Author: jeromej

Christianity in the Roman Empire

jeromej

As Rives makes clear throughout his chapter, the primary goal of Roman religious policy was to protect and maintain public peace and order (190).  In the eyes of many roman citizens and officials, the only way to secure such a peace was through correct religious observance to the gods, thus upholding the pax deorum. Rives describes two classes of religious observance that were viewed as a direct threat to religious peace. The first class is the atheos, which describes those who show insufficient respect to the gods. In contrast to the atheos, those who were defined as superstitio were thought to exhibit improper, unacceptable, incorrect religious behavior (184).  For some romans, superstitio was the worst offense a citizen could make in religious practice. Plutarch even held the opinion that belief in no gods at all is better than belief in gods who are arrogant, captious, and petty (185).  With these attitudes towards religious dissent, it comes as no surprise that Christianity would come to stand at odds with mainstream Roman religio, and by consequence Roman public order.

The Roman perception of early Christianity is best captured by Tacitus’ account of great fire in Rome that occurred under the rule of Nero. Tacitus recalls that “The deadly superstitio was checked for a time only to break out again, not only in Judea, the source of the evil, but even in the capital itself, where all things hideous and shameful collect from everywhere and become all the rage” (Warrior 175). Superstitio is not just offensive or inconvenient for Roman rule, it is described as lethal. With such a view, it makes perfect sense why Christians would serve as a scapegoat for a major disturbance of public order. Interestingly though, Tacitus claims that the Christians charged were not found guilty on the grounds of arson directly, but rather for their “hatred of the human race” (Warrior 175).  Because Roman religious and political life was so closely united, the Christian rejection of Roman religio was seen as a politically subversive act directed not only at the gods, but towards roman citizens and officials as well. In response to these accusations, prominent Christians like Tertullian claim that they have nothing but the well-being of the empire in their mind. He states that on behalf of the well-being (salus) of the emperors, we invoke the eternal God, the true God, the living God… We pray that they may have long life, secure rule, a safe home, strong armies, a faithful senate, honest subjects, and a peaceful world” (Warrior 179-180). Even though Christians don’t observe public cultic practice, it does not mean that they wish to cause any form of political strife or upheaval. In the eyes of Tertullian, it is actually the Christians who should be seen as responsible for upholding roman peace and public order, because they are invoking the one true God. Thus, Roman officials should view Christians as pious and not superstitious.

Despite these arguments form early Christians, Roman policy for Christians remained a reactionary effort to suppress any upheaval they might cause in public order. Trajan himself states that when dealing with Christians “It is not possible to lay down any general rule that could provide a fixed standard” (Warrior 178). Nevertheless, he praises Pliny the Younger for his policy of dealing with Christians as they were brought before him, but never actively seeking them out. This method remained the standard precedent for many years until the persecutions of Decius and Diocletian during the third and early fourth centuries. These changes in policy targeted those men “who set up new-fangled and unheard-of sects in opposition to the older religious practices” (Warrior 183).  While this policy was not exclusive to Christianity, it clearly made them a target to be sought out and suppressed. Interestingly enough, this mentality is maintained even after Constantine’s victory and the Empire-wide acceptance of Christianity; this time, however, the roles have been reversed. Speaking about public policy on cultic practice, Constantius makes his views clear when he states that “all superstitions must be abolished” (Warrior 184).  It is now the old Roman cults that are viewed as superstitio and subversive to public peace and order.

Salvation in the Corpus Hermeticum

jeromej

Hermes Trismegistos, “Thrice Greatest Hermes,” is the Greek name for the Egyptian God Thoth. He is accredited as a great writer, and many works associate him with the skills of astrology, alchemy, spells, and medicine. The basic Hermetic perspective on the cosmos and human beings was very similar to what is known as the “gnostic” view.  The Hermetic tradition saw the material world as corrupt and inferior.  Additionally, humanity contains within itself an element from a higher level of existence to which people should strive to return (Rives 167).  Thus, the idea of salvation for Hermetic worshipers was found in the ability to free their spirit from their material body.  This separation was accomplished through the acquirement of certain knowledge that is hidden within the human spirit.  If one learns the all-important fact that he is originally from life and life, he “shall advance to life once again” (Rives 179).

