What do you think?
Rate this book
Panteón: Una nueva historia de la religión romana
Un relato inigualable de la religión antigua romana y mediterránea.
¿Qué importancia tenía la religión en Roma? ¿Qué influencia tenía la religión en la sociedad, la política y la vida cotidiana de los romanos? ¿Qué «tomaron prestado» en su religión de otras? ¿Qué rechazaron?
Desde la edad del Bronce hasta la Antigüedad tardía pasando por la Roma imperial, Jörg Rüpke nos entrega una narración histórica, completa y original, de la religión antigua romana y mediterránea durante más de un milenio.
Aunque centrado en la ciudad de Roma, Pantheon integra las muchas tradiciones religiosas que se encuentran en el mundo mediterráneo, incluido el judaísmo, el islamismo y el cristianismo. El autor subraya todas las peculiaridades de la religión romana, presentando, entre otras cosas, una nueva visión de conceptos centrales como «templo» y «altar», y de los roles masculino y femenino en las prácticas religiosas para contar la historia de un cambio de época, cuando de un mundo donde se practicaban rituales religiosos, se pasó a un mundo donde uno pertenece a una «religión».
Ampliamente ilustrado se ofrece al lector una representación radicalmente nueva de la religión romana y de un período crucial para todas las religiones occidentales.
¿Qué importancia tenía la religión en Roma? ¿Qué influencia tenía la religión en la sociedad, la política y la vida cotidiana de los romanos? ¿Qué «tomaron prestado» en su religión de otras? ¿Qué rechazaron?
Desde la edad del Bronce hasta la Antigüedad tardía pasando por la Roma imperial, Jörg Rüpke nos entrega una narración histórica, completa y original, de la religión antigua romana y mediterránea durante más de un milenio.
Aunque centrado en la ciudad de Roma, Pantheon integra las muchas tradiciones religiosas que se encuentran en el mundo mediterráneo, incluido el judaísmo, el islamismo y el cristianismo. El autor subraya todas las peculiaridades de la religión romana, presentando, entre otras cosas, una nueva visión de conceptos centrales como «templo» y «altar», y de los roles masculino y femenino en las prácticas religiosas para contar la historia de un cambio de época, cuando de un mundo donde se practicaban rituales religiosos, se pasó a un mundo donde uno pertenece a una «religión».
Ampliamente ilustrado se ofrece al lector una representación radicalmente nueva de la religión romana y de un período crucial para todas las religiones occidentales.
592 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2016
31 people are currently reading
391 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
October 9, 2018
4.5 Stars.
First of all, let me state that this is not a book for the casual historian or the faint of heart; both the subject matter and the writing style are extremely complex. The writing style suffers because the translator apparently tried to adhere to the original German without taking into account the vast differences in sentence and subject matter structure between the languages. Therefore, patience and perseverance are required.
The subject of the book is fascinating, and Ruypke expertly surveys the development of Roman "religion" from before the founding of the city to the end of the Western Empire. The depth of his knowledge is obvious and astounding. I don't agree with some of his statements, and find some of them to be too general and too widely applied. Even so, I learned a great deal and gained a great appreciation for the complexities of Roman "religion."
I highly recommend this book to anyone who has a firm foundation in ancient Roman history (knowledge of ancient philosophy would also be helpful) and wishes to investigate the development of Roman "religion."
BTW, I have put "religion" in quotes since the ancient Romans didn't have a religion (or religions) as we understand it. Their "religious" experiences were part and parcel of every aspect of their lives, and in fact, their world view greatly differed from ours.. Kudos to Rupke for allowing the reader to perceive the world of the Romans, at least to an extent.
First of all, let me state that this is not a book for the casual historian or the faint of heart; both the subject matter and the writing style are extremely complex. The writing style suffers because the translator apparently tried to adhere to the original German without taking into account the vast differences in sentence and subject matter structure between the languages. Therefore, patience and perseverance are required.
The subject of the book is fascinating, and Ruypke expertly surveys the development of Roman "religion" from before the founding of the city to the end of the Western Empire. The depth of his knowledge is obvious and astounding. I don't agree with some of his statements, and find some of them to be too general and too widely applied. Even so, I learned a great deal and gained a great appreciation for the complexities of Roman "religion."
I highly recommend this book to anyone who has a firm foundation in ancient Roman history (knowledge of ancient philosophy would also be helpful) and wishes to investigate the development of Roman "religion."
