pagan Roman emperors used Astronomy to appear Divine

[Erik Nelson]

According to the History Channel documentary The Universe - season 7 - episode 10, the pagan Roman emperors utilized Astronomical knowledge in constructing monuments, like Augustus' Ars Paca (Altar of Peace) and Hadrian's Pantheon, so as to generate visually spectacular plays of sunlight & shadow to awe the populace.

For example, the oculus in the roof of the Pantheon admits a spotlight beam of sunlight, which would bathe the emperor's grand entrance on the 21st of April, the traditional founding date of Rome. And Augustus carefully positioned an Egyptian obelisk to cast a shadow which would, every Ides of March, penetrate up the entrance steps of the Ars Paca and into the interior of the monument (as seen from the south) so as to "impregnate" (my words) the circular shadow, of some sort of ball positioned atop the obelisk, to be exactly framed by the edges of the back window of the altar (as seen from the north).

Hadrian also employed similar lighting tricks in his opulent villa, such that spotlight beams of sunlight would highlight statues of the Egyptian goddess Isis on certain days, whilst the shadow from yet another Egyptian obelisk would touch upon another statue of (Hadrian's homosexual lover Antinuous depicted as) the Egyptian god Osiris, on the anniversary of Antinuous' drowning in the Nile river (under suspicious circumstances).

Nero used sunlight to create striking contrasts of light & shadow in his famous octagonal room, the probable inspiration for Hadrian's later & larger Pantheon.

To the uneducated, the pagan Roman emperors would have appeared to command the heavenly bodies to mark momentous anniversaries of pagan imperial history (cp. Rev 19:20).

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

So, why did God allow this to happen? God could have just made those days be clouded and the Sun be hidden behind clouds, therefore ruining the emperors' plans.

 

[Erik Nelson]

So, why did God allow this to happen? God could have just made those days be clouded and the Sun be hidden behind clouds, therefore ruining the emperors' plans.

Per Preterist perspective, the pagan Roman empire was the physical manifestation of the "Beast of the Sea" (Rev 13), and the Imperial Cult Religion deifying the earthly emperors was the physical manifestation of the "False Prophet" working signs & wonders.

God in heaven used the pagan Roman empire to defeat "Babylon" (Rev 16-18), the spiritual image of 1st century AD Jerusalem, the city which had caused the Crucifixion. That freed the nascent Christian community from the worst of the persecutions, and Christianity was able to grow under Rome. Eventually, the Christian emperor Constantine defeated the pagan opposition (Rev 19), ushering in a Christian Millennium in the "New Jerusalem" of Constantinople, with its "New Temple" of the Hagia Sophia (Rev 20:1-6).

Inexpertly, I think this explains why, meanwhile, the former western Roman empire collapsed into a thousand years of "Dark Ages". For, the pagan emperors had kept all advanced engineering & astronomical knowledge as a closely-guarded state secret, known only to Imperial Cult initiates. So, with the loss of the Imperial Cult went the loss of advanced technical knowledge, in the west. (In the east, of course, they were building the Hagia Sophia, the triple wall around Constantinople, and developing Greek Fire.)

 

[Norbert L]

According to the History Channel documentary The Universe - season 7 - episode 10, the pagan Roman emperors utilized Astronomical knowledge in constructing monuments, like Augustus' Ars Paca (Altar of Peace) and Hadrian's Pantheon, so as to generate visually spectacular plays of sunlight & shadow to awe the populace.

For example, the oculus in the roof of the Pantheon admits a spotlight beam of sunlight, which would bathe the emperor's grand entrance on the 21st of April, the traditional founding date of Rome. And Augustus carefully positioned an Egyptian obelisk to cast a shadow which would, every Ides of March, penetrate up the entrance steps of the Ars Paca and into the interior of the monument (as seen from the south) so as to "impregnate" (my words) the circular shadow, of some sort of ball positioned atop the obelisk, to be exactly framed by the edges of the back window of the altar (as seen from the north).

