Final Draft - Preview Matter - Florida State University

forced to adopt the trappings of a foreign religion (in opposition to the mos maiorum) and also to
beg as a way to save his life during a civil war.
As the primary example of theriomorphic and therianthropic cult in the Mediterranean
world, Egyptian religion requires some special treatment here. In 1984 in an important article
that deals with the perception of Egyptian religion and animal worship in the ancient world,
K.A.D. Smelik and E.A. Hemelrijk collected the literary evidence that has been used to
substantiate the claim that the Romans categorically rejected animal deities. 18 (In 1998, K.
Dowden produced his study, a similar, but considerably shorter, article in much the same vein.) 19
The evidence collected by these scholars does not completely support a negative appraisal of
Egyptian religion and seems instead to bolster the idea that there were “…two attitudes current in
the Roman world with regard to animal worship: animal worship as a ridiculous and despicable
phenomenon, and animal worship, although outrageous at first glance, as a symbol for hidden
wisdom.” 20 A more careful reading of some of these sources and an understanding of the
author’s agenda or the genre of the piece are necessary for a proper assessment of the Roman
reception of animal worship. 21 We may also appreciate the way in which these literary sources
have influenced the modern appraisal of animal worship in general.
Smelik and Hemelrijk’s study is an admirable attempt at assessing the Roman perception
of Egyptian religion, and therefore animal worship, but their article is hampered by a number of
factors. The earliest literary evidence that we may use for evaluating the conceptualization of
Egyptian animal worship in the Greco-Roman world, and by extension the Roman perception of
theriomorphic and therianthropic gods, is Cicero, and thus Smelik and Hemelrijk’s study
immediately faces several problems. 22 Their article does not contain literary sources that deal
with native Italian deities or religious practices as comparative material for the Egyptian
evidence. Material culture is also not used to support their conclusions, and thus the reader is
18 Smelik and Hemelrijk 1984, 1852-2000.
19 Dowden (1998, 113-33) falls prey to the same problems as Smelik and Hemelrijk. Just like Smelik and
Hemelrijk, several of Dowden’s statements indicate the complexity of the Roman view of Egyptian theriomorphic
and therianthropic deities. For example, Dowden (1998, 120) states “Yet this disparagement of Egyptian religion
contrasts sharply with the use of Egypt as a sign of deep knowledge resulting from a sacred tradition of unparalleled
lenth.”
20 Smelik and Hemelrijk 1984, 1968. I believe that narrowing the possibilities down to two viewpoints remains
restrictive, but at least these scholars suggest that the Romans were capable of accepting the worship of animal and
hybrid divinities. Unfortunately, they subordinate any possibility of a positive appraisal (and also their evidence) to
a more negative stance.
21 The sources used here are selected from those gathered by Smelik and Hemelrijk.
22 Smelik and Hemelrijk 1984, 1855.
5