BTW, I have put "religion" in quotes since the ancient Romans didn't have a religion (or religions) as we understand it. Their "religious" experiences were part and parcel of every aspect of their lives, and in fact, their world view greatly differed from ours.. Kudos to Rupke for allowing the reader to perceive the world of the Romans, at least to an extent.
August 27, 2018
I wanted it to be different than it was.
The information was interesting, but the writing itself was quite dry. I'm not sure if that is just because this was translated from German and the translation was bland or that the original source is very academic. With that being said, I'm not really sure who this book's audience is supposed to be. I also wanted more of the hellscape that could be Roman life, but this treated Rome in a more intellectual light. I would have appreciated it more if there was a blend of light and dark.
I like it, but it mostly missed the mark for me.
The information was interesting, but the writing itself was quite dry. I'm not sure if that is just because this was translated from German and the translation was bland or that the original source is very academic. With that being said, I'm not really sure who this book's audience is supposed to be. I also wanted more of the hellscape that could be Roman life, but this treated Rome in a more intellectual light. I would have appreciated it more if there was a blend of light and dark.
I like it, but it mostly missed the mark for me.
May 18, 2020
The translation is bad, as others have said, but one quickly adapts and becomes immersed in the strange world of Roman religion. Rüpke uses a wide range of sources, archaeological, architectural, and literary.
Roman religion is quite distinct from the Greek, being more based on Etruscan models. It's weird and heterogeneous. It was also massively co-opted by Augustus as a tool for establishing the empire. He systematized its rituals and invented traditions to augment his legitimacy. Inevitably, later emperors lost control and religion because diverse and localized.
Christianity appears as a natural extension Roman religious practices, which in this case incorporated Jewish traditions. There's none of the pagan vs. Christian dichotomy here. In fact, Julian gets barely a paragraph.
Roman religion is quite distinct from the Greek, being more based on Etruscan models. It's weird and heterogeneous. It was also massively co-opted by Augustus as a tool for establishing the empire. He systematized its rituals and invented traditions to augment his legitimacy. Inevitably, later emperors lost control and religion because diverse and localized.
Christianity appears as a natural extension Roman religious practices, which in this case incorporated Jewish traditions. There's none of the pagan vs. Christian dichotomy here. In fact, Julian gets barely a paragraph.
May 22, 2023
An interesting, and very scholarly, read. Basically, as I understood it, Rupke’s point is that religion began (thousands of years ago) as a home or family affair, with daily practices or “rituals” for personal communication with deities or divine forces. From there, he traces how Roman religion developed–temples grew, then priests to tend the temples, then writing about religion, then national identification with religion. The narrative is compelling, though admittedly very dense, and perhaps with some translation oddities.
Check out a more detailed review on my blog~
https://ellehartford.com/book-review-...
Check out a more detailed review on my blog~
https://ellehartford.com/book-review-...
December 8, 2023
Rupke stated, “What might have started as a ‘utopian religion’ soon developed into a ‘locative’ religion in many places, thus de-differentiating rather than differentiating religion and politics (Rupke, 2015). Rupke explained ancient structures that predated monotheistic religions were actually proof early of globalization, in this manner. Rupke argued that Durkheim’s theory of religion was plausible, yet lacked to define globalization and multipluralism, in concepts of method, establishment, or occurrence. Ultimately, Rupke argued that in order to understand how the ancients lived within their respective religions, we must consider their own individuation and practices of said religion. He argued that we must overlook the usual practice of grouping them collectively under common collective descriptions, but urge for a more individualistic approach, considering the daily practices of those who actually lived within the religion. Through this approach, we can assign agency to those individual practices of those who didn’t ascribe to the generalized consensus of said religion. This agency results in a direct observation of the individuals, instead of the prescribed religion, itself. Under this theory, we lend the mic to the practitioners, instead of the religion. This is the culmination of religious agency versus religious identity. This was highlighted when Rupke stated, “Systems are only partially and imperfectly appropriated by individual agents…” (Rupke, 2015). He explained that only through this approach, can we see those adopted measures of individuals within the larger scope of what we consider the religion to be. Otherwise, we rely solely on evidentiary customs as they are portrayed throughout history. This, essentially is the making of the religion. Rupke argues for a more human inclusive lens when approaching religion to avoide this “ready-made” version.
