Superstitio and the Roman Suppression of the Bacchic Cult

Graeco-Roman religion was an incohesive system of overlapping sets of cult practices, myths, iconographic conventions, and philosophical propositions.  James B. Rives notes how this approach provided a framework within which new traditions could be incorporated almost indefinitely and with minimum conflict.[i] It is thus intriguing when Roman rule would restrict, repress, and even criminalize certain religious traditions and behaviors.  An overarching commonality between these various restricted traditions is their status as superstitio. As we shall see, these practices were labeled with this term for a variety of reasons.  These motivations ranged from a fear of disturbing the pax deorum in a strongly religious sense to a fear of political subversion as a means of conspiracy.  The incidence of 186 B.C.E. and the Roman suppression of Bacchic rites is a comprehensive example of the various ways superstitio was used to maintain the pax Romana. This study will first examine the difficulties in defining the term superstitio as it was used in the era surrounding the second century B.C.E.  After this, I shall establish a brief survey of the cult’s history leading up to its suppression in 186. This history will lay the ground work for how the accounts of Livy and the Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus are to be read, and furthermore their understanding of the threats that superstitio posed to the Roman Empire.

The original significance of superstitio is uncertain. It seems that under Greek influence it has come to have much of the same connotations as deisidaimonia, which literally means “fear of the divine”. As Rives accurately points out, superstitio and deisidaimonia do not have clear cut meanings even in ancient Roman times. They are instead evaluative terms for whatever religious behavior people regarded as improper, unacceptable, or incorrect.[ii] Not only were these superstitious behaviors improper, but they also presented genuine threats to the peace of the Roman Empire. The first way that that superstitio was seen as dangerous was its potential to upset the pax deorum. Simply put, cultic rites labeled as superstitio represented potential neglect and insult to the true Roman gods who wanted only proper sacrifices, without which the prosperity of Rome would suffer greatly.[iii] Conversely, many scholars have argued that the real threat superstitio posed to the Roman social order was primarily political in nature. Dale B. Martin asserts that “Roman superstitio differed somewhat from Greek deisidaimonia in the Roman emphasis on the political threat posed by superstition to the Roman state and people.”[iv] The Bacchic cult that would eventually establish itself in Rome is a prime example of how superstitio could threaten both religious peace and political order. Before this point is further explored, we must first trace the history of the mystery cult and how it arrived at its menacing state by 186 B.C.E.

The Greek God Dionysus

Worship of the god Dionysus existed well before Euripides’ wrote the Bacchae, but the rites described in his play become more renowned by the end of the fifth century B.C.E.  There are two initials problems that one must keep in mind when reading the Bacchae: first, whether this play reflects actual religious practice before Euripides’ own time, and second, whether the Bacchae itself becomes the source from which subsequent Bacchic ritual is derived.[v] While these are important questions to keep in consideration, the Bacchae nevertheless highlights several key aspects of Bacchic rites that would be evident by the time of the persecution in 186. One characteristic of these rights is the emphasis on mystery initiations within the cult.[vi] Another feature is that women had exclusive roles within the cult. An inscription from Miletus from circa 276 B.C.E confirms the existence of Maenadic associations in some Greek cities. It describes both men and women participating in the cultic rites at a public level, yet restricting the more frenzied were restricted to women only.[vii] Writing from the mid first century B.C.E., Diodorus of Sicily testifies to how many of the rites held in various Greek cities.[viii] He distinguishes between rites of the virgins and the rites of the married women participants, and how some of these rites took place at night. These accounts demonstrate the increasing presence of Bacchic initiations and their eventual founding in Rome proper by the time they ultimately came to the attention of the Roman government in 186 B.C.E

We have two main sources for understanding the events that transpired during the incident of Roman suppression of Bacchic rites in the second century: An account from the historian Livy and a Bronze copy of the Roman Senate’s decree (Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus). These accounts are not without their own biases, and several scholars rightly state that they should be treated with discretion.[ix] Nevertheless, these accounts illuminate the different ways in which traditions deemed superstitio could threaten the peace of the empire. First of all, Livy’s account is very informative on how Superstitio related to upholding the pax deorum.

Titus Livius Patavinus (64 or 59 BC – AD 17)

“I have thought that these warning should be given to so that no superstitious fears (superstitio) disturb your minds when you see us destroying the Bacchic shrines and breaking up wicked assemblies. This we will do if the gods are favorable and willing.”[x]

Livy is addressing the fear that some Roman’s might have with the notion of destroying a religious site. Even if certain citizens didn’t personally participate in Bacchic rites, they would still be fine with acknowledging the reality and existence of the deity. By labeling Bacchic rites as superstitio, Livy and the Roman government are able to destroy the shrines to Bacchus without fear of upsetting the pax deorum because the gods only acknowledge proper pious rites.

Not only did superstitio represent a threat to religious order, but many scholars argue that its primary threat was political in nature. This aspect is seen through the many provisions made in the Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus. Most notable of these provisions are the prohibitions that “No man is to be a priest. No man or woman is to be an official. Nor are any of them to have a common fund… No one shall perform rites in the presence of more than five persons altogether, both male and female. Nor shall more than two men and three women be present, unless this is in accordance with the urban praetor”[xi]

Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus

A Greek inscription from Phykos in central Greece shows how these regulated thiasos consisting of both men and women continued to operate into the second century C.E.[xii] Celia E. Schultz rightly observes how the fact that the politically disenfranchised were permitted to continue worship of Dionysus in a restricted fashion further underlines the political nature of the crisis of 186.[xiii]  The sanctions against the cult are markedly targeted towards restricting the influence of male participation, because only men at the time could potentially have any political pull. Richard Gordon similarly argues in a broader sense outside of the crisis of 186 that superstitio was used to maintain the imagined community of the dominating socio-political elite.[xiv] Furthermore, Livy’s account is filled with legalistic terms describing the incident as a conspiracy (coniuratio).[xv] The invocation of these term supplements the existing evidence that the Senate perceived the threat of the Bacchic superstitio as political in nature.

One final aspect of Roman peace that the superstitious Bacchic rites threatened was the upholding of traditional Roman mores (mos maiorum). Women clearly played a leading role within the cultic rites, and their authority possibly challenged traditional male leadership.  Kraemer suggests that the Bacchanalia might reveal the fears of the Roman government when women begin to obtain too much autonomy.[xvi] Schultz, on the other hand, argues that gender was not a primary concern in the crisis of 186. The senate, she argues, took a “lukewarm interest in curbing female participation in the cult.”[xvii] Nevertheless, the Bacchic superstitio clearly represented a clear threat to traditional Roman mores in the eyes of Livy and the Senate.

Thus, the history of the Roman suppression of Bacchic rights provides a ready model for understanding how superstitio was understood as a threat to the Roman Empire. It was employed against the Bacchic worshipers for religious reason in order to maintain the pax deorum. Other scholars have argued how superstitio was an evaluative term used to manage threats to political order. Finally, there are some scholars who demonstrate how certain religions labeled as superstitio threatened the mos maiorum of traditional Roman rule.