Roman Religion
Like others, Romans saw themselves as a people blessed by their gods and their gods as extending benevolence only to them. And like others, they had numerous gods -- gods representing every force of nature that they perceived. The supreme god of the Romans was Jupiter, a god of sunshine and rain and most importantly Rome's protector. They had a fertility god called Mars, who stirred the plants back to life in spring. And the connection between Mars and land suited another of his occupations: wars were often about possession of land, and Mars was also a god of war.
The Romans had a god called Janus -- from which the word
January derives. Janus was a god of doorways, including the gates at the walls of Rome. Rome's goddess of fire, Vesta, ranked high among the Roman gods, but the largest temple in Rome was for the goddess Venus, the daughter of Jupiter. She was a goddess of vegetation, a bringer of good fortune and victory and the protector of feminine chastity.
Like others, the Romans had acquired much in religion through cultural diffusion, and like others they remained largely unmindful of such origins. It seems that the Romans acquired the gods Jupiter, Juno and Minerva from the Etruscans, and perhaps through the Etruscans the Romans acquired Greek gods. The Roman gods Mercury, Ceres and Diana resembled Greek gods, and the Roman god Hercules
was a Greek god. With increased contact between Romans and Greeks, the Romans would identify their gods more with Greek gods. And not having much in mythology surrounding their gods, the Romans would adopt Greek mythology to support their gods.
Religion for the Romans was not about their love for gods or of gods who loved them, nor was it about withdrawing from the present and waiting for a happy life in the hereafter. Religion for the Romans was about the here and now and the terrors that the gods could devise. For the Romans, devotion to the gods and pleasing the gods was a duty, an act of patriotism, an act of service and protection for the community. And to serve the gods, the Roman government saw itself as the source of moral as well as legal standards. State priests attempted to appease the gods by carefully performed rituals and offerings. The welfare of the community was seen as affected by such virtues as discipline, soldierly courage, chastity among the women, and frugality, all of which were believed to please the gods. The Romans were afraid of displeasing the gods through some word or deed. And, to protect the community from the anger of the gods, soldiers took religious oaths against thievery. Olive growers took an oath against their conspiring with others to raise prices. Olive pickers took an oath against stealing olives. And those who handled public money took oaths against stealing. It appeared that religion would keep Rome on the path of virtue.
At the head of Rome's religion was the
Pontifex Maximus, who, when Rome had become a republic, replaced the Etruscan king in this role. Under the Pontifex Maximus was a college of priests, who were called pontiffs. They were officers of the government in charge of handling Rome's relations with the supernatural. It was their duty to keep the city on good terms with the gods by preserving religious traditions and by making sure that every important act of state was sanctioned by the gods, including relations with foreign communities. Priests were assigned to individual gods, and laws derived from myths governed their actions: the priest of Jupiter was forbidden to walk under an arbor of vines, touch a dead man, eat bread fermented with yeast or to go outside without his cap.
That the state's priests were exclusively patrician had its origins in earlier times -- when the aristocracy believed that its interests alone were served by the gods. But common Romans were not about to leave all religion to the state. They saw their relations with their gods as personal. The common Roman saw gods guiding them through all kinds of matters from birth to death. Each Roman household had its divine protector. And to this god they prayed -- much as modern Christians pray while leaving ritual to their priests.
Marcus Aurelius
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121-180; emperor, 161-180), the last of the Five Good Emperors, was one of the noblest figures of the ancient world. From 140, when he was made consul, to the death of Pious in 161, he discharged his public duties with the utmost fidelity. At the same time he devoted himself to the study of law and philosophy, especially Stoicism.
The generally peaceful Marcus Aurelius was throughout his reign destined to suffer from constant wars and although in Asia, in Britain and on the Rhine the barbarians were held in check, a permanent peace was never secured. Rome was suffering from pestilence and earthquakes when the imperial colleagues led the Roman armies against the barbarians along the Danube. He was summoned to the East by a rebellion of the governor, Avidius Cassius who died at the hands of an assassin before Aurelius had arrived. Meanwhile, his wife Faustina died in an obscure village at the foot of Mount Taurus. On his way back to Rome, Aurelius visited Lower Egypt and Greece. At Athens he founded chairs in philosophy in each of the four main branches -- Platonic, Stoic, Peripatetic and Epicurean. By the end of 176 he reached Italy, and the following year Germany, where new disturbances had broken out. Victory again followed him but at last, his health gave way and he died at either Vienna or at Sirmium in Pannonia in 180.
A philosopher as well as emperor and general, Aurelius wrote the MEDITATIONS, a work which reveals the loneliness of his soul. However, as a Stoic thinker of the highest caliber, he also shows us that he did not allow himself to be saddened by his experience of life. His death was a national calamity and he became almost an object of worship to the citizens of the empire -- it is said that after his death Aurelius appeared in dreams as did the saints of the Christian era. Aurelius twice persecuted the Christians -- he undoubtedly believed Christian fanaticism and superstition were dangerous to philosophy, society and the empire.
Under the Five Good Emperors the frontiers of the Empire were consolidated to the north and to the east. The bureaucracy was opened up to all social classes, trade and agriculture flourished, and there was much public building. Although things did seem to be getting better, there were problems on the horizon. Barbarian pressures were mounting. There was a considerable decline in the slave population and the army was no longer large enough to maintain the frontier. As a result, Marcus Aurelius, the last of the Five Great Emperors, spent most of his time defending the frontier and as a result, spent very little time in Rome. Following his death in 180, the imperial office passed to his nineteen year old son and another madman, Marcus Aurelius Commodus Antoninus (161-192, emperor, 180-192).
The principle of heredity in the Roman Empire
The Emperor could designate a successor, without elevating him to the position of co-regent, by conferring on him the title of Caesar. This practice, which since Hadrian was usual under the Principate, and was adopted by Constantine, is not frequent in the later Empire. If the Emperor has sons, he almost invariably creates his eldest son Augustus. If not, he may signify his will as to the succession by bestowing the dignity of Caesar. The Emperor before his death might raise the Caesar to the co-regency. If he died without having done this, the Caesar had to be elected in the usual way by the Senate and the army. This method of provisional and revocable designation was often convenient. An Emperor who had no male issue might wish to secure the throne to a son-in law, for instance, in case of his own premature death. If he conferred the Caesarship and if a male child were afterwards born to him, that child would be created Augustus, and the Caesar's claim would fall into abeyance.
When the Emperor had more than one son, it was usual to confer the title of Caesar on the younger. Constitutionally this may be considered a provision for the contingency of the death of the co-regent. Practically it meant a title of dignity reserved for the members of the Imperial family. Sometimes the co-regency was conferred on more than one son. Theodosius the Great raised Honorius to the rank of Augustus as well as his elder son Arcadius. But it is to be observed that this measure was not taken till after the death of the West Emperor Valentinian II, and that its object was to provide two sovrans, one for the East and one for the West. If the division of the Empire had not been contemplated, Honorius would not have been created Augustus in A.D. 393. To avoid a struggle between brothers, the obvious policy was to confer the supreme rank on only one. Before the reign of Basil I in the ninth century, there were few opportunities to depart from this rule of expediency, and it was only violated twice, in both cases with unfortunate consequences.
But the Caesarship was not the only method employed to signalise an eventual successor. In the third century it became usual to describe the Caesar, the Emperor's adopted son, as nobilissimus. In the fourth, this became an independent title, denoting a dignity lower than Caesar, but confined to the Imperial family. On two occasions we find nobilissimus used as a sort of preliminary designation. But it fell out of use in the fifth century, and apparently was not revived till the eighth, when it was conferred on the youngest members of the large family of Constantine V. In the sixth century Justinian introduced a new title, Curopalates, which, inferior to Caesar and nobilissimus, might serve either to designate or simply to honour a member of the Imperial family. We find it used both ways. It was a less decided designation than the Caesarship, and a cautious or suspicious sovran might prefer it.
The principle of heredity, which was thus conciliated with the principle of election, gradually gave rise to the view that not only was the Emperor's son his
legitimate successor, but that if he had no male issue, the question of succession would be most naturally and satisfactorily settled by the marriage of a near female relative - daughter, sister, or widow,- and the election of her husband, who would thus continue the dynasty. There was a general feeling of attachment to a dynasty, and the history of the Later Empire presents a series of dynasties, with few and brief intervals of unsettlement. During the four centuries between 395 and 802, we have five dynasties, which succeed one another, except in two cases, without a break.
Though there was no law excluding women from the succession, yet perhaps we may say that up to the seventh or eighth century it would have been considered not merely politically impossible, but actually illegal, for a woman to exercise the sovran power in her own name. The highest authority on the constitution of the early Empire affirms that her sex did not exclude a woman from the Principate. But the title Augusta did not include the proconsular Imperium and the tribunician potestas, which constituted the power of the Princeps, and it is not clear that these could have been conferred legally on a woman or that she could have borne the title Imperator. It is said, and may possibly be true, that Caligula, when he was ill, designated his favourite sister Drusilla as his successor; but this does not prove that she could legally have acted as Princeps. Several Empresses virtually shared the exercise of the Imperial authority, bore themselves as co-regents, and enjoyed more power than male co-regents; but their power was
de facto, not
de jure. Some were virtually sovrans, but they were acting as regents for minors. Not till the end of the eighth century do we find a woman, the Empress Irene, exercising sovranty alone and in her own name. This was a constitutional innovation. The experiment was only once repeated, and only in exceptional circumstances would it have been tolerated. There was a general feeling against a female reign, both as inexpedient and as a violation of tradition. Between the fourth and eighth centuries, however, two circumstances may have combined to make it appear no longer illegal. The Greek official term for Imperator was Autokrator, and in the course of time, when Latin was superseded by Greek, and Imperator fell out of use and memory, Autokrator ceased to have the military associations which were attached to its Latin equivalent, and the constitutional incompatibility of the office with the female sex is no longer apparent. In the second place, female regencies prepared the way for Irene's audacious step. When a new Emperor was a minor, the regency might be entrusted to his mother or an elder sister, whether acting alone or in conjunction with other regents. Irene was regent for her son before she grasped the sole power for herself.
The title of Augusta was always conferred on the wife of the Emperor and the wife of the co-regent, and from the seventh century it was frequently conferred on some or all of the Emperor's daughters. The reigning Augusta might have great political power. In the sixth century, Justinian and Theodora, and Justin II and Sophia, exercised what was virtually a joint rule, but in neither case did the constitutional position of the Empress differ from that of any other consort.
