I shall start with Caesar’s public career, concentrating on his role in the Roman state religion and attempting to isolate what he did (or permitted to be done to or for him) before discussing his own treatment of religion in his works, and our sources’ representation of Caesar attitudes towards religion.
Because the opening chapters of the biographies of both Suetonius and Plutarch are lost, the earliest incident relevant to this study is Cinna’s designation of the young patrician Caesar as flamen Dialis and husband to his daughter Cornelia. The flamen Dialis was a senior priesthood dedicated to Jupiter and open only to patricians born of parents married by the form of marriage known as confarreatio; its holder was bound by a wide range of sacral restrictions and ritual rules which made some elements of a typical career for an ambitious member of the Roman elite difficult. A straightforward reading of Velleius Paterculus, who credits both Marius and Cinna with the initiative, places the designation in 86 when Caesar was only 13 or 14. Suetonius’ version, which fixes the designation to the consular year after the death of Caesar’s father, requires 84 (Last 1944: 15-17). At that stage Caesar would have assumed the toga virilis, but still have merited the ancient descriptions of his youth. The appointment was intended by Cinna as an honor to the young Caesar, not as an obstacle to a military or political career for him (Meier 1995: 86), nor as a means of avoiding the solemn curses against Cinna and his supporters by the last flamen Dialis, Cornelius Merula, who had sacrilegiously committed suicide to avoid death at the hands of Cinna (pace Liou-Gille 1999: 439-42). The discrepant terminology of Suetonius ( destinatus) and Velleius ( creatus) can best be reconciled with the formal terminology (nominatus, captus, and inauguratus) by holding that Caesar was nominated as one of the three candidates, probably by the pontifices, and was captus (i. e. specifically chosen, perhaps symbolized by ‘‘taking by the hand’’; cf. Aul. Gell. 1.12.13-16) by the Pontifex Maximus, but was not finally inaugurated (Linderski 1995: 554-5, 2007: 636-7). It is not, however, clear who was responsible, or what were the grounds, for the disqualification of Caesar. If, for example, the Pontifex Maximus Q. Mucius Scaevola objected on the grounds that Caesar’s parents had not been married by confarreatio or that his mother was a plebeian, that involves him in an apparent inconsistency, as he must already have given his approval to Caesar in the captio (cf. SimtSn 1996: 207-12). The civil conflict doubtless played a part. After his seizure of power in November 82, Sulla declared all the enactments of the Cinnan period invalid, perhaps on the grounds that the consuls had been appointed without the approbation of the auspices. But Suetonius seems to view the loss of the flaminate as a consequence of Caesar’s refusal of Sulla’s demand that he divorce Cornelia. Presumably, on this view, the instruction to divorce was motivated by hatred of Sulla’s political enemy Cinna, although one might consider that Sulla believed, on the basis of historical precedent, that the flaminate belonged most appropriately to the Cornelii and not to the lulii (see Vanggaard 1988: 75-6). For his part, Caesar may have refused to divorce Cornelia on the grounds that the flamen Dialis was not permitted to divorce, but that would also have served as a blatant protest that Sulla’s acta were invalid (cf. Badian, chapter 2, pp. 16-17), demonstrating Caesar’s loyalty to his Marian political heritage. Yet, if the former motive was prominent, we have early evidence of a Caesar who displayed a remarkable intransigence in respect of ancestral practice (Zecchini 2001: 36).
While absent in the East in 73, Caesar was coopted as one of the fifteen pontifices to take the place of his mother’s plebeian cousin C. Aurelius Cotta (Vell. Pat. 2.43.1). Such an appointment was impossible without the support of some aristocratic members of the college. Hence Gelzer (1968: 25) conjectures that Mamercus Aemilius Lepidus Livianus proposed the appointment, while Weinstock (1971: 30-1) attributes it to the efforts of his mother Aurelia and ‘‘her political friends.’’ Evidently the majority of members of the college considered the young Caesar no threat. Indeed, no evidence has survived of any activity engaged upon by Caesar in his capacity as pontifex before his appointment as Pontifex Maximus.
In 69 or 68, Caesar delivered the funeral oration for his aunt Julia, the widow of Marius, in which he made much of the descent of the lulii from Venus (Suet. lul. 6.1). While this has been used to indicate a particular belief by Caesar in his divine past (cf. the claim that he had received the bloom of Venus), several other families were making similar claims during the Late Republic (Wiseman 1974: 153-64) and the context of gentilician rivalry must be at least as important here as personal conviction (Lincoln 1993: 387-91). Nonetheless, the way that Caesar clearly employed his divine ancestry to boost his own career seemed remarkable to his biographers (Ramage 2006: 46-8). A second funeral oration, this time for his wife Cornelia, was noteworthy because she did not possess exceptional merits or prominence (cf. Plut. Caes. 5.4-5). Caesar’s celebration of her is better explained by the desire to advertise his popularis connections than by any putative attachment to the archaic marriage rite of confarreatio (pace Zecchini 2001: 38).
As Gruen argues (chapter 3 in this volume), Caesar’s election as Pontifex Maximus in 63 to replace Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius was a striking achievement by a young man who had not yet held even the praetorship. His defeat of the distinguished consulars and Optimates Q. Lutatius Catulus and P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus was overwhelming, in that he secured more votes in their tribes than were cast for them in all the 17 tribes which had been selected by lot for the electoral procedure (Suet. lul. 13). Earlier in the year Caesar had given prominent support to a tribunician proposal by Titus Labienus that canceled Sulla’s change and restored to the popular vote the election of the pontifices. He doubtless benefited from that and his other popularis activities (cf. Taylor 1949: 92-3).
On December 5, 63, in the senatorial debate on the fate of the Catilinarian conspirators, Caesar spoke in his capacity as praetor urbanus elect. As he had polled most votes in the praetorian elections, he held the senior post. There are no grounds to link Caesar’s rejection of a capital sentence for the conspirators with his role as Pontifex Maximus (contra Zecchini 2001: 39-40) rather than with his popularis sympathies and ideological defence of the lex Porcia and lex Sempronia, which forbade the putting to death of Roman citizens without popular trial.1
In December 62, Pompeia, Caesar’s wife, hosted the celebration of the rites of the Bona Dea in his private residence. Clodius’ infiltration of these rites was referred by the Senate to the pontifical college, over which Caesar presided as Pontifex Maximus, and was judged by the pontiffs to be sacrilege. Caesar spoke to this in the Senate (Schol. Bob. Cic. Clod. fr. 28 St.) and divorced Pompeia, maintaining that ‘‘I thought my wife ought not even to be under suspicion’’ (Plut. Caes. 10.6). In taking this line, he was exhibiting not merely wounded pride but concern for his office.
Caesar’s consulship of 59 was marked by a highly politicized use of the divinatory techniques of the Roman state religion by his colleague Bibulus to thwart Caesar’s legislative program. Although obnuntiatio was a legitimate tactic, Caesar was able, by physically preventing Bibulus from presenting in person his report of inauspicious signs, to ignore the reports without contravening augural law, to carry through his legislative program and to hold the elections of 59 (Linderski 1995: 73-4,480, 634). Combined with his tacit support for Clodius’ legislation in 58 which restricted the use of obnuntiatio, Caesar’s attitude may seem to have struck at the heart of the Roman state religion, at least as Cicero represented it (cf. Vat. 18), but Caesar’s manipulation of the system was little different from Bibulus’ (cf. Beard, North, & Price 1998: 126-8). Again, his influence was probable in the nomination of his cousin Sex. Julius Caesar as flamen Quirinalis in 58, but was unexceptional in the context of the Late Republic.
During his campaigns as proconsul, Caesar’s plundering of Gallic temples (Suet. lul. 54.2) and premeditated violation of treaties (Plut. Caes. 22.3, Cat. Min. 51.2-3) were no more than allegations by political opponents, ifhis correct behavior towards shrines during the Civil War is any guide (e. g. BC 1.6.8, 2.21.3; Dio 42.48.2). His lengthy absence in Gaul for most of the 50s, however, severely restricted his opportunity to fulfill the ceremonial duties of the Pontifex Maximus and to introduce the necessary intercalary months to keep the civil calendar in line with the seasons. If no suggestion emerges at this stage of a man with a far-reaching plan to reform or restore Roman religion, or of a man with a consistent preference for the archaic, significant changes occurred during the Civil War, as Caesar made great play on his coinage with religious imagery and with the office of Pontifex Maximus in particular (cf Stepper 2003: 34-5). The first military issue of denarii minted by Caesar represented pontifical emblems (RCC 1.443 no. 1): as he was effectively in revolt against the state, his best claim to legitimacy was his pontifical office. From his campaigns in 48 and 47 a quinarius, one of the five types minted, has a culullus (beaker) and a Salian shield (RCC 1.452 no. 3); in 47 the eastern mint produced aurei alluding to his acquisition of the augurate (RCC 1.456 no. 1) and in 46-5, while in Spain, one of two types of his denarii featured the augural lituus (staff) (RCC 1.468 no. 2). In 44 several types of denarii feature the lituus or the cullulus, or both, while a prominent innovation is the appearance of the legend PM (Pontifex Maximus) on a coin of L. Aemilius Buca (RCC 1.480 no. 4). This imagery suggests that Caesar’s religious offices were not unimportant. Yet it is far less prominent than images of victory, for example, and should not be exaggerated.
Even from the years of Caesarian dictatorship it is difficult to argue that Caesar himself accorded any priority to religious matters or that he had an overriding vision of Roman religion. In any case, his frequent extended absences from Rome meant that there was little time to concentrate on implementing his ideas, and even his last sojourn was an extended preparation for a lengthy absence in the East. Caesar’s legislative activities during his dictatorships in relation to Roman religion are wide-ranging, but not unprecedented: (1) reform of the calendar, (2) reform of the priestly colleges by a lex lulia de sacerdotiis, (3) the creation of a third group of Luperci, the lulii or luliani, (4) the formal introduction of the cult of Liber Pater, and (5) the extension of privileges to the Jews.
In 46 Caesar first remedied the consequence of pontifical delinquency in omitting four intercalations, by the insertion of 90 intercalary days.2 He then undertook a radical reform of the Roman calendar. This was traditionally the responsibility of the pontifices (Suet. lul. 40; Plut. Caes. 59), but the use of an edict to promulgate his reforms (Macr. Sat. 1.14.13) suggests that it was in his capacity as dictator that Caesar acted (Malitz 1987: 116). He abandoned the existing pseudo-solar calendar for a truly solar calendar of 365 days per year, thus enabling the celebration of rites and sacrifices at the correct time; the addition of extra days to March, May, Quinctilis and October was done so as not to disturb the traditional relationship of festivals to the Nones and Ides (Macr. Sat. 1.14.8). All in all a highly conservative end was achieved by revolutionary means, through the employment of foreign expertise (Plin. NH 18.212) and at the cost of the freedom of the pontifices henceforth to manipulate the calendar. Dio’s account reveals subsequent senatorial decrees to record his birthday (45 BC; Dio 44.4.4) and victories in the calendar, and to rename the month Quinctilis lulius (44 BC; Dio 44.5.2; Macr. Sat. 1.12.34). Whether these were his initiative, and thus evidence of a striking plan to celebrate himself in the Roman calendar as Liberator, after the example of Demetrius Poliorcetes (cf. Weinstock 1971: 152-6), or to insert himself into a reconstructed matrix of the Roman past as Augustus was to do, is unclear (see Tarver 1996; Feeney 2007).
Secondly, in 47 he added one member to the three most important priestly colleges, the pontifices, augures, and Quindecimviri sacris faciundis (Dio 43.51.4), primarily to make room for his supporters in colleges traditionally dominated by Optimates and to permit his own acquisition of an augurate on top of his pontificate (Yavetz 1983: 110-11). Hitherto the simultaneous tenure of more than one senior priesthood was alien to the competitive spirit of the Republican elite. In 44 Dio records that a new sodality, the lulii or luliani, was added to the existing luperci Quinctiales and Fabiani (44.6.2; see Weinstock 1971: 332-3). A brief comment by Servius (Ecl. 5.29) preserves the information that Caesar was the first to transfer to Rome the sacra of Liber Pater (traditional Italian name of Bacchus). While the interpretation of this is not uncontroversial, it seems that Caesar removed the ban on the celebration of the rites of Bacchus first imposed in 186, perhaps after his victorious return from the East, and that the rites were celebrated in connection with the quadruple triumph of 46 (Dio 43.22.1; cf. Pailler 1988: 728-43). A link with Dionysus (to give the god’s most common Greek name) would be useful in the context of his eastern campaign planned for 44 (cf. Turcan 1977: 323-5).
Josephus preserves a series of senatus consulta which purport to record Caesarian initiatives during his dictatorships to restore to the Jews jurisdiction over issues relating to their own law, the rights of high priests and priests, and permission to observe the Sabbath and perform other rites, and exemption from military service (Jos. AJ 14.195, 208, 241-2). Eilers (2003: 191-213; cf. Rajak 1984: esp. 112-13) makes a strong case for not attributing these senatus consulta to the Caesarian period. But even if they belong here, the concessions were typical of Roman grants to defeated peoples who had subsequently demonstrated loyalty and do not indicate a particular affinity for Judaism (cf. Pucci Ben Zeev 1998). At the beginning of the Civil War Caesar saw that the Jews, who loathed Pompey for his capture of Jerusalem, his violation of the temple, and his disaggregation of the Jewish state, could serve as a useful threat to Pompey’s rear, so he established strong personal links with Hyrcanus and Antipater. For their assistance during the Alexandrian war the two were rewarded personally. It is often argued (e. g. Firpo 2000: 135-41), on the basis of another document in Josephus (AJ 14. 213-16), that Caesar felt the need to do more and freed Jews from the constraints imposed on their worship by Roman legislation against collegia, thus restoring to them the position they had enjoyed before 63. However, Caesar’s exclusion of the Jews from his measures against thiasoi belongs best during his praetorship (Eilers 2003). Caesar’s actions towards the Jews throughout his career were not governed by some special regard for Judaism or by a more general concern for religious freedom, but by pragmatic concerns: the need for Jewish support against Pompey and then later for a peaceful Judaea in his rear as he dealt with Parthia.
World History