The dialogue between the divine Hermes and his student Tat in the Corpus Hermeticum elaborate in greater detail these points on the Hermetic conception of the human condition and salvation.  In addition to confirming the condemned state of the material world, Hermes reveals to Tat that those who are born from God are also themselves God. Knowledge is not taught, but remembered whenever God wills it (65). Thus, for Hermetic worshipers the knowledge necessary for salvation and detachment from the physical cannot be imparted to them from an outside source; it must be found within them because it already exists hidden and silent within them.  Hermes then instructs Tat to cleanse “himself from the torments of the material world which arise from the lack of reason” (67). There are twelve torments in total which Hermes addresses barriers towards salvation: Ignorance, sorrow, intemperance, lust, injustice, greed, deceit, envy, treachery, anger, recklessness, and malice. Each of these torments is overcome by ten powers of God that are imparted during the process of rebirth, with knowledge listed as the foremost power among the ten. After singing a hymn of thanks and praise for receiving the rebirth and salvation from the powers of God (70), Hermes gives Tat one final order.  “And now that you have learnt this from me, keep silence about this miracle and reveal it to no one the tradition of rebirth, lest we be called betrayers” (71). This condition of secrecy is peculiar in light of the early statement made by Hermes that knowledge cannot be taught, but rather is only recalled according to God’s will. If the salvific knowledge can’t be taught, then Tat’s words should carry no consequence. Nevertheless, those who have been reborn must exercise the utmost secrecy.

Out of the various models of religious esoterica the Rives outlines in his chapter, the Hermetic tradition most obviously falls under the allure of salvation. This is best captured by a quote from Hermes, where he instructs Tat that “the visible body born of nature is far different from that of spiritual birth. For the one can be dissolved and the other cannot; the one is mortal and the other immortal. Do you not know that you have become divine and that you are a son of the One?  So also am I” (68). The Hermetic tradition offers a means to not just merely continue on in the afterlife with a somewhat comfortable existence, as is the case with Isis worshipper Lucius (Rives 174).  Instead, those who acquire the saving knowledge become immortal spirits, who eventually become like god (Rives 179).  The Hermetic tradition seems to also fall under Rives model of religious intensification quite well.  The imparting of the ten powers of God is an extremely intimate exchange.  That the Corpus Hermeticum is in the format of a discussion also lends to prove how this tradition contained the advantage of an intense and personal religious experience.

Identity in Roman Religions

jeromej

In chapter 4, Rives discusses how Roman religion fostered a sense of group identity and established social hierarchies through various forms of community life. One of the selections from Warrior that best encapsulates this relationship between religion, identity, and community is an excerpt from the historian Livy.  When Rome was afflicted by a major plague, it was the Senate who decided to consult the Sibylline Books and the priestly officials (duumvirs) who instituted the ritual of lectisternium. He notes that the ritual was not only observed by the priests, but additionally that “The ritual was also celebrated in private houses. Throughout the city doors were left open an food of all kind was set out for consumption. Everyone alike, as we are told, both known and unknown, was invited in and hospitably entertained.” (Warrior 8). Here we see a specific ritual designed to unify all the inhabitants of the city.  Everyone’s participation had a direct impact on the pax deorum and the health of the state, and thus only a unified effort could possibly hope to make an impact on the gods to win their favor.  What’s more, this story demonstrates how the powers of the State and those of higher positions were tied directly to Roman religious practice.  This in turn implies the social hierarchy that existed on a state level, where the private masses had to follow the public practices established by officials and elites.

