Approaching Roman Religion 11A The methods of classical studies
1 All areas of classical studies have traditionally originated in the study of the ancient
languages in the empirico-positivist context “the facts speak for themselves.” This
entailed (a) belles-lettres outlooks which privileged ancient literary texts over other
evidence and (b) widespread skepticism and sometimes hostility to interpretive
guidelines and comparative information from disciplines such as anthropology,
religion studies, sociology.
2 Since mastering Greek and Latin requires an enormous amount of scholarly
training, all thought there was no time to think philosophically about scholar-
ship or to consider interpretive guidelines from other disciplines, especially since
such thinking was considered parerga(A1). Thus rejection of theory and com-
parative material arose from empirico-positivist concerns (A1) and from lack of
attention to those theories and material.
3 It followed from the empirico-positivist concerns (A1) that scholarship by its nature
should be scientific (wissenschaftlich) and thus follow the model of the natural
and physical sciences, a point which the nineteenth-century philological hand-
books were wont to stress. This led to a kind of cognitive dissonance, in that
scholars expressed fidelity to the scientific method while in practice they often
utilized aesthetic and hermeneutic methods. Further, as a result of this expressed
allegiance to the sciences all felt that older views of classical antiquity existed
only to be refuted, that the latest was best. Exceptions could of course be made
for those whose empirico-positivist results seemed eternally veridical. Thus
Wissenschaftsgeschichtebecame, in the opinion of many classicists, a history of
erroneous past views, and as such it was deemed marginal to the pursuit of
“scientific” classical scholarship.
4 Lack of training in other areas (A2) meant that criticism of “theory” in the study
of ancient religion ignored a crucial point. Much of the theory, and almost
all of the excesses, arose in the study of Greek religion; theory and comparative
material seemed to “work” for that religion. Any theory employed for Roman
religion usually postdated its use for Greek religion.
B The conceptualizations of classical studies
1 Greek civilization was long considered the archetype of Mediterranean antiquity;
thus Roman civilization became derivative. Worse, the Romans were measured
against the Greeks, and, for example, their failure to have mythologies of the
Greek kind was considered not merely a religious and cultural difference but,
rather, symptomatic of the Romans’ total reliance on Greek cultural norms imper-
fectly assimilated (Bendlin 1995; Phillips 1991a). Hence the assumption arose
that knowing Greek religion meant knowing Roman religion; excellent scholars
of Greek religion could and did pronounce on Roman religion from a position
of considerable unfamiliarity with that latter religion (Phillips 2000a).
2 Classical studies long belonged to members of the white, male, Judeo-Christian,
and European socio-economic elite; thus that elite’s socio-cultural prejudices
came into play. Cults of the lower ancient socio-economic orders became