Matters soon change. Symmachus (c.ad 340 – 402) had no epigonoi and his
socio-economic-theological class was vanishing. Thus, in the fifth century, Macrobius
and Servius conserved information from much earlier authors, but no one produced
a significant new work on Roman polytheism. This lack of scholarly activity, com-
bined with the movement of Rome to Constantinople, killed further scholarship in
the west. But consider Constantinople as famous repository for classical texts, and
the activities there of John Lydus (sixth century). He may have seen a relatively
complete Cincius, because the majority of the Latin authors proffering religion
references to Cincius parallel each other, while most of Lydus’ citations of Cincius
are not otherwise cited. Any hope of scholarly continuity on Roman religion was
stillborn, however, as a shrinking minority knew Latin, and in some cases were
forbidden to use it (John Lydus, De magistratibus3.68).
Changing east–west dynamics meant changing scholarly interests. Christians no
longer viewed “paganism” as a major threat and no longer conned texts for polem-
ical material. Instead, Christian scholarship turned to the various “heresies” within
Christendom and the encroachments of Islam. Certainly, “pagan” texts could be
useful antiquarian relics, patriotic reminders of Romanitas, and justification for con-
temporary politics (Charlemagne) and the educational system (trivium, quadrivium).
But those uses required no scholarship, merely anthologies, and thus came mistakes,
often obscenely egregious as in the eighth-century Merovingian claim that Venus
was male (Levison 1946: 302–14). More promiscuously, the glossaries which begin
by the fifth centuryad only rarely conserve truly antiquarian knowledge and even
less often show significant comprehension of the texts they gloss (Lindsay and Thomson
1921: v–xii). Likewise scholarly compendia, for example Paul the Deacon’s abridg-
ment of Festus (eighth century). Where there was once fertile debate, as on fauissae
(Paul. Fest.78.10 –13 L and supra), there was now an account potted to unintelli-
gibility. Traditionally arcane theological and legal points become almost illogical
twaddle (euerriator: 68.8 –13 L); significant toponyms shrink to their barest meaning
(Crustumina: 48.12 L). Moreover, given the almost total lack of Greek works, know-
ledge of Roman religion was conflated with knowledge of Greek religion via the pre-
servation of various “myth” handbooks from classical antiquity (Rossum-Steenbeek
1998: 119 –56), those handbooks conflating Greek and Roman; the popularity of
Ovid made matters all the worse. Rome continued as “then,” only occasionally “now,”
as in the verse of Hildebertus Cenomannensis (c. 1056 –1133): Par tibi, Roma, nihil
cum sis prope tota ruina / quam magni fueris integra, fracta doces(A. Scott 1969:
no. 36.1–2), “nothing is like you, Rome, even if you lie almost totally in ruins, /
broken you teach how great you were whole.” The Renaissance marked an expanded
interest in classical antiquity, especially after Greek texts reappeared widely. Interest
devolved on the traditional mythologies, especially those useful for fine art and
literature, or on the necessary processes of finding and restoring the widely scattered
texts (often in a deplorable state of preservation). Hence it is understandable that
humanists such as Poggio and their epigonoi(e.g. Valla, Politian) spent more time
simply recovering the texts and gleaning their most obvious meanings; plumbing the
meanings lay later, for the Scaligers of Europe. In short, none seems to have possessed
an urgent need for the detailed exegesis of Roman religion.
Approaching Roman Religion 17