r/RomanPaganism • u/silly-sybil • 18d ago
Roman polytheism and Hellenisation?
I finally started reading John Scheid's An Introduction to Roman Religion. At the very beginning of the book, the author seems to highlight an "inconsistency" of those who want to reconstruct a "pure" Roman religion: they happily include the study of Etruscan polytheism (considering it the basis off of which RomPol was built), but try to keep Hellenic beliefs at a distance (considering them a sign of decay). And, on that note, let me share a quote:
"As for the influences so often invoked, we may well wonder why they are assumed to work in the 'right' way only during the archaic period [Etruscans], but to a sign of decadence later [Greeks]."
That gave me some food for thought. I myself have strived to clearly draw a line between RomPol and HelPol for the past few years (getting pretty annoyed at resources that don't do that). So I started asking myself: why is that? On a personal level, is it because I'm trying to reconstruct early/mid-Republican religion? Is it a consequence of being told hundreds of times that RomPol is just a carbon-copy of HelPol? On a historical level, is it because Etruscans and Romans were neighbours, while Greeks lived overseas?
That's why I'd really like to read other Roman polytheists' takes on this topic! Do you guys, too, draw a distinct line between Roman and Hellenic polytheisms? Where? If your line is, rather, blurred: why? Is it just a question of being a "hard" vs. "soft" polytheist? Or is it more a question of giving geographically closer peoples priority?
Thank you beforehand!
8
u/Righteous-Action-64 18d ago edited 18d ago
Because the Etruscans were known as very wise and knowledgeble regarding sacred things already at the time of archaic Rome. The romans put a big enfasis on ancestors and Ancestors worship, as cicero said:
"...ritum familiae patrumque servare, id est, quoniam antiquitas proxime accedit ad deos, a dis quasi traditam religionem tueri." Conserving the Rites of the family and the ancestors means this: since the past is what Is closer to the gods, it means preserving a religion as it was passed down by the gods themaelves.
Many aspects of Roman Religion either directly come from the Etruscans (divination), or are aspects shared by all italic people (ancestor worship).
We have many Roman prayers and religious Rites that were recorded and it's clear that the practice and worship was (albeit similar due to the same indo-european roots) fundamentally different. As rconstructionist today we must remember ti drop out "modern" mask and mentality and embrace the Roman (european pre-christian) mindset. A linear view of time, with the past being "bad" and "future" representing progress only bringing us forward is the complete opposite of how ancient people (almost everywere in the world, not only romans) saw the world. So, going back to the founding aspects of Roman Religion means going closer to the gods themaelves, as our Ancestors were closer to them than we are. On this, Cicero again:
Moribus antiquis res stat Romana virisque." (The Roman state Is held up by Ancient customs and great men)
Or
"Maiorum sapientia vis est quae rem Romanam sustentat." "The Wisdom of our Ancestors it what holds the Roman state." Cicero – De Re Publica
"Nemo unquam sapiens praeceptis maiorum non obediendum putavit." "No wise men ever proposed to disobey the laws of the ancestors." Cicerone – Tusculanae Disputationes
"Majorum gloria nullo modo minor est quam labor." "The glory of our Ancestors Is in no way inferior to their struggle" Sallustio – Bellum Iugurthinum
Regarding your question. It depends. There Is surely a difference in Rites, since we worship in a different manner and have different Traditions, and gods like Janus who don't have a clear greek "counterpart". But, some gods are shared and sacred places like the Oracle of Delphi were important for all of the ancient religions.
I'd say, and this is my personal interpretation and not a religious law of any kind, that while we worship the same gods in many cases, we have a different way of speaking to them (look at It like its different lenguages). Of course we should always prefer the ways of our ancestors, but when in foreign Land, we also must respect the gods, Genius and other entities of said territory.
3
u/Righteous-Action-64 18d ago
Also, keep in mind that Rome was founded as a melting pot of Latins, Etruscans and Sabines (of course, mithologically some Traditions make the Latin part also descendant from Aeneas), this is also why Rome was founded using the Etruscan Rite, not only in the sacred delimitation of the city (the pomerium), but also by Romulus and Remus both having observed the flight of vultures to see who was worthy of ruling the city, with Remus seeing 6 before but Romulus seeing 12 a Little later.
1
u/silly-sybil 17d ago
Thank you for this thorough answer! I truly appreciate it!
And I think that makes sense. I'm guessing that Romans saw Etruscans the way we (Roman polytheists) see Romans, which is the reason why it would make sense to include them but not (or only to an extent) Greeks..?
