Politics = Pontifex Maximus?

[Truth]

Hello,

 

I am new to this forum and I am interested in the governmental structure and internal politics that Roman Caesers played in Rome and throughout the empire especially concerning religious worship of gods or God and informing people throughout the empire.

 

My suspicion is that the Caeser would control the masses or empire by sending governmental emissaries to speak at public "places of worship" or gatherings becuase it was the easist way at the time to spread political news. I think this was one of the reasons "the good news" was called the good news was because all news was delivered by the Roman government to places of worship. There was probably plenty of "bad news" too. The Roman empire did not have radio or TV, nor was paper ever used nearly as much it is today.

 

What role did the Caeser played in controlling religion through poltics be it when Mithras was the state religion or christianity was the state religion?

 

 

Truth

[Ursus]

What?

 

Religion operated at all levels of society, from the the household to the state. The main idea was to propitiate various supernatural forces with the relevant offerings and festivals. The State funded and oversaw various temples, cults, and religious officials to this end.

 

Roman religion did not however have a long list of prohibitions like the Hebraic. It was concerned more with ritual than with morality. There was a broad sense of religious freedom as long the established socio-political scheme was not challenged.

 

Did Roman politicians cynically use religion at times for political ends? Sure. One example: All the warlords of the Late Republic claimed a relationship with Venus, the divine ancestress of the Roman people. But as long as one was not actively challenging the State gods, Roman religion made a poor tool of oppression and control as it did not really demand anything except certain offerings to certain deities on certain days.

 

Christianity changed the tone of Roman state religion considerably, but I'm not quite the expert on that area. From what I have read though the establishment was still more interested in lip service than in micromanaging the lives of its people. It was the crazy footsoldiers of Christianity, more than the Caesars, that were interested in complete subordination to the new scheme.

[Truth]

Hi Ursus,

 

Do you know how Caesers comunication worked? In other words (I'm guessing) Caeser in Rome would send a messenger to tell a govenor in Corinth how to run the city, collect taxes, etc...?

 

Also, when Mithrasism was declared the state religion of Rome, what did that mean? Everyone had to worship Mithras? or was it that Mithras just happened to be what Caeser (the Pontifus Maximus) wanted to worship for himself at a particular time?

 

Do you know of any resources dealing with these subjects? I am new to this area, but I am interested in studying it.

 

Truth

[M. Porcius Cato]

The state religion was undoubtedly subject to political manipulation, though not in the way Truth described.

 

That the state religion should be used as some kind of a tool of political control was claimed by Romans and non-Romans alike. Among Romans, there was (1) Cicero's teacher Q. Mucius Scaevola, who claimed that of the gods of poets, philosophers, and leaders, only the third was healthy because it allowed them to deceive the public, (2) Marcus Terentius Varro, who claimed that the gods should be made appealing to the people more so than according to what was natural, and (3) Cicero, himself an augur, who frequently claimed that his policies were ones that the gods would favor and championed the augury on the grounds that it was for the public welfare. Among non-Romans, there was of course Polybius' famous view (possibly picked up from the Scipionic circle) "seeing that every multitude is fickle and full of lawless desires, unreasoning anger, and violent passion, the only resource is to keep them in check by mysterious terrors and scenic effects."

 

There were also plenty of episodes in which the state religion was used as a political tool.

 

The Roman religious calendar, for example, set when magistrates could and could not call the people, limiting the days of potential public business (comital days) to just 150 days per year. In addition, the number of comital days could be increased by means of inserting intercalary months, thereby providing terms that were longer for some magistrates than others. For this reason, Cicero petitioned Atticus (who had friends among the pontifices) not to insert any such days while Cicero was on provincial duty, and the seditious Curio, eager to promote more laws, suddenly switched to Caesar's side when the pontifex maximus promised to insert an intercalary month for him. Most dramatically, we have from Cicero's letter: "Lentulus is an excellent consul...He has removed all the comital days, for even the Latin festival is being performed again and there has been no lack of thanksgivings. In that way, resistance is offered to ruinous laws." (The thanksgivings to which Cicero referred, by the way, were for Caesar's victories, which had the effect of stymying his own tribunes!)

