Ethnicity in Roman Religion 477the answer is rather obvious. The wall painting in the temple of Hercules Musarum, M.
Fulvius Nobilior’s famous “fasti” (see Feeney 2007; Rüpke 2011d; 2012a), might be seen
as establishing the history of the Roman calendar, Roman temples, and Roman consuls
as a subject worthy of literary elaboration. This would clearly imply—as in Cicero’s excla-
mation in his speech for Flaccus (see preceding text)—a “we” of Latin-speaking Romans
against the backdrop of literature by Greek authors, perhaps even of literature in Greek
in general. The focus is an urban one.
Varro, obviously, had a wider horizon. According to Augustine (civ. 6.4, p.
251.13–16), Varro “wrote the books on human things, not concerning the whole
world, but just Rome, which, as he said, he nevertheless placed quite properly in the
order of writing before the books on divine things.”Econtrario,fortheAntiquities of
Things Divine, a larger-than-urban, probably a universal orientation is to be assumed.
Varro’s universalistic stance is beyond doubt. The philosophical foundation of his
arguments is universalistic. He is at pains to define his three types of theology as a Greek,
thereby implicitly qualifying them as a universal classification (fr. 6–9 Cardauns=Aug.
civ. 6.5 and 12). Only on such a basis is Varro’s statement understandable—that the
god who governs everything and is venerated on the Capitoline hill as Jupiter is given
another name by the Jews. Varro does not speak of Jews specifically, but of monotheistic
venerators and venerators who practiced aniconic cult (fr. 13–15 Cardauns=Aug.civ.
4.31 and 9).
When reading in this perspective, an astonishing number of fragments do not nec-
essarily imply an urban Roman context. Frequently, Varro uses the pluralcivitatesor
urbes(e.g., fr. 5, 9, 18, 20, 68, 69 Cardauns). It should not be forgotten that Roman
citizenship was extended to most of Italy by the time of Varro’s writing. He does not
only acknowledge the introduction of Italian deities to Rome by the early kings, but
deals with a wealth of middle Italian local deities, belittled (and preserved) by Tertullian
(nat. 2.8.6; in a variantapol. 24.8, see Rüpke 2011a: 187 f.) asdeos decuriones cuiusque
municipii, “town council deities”: “The Delventinus of the Casinienses, the Visidanus of
the Narnienses, the Ancharia of the Asculani, the Nortia of the Volsinienses, the Valentia
of the Ocriculani, the Hostia of the Sutrini, the Juno of the Falisci accepted a surname
(Curritis) in honour of pater Curres” (fr. 33b Cardauns=Tert.apol. 24.8).
Of course, Varro’s use of “we” reflects a Roman’s point of view (e.g., fr. 3, 12 Car-
dauns). As a Roman, he remarks on differences between Romans and Jews (fr. 16),
Chaldaeans (fr. 17), Greeks such as Spartans (fr. 32) or the Eleusinians (fr. 271), or
the Greeks in general (fr. 200). In fragment 12 Cardauns, Varro speaks about hiscivitas
(city) and thehistoria(history) of divine names in the singular. The history of an old
people, as indicated in fr. 12, had a more binding authority. However, history’s authority
did not imply intellectual consent. The very special, and nevertheless binding, history
of the urban territory and the society built in that place contained decisions by the old
Romans that were mistakes, some even possibly by contemporaries. Varro does refer to
contemporary conflicts, such as the introduction of Egyptian cults and the leveling of
temples. Narrating such events in such a manner offers the possibility of distancing—a
possibility not any longer seen by Varro’s late ancient reader Servius (seeAen. 8.698:
Varro indignatur Alexandrinos deos Romae coli, “Varro was outraged at the veneration
of Alexandrian gods at Rome”). A traditional religion might be embarrassing, whether
in their use of images as in the old Romans’ invention of divine genealogies, that is,