The Healer and Savior Asclepius.

jeromej

In the temple of Asclepius there is an ivory and gold statue that is half the size of the statue of Zeus in Athens. This statue of Asclepius depicts him sitting on a throne; in one hand he wields a staff, and the other he holds above the head of a serpent. Across from the temple is where the god’s suppliants sleep. Within the Tholos (Round House) there stood several slabs inscribed with the names of people Asclepius had healed and what he had healed them from. After entering the sanctuary, the suppliant would fall asleep and await a vision from the god. The general pattern of the healing was that the god would approach the infirmed in dream and then promise to heal the wound.  When day came, the suppliant would awake and find himself healed exactly as it had been seen in the vision. Sometimes snakes would carry out the healings for Asclepius, as seen in the selection from Aristophanes’ Wealth (Warrior 112). Disease and sickness were daily realities for everyone in the Hellenistic era, and even more so for those living in highly populated cities such as Athens and Rome. The Roman historian Livy observes that a plague running through Rome was a serious threat (Warrior 260). To have a god of healing present in the city would be of great benefit.

Aristides seems to have a very personal and direct relationship with Asclepius. He writes as though Asclepius speaks in an audible voice concerning his ailments and healings. In the story of how his tumor on his leg is healed, the doctors and other people have no communication with the god. Aristides is the only one who can hear the god’s divine guidance towards healing. Most often he refers to Asclepius as the God, but other times he uses the term “Savior” (Pg. 224 line 7) or even “Lord” (228 line 24).  This highly personal relationship operates very differently from the divine-human relationships of the Classical Age.  The first major difference is that in the case of Asclepius it is the god who initiates the interaction. Instead of Aristides going to a temple or festival, he is met by the god in his dreams wherever he may be. Additionally, Aristides is healed before any form of sacrifice is made, if one is even made at all. This contrasts to the Classical Age cults, where an offering had to be made on the human’s side if there was any hope of the gods acting benevolently.

Based on the readings, it seems to me that ancient medicine and religion were at odds with one another and didn’t mix well. This sentiment is best captured when Aristides tumor has been healed, and the doctors insist that the only way for the remaining skin to finish healing was by surgery.  Aristides states that the doctors “thought it right that I grant this, for now the God’s part had been done. He did not even allow them this… And he brought everything back together, so that after a few days had passed, no one was able to find on which thigh the tumor had been, but they were both unscarred in every respect” (Aristides 220 line 67-68). While some of his ailments would be cured by use of drugs or remedies, the cure was always attributed to the work of the god and never a result of ancient medicine.

Diversity in Divinity: Gods and Heroes

jeromej

                As has been made clear already in the few days of this class, the Greco-Roman concept of the divine world is fluid and complex.  However, Mikalson’s chapter on the categorization of the divine world was very enlightening for understanding how these countless deities could co-exist in the same general culture.  The first two major categories that the Greeks used to categorize the divine were Gods and Heroes.  Gods are generally defined as beings who were born immortal and remain as such. Heroes, on the other hand, are defined as people who lived on the earth as a human and did extraordinarily great or awful deeds. Heroes all die, but alters would be erected in their remembrance because some cultic followers believed the hero still influenced the community in some way.  Gods and heroes are further categorized by whether they are Ouranic (“of the sky”) or Chthonic (“of the earth”). Such a classification determined whether rituals took place during the day or night, and what type of sacrifice would be made.

                Mikalson further notes three categories used to identify each God: the name, the epithet, and the locale.  This three level system is what allows for such a great diversity to exist in the number of Greek deities. Gods with the same name and epithet but a different locale would have dissimilar myths surrounding their origins. The epithet defined the function that the god served.  Poseidon Soter and Poseidon Hippios are both Poseidon, yet they are both very different deities; one tends to sailors at sea, and the other horses on land. The use of epithets demonstrates how the Greeks primarily identified the Gods based on their function. This aspect is seen most clearly in Warrior’s selection from Hesiod’s Theogony.  As each god is born, he or she is described based on the activity or function they excel at.  Artemis is called an archeress, Hephaestus is excellent in the arts, and Athena is known for her battle expertise (Warrior 21).

