qualities, produced distorted views. But it can be no help when literary specialists
continue almost perversely to ignore any and all scholarship on Roman religion. Literary
scholars do not have to specialize in Roman religion, but they do need to learn about
it; Denis Feeney (1998) has shown it can be done with superior results.
Scholarship from specialists in Roman religion has an eclectic quality. That is good,
in that various theoretical guidelines can be appropriated on a basis of intellectual
integrity. That is not so good, I think, because now we are less sure than ever what
Roman religion “is,” and this despite, say, an excellent, sympathetic and accurate
two-volume survey (Beard et al. 1998). Likewise, there has been a recent meticul-
ous historical analysis of the early republic to cast important light on early Roman
religion and the calendar (Rüpke 1995a). But what are the implications for a gen-
eral view of Roman religion? Similarly, articles by all the aforementioned scholars
and others such as Bendlin, Scheid, and myself (Bendlin 2000; Phillips 1991a; Scheid
1987) offer illuminations of specific issues, but what of the whole? If previous
generations of scholarship on Roman religion have been marked by a tendency to
fit evidence to theory, it may be that a counter-reaction, theory only when appro-
priate to a small-scale issue, is inevitable. But one cannot help but think that
something is lost. It is true that we no longer characterize Roman religion as one of
cult acts without belief, mired in primitive animistic practices. It is true too that we
possess enormous quantities of Einzelerklärungen, whether of specific evidence or
specific cults and rituals. But sometimes it can seem all trees and no forest; we miss
the grand sweep with which the scholars of earlier generations traversed the evidence.
This grand sweep arose not just from concern with specific models, but in counter-
point, sometimes harmonious and sometimes dissonant, with the intellectual and socio-
political climate of the times. Put differently, we have lost the majestic Bruckner
symphony and now hearken to often atonal Albumblätter. Perhaps it is time for
specialists in Roman religion to renew contact with their erstwhile colleagues in
religious studies and anthropology – those fields are rife with promising approaches
such as the cognitive. The large-scale urgently needs to return to the study of Roman
religion.FURTHER READINGGiven the assertion of my opening sentence, the suggestions here aim for a brief orientation
to a selection of the sorts of materials available; the “overviews” mentioned in the second
sentence will remain basic, to which add the Year’s Work in Classical Studies1906 – 45/7
(vols. 1–34), especially Fowler’s notices “Roman religion and mythology,” which appeared
1906 –17. One usually has to mine more general works. Calder (1981/2) introduces the value
of archival material, while Calder and Kramer (1992) with Calder and Smith (2000) provide
a rich starting point for quarrying bibliography. Of the many histories of classical scholarship,
the most immediately useful here are L. D. Reynolds and Wilson (1991), Schlesier (1994),
and Wilamowitz (1921), with Hummel (2000) for the larger context. Necrologies are often
very valuable; although widely scattered, Gnomonand Proceedings of the British Academy
provide a point of departure. No one should miss Briggs and Calder (1990), where 5026 C. Robert Phillips, III