My own self

I know this is likely to be too narrow a topic to capture the interest of any of my, what, five regular readers, but I feel like commenting upon this book despite only being halfway through it, and seeing as this is my weblog, that is exactly what I am going to do.


It ended up on my curriculum this spring purely by accidence - twofold such, and both thanks to my professor who first convinced (okay, subtly ordered) me to spend my open course on a self-structured further specialization in Roman religion instead of a general Classical history and culture-course, and then when I mentioned feeling lacking in knowledge of Roman religion after the Republic said "maybe something on the Emperor cult, then" and pulled this book out of his shelves. He hadn't even read it himself yet.


It is, in my opinion, quite excellent. I might be seduced by Gradel's very straightforward tone and fooled in my obviously still somewhat layman-like knowledge of both the era and the previous academic works on it, but I honestly think he makes quite the intereting, logical and convincing argument in it. His main thesis seems to be that divine status in Ancient Rome was just that - status - more than it was something essential to the nature of the being it's projected onto. That the notion of a God as something utterly and fundamentally different to a human is a Judeo-Christian one which should not and did not apply to the pre-Christian Romans. In other words, he wishes to look on the notion of divinity in the Roman empire as a relative status and not a set, essential one. And based on this, he basically goes on to very convincingly and orderly (though at times a little haughtily, it should be said, but of course that's just additional fun...) counter just about every generally accepted theory I've ever heard of on the subject of Emperor-worship in the Roman Empire. It raises and answers fundamental and old questions such as: Was Julius Caesar deified before or after his death? Was Augustus ever worshipped in the Empire while alive? If so, as his Genius or straighout as a god in his own right? What about the later emperors? What is the difference between Divus and Deus? And so on and so forth.

Of course, even with my limited insight I see that one might debate whether or not such a complete refusal of an ontological aspect of godhood in Ancient Rome is likely - and probably it isn't. I still find the argument of the godhood as a relative condition to be quite illuminating and fitting on what I know of the ancient Romans. However, I also find this suggestion to be immensely helpful and intriguing maybe exactly due to its stark, opinionated stanze, and while a road somewhere in the middle might as so often otherwise be the correct course, having this to me completely new way of looking at Roman godhood staked clearly out for me is completely and utterly necessary if I'm to be able to do that. There is also a potential problem to spot in this arguments for what is and what isn't "state religion", upon which a lot of his secondary arguments depend. Interestingly, maybe, that when he starts operating with the relative divinity he needs to establish a rigid system of religion to discuss it against. Still, again, though to a less extent, I find his very strong contrasting (this time not between his argument and the common one, but between his definitions of "state", "public" and "private" religion) to be helpful and light-shedding, even when it might be faulty.

I actually find myself looking forward to reading in this book, which, regardless of how interesting the subject matter might be, curriculum never, ever makes me do. And I still have half of it to go. Let us hope it does not lose its charm.