populus, repealed the provision, while the tribune Labienus sponsored legislation in
63 to restore the selection to the people. As a result of this reform, election to the
priestly colleges became a matter of heightened political importance: the surprise elec-
tion of Julius Caesar as pontifex maximusin 63, amidst widespread allegations of
bribery, signaled his emergence as a major player in Roman politics. The selection
of members of the priestly colleges signified the changed conditions of the late repub-
lic: where once it revealed the control of the elite over Roman society, in the late
republic it signaled the increased power of the people. And although we have no
signs that election brought divisions into the priestly colleges, the new procedure
no longer revealed fundamental cooperation among the aristocrats, but intense
competition between them for public honor.
Religion thus became another site of contestation among the political elite as the
restraints on the competition for status and power were less and less enforced. Even
such straightforward matters as the necessity of the pontiffs to add intercalary days
in order to make the Roman calendar conform to a solar year became a matter of
intense political concern, for the addition of days at a particular point in the year
could affect the outcome of elections or trials by delaying or interrupting proceed-
ings. Cicero’s triumph over Verres in 70 bcewas all the more remarkable since
the orator needed to overcome the obstacle of religious holidays that threatened to
interrupt his prosecution and deprive him of needed witnesses. The device of obnun-
tiatio, whereby an official with religious authority declared a halt to public business
because he claimed that he had observed signs that the gods were unfavorable to
the conduct of public business, became a regular feature of political life. One of Cicero’s
letters details what seems to many readers a comical game of cat and mouse, as
one magistrate tracked another through the forum in order to make the necessary
public proclamation that the omens were unfavorable (Ad Att.4.3). Sometimes prac-
tical means served better than legal ones to overcome this religious objection: Caesar
effectively restricted his co-consul Bibulus to his home as a means of preventing him
from announcing unfavorable omens, though Bibulus claimed to be watching the
heavens anyway, creating at least some grounds to argue that Caesar’s legislation
had not been legitimately approved (Suet. Caesar20). That politicians attempted to
make use of religion to advance or halt a political agenda does not imply that they
did not believe in their religious system, but rather confirms its importance. Roman
politicians did not ignore religious objections, but argued that their own actions were
more religiously correct than their opponents’. The necessity of making an argu-
ment on religious grounds implies strongly that religion was still taken seriously by
the Roman elite and testifies to the continued vitality of the religious system. As the
political aims of individuals came to challenge the interests of the community in the
later years of the republic, it became increasingly important to claim that the gods
favored particular individuals rather than the res publicain general.
The construction and reconstruction of temples in late republican Rome provides
one way to see this modification in the nature of Roman religion. A number of tem-
ples built or rebuilt in the late republic were known colloquially by the name of their
founder. For example, the temple that Marius built to Honos et Virtus following
his dramatic victory over the Cimbri and Teutones in 102 was known as the aedes
66 Eric Orlin