholar; Petr, . Sat. 60Google Scholar.

22 For the role of the paterfamilias in family religion, see de Coulanges, N.D. Fustel, La cité antique (Paris 1864)Google Scholar = The Ancient City, trans. Small, W. (New York 1873)Google Scholar; cf. Nilsson, M.P., ‘Roman and Greek Domestic Cult’, Opusc. Rom. 1 (1954) 77–85Google Scholar; Rose, H.J., ‘The Religion of a Greek Household’, Euphrosyne 1 (1957) 95–116Google Scholar; K. Latte (n.2) s.v. Paterfamilias; Ogilvie, R.M., The Romans and their Gods in the Age of Augustus (London 1969) 100-5Google Scholar; Orr, D.G., ‘Roman Domestic Religion: The Evidence of the Household Shrines’, ANRW II.16.2 (1978) 1557-91Google Scholar; Harmon, D.P., ‘The Family Festivals of Rome’, ANRW II.16.2 (1978) 1592–1603Google Scholar. For a collection of sources relating to family religion in the Greek world, see Rice, D.G. and Stambaugh, J.E., Sources for the Study of Greek Religion (Missoula, Mont. 1979) 143-6Google Scholar.

23 For the Genius, see Fowler, W. Warde, The Religious Experience of the Roman People (London 1911) 74Google Scholar; Otto, W., RE 7.1163, s.v. GeniusGoogle Scholar; Fishwick, D., ‘Genius and Numen’, HTR 62 (1969) 356-67Google Scholar; Dumézil, G., Archaic Roman Religion, trans. Krapp, P. (Chicago 1970)Google Scholar; Kunkel, H., Der römische Genius (Heidelberg 1974)Google Scholar. Note the derivation of genius from gignere, and the marriage bed, lectus genialis, sacred to the Genius.

24 CIL 10.860, 10.861Google Scholar; Tib. 2.2.1; Cens. 2.2.

25 Tib. 4.5.9; Plaut, . Cure. 628Google Scholar: ‘me et genium’, Aul, 724.

26 Taylor, L.R. is inclined to give too much emphasis to the father image in discussing worship of the emperor's Genius: The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (Middletown, Conn. 1931), esp. chaps. 5, 6.Google Scholar

27 Fustel de Coulanges (n.22) 42.

28 Ibid. 34 ff.

29 Burkert (n.6) 182-3 argues for a modification of the view that the gods were ‘powers not persons”.

30 Cf. Bury, J.B., The Idea of Progress (New York 1932) 19Google Scholar; Sørensen, V., Seneca: The Humanist at the Court of Nero, trans. Jones, W. Glyn (Edinburgh 1984) 9 ffGoogle Scholar.

31 E.g. Arist, . Pol. 2.5Google Scholar; Hor, . Ars Poet. 68–72Google Scholar; Ov. Met. 1; Plin, . Ep. 6.21Google Scholar; Aurel, Marc.. Medit. 11.1; Florus 1.1.Google Scholar

32 Bagehot, W., Physics and Politics: Thoughts on the Application of the Principles of ‘Natural Selection’ and ‘Inheritance’ to Political Society, introd. Kohn, H. (Boston 1956) 31.Google Scholar

33 Too extreme: see (e.g.) Ovid's idea of progress in (e.g.) matters calendrical (Fasti 1.27 ff.), civilisation (Fasti 1.191 ff.), etc.

34 Edelstein, L., The Idea of Progress in Classical Antiquity (Baltimore 1967)Google Scholar; Dodds, E.R., The Ancient Concept of Progress and Other Essays on Greek Literature and Belief (Oxford 1973)Google Scholar; Nisbet, R.A., History of the Idea of Progress (New York 1980)Google Scholar; Motto, A.L., ‘The Idea of Progress in Senecan Thought’, CJ 79 (1984) 225-40Google Scholar. Wagar, W.W. has surveyed thought on the idea of progress since Bury in ‘Modern Views of the Origins of the Idea of Progress’, JHI 28 (1967) 55–70Google Scholar; reprinted in Wagar, W.W. (ed.), The Idea of Progress Since the Renaissance (New York 1969) 18–37Google Scholar. Note also Wallace-Hadrill, A., ‘The Golden Age and Sin in Augustan Ideology’, P&P 95 (1982) 19–36.Google Scholar

