No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2016
The fundamental principle on which the religion of the Romans used to be interpreted was the idea that the Romans were an unusually conservative society. In some respects, this is perfectly true: we can for instance show that some of the rituals that were still being practised regularly in the first century BC, and even later than that, were already in place in the sixth century BC; again we know from later Roman orators such as Cicero that they placed a great emphasis on the ancestral customs and ways of the Roman people (the mos maiorum) and it is a reasonable guess that this was not a new idea in Cicero’s day but a long-cherished attitude; again, it is quite clear that the Romans placed a great deal of emphasis on getting their rituals precisely right in every detail, so that the slightest error invalidated the whole ceremony of which it formed part. If so, and if they did this year after year, there should have been no change at all. How could conservatism be taken further?
1 See, for example, Dumézil (1970), 83–8.
2 See, for example, the opening of Cicero’s speech, On his House: to say that an institution was ancestral was automatically to praise it.
3 North (1976).
4 Warde Fowler (1911), 114–168; Rose (1948); Latte (1960), 36–63; for discussion, RoR i.10-18; ii.2-4; North (1997).
5 The development of the gods: Warde Fowler (1911), 145–64.
6 Still influential, for instance, in Scullard (1981).
7 According to Varro (fr. 13 and 18 (Cardauns), from Augustine, Civitas Dei 4.31), the period lasted down to c.575 BC, which is in fact approximately the date at which Etruscan influence is being felt in Rome. See RoR ii.1.1a; but it is not clear how this information could have come down to Varro’s time.
8 For the gods and their Greek equivalents, see below, Table 3. For an apparent early identification of a Roman deity (Vulcan) with a Greek one (Hephaestus), see Coarelli (1983-5), i.161-78;/RoR ii.1.7c(ii).
9 e.g. Warde Fowler (1911), 1–23.
10 Warde Fowler (1911), 270–91.
11 See, for example, the work of Koch (1937); (1960); Altheim (1938).
12 Cornell (1995), 198–214; Holloway (1994); RoR ii eh. 1.
13 Cornell (1995), 151–72.
14 Dumézil (1941-5); (1968-73).
15 Dumézil (1970), 60–82;
16 Good discussion in Scheid (1983); Momigliano (1984b); Belier (1991).
17 Cornell (1995), 369–90.
18 Below, pp. 33–4.
19 For collegia, see RoR i.42; 272.
20 RoR i.48-9.
21 On the Roman notion of familia, see Gardner (1998).
22 Cato, above ch. I, n. 24.
23 Scheid (1992b).
24 For their activities, Kraemer (1992), 50–70.
25 Above, p. 18; see also below, p. 74.
26 Vestals: Beard (1980); (1995); Staples (1998); RoR i.51-4.
27 Le Bonniec (1958), 379–462.
28 For the text, RoR ii.7.5a.
29 On the Laws 21 cf.37.