Ancient Roman religion and its cultural significance

Roman Religion

Although the ancient Roman religion might seem a far cry from today';s contemporary context, in reality Roman religion continues to inform and shape Western culture to this day (the celebration of Christmas being one example). While there are a number of literary sources which provide contemporary scholars with information about Roman religions, both in terms of belief and practice, this religions information is encoded into the landscape and physical space of Rome itself, from the layout of its forums to the sculptures which adorn its altars. By examining three such sources in detail, the Ara Pacis, the Forum of Augustus, and the grove of the Arval Brothers, one will be able to understand how Roman religion permeated Roman social and political identity and organizations, and furthermore, how these concurrent strains of identity-formation and power relations etched themselves into the very physical objects left behind to be discovered and discussed by contemporary historians.

Before examining some of the non-literary sources of contemporary knowledge of Roman religion in detail, it is necessary to first outline the ideal methodological approach to the task at hand, if only because it requires some special knowledge and consideration that sets it apart from strictly literary engagements with the general topic. Firstly, one must recognize that although "we are certainly not illiterate when it comes to Roman art, [] we do not come close to the fluency of a 'native viewer.'"

For example, it is all too common to approach Roman art and non-literary culture from a rather literal perspective, which fails to recognize that, for example, "a society that consistently for centuries depicts the sun as a youthful beardless male charioteer rather than as a fiery orb [] clearly has a complexly coded visual systems" such that:

In Roman art what you see is often not what you get, for despite the way they depicted the sun, it is quite clear that most Romans did not think that it was a youthful male charioteer, just as they did not think that Eternity was a woman bearing the severed heads of the sun and the moon on her outstretched hands; it was simply the way they visualized the concept. In other words, they thought of the sun as the youthful charioteer when they visualized him in art, but not when they conceptualized him as a cosmic body.

While recognizing the "obvious difference between image and concept" is in many ways a basic concept in any art or cultural criticism, it takes on new importance in the field of Roman religion because of the way the religion was so deeply engrained in the social and political fabric of life.

Religion "was [] a major aspect of the changing relationship between Rome and her empire" over the course of the city's development, because it offered a means of defining Roman culture and identity as the state underwent the painful and tumultuous "creation of a strong centralized political system and [] the sometimes difficult moves towards the integration of the state."

As such, religious identity was encoded into not just strictly religious texts, but also the aesthetics of the city itself, it ornamentation, and the art of the empire in general.

Thus, the first step in constructing the ideal methodological approach for this study involves a recognition that the analysis and discussion of non-literary sources of the contemporary world's knowledge of Roman religion must necessarily engage in some visual criticism of the particular objects under discussion that goes beyond a mere recapitulation of the specific visual codes represented, because these codes must be considered in a larger, synchronically meaningful context. This is due to the fact "that verbal and visual modes of communication differ too fundamentally to be equated," as "the primary dimension of verbal communication is temporal, not spatial, whereas visual communication is spatially organized, but not temporal."

That is to say, visual communication must be understood for the way it creates meaning out of the spatial juxtaposition of images, rather than the kind of temporal progression dominant in language; although visual communication can and frequently does feature a kind of temporal narration, such as the Western tendency to view the movement of images from left to right, this temporal element nevertheless remains subservient to the spatial orientation of the image's various elements, because without understanding this spatial definition, any temporal, narrative meaning remains hidden.

This means that when one is confronted with a particular image, it is necessary to consider how the context of that image informs its interpretation, and the particular connotation associated with it. For example, "one can find certain conventions for the depiction of radiance described as 'solar' or typical of Sol," the Latin name for the sun, "and thus give the bearer a 'solar aspect,' despite the fact that the particular convention under discussion might be one that was actually never used for Sol."

Thus, one must consider the unique way visual communication functions synchronically, rather than diachronically, in its construction of meaning in order to differentiate between different uses of similar imagery and visual cues. This will become important when considering the convergence of the religious and political in non-literary sources of information on Roman religion, because frequently these sources deploy visual codes and representations that have multiple meanings depending on whether they are interpreted in a religious or political context.

From here, one must also consider how the centrality of Roman religion to everyday Roman life affects the contemporary discussion of it, because this close connection between Roman religion and every other element of public and private life means that certain conventions and representations constitute an even larger complex of meanings, depending on their physical and social context. As discussed above, Roman religion was a necessary component of the empire's development, and understanding how the Roman religion served an important role in constructing Roman identity and culture allows one to subsequently appreciate how this religion might be encoded into not only explicitly religious texts, but also the physical objects and spaces used and inhabited by the Roman people.

