A Critical Review of: Orlin, E. M., ‘Foreign Cults in Republican Rome: Rethinking Pomerial Rule’, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, Vol. 47, University of Michigan Press, (2002) pp.1-18

Orlin’s article is based around the concept of pomerial rule, which is the suggestion that foreign cults were not represented within the pomerium – the sacred boundary of Ancient Rome. Instead of focusing on the architecture and other aspects of representations of foreign cults that so many writers analyse, Orlin specifically focuses on the positioning of them in the city, providing valuable knowledge into Roman thought and interpretation of the foreign divinities that were being incorporated into their city. By going back to the very basic principles of building a temple or representation of any religion, foreign or not, and asking questions about the location, Orlin puts the reader into the minds of the architects: the first question one would ask when building is where to put it in the first place.

Orlin begins his article on “Foreign Cults in Republican Rome” with background of the evocatio of Juno Regina following the capture of Veii. By beginning with a clear example of the way in which a cult was subjugated by the Romans and made it their own, Orlin establishes the base of his inquiry around the setting of foreign cults in Rome (pg. 1). As Orlin discusses, the example of this evocatio is one of the most analyzed ‘in the history of Roman religion’ (pg. 1), and therefore makes a constructive example for one to build their argument around. Throughout the journal, Orlin’s main argument centralises around the way in which Roman attitudes towards foreign cults are perceived. He provides a balanced account of different historical perspectives, drawing on the conclusion that the Romans did, in his view, ‘recognise the importance of incorporative tradition’ (pg. 16). However, Dionysius of Halicarnassus takes a different perspective, deeming that the Romans never officially adopted foreign cults as their own, but instead celebrated them in conjunction with their pre-existing traditions.[1] Orlin also renders this view by portraying that the location of the temples dedicated to foreign religions were both in and outside the pomerium (pg. 7), which suggests the a larger degree of the acceptance felt by Romans than Dionysius depicts. However, it would be intriguing to have also mentioned the reasons for the subjugation of foreign cults in this way: for instance, was it to portray an expanding empire? Or was the importing of foreign divinities a way of claiming their dominance over foreign peoples? It would be important to discuss these topics, as the justification of having the foreign cult in Rome in the first place would affect its location in the city greatly. What Orlin does argue is that Romans saw many foreign divinities as ‘long-lost ancestors’ and subsequently used this as a justification for their presence in Rome: for example, the introduction of Magna Mater from around Troy and the construction of the temple dedicated to her in 191BCE on the Palatine Hill (pg. 7). The Palatine Hill is undisputedly enclosed in the pomerium, and therefore the Roman’s justification of ancestry with Magna Mater must have been reasonable and affected the temple’s positioning. For all that Orlin dwells on the position of the temples and statues dedicated to foreign cults, it can be suggested that some, but not enough, thought is devoted to the Roman justification of their positioning.

An issue that Orlin addresses very early on in the journal is the definition of the term ‘foreign cult’ (pgs. 2-4). By dividing the common conceptions of a foreign cult, Orlin highlights the difficulties in actually pinpointing the difference between a foreign cult and what was deemed ‘Roman.’ Although continuing this line of thought for quite a large proportion of the article, Orlin highlights how a foreign cult was one that preserved an ‘indication of the origin of the cult outside of Rome’ (pg. 4). He dismisses a common conception that all foreign temples lay outside of the pomerium as is so often suggested, but there was some reluctance to allow certain cults inside, whereas this reluctance was not felt for others. Orlin argues that the Aventine, ‘as a place for welcoming outsiders, whether political, social or cultural outsiders…had no equal in Roman topography’ (pg. 13).  The Aventine is commonly associated with the plebeians of Rome, and Orlin creates the likely argument that temples were built in relation to the plebs, and therefore not totally foreign from the Roman people (pg. 12). He also reveals the difficulty in defining areas of the sacred boundary, therefore making it difficult to accurately assess the location of some ancient temples. By providing these arguments for the reader, it puts into perspective the importance of the position of foreign divinities and their temples in Rome, whereas so many other historians choose to focus on the architecture, decoration and purpose.

In conclusion, Orlin presents a clear and well-referenced article, which would be valuable for anyone studying the foreign cults of ancient Rome. The article may only provide a succinct element in the study of foreign cults, but it provides valuable arguments, contradict others that are seen as more widely known.  Orlin deals with the precise cults, using them almost like case studies, to make each point. This allows the reader to easily access the journal article, whether to observe locations of foreign cults as a whole or the individual religions themselves. The article adds different thought to the subject that many others have not considered. Although not much comparison is drawn between the relationship between the foreign cult in Rome and its place of origin, Orlin does provide comprehensible definitions of what a foreign cult actually was to the Romans, and what it is deemed as today, and how the sacred boundaries of Rome were used for foreign cults.

---

[1] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 2.19

Res Gestae Divi Augusti, 19-21

Res Gestae Divi Augusti, Augustus (19-21)

Trans. Brunt, P. A., Moore, J. M., 1981

“19 I built the Senate House, and the Calcidicum, adjacent to it, the temple of Apollo on the Palatine with its porticoes, the temple of the divine Julius, the Lupercal, the portico at the Flaminian circus, which I permitted to bear the name of the portico of Octavius after the man who erected the previous portico on the same site, a pulvinar at the Circus Maximus, the temples on the Capitol of Jupiter Feretrius and Jupiter the Thunderer, the temple of Quirinus, the temples of Minerva and Queen Juno and Jupiter Libertas on the Aventine, the temple of Lares at the top of the Sacred Way, the temple of the Di Penates in the Velia, the temple of Youth, and the temple of the Great Mother on the Palatine.

20 I restored the Capitol and the theatre of Pompey, both works at great expense without inscribing my own name on either. I restored the channels of the aqueducts, which in several places were falling into disrepair through age, and I brought water from a new spring into the aqueduct called Marcia, doubling the supply. I completed the Forum Julium and the basilica between the temples of Castor and Saturn, works begun and almost finished by my father, and when that same basilica was destroyed by fire, I began to rebuild it on an enlarged site, to be dedicated in the name of my sons, and in case I do not complete it in my lifetime, I have given orders that it should be completed by my heirs. In my sixth consulship I restored eighty-two temples of the gods in the city on the authority of the senate, neglecting none that required restoration at the time. In my seventh consulship I restored the Via Flaminia from the city as far as Rimini, together with all bridges except the Mulvian and the Minucian.

21 I built the temple of Mars the Avenger and the Forum Augustum on private ground from the proceeds of booty. I built the theatre adjacent to the temple of Apollo on ground in large part bought from private owners, and provided that it should be called after Marcus Marcellus, my son-in-law. From the proceeds of booty I dedicated gifts in the Capitol and in the temples of the divine Julius, of Apollo, of Vesta and of Mars the Avenger; this cost me about 100,000,000 sesterces.”

The Res Gestae Divi Augusti was commissioned by Emperor Augustus, supposedly years before his death in AD 14. It is described as “perhaps the most famous inscription left to us by Antiquity”.[1] The inscription was outside Augustus’ mausoleum in Rome. As a primary source that was undoubtedly drafted and rewritten many times prior to Augustus’ death due to the high profile it would have in maintaining his legacy, it stretches many truths and conceals some facts of Augustus’ reign. However what is does provide is an insight into the need for legacy to survive, and the importance placed by Augustus on being remembered. It highlights what many other Emperors and rulers of the Roman Empire (and of countries and empires throughout history) have done: attempted to preserve their achievements in a permanent, lasting way.

The above extract of the Res Gestae depicts Augustus’ impact on several major public, private, religious and political buildings, including the Temple of Mars Ultor and the theatre of Pompey. Of course, it is recorded by other historians that Augustus did have these buildings and monuments restored.[2] However what the Res Gestae does is allow the audience to realise how ‘respectful’ Augustus was to the original builder. On the other hand, this ‘respect’ for the original commissioner could be interpreted as Augustus actually trying to overule the original builder. Therefore what the source says and Augustus’ intentions of the events depicted by the source could be very different things. The source is however invaluable in giving the audience an insight into how Augustus wanted to be viewed after his death. When analysing this source it is important to consider what exactly one is looking to discover about Augustus and his achievements. This is true of other inscriptions and recordings made by rulers: for example the Relief of Darius at Behistun, which depicts how the Persian ruler suppressed revolts since 520BCE. This relief is engraved onto a rock cliff face almost too high for the naked eye to see from the ground, but again reflects a ruler’s need to become a permanent part of history. Both Darius and Augustus portray similar kinds of anxiety to manage their messages and record their achievements, otherwise these events could be forgotten – leading ultimately to the Emperors’ fear of being forgotten.

