Religions of Rome

Religions of Rome

Long before the mythological figure of Romulus founded Rome, Rome was already being influenced by other religions, specifically the Greek religion when it was occupied by King Evander. King Evander was said, in common folklore, to have shown the escaping Trojan hero Aeneas the city, and the idea that Aeneas was a 'proto-founder' of Rome who brought his household gods to the city became a commonly-accepted part of the city's mythology. It was another great hero, Tarquin the Great, who laid the foundation for the city's temple to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, three of the most important gods in the Roman pantheon. By the time of the deposition of Tarquin the Proud, the structure of the Roman religion had been established.[footnoteRef:1] Thus, one of the most striking characteristics of the early Roman religion was that, unlike other religions of many early civilizations, no single family or leader dominated the faith. Religion was fairly diffuse, and the religious structures were quite open to absorbing the myths, gods, and cultures of others, including, most notably, the Greeks. Even the early Roman Sibylline Oracle spoke in Greek. [1: Mary, Beard, John North & Simon Price, Religions Of Rome: Volume 1-A History,(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp.2-3.]

Unfortunately, no established histories of this period exist to confirm the exact course of the evolution of what became the Roman religion. Instead, the stories were transmitted second-hand through poets like Virgil and historians of later Rome like Pliny and Livy. It has long been assumed that rather than factual truth, these historians were more concerned about conveying the 'spiritual' truth of what was considered Rome's nature during its early evolution. At best, there are only scattered, corroborated stories pertaining to the vows, special games, and other religious rituals of early Rome. However, if these historians had access to priestly records, as they claimed, their information may be more accurate than might otherwise be assumed. Furthermore, regarding specific dates (such as when the standard sacrificial offering was first established) within their texts, there does not seem to be a specific ideological reason for (for example) including the date of why the heart, along with other vital organs, was offered to the gods.[footnoteRef:2] [2: Ibid., 9.]

Other aspects of early, recorded Roman history do seem to have more of an ideological rationale, such as the detailing of the changing over from the early period of kingship to the early republic. For many later Roman writers, the early republic was considered a kind of pure, sacred time. But if the facts are true regarding how the priests governed in relationship to the king, even pre-republic, Rome enjoyed a kind of 'republican' form of government, in which there was power-sharing, rather than dominion of a single figure over all aspects of the early religion. Ironically, by having priests who were appointed for life, they had enough power to counterweight some of the influence of secular authority, creating a more balanced government. [footnoteRef:3] [3: Ibid., 61.]

Gradually, some of the aristocratic families came to claim a certain degree of dominance over certain religious structures, some even claiming that certain gods spoke only to them. However, this was counterweighted by the plebeians developing their own religions beliefs. Overall, early Roman religion, while far from democratic, resists easy characterization, and there is a strong tenor of plurality and diversity that was to give rise, later on, to the support of a variety of cults.