Rupke’s emphasis on this “religion in the making” is a great bit of food for thought. While I can see some definite parallels to Clifford Geertz’ thick description and Catherine Bell’s theory regarding ritual, Rupke is essentially calling for an inclusion of those who didn’t write the history of their religion to be involved in its analysis. He does this by claiming we must acknowledge the religious agency of individuals, instead of grouping the together, as a whole because it often is indicative of misrepresentation, overgeneralization, and even one sidedness. By applying Rupke’s theory to our research, we can see that there’s more than one narrative to religion, especially in the case of the practitioners. There is no vacuum around rituals, symbols, ethos, and worldviews in any given religion. There is always an exception, duality, or otherwise some sort of difference to be observed in a religious group. This is actually monumentally important for application in our research. Applying this theory would demand that we accept no single religious narrative for a religion, but instead consider the differences among the groups and individuals within said religion. By doing this, we can see a domino effect of how only considering one narrative hinders nearly everything else we consider about a culture or subculture, religion or subreligion, etc. Like Rupke mentioned, this approach is vital for more than just religious or historical studies.
Rupke argued that “those who are in communication” were thereby observable in his theory of religion (Rupke, 2015). This complicates the application of his theory, somewhat. It is hard to observe the narrative, opinion, ritual, symbolism, and practices of those who left behind no communication, those who left behind no accounts, those who weren’t trying to leave behind a trail of their legacy, etc. This can also be complicated because of previous theories and conclusions already made about earlier groups that weren’t actually observed. The application of this concept of communication would likely change the way scholars view older theories of religions by a great deal. Often older theories oversimplify, overgeneralize, or collectively measure a religion and its practitioners under a “ready-made” label, while failing to address the differences among them. In essence, the application of Rupke’s theory is a call to move away from most older theories of religion for precisely that reason. He, himself acknowledged Durkheim’s basis of religion as accurate, but in the same pen stroke, he made note of its shortcomings. This is a theory, too, per se. Perhaps, Rupke is calling for us to make note of what works, while discarding the rest. We can apply older theories of religion, except for where they don’t fit, are inaccurate, or fall short. Three of which, Rupke argued that lay in the current methodology are, “(1) the individual, who has been much underrated as a religious agent; (2) “cults” and “religions”, which have been essentialised as the decisive religious agents and frames of individual action; and (3) the archaeology of religion, often reduced to an archaeology of belief systems” (Rupke, 2011). This theory, seems to be descriptive our curriculum, in my opinion. We have been sifting through this mountain of religious theories, applying what works, and pointing out what doesn’t, while moving on to the next. There seems to be a line of progression, yet there also remains a concrete foundation of the basic principles.
Jorg Rüpke, “Religious Agency, Identity, and Communication: Reflections on History and Theory of Religion.” Religion (2015): 344-366.
Jorg Rüpke. “Lived Ancient Religion: Questioning ‘Cults’ and ‘Polis Religion’.” Mythos (2011): 191-203.
Rupke’s emphasis on this “religion in the making” is a great bit of food for thought. While I can see some definite parallels to Clifford Geertz’ thick description and Catherine Bell’s theory regarding ritual, Rupke is essentially calling for an inclusion of those who didn’t write the history of their religion to be involved in its analysis. He does this by claiming we must acknowledge the religious agency of individuals, instead of grouping the together, as a whole because it often is indicative of misrepresentation, overgeneralization, and even one sidedness. By applying Rupke’s theory to our research, we can see that there’s more than one narrative to religion, especially in the case of the practitioners. There is no vacuum around rituals, symbols, ethos, and worldviews in any given religion. There is always an exception, duality, or otherwise some sort of difference to be observed in a religious group. This is actually monumentally important for application in our research. Applying this theory would demand that we accept no single religious narrative for a religion, but instead consider the differences among the groups and individuals within said religion. By doing this, we can see a domino effect of how only considering one narrative hinders nearly everything else we consider about a culture or subculture, religion or subreligion, etc. Like Rupke mentioned, this approach is vital for more than just religious or historical studies.
