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
It is easy to think that pagan religion was essentially tolerant of other forms of religious activity. The evidence we have just considered seems at first sight to support just such an interpretation. If the Romans could accept a steady flow of new cults into their city over such a long period of time, that must surely imply that their attitudes were basically tolerant. There are, however, qualifications to be made before reaching such a conclusion. It is clear that, if there was tolerance, it was not tolerance born of principle. So far as we know, there was no fixed belief that a state or an individual ought to tolerate different forms of religion; that is the idea of far later periods of history. The truth seems to be that the Romans tolerated what seemed to them harmless and drew the line whenever there seemed to be a threat of possible harm; only, they saw no great harm in many cults of their contemporary world, where many individuals and cities worshipped gods and goddesses much like their own.
1 North (1979).
2 The decree is ILS 18 = ILLRP 511= RoR ii.12.1b. Livy’s text is 39.8-19 (partly translated at RoR ii.12.1a). Massive discussion and full bibliography to 1988, Pailler (1988); North (1979); Gruen (1990), 34–78; Walsh (1996).
3 Bruhl (1953).
4 North (1979), 88; Gruen (1990), 50–51.
5 RoR i.93.
6 Livy, above n. 2, esp. 14–15.
7 The details of the decree’s contents are well analysed by Tiemey (1947); see North (1979); a different view in Gruen (1990), 34–78.
8 RoR i.92-6.
9 On these, see the classic work of Nock (1933).
10 North (1992a).
11 For an Imperial Bacchic group of some kind, Scheid (1986).
12 Seaford (1981); Henderson (1996); RoR i. 161–4.
13 Incident of 139 BC: Valerius Maximus 1.3.2. Isis cult: RoR i. 161; 230–1; Jews: Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.65-84; Tacitus, Annals 2.85.
14 General accounts: Burkert (1987); Smith (1990); Turcan (1996); RoR i.263-312.
15 So, Burkert (1987).
16 Above, pp. 29–32.
17 See Scheid (1987), 311–12; North (1997).
18 Juvenal, Satire 6.522-41 = RoR ii.12.4d.
19 On the interpretation of Apuleius: Nock (1933), 138–55; Griffiths (1975); Winkler (1985); RoR ii.12.4b; on the Isis cult: Burkert (1987); Versnel (1990); Turcan (1996); on the role of women in the cult Heyob (1975), but with some caution.
20 For discussion, Sfameni Gasparro (1985).
21 For critical studies, Brandon (1963).
22 Sfameni Gasparro (1985).
23 Beck (1988), 73–85; Turcan (1996), 224–43: RoR ii.12.5.
24 RoR i.291-3.
25 Gordon (1972); RoR i.294-5.
26 Gordon (1980).
27 For an example: RoR ii.12.5b. Vermaseren (1963), 67–106.
28 Relation with Judaism: Lieu, North, Rajak (1992); Christian development: Hopkins (1998).
29 Conversion: Nock (1933); martyrdom: Frend (1965); Bowersock (1995); creeds: Kelly (1972).
30 RoR ii.12.6.
31 Rajak (1992); Goodman (1992).
32 For conversion to Judaism, or the lack of it, see Goodman (1992); (1994).
33 For ‘godfearers’: Rajak (1992), 20–21; Reynolds and Tannenbaum (1987).
34 Sherwin White (1963), esp. 1–23.
35 Pliny, Letters 10.96-7 = RoR ii. 11.11b.
36 Musurillo (1972); Bowersock (1995), 23–39.
37 For the dating of the Jewish martyrdom accounts in Maccabees, Bowersock (1995).
38 Nock (1933); RoR i.275-6.
39 Hopkins (1998).
40 Drake (1996) paints a plausible picture, though mostly dealing with later periods.
41 Above, n. 35: ‘I discovered nothing worse than a depraved and excessive superstition’.
42 Justin, Second Apology 2 = RoR ii.l2.7f(I).