About servants and flagellants: Seneca’s Capitol description and the variety of ‘ordinary’ religious experience at Rome

In introducing the idea of an “ordinary religious experience”, the present paper makes a first attempt at providing a framework for understanding and explaining religious experiences that do not necessarily depend on ecstatic states of joy or exaltation. An approach to ordinary experience rather highlights an aspect of practice that involves the “modelling” of valued relationships for the sake of the experience of that particular relationship itself. As an analysis of three fragments of Seneca’s treatise “on superstition” (Frg. 34–36) will demonstrate, Roman individuals sought to model and experience a personal closeness, a friendship even, with their addressed gods. To this end, these worshippers appropriated various practices from contexts of ritualized friendship for their ritualized practices with which they established and thereby experienced a mutual and benevolent bond with the addressed deity. 1 Introductory remarks Depictions of the religious life at Rome during the Late Republican and Early Imperial periods reveal a variety of religious experiences. Whereas religious experiences come readily to the fore when investigating “ecstatic practices” such as the raising of arms, charismatic healing, frenetic dancing and wailing, 1 “Ecstatic practices” refer to practices that one would intuitively understand as being in some sense “excessive” (Wulff 1991, 71–82). 2 According to comments made by Tertullian (Tert., Apol. 30.4) and Aristotle (Aristot., De mundo 400a16), raised hands were commonly regarded as a central element in prayer (Sittl 1890, 187–198; Ohm 1948, 14–60. 231–239; Hamman 1980, 1212–1219; Demisch 1984, 107–147; Guittard 1995, 81–110). The emotional impact of these gestures is stressed in Quint., Inst. 11.3.114–116. From a comparative perspective, the raising of the arms as illustrated by Quintilian might be thought to correspond with the so–called “jerking exercise” in Methodist churches (Wulff 1991, 76–77). 3 See Gordon 1995; Ov., Ars am. 315–336. 4 Women, for instance, toss their heads and wail in a certain manner (ululare). For examples, see Lucan. 5.152–157; Liv. 3.7.7. 26.9.6–8; Ov., Fast. 3.213–223. 4.313–320. 6.513–515; Ov., Met. 3.726–727. 7.180–191. 257–258. 9.770–773; Tac., Ann. 11.31.2; Juv. 3.212–215. See Šterbenc Erker 2011, 182–188. Modern approaches to religious experience highlight this ritual pattern as a strategy for religious experience (Rouget 1985, 12–14; Bourguignon 2004; Theodoridou 2009). Open Access. ©2020 Maik Patzelt, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110557596-007 and self-mutilating, Seneca’s fragments on superstition point towards religious experiences in the context of non-ecstatic practices, such as introducing guests, announcing the time to Jupiter, or going through the motions of doing Juno’s hair. Seneca’s writings thus make scholars of ancient religions aware of the fact that “religious experiences” or “emotions” may encompass much more than mere sensory stimulations. Some religious experiences may not even depend on these stimulations at all. As M. McGuire once argued in the case of Christian welfare workers, even the act of cooking a meal may already elicit fundamental religious experiences, even experiences of divine presence, without any manipulation of the senses. This observation leaves us with the question of how to detect these non-arousing experiences in our material and how we can apply such a theory to our ancient material. In introducing the idea of an “ordinary religious experience”, the present paper makes a first risky attempt at providing a framework for understanding and explaining religious experiences that do not necessarily depend on ecstatic states of joy or exaltation. Having introduced this concept, this contribution examines two essential fragments of Seneca’s treatise “On Superstition”. After briefly examining the allegedly “superstitious” character of these practices, I turn to the role of individual agents who embed themselves into situations in which they gain experiences, and who ultimately ascribe a religious quality to these experiences. 2 Religious experience, experience deemed religious, and ordinary experience 2.1 Framing religious experience: ecstatic practices and hysteric moments The primary question I will seek to answer is: what is a religious experience and how can we detect one in our (ancient) sources? This is a question that has Likewise, male priests, such as the Salians, dance and sing in a similar way (Plut., Num. 13.4–5; Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 2.70.4–5). 5 This mostly refers to the priests of Cybele, who supposedly perform their rites in the same way as the frenetic women, but additionally cut their arms and castrate themselves (Ov., Fast. 4.221–246. 339–348; Sen., Vit. beat. 26.8; Sen. Frg. 34 = apud August., De civ. D. 6.10; Mart. 3.24. 3.81. 11.72. 81. 13.63; Juv. 6.513–516; Lucr. 2.614–623; Luk., Syr. Dea 50–51). 6 McGuire 2008, 104–112. 118 Maik Patzelt