Rupke argued that “those who are in communication” were thereby observable in his theory of religion (Rupke, 2015). This complicates the application of his theory, somewhat. It is hard to observe the narrative, opinion, ritual, symbolism, and practices of those who left behind no communication, those who left behind no accounts, those who weren’t trying to leave behind a trail of their legacy, etc. This can also be complicated because of previous theories and conclusions already made about earlier groups that weren’t actually observed. The application of this concept of communication would likely change the way scholars view older theories of religions by a great deal. Often older theories oversimplify, overgeneralize, or collectively measure a religion and its practitioners under a “ready-made” label, while failing to address the differences among them. In essence, the application of Rupke’s theory is a call to move away from most older theories of religion for precisely that reason. He, himself acknowledged Durkheim’s basis of religion as accurate, but in the same pen stroke, he made note of its shortcomings. This is a theory, too, per se. Perhaps, Rupke is calling for us to make note of what works, while discarding the rest. We can apply older theories of religion, except for where they don’t fit, are inaccurate, or fall short. Three of which, Rupke argued that lay in the current methodology are, “(1) the individual, who has been much underrated as a religious agent; (2) “cults” and “religions”, which have been essentialised as the decisive religious agents and frames of individual action; and (3) the archaeology of religion, often reduced to an archaeology of belief systems” (Rupke, 2011). This theory, seems to be descriptive our curriculum, in my opinion. We have been sifting through this mountain of religious theories, applying what works, and pointing out what doesn’t, while moving on to the next. There seems to be a line of progression, yet there also remains a concrete foundation of the basic principles.
Jorg Rüpke, “Religious Agency, Identity, and Communication: Reflections on History and Theory of Religion.” Religion (2015): 344-366.
Jorg Rüpke. “Lived Ancient Religion: Questioning ‘Cults’ and ‘Polis Religion’.” Mythos (2011): 191-203.
September 21, 2025
I think I am probably a more casual audience than was intended for this book, so this may be an unfairly low rating.
Quite dryly written, although that may partly be the translation. It did get more engaging as it went along, though, and I thought it was interesting on the whole.
I was fairly persuaded by the idea of religion and religious identity as we understand them today not really existing at the beginning of the timeline presented, and then developing over the course of Roman history. At least when limiting ourselves to the Mediterranean world. There were also a few bits that I found revelatory, such as the conception of Rome's pantheon as being fundamentally less clearly-defined gods/entities and more semi-interchangable entities to be invoked or used in communication.
As a side note, the slipcover-main cover combination here is extremely good. In terms of "judging a book by its cover," this gets 5 stars.
Quite dryly written, although that may partly be the translation. It did get more engaging as it went along, though, and I thought it was interesting on the whole.
I was fairly persuaded by the idea of religion and religious identity as we understand them today not really existing at the beginning of the timeline presented, and then developing over the course of Roman history. At least when limiting ourselves to the Mediterranean world. There were also a few bits that I found revelatory, such as the conception of Rome's pantheon as being fundamentally less clearly-defined gods/entities and more semi-interchangable entities to be invoked or used in communication.
As a side note, the slipcover-main cover combination here is extremely good. In terms of "judging a book by its cover," this gets 5 stars.
May 29, 2025
I truly don’t understand what this book tried to achieve, it doesn’t work as a historical account of Roman religion because it offers few details on the narrative and development of religious thought but, instead, Rüpke throws random facts and broad assumptions about cognitive and psychological perceptions on religion as a whole. Nor does it work as specialized literature as it’s not focused enough to go in detail about such a massive topic.
Skip this, read “The Religions of Rome” 2 volumes by brilliant Mary Beard, John North and Simon Price.
Skip this, read “The Religions of Rome” 2 volumes by brilliant Mary Beard, John North and Simon Price.
April 15, 2023
This wasn't what I was expecting, but it was a worthwhile read. To be sure, my expectations were based on a modern conception of religion that this book effectively argues really only began to emerge around the birth of the Principiate.
While the scholarship involved rates four stars easily, I got the feeling from time to time that evidence was taking a back seat to interpretation. This may have been a matter presentation style.
While the scholarship involved rates four stars easily, I got the feeling from time to time that evidence was taking a back seat to interpretation. This may have been a matter presentation style.
October 24, 2023
This book has a lot of good information and starts off interestingly, however the writing is so passive, indirect, all over the place, poorly translated and badly written that I started hating it. I couldn't even finish the last chapter, the writing style is so odious and information is not practically presented but obfuscated that I just didn't care anymore.
January 16, 2019
A scholarly, German text on Roman religion--so, not what you'd call well written. But also packed with information and very smart. The theory seems fair, and as far as I'm able to judge, his approach to Roman religion(s) is astute.
March 31, 2023
Authoritative and well researched book on an interesting topic with lots of good information …but a bit tediously told (perhaps as a result of the translation).
January 22, 2025
World-class in its content, but Rupke's prose makes it incredibly unpleasant to read.
April 12, 2021
Ultimately this book was just not what I wanted it to be. I thought it would discuss the evolution of the central figures within Roman theology. Instead it ignored the subject in its entirety and focused on the development of public office and attitude towards religion.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews