Religio Romana vs. Hellenism

[Bix]

I've read on the Gods and Goddess forum that Roman deities are separate ones from the Greeks. Ares is different from Mars, Aphrodite from Venus, etc. How are they different?

I've been reading up a lot on Hellenism (Greek Reconstructionism) and it really does interest me. Recently I've kinda been looking over the Religio Roman and it also has perked my interest. They're two different cultures but they have many similiariaties about them.

So I'm just wondering, for those that subscribe to the above two beliefs, why did you chose one over other? And is there a website or book you could recommend that compares and contrasts the two religions?

Hope that made sense...I'm a bit tired and this just popped into my mind. :)

[Djinn]

I'm not a follower of either tradition, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. ;)

Greek culture was truly international due to the Greek habit of herding their excess population onto ships and sending them to be colonists. Rome is situated directly north of a bunch of Greek colonies that dominated Italy for a long time. So there is naturally some exchange between the two. The Romans came to admire and sometimes imitate Greek culture. They also enjoyed Greek art--they looted it wholesale when they conquered Greece.

But Greek culture was a gloss on top of an older, native tradition. Latin (Roman) religion owed something to the Etruscan culture that was based in modern Tuscany. The Romans conquered them, too, and looted their art wholesale--so throughly that it's hard to find Etruscan artifacts these days. The older Latin tradition shows up the folk religion of Rome, in things like the race of the October horse, or the tradition of making models of children out of bread and hanging them from the doorframe of the house to keep death from taking the kids. This stuff was the kitchen witchery of Roman religion.

Also, there were gods and practices that weren't merged with the Greek Olympians. Concordia (Harmony) had a temple in the forum. The goddess Vesta was identified with Hestia, but AFAIK there was no Greek cult like that of the Vestal Virgins.

And so on and so forth. I'm rambling and will shut up now. Hopefully some recons will come along and make coherent what I just wrote.

[TYRRHENUS]

Salve.
Bix, there are no easy answers here. It would take a lifetime to explain how they are different, but perhaps I can highlight some of the big ones. I'm afraid I can't do it without wandering a bit. Forgive me.
Should you follow the Via Romana, you will encounter the notion of Roman and Greek religion being one in the same, and probably the idea that Romans are descended from Greeks. It was after the defeat of King Pyrrhus that Greeks became scared shitless of Rome. (How could a bunch of Italian farmers defeat Greeks?) Dionysius of Halicarnassus was the first Greek historian to pay any serious attention to Rome, and it could have been with him that the idea of Romans being descended from Greeks first began. Half a century later in 217 B.C. at the conference of Naupactus, Agelaus referred to Rome as the "cloud in the west." Greeks like he knew by then it was only a matter of time before the winds blew East, and so did the Romans. That very same year the Senate proclaimed the second lectisternium - a very rare religious ceremony to honor the gods, but only this time they ordered the formation of 12 celestial deities (DII CONSENTES), modelled after the Greek Olympian system. After this ceremony the Roman administration would be busy the next two and a half centuries trying to settle Greek disapproval with Roman rule, until events in Palestine seized the attention of the government. The Roman bourgeoisie did this by taking on the fascade of Greek myth. What is Vergil's Aeneid other than a little advice to Augustus here, and a whole lot of "we're Greeks too, so don't rebel" there? What I am saying is many of the similarities were politically motivated temporary measures meant to bring the two societies together, and when taken out of that political context cannot be understood properly.
Yes, there were upper-class Romans who truly favored Greek models over their own native mix. But for the most part Romans considered Greeks highly superstitious. This is another outstanding difference between Roman & Greek religion... Romans never had the habit of interweaving their family histories in with mythology of the Gods, as did Greeks. Look at the foundation stories. In 509 B.C. Sextus Tarquinius, the prince, raped Lucretia, so the men of Rome kicked out the royal family and declared a republic. Years later when Athenian soldiers returned home they found their properties seized by merchants because the soldiers weren't there to pay their taxes. Under the leadership of Pericles they founded a democracy. Yet when they recorded this story on paper they couldn't do so without attributing events to the interference of their gods. The Roman story is 100% human. There is nothing supernatural about it. This is why ancient Rome is the foundation of western civilization while ancient Greece is a precursor, btw.
If the brutish Romans idealized Greeks as we have been taught, then why did they remove all Greeks from Italy on two non-consecutive occasions? The point I'm laboring to make here is that almost all of the similarities are only skin deep. It is only in relation to this roughly 250-year period that we hear the tired accusations of Roman unimaginativeness, dullness, etc. Like "the borg" in togas. :( After studying them for years I would say that ancient Latins (including Roman Latins) have proven themselves closer to Celts than Greeks. But that's far from your original question, sorry.
You've read of numinism I take it? This is one of the more oustanding differences between the two. Whether numinism came about naturally or through the Roman compulsion to classify and subclassify everything, including the gods, I don't know. But it's something you might enjoy researching.
Romans believed there was a certain universality regarding their (old) religion. But you can see their beliefs changing dramatically the century before and after Christ. By the time Caesar crossed the Rubicon there were very few educated Romans who believed in the gods anymore. Why should they? They went to war despite the warnings of the augurs and haruspices, that is, against the will of the gods and were victorious. Atheism was rampant. Those Romans who did believe in something believed in fortune, astrology or a combination of the two. By fortune they meant what we call chance - which could have either a positive or negative effect. By astrology they meant a dogmatic fatalism, which also still survives in Italian culture, but at the time may have had more to do with newly arising class system... Caesar vs. everyone else.
If Greek culture became international in the East, it was because Alexander gave the region Koine - which people used as a convenient means of communication. When Roman culture and the Latin language became international in the West it was because people wanted to be Romans. Even to the very end the barbarians were people who wanted to be citizens of the Empire, not to destroy it. Which brings us to the fact that Romans, centuries before Greeks and their early Christianity, went beyond tribalistic spirituality (though it survives today in Italian culture in manifestations such as campanalismo - regional pride and prejudice, or the liturgy of the Latin Mass). As early as the 3rd century B.C. eastern mystery cults were flousishing in the peninsula, which by this time was thoroughly Latinized. Why did Mithra, for example, never take hold in Greece? I don't know. Perhaps his Persian origins were offensive to Greeks, or maybe it was just timing, or maybe it was something unique in Latin culture which made the transition to individualistic spirituality possible. There is another difference for ya, and a HUGE one at that.
As for websites, here is a good place, and so is SocietasViaRomana (http://www.societasviaromana.org/phpBB2/) (you have to join to access the forum).
Vale bene.

