only a libation to Jupiter, instead of vowing a temple to him as usual (Livy 10.42.7).
In daily life, religious acts should not be described as if they concerned only private
or domestic behaviors (De Marchi 1896 –1903). A partition between publicusand
priuatusis only legitimate when the issue is to qualify ceremonies’ status from a juridical
viewpoint, and to pinpoint consequently who are the religious actors (magistrates
and public priests for the state religion), and which budget finances them (the city
for the state religion). As far as Roman religious anthropology is concerned – that
is, according to a world representation assuming the existence of superior beings with
whom communication is managed through rituals (Brodersen 2001) – principles and
means of communication were similar whatever the juridical status (Scheid 2005c:
125– 8).
Ritual procedures using solid materials (writing on stone or lead, and terracotta
offerings), or displaying such impressive ceremonies in times of crisis that they are
reported in historiography (e.g. Livy 26.9.7 during the Second Punic War), have
lasted better over time. During dramatic periods or when social and political com-
petition was at its climax, invocations to gods used to include practices as excessive
as was the panic, or as unique as was the challenge. They were generally labeled as
superstitioor “magic,” thus condemned by law and authorities (e.g. Livy 25.1.6 –12
in 213 bce), as if they betrayed more irrational behavior. We shall have to be more
cautious after comparing a few rituals.
Scheid (1985b [2001]: 17) offers another key for those wishing to account for
the academic classification. His limpid overview of Roman piety, setting the stan-
dard from now on, shows that collective cult, in particular public cult, was the “essence
of Roman religion.” Roman religion was a civic one: (1) individuals felt concerned
in it as members of the res publica; (2) the rituals performed related to the group,
and violations that occurred had consequences for the group. The populus Romanus
quiritiumplayed its part as a ritual actor either as a whole, the state, through
ownership of public responsibilities, or through its various components. These were:
(1) associations or collegiabased on professional, social, or religious links (Rüpke
2004a); (2) families (the basic collective entity) acting through the father as chief
of the family or through his representative (e.g. Cato’s uillicus, Agr.139); and (3)
individuals. All members of the community, men and women alike, acted ritually,
that is, engaged themselves in a relationship with the gods, following a common
ritual range to that end, according to contexts, circumstances, and needs.
Our modern minds are trained in the Abrahamic tradition, whose core is that the
religious relationship is a personal one (faith in God), even if the faithful belong to
communities (whether the “people of Israel,” or the church as corpus Christi, or “the
faithful community” for Muslims). Therefore it is hard to gather how far the reli-
gious activity of individuals, families, or associations could be as deeply socialized as
it was in ancient Rome. The res publica’s calendar gave a framework to fields that
we are used to considering as belonging to private domains, for instance the cult of
the dead. Such a highly conservative authority as Cicero could thus say in his treatise
on Laws(2.30) that “private worship may not be satisfactorily performed (religioni
priuatae satis facere) without the assistance of those in charge of the public rites (iis
qui sacris publice praesint); for the people’s constant need for the advice (consilio)
276 Nicole Belayche