Thus, one must understand "that temples, altars, sacred precincts and groves were more than just a 'backdrop' to religious ceremony, but were themselves (in their layout, design decoration) an important part of the religious experience, bearers of religious meaning" while at the same time serving some fairly utilitarian purposes."

In much the same way that Roman religion served to mark the boundaries of acceptable Roman identity, culture, and history, so too did the religious spaces of Rome form "part of a sacred topography" which seamlessly blended the social, political, and religious into the singular visual and spatial landscape of Rome itself.

For this study, which concerns itself with the Ara Pacis, or altar of peace, the forum of Augustus, and the grove of the Arval brothers, it will be important to note how these religious spaces simultaneously function as sites of political and social interaction as well, and most importantly, how this multidimensional function is exhibited in the physical record of these spaces through their layout, choice of visual and narrative details, as well as clear variety of structures and purposes.

The first physical, non-literary record of Roman religion to be considered here is the Ara Pacis, or altar of peace, constructed to honor emperor Augustus and featuring a number of friezes depicting real and mythological figures. The friezes depict a series of figures in procession, and wind around the outer walls housing the actual altar. On the southern side, one can identify "several members of the imperial family (including Augustus himself)," while the northern features "members of various priestly colleges."

Furthermore, just to the right of the steps leading up to the altar, there is a frieze depicting "Aeneas sacrificing a sow on his arrival in Italy."

Considering each of these elements in detail and in conjunction with each other will reveal not only something about how the altar functioned in the context of religious practice, but also its social and political role in the formation of Roman identity.

One may begin with the sculpture of Aeneas, if only because this image represents one of the oldest visual codes present in the Ara Pacis. The inclusion of Aeneas provides a link to "not only the mythical origins of Rome, but also the origins of the Roman ritual of sacrifice -- a ritual no doubt regularly performed at the Ara Pacis itself."

Almost immediately one can see the multifarious connections between Roman religion and identity, because the inclusion of Aeneas on the Ara Pacis provides a kind of mytho-historical justification for its existence by linking contemporary religious practice with Rome's history, both in terms of literal practice, such a sacrifice, and in the visual codes which inform this practice.

This is why Aeneas "wears a toga without a tunic, believed by the Romans to be the oldest form of Roman dress," and he is "sacrificing in Roman style -- that is, with head covered, in contrast to the Greek practice of sacrificing with bare head."

Aeneas marks this altar as specifically Roman according to not only the city's religious tradition, but also its cultural tradition of dress of mythical history. One can see a possible motivation for this intentional linking when considering the other figures depicted in the Ara Pacis' friezes, and particularly the image of Augustus. The procession of which Augustus is a part represents "the processions that would have taken place in 'real life' around the sides of the precincts, leading up to the altar itself -- and perhaps, more specifically, that procession which took place on the day the altar was first consecrated."

Recognizing this is crucial for understanding the depictions relation to both Roman religious practice and political life, because the particular representation of Augustus reveals the close connection between religious and secular authority, and furthermore, how Augustus himself played a central role in strengthening and maintaining this connection.

As mentioned above, the Ara Pacis was constructed to commemorate Augustus, and particularly his return following a number of military victories. Thus, one cannot help but acknowledge the implicit association between Augustus and Aeneas that the Ara Pacis makes, because just as Aeneas is depicted sacrificing as sow when he arrives in Italy, so too is Augustus shown participating in this long religious tradition upon his return to Rome. The visual association serves as an implicit justification and reification of Augustus' authority and power, both as a political leader and religious figure. This represents one example of the process of identity formation that occurred over the course of the empire, as "the restructuring of the religious system of Rome under Augustus [.] prompted new ways of defining what was 'Roman,' new ways of thinking about what was to count as 'Roman' and what was not."

On the Ara Pacis, Augustus represents himself in such a way as to redefine certain standards for what it means to be Roman while aligning those standards with a preexisting tradition in the form of Aeneas. In effect, the friezes of the Ara Pacis allowed Augustus to further legitimize his political reign by associating it with Rome's religious, mythical, and cultural histories. From here, Augustus continued reign is hinted at by the inclusion of the imperial family, because the representation of imperial children seems to suggest a kind of dynastic succession that implicitly suggests the virility and longevity of the emperor.

The close relationship between religious practice and political power is further evidenced by the procession of priests represented on the Ara Pacis. The members of the various priestly colleges depicted on the northern frieze carry a number of religious artifacts that serve to connect their religious practice both with Roman mythology and their contemporary politics. For example, "one priestly attendant [carries] a jug and incense box, decorated with a tripod," the symbol of Apollo, and thus represents the groups of priests directly responsible for religious practice associated with Apollo and "the prophetic Sibylline Books."