[Bix]

Thank you so much, Tyrrhenus! I was hoping you'd be one of those who replied. You post really perked my interests. You seem to know a lot about both the Greek and Roman cultures...so why'd you choose the Romans over the Greeks?

Also, would you recommend any books for me to read to understand this more?

Thank you so much again.

[TYRRHENUS]

Salve.
I first went down the path of Wicca 20 years ago, and was happy for about five years, but at the time there was little more than the God/Goddess concept and the Rede. At some point it got to where I was serious about spirituality and needed "more" (if that makes sense). Roman Reconstructionism was logical coming from an Italian-American background. But do keep in mind the word Roman has always been defined in geo-political terms, not cultural. So it is quite alright, actually more common than not, for someone not of Italian ancestry to follow the Via Romana and/or the Religio Romana, especially the latter. Another quick point... ancient Romans did have theology, they just didn't argue over it.
For you I recommend reading the historians and the natural observers first. Begin with Livy's History of Rome. This is the classic history of the Eternal City from someone who was there. Or Pliny the Elder's Natural History. Pliny was one of those who believed in fortune and who scoffed at those who believed in the power of the stars. Natural History has all sorts of information regarding indigenous Roman religion, such as the notion of deity-locality, as well as some great bits of Roman magic. Pliny would claim magic was foolishness, but then descibe in detail the exact ingredients required by some potion. I was surprised how much they knew and didn't know. Cato's De Agricultura is hard-core, old fashioned, Latin religion. (You'll have to order it unless you're comfortable reading it online (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cato/De_Agricultura/home.html).) Ovid's Fasti is probably the "cleanest" of Roman religious works during the classical period containing very little hellenism. (His Metamorphoses is a waste of time in this regard.) However, Apuleius' Metamorphoses or Golden Ass is a good example of where Roman religion ended up before the Mithra-Christ complex. Cicero's De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods) is a great example of how Romans defined themselves through the medium of Greek myth, if you're interested in that. With the exception of Cato, all of the above are probably in stock at your local Borders. For the early history, you might want to check out T.J. Cornell's The Beginnings of Rome. Also the now classic Life in Ancient Rome by F. R. Cowell. Not so much about religion, or in-depth analysis of anything Roman, but a good introduction Roman life. Another one to get you started is the *** Dictionary of Roman Religion *** by Lesley and Roy Adkins. It's brevity is laughed at by many Recons, but everyone has it. ;) Also, it is just the sort of listing and classification which Romans such as Varro would have been completely familiar with. Let me know if you need more.
Vale bene.

[Bix]

Thank you again! I'll be sure to check out those books.

[Bix]

:bumpsmili

Anyone else have anything to comment?

[Aidron]

I've read on the Gods and Goddess forum that Roman deities are separate ones from the Greeks. Ares is different from Mars, Aphrodite from Venus, etc. How are they different?

I've been reading up a lot on Hellenism (Greek Reconstructionism) and it really does interest me. Recently I've kinda been looking over the Religio Roman and it also has perked my interest. They're two different cultures but they have many similiariaties about them.

