Download pdf - Believing the Evidence

Believing the Evidence

Page 1 of 38

PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) CopyrightBritish Academy, 2014. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of asingle chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for detailssee: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015

UniversityPressScholarshipOnlineBritishAcademyScholarshipOnline

Evidence,InferenceandEnquiryPhilipDawid,WilliamTwining,andMimiVasilaki

Printpublicationdate:2011PrintISBN-13:9780197264843PublishedtoBritishAcademyScholarshipOnline:January2013DOI:10.5871/bacad/9780197264843.001.0001

BelievingtheEvidenceJASONDAVIES

DOI:10.5871/bacad/9780197264843.003.0015

AbstractandKeywords

Thestudyofancientreligion,partlyinresponsetoanthropology,movedinrecentdecadesawayfromthinkingintermsofbelieftostudyingritual:thishasafundamentaleffectonhowwetreattheevidence(ordecidewhatevidenceis,andwhatitisevidenceof).Thischapterarguesthatthetransitionisincompleteandexploressomeofthedeeperimplicationsofthinkingintermsofbelief.Itarguesthatthesecontinuetohamperourperspectiveonancientreligion.Theothernessofancientreligiondoesnotresideintherationalityoftheirthinking,rather,itisaxiomatic(theircreditingritualwithpowertoeffectchangesinthewiderworld).

Keywords:ancientreligion,belief,ritual,evidence

AbstractThestudyofancientreligion,partlyinresponsetoanthropology,movedinrecent


Page 2 of 38


decadesawayfromthinkingintermsofbelieftostudyingritual:thishasafundamentaleffectonhowwetreattheevidence(ordecidewhatevidenceis,andwhatitisevidenceof).Iargueherethatthetransitionisincompleteandexploresomeofthedeeperimplicationsofthinkingintermsofbelief(whetherimplicitlyorexplicitly)andarguethatthesecontinuetohamperourperspectiveonancientreligion.Theothernessofancientreligiondoesnotresideintherationalityoftheirthinking:rather,itisaxiomatic(theircreditingritualwithpowertoeffectchangesinthewiderworld).

1.ThenaturalnessofbeliefSOMEWHEREAROUND2000,therewasaninternationalmovementwhichencouragedpeopletoputJediastheirreligionincensuses.ThehomepageoftheJediChurchsays:

TheJediChurchbelievesthatthereisoneallpowerfulforcethatbindsallthingsintheuniversetogetherSoquietyourmindandlistentotheforcewithinyou!

Theinterestingaspectofthisforourpurposesistheprominenceofthewordbelieves,whichframeseverythingthatfollows.Apparently,ifyouwanttostartareligion,evenasajoke,youtalkaboutbeliefs.1Toamodernreader,itseemsabsurdeventonotethis:howcanareligionnotbeaboutbelief?Amoreinterestingquestionforourpurposesiswhetheritisausefulhistorical(p.396) categorywhentalkingaboutancientreligionsorindeedanyreligionthatdoesnotresidewithabroadlysecularframework.2

ModernscholarshipofreligionisbuiltontheattemptssincetheendoftheVictorianeratoformadiscourseofreligionthatstruggledwiththeculturaleffectsofEuropeanempire,namelytheconfrontationwithprimitivereligions:typicallythequestionwasbuiltaroundtheassumptionofEuropeansuperiority.Thuswhatneededtobeexplainedwashowwegotfromtheretohere,sowehadschemaspositedwheremagichadevolvedintoreligion,whichhad(inourcase)beensupersededbyscience.Tobeassociatednowwithsuchschemes(thechiefculpritsareFrazerandTylor)3isnowacademicdeath:ifwecentreourdiscussionsonsomekindofevolutionfromreligiontoscienceastheydid,anthropologyandhistorybecometheexhaustivecataloguingofothersfallibility.ItwasEmileDurkheimwhobroughtlightwheretherehadbeendarkness,delvedintothemysteriesandtriumphantlyreturnedwiththelawsforanthropology,andlikeallhero-founders,hasfoundhiswordsusedforcontrastingpositionseversince.TheprinciplethatpersiststhemostpowerfullywasthatofreligionasaprojectionofagrouporsocietyfromDurkheimonwardsinsistenceonthesocialastheprimaryareaofanalysishasbeenacommonplaceinanthropologyandnowalsoinmodernhistory.4Freedfromansweringthequestionhowcouldtheybesowrong?,religionbecomesabroadpointofaccesstohowasocietyfunctions,sinceforthemostpart,religionandpoliticsareimpossibletodisentangle.5

Thatisnottosaythattheanthropologyandhistoryofreligionnowhasasecureandagreedbasis:itmightbesaidthatwearestillgrappling(albeitwithgreatersophistication)withtheoriginaldifficulty,namelytheshockthatunderliestheexperienceofconfrontingforthefirsttimeaculturewhotakeitforgrantedthatthecosmosisaverydifferent


Page 3 of 38


placefromtheonethatweareconvinceditis(andwhenIsayweImeanatypicalWesternintellectualwith(p.397) asecularoutlook).6OfcourseImightusefullyexplorenon-secularperspectivesbutspacedoesnotpermitthatand,secondly,thoseperspectiveswouldhavetheirowndistinctivelyorchestratedblind-spots.Myprojecthereistoextendseculardiscourse,nottocircumventit.

Oneoftheresultsofthisongoingdiscourseisthatwehavebecomefarmoresensitivetowhatwearebringingtotheevidence:whenwetalkaboutreligionandbeliefwearegenerallydrawingonapredominantlyChristianisedperspectivethatemphasisedinnerexperience,spirituality,thewell-beingofthesoul(asmoreimportantthanthebody)andsomekindofcorebelief(whichissuspiciouslysimilarstructurallytotheCatholiccreed).7Ifwelookforthese,wefrequentlylookinvain(oftenevenwhenwearelookingatChristianity).8Thatisnotindispute:thedifficultyisthattheexpectationsareoftenunconsciousorunacknowledged.

ThestudyofRomanreligionhasasimilarhistory:mosttwentieth-centuryscholarshipfoundRomanreligionwantingbecauseitdidnotfitthebill.Theirapparentobsessionwithritual,theimpossibilityofagreeingwiththepropositionsthatweinferredunderlaytheirreligiouspracticeandadistinctlackofrecognisablespiritualityledtotheimpressionthattheoriginal,morevibrantandaltogethermorespiritualRomanreligionhadbecomeossifiedtothepointofmeaninglessnessbythetimewereachthehistorical(i.e.decipherable)period.Thuswewerelookingforspirituality,richinnerconvictionandapreoccupationwiththewell-beingofthesoul,butallwefoundwasfastidiouslegalismandanattachmenttostickingtohowthingshavealwaysbeendone.

Thepersistenceofthiswell-preservedcorpseofRomanreligionwasaccountedforbythesuggestionthattheelite,moreintelligentanddiscerningthanthecredulousmasses(thatis,coincidentallyunwillingtobelievewhatmodernscholarshappennottobelieveeither),hadkeptupapretenceforpoliticalreasonsbutclearlysignalledtothosethatcouldreadbetweenthelinestheirdisapprovalofallthenonsense.Thispositionwasreasonablyconsistentwithitself:itaccountedforratheralotoftheevidencewehad.Sowhena(p.398) changebeganitwasnotsomuchintheevidenceasawholesalequestioningwhetherthepositionwasplausibleasawhole.9

Movingourfocusbacktoanthropology,amajorlandmarkwasthepublicationin1972ofRodneyNeedhamsBelief,LanguageandExperience.Asystematicsynthesisofphilosophicalandanthropologicalscrutiniesledhimtoconcludethatweshouldabandonalluseofthewordbeliefindiscussingreligion:

Anythingthatwemightpleasetosay,andwhichincommonspeechisusuallyhungontothehandypegofbelief,willbebettersaidbyrecoursetosomeotherword;andifweareclearaboutwhatwewanttosay,weshallfindthatitcanbesaidclearlyonlybyanotherword.10

Thus,asLindquistandColeman(2008)putit,wearedrawntothinkagainstbeliefratherthanwithit.


Page 4 of 38


BuildingpartlyonNeedhamslegacyandtheresultinganthropology,ancienthistoryalsoturneditsattentionawayfromaspectsofbelief,experienceandspiritualitytowardsritual.11TheadvantagesofstudyingRomanreligionfromthepointofviewofritualinsteadofsome(usuallyinferred)beliefispreciselythatmostoftheevidencethatwehaveisalreadyintenselyfocusedaroundritualactions.

ThemarchofritualmeantthatFeeney(1998)couldrhetoricallyderailtheexpectationthatweshouldorganiseouranalysisbybelief:itseemeddeadinthewater.

AdynamicallychangingpolytheisticsystemisanexceedinglyproblematicplaceinwhichtofindthegroundingforaquestionlikewhatwerethereligiousbeliefsofAugustus?ThismanwasparticipantinanobjectofvariousnewandtraditionalcultsatRomeandthroughouttheempire,andinitiateintothemysteriesofEleusissincetheageof32.Hewasacclaimedinmarble,bronze,papyrusandsongasthedescendantofVenusandthesonofdivusJulius.HewastheviceregentofJupiter,founderofanewtempleofJupitersfounder,andalways(p.399) carriedasealskinwithhimasprotectionagainstthunderstorms.Inwhichofthesecontextsisthecoreofbelieftobefound?(1314)

Theabandonmentofbeliefasanorganisingprinciplealsoledtotheacknowledgementthatwestillhavedifficultiesifwesearchforacoreelsewhere.WhenwespeakofRomanreligion,itisnotasimple(single)entity:shouldwedescribeofficialreligion(asorganisedoratleastsanctionedbythestate)?Ortheconstellationofpracticesatotherlevels(suchasfamily)?Thereisperhapsonepersistentfeatureritualtogetthegods(back,ifnecessary)onyourside(astateofaffairsknowninRomeasthepaxdeum,peaceofthegods).12Butbeyondthatgeneralfeature(whichRomesharedwithalmosteveryancientEuropeanculturethatweknowof),wecannotbrieflypresentanydefinitiveexamples,imageoressence.WeknowthatRomeembeddedritualpracticedeeplyintociviclifeviaarichcalendarofsacrificesandseveralcollegesofpriestswhoreportedtotheSenateratherlikeexpertcommitteesessentially,aninstitutionalisedhabitofgettingthegodsontheirsideasoftenaspossible.13InRepublicanRome,atstatelevel,akeypartofwhatwecallreligiouspracticewasconcernedwithprodigies,adversesignsthatwarnedoffutureproblemsbecausetheywereevidenceofaruptureofthepeaceofthegods(iradeorum,theangerofthegods).14Aprodigyessentiallymeantthatsomethinghadbeguntogoamisswiththecosmosbuttherewasusuallytimetoputitrightthroughritualappeasement.15Sacrificeallowedforthepracticeofcertainkindsofdivination(theentrailsoftheanimalwereexaminedforsignsbyspecialistdiviners,theharuspices)16thoughthatisonlyasubsetoftheenormousrangeofdivinatorypracticeswefindinantiquity.Thepointaboutritualisthatitnotonlygaveaccesstothegodsmood,itwasalsotheremedyfortheiranger:ifthesignscontinuedtobeadverse,onecouldcontinuemakingofferingsuntiltheywereappeased(aprocessknownasperlitatio).

(p.400) Inastatethatplacedgreatemphasisondivinesupport,gettingritualsrightwasaseriousmatter:apiousnationinantiquitywasonethatdiligentlylookedforadversesignsandappeasedthegodspromptly.Soifwetakealookatoneofourbest(and,weassume,fairlyrepresentative)sourcesforRomanreligion,theannalsofthe


Page 5 of 38


ArvalBrethren(aminorpriesthood)weseenotdebateaboutonesinnerrelationshipwithanydivinitybutratherwhatappearstobeatechnologyofsupplication.17WhateverRomanreligionwas,itseemstohaveputagreatemphasisforthemostpartonexpectingpracticalresults:thegodshadanoverweeninginfluenceontheoutcomeofeventsandifyoufailedandcouldnotfindaplausiblecauseinthehumanrealmtherewasagoodchanceitwasdowntoritualerror.18

TheRomanstatedidnotattemptpersonalconversioninthemodernsensenorevenenforceparticipationincivicritual(toourknowledge)forcenturiesuntilaperceivedcrisisinAD249.19Noneofthisistosaythatindividualshadnopersonalinputorpractices,justthatritualpracticeappearstobethebestplacetostartourenquiries.Theritualturncreatesadifferentmapofancientreligionfrombelief.Whatbecomesimportantiswhosegods,whichgods:theywerenotuniversalorpersonalinthesamewaythattheyareinmonotheismandtheycouldbeinducedtojoin(orchange)sides.Romehadahistoryofbringingforeigngodsintotheirfold,thusobtaininggreatersupport(andalsodeprivingtheirenemiesoftheirprotectingdeities).20Andthoughwehadputapersonalfocusonreligion,itbecameobviousthatitwasoftenmoreusefultothinkofitatastatelevelthuswenowspeakofcivicpaganism.21

Thusinrecentdecades,Romanreligionhasseenamassiveexpansionofinterest,andthevastmajorityofstudiesfocusonidentity(whatdoesitmeantobeRoman/notRoman?)22Needhamsargumentwontheday,itseems.Allofwhichmakesarecentresurgenceofinterestinsomequartersinbeliefallthemorechallenging.23

(p.401) 2.ThereturnofbeliefKings(2003)TheorganisationofRomanreligiousbeliefsisoneofthemostsustainedattemptstorestorebeliefexplicitlyasaframeofreferenceforstudyingancientreligion:itisthereforeworthexaminingtheargumentsbothforspecificpoints,butalsoasopportunitiestoexploreotherissuesthatarerelevant,butperhapslessexplicit,elsewhere.

Itwillbearguedherethattheargumentsthathavebeenemployedagainsttheuseofthewordbeliefarenotself-consistent,andthecallstobanishthetermfromRomanstudiesseempremature,forthetermbeliefisappropriateandusefulfordescribingsomeaspectsoftheRomanreligiousexperience.

HeassertsfirstlythatNeedhamrejectedthetermbeliefonthegroundsthatitcouldnotbetranslatedintothelanguageoftheNuerpeopleofSudan.Second,hearguesthatthewordbeliefhasawiderangeofdefinitionsthelackofaconsistentmeaningmakesthetermuselessforanalysis.Hecontinuesbysayingthatthesetwoargumentscontradicteachother,onthegroundsthatoneneedsaspecificdefinitiontoknowwhetherornotitcanberenderedintoNuer.Needhamsargument,sothelogicgoes,isthusdisabledandwemustdiscardhisclaimthatbeliefshouldbeabandoned.24

Thisobjectionseemsunconvincingtomeontwocounts:inordertoestablishthatbeliefisparticular(indeed,peculiar)tothemodernWest,Needhamexaminesfarmore


Page 6 of 38


languagesthanjustNuer25butevenifhehadlimitedhimselftoonelanguageandculture,Ialsoseenologicalproblemwithassertingthatsomethingsvacuityorlackofspecificitymakesitimpossibleforittobetranslated.ThereisnocontradictioninassertingthattheEnglishwordthinghassomanymeaningsandallusionsthatitdoesnothaveasingleLatinequivalentandthatwearethereforewelladvisedtoavoidusingthewordintranslationfromLatinsinceadifferentwordcanalwaysbeusedwithmoreaccuracy.ThisispreciselyanalogoustowhatNeedhamsaidofbelief.

Kinggoesontonoterhetoricallythatthetermritualcanalsobesaidtohavetoomanymeaningstobeofusebuthasnotbeendiscarded.26Thereby(p.402) discountingtheargumentthatalackofanagreedunifiedmeaninginvalidatestheuseofbelief,King(278)proposeswetestaredefinedversionofthetermagainsttheRomanevidence:

beliefisaconvictionthattheindividual(orgroupofindividuals)holdsindependentlyoftheneedforempiricalsupport.

Hecitesanexample,aninscriptionbyamothergrievingforherdaughterwhichhetranslatesasIbelieve(credo)thatsomedeityoranotherwasjealousofher.27Herewesurelyhaveacircularargumenttheactoftranslatingthiswayissupposedtoprovethatthetroublesomeconcepthasrelevance.Thecasemightbemorepersuasiveifwehadmoreexamplesofthistypethatallowedforcomparison.Thirdly,andevenmoredamagingly,Kingseemstohavepromotedcredotoahigherstatusinthesentencethanitdeserves:Iwouldprefersomegod,Isuppose(credo),begrudgedherexistence.28

Isbeliefthemostappropriatetranslationhere,andifitis,isthissufficientevidencetorestoreitsgeneraluse?Evenwithinthistinytext,vastlydivergentreadingsarepossible:doweseealmostimpossiblyheartbreakingacquiescencetowhateveryonewassayingtoadistraughtmotherwhohasfinallycometoagreethatthereisnootherexplanationthatmakessenseofasenselessnightmare?29Or,attheotherextreme,doescredoindicateaflippantdisdainforwhateverthecauseofdeathwas,anirritationwiththebotherofdecipheringadiagnosis?Wesimplycannottellsincethisexamplecouldbeusedforeitherposition(thoughmypreferenceisforpathos).Buttomakethisstatementpositiveevidenceforoneparticularframeofmindthatispreciselytheoneundersuspicionisunconvincing:sinceelsewherecredoisusedofacceptinganinferencefromvisibleevidence,30weshouldprobablysettlenearertoIsuppose/Iconclude/Iaccept/Irealise/Ideduce/Icannotavoidwhatseemsevident.Itseemswecouldnotwishforabetterexampleoftheplasticityofapparentlystraightforwardstatements:thisevidenceisalmostentirelyatourmethodologicalmercy.

(p.403) Thestatementthataconvictionwasheldwithouttheneedforempiricalsupportissurelyareasonablerepresentationofwhatmostpeopleunderstandbelievetorefertobutitisonethatcanonlybemeaningfulifwemakecertainlimitingassumptionsaboutitsinterpretationandapplication.Atfacevalue,itpermitsnotjustanythinggoesbuteverythinggoes(aslongasweignoreevidence).Itonlybecomesmeaningfulwhenweuseitofconclusionsthatothershavealreadycometowhichwecannotacceptatfacevalueandthereforecallbeliefsratherthandeductionsorconclusions(andsoon).It


Page 7 of 38


cannotrefertotheprocessbywhichtheyarrivedattheirbeliefsbecausetheyhaveappliedsomeprocessofdiscriminationtoarriveataparticularproposition.Wemustdistinguishfirstly,theirgatheringofevidenceandonlysecondlyitsuseinareasonedargumentandtheirformulationofconclusions(beliefs).

Tobeginwith,theRomanswouldhavevigorouslycontestedtheclaimthattheyhadnoevidenceforreligiousdeductions:thehistoriansofancientRome(i.e.historianswholivedandwroteinantiquity)wenttogreatlengthstodisplayprocessesofcheckingthereligiousfactsateverystepoftheprocessverification(ifpossible)ofsigns,scrutinyofwitnessesandtheweighingoftestimony.Theywerecertainlysensitivetohowevidencewasmoreorlessplausibleindifferentpoliticalandsocialcontexts(e.g.adversesignsweremorelikelytobenoticedduringtimesofcrisis).Beyondthat,theywereatpainstoenshrinethedeductiveprocessintheirreporting,clearlydistinguishingobservationofphenomenafromthedeductionsderivedfromthosephenomena(foregroundinglanguagesuchasuideri(toappeartobe/tobeevident),fromwhichwegetevidence).31

IdonotwishtoimplythatKingdoesnotknowallthis(indeedIhaveratherunfairlyusedhimasaspokesmanforamoregeneralposition).Hemustmeannotthattheythoughttheyhadnoevidencebutthattheconclusionstheycameto(thegodswereangry)aresofarfromourownthatfromourperspectivetheymightaswellhavehadnoempiricalevidence.Ourinterpretationoflightningstrikingatemplearegularprodigyisutterlydifferentfromtheirs(routineexpiationofthegodswraththroughsacrifice).Inotherwords,hisdefinitionamountstosayingtheyweremistaken,becausetherearenogodsandweroutinelyusebelievetosignalthisparadoxtheyacceptedthatJupiterwaskingofthegodsbutwedonot(andfindithardtoimaginehowtheydid).Atthispointanon-historianmightwellacerbicallyremarkweknewthat,asindeedtheydidtomeduringtheEvidenceprogramme.Isthatthebeginningorendofourenquiry?Usingbeliefinthis(p.404) wayseemstomemoreaboutexplainingreligionawaythanexploringtheirepistemologicalworld.

Somethingdoessurelyhavetobeexplaineditisjustthatthiscannotbedoneatthelevelofevidenceorevidentialreasoning:itisattheleveloftheaxiomsuponwhichtheidentificationofmeaningfulevidenceandthesubsequentevidentialreasoningwerebased.Oursecularrejectionoftheexistenceofgodsintheformthatwethinktheyconceivedthemindoesnotneedtobeprovenorrepeatedlyhighlighted.Wecandisregardanyseriousdiscussionoftruth-contentbecausewealreadyknowthatwedonotagreewiththeancientRomans.Theirdifferencewhichiswhatmakesthemhistoricallyinterestingispreciselywhatisavoidedbydefinitionsthatamountto(simply)reassertingthatthattheywerenotlikeus(theyacceptedthingswithalackofempiricalevidence).Thedrawbackofthissweeping(andprofoundlydisorientating,whenyouthinkitthrough)approachisthatwenevergetneartoseeingthecontoursoftheirthinking.

CanwethenadaptKingsstrategyandredefinebelief(butdifferently)?Afterall,historiansareaccustomedtoproblematisingalmosteverytermthattheyusestate,society,theselfbutthecrucialdifference,itseemstome,isthatwithalittlepractice


Page 8 of 38


theseproblematisethemselves.Itdoesnottakemuchstudyofhistorytorealisehowdifficultnotionssuchasstateareinpractice.Suchtermsrefusetobereductiveandinsist,bytheirveryusage,onevokingarangeofpossibilitiesthatmustbeconstantlyrenegotiatedbythewriter.Belief,ontheotherhand,isutterlyreductive(requiringtheanswersyes,noandhavingonlyonegreyareadontknow);ratherthandemandingenquiry,itconflatesclosure(thereasonableceasingofenquiry)withconclusion(anexhaustionofenquiry).Thus,usingbeliefcannotbehistoricallyuseful.Themostcarefullyfactualaccount,whenframedintermsofbelief,becomesanextendedconfirmationoftheircollectiveinsanitybutourpurposeistomakeancientRomemoreintelligible.Theprojectofrehabilitatingbeliefasasubtlelensofenquirymustdefeatitselfveryrapidlysimplybecausebeliefisasimplifyingdesignation.32

ThisisinfactwhathappensinKingsanalysis.HeproposesthatweusebeliefsasareferencepointinconsideringRomanpaganismandChristianpaganbeliefsbutthattheformerbetreatedasapolytheticset,highlytolerantofvariationandincontrasttothehighlyorganisedandregulatedChristianbeliefs.Hereferstoananthropologicalcommonplacethatadifferentinterpretation(p.405) ofthesameritualcanunproblematicallyandsimultaneouslybeheldbydifferentpeopleaboutthesameritual.33Paradoxically,hispersistentapplicationtotheevidenceforalackofcohesionatthelevelofinterpretationmeansheisineluctablydrawnintoarguingthatritualisthesinglemostreliableorganisingprinciple:

Insteadofattemptingtoreconcilethecontradictionsofthosebeliefsandassertanorthodoxtheology,thestatepriestsinsteadfocusedonencouragingconformityinritualpractice[orthopraxy]Thesameritualscouldbeemployedbythosewhohelddifferentbeliefswithinthecontextofstate-encouragedritualconformity.(298)

ItseemstomethatthisisequivalenttosayingthatthedefiningdifferencebetweenpaganismandChristianityisthatoneorganiseditselfaroundritualandtheotheraroundbelief,eventhoughhesetouttosaythattheyarebothorganisedaroundbeliefsbutdifferently.Arguingthatweshouldseereligiousorganisationasorganisedonthebasisoflargelyunregulatedassumptions/interpretations(whicharehighlyvariable,thereforeunpredictable,thereforenotthemostusefulfocusfororganisation)ratherthantheritual(whoseformwasstrenuouslymaintainedandalteredwiththegreatestofreluctanceinancientRome)seemstometoinvertanorderofpriority.Itwastheverylackofimportanceplacedonbeliefthatallowedittobesoutterlyvariable,whereasritualshowsanextremelyhighlevelofregulationandconformityinitsperformance.34

ImplicitbeliefThusfarwehavedealtwithexplicituseofbeliefbyroundingonKingsexpressionofmorewidelyheldpositionsbutitalsocausesdifficultieswhenimplicit:eveninthescholarshipthatorientatesitselfaroundritualratherthanbelief,thereisatendencyfortheoccasionalbuttrenchantuseofdeprecatoryorsneeringremarks,asifthewriterwishestosignaltheirdistaste,albeitdiscreetly.Thoughfarfromuniversal,suchremarksarenotuncommonevenin(p.406) studiesthatbeginbyclaimingtoofferamore


Page 9 of 38


sympatheticandnuancedpictureofreligion.Iwillarguethattheresurgenceofbeliefandtheapparentlyinnocuousoccurrenceofdeprecatoryremarksaredifferentresponsestothesameunderlyingphenomenon.Toappreciatethestickinessofbeliefwemustmovenextbeyondafocusontheinnerandpersonalaspectstothebroadersocialimplications.

3.Theutilityofbelief:thefiduciarycontractTheusefulness(andthereforewhatliesbehindtheimpulsetorehabilitateit)ofbelieflies,Isuggest,initsinvocationofafiduciarycontract(almostanappeasementgesture,inasecularsociety).Inanutshell,Ibelieveencapsulates(andpermits)bothmycertaintybutalsoyourdoubt.Ifyoudidnotdoubt(orIdidnotcareintheslightestwhetheryoudid),IwouldsayIknoworotherwisetreatmypositionasrealandself-evident.Inotherwords,whentwoorthreearegatheredtogetherwhobelievethesamething,thewordbelieveisatlibertytodisappearfromtheirlanguage.ChristiansknowthatJesusisrisen,andsoon.Conversely,fromthepointofviewofthesecularhegemony,todeclaresomethingtobeabeliefeffectivelysaysthatthetruthclaimsarebracketedoutofsecular(normal)discourse:asWittgenstein,citedbyNeedham(1972:73),putititisntaquestionofmybeinganywherenearhim[areligiousbeliever],butonanentirelydifferentplane.35Asamodernsecularist,Imight(toputthepositionatitsbluntest)thinkyouremadbutIwillgrudginglyallowyoutobelievewhatyouwantaslongasyousayand/oractasifitsabeliefandtherebykeepitprivate(whichcarriestheimplicationofinnocuoustosociety).ThoughNeedhamdiscussesthisregularly,hefocusesontheinnerstateratherthanthesocialcompromiseinvolvedand(moretomypoint)thefactthatthiscompromiseisessentialforthecontinuedhegemonyofsecularism.

LindquistandColeman(2008)offerananecdoteaboutanacupuncturist,calledtotreataparticipantintheirworkshopwhodescribedhisownpracticesasbeliefs.36Theydrawourattentiontosomeofthedynamicsofthefiduciary(p.407) contractofbeliefbutimplicitlydealwithitasifitwerethespontaneouspositionofthereligiouswithoutmuchexternalpressure.Itseemstomethattheself-positioninginasecular(possiblycritical)environmentofthereligiousasbelieverswhoareacutelyawarethattheyaremarginal,isbetterviewedasanunequalcompromisewhoseviolationbybelieverswouldbemetwithgreatresistancebynon-believers.37

IshouldemphasisethatIamavoidinganyattempttodescribewhatreligiouspeopledowithbelief.38Iamspecificallyinterestedinthewaythatitisdeployedinseculardiscussionofreligiouspeople,oftenundertheimpressionthatthetermcanbeunproblematicallyborrowedfromthosepeopletowhomitbelongs.WhenaChristiansaysIbelieveinGodtoanotherChristian,itmeanssomethingverydifferentinpracticefromwhentheysayittoasecularaudience,anditmeanssomethingdifferentagainwhenanon-believersaysofanotherpersontheybelieveinGod.Inthesecondcase,theyare(liketheacupuncturist)positioningthemselvesonWittgensteinsotherplanealtogether,andfrequentlydosoasadefensivemove(toprotecttheirdiscoursefrominterrogationonwhattheywouldconsiderinappropriatecriteria,suchasmaterialevidence).Inthethirdcase,while(obviously)awholerangeofmeaningsarepossible,thesituationwill


Page 10 of 38


generallyinvolveanelementofabandoningnormaldiscussion.Iwillbrieflydiscussthesecondbeforefocusingmorefullyonmythirddistinction.

Ifwethinkthatthesecularconceptionsofbeliefandreligion,whatevertheirorigins(myfirstdistinction),areintheircurrentusagesomehowspontaneousandnatural,wemightaswellalsoconcludethatmostmembersofethnicminoritiesinthemodernWestareinstinctivelyhard-workingandnaturallypolite(especiallytohigh-statuswhitenativeAnglophonemen)andthatwomen,instinctivelyhappytoberoutinelyinterruptedandputstraightbymenindiscussion,justprefertodothelionsshareofthehousework(theyevenenjoygrumblingaboutitthatsjustwhatwomendo).39

Weshouldnotthenbesosurprisedbytheacupuncturistsproclamationofhispracticeasasetofbeliefs.Heappearstobeundernoillusionsaboutwheretheboundarieslie,andhekeptthemdutifullyevenwhilepractisinghisart.(p.408) Hadhebeguntoattempttoconverthispatientoraudience(merelyreportinghispracticesasfactuallybasedratherthanasbeliefswouldprobablyhavesufficed),thebreachingoftheboundarywouldnodoubthavebeenmadeverycleartohim.

Focusingnowonmythirddistinction,theascriptionofbeliefbyanon-believer,anythingcircumscribedasabeliefbecomesadeliberatelyconstructedepistemologicalblackbox,impenetrablebyusualmethodsandpubliclyacknowledgedtobeidiosyncraticandnon-hegemonic.40Thus,whereasadiscussionframedentirelywithinasharedparadigmcanpotentiallyendwithmutualagreementandunderstandingbetweenpeers,whenreligionandbeliefentertheframe,toleration(admittedly,oftenimpatient)istheonlyrealisticformofclosureortruce(unlessonewantsaninsolubleargument).

Wecannowbegintoappreciatemorefullythepropensitytoinvokebelief:sincetheboundarymustbeongoingredrawnandreaffirmedinseculardiscourse,andsincethescholarofreligionisconstantlyconfrontedbyalienmaterial,anenactmentofsecularidentityisasmuchanecessarypartofthehistoriographicalartasisfootnotingsourcesresponsibly.Putdifferently,beliefingdiscerningexplicitorinferredpropositionsandtherebyconstitutingstrangepracticesorstatementsasbeliefsistheprimarywaythatwemanagetheotheranditsnormalityissuchthatitwouldbeconspicuousifabsent,raisingsuspicionsthatthehistorianoranthropologisthadgonenative.Putratherforciblyintoanutshell,ifitdoesntmakesensetous,itsbestcalledabelief.Sincethefunctionofcallingthingsbeliefsisprotectivelytodefinesecularitysmodesandaxioms,itisnotsurprisingthatitbecomesahandicaptoasympathetictreatmentofthepastitisnotsupposedtobesympatheticbutrathertoestablishunequalpositions.Thusexplainingancientreligionintermsofbeliefarefusaltobedrawnintoadiscussionisaself-defeatingventure.Thefollowingdiscussionisthereforemoreanexplorationofourhistoricising,beliefinggazethanaboutthehistoricalobjectsofouranalysisitisaboutwhatweriskdoingtoevidenceratherthanwithit.

4.BeyondNeedhamThereisaparticularconsequenceofbeliefingwhichmakeshistoricaldescriptionverydifficult:framinganyknowledgesystemorthoughtsystemwithin(p.409) beliefhas


Page 11 of 38


aflattening,homogenisingandunifyingeffectonitspropositions,dilemmasandepistemologicalfunctioningwhichiseasytodemonstratewithanexample.

IfIweretomentionRomanknowledge,mysenseisthatitwouldevokeanexpansivesenseofpossibilityinthereader:theywouldexpectsomethingnuanced,nodoubtratherhit-and-misscomparedtomodernunderstanding(butintherightsortofarea)complexifsomewhatmuddledandoperatingbyrecognisableoratleastdiscerniblerules.If,however,IspeakofRomanreligion,Iinsteadevokeaboundedjumbleofbeliefs,allofequalvaluetous(none)andofequalinterest(asoddities).Thus,ifsomeoneaskedmewhatdidtheRomansknow?itwouldbeanoddquestionthattheywouldsurelynotexpectacompleteanswerto(myresponsewouldbesomethinglikepullupachairandbringrefreshments).YetIamroutinelyaskedwhatdidtheRomansbelieve?withthenaturalexpectationthatIcansomehowidentifyandbrieflyrendersomethingintelligible.Mygreatestdifficultyisthat,apartfromthefactthatwehaveextensiveinformationthatcanbecalledreligious(whichbynomeanslendsitselftogreatbrevity),theirrelationshipwiththeirpracticeswasnotreligious.BythisImeanitwasnotaprivaterelationshipwithoneortwosimplisticandbizarrepropositionsthatwereviewedwithgreatsuspicionbymainstreamsociety:theyweremainstreamsociety.

Thus,bringingbeliefinimpliesapreferencetoconstituteitsobjectsofinterestasasingleentityorsetofconjoinedandvirtuallyinseparableentitiessothattheboundaryofrationalitycanbedrawn.Whatgainsmorefromthisprocessinoursocietyissecularrationalityratherthanreligion(whichgainsnothingfromthetransactionapartfromknowingwheretheghettobeginsandends).Byidentifyingwhatwecannotorwillnotacceptorengagewithasequals(thatsabelief,soisthatandthattooIdonthavetoworkthemout)wearealsodefiningwhatwecan.Intellectually,thereisnowusandthem.Sincewhattheyhaveincommonisthattheyarenotus,weleantowardsgroupingthemintoonecategoryandcanthenactasiftheyareallthesame.

Thisisaninevitableaspectofidentity-buildingand(Istress)oneIwishtoexplore(ratherthandecry).TheparticulardrawbackforthehistorianthatIwishtodrawattentiontoisthatthisflatteningandgroupingperspectivedoesnotequipustofindoutwhatisabroadinanydetail.41Imagineaworldtravellerreturninghometriumphantwithdiscoverytheyreallforeign!(p.410) Needhammighthavechallengedsuchatravellertoattemptadescriptionoftheplacesvisitedwithoutmentioningforeignnessasanexercisenotintruth(buttheyareforeign)buttowardsamoreinformativedescription.Wewouldtireofadescriptionthatrantheyhadforeignbuildingsfortheforeignpeople,withforeignanimalsyetweareaccustomedtoaccountsofothercultures(orsubcultures)thatrepeatedlyinvokebelief(preferablyinafamiliarlymonotheisticdivinity).42Thesheerembeddednessofthefiduciarycontractmeansthattheimpactofthistaxonomicgestureonhowweseetheevidenceisvirtuallyinvisibletous.

Asaresultofthisunifyingprocessthatmakesallreligionsequal(orperhapsequallyunequal),distinctionsmadewithinthereligiousrealmaremeaninglesstousallthefoodwasequallyforeign.Inaddition,beliefsbinaryovertonestronglypredisposesusto


Page 12 of 38


lookactivelyforitsshadow,completescepticism.Withallpracticesandpropositionssingularisedanysingle(evenisolated)criticismofareligiousjudgementoractionbyitspractitionerscaneasily(almostautomatically)thereforetakentobedismissingallreligiousjudgements.Anyancientwriterwhocriticisesaparticularinstance(e.g.amis-diagnosedprodigythatwasjustacoincidence)isindangerofbeingheldupasa(suspiciouslymodern-sounding)scepticasifasingleexampleofless-than-totalaffiliationwithasinglepropositionactslikeaneedletoaballoon.43TheanthropologistMaryDouglasusedtotellananecdoteaboutatribaleldershehadspenttimewithwholaughedashesaidifitsreallyimportant,weconsulttheoracleagainthenextday,justtocheckitgotthingsright.Thisisunscholarlysinceitcannotbereferencedbutthemostnoteworthypointisthatsheaddedthatsheusuallyrefrainedfromintroducingitintodiscussionbecausepeoplewouldntunderstand:shewasconcernedthatonceitwasconcededthattheywerenotunwaveringlyandcompletelysureabouttheirgreatestoracle,theentireedificeoftheirreligionwouldlookreadytotoppleover.Evenscholarshipthattalksofpluralbeliefsanddemonstratesacomplexsetofreasoningsstrugglestoescapethisunifyingandflatteningtendencymultiplyingblackboxesdoesnotchangethefactthatalltheideasarestillofanequalorderintheirimpenetrability.Withthisgaze,itisvirtuallyimpossibleforustoseeanydistinctionbetweenthedifferentordersofreasoningorappreciatewhatcanandcannotbecriticised.Atbest,thedescriptionweendupwithlacksanynuanceordepth:inanarrative(whetherfictiveor(p.411) factual)writteninancientRome,theremightbementionofaprodigyinpassingbutwecannottellwhetherthisisatrivialdetailoradeeplysignificantcluetotheancientreaderabouthoweventslooklikeunfolding.44Withregardtoreligiouscues,oursensitivitytoancientnarrativesisprobablyakintoamodernchildwatchingadisasterfilmwhobarelyregisters,letaloneunderstands,thescenewherethehydraulicbrakelinesonacarenteringtheuninhabiteddesertareaccidentallyrupturedortheboltworksloosefromtheaeroplaneswingontake-off.Eveniftheydo,theycannotseeitssignificanceforlatereventsorthedifferentmagnitudeofanother,trivial,sceneintheorderingofevents.

Ifthisiswhatbeliefactuallymeansinthewayweuseit,isitpossibletoworkhistoricallywiththismeaning,ofthissingularisinggaze?Thisseemspointlesstome,aswellasself-defeating.Firstly(pointless),itabandonsthemainadvantageofusingtheterm(drawingalinebetweenusandthembyinsteadassertingthattheyweredrawingalinebetweenthemselvesandanotherthem).Secondly(self-defeating),ifwearemovedtoredefinebelief,wemusttakeresponsibilityforthefactthatweareprojectingitseffectbackintime:thatistosay,ifweweretosaythatgroupXbelievedinY/believedYthenwewouldbeconcludingthatagroupinantiquitytookupapositioncomparabletoamodernreligiousgroupdeclaringtheirallegiancetoaframeworkorsetofpropositionsthattheyknewtookthemoutofstepwithmainstreamsociety,towhomtheirdiscoursewasratherimpenetrableandalsorathertrivial.Insuchascenario,someslippageofdetailsasweapplythetermwouldbetolerable(asitisinnotionslikestate,powerandsociety).Butsuchaprojectisdoomed:itwouldpresentevenmoreconvolutedproblemsthanourcurrentconcerns,asasimpleexamplewillshow.


Page 13 of 38


OnegroupthatsetitselfapartinsuchawayintheearlyRomanEmpirewasthesectthatwouldeventuallyestablishitsownhegemonyChristianity.IfwesaythatearlyChristiansbelievedintheirGod,ourproblematisedandnuancedmeaningwouldbethatbydoingso,theyvehementlyassertedtheiradherencetoasingularisedpropositionandtherebyestablishedtheircontraryidentityandmutualsolidarity.Butbecausewearesoaccustomedtousingthewordunproblematically,oursubtletybecomescompletelyinvisible,anditreadslikeanunproblematisedandunreconstructedversionwhosere-dundancyisobviousofcourseearlyChristiansbelievedinGod(otherwise(p.412)theywouldnotbeChristians).Thereisnowaytousebelieftoindicatethatthiswastheirforginga(oreveninventingthe)fiduciarycontractinaparticularcontextratherthanourenactingafiduciarycontractinresponsetothem.Itismucheasier(asNeedhampointedout)touseadifferentexpression.Thuseventhisattempttorescuethetermbeliefcollapsesinonitself.45

Theinsistenceonbelievingispartlywhathasmadedefiningreligionitselfsuchanotoriouslyinsolubleproblemasafamily,religionandreligiousthings(thingstobelieve,evenwhentheyareactionsratherthanpropositions)areunitedonlybythatwhichtheyarenotintelligibleandmeaningfultoseculardiscourse.ThusitisonlywhenworkingtowardsananthropologyofsecularismarticulatingourmeansofjudgementthatAsadcangiveusamoremeaningfulandnegativedescriptionofreligiousbeliefsaseverythingthemodernstatecanaffordtoletgo.46Forourpurposes,beliefsaccordinglybecomeanythingthatsecularthinkingcannot(anddoesnotwishto,andcanaffordnotto)meaningfullyengagewithandisanactivelyattributedstatusratherthananeutralandinnocuousdescription.TheimplicationisthatthefullrangeofepistemologicalhandicapsthatNeedhamsopainstakinglydocumentedassomethingaccidentalandlargelyunconsciousactuallyrevealavaluablepurposetodeclarethatwecandowithoutcertainthings.47Itisthereforetheelasticityofthecriteriaratherthanthenatureofthepropositionsthatallowsalmostanythingwechooseintothecategoryofbelief.Thus,thoughNeedhamcansay,afterdiscussingtheissueofconvictionasadefiningaspectofbelief,thatinthefinalanalysisevidentiallyitcouldnotpossiblybe(p.413) saidthatthemembersofasocietybelievedanythingincommon(1972:92),hedoesnotseethatitmightbesupremelyconvenientforustospeakasiftheydid.Given,then,thatseculardiscourseroutinely(ideologically)discardsthereligiousasmeaningfulinitself(whilenonethelessnotingtheexistenceofreligion),couldwenotsimplydiscardthereligiousasanobjectofserioushistoricalstudy?Itisprofoundlyalientous,whynotjustadmititandspendourtimeonmorepromisingareas?

ThemostobviousdifficultyisthatreligionandpoliticsareusuallyinseparableoutsidethemodernWest,whichmeansthatavoidingreligionisnotreallyanoption.Wemustmaketheattemptinallhistoriography,thereisaconstanttensionasweendeavourtomaketheunfamiliarasaccessibleaswecanwithoutdisguisingtheirparticulardifferenceandthisshouldbenoexception.Butequally,wecannotacceptablyequateallknowledge-systemsthatwouldleadtoacatastrophiclossofmeaning.Secularismhasprobablyreachedthepointwherecallingeveryoneelseaforeignerisnolongerenoughitmustexploremorenuancedwaysofdealingwithalterityonitsown(butnecessarilyexpanded)


Page 14 of 38


terms(andthebestopportunityforthisisthecurrentinterestinreflexivity).48

Butthisproject(whichgoeswellbeyondHistory)isnotservedbycontinuingtoenactthefiduciarycontract:beliefhascontinuedtoappearinouraccountsbecausethelinemustbedrawnandpointingouttheinadequacies(asNeedhamdid)oftheonlytoolwehaveforthejobdoesnothingtocompletethetaskthatmustbedone.Inasense,Needhamsadmirablestudyjustmadeeverythingharderbymakingthetermbeliefillegitimate(oratleast,contested).49Asaresult,whenmodernsdescribeancientreligiontheyeitherinsert(orarguefortherighttoinsert)beliefdeliberatelyortheyfollowtheletteroftheZeitgeist(butmissthespirit)byavoidingthetermbutnonethelessfindthemselvesineluctablytemptedtosignaltotheircolleaguesthattheyhavenotbeeninfectedbytheirmaterialbytheuseoftrenchantlyplacedandmildly(mildwillusuallysuffice)derogatoryremarks.Paradoxically,Needhamslegacyhasunderminedoneofhisconclusionsthatweareonlydealingwith(p.414) beliefifsomeoneactuallybringsthewordintotheconversation:wenowhaveabeliefthatdarenotspeakitsname.50

Tosumupsofar,beforewemovetothesecondpartofmyargument,beliefcreatesfarmoreproblemsthanitsolvesforhistoricalenquiry.Tobeginwith,itforcesthereadertoconfrontandholdintheirmindthecomplexities,difficulties,anddistortionsoftheattachedframeworkratherthanrequiringtheauthortodothatpartofthework.Moreprogrammatically,itshiftstheemphasisofourstudy,ashasbeensaid,topropositionsweinferunderlietheirpracticesratherthanthosethingswhichwecanidentify(namelyrituals)aswhattheyseemtohaveconsideredcentraltotheirpractice.Crucially,evenanalertreaderwillstrugglenottoreduceancientreligiontoaseriesofbinaryrelationshipstheybelieved,ortheydidnt.Butthemosttellingobjectionisthatenactingthefiduciarycontract(evenwithacknowledgementofitsdifficulties)cementstheothernessthatwearetryingtodemystifybywritingabouttheminthefirstplace.Weareeffectivelyabandoningtheattempttofamiliariseassoonaswestartthinkingintermsofbeliefs.Aligningourselveswiththesecularprojectdoesnotrequireustoinvokebeliefindeedthetemptationtodososhouldsoundawarningbellthatwehaveslippedintoanachronism.AnditisnotjustourunderstandingofreligionthatwillsufferwecannotgraspthehistoryofRomewithoutaddressingtheircultusdeorum(roughly,thecultivationofthegods).Thisisstillonlyapartialexplanation,bothfortheexplicitcallsfortherefurbishmentofbeliefandtheperceivedneedfordistancing(asasubstituteforevokingbelief)throughdismissiveremarks.DeprecatingbeliefbycataloguingitsdrawbacksislikecuttingofftheheadsoftheHydraithasnotyetachieveditspurposeeveninthecaseofmanywhoendeavourtoheedit.Wehavetodigabitdeeper.

5.SincerityManydiscussionsofbeliefhavenotedthatonecannotwilloneselftobelieve.51Butthediscussionhastendedtoendatthatpoint,thusonlyalludingtoashadowynegativeaspect.Itcomesmoreintofocusifweinvertit:abelievercannotwillthemselvesnottobelieveandbeliefcouldbedescribedasthe(p.415) absenceofwill(automony)betweenthebelieverandthebelieved.52Iwouldsuggestwerefertothisidentificationassincerityanditismycontentionherethatisactuallytheblockthatwestumbleover


Page 15 of 38


mostofallinconnectionwithbelief.

Ifweprovisionallydefinesincerityastheidentificationoftheselfwithabelief,53manyofNeedhamsconfusinglydisparatequalitiesareeasiertogroup.Wemightredescribehisprojectasananalysisoftheexpectationswehaveofbelief:itisthesincerityimplicitininvokingbeliefthatbringstheexpectationoftotalconviction,lackofcontradictionandlong-termandunwaveringcommitment(transienceimpliesshallownessofsincerity)amongstreligiousbelievers.Thisdemandsthesingularisationofthebelievedalreadytoucheduponhowelsecouldonebesincereaboutit?Itisalsosinceritythatimpliesthataction(basedonbelief)isrequiredbythebeliever.54Putdifferently,thoughbeliefisfairlyreasonablyassumedtohavebegunlifeamongthereligiousasanexpectationtheyhaveofthemselves,inseculardiscourseitisappropriatedasastandardtowhichweintendtoholdreligiouspeopleto:anaspirationofonegroupforthemselvestherebybecomesamorerigiddemandandexpectationthatonegrouphasofanother.Thatistoocomplextoexploreherebutitdoesnothelpmatterswhenonereligionfunctionsverydifferentlyfromanother,whichisthesituationwehavehere.Withtheseexpectationsofsincerity,theoldermodelsofRomanreligionassertedvehemently(inlanguagethatdeniedbelief)thattheelitewereinsincere(scepticalbutstillperformingtheirrituals).Asitbecameobviousthatthiswasinsufficientfortheevidence,wedriftedtowardsthepolaroppositeaconclusionofinsincerewasreplacedbyoneofyes,sincere.55Thishascausedusalmostasmanyproblemsastheoldchargeofinsincerityanddisbelief.

Itiseasytoseehowthesubtleunifyingperspectiveofbeliefingasocietyorgroupleadstoaperceivedneedforsincerityratherthan(e.g.)criticalreflection.Sinceseculardiscoursepermitstheexistenceofbelief-systemsyetcannotmakefine-tunedjudgementswithinthoseworlds,itmusttakethewordofadherentsasitstandsastheonlyhopeofengagingmeaningfullywiththem.Insincerebeliefisthereforeacontradictioninterms:wemightsay,for(p.416) rhetoricaleffect,thatifonemusthaveabelief,itreallyoughttobeoneworthdyingfororcertainlygoingtosometroublefor.Beliefsthatareconvenientorapparentlysuperficialareratherunconvincing.WhatwouldLindquistandColemanhavemadeoftheacupuncturistifhehadsaidasheleftYouknow,Imnevercompletelysurewhetheritwillworkasitssupposedto!?WouldwethinklessoftheArchbishopofCanterburyifheadmittedthatheonlyjoinedtheChurchbecausehehadnothingbettertodoandhadjustmuddledalongeversince?Thoseseemunlikelytogainanunderstandingindulgence,yetamoderncomputerspecialist(engineer,lawyer,teacher)mightsaythesethingswithrelativeimpunitybecausewewouldjustunderstandthemwithoutitnecessarilyunderminingouropinionoftheirpractice.Wetakeitforgrantedthatsincerityisagoodthingthatmakessomesmallcompensationforthewrongheadednessofbeingreligiousinthefirstplace,asitwere.56Butthehighvalueplacedonsincerityinreligionisnotspontaneousandnatural:deliberatelycultivatedwithinmanyreligiousmovementsfortheirownpurposes,sincerityisthenimplicitlydemandedbythesecularworldastheguaranteeofmeaningfulandpredictabledealingswithpeoplewhodonotoperatebythesamerules.Ifyouaregoingtohavedifferentaxioms(andthereforedeductions)fromthemainstream,thenpleaseatleastbepredictablesoweknowhowtorelatetoyou.This,Isuggest,iswhy


Page 16 of 38


sincerityissoimportantinreligion,andweareuncomfortableinitsabsence.

Thehighvalueofsincerityissoimportantthatitisprotectedfromharmfulscenarios:insituationswhereevengrudgingacceptanceseemsinappropriate,sincerityisavoided(thepreferredalternativeissomethinglikefanatic)becausethecategoryofsincerewouldbedamagedbysuchanassociation.Thussincere(thepraiseworthyguaranteethatthebusinessoftheotherwillbekeptaway)mustpertainonlytowhatisconstructedasprivatereligiousfanaticsarethereforecharacterisedbythefactthattheyhavecrossedthelineintothepublicsphere(thatisonewaywecantelltheyarefanatics).57Sincerityandbeliefaresointertwinedastomakeitimpossibletohavemeaningfulbeliefwithoutsincerity(althoughtheoppositeisnottrue).

(p.417) Icanthereforeextendmyearliercontentionandsaythattheprojecttorestorebeliefisactuallyasympatheticbutflawedprojecttorehabilitateancientreligionbyrestoringthisimplicitsinceritytooursubjects,becauseinthebinarychoiceimposedbybelief,theonlyalternativeseemstobetodenyit,andwe(historiansandanthropologists)nowadaysfindthatdistastefulandunconvincing.Ontheotherhand,deprecatoryremarksmaythenreflectourdisappointmentthattheydoseemtohavesincerelybelievedsomeratherstrangethings(andwehadbeenthinkingtheyweresorational).

Canweperhapsusesincerityasthebasisofenquiry(ashasbeenattemptedwithbelief)?Todososeemstomehopelessandinappropriate:arguingforhopelessisfairlystraightforwardNeedhamconcludedhisstudywiththeassertionthatthesolitarycomprehensiblefactabouthumanexperienceisthatitisincomprehensiblewhichisnotapromisingplacetostart.Eventakingtextualstatementsatfacevalue(sincerity)ismethodologicallysuspect:classicists(whoarenotthesameasancienthistorians)aremoreinterestedintheopposite(irony)and,giventhatanimportantmovementofrecentdecadesintheexplorationoftheauthorialpersona(asopposedtoperson)sincerityisapointofreferencethatisbeingfurtherandfurtherleftbehind.58Statementsarestrategic(rhetoricalandpersuasive)ratherthanenactmentsofsincerity,becausewehavebecomeattunedtothefactthatevenaphraselikemeanwhatyousayisfarfromtransparent.Asacorrectivetothedayswhentextualanalysisconsistedofassemblingstatementsthatcouldberepresentedaswhattheauthorreallythought,thisisentirelyappropriatenoonewouldargueforsuchpositioninamodernauthor(especiallyoffictivematerial).Theintractabledifficultyisthatmeaningrequirescontexttobeusefullyintelligibleandthiscontextwillchange,oftenrapidly.AstatementlikeIamanacademichasavastlychangedmeaninginthemoderndayfromthirtyyearsago.Makingitintelligibletoanoutsiderdemandsanextendedandnuancedcommentary.Soitseemsthattextualapproachesthedisciplinesthatspecificallyaddressexplicitstatementswarnsusagainstthisproject.

Aretherethenothermethodologieswecanapplytoconsiderthesincerityofoursubjects?ThereisadiscourseaboutsinceritycentredaroundthewritingsofthephilosopherHabermas,but(frommylimitedforaysintoit)thatisorganisedaroundthenotionofanidealspeechcommunityofequals(p.418) emphaticallynotapplicable


Page 17 of 38


here.ThehistoricalandtextualaccountofsincerityandauthenticitygivenbyTrilling(1972)(anddrawingontextualapproaches)isatoncemoreandlessthanweneedhere.Buthissituatingsincerity(andmovetoauthenticity)inarangeofhistoricalandliterarycontextsdoespermitustobroadlycommentthatsincerityonlyexistsasanaturalandunproblematisedstateuntilweactuallybegintoexamineit:itsunitaryandnaturalness(i.e.implicitclaimofbeingunchangingandcommontoallhumanity)dissolvesasitbecomesclearthat,likevirtuallyeveryotherobjectofhistoricalenquiry,itsparticularrelevanceandmeaningbecomesdifferentiateddependingonwhichspecifictimeandplaceweareinterestedin.Morethanever,then,weshouldbewaryofassigningsinceritytohistoricalindividuals.

Thelackofsuitablemethodologyshouldnotsurpriseus:sincerityissimplynotanappropriatemodeofenquiryforhistory.Evenifwedidhaveawayofassessingthetotalaffiliationofaperson(a),historiansmustmarginaliseit.WecouldsayCicerogenuinelywantedtheRomanRepublictosurvivewithouttoomuchcontroversy,butwhatisofmorehistoricalinterestisthatheformedanopinionaboutthisinthefirstplace.ItwasonlyanissuebecauseofthethreatstothepoliticalorderandevenifweweretobeginwiththispropositionaboutCicerossincerity,ourhistoricalgazewouldslideoffitratherrapidlyastheassertionpromptsmoreusefullyhistoricalquestionssuchaswhoexactlywasCicerotowantthis?(anideologicallycommittedoligarch?merelysomeonewhohadsucceededinthatsystem?thephilosopher?themanwhoknewnothingdifferent?).Assessingsincerity(andinteriorstate)cannotbeavalidpartofthehistoricalgazeitmustyieldtoother,moreappropriate,questions.

Forallthesereasons,IdoubtverymuchthatmanyhistorianswouldexplicitlyaddresstheissueofsincerityandreligiousexperienceintheirsubjectsGreen(2007)strugglestoaddresssomeofitsimplicationsinconnectionwithaparticularcult,withmixedresults.Butallthereasonsthattheyinstinctivelyavoiditshouldapplyalsotobelief(includingtheimpliedsearchforbeliefthatIhavetentativelydiagnosed).Putbluntly,aslongasitisinahistoriansmind,howeverfarbackitispushed,itwillcolourtheenquiry.

Ifweshifttoritualwithoutfullyproblematisingsinceritywethereforeruntheriskofmerelydisplacingthesearchforsincerityfrompropositionstopracticesbylookingforsomekindofunifyingorunifiedmeaningorparticipation,andthissearchgoesonevenwhentheevidencerefusestobeorganisedthisway.Thatis,muchofourcurrentexploration,ratherthanbeingalongthelinesofRomans(sincerely)believedthatJupiterwaskingofthegodsisnowimplicitlyinthedomainofRomans(sincerely)believedthatritualwouldgetthegodsontheirsideandthatfutureeventswouldthenplayoutasthey(p.419) wished.Wethereforereachthepointwheresinceritymust,likebelief,beunveiledandthenexcisedfromourgazeandIproposetodothatbythejudicioususeofirresponsibleopenquestionsthatdrawonourmodern(familiar)understandingofhowknowledge-systemsfunction(orrather,ofhowpeoplefunctionwithinknowledge-systems).Givenmyirresponsibilityinwhatfollows,Imustfirstofferadisclaimer.

Byandlarge,historyisadisciplinecentredonhonouringthedistinctivenessandcontingencyofitssubjectmaterial,andbuilding(oftencreative)representationsofother


Page 18 of 38


societies.59Tointroduceananalogyrisksgoingagainstthisethos:analogieshavealevellingeffectandmakingthingslookmoresimilaristoriskbeingnotjustun-buta-historical.Thishistoricalemphasisondistinctivenessmeansthattheintroductionofanalogysimplyprovidesmorematerialthatneedshistoricalexplanation.Thusanalogiesfromotherhistori-cisedsocieties(e.g.frommediaevalFrancetotheancientworld)runtheriskofmultiplyingratherthansolvingourproblems.Conversely,analogieswiththemoderndayruntheriskofappearingtoinviterelativismbyputtingmodernpropositionsonthesamefootingasthoseoftheancientworld.Ifthiswasnotproblematic,wewouldnotbediscussingbeliefinthefirstplace.Directcomparisonsofcontent(knowledge,beliefs)damnsuseithertoFrazersshadow(documentingthesteadyriseofhumanityfromthemurkybefuddle-mentofthepasttotheshiningenlightenmentofthepresent)or,dependingononesaudience,thecripplingchargeofrelativismonceinvoked,suchadescription(whenusedasanaccusation)utterlyobscuresenquiry.SoImustaskmyreaderactivelytowardofftheshadeofFrazerandTylerontheonehand,andthesuspicionofarelativisingargumentontheotherand,armedonlywiththemodernmagicalamuletofcarefulwording,makeastrictlylimitedforayintoanalogywiththemodernage.

Istressthatmyinvocationofmodernknowledgeislimitedtoonepurposeonly(anditisnothingtodowithcontentorthetruthofpropositions):itistoevoketherelationshipthatwehavewithmodernknowledgeandsuggestthatitisclosertoaRomanrelationshipwiththeirreligiouspracticesthanthewaymodernsecularthinkersclaimthatmodernreligiouspeoplerelatetotheirreligion.Andmyintentionisstrictlylimitedtoanegativepurposetostripawaytheunconscioushabitofseeingancientreligiouseventsprogrammaticallythroughthefilterofsincerity(wecanstillchoosetoconsiderit,itjustlosesitsdefaultpriority).Imakenoclaimstocontributetothefieldof(p.420)anthropologymorewidely(thoughtheirhabitualdisinterestinRomanreligionisapuzzlingphenomenoninitself,asRpke(2007b:9)alsonotesinpassing):myarenaisstrictlyancientRome.

Theseanalogiesarenotintroducedinamovetowardsgreaterknowledge,butgreaterignorance;towardsdiscardingamethodologythathandicapsourenquirybyconfrontingitwithrhetoricalcomparisonsintheformofsomesimplequestions.Itisaslightlyuncomfortableventure,butinthissituationitseemsinescapable:wealreadyhaveanimplicitanalogysincebeliefandsincerity,intheircomplexity,amounttoananalogyinthemselves.Thechoiceisthereforenotbetweennoanalogyandinappropriatemodernones,butofwhichflawedanalogytouse.

Lengthydisclaimeraside,letmethereforeposesomeverybriefquestions.Areweinterestedinwhetherthelawyerswhodraftedthehumanrightsactweresincere?Doesajudgehavetobesinceretofulfilhisorherrole?Doweconsiderthatrocketscientistsshouldbesincereintheirwork?Philosophers?Engineers?Issinceretherightwordtousewhenqueryingamedicaboutadiagnosis?Doesitmakesensetoaskwhetherphysicistsaresincereaboutstringtheory?Ifthatoneseemsvaguelyplausible,giventheconfusionanddifficultiesofstringtheory,howmanyscientistswouldnotconsiderthe


Page 19 of 38


followingquestionprovocative:doyoubelieveingravity?

Itisastraintoanswerquestionslikethese.Sincerityisnoteasilyaccommodatedwithintherelationshipsthatwehavewiththesekindsofknowledgeandtointroduceithindersourunderstandingofthescientistsrelationshipwithphysics,oralawyersrelationshipwithwhatsheorheisdrafting(andsoon).Infact,wecanenvisageasituationwhereaprofessionaldoestheirdutywhilegrittingtheirteethinapersonalmaelstromofobjection,orconversely,ashoddyjobdonebysomeonewhoiswholeheartedlybehindaproject.Ofcoursesomekindofanswercanbegiventomyquestionsbutthesenseofdislocation(evenoffence)andinappropriatenessthataccompaniestheattemptispreciselymypoint:ifourinterestisinunderstandingsomethingratherthanprotectingourselvesfromit,sincerityandbeliefshouldbeavoided.

Iintendtogaintwointerlinkedfreedomshere:firstly,toillustratethatsincerityissimplyirrelevanttoanyknowledge-systemsappropriateoperationifwearethinkingasorlikehistorians.Thisdoesnotmeanthatoursubjectsdonothavefeelings,opinionsandsoon:itactsasabackdroptogivethosepersonalmatterssomemeaning.Ininteractionwithourknowledgesystems,wethinkofaspectssuchasprofessionalism,integrity,consideredjudgementandperformanceofrolesratherthansincerity.Idonotwishtosuggestthattheancientworldwasanexactmirrorofthepresent,merelytoraisethepossibilitythatweshouldexpectapotentialspectrumnotunlikeours.

(p.421) Experienceshowsthatanumberofmyreaderswillreacttotheveryideaofjudgingsincerityinmodernagentspreciselybecauseitisunfair,unknowable,irrelevant,divisiveandunprofessional.Theymayalsoobjecttotheimplicitcomparisonofalevelplayingfieldofmoderndiscoursesagainstancient,butagain,itseemstomewearejumpingatshadows.Letmebeclearthatfirstly,thisisanexperimentinperspective,intendedtohaveabearingonourunderstandingofantiquity(notthepresent)andsecondlythatbyexploringthis,Iaminfactextending(notdiminishing)thesecularproject.Ifsecularhistorycannotmeaningfullyexplainthereligious(theother)onitsownterms,thenithaseffectivelyfailed.

Sincerityisavasttopic,largerthanbelief,andcouldeasilymeritafargreaterstudythanisofferedherebutthen,ourpurposewastounveilitjustenoughtoshooitaway.Ihavearguedthatweshouldactivelyrefusetoseekitinanaccountofancientreligionsinceitisbothirretrievableandwhenyougetdowntoitirrelevant.Weshouldbelookinginstead,withfewerpreconceptions,athowpeoplemanagedinsocieties(or,conversely,howsocietiesmanagedpeople).Forthemostpartweseepeopleinteractingwithcomplexthought-systemsandfindingtheirwaythroughlifeinrelationtothose,negotiatingunderstandings,toleratinguncertainties,makingjudgementswithintheexplanatoryframeworkstheyinhabited.

6.BeyondBeliefOurenquiryhasbeenlessaboutwhatwecansayabouttheancientworldthanwhatweshouldnot.Whatthencanwetalkabout?Ihavesuggestedritualbut,havingclearedsomespace,weshouldconsiderwhetherthereareotherpotentiallyfruitfuloptions.A


Page 20 of 38


firstencounter(throughtext,atleast)withtheancientworldconfrontsthemodernreaderperhapsmostofallwithwhatappearstobeapervasiveinterestinprediction(divination).Spacedoesnotpermitanydisentanglementofdivinationfromreligionbutthetwoarecloselylinkedinritualatleast.Butwecannotcharacterisetheancientworldassomehowobsessedwithpredictionifweareseekingwhatisgenuinelydifferentfromourown.Prediction(forecasting,guessing,planning)isjustaspervasiveinourlivesasitappearstohavebeenintheirs.Indeed,astheanthropologistRobinHortonfound,aninterestinprediction,controlandexplanationseemstobeauniversalconcern.60Onceagain,thoughweareconfrontedby(p.422) strangepractices,theyhaveacertainlogicthatderivesfromdeeperassumptions:iftherearegodswhodefinefuturetendenciesandwhocareabouttheworldofmen,itmakessensetotrytofindoutwhattheyintend.Sodivinationconfrontsuswithasimilarsituationasreligionaxiomaticdifferenceunderlyingcomplexlocalpractices.

IfIweretogivethebriefestpossibleaccountofthemostchallengingquestionandthelocusofgenuinealterityinthestudyofancient(notjustRoman)religionitwouldbenotconcernedwiththethought-systemtheybuiltuparoundadifferentsetofaxioms(whichwerefertoinitstotalityastheirreligion(s)ortheirbeliefs)butratherwiththefactthatitwasalmostuniversallyaxiomaticthatonecouldinfluencegodsthroughritual,whichwasusuallyanimalsacrifice.61Iamunconvincedwearecurrentlyinapositiontoexplorethisbutmoreoptimisticthatifwetreatthepracticesandinterpretationsthatderivefromitasreasonablyintelligiblecorollaries,wecangainmoreinsightthanlocatingourperplexityatthelevelofthosedeductionsandpractices.Thisisnotaparticularlydistressingstateofaffairsitisuncleartomewhetherwewouldbenefitfromdirectlytacklingthequestionwhywasritualsacrificeanalmostuniversalfeatureinantiquity(nottomentionanextraordinarynumberofothercultures)?62Directionsforthatenquirymightemergeasotherstudiescontinuetomature.

Theinterestingquestion,itseemstome,ishowtexturedourresponsecanbecomewhenweconsiderquestionsthat,sidesteppingthehugelydivergentaxioms,assumethattheirrelationshipwiththoseaxiomswasnotentirelyunlikeourswithoursecularones.Canwehaveanaccountofancientreligionthatembracesthefullspectrumofpossibleresponses?Antiquitywasrepletewithpeoplewhoweredeeplycommittedatapersonallevel,extraordinarilyadeptandknowledgeableasstateofficials,sceptical,iconoclastic,aversetoauthority,relativelyindifferent,particularlyinterested,pragmatic,cheeky,unconsciouslyoutofstepwitheverybodyelse,confused,addicted,competent,incompetent,opportunistic,ignorant,hyperbolic,anachronisticbutforthevastmajorityofthetimewhollywithintheparadigmoftheirsociety.Furthermore,wehavetendedtoprivilegetheextantvoicesofdissentersandcriticswhoaredistinctiveandcontrarybydefinitionbutweshouldnotunderestimatethepowerofbusinessasusual:thespeculativereligiousideasof[afew,mostlyaristocraticandidiosyncratic]individualscannotbeouryardstick(Rpke(2007b:12).

(p.423) Atthispoint,itisonlyfairtomentiontheEpicureans,philosopherswhoseresistancetoorganisedreligioniswelldocumented:buttheexistenceofasmall(if


Page 21 of 38


apparentlyvocal)subsetoficonoclasticintellectualsprovesnothingotherthantheexistenceofasmallsubsetofintellectualintellectuals.ThatinitselfdoesnotseemundulysurprisinginasocietyassophisticatedasRome.Theymayhavebeenthefiercestorganisedcriticsofreligioninantiquitybuttheirinfluencedoesnotseemtohaveledtoanydiscerniblechangesinancientpractice,eventhoughitisclearthatsomeefforthadtobemadetorespondtoitinawaythatdisableditsextremeclaimsbythetimeofthelateRepublic.Theywereemphaticallyaratherinevitableendofaspectrumratherthanthelastwordonwhetheroneshouldbelieve:anancientRomansrelationshipwithreligionwasnotayes/noscenario,wheretheexistenceofabetterargumentwouldbringdowntheentireedifice,anymorethanthepresenceofoneortwovocalleft-wingpoliticiansinapositionofmoderatebutgenuineinfluencemakesitimpossibleforaright-winggovernmenttofunction.

BelievinginmedicineThereisaninterestingcomparisonthatcanbemade(fairlyfortuitously)withtheworldofancientmedicinethatpermitsonelastwarningagainstexpectingsincerityasanauthenticatingfeatureofbelievingstrangethingsintheancientworld.Thereisastrikingparallelbetweenthetreatmentofancientreligionandthetreatmentofancientmedicineinsofarasmuchscholarshipinbothspherescanbepepperedwithdeprecatoryremarks.63ThesetwoaretheareasinwhichtheancientRomansandGreeksseemmostdifferentandoftenincomprehensibletous.Thewordbelieveisclosetohandwhentalkingabouttheirmedicine.64WedonotsaythatthemedicGalenmadedeductionswithoutevidenceeventhoughwedonotagreewithanyitemofhisreasoningorhisprescriptions:indeedithasbeenarguedthat,withintheunderstandingofhisday,hedidthebestjobpossible(Hankinson(1989)).Whatisusefulforusisthatancientmedicineisbroadlydivided(byus)into(p.424) whatwecalltherational(Hippocratic/humour-based)andtheirrational(religious).65

However,ancientmedicineisintelligibletousintwowaysthatreligionisnot:firstly,wecanfollow(withoutagreeingwith)theirhumoralreasoning,whichisextensivelydocumented,butalsobecausewegrantitaneasierhearingsinceitisorientatedaroundthebody(whichwegranttoexist)ratherthansupernaturalforces(whichwedonot).Theanalysisofthedeploymentoftermssuchasirrationaltodescribereligiousmedicinetheinconceivablewithintherealmofthemisguidedisaparticularformofthefiduciarycontractthatsitsuncomfortablybecausenosoonerhasthedistinctionbeenmadethanscholarspointouttheepistemologicalseamlessnessofthetwodomainsinancientthinking.vanderEijk(2004:18990)highlightsthisdifficultyinconnectionwiththeHippocratictextRegimenIV(DeVictuIV)whichdealswithmedicalinterpretationsofdreams:

ontheonehand,thisworkhassometimesbeendismissedasoneofthemostprimitiveandunscientifictreatisesoftheCorpusHippocraticumontheotherhanditexpoundsacomprehensivemedicalphilosophyabouttheconnectionsbetweennature,man,theworldandthedivineassuch,perhapsparadoxically,theworkrepresentsGreekrational.i.e.philosophicallyinspired,medicinetoavery


Page 22 of 38


highextent.

Thedifferenceisthatthemedicalmaterialhasprovenfertilegroundforunderstandingancientcultureandthenegotiationofidentityinrecognisabletermsasanepistemologicalenactmentoftheirbroadervalues.66Inthatfieldthen,weareaccustomedtodetectingnuancesintheirthinking,eventhoughwewouldnotconsideritusefullyapplicable.Whatwouldhappenifweassumedthatreligiousthinkinghadthesame(orgreater)levelofinternalcoherenceandintegritywhoselandscapeisfarmoredifferentiatedandnuancedthatwehavehithertoconsidered,reflectingatrulysophisticatedandvariegatedengagementwithmattersreligious?Iwishtoclosewithsomespeculationandexperimentinthatvein.

TroublewithdivinationFirstly,inthestudyofindividualtexts,especiallytroublesomeones,thechargeofscepticismhasbeenapersistentoneandIshallbrieflydiscusspossiblythemostinfluentialofthese,CicerosOnDivination.Cicerowroteagreat(p.425) dealacrossseveraldifferentgenresthatseemtorepresentdifferentpositions(theycanbebroadlyasapoliticalorator,philosopherandasletter-writer).OnDivinationbelongsfirmlyinhisphilosophicalworks,andisoftentreatedasthetextwherehespeakshismindmostobviously(sceptically)eventhoughitdiffersfromthepositionadoptedinmanyofhisotherwritings.

Thistext,writtenin4544BCE(Wardle2006:423),hasattractedagreatdealofattentionovertheyears.ItiswrittenintheformofadiscussionbetweenhisbrotherQuintus(bookone)andCicerohimself(Marcus,booktwo):Quintusputsforwardacasefordivination,andMarcusthensetsoutarebuttal.ManyscholarshaveconsideredthesecondbooktohavethelastwordontheissuesandthenascribedthisconvictiontoCicerohimself.Butitisnotthatsimple:discussionofthistextssignificancehasbeensporadicbutintensesince1986andopinionsarestarklydivided.Thoughattemptshavebeenmadetocomplicatethereadingofthistextasastraightforwardrefutationofdivination,manyremainconvincedthatthetextrepresentsaclearstatementofscepticism.67Giventheinterwovenrelationshipofdivinationandreligion,itisashortsteptosaythathealsorejectedtheentirereligiousapparatus.

Iamnotinapositiontoenterhereintothedebateabouthowtoreadthetextbeyondoutliningsomelinesofenquiry,thoughitwillbecomeobviousIfavouraversionthatprecludestheideathatasingle(albeiteminent)statesmanheldapositionsoprofoundlyoutofstepwithhiscontemporaries.Fornow,Ishalladdressthesowhatanyway?factor.

Whatifhewassceptical?Whatisthatevidenceof?Treatinghimasscepticalwouldforceustopositallkindsofprofoundchangesinhisthinkingwhere(tosimplifygrossly)hispoliticalandlegalwritingsarebroadlyconservative,asupporterofreligiousinstitutions,buthisphilosophicalworksareutterlyunconventional.Hewouldbesomewherebetweenanarch-hypocriteandamanwhosingle-handedlythoughthiswayoutofhisentireculturalframe-workhardlyatypicalventureinanysociety.Comparisonsfromour


Page 23 of 38


worldofayoungreligiousmanbecominganoldatheistareemphaticallynotdirectlyapplicable:itwouldbemorelikeaninternationallyrecognisedscientistbeingconvertedinourday.Thatwillappearplausibleasananalogybutonlywiththeassumptionthattheproportionofpeoplewhoundergosuchachangeis(p.426) roughlythesameinbothsocieties.Whatifsceptical(inoursense)philosophersthenwereevenrarer(ifprominentlyloquacious)thanreligiousconvertsinthemodernage?Whatsortofwitnesstonormalitywouldhebe,inthatcase?WecanbeadamantthatCicerowasnottypicalofhisage,evenjustbypointingathisvoluminousliteraryoutput.ThemorepositivewearethatCicerowasout-and-outsceptical,themoreweemphasisehisdifference.Bythusmarginalisinghimwedevaluehimasahistoricalwitnessofthemainstream.So,ifweworkonthisbasisthatheformulatedsuchaclearandextremeposition,weshouldalsominimisehishistoricalimpact.

Thisisunfortunatelytheoppositeofwhathashappened.Rather,hehasbecomeanicontowardswhichourattentionhasgravitated,andsceptichasbecomethebiggestandmostclearlylabelledstickeronthemapofreligiousRome:thefactthatwearenotsosurewhattowriteontheotherlabelsdoesnothelp(andbelieved/pious/tookitseriouslydonotseizeourattentioninthesamewayassomethingfamiliar).68

Iwouldprefertoarguethatevenifhewasanabsolutesceptic,itismoreinterestingtoseehisargumentsvirtuallyburiedinthecontext,tooffsettheeasewithwhichwediagnosebelief/disbelief:itisjusttooeasytofocus,notwithoutsomerelief,ontheonepositionwethinkwecanrelatetointhestrangeworldofRomanreligion.Ofcourse,itmightbeobjectedthatIamassumingthattherestofthearistocracydidnotshareascepticalpositionandcannotprovethis,eventhoughthatgeneralmodelhasbeendiscardedforthemostpart,butIbasemyassertionontwobriefobservations.Firstly,weknowthathedidnotdoawaywithRomanpractices,evenifthatwaswhathewastryingtodo:theRomanstateandpeoplecontinuedtoperformritualsforcenturiesuntilsacrificewasforciblystoppedbytheChristianemperors(Beardetal.(1998:375,3878)).Further,topickoneexampleofmany,argumentsfromanotherofhisphilosophicalworks(OntheNatureoftheGods)infavouroftraditionaldivinationarecitedoverfourcenturieslaterbythehistorianAmmianusMarcellinus(21.1.1314).Inotherwords,hedidnotconvincehiscontemporariestothrowthetowelinontheelitepretenceandabandondivination.Eitherhefailedtoconvincethemofthescepticalcaseortheyunderstoodthathewasnotmakingthatstraightforwardcase(asBeardandothershaveargued.)Secondly,ifanyoftheforegoingargumentisaccepted,thingsjustdidnotboildowntothesimpleyes/noanswersthatwe,conditionedbybeliefkeepexpecting:Ciceroexpectedafarmorenuancedresponsetohischallenges.

(p.427) Ifwerefusetoapplyabinarybeliefingapproachandinsistonamorecontextualandcomplexone,otherpositionscancomeintobetterfocus.Thebroadhistoricalanswer(whythistext?whythen?whythatway?)canthenbelocatedinthesocialandpoliticaldomainandgiveusamorehistoricallysatisfactorycommentary.Thus,inthisvein,Krostenko(2000)arguesthatthoughthetextistakentoargueforintellectualreasonsagainsttheentireedificeofdivinationatalllevelstomodernfiduciary-minded


Page 24 of 38


scholars,itisdrivenbyanurgentpoliticalagenda.Ciceroiscriticalofthepositiontakeninbothbooks,inresponsetotheextremeproblemofJuliusCaesarsmeteoricrisetopowerandattemptstoappropriatetheinfluenceavailablethroughdivinatorymeans.Hischosenmethodwastoproblematiseprofoundlythestatusofdivinationandcontextualiseallitsofferingswithinotherconsiderations(somethingIintendtoexploreinmoredetailonanotheroccasion.)HedidthisknowingfullwellthattheroleofdivinationwasdeeplyenmeshedinRomanlifeandwasnotgoingtodisappearbecausehewrotesomephilosophicalworksthatencouragedhispeerstobereflectiveandcritical(asopposedtosceptical,inthemodernsense.)

Justforcomparison,severalacademicshavesaidtomeinrecentyearsthattheyareworriedaboutthefutureofscience,whichtheydescribeasbeingstalledanddeeplyproblematic:comicwebsitessuchashttp://www.phdcomics.com/andhttp://xkcd.com/lampoonsciencefromthemostdeeplycommittedscientificpositionandexpertise:theirinterestisnotindebunkingsciencebutinredeemingit.Thatdoesnotmeantheyknowwherethenextstepliesexcepttocarryongoing.ThuswhenCiceroexplicitlysaysthathisaccountisaimedateducatingtheyoungbyemancipatingphilosophyfromitsGreekorigins,weshouldnotdismisstheclaimevenifwefinditextremelyhardtocharttheassumptionsheisnegotiatingwithin.Weshouldnotassumethatourlackofunderstandingisproofofhisincoherenceormapthemethodologyofbeliefontohisdialogue,howeverwellitseemstofit:itisimpossibletosquarethisclaimwithhiscomplex,multivalentandundeniablycriticalaccountaslongaswethinksincerityshouldhaveanythingtodowithit.

Ishouldnotoverstatethiscasemanysuchrichaccountsdoalreadyexist,thoughperhapsthemostsophisticated(suchasCicerostext)havenotyetbeengiventhefullesttreatmentthattheymightattract.Giventhepovertyofextanttextsthatexposetheinnerworkingsofdivinatoryandreligiousreasoning,tobehandedaseverecritiqueasastartingpointisquiteahandicappedbeginning.Butastimegoesby,moreandmoreauthorsareaccommodatedtoamethodologythatexplorestheirnegotiationofidentitycomplexthinkingwithintheirsystemthattakesusawayfromthesimplifyingmouldof(p.428) belief.Wearealsoretreatingfromgivingthegreaterprioritytowrittentextswhenitcomestounderstandingwhattheythought,sincesooftenindividualexaggerations,alternativesandmisunderstandingsconstitutetheruleratherthantheexception(Rpke2007a:5):whilebeliefpersistsasamethodology,werisktakingonestepforwardandtwoback.

Amoredifficultareaisthebroaderone,ofancientsocietyasawhole.WeruntheriskofunnecessarilyalienatingthereaderwithalitanyofstrangepracticesaswedescribeRomanreligion(howeverfactually).Withthehistorio-graphicalshifttomoreironicandpolyvalentdescription,itbecomespossibletoexperimentmore:wearemovingawayfromprivilegingasinglemodelandbecomingmoreaccustomedtolookingtentativelyatsocietiesthroughmorethanoneparticularlens(justtoseehowitlooks)withoutthinkingthatthemodelexhauststhetruth,andthistentativenessis,inmyopinion,awayoutofsomeofourdifficulties.


Page 25 of 38


So,forinstance,ifMaryDouglas,whenwritingNaturalSymbols,hadchosentodwellonRomanevidence,shemighthaveposited,asanexampleofahierarchy,theRomanRepublic(c.50931BCE)(highgrid/highgroup,touseherterms).69Itexhibitedastrictlyregulatedsocialhierarchyandahighdegreeofinternalisedexpectationsofmembersofthatsociety.TheDionysiaccultof186BCE,withitswildunkemptbehaviour,erosionofdifferences(gender,class,free/servilestatusandsoon)wouldrepresentasuddenirruptionofsect(lowgrid/highgroup)atatimeofstress.70TheEmpire(from31BCE),ontheotherhand,withitsgreaterculticaspectsacrossthepoliticalandsocialspectrum(highawarenessoftheothernessoftheoutsider,emphasisonthecontrastinggoodleaderwhopurifiesthegroupbyhischarismaandspecialqualities)wouldhavehadbeenasocietythatlaidlessstressontherigidityofahierarchy,becomemorearticulate,beenpronetofactionsandnot-infrequentlyviolentchangesofleadership.Gordon(1990)similarlythencomparestheRomanEmperortoabottleofVim.71

Iaminformedthatthegrid/groupmodel(generallyknownasCulturalTheory)isamarginaloneinanthropology,andexhaustiveapplicationofRomanmaterialinthisframeworkwouldarguablydomoreforCulturalTheorythanforHistory(soitmustbeappliedonlylightly,andtoseewhatitprovokes).Butitdoesallowustogeneratemorequestionswithabroaderscopethanhitherto:allthereligiousbehaviourintheupheavalgoingfrom(p.429) RepublictoEmpirecanbepurposefullyexploredasafailedattempttoreasserthierarchyinfaceofcharismatoseewhatthatapproachyields.Wealreadyknewaboutthatasapoliticalchange,butifwefollowthelogicalextentofDouglassmodel,itpromptsustoconsidergroupingtheformerlydisparatereligiouschangestoseeifhistoricallylegitimatepatternsemerge(andpromptsquestionslikewasCicerosupportinghierarchyorunconsciouslygoingwiththetimesandaidingtheriseofcharismaticleadership?)

Inaddition,manyodditieswhencomparingtheRepublictoEmpirecanberecast:thestrangetransitioninthestatusofhermaphroditesasprodigiesmakesmoresensewithinthisperspective,withachangetohighgroup/lowgrid.ForaperiodduringtheRepublic,hermaphroditesweretreatedashighlytoxicoccurrences(untypicallyforprodigies)intheirownrightthathadtobedisposedofandexpiatedwithgreaturgency.72YetundertheEmpire,Plinyinformsusthatthoughtheywereonceconsideredasprodigies(indicatingasignificantviolationofcosmicboundaries),theyareclassifiednowamongstexotictreats73(aninsignificantviolationofboundaries).Giventhatamajorconcernofhighgroup/highgridsocietiesisthepreservationofnorms,hermaphroditeswouldattractgreaterattentionthaninasocietywithlowgrid.Inthelattersociety,theywouldindeedjustbecuriosities.

Thistentativeexplorationdoesnotexhausttheenquiryandindeednevercould(wewouldbegoingnativeinanthropology).Butitdoesallowustodetachourselvesfromourfirstimpulsivesenseofnon-sensebyrefusingtoprivilegeonemodel(especiallyananachronisticone).Perhapsinthemeantimemedicinehadaccommodatedthisstrangephenomenonjustaseclipseswentfromhavingapredictivevaluetobeingacceptedasaroutinepartoftheworkingsofthecosmos(andthereforebeingnon-significant).74


Page 26 of 38


IdonotwishtoretrospectivelyturnRomanhistoryintoalostfootnote,albeitofagreatscholarandmyexampleshaveprovenwedontneedit(Gordon(1990),forinstance,doesnotciteDouglas).CulturalTheoryistooreductiveforourpurposes:themainvalueofintroducingitistobringtoourawarenessthatwecouldconfigureourapproachtoancientreligioninagreatnumberofwaysbeforesettlingononeexplicitlychosenratherthansuppliedasnatural.Thegreatestbenefitofsuchapolyvalentapproachwouldbethe(p.430) constantreminderoftheideologicalpowerofourchosenapproach:furthermore,multiplicityistheapproachthatanthropologyhastakentowardsritual,soatleastweareingoodcompany.75Itismoreinterestingtoseewhattheexperimentalapplicationofthatmodelprovokesasaresponsethantoestablishitasahegemonicmodelforancientreligion.AgeneralisingsyntheticmodelisnotlikelytobehelpfulinteasingouttheparticularityofancientRomeunlessitallowsustoidentifybetterwhichquestionsareuseful,thenappropriatethem,bytakingacuefromcomparativestudies.

ResolutelyabandoningtalkofbeliefandthesympathetictaskofestablishingananachronisticsincerityforcesourattentionontodecipheringtheparticularconstellationofpowerthatRomanreligionreflectedandauthorised.Thatiscurrentlyahistoricaluniversal,andwecanworkwithitirrespectiveofthedegreeofourfamiliarityofculturalaxioms.Thediffusionandconcentrationofpowerissomethingweunderstandandareaccustomedtoworkingwith,andisapreferableoptiontore-enactingourownculture-shock.Forinstance,adoptingnon-secularperspectives,whichsomesuggestasasolutiontotheproblemofreligion,onlydisplacestheincommensurability(wemustchoosethoseweunderstand,i.e.thosethatwecanbuildarelationshipwithand/orfitintotheseculargazeintheprocess).

Insteadofmaskingtheprivilegeofourdistinctivenessintheseways,weneedtounpackdeliberatelywhatweinstinctivelybrandasreligioussothatwecanexplorehoweachsocietys[religious]possibilitiesandauthoritativestatusgainedtheirparticularcharacterasproductsofhistoricallydistinctivedisciplinesandforces(Asad1993:534).Ihavearguedthatthebestsiteforthatinourcaseisritual,fortworeasons:firstly,itisvastlymoreappropriatethanpropositionalbeliefs,andsecondlybecauseanthropologyisalsobusyendeavouringtoexhaustwhatritual-centreddiscussionhastooffer.

Manywillfeelthattheargumentpresentedhereistoolate:asIhavedocumented,thereareplentyofstudiesthatdosuccessfullyevadethetrapsofbelief:butmysenseisthatwehavenotfullyabandonedit,andcontinuetohaveanunconsciousfascinationthatquietlyhampersourunderstanding.Thetrueandcurrentlyinsolublealterityoftheancientworldisthepresumptionthatgods,andthereforetheworld,canbeinfluenced:therestfollowsfairlyintelligiblyfromthat.Ifwelooktherealothernessintheeyewithoutblinkingandwithoutbeingdrawnintoquestionsofhowtheycouldbesodifferentfromus,weareinapositiontowritebetterhistory,describingandredescribingtoourselvesanotherbunchofpeopledoingwhatpeopledo.

(p.431) Note.ThesethoughtshavehadanextremelylonggestationandthereforeImustacknowledgefirstlytheWellcomeTrust(theHistoryofMedicineProgramme)forfundingapostdoctoralpositionatUCLduring20003,where


Page 27 of 38


someofthisbegantotakeclearershape.TheLeverhulmeEvidenceProgrammeallowedmetocontinuetheprocessofsimplifyingthemtothepointofbeingthisarticle,notleastbyallowingforasecondparticipationwiththeWellcomeTrust,attheirCentrefortheHistoryMedicineatUCL,whowerekindenoughtohostaseriesofseminarsonaninterdisciplinarystudyofancientdreams.Finally,Imustacknowledgetheguidanceofferedbytheanonymousreferees.

References

Bibliographyreferences: