The Matter of the Gods: Religion and the Roman Empire by Clifford Ando
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BOOK REV1EWS/COMPTES RENDUS 457 Bablitz's third chapter attempts to explore the gender balance of recorded litigants, their geographical provenance, and various kinds of "typical litigants," before moving on to a more general consideration of the socio-economic and socio-political factors that influenced their behaviour and "emotional states." The brief sections on litigants' stressed-out emotions, the symbolism of their "dark and dirty" clothing, and the idea of the litigant as a theatrical actor open up new and exciting areas for research. Bablitz chooses to defer her extended discussion of more traditional themes, such as how Roman patronage relationships operated within forensic contexts, to Chapter Six on "The Advocate." In Chapter Four she argues that the role of the judge within the Roman courtroom was "more passive than that of the advocate or even the audience" (89), as well as offering an extended discussion of Demougin on the epigraphical evidence for the album iudicum. In Chapter Five Bablitz succeeds admirably in proving that: "The Roman courtroom was a strikingly fluid environment filled with noise and movement, and much of this atmosphere can be attributed to the activities of the audience" (120). Again, the focus is on how the audience "participated" in courtroom processes, including some cautious discussion of the "hired audience" or "paid claque." This chapter also includes a fascinating list—drawn from Martial—of verbal exclamations shouted in court: "Good going! Weighty hit! And swift! And nasty! Well done! Beautiful! That's what I wanted!" (133). Chapters Six and Seven turn to the advocate: "the central element in the Roman courtroom, the lynchpin between the various participants" (141). The discussion here extends to inspired reconstructions of advocates' caseloads, working hours and even their use of forensic props, including portraits of murder victims and reconstructions of crime scenes painted on canvas. Bablitz's rich and detailed research more than justifies her conclusion that "the concrete theatrical elements" of courtrooms "cannot be overlooked." This is a fundamental insight that modern legal scholars are only just beginning to acknowledge, as lawyer and writer Geoffrey Robertson does: "It seemed at times that we were all serving the interests of entertainment: American lawyers in London over for their Bar conference would jostle for seats in the public gallery as they might at a theatre, their roars of laughter silenced by ushers booming cries of'Silence!' followed by the judge's regular threat to clear the public gallery. 'This is a courtroom, not a theatre,' he would remind them repeatedly. John Mortimer would leave the courtroom each afternoon for the Vaudeville Theatre (where A Voyage Round My Father was being rehearsed) with a sense that he was returning to real life."1 Birkbeck College, University of London Caroline Humfress The Matter of the Gods: Religion and the Roman Empire. By Clifford Ando. Berkeley: University of California Press. 2008. Pp. xxiv, 239. In this collection of new and previously published essays, Clifford Ando argues that the Romans' religious actions were motivated by an empirical knowledge of, rather than faith in, their gods' abilities and interests. If a ritual was effective—meaning it persuaded the gods to show favor to the Romans—it would be repeated as necessary until it no longer achieved the desired results. In that case, the rite might be altered or abandoned. The very prosperity and growth of the Roman empire was itself proof that the Romans were worshipping the right gods in the right way. 1G. Robertson, The Justice Game (London 1999) 27-28. 458 PHOENIX This conclusion will not be new to those working in Roman religion, but they are only a portion of Ando's intended audience. This book, taking part in an important trend in the field, attempts to bridge the long-standing gap between scholarship on Roman religion and the larger field of religious studies, particularly work done in the area of early Christianity and the New Testament. In his introduction, Ando admonishes his fellow classicists to consider how to present Roman religion to scholars of more contemporary religions. His sophisticated analysis of the development of ideas about religion and empire is far from popularizing or generalizing, and although there are some things to object to...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".