Finally, there exists an issue of contemporary influence, the Rezeptionsgeschichteof
scholarship on Roman religion in other areas of classical studies, especially the liter-
ary. Of course it requires time for specialist views to percolate through a wider venue.
But the situation is not so good for Roman religion. For example, most specialists
nowadays reject the idea that Roman religion constituted “cult acts without belief,”
yet there currently exists only sporadic evidence that non-specialists in classical studies
generally have appropriated that point.
Classical Antiquity through the Renaissance
Here the distinction between evidence for Roman religion and evidence for
Wissenschaftsgeschichteblurs. Thus the earliest literary reference to Roman religion
will be the appearance of Camena in Livius Andronicus’ version of Homer’s Odyssey.
A position on Roman religion is implied; still, although the word is specialist, its lit-
erary context is not. Put differently, Andronicus knew about the relation between
Camena and the Muses, but we cannot hope to recover it with certainty. Likewise
what did the elder Cato know about Ares in connection with Mars (Agr.141)? Indeed,
Cicero’s famous statement on the aridity of the chronicles of the Annales Maximi
(Leg.1.6), combined with the enormous numbers of later commentaries on the
pontifical acta, suggests that this earliest example of extensive writing about Roman
religion constituted facts useful for the activities of the pontifical compilers.
Scholarly interpretation and refutation lay in the future. Consider as parallel how
Roman private law handled delicts; they begin with particular instances in the
Twelve Tables (e.g. Digesta 9.2.4.1), are expanded and replaced by the early third
century bcLex Aquilia(Digesta9.2.1), but only appear as a focus of scholarly inter-
est from the later republic onward, when the need arose to harmonize the actions
granted by the urban praetor.
Scholarly interest in Roman religion, as for many topics, appears in the late sec-
ond century bc. Since even the most substantial remains of that activity, Varro’s works,
survive in fragments, judgment on the Wissenschaftsgeschichtemust be conservative.
Nevertheless, certain general tendencies appear from now until the early third century
ad. First there is an empirico-positivist position on earlier views; an earlier savant’s
views of a knotty cultic question exists either to be praised or to be censured,
but never to be discussed beyond demonstrating contradictory evidence or logic.
Second, with the exceptions of Varro and possibly Nigidius Figulus (both first cen-
tury bc) there exists no attempt to create a comprehensive view of Roman religion,
surely for the obvious reason that such a view is impossible in a diffuse polytheistic
system. Third, we may never be sure who knew what or who constituted a special-
ist in Roman religion in classical antiquity. Aulus Gellius (2.10) outlines a scholarly
debate on the fauissaeof the Capitoline temple involving three figures not usually
identified as specialists; compare Verrius Flaccus (Paulus Festus 78.10 –13 L) of the
Augustan period, showing a lexicographer attending to this combined religious and
topographical issue. Compare, too, Lucius Cincius (first century bc), absent in Gellius
(supra), surely knowledgeable on the fauissae(GRF11), who definitely authoredApproaching Roman Religion 13