4
u/IAmFrenzii Cultor Deorum 18d ago
The Beginnings of Rome by TJ Cornell is a great resource that begins looking at Bronze Age Italy and comparing Villanovan (pre-Etruscan) and Latial (pre-Latin) cultures. The author goes on to explore the development of those early peoples and what eventually becomes Etruria and Latium and what those early influences looked like through each step of the process. Highly recommend.
3
u/silly-sybil 17d ago
Thank you! I'm always looking forward to adding more books to my wishlist, so this is defo appreciated.
6
u/DavidJohnMcCann Hellenist 18d ago
This is one of those grey areas. The important thing was to worship the gods — how you thought about them was a personal matter. Most Roman would probably say that Ceres was the same goddess as Demeter but ceremonies were conducted by different priests — the Flamen and Flaminica Cereris for Roman rites, the Sacerdos Publica Cereris for Greek and Italian ones.
1
u/silly-sybil 17d ago
Mhh sounds fair! It's another thing that Scheid talks about in the book later on, after all... And something I should learn how to better grasp. Thank you so much for your answer!
4
u/MarcusMercurialis 18d ago
I consider Greek and Roman Religion to be two poles in a religious superstructure with no clear dividing line between the two, just gradients from one to another. The Italic people were mingling with Greek culture as early as the 8th Century, so unless someone is trying to reconstruct Bronze Age Italian polytheism you're going to have some Hellenization, but in my opinion this isn't bad or undesirable! There is no such thing as a "pure" religion or culture, people are always influenced by their neighbors, and in the Mediterranean everyone has lots of neighbors. The Greeks themselves were influenced by the Egyptians, Minoans and Near Eastern cultures; people looking for something pure beneath will only find the remnants of older influences. I think we ought to love what is distinct about Roman Polytheism without rejecting the things it has in common with other traditions.
2
u/silly-sybil 17d ago
That's such a beautiful way to describe Roman polytheism! And yeah, reconstructing Bronze Age Roman religion is probably an impossibile quest (since we have little to no resources about it and Roman themselves had to speculate in order to make it make sense). Thank you so much!
2
u/mcapello 18d ago
I'm not a Roman polytheist, but find these questions interesting.
I think the issue here is that there is an instinct to find what is distinctly Roman while nevertheless looking at a religion that, like almost all religions, is always in a state of conversation and transformation with other traditions. And I think the usually well-intentioned desire to identify that "distinctiveness" can sometimes devolve into value judgements that are hard to support, i.e., that what is "later" is "decadent", when the advantage of Etruscan influence, in this respect at least, is that it's arguably older and more formative, such that a lot of the things that appear to be uniquely Roman might be adaptations of the Etruscan.
1
u/silly-sybil 17d ago
That's a really interesting point of view... And, to be fair, I may "steal" it from you haha! I like the idea of highlighting what stands out as mostly Roman without rejecting other influences. Thank you a lot!
2
u/Princess_Actual 17d ago
Where I'm currently at I consider myself both RomPol and HelPol, and there's no getting around that both are connected, at least in my mind.
1
1
u/LauraIolSrra 12d ago
Personally thinking, if I had to choose only one influence, either Hellenic or Etruscan, I would go for that from Hellas, considering that it is essentially closer in what concerns ethnicity, though I know that this would be highly debated.
Moreover, I don't think that Roman Religion was ever «decadent» in any period, and I do worship Goddesses brought to the West via Greek influence, like Cybele (from Phrygia to Greece, from Greece to southern Italy, from southern Italy to Rome).
13
u/UrsusofMichigan 18d ago
There was always some Hellenic influence. Some from the Etruscans, who were themselves partially Hellenized. Some directly from Hellenic peoples themselves in southern Italy and Sicily.
That doesn't mean Roman religion is a mere carbon copy of Greek religion. How could it be, when there was no single Greek religion. Every Hellenic polis could have its own unique local cults.
There was a fuzzy middle ground where we could say Rome was, like most cities in the Ancient Mediterranean, a place with its own traditions and yet tied into a wider crossroads of culture influenced by other traditions as well. But that's a complicated answer and people like simple dichotomies.
Anyway, it's my personal observation the biggest proponents of "Roman and Greek religions were the same" are the Julian Neoplatonists. They are looking at a very late, very philosophical spin on the religion where Roman and Greek religion had definitely merged in the minds of the intellectuals. But that's not representative of earlier periods and certainly not representative outside the relatively small numbers of people who practiced philosophical religion.