What does the nature of the physical presence of foreign cults in Rome tell us about Roman attitudes to the outside world?

As the Roman Empire expanded across the globe, it was not just language and territory that became more diverse. The spread of the empire brought foreign cults to Rome through trade, slavery and triumph, and what was Roman religion became an assortment of many traditions Romanized in the capital.[1] And of course, along with religion came temples, sanctuaries, statues and altars dedicated to foreign divinities. The representations and locations of different cults varied: for example, foreign cults with temples within the pomerium, such as on the Aventine Hill, portray an acceptance of the outside world and Romans have allowed their deities within the sacred boundary. The way in which foreign cults are physically presented in Rome tells us the different attitudes of the Romans. Those that were elaborate and displayed in public areas such as the Forum Romani and within the pomerium portray a sense of Romanization, whereas those that were merely accepted but driven to less public areas of the city, and sometimes underground, reflect less of an acceptance of the invading or subjugated religion. Furthermore, as Orlin argues, even though many deities from foreign lands were brought to Rome, ‘a great many more were not,’[2] reflecting a lack of total willingness to allow the outside world to have influence in Rome.

One of the earliest examples of a foreign religion within Rome is the temple of a plebeian triad, Ceres, Liber and Libera at the foot of the Aventine Hill, which dates back to 493 B.C.E.[3] This cult represents Greek influence within Rome, with even the temple itself having been supposedly painted by Greek artists.[4] With this Greek influence so early on in Rome’s history sitting so central to the city within the pomerium, the physical presence of the temple portrays the earliest signs of an acceptance towards the outside world. The nature of the physical presence of this cult does not end at the temple of the triad: the Games of Ceres (‘Ludi Ceriales’)[5], held between the twelfth and nineteenth of April in the Circus Maximus, also presented a Greek influence in Rome. By incorporating the cult into the Roman religious calendar and having a temple erected in their honour, the cult of Ceres, Liber and Libera had a permanent presence in the minds of Romans. However, the temple of the triad, as well as the Aventine itself, was commonly associated with the plebeian section of society.[6] It has been argued that foreign cults coming to Rome were a result of military campaigns, and as the plebs made up large proportion of the Roman military, it seemed appropriate that the pleb’s service could be celebrated on the Aventine.[7] However this is an unlikely scenario, as many foreign cults that entered Rome following the conquering of their native land did not appear to be represented on the Aventine Hill. It may have merely been a case of the Roman’s plebeian society recognising the new divinities and adopting them as their own, allowing them to enter from the outside world. The plebeian society, amongst their low life expectancy and squalid conditions,[8] now had religious deities that they could turn to that they could not previously, and by the Republican period, Ceres had become a patron of the lower classes of Rome.

Whilst some cults reflect the conquering of another land and the importation of their deities, the Romans also believed that if they invited particular gods to Rome, it would bring them victory or prosperity. This reflects the attitude that the Romans would encourage the outside world when it could benefit them. One example of this recruitment of a foreign deity to aid Rome was Cybele, or, as she was known in Rome, Magna Mater (‘Great Mother’).[9] Cybele was brought to Rome by the Senate during the Punic Wars – not by trade or word of mouth, but by the ruling body of Rome – as it was believed that she would bring victory over Carthage.[10] This reflects respect for the outside world, as well as admission that other deities could be necessary to maintain Rome’s power. This is further portrayed by the location of Cybele’s temple in Rome on the Palatine Hill next to the Imperial Palace: this quashes notions that Romans were not willing to receive foreign divinities within the pomerium.[11] However, Roman pontifices monitored the cults of Cybele. These were highly ranking priests of Rome, and this reflects a desire to Romanize the cults and govern them in a way that was satisfactory to the social elite of Rome.[12] It is therefore likely that the physical presence of Cybele, and the way in which her cults were presented, were monitored by the cult’s Roman priesthood. This depicts an example of control over the way in which foreign cults were portrayed in Rome, much like in the way that Rome then controlled the origin of those foreign divinities.[13]

An example of an undoubtedly foreign cult that came to Rome is that of Juno Regina. In September 392 B.C.E. following the successful conquer of Veii, a ceremony took place that brought Juno Regina from Veii to Rome[14]. This ceremony marked an evocatio[15]: a physical spectacle that celebrated the integration of a foreign cult into Roman society.[16] This physical celebration of a new religion, and the dedication of a temple to it, marked the incorporation of a foreign religion and shows how the people of Rome now claimed Veii as part of their empire, and therefore Veii’s deities became Rome’s as well. The incorporation of the Temple of Juno Regina is commonly associated with the expansion of Roman power, and Orlin suggests that it was welcomed into the city as a means of depicting the willingness of the Romans to accept those that were ready and willing to provide Rome with a service: in the case of Juno Regina, it was believed that she had brought Rome’s victory over Veii, and was therefore invited to Rome to become Roman.[17] As Dionysius of Halicarnassus argues, Rome never ‘officially adopted’ a foreign culture, but instead celebrated them as their own ‘in accordance with her own traditions.’[18] In some respects, the evocatio of Juno Regina represents not the adopting of then new religion, but instead the integration of it into the Roman calendar. The physical presence of Juno Regina’s temple and its magnificent triumphal archway reflects that the Romans perceived this new cult as essentially Roman, so in their minds may not have depicted a certain attitude to what was previously the ‘outside world.’ However it does portray an initial allowance for the outside world to have some form of influence in Rome, as Juno Regina could have been easily left out of the Roman religious calendar, but was chosen to be included.[19]

Egyptian cults also migrated to Rome around the first century B.C., as early as the time of Sulla, when the Isaic god of Pastophori had been incorporated.[20] It was inevitable that Egyptian cults would eventually find their way to Rome through trade routes following the fall of the Ptolemy dynasty in the North African region. However it is the favourite lady of Egypt, Isis, that must be given thought when depicting foreign cults within Rome and how they reflected a Roman’s view on the outside world. Although the religion faced difficulty in the time of Augustus and was banned frequently, this was mainly due to the emperor’s familial ties to Caesar and his dealings with Marc Anthony and Cleopatra. Isis was one of the most prominent foreign cults physically present in Rome, with her symbolism and bust appearing on coins of emperors such as Diocletian and Hadrian. The fact that her image was portrayed on coinage shows the acceptance of the cult from the outside world from the point of view of the emperor. As an everyday object, the images of Isis on coinage would soon become part of a Roman’s day-to-day experience, familiarizing themselves with a religion that was once foreign, but was now engulfed in the Roman Empire. Egyptian cults were not only present in coinage, but also in monuments and temples, with Isis’ large sanctuary in Rome having an entrance of a triumphal archway that would have been impressive to any passer-by. Turcan goes into great detail on the subject of Isis’ affect on the Roman people: ‘Isis had the bewitching charm, beauty and goodness of a Madonna who would above all listen to women and the unfortunate.’[21] Therefore it appears that the exoticness of Isis, through her constant presence in the landscape and everyday monetary exchanges, appealed to the Romans and made those that previously felt powerless in society that they could now look to a new religion and make it their own. Because Egyptian cults became part of the landscape, coinage and ritual proceedings of Rome, it must therefore be insinuated that the Romans had a certain or high degree of acceptance for the culture from the outside world. It reflects Turcan’s argument that the cults appealed to the people of Rome as something new and exotic, as well as an opportunity to further portray their rule and dominance over foreign lands. It can be argued that, whereas the Roman people may have had some acceptance of this foreign cult, particular emperors and senates did not share these views.[22] Both Turcan and Witt dwell on the ban of Isis in the pomerium and in the suburbs,[23] with Turcan concluding that the senate’s worry caused them to withdraw support from the cult of Isis, as they were ‘anxious to restore the values of Rome’s most traditional qualities.’[24] This reflects an anxiety over foreign cults and their influence in Rome from above – and if this anxiety had any foundation then it could be suggested that the Roman people were receptive to the cults, which was in turn antagonising the senate. The extent of the evidence of the presence of Isis reflects an example of Romans incorporating foreign cults into their own society,[25] and in turn allowing the outside world to become a part of Rome itself.

In conclusion, it is clear that foreign cults did have influence within Rome through their impact on the landscape, as well as on coinage throughout the Republican and Imperial periods. Although different scales of acceptance varied in accordance to the emperor at the time and his values,[26] foreign cults - even if their origin was distorted - still had a place in the Roman religious calendar and permanent features such as temples and shrines. This varied acceptance portrays an equally diverse attitude to the outside world: in some instances, imperial expansion and a ‘need’ for a certain god led to the incorporation of foreign cults in Rome, reflecting the attitude that Rome was expanding and therefore so did it’s religious calendar. It must be remembered that there was reasoning behind each foreign cult in Rome, as many more religious deities were not brought to the ancient city.[27] This reflects some concerns of the Roman people for the cults of the outside world. It was more of a case of whether or not the foreign deity could benefit Rome: if it was, for example, predicted that a certain god would bring victory, then it was more likely that that deity would be accepted within the city. It can, therefore, be suggested that the physical presence of foreign cults in Rome does not necessarily reflect a particular view on the outside world: instead, it reflects the Roman need for victory and survival, which they believed divinities from the outside world could encourage.

---

[1] Turcan, R., (2000), pp.105

[2] Orlin, E. M., (2010) pp.31

[3] Turcan, R., (2000), pp.107

[4] Pliny the Elder, 35.154

[5] Ovid, 4

[6] Orlin, E. M., (2002), pp.9

[7] Andreussi, (1993), pp.149, cited in Orlin, E. M., (2002) pp.9

[8] Scobie, A., (1986), pp.401, 407

[9] Beard, M., (1994), pp.153

[10] Beard, M., (1994), pp. 168

[11] Orlin, E. M., (2002), pp.2

[12] Beard, M., (1994), pp.173

[13] Vermaseren, M., (1977), pp.98. For further reference to the manipulation of Cybele in Rome, see pp.90-100. It is highlighted that many priests were not castrated, therefore dividing the priesthood into a Roman section and Phyrgian one.

[14] Orlin, E. M., (2002), pp.1

[15] Livy, 5.21-23

[16] Orlin, E. M., (2002), pp.1

[17] Orlin, E. M., (2010), pp.40-41

[18] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 2.19

[19] Orlin, E. M., (2010) pp.31

[20] Witt, R., (1971), pp.222

[21] Turcan, R., (2000), pp.122

[22] Witt, R., (1971), pp.229

[23] Witt, R., (1971), pp.223

[24] Turcan, R., (2000), pp.121-122

[25] Turcan, R., (2000), pp.124

[26] For further reference to individual rulers and different policies introduced by them regarding the influence of foreign cults, refer to Witt, R., (1971), pp.223-239

[27] Orlin, E. M., (2010), pp.31