Hadrian also employed similar lighting tricks in his opulent villa, such that spotlight beams of sunlight would highlight statues of the Egyptian goddess Isis on certain days, whilst the shadow from yet another Egyptian obelisk would touch upon another statue of (Hadrian's homosexual lover Antinuous depicted as) the Egyptian god Osiris, on the anniversary of Antinuous' drowning in the Nile river (under suspicious circumstances).

Nero used sunlight to create striking contrasts of light & shadow in his famous octagonal room, the probable inspiration for Hadrian's later & larger Pantheon.

To the uneducated, the pagan Roman emperors would have appeared to command the heavenly bodies to mark momentous anniversaries of pagan imperial history (cp. Rev 19:20).

If we were able to get into the minds of the pagan Emperor's, what would they believe? Did they think they only had the appearance of divinity or that they actually were divine?

 

[Erik Nelson]

That's a profound question. Your speculation is as good as mine.

Revelations portrays "the Beast of the sea", and its "False Prophet", as animated by a Supra-Natural Power. Insofar as those were cryptic, Spiritual depictions of the pagan Roman empire and its Imperial Cult, then the pagan Roman emperors were "Spiritually animated" by a non-human, non-terrestrial, "other worldly" Power... which they plausibly perceived, broadly similarly to the awareness of the Apostles & Prophets of the "Animating Holy Spirit" directed at earth from God in heaven.

Perhaps the best available answer is to refer you to the Romans in their own written "imperial scriptures":

"Remember, Roman, that it is for thee to rule the nations. This shall be thy task, to impose the ways of peace, to spare the vanquished, and to tame the proud by war." -- Virgil's Aeneid (1st century BC)

Indeed, Revelations agrees that "the Beast" shall be given rule over the nations (Rev 13:7). So the "external" description of the pagan empire accords with the "internal" self-description from them in their own words.

Prima facie, uncritically accepting all accounts, generates a self-consistent picture, of a Roman Imperial cult perceiving that the emperors were instruments of an other worldly, Supra-terrestrial Will, directed thereby to pacify planet earth & humble humanity. Indeed, such humbling humiliation created in Rome's subjects a "Spiritual need" for Christianity:

Romans 8:28 (NASB)
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

God in heaven has, and has long had for thousands of years, the "super-computational super-power" to Spiritually direct millions to billions of humans on earth, simultaneously, according to a recognizable mutual common agenda. Hence, human history over the past 2600 years has been "thralled" to the Prophetic schedule & itinerary of Daniel & Revelations.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

If we were able to get into the minds of the pagan Emperor's, what would they believe? Did they think they only had the appearance of divinity or that they actually were divine?

Well, some did not believe it at all. Vespasian's reported last words were: "I think I am becoming a god". This has been interpreted sardonically, as he was a very down to earth Emperor, the son of a mule drover.
Another example is the Pumpkinification of Claudius written by Seneca. Again, it does not take the deification of Claudius seriously, and Seneca had been Nero's tutor, so likely had his support. I doubt though that Claudius would have taken it so seriously himself, as there had been a lot of political manoeuvring around the deification of Livia, denied by her son and great grandchild's reigns, before Claudius authorised it.

Others like Caligula and Elagabalus were deadly serious about their divinity, going so far as to put their heads on statues of other gods. They are however quite mad.

Remember, Rome didn't deify living Emperors, in spite of popular opinion to the contrary. During an Emperor's life, they encouraged the worship of his Genius, sort of like a fravathi or guardian spirit, that was intimately connected to the person. At death, the Emperor's shade and his Genius became united into a new god that joined the pantheon and then, if the senate and his successor allowed it, he became a god with a cult. This is why people were expected to make offerings to the emperor on altars - it was for the use of his genius, as they weren't so hubristic to think that they themselves would gain from this as persons. Especially during the Principate, the Emperors were careful not to appear like Hellenistic god-kings, as they were playing an elaborate game of Republican pretend.

There is a somewhat different standard when it comes to barbarians. Rome allowed temples to living Emperors in their own right amongst them, usually coupled with the divinity Roma, a personification of the Empire. This was a way to control them and the addition of Roma made it more palatable to the populace, as if to say they are worshipping Rome. Augustus was the first to allow this in Anatolia, but it became common practice later, such as when Claudius authorised a similar temple after the conquest of Britannia. Amongst Romans this remained anathema though, right up to the Dominate, and played a large part in the overthrow of Emperors who had this worship go to their heads.

Educated Romans often did not take religion very seriously. Claudius Pulcher threw the sacred chickens in the water when they refused to eat, Juvenal writes of magistrates snickering in their togas when going through with rites, releasing captured Eagles at funerals to fake ascents to the gods, and the practice of retaking omens and haruspical investigations until you find the one you are looking for, is well attested. Obviously some believed this, else why go through all the trouble, but many did not.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Prima facie, uncritically accepting all accounts, generates a self-consistent picture, of a Roman Imperial cult perceiving that the emperors were instruments of an other worldly, Supra-terrestrial Will, directed thereby to pacify planet earth & humble humanity

One of the chief schools of Roman Philosophy was Stoicism. It taught that there was a divine logos, a technical term related but not the same as the Christian term of Logos, which was a sort of Destiny. The point of Stoicism, was to attempt t live in accord with Nature, in accord with the Destiny that was in store for you. To Roman minds, this often took the form of a belief in the destiny of Rome itself. It is perhaps a similar idea to the "white man's burden" of 19th century Britain or the Manifest Destiny of the United States, both countries that strongly aped and paralleled Rome.
Stoicism was a strict and highly moral system, which expected you to endure much for public service. Marcus Aurelius is obviously the most famous Stoic Emperor, the only true Philosopher King perhaps, but figures like Cato were also highly influenced thereby. In its more severe forms, it does seem to be a Will, if not a self-aware one, that is driving the Empire forward. Another instructive parallel is Shaw's Life Force.

Alternately, Neoplatonic conceptions in the third century transformed the One of this philosophy, almost into a mind as well. It is perfectly reasonable to read the Imperial Cult in these terms, in my opinion.

You must remember though, that the Aeniad of Virgil and other such patriotic works were written essentially under the patronage of the Emperors, and are therefore propaganda. Beautiful propaganda, but propaganda none the less. It should be weighed against works like Juvenal's Satires, or Tacitus' Germania, that give a more nuanced look at the Roman view of themselves. These were often critiques of their pride and self-importance. Tacitus did not write "They make a desert and call it peace" as a laudatory statement.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

the pagan emperors had kept all advanced engineering & astronomical knowledge as a closely-guarded state secret

This is nonsense. There was no difference between the eastern and western Empire's ways of rule. There was no keeping of secrets of technology as such. We see water powered sawmills until quite late in the West, glassblowing and advanced metallurgy. The problem was epitomisation. The later Empire tended to write pithy précis of previous knowledge, so when the West fell to the barbarians, who had no interest in preserving it so soon after the flush of conquest, this information went missing. It was not possible to reconstruct based on their few epitomes they possessed and the educated had either been mostly killed or fled during the conquest.

Roman technical manuals like those by Vitruvius, were still extent in the Middle Ages in the west, it was just that their supportive infrastructure and ancillary pursuits like high quality metal forging, had fallen victim to the conquest. It was solely the inordinate success of the barbarians and rapid collapse of the West that is responsible, no inherent Imperial policy can be blamed for the decline in technical knowledge that is not also present in the East.

 

[Erik Nelson]

One of the chief schools of Roman Philosophy was Stoicism. It taught that there was a divine logos, a technical term related but not the same as the Christian term of Logos, which was a sort of Destiny. The point of Stoicism, was to attempt t live in accord with Nature, in accord with the Destiny that was in store for you. To Roman minds, this often took the form of a belief in the destiny of Rome itself. It is perhaps a similar idea to the "white man's burden" of 19th century Britain or the Manifest Destiny of the United States, both countries that strongly aped and paralleled Rome.
Stoicism was a strict and highly moral system, which expected you to endure much for public service. Marcus Aurelius is obviously the most famous Stoic Emperor, the only true Philosopher King perhaps, but figures like Cato were also highly influenced thereby. In its more severe forms, it does seem to be a Will, if not a self-aware one, that is driving the Empire forward. Another instructive parallel is Shaw's Life Force.

Alternately, Neoplatonic conceptions in the third century transformed the One of this philosophy, almost into a mind as well. It is perfectly reasonable to read the Imperial Cult in these terms, in my opinion.

You must remember though, that the Aeniad of Virgil and other such patriotic works were written essentially under the patronage of the Emperors, and are therefore propaganda. Beautiful propaganda, but propaganda none the less. It should be weighed against works like Juvenal's Satires, or Tacitus' Germania, that give a more nuanced look at the Roman view of themselves. These were often critiques of their pride and self-importance. Tacitus did not write "They make a desert and call it peace" as a laudatory statement.

Yes, Virgil reflects most directly the "Imperial mindset"... not necessarily the mindset of anybody else anywhere, true... but the question I was asked was what the Emperors thought of themselves... Virgil, telling them what they wanted to hear, is probably pretty close to the mark of how they perceived themselves.

Others saw "deserts called peace". They themselves saw "humbling the proud to preserve peace" (plausibly).

 

[Erik Nelson]

This is nonsense. There was no difference between the eastern and western Empire's ways of rule. There was no keeping of secrets of technology as such. We see water powered sawmills until quite late in the West, glassblowing and advanced metallurgy. The problem was epitomisation. The later Empire tended to write pithy précis of previous knowledge, so when the West fell to the barbarians, who had no interest in preserving it so soon after the flush of conquest, this information went missing. It was not possible to reconstruct based on their few epitomes they possessed and the educated had either been mostly killed or fled during the conquest.

Roman technical manuals like those by Vitruvius, were still extent in the Middle Ages in the west, it was just that their supportive infrastructure and ancillary pursuits like high quality metal forging, had fallen victim to the conquest. It was solely the inordinate success of the barbarians and rapid collapse of the West that is responsible, no inherent Imperial policy can be blamed for the decline in technical knowledge that is not also present in the East.

Well, I'm not claiming to be a history professor. But isn't it possible, that the later empire wrote pithy precis about advanced technical knowledge, precisely because it was, in effect, largely "classified" information ?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Well, I'm not claiming to be a history professor. But isn't it possible, that the later empire wrote pithy precis about advanced technical knowledge, precisely because it was, in effect, largely "classified" information ?

No, because this is exactly what is occuring today as well. It is an artifact of specialisation, as the information increases, fewer and fewer are true masters of it.

Thus most people just read short epitomes, like the wikipedia culture we have today. Many people have a passing acquintance with physics say, but very few can actually expound and explain it properly. This is the same that occurred in Ancient Rome.

The very fact that we have extent manuals on military architecture, aqueduct design, metallurgy, agriculture, etc. largely precludes this. The Romans were very good at control, so if they had prohibited access, then far fewer of these would have survived the maelstrom of the fall of the Western Empire. Anyway, in its dying days the west was chaotic, so if there had been such centralised control of expertise, it makes little sense that advanced stoneworks on the Moselle or mining in Hispania could have been maintained. Again though, we have no such accounts even remotely suggesting this was being done, it certainly wasn't in the Eastern Empire, and even late authors such as Boethius or Martianus Capella would certainly have mentioned it if it had been the case. There is simply no support for this conjecture.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Yes, Virgil reflects most directly the "Imperial mindset"... not necessarily the mindset of anybody else anywhere, true... but the question I was asked was what the Emperors thought of themselves... Virgil, telling them what they wanted to hear, is probably pretty close to the mark of how they perceived themselves.

Others saw "deserts called peace". They themselves saw "humbling the proud to preserve peace" (plausibly).

I find it hard to believe that such a shrewd operator like Augustus would be too easily prey to such dulcet flattery. After all, Virgil acted under the patronage of Maecenas, not of the Emperor directly. As I said before, the Emperors were a mixed bunch. You had down to earth ones like Augustus or Vespasian; Mad ones like Caligula or Elagabulus; Intellectually sceptical Domitian or Claudius; Soldiers like Tiberius or Titus or Septimius Severus.
You probably had as diverse ideas as the person who held the Imperium.