 

Moreover, the auspices themselves were effective. When Pompey, as consul and augur, conducted the praetorian elections of 55, he waited for the vote from the centuria praerogativa, and seeing that it went to Cato, immediately dissolved the assembly on grounds that he heard an inauspicious thunder, and then--keeping Cato's supporteres from the forum by force of arms--reconvened the assembly to vote in Cato's opponent. Later, Antony used the same tactic. Moreover, as a pretext for suspending the call of assemblies, various magistrates used the tactic of watching for omens, including Bibulus, Clodius, Milo, and Curio. For these reasons, it's not difficult to see why Cicero claimed that the augury was "the highest and most responsible authority of the state... For if we consider their legal rights, what power is greater than that of adjourning assemblies and meetings convened by the highest officials... or that of declaring null and void the acts of assemblies presided over by such officials?"

 

In fact, the abuse of the Roman religious calendar and augury is only the tip of the iceberg. Sibylline prophecies were purchased by Crassus to obstruct Pompey from bringing an army to Egypt. Haruspices were used to sanction Cicero's war against Catiline. A scandal at the Bona Dea festival was used to discredit Clodius. And on and on. Now it should be clear why an aspiring monarch, like Caesar, should have made the post of pontifex maximus such an early and important priority. It came with more than just a tony address.

[caldrail]

As I understand it, roman culture dictated that community leaders were also religious leaders. Part of your social role as local headman was to officiate in ceremonies. The post of Pontifex Maximus, high priest of Rome, was therefore a political post without question, and anyone who took that role would therefore have a position of status and influence. Of course Caesar exploited his role as high priest - thats why he he got himself voted in.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Do you know of any resources dealing with these subjects? I am new to this area, but I am interested in studying it.

 

My source was Lily Ross Taylor's "Party Politics in the Age of Caesar," which I highly recommend.

[spittle]

"Party Politics"?

Isn't that a misnomer?

 

I was under the impression that there were no political parties. Just individuals who entered into temporary alliances for personal gain.

[M. Porcius Cato]

"Party Politics"?

Isn't that a misnomer?

 

I was under the impression that there were no political parties. Just individuals who entered into temporary alliances for personal gain.

 

This is off-topic, but Taylor explains what she means by the term (no, of course, there weren't political parties in the modern sense), and why it applies to the age of Caesar more so than the normal political situation in Rome, which is fairly characterized by ad-hoc alliances.

[caldrail]

"Party Politics"?

Isn't that a misnomer?

 

I was under the impression that there were no political parties. Just individuals who entered into temporary alliances for personal gain.

 

I think the phrase 'party politics' isn't the best one to use, although you could claim the two parties were Optimates and Populares. Factional politics is a more accurate description and similar to your view.

[georgious]

Hello,

 

I am new to this forum and I am interested in the governmental structure and internal politics that Roman Caesers played in Rome and throughout the empire especially concerning religious worship of gods or God and informing people throughout the empire.

 

My suspicion is that the Caeser would control the masses or empire by sending governmental emissaries to speak at public "places of worship" or gatherings becuase it was the easist way at the time to spread political news. I think this was one of the reasons "the good news" was called the good news was because all news was delivered by the Roman government to places of worship. There was probably plenty of "bad news" too. The Roman empire did not have radio or TV, nor was paper ever used nearly as much it is today.

 

What role did the Caeser played in controlling religion through poltics be it when Mithras was the state religion or christianity was the state religion?

