gods, abstract divinities, heroes, animals, beings of the zodiac, and toponyms. Faced
with so many species of divinities with different functions Tertullian wonders: what
do the remaining gods have left to do, once the special Roman divinities have taken
over all these functions?
This ridiculing and ironizing of the Roman gods, always based on data and ex-
amples taken from literary tradition, is a constant element in each detailed catalogue
of gods of different categories. It is from here that he eventually approaches the
question of the legitimization of Roman dominance, wondering whether Roman
political superiority can be based on religious grounds. The detailed description of
Roman gods he has already made renders this statement absurd, since gods like
Sterculus, the god of excrements, and the whore Laurentia cannot possibly be the
origin of Rome’s greatness. Nor can the foreign gods adopted by the Romans after
conquering other peoples be related to its greatness, since gods who were not able
to defend their own peoples could hardly be expected to behave otherwise with the
conquerors. What is more, the empire was not a result of Roman religiosity, but
rather the opposite, because its very expansion was determined by ruthlessness: Tertullian
insists that empires are not determined by their religiosity. The book’s closing para-
graph reaffirms this idea and leaves no doubt as to the universal perspective of
Tertullian’s argument: universal kingdoms existed prior to the Romans, and these
kingdoms did not fall on account of their religiosity or of their cult (Nat.2.17.18).
It is clear from the content of the second book that philosophical argument –
Tertullian’s starting point, since he announces at the beginning of the book that he
will criticize error(Nat.2.1.2) – is not the book’s only purpose. The audience of
the work Tertullian has in mind leads him to incorporate other elements beyond
the philosophical discussion on the nature of gods; hence the references to religious
practices, especially in the city of Rome. Choosing Varro is not by chance. Little is
said in this scholar’s work of the empire’s different religions. His Antiquitates rerum
divinarumis a work dating back to the late republic, arising from the tendencies
to reflection and systematization developed in Rome as from the third century as
a result of imperialistic expansion and an increased exchange with Greek culture.
Responding to this tendency, Varro, on one hand, makes a complete compilation
of traditional religious practices, thus documenting them, and, on the other, creates
a systematic framework with which to legitimate these religious practices philosophic-
ally. The instrument for this is the differentiation of three types of theology, among
which civil theology stands out, granting a theoretical status to traditional Roman
practices (Rüpke 2005b). Varro admits that cult and divine apparatus are historically
contingent, but as a Roman citizen he feels committed to defend what has been
legitimated by antiquity and ancestral tradition. This is what Tertullian attacks. This
is clearly expressed at the beginning of the second book (Nat.2.1.7) where he
criticizes all practices based on traditionalistic arguments. This is the reason for
using Varro’s works as a structuring principle of the book as a whole.
Tertullian begins by addressing the miserandae nationes, but gradually concentrates
his criticism and attack on the dominant people, whose headquarters is Rome. This
is why his criticism is aimed particularly at the religious practices of the city of Rome,
with information taken from Varro. Although all gods are criticized, Tertullian is
Roman Religion in the Vision of Tertullian 465