So I'm just wondering, for those that subscribe to the above two beliefs, why did you chose one over other? And is there a website or book you could recommend that compares and contrasts the two religions?

Hope that made sense...I'm a bit tired and this just popped into my mind. :)


I personally did not choose. I have never known the deities of the Roman pantheon, but for as long as I can remember the Hellenistic gods have been with me, usually in ways that were quite subtle; whether it be the fact that I was always bombarded with things on TV (and still am) about Greece on various channels such as TLC, Discovery or the History channel. Books often popped up, as well as a rather magnificent experience with an owl, dreams... for me it was never a choice, simply a gentle pull, one that I could embrace or simply shrug and let it continue on as it had. Either way it seems the gods were there to be a part of my life, whether I cared or not.

The different in the gods lies in the fact that one culture proceeded another, so there may be more known about the gods of Rome than the gods of Greece in some cases for the simple fact that their culture was more recent (speaking in which time being linear, not cyclical). If one chooses to believe that man creates the gods, then it might be said that the Roman gods are more evolved, since new concepts and technologies were present, mindsets had evolved.

You also have rulership. Minerva is much more closely associated with sciences than Athena is, and you may have instances were things which are sacred to Venus are not Sacred to Aphrodite and vise versa. Diana in turn can be a bit of a puzzle for some, yet Artemis seems more readily accessible and easily approached I suspect by most.

[Theres]

:bumpsmili

Anyone else have anything to comment?

well, okay...

i just want to elaborate on something posted earlier;

But Greek culture was a gloss on top of an older, native tradition.

this is important to remember i think, especially when considering the Greek evolution from the Titans to the Olympians.

the native religious traditions of early mainland Greece can only be guessed at. it certainly seems probable that they were at least somewhat similar to most early tribal cultures.... death cults, agrarian guilds, etc.
but something dramatic happened between the Minoan dominance of c. 1500 BCE and the advent of the written histories... (c. 800). this must have been the Mycanaean invasion of the mainland and the supplanting of the previous gods (the Titans) with the new (the Olympians).

now this influence on Greek religion cannot be underestimated. much of the historical thought of the past century has been on the Egyptian influence. there can be no doubt that the Egyptians had an impact on the Minoans, as we have evidence of their trade. but i personally believe that the Minoans were religiously more attuned to the eastern kingdoms of Asia Minor.

okay, i'm gonna go out on a limb here, because i'm not as informed about Roman daily life as i'd like to be. but i think another big difference may be in the belief in personal magic, witchcraft, etc.
the Greeks of the classical era were an intensly rational people. if you look at the mythology you'll find little of this kind of practice (more in the Hero myths perhaps), and many of the common folktales had been rewritten to reflect this. they were more inclined to pray to the gods for their needs than to tinker with the elements themselves. there were exceptions of course, particularly in Thessaly.

and again i'm open to correction here.

[Bix]

You also have rulership. Minerva is much more closely associated with sciences than Athena is, and you may have instances were things which are sacred to Venus are not Sacred to Aphrodite and vise versa. Diana in turn can be a bit of a puzzle for some, yet Artemis seems more readily accessible and easily approached I suspect by most.
Would there happen to be a website or book that compares and contrasts Greek and Roman equivalents?

[Aidron]

Would there happen to be a website or book that compares and contrasts Greek and Roman equivalents?


Honestly? There probably is. Do I know of it? Afraid not. I tend to avoid the Roman pantheon like the plague due to personal experience. I will study it when able, for the purposes of comparison and contrasting, but overall I see the Roman deities as seperate from the Hellenistic ones and of no concern of mine.

Plus, I'm not fond of awakening to a harsh lecture... again. [shrugs]

[Bix]

Honestly? There probably is. Do I know of it? Afraid not. I tend to avoid the Roman pantheon like the plague due to personal experience. I will study it when able, for the purposes of comparison and contrasting, but overall I see the Roman deities as seperate from the Hellenistic ones and of no concern of mine.

Plus, I'm not fond of awakening to a harsh lecture... again. [shrugs]
Could you give specifics on why you avoid the Roman pantheon?

[Agaliha]

I'm sure this has been asked before, but for those who honor the Roman pantheon, how do you feel about the fact that they seem be be "copies" of the Greek pantheon?
From what I understand Greece was an Empire before Rome. So did the Romans just borrow Greek gods? There seems to be a lot of coinsidences.
I was talking to someone before (in RL) and they said that "the Romans copied all the Greek Gods...therefore the Roman gods were fake and not even worth looking at" (paraphrased quote)
I'm sure things like that would piss off any Roman pantheon follower, but how would you argue against those ideas?
I didn't know how to convice them they were wrong-- I didn't have the knowledge of those civilizations and their history have a solid arguement.

Does anyone have any knowledge on how their religions and gods developed?