 

 

Truth

In Rome the priesthood was a political power.By declaring days fasti or nefasti:lucky or unlucky(roughly) it could block the decisions of the popular assemblies.A previous member mentioned the dictum of Polybious about the use of religion to control the multitude.Although Tom Holland in Rubicon which I am just now reading after having bought a second time questions this view of religion as the manipulative instrument of a cynical upper class claiming an attachement of the Romans to their Gods-I do not think that those two facts are mutually exclusive.Religion comes from the Latin verb religo-to hold together and that was its' function in Rome. If you have seen Rome the series you would have observed Caesar's effort to include young Octavian, his nephew in the priesthood-making him a flamen dialis(I think)In western europe there existed the alliance of Throne and Altar-The red and the black to reffer to Stedhal's famous novel. The Romans were the precursors of this system. Patrician families made careers in the priesthood and in the Army.Roman law also included many elements of ritual which made its transactions similar to religious rituals.In the past I have read the book by Lilly Ross Taylor "Party Politics in the Age of Caesar".Of course the term political parties is an anachronism but there is also a book "Romische Aldeispartien"(approximately since I do not know German)which uses the term parties to describe alliances beetwen noble factions. I venture to introduce the bold idea that the combination of war-lords and priests was for Rome what the industrial-military complex is for USA today.

[Sal]

Hi Truth,

 

I have read an undocumented statement that the Romans were tolerant of all religions which "registered", meaning they allowed the Pontifus Maximus and other state structures to know their locations, membership, etc. and even potentially 'control' the number of frequency of their meetings. Any/all who did not submit to this state oversight were considered 'secret societies' and open for persecution not for their 'religious beliefs' but for their refusal to submit to be 'registered' and establish a formal governmental link to the Pontifus Maximus, etc.

 

I have seen some things which one might extrapolate to support this thought, but like Truth, I would like to have better information about the governmental structures and politics of Rome; and how it was used to incorporate additional religions into their culture.

 

Any information and direction would be greatly appreciated!

 

(Like a true tolerant Roman , I would not think of holding the fact that you might not also claim to be a 'Michigander' against you! (reference to ancient comments in welcome thread))

Thanks!

[Truth]

Hello,

 

I am new to this forum and I am interested in the governmental structure and internal politics that Roman Caesers played in Rome and throughout the empire especially concerning religious worship of gods or God and informing people throughout the empire.

 

My suspicion is that the Caeser would control the masses or empire by sending governmental emissaries to speak at public "places of worship" or gatherings becuase it was the easist way at the time to spread political news. I think this was one of the reasons "the good news" was called the good news was because all news was delivered by the Roman government to places of worship. There was probably plenty of "bad news" too. The Roman empire did not have radio or TV, nor was paper ever used nearly as much it is today.

 

What role did the Caeser played in controlling religion through poltics be it when Mithras was the state religion or christianity was the state religion?

 

 

Truth

In Rome the priesthood was a political power.By declaring days fasti or nefasti:lucky or unlucky(roughly) it could block the decisions of the popular assemblies.A previous member mentioned the dictum of Polybious about the use of religion to control the multitude.Although Tom Holland in Rubicon which I am just now reading after having bought a second time questions this view of religion as the manipulative instrument of a cynical upper class claiming an attachement of the Romans to their Gods-I do not think that those two facts are mutually exclusive.Religion comes from the Latin verb religo-to hold together and that was its' function in Rome. If you have seen Rome the series you would have observed Caesar's effort to include young Octavian, his nephew in the priesthood-making him a flamen dialis(I think)In western europe there existed the alliance of Throne and Altar-The red and the black to reffer to Stedhal's famous novel. The Romans were the precursors of this system. Patrician families made careers in the priesthood and in the Army.Roman law also included many elements of ritual which made its transactions similar to religious rituals.In the past I have read the book by Lilly Ross Taylor "Party Politics in the Age of Caesar".Of course the term political parties is an anachronism but there is also a book "Romische Aldeispartien"(approximately since I do not know German)which uses the term parties to describe alliances beetwen noble factions. I venture to introduce the bold idea that the combination of war-lords and priests was for Rome what the industrial-military complex is for USA today.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve!

 

Here is the pertinent chapter of UNRV for Pontifex maximus.

 

And here is a similar chapter on the always informative site of Jona Lendering.

 

They were a curious mix of priests and magistrates, almost half and half.

 

Relative to other religious hierarchies, they were extremely democratic.