35 Blundell, S., The Origins of Civilization in Greek and Roman Thought (London 1986) 19.Google Scholar

36 Motto, A.L., CJ 79 (1984) 233.Google Scholar

37 S. Blundell (n. 35) 113.

38 On, ‘besieging hostile forces’, see Origen, Contra Celsum, esp. 8.28, 33Google Scholar.

39 Hor, . Carm. 3.6.5Google Scholar: ‘Because you show yourselves subservient to the gods, therefore do you rule’; cf. Bauman, R.A., The Crimen Maiestatis in the Roman Republic and Augustan Principate (Johannesburg 1967) 5.Google Scholar

40 Clark, G. (n.16); Grant, R.M., review of Price, S.R.F., Rituals and Power, CP 82 (1987) 174-8Google Scholar.

41 R.M. Ogilvie (n.22) 105.

42 Theophrastus, Characters 16; trans. Ferguson, J. and Chisholm, K., Political and Social Life in the Great Age of Athens (London 1978) 196.Google Scholar

43 Nilsson, MP., Greek Popular Religion (New York 1940) 65.Google Scholar

44 ‘The Ideal Benefactor and the Father Analogy in Greek and Roman Thought’, CQ 42 (1992) 421-36.Google ScholarPubMed

45 Hom, . Od. 13.230 ff.Google Scholar

46 Ibid. 8.464 ff.

47 Ibid. 2.47, 2.234, 5.12. For his extraordinary justice: 4.689 ff.

48 Livy, 5.49.7 (Camillus)Google Scholar; Cic, . Rab. perd. 27 (Marius)Google Scholar.

49 Plut, . Sull. 34Google Scholar: ‘The most distinguished and most powerful men in Rome, with garlands on their heads, went in the procession [Sulla's triumph], calling Sulla “saviour” and “father”, since it was because of him that they were returning to their native city and bringing their wives and family with them’.

50 OGIS 493 = Forsch. in Eph. II 19 = I. Ephesos Ia 21; S.R.F. Price (n.5) 57.

51 Sen, . Ben. 2.17.6 ff., 2.31.Google Scholar

52 Adulatio: e.g. Tac, . Ann. 1.1, 1.13, 1.14, 2.32, 3.2, 4.6, 11.21, 15.59, etc.Google Scholar

53 E.g. Diod. 5.72.2 (Zeus).

54 Charlesworth, M.P., ‘Some Observations on Ruler Cult, Especially in Rome’, HTR 28 (1935) 7; Ogilvie, R.M. (n.22) chap. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55 Weinstock, S., Divus Julius (Oxford 1971), esp. chaps. 7-10.Google Scholar

56 M.P. Charlesworth (n.54) 8 (Greek benefactor cult as a prelude to Roman Imperial cult): ‘certain common fundamental elements which are constant throughout ancient civilization'.

57 A. Wallace-Hadrill (n.34). On transforming moral leadership and the Augustan marriage laws, see most recently Galinsky, K., Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction (Princeton 1996) 128-40.Google Scholar

58 E.g. IG II2 8 [IG I3 227] = Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D., Greek Historical Inscriptions nos. 70, 201-3Google Scholar; IG I2 118 [I3 110] = Meiggs-Lewis nos. 90, 275-7; cf. Fornara, C.W. (ed.), Archaic Times to the End of the Peloponnesian War: Translated Documents (Cambridge 1983) nos. 138, 160.Google Scholar For the honouring of benefactors in the Greek world, see Habicht, C., Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte2 (München 1970)Google Scholar; Veyne, P., Le pain el le cirque (Paris 1976)Google Scholar; reissued as Bread and Circuses, abridged with an introduction by Murray, O., trans. Pearce, B. (Harmondsworth 1990)Google Scholar; and Gauthier, P., Les cités grecques et leur bienfaiteurs (IVe-Ier siécle avant J.-C.) (Paris 1985)Google Scholar.

59 E.g. IG II2 212+ = Tod, M., Greek Historical Inscriptions 167, 193-8Google Scholar; IG II2 351+, 624 = Tod 198, 278-81; IG II2 467; cf. Harding, P. (ed.), From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus: Translated Documents (Cambridge 1985) nos. 82, 118, 123 A and B.Google Scholar

60 P. Harding (n.59), no. 123 A [= IG II2 448].

61 Ibid., e.g. nos. 123A, 127, 139 [= IG II2 448; Syll.3 312; IG II2 505]. For a more nuanced examination of the language of these honorific decrees, especially with regard to democratic Athens, see Whitehead, D., ‘Cardinal Virtues: The Language of Public Approbation in Democratic Athens’, C&M 44 (1993) 37–75.Google Scholar

62 Austin, MM. (ed.), The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation (Cambridge 1981), e.g. nos. 26, 32, 34, 97, 98, 102, 110, etc. [= Syll. 3 317 / IG II2448Google Scholar; OGIS 6; Plut, . Dem. 8–10Google Scholar; Syll. 3 495; Moretti II 131 / cf. SEG XXIV 1095; Moretti II 130; IG XII 5.129]; cf. Burstein, S.M. (ed.), The Hellenistic Age from the Battle of Ipsos to the Death of Kleopatra VII: Translated Documents (Cambridge 1985) s.v. ‘benefactors’.Google Scholar

63 P. Veyne (n.58); cf. the remarks of F., Millar, JHS (24 March 1978) 356Google Scholar.

64 M.M. Austin (n.62), e.g. nos. 97, 110, 112, 114, 115.

65 S.R.F. Price (n.5) 29 n.23, 222 n.71 for strong initial reservations about the offering of divine cult to mortals.

66 Price, S.R.F., ‘Gods and Emperors: The Greek Language of the Roman Imperial Cult’, JHS 104 (1984) 79 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

67 S.R.F. Price (n.5) 30 ff., 54 ff.

68 Ibid. 54—translation adapted from Lewis, N. and Reinhold, M. (n.3) Sourcebook II. The Empire2 (New York 1966) 64Google Scholar; EJ 98 = Braund, D.C., Augustus to Nero: A Sourcebook on Roman History (31 BC-AD 68) (London and Sydney 1985) no. 122.Google Scholar

69 S.R.F. Price (n.5) 55.

70 Ibid.

71 Ibid. 29-30, 52.

72 Ibid. 32.

73 Ibid. 233.

74 Ibid., chap. 8; cf. Price, S.R.F., ‘Between Man and God: Sacrifice in the Roman Imperial Cult’, JRS 70 (1980) 28–43.Google Scholar

75 The view of C. Habicht (n.58); cf. Jones, CP., Phoenix 31 (1977) 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

76 S.R.F. Price (n.5) 51.

77 Ibid. 52.

78 Ibid. 47 ff.

79 Nixon, C.E.V. (review of S.R.F. Price, Rituals and Power). LCM 10.4 (April 1985) 56.Google Scholar

80 S.R.F. Price (n.5) 16; cf. Nock, A.D., CAH 10.481-2Google Scholar; HSCP 41 (1930) 50 [= Nock, A.D., Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, ed. Stewart, Z. (Oxford 1972) 241]Google Scholar; JRS 47 (1957) 121 [= (1972) 843]Google Scholar,

81 Arrion, Anab. 4.10.5 ff.

82 Liebeschuetz, W. (review of S.R.F. Price, Rituals and Power), JRS 75 (1985) 263.Google Scholar

83 Ibid.; cf. Tac, . Ann. 4.38Google Scholar; AE 1929, nos. 99-100 (= EJ 102).

84 Bowersock, G.W., ‘Greek Intellectuals and the Imperial Cult in the Second Century AD’, in Boer, W. den (ed.), Le culte des souverains dans l&empire romain [Entretiens Hardt, 19] (Geneva 1973) 179–212.Google Scholar

85 Plut. Apophth. Lac. Ages. 25 = Mor. 210d; cf. Flower, M.A., ‘Agesilaus of Sparta and the Origins of the Ruler Cult’, CQ 38 (1988) 123-34Google Scholar. For similar examples, see Scott, K., ‘Humour at the Expense of the Ruler Cult’, CP 27 (1932) 317-28Google Scholar.

86 S.R.F. Price (n.66) 90 ff. Duncan Fishwick counters with the view that the inscriptions to which Price refers are more plausibly to be interpreted as sacrifices in honour of / on behalf of the emperor: ZPE 80 (1990) 121-30Google Scholar.