The most obvious issue with the Res Gestae Divi Augusti for an insight of the rule of Augustus is its undoubted bias towards the Emperor: the title itself being a clear example of this, as it translates to “The Deeds of the Divine Augustus.” As his final words, they were bound to emit a sense of lasting legacy with limited mention of any possible negative impacts of his reign. The audience of the Res Gestae Divi Augusti is not widely regarded as the people of the time it was commissioned, but more likely meant for future generations: this is mirrored by the use of marble for the inscription, as it reflects a more permanent reminder of Augustus’ rule. Therefore, for the purpose of maintaining his desire to be remembered as a great ruler who brought Rome prosperity, the source becomes biased further. Ways in which Augustus used propaganda were not limited to his inscription: in fact he used coins that would be seen daily by the people of Rome and other areas of the Empire, acting as a constant reminder of Augustus and his great achievements.[3] The fact that sums of money are consistently mentioned throughout the inscription supports this, coupled with the reiteration that all of his work was paid for with his own funds, suggests that it was a matter of pride to declare how much money had been spent, for instance, on dedicating gifts to Julius of Apollo, Vesta and Mars. The content of this source reflects not an Emperor attempting to educate the world on the facts of his rule, but instead to ensure his place in history was an optimistic one.[4] The motives of the inscription, therefore, hinder the reliability and accountability of the source.

There is not simply one copy of the Res Gestae Divi Augusti. One copy was placed in Rome outside Augustus’ mausoleum, and another in Ancyra. This distribution gave the message a much wider audience, meaning a further promotion of Augustus. By spreading his ‘autobiography’ throughout the world, Augustus displays both the extent of Roman dominance and his own personal prowess as ruler. The Res Gestae was also translated into Greek for the copy in Ancyra: this portrays Augustus attempting to appeal to all peoples, not just Latin-readers, therefore further fuelling the interpretation that it was Augustus’ goal to spread his legacy as far throughout the world as he could. This is similar, again, to the technique used by Darius in his relief at Behistun, which is a tri-lingual inscription of Babylonian, Elamite and Old Persian. However, as with any translated piece, the translations themselves are subject to interpretation.[5] Even for the analysis of this source in this essay, the original has been translated from the original Latin into English. The translator themselves would have changed some wording and phrasing, limiting the Greek source. As discussed by William Davis, only extracts of the inscription have survived the test of time[6], and therefore those extracts that have been recovered are in fact the remains of an interpretation of the Res Gestae Divi Augusti.

In conclusion, the Res Gestae Divi Augusti is an example of an emperor managing how the population at the time and in future generations perceives them, as well as spreading their messages throughout the empire. The purpose of the inscription is not for an accurate, un-biased account of the achievements of Augustus: the intention was to preserve the memory of the emperor and act as a reminder of his greatness. The source is a clear indicator of the way in which it was integral for emperors to feel as if they have presented themselves as amicable and pious.

---

[1] Davis, W. S., Readings in Ancient History: Illustrative Extracts from the Sources, 2 Vols. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1912-13), Vol. II: Rome and the West, pp. 166

[2] Suetonius, Life of Augustus, 28

[3] Braund, D. C., Augustus to Nero, A Source Book on Roman History, 31BC to AD68, Taylor and Francis, pp.10

[4] Eck, W., The Age of Augustus, John Wiley & Sons (2002), pp.1-5

[5] Morley, N., Writing Ancient History, Cornell University Press, (1999), pp.57

[6] Davis, W. S., Readings in Ancient History: Illustrative Extracts from the Sources, 2 Vols. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1912-13), Vol. II: Rome and the West, pp.166

Meanwhile, over the border...

Ancient imperialism has been a subject of debate between historians for centuries. The matter consists of a number of questions – some which still remain to be answered. For example, what were the motives of expansion? Why did ancient cultures seek to impose their rule upon foreign states?  What circumstances would allow for a successful “empire” and how does a culture go about achieving this? In this essay I will look at these questions, drawing some conclusions as to the “what’s” and “whys” of ancient imperialism.

The first topic I will address is the factors that drive the desire to expand. For example, the Romans and Athenians had varying motives in their conquests for imperialism. Athenian motives included economic desires that fuelled their need for an empire – much like the British Empire was based around the economic effects of trade in the late nineteenth and early to mid-twentieth centuries. The Romans saw their empirical conquest as both economic and ideology, as it Roman rulers wanted to spread their ideas and culture, as well as exploit other country’s resources. It is therefore also important to understand that different rulers had varying ways of justifying their rule of other countries. One of the justifications used by Athenian rulers would be the economic advantage for the colonized state of being part of an imperial power. One of the many factors driving Roman imperialism was indeed economic: for example the need for slaves.[1] These justifications dominated the reasons behind many other ancient (and modern) imperial powers, including the Ottoman and Greek empires. These justifications were necessary for the subjugated lands to understand, as it acted as an appeasement process to combat dissidence and revolt.

The requirements of a central power were often the reason that ancient cultures sought to impose their rule upon foreign states. A common reason was natural resources and land for cultivation. For instance, the Greeks and Athenians had a strong desire to expand due to their highly infertile and mountainous land, which was making it difficult for farming and hindering the economy. However, as Thucydides argues, imperialism could simply be put down to human nature.[2] Thucydides creates the argument that it is the natural need for power that plays the dominant role in the motives for an empire – the practicalities that accompany it are mere convenience: for example, the Greeks would gain the fertile land that they needed to keep their economy alive the further they expanded.

Expanding an empire is an infinite task, as empires continued to expand further and further until their eventual decline. The phases of achieving an empire were complex: in the case of the Roman Empire, it was crucial to build a strong army and navy. Goldsworthy’s The Roman Army at War 100BC to 200AD depicts the strengths of the Roman army which made them such a viable force.[3] The fact that this army was able to overcome others much larger than itself portrays one key factor of physically achieving an empire, as other lands had to be conquered. Another crucial feature of any aspiring imperial role is the maintenance of control over subjugated states. The Romans took the general stance of appeasing their foreign lands and not imposing their religion and political and economic systems on them. This reduced revolts, which in turn decreased unnecessary drains on the military that Goldsworthy depicts as so crucial to the upkeep of the empire. However this policy of appeasement also overcomes other obstacles. The Roman Empire, for many, offered a better way of life than many had previously. This meant that citizens were not as widely against being swallowed into the Roman Empire as one could initially think. With Roman technology and governing, many subjugated lands were much better equipped than they ever had been before. Military force and domestic policies are just a few of the many methodological ways for an empire to expand, but they are amongst the most crucial.

The difference between a ‘successful’ and an ‘unsuccessful’ empire is a common cause for debate. For example, one could argue that the Ottoman Empire was the longest lasting and one of the largest empires in history, so therefore should be considered a successful empire. However, the occurrences within the empire must surely contribute to the success of an imperial power. With the case of the Ottoman Empire, within its approximately six centuries of power, there were many uprisings against rulers – for example the Jelali revolts, which were arguably the empire’s most serious challenge to power.[4] These revolts occurred for a number of social, political and economic factors, including oppression. Being a common factor of society at the time, it can be widely accepted that oppression was simply a way of life. However, clearly, it was a source for unrest throughout a supposed ‘successful’ empire. The fact that this empire can be regarded as successful yet had internal issues, shows the conception that it was a matter of how far the imperial power’s influence spread across continents and how long it lasted that determined its success.

In conclusion, this essay briefly outlines the motives, requirements and successes of imperialism in ancient times. These three aspects are widely debated: the motives of ancient imperialism can never fully be known, as only documentation that has survived can be translated – this does not give historians the much insight into the truthful motivations of imperialistic rulers. The way in which rulers went about achieving varied almost as much as the motivations for them: however it is undoubted that military strength was absolutely necessary for the successful subjugation of foreign nations. Within historiography, it is a common conception that a ‘successful’ empire simply lasted an extended period of time and expanded over far distances. However it must also be considered the issues within those empires, such as revolts and uprisings, could affect the scale of success of an empirical power. Therefore, there is no definitive answer to the process in which an empire can be achieved and no strict scale of success to empirical powers: one historian’s success could be another’s failure.

---

[1] North, J.A., The Development of Roman Imperialism, The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 71 (1989) 1-9, pp.4

[2] Thucydides, ed. Ford, F., Thucydides on the Causes of Athenian Imperialism, American Political Science Review, Vol. 80 No.2 (1986)

[3] Goldsworthy, A. K., The Roman Army at War, Oxford University Press (1996) pp.215-246

[4] Surhone, M., Tennoe, M., Hennsonow, S., Jelali Revolts, Betascript Publishing (2010)