However, in addition to religious/mythical symbols such as this, the frieze contains a number of symbols that hint at the relationship between religious practice and political power, and specifically Augustus' reign at the time of the altar's consecration. One figure in the priestly procession carries "the fasces, the symbol of official power in Rome," while a number of figures carry sprigs of laurel, "a plant widely used in religious ritual and also a symbol of victory."

The fasces, a bundle of sticks with an ax blade protruding, represented the official power over life and death, and hints at Augustus' success as a conquering emperor. Similarly, the inclusion of laurel sprigs simultaneously serves a religious purpose and commemorates Augustus' success, highlighting the close connection between general religious symbols and the particular political and social concerns of the time.

While the reader may note that the analysis conducted here of the Ara Pacis depends mostly on descriptions of general visual codes and meanings, and does not go into detail about the images in any kind of truly "close reading," this is because one must be careful not "to attempt to interpret complex images of Roman art without truly understanding the visual vocabulary and syntax with which the images were composed, assuming that their meanings were somehow self-evident."

Instead, one may make more general insights into Roman religious practice and its connection to social and political life by noting those visual elements and associations that are relatively well understood. Thus, while it would likely presume too much to discuss the meaning of certain particular gestures or stylized depictions without providing a more in-depth account of Roman art than this essay can contain, one can quite comfortably discuss the implicit and explicit relationships between Roman religion, politics, and myth, if only because these movements are rendered in far simple, broader strokes; for example, while the representation of Aeneas likely had subtle details from which the average Roman could glean something intelligible that remains inaccessible to the modern historian, one may reasonably propose that this representation, regardless of its finer points, serves a simultaneously religious and political purpose by linking current religious and political practice to the mythological origins of Rome itself.

The second non-literary source for information about Roman religion discussed here is the Forum of Augustus and the temple of Mars Ultor included there. Like the Ara Pacis, the forum of Augustus was constructed to commemorate and honor the emperor, even as it served more general religious purposes. This fact is revealed when one considers the layout of the forum itself as well as the wide variety of stylistic influences it embodies:

There was only one statue of Augustus himself, in a chariot at the center of the Forum. But it was he who provided the link between all the other varied sculpture. Statues of Venus, for example, in the temple cella and on the pediment, called to mind the claims of the emperor's family to be descended from the goddess. The central cult image of Mars Ultor alluded to the god's protection of Augustus' family, particularly Mars' role in avenging Caesar's murder; while a statue of Julius Caesar (now divus Julius) must also have stood somewhere in the temple, asserting the divine status of Augusts' adoptive father.

In addition to visual elements linking Augustus to more recent Roman history and religion, the forum featured "statues of the two legendary founders of the Roman race: Aeneas, son of Venus and ancestor of Augustus' family; and Romulus, son of Mars."

Thus, in much the same way the friezes of the Ara Pacis served to link Augustus' reign to the mythical and religious history of Rome, so too does the Forum of Augustus intentionally associate the political ruler with the religious and mythical authorities of Rome itself, such that the justification for political power no longer comes from any earthly source.

This is further evidenced by the fact that the Forum of Augustus featured "statues of the most distinguished generals and statesmen of the Republic, [] underneath [which] was an inscribed summary of the man's career."

The recording of military and political leaders' exploits in monument is not a new phenomenon, but here one can see this process taken to its logical extreme. Whereas pharaohs and emperors have long built monuments to record their own deeds, it is telling that the Forum of Augustus lauds not only Augustus' supposedly divine heritage, but also takes space to celebrate the larger political elite upon which Augustus' power ultimately relied. One need not make presumptions about Augustus' political shrewdness to note that regardless of intention, these statues likely served to placate and support the very same political elite responsible for the construction and maintenance of Roman religious and political identity.

In Rome, and throughout history, "the physical setting of ancient religions helped to define their character and meaning," and this is nowhere more true than in the case of the grove of the Arval brothers, an order of priests.

Where the examples of non-literary sources of information about Roman religion discussed above showed a strong influence of the political on the representation of religion in physical space and objects, the grove of the Arval brothers highlights the connection between religious practice and social life. Located in a clearing outside of Rome, the grove included:

[] not just an aedes with a statue of the goddess Dea Dia, but also a bath building, tetrastylum (a building with four columns -- here used as a dining room), a shrine of the imperial cult (Caesareum), and a circus building (for races).

Here one can see how religious spaces served as community centers as much as sites of religious practice, because the grove of the Arval brothers, while including those elements necessary for the priests' religious practice, also features a number of structures geared explicitly for the entertainment and socialization of the general public. Thus, this source provides insights not only into the ritual practice of the Arval brothers, but how this ritual practice fit in with the lives of Romans more generally, allowing the historian to have a more nuanced understanding of Roman religion even without a robust accounting of the deeply complex visual language demonstrated across Roman art.