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