472 Jörg Rüpke
the (self-created) epigraphic record favors a genericsacerdos. The personnel may have
included variousflaminesandsalii, indicating the existence of an elite circle from whom
thesacerdoteswere recruited; the organization as a whole was seen by at least some con-
temporaries as religious (seeCIL11.3940=ILS5006). The activities of thesacerdotes
Cabenses montis Albani, probably named after the old town of Cabum or Cabo on the
Mons Albanus, seem to have been confined to the period of theferiae Latinae, the ancient
festival celebrated annually to commemorate the founding of the Latin League. Their
erection of a monumental inscription to the emperor Tacitus as late asAD275 or 276
is not the only indication that this was a tightly organized priesthood (see Rüpke 2008,
no. 2530).
A Plurality of (Ethnic) Religions
The late republican and early imperial concept ofreligiounderstood it as the bridge
between, on the one hand, the (normally unquestioned) belief in the existence of gods
and the ensuing feeling that such superior beings should be addressed and cared for
(pietas), and, on the other, the actual ritual institutions (sacra), organizing and perpet-
uating the human response (Cic.ND1.117; for the following, see Rüpke 2009; 2010:
752 ff.). Within the scope of this broad concept, differentreligionesand their differ-
ing cultic consequences could be addressed to one god, and could be practiced by the
same people at the same time or by different people. It is rather unusual when Taci-
tus speaks ofreligione Herculis(“the religion of Hercules,”Annals12.13). Elsewhere,
he speaks about thereligio Veneris(“the religion of Venus”) of the Aphrodisians and of
thereligio Iovis et Triviae(“religion of Jove and Trivia”) of the Stratonicaeans (3.62).
Cicero had already captured this notion in his famous observation that “every community
has its religion and we ours, Laelius” (sua cuique civitati religio,Laeli,est,nostra nobis,
Pro Flacco69). Such an expression characterizes the religious practices of a locality by a
locally dominant cult or tutelary deity. This is not congruent with our notion of “Roman”
(or, for that matter, “Athenian”) religion. This is true for those described, but also for
those who are speaking. Cicero’s “we” and “our” does not reflect the composition of
the Roman population, which was already complex, polyglot, and diverse by his time
(see Noy 2010).
We have to wait until Lactantius in the early fourth century to find “Roman reli-
gion,” but characteristically the expression occurs in the plural. Roman religion ispro-
prias Romanorum religiones(“the distinct religions of the Romans”) as opposed toreli-
giones communes—“common religions” (1.20.1).Religiois usually paired with cults and
gods—it is a cult based on the acceptance of the deity to which a particular cult is
addressed. A one-to-one relationship is the underlying model, hence the plural for the
“religions of the deities” (2.17.6). Shortly later, around 340, Iulius Firmicus Maternus
polemicizes againstprofana(e)religio(nes) (17.4; 21.1). It says a great deal about later
readers, although not about Firmicus himself, that this expression was used to replace
the lost title of the work, subsequently referred to asDe errore profanarum religionum.
The confrontation with “Christian religion” (a coinage seldom used) indicates that we
are witnessing attempts at a pseudo-ethnification of religious differences, known from