                 In contrast to gods, whose influence and mythology could spread over large areas, heroes are generally confined to a specific locale. This location was typically based off of their real or imagined tomb, and thus confined the heroes influence to a single state or neighborhood. A good example of this practice is seen in the remarks of the geographer Pausanias.  He observes how the people of Marathon worship the dead from battle at their tombs, and that these dead have come to be known as heroes (Warrior 7).

While the Greek system of categorizing Gods and heroes allowed for an extremely wide diversity of myths and beliefs, there were some generally established basic features.  According to fifth century historian Herodotus, Hesiod and Homer were responsible for creating a “divine genealogy.” They gave the gods their names, epithets, offices, skills, and appearances and solidified it in their literature. They likely received much of their ideas from long standing oral traditions. Mikalson observes that these basic features developed in literature along very different lines from the local cult myths (Mikalson 35).

                Mikalson’s discussion on the myth of Dionysus, Icarus, and Erigone explains why certain sanctuaries and cultic practices were founded in ancient Greece.  The Athenians celebrated a “swinging” ritual known as the Aiora during a Dionysian festival each year, which likely originates from the myth of Erigone hanging herself.  The killing and burial of Icarus in the myth also explain the origins of his cult as the eponymous hero of the deme Icarion (Mikalson 58).

The myth of Dionysus, Icarus, and

Approaches to Graeco-Roman Divinity

jeromej

Rives does an excellent job of fully introducing the complexities of the Roman divine in just a few short opening pages.  Like we discussed in class, when most people think of the Roman divine they think of the iconic Pantheon of gods: Zeus the God of lightning, his wife Hera, the god of the sea Poseidon, and so on. Rives quickly points out that the number of deities known to the Greaco-Roman world greatly exceeds the original 12-15.  Not only are there several lesser deities, but there can be multiple versions of the same god throughout the lands (15). In addition, the divine did not have to fall under the category of a character with distinct personality.  Many considered the physical sea, sun, moon, and other aspects of nature to be equally divine as the gods.  The divine can also encompass abstract ideas, such as Fortune and Persuasion, or Fear and Panic (17). Furthermore, Rives points to the widely varied uses of the terms daimones, heros , numen, and genius in the Graeco-Roman framework of the divine, and how those terms illustrate the close proximity of the superhuman and human spheres (19).

Though at first the Graeco-Roman concept of the divine seems to be pure Chaos, Rives cautions the modern reader from thinking that there was no order or unity in the Roman religions. The varied approaches to Roman religions allowed for a great deal of flexibility.  Rives states that “people invoked the idea of the divine in very different contexts for very different purposes” (21).  This is seen in the “tripartite theology,” which divides the different ways of approaching the gods and the divine into three spheres: the mythical, the physical, and the civil.  As illustrated by Varro’s writing, these spheres of approach did not always agree with each other. However, consistency was not all important; even though a view from the sphere of myth might be “wrong” from the civic point of view, the mythic view still has its merits within its own sphere.

Rives elaborates this point in his description of the four main spheres of Graeco-Roman approaches to the divine: cult, myth, art, and philosophy.  Each one operates independently, yet at the same time they intersect at numerous points. For example, all four spheres acknowledge in some way the general mythic framework of the divine world.  Myth and art share a very close relationship in this acknowledgment, as art usually takes inspiration straight from the poetic tales.  Cultic practices often involve statues from myths or hymns that reference mythic stories. However, these aspects are not central to the Roman cultic observance.  Similarly, while philosophy has some ties to the other spheres it often tries to subvert and reinterpret myth, art and cult. Each sphere operates independently, yet they all interact and agree varyingly on many beliefs and ideas.