Plato and Roman Religion

Both Cicero and Apuleius celebrate Plato as divinus, a man divine (Cic. Leg. 3.1; Apul. Apol. 25). High praise to be sure, but the epithet is all the more significant given each man’s complex relationship with Roman religion. Cicero was an augur who wrote dialogues applying Greek philosophy to Roman religion (Wynne 2019); Apuleius’ fascination with religious themes is evident from his magnum opus, and was himself a priest in Carthage (Rives 1994). In this paper, I want to juxtapose the way both Cicero and Apuleius explicitly invoke Plato when grappling with Roman religion. The through-line is a passage from Plato, Laws 12.955e-956b: I argue that both Cicero in his de Legibus (2.45) and Apuleius in his Apology (65) turn to this passage, and Plato generally, to reinterpret and reform Roman ritual practice.

First, Cicero’s de Legibus is sometimes thought to imitate Plato in style only (e.g. Bishop 2019). But recent studies show a deep affinity between Cicero’s and Plato’s legislative projects (Annas 2013; Atkins 2013). This holds for the discussion of religious law in Book 2 (Atkins 2017). Cicero’s proposals for religious law, I argue, are predicated on the idea that proper cult practice is essential for preserving the right beliefs and attitude towards god in the citizenry (2.16, 2.24, 2.26). Cicero’s legislation largely mirrors existing Roman law, but where he departs, Cicero turns to Plato in order to insatiate the proper ritual practices: this is clear from his translation of Laws 955e-956b on the proper kinds of offerings (2.45), and recurs in other cases (music, 2.38-9, cf. Laws 800a ff.; rites for the dead 2.67, cf. Laws 958d-e). For Cicero, Plato provides the rationale behind ritual practices that the Roman state ought to follow.

I then turn to Apuleius, who in 158/9 CE was accused of practicing black magic. His defense strategy in his Apology is to claim that he is no magician, but rather