Perhaps this view would fit Emperors like Aurelian, intent on establishing Sol Invictus, or Tiberius, who while expelling astrologers and soothsayers, kept his own pet one Thrasyllus around. Not all of them though, I would think, but this is conjecture, yes.

 

[Erik Nelson]

No, because this is exactly what is occuring today as well. It is an artifact of specialisation, as the information increases, fewer and fewer are true masters of it.

Thus most people just read short epitomes, like the wikipedia culture we have today. Many people have a passing acquintance with physics say, but very few can actually expound and explain it properly. This is the same that occurred in Ancient Rome.

The very fact that we have extent manuals on military architecture, aqueduct design, metallurgy, agriculture, etc. largely precludes this. The Romans were very good at control, so if they had prohibited access, then far fewer of these would have survived the maelstrom of the fall of the Western Empire. Anyway, in its dying days the west was chaotic, so if there had been such centralised control of expertise, it makes little sense that advanced stoneworks on the Moselle or mining in Hispania could have been maintained. Again though, we have no such accounts even remotely suggesting this was being done, it certainly wasn't in the Eastern Empire, and even late authors such as Boethius or Martianus Capella would certainly have mentioned it if it had been the case. There is simply no support for this conjecture.

Why was the concrete recipe lost (in the west only?) ? And, if the east still had these technologies, then why didn't they share them with their fellow Christians ?

Perhaps because, like Greek Fire, they were effectively "state secrets" ? The Romans ruled the Mediterranean for centuries... and nobody else ever learned the recipe... possibly because said recipe was a "secret" one ? Again, the Byzantines "classified" Greek Fire successfully for most of a thousand years... perhaps the recipe was never in fact even written down, but only passed verbally from master to apprentice...

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Why was the concrete recipe lost (in the west only?) ? And, if the east still had these technologies, then why didn't they share them with their fellow Christians ?

Perhaps because, like Greek Fire, they were effectively "state secrets" ? The Romans ruled the Mediterranean for centuries... and nobody else ever learned the recipe... possibly because said recipe was a "secret" one ? Again, the Byzantines "classified" Greek Fire successfully for most of a thousand years... perhaps the recipe was never in fact even written down, but only passed verbally from master to apprentice...

The recipe for concrete was not lost. You find it in Vitruvius' de Architectura, a text freely available in the West. The expertise to work it, and the fine gradations required for its use, however was lost. This was lost in both the East and the West.
The problem is that it requires quite a lot of pozzolana, an Italian volcanic sediment. With the decline of the West and the arrival first of Vandal and then Arab pirates, it made it impractical to transport such a heavy and bulky cargo. This led to a decline in monumental works in both the East and West. Hagia Sophia was one of the last buildings of the old type, since Justinian had recently reconquered both Italy and North Africa, thus keeping piracy under control and securing the pozzolana supply it required. With the decline following Heraclius' loss of much of the Empire and the return of foreign ships in Mediterranean, monumental building on late Roman standards and the use of concrete disappeared in the East as well. This has nothing whatsoever to do with 'secrets' being kept, but after a few centuries where no one had worked with the stuff, the expertise was simply lacking. Again though, both Eastern and Western halves of the Empire lost concrete by the 7th century, and there is quite a lot of evidence of Ostrogoth construction in Italy using the stuff and de Architectura circulated widely, so it was hardly a secret. It ended because the Pax Romana ended.

As to Greek Fire, George Kendrenos says in an 11th century Chronicle that its recipe was kept secret. This is not believed by modern scholarship. We see Greek Fire employed by mediaeval Armenians on land. Similarly Arabs used it in the 9th and Bulgarians in the 10th century. This may have followed the capture of fire ships, but regardless, they were using naptha based weaponry before this anyway. The key was the siphon system, which allowed its deployment on ships. The arabs could never master this, likely due to lack of expertise again. The Arabs were reading the same texts on physics and substances the Greeks were.
While the Greeks certainly took steps to prevent trained individuals, siphon systems and experts from falling into Arab hands, they certainly did not keep 'Greek Fire' a secret. This is a myth, although an old one with a mediaeval pedigree. This is the same type of misinformation as those who paint the Frumentarii as some sort of Roman secret service. It has a little truth, but the keyword is a little.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Classical Corner: A Comet Gives Birth to an Empire - Biblical Archaeology Society

all in keeping with the core mythos of the Divine Caesar cult

 

[Kyrilllos el Antony]

Well, some did not believe it at all. Vespasian's reported last words were: "I think I am becoming a god". This has been interpreted sardonically, as he was a very down to earth Emperor, the son of a mule drover.
Another example is the Pumpkinification of Claudius written by Seneca. Again, it does not take the deification of Claudius seriously, and Seneca had been Nero's tutor, so likely had his support. I doubt though that Claudius would have taken it so seriously himself, as there had been a lot of political manoeuvring around the deification of Livia, denied by her son and great grandchild's reigns, before Claudius authorised it.

Others like Caligula and Elagabalus were deadly serious about their divinity, going so far as to put their heads on statues of other gods. They are however quite mad.

Remember, Rome didn't deify living Emperors, in spite of popular opinion to the contrary. During an Emperor's life, they encouraged the worship of his Genius, sort of like a fravathi or guardian spirit, that was intimately connected to the person. At death, the Emperor's shade and his Genius became united into a new god that joined the pantheon and then, if the senate and his successor allowed it, he became a god with a cult. This is why people were expected to make offerings to the emperor on altars - it was for the use of his genius, as they weren't so hubristic to think that they themselves would gain from this as persons. Especially during the Principate, the Emperors were careful not to appear like Hellenistic god-kings, as they were playing an elaborate game of Republican pretend.

There is a somewhat different standard when it comes to barbarians. Rome allowed temples to living Emperors in their own right amongst them, usually coupled with the divinity Roma, a personification of the Empire. This was a way to control them and the addition of Roma made it more palatable to the populace, as if to say they are worshipping Rome. Augustus was the first to allow this in Anatolia, but it became common practice later, such as when Claudius authorised a similar temple after the conquest of Britannia. Amongst Romans this remained anathema though, right up to the Dominate, and played a large part in the overthrow of Emperors who had this worship go to their heads.

Educated Romans often did not take religion very seriously. Claudius Pulcher threw the sacred chickens in the water when they refused to eat, Juvenal writes of magistrates snickering in their togas when going through with rites, releasing captured Eagles at funerals to fake ascents to the gods, and the practice of retaking omens and haruspical investigations until you find the one you are looking for, is well attested. Obviously some believed this, else why go through all the trouble, but many did not.

Was the genius of an Emperor analogous to the Zoroastrian idea of the Fravashi?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Was the genius of an Emperor analogous to the Zoroastrian idea of the Fravashi?

Sort of. They are both likely descendants of an analogous Proto-Indo-European religious idea that they both inherited. They are probably also related to Valkyries in Norse mythology. There are relations that can be drawn between various religious traditions of Indo-European peoples, but obviously many centuries of separate development separate the two.

The Genius was sort of the Guardian spirit of a person, place or thing. Fravashi are more an eternal extension of a person in Zoroastrianism. They are related but different.
A place could have a genius, such as altars to the Genius of Britannia or Dacia; or cohorts or legions had their own; concepts like Amicitia, friendship; and of course people. It was in a sense also a divine extension of the mortal as we see it, though a separate being, as people offered libations to their own genius. For most, the Genius perished when they perished or perhaps became the Shade, if some dubious readings are interpreted differently. It is not completely clear, although Augustine equated the Genius with the Soul of a person or something, but with caveats.
Regardless, the Genius, along with the Lares and Penates, were the basic household gods of family unit, similar to their Guardian Angels.

 

[Kyrilllos el Antony]

Sort of. They are both likely descendants of an analogous Proto-Indo-European religious idea that they both inherited. They are probably also related to Valkyries in Norse mythology. There are relations that can be drawn between various religious traditions of Indo-European peoples, but obviously many centuries of separate development separate the two.

The Genius was sort of the Guardian spirit of a person, place or thing. Fravashi are more an eternal extension of a person in Zoroastrianism. They are related but different.
A place could have a genius, such as altars to the Genius of Britannia or Dacia; or cohorts or legions had their own; concepts like Amicitia, friendship; and of course people. It was in a sense also a divine extension of the mortal as we see it, though a separate being, as people offered libations to their own genius. For most, the Genius perished when they perished or perhaps became the Shade, if some dubious readings are interpreted differently. It is not completely clear, although Augustine equated the Genius with the Soul of a person or something, but with caveats.
Regardless, the Genius, along with the Lares and Penates, were the basic household gods of family unit, similar to their Guardian Angels.

Where did St. Augustine write about this? Also, can you reccommend a good book that is an introduction to Paganism as practiced in the Roman Empire?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Where did St. Augustine write about this? Also, can you reccommend a good book that is an introduction to Paganism as practiced in the Roman Empire?

"The same Varro, then, still speaking by anticipation, says that he thinks that God is the soul of the world (which the Greeks call κόσμος), and that this world itself is God; but as a wise man, though he consists of body and mind, is nevertheless called wise on account of his mind, so the world is called God on account of mind, although it consists of mind and body. Here he seems, in some fashion at least, to acknowledge one God; but that he may introduce more, he adds that the world is divided into two parts, heaven and earth, which are again divided each into two parts, heaven into ether and air, earth into water and land, of all which the ether is the highest, the air second, the water third, and the earth the lowest. All these four parts, he says, are full of souls; those which are in the ether and air being immortal, and those which are in the water and on the earth mortal. From the highest part of the heavens to the orbit of the moon there are souls, namely, the stars and planets; and these are not only understood to be gods, but are seen to be such. And between the orbit of the moon and the commencement of the region of clouds and winds there are aerial souls; but these are seen with the mind, not with the eyes, and are called Heroes, and Lares, and Genii. This is the natural theology which is briefly set forth in these anticipatory statements, and which satisfied not Varro only, but many philosophers besides. This I must discuss more carefully, when, with the help of God, I shall have completed what I have yet to say concerning the civil theology, as far as it concerns the select gods.

...

But why speak more of this Jupiter, with whom perchance all the rest are to be identified; so that, he being all, the opinion as to the existence of many gods may remain as a mere opinion, empty of all truth? And they are all to be referred to him, if his various parts and powers are thought of as so many gods, or if the principle of mind which they think to be diffused through all things has received the names of many gods from the various parts which the mass of this visible world combines in itself, and from the manifold administration of nature. For what is Saturn also? One of the principal gods, he says, who has dominion over all sowings. Does not the exposition of the verses of Valerius Soranus teach that Jupiter is the world, and that he emits all seeds from himself, and receives them into himself?

It is he, then, with whom is the dominion of all sowings. What is Genius? He is the god who is set over, and has the power of begetting, all things. Who else than the world do they believe to have this power, to which it has been said:

Almighty Jove, progenitor and mother?

And when in another place he says that Genius is the rational soul of every one, and therefore exists separately in each individual, but that the corresponding soul of the world is God, he just comes back to this same thing—namely, that the soul of the world itself is to be held to be, as it were, the universal genius. This, therefore, is what he calls Jupiter. For if every genius is a god, and the soul of every man a genius, it follows that the soul of every man is a god. But if very absurdity compels even these theologists themselves to shrink from this, it remains that they call that genius god by special and pre-eminent distinction, whom they call the soul of the world, and therefore Jupiter." - St Augustine, City of God, Book VII.


A good text specifically on Roman religion? Any book on their mythology ought to do. I can't think of one off hand. I am a big supporter of primary texts, so the best way is reading Livy or Virgil and learning of their religion in this manner, but this is a very involved way to do so. Perhaps try the standard Bullfinch's Mythology or Robert Gates or people of their ilk.

 

[JohannineScholar]

Remarkable thread. I wonder if you know more about this than my college classicist professors. Amazing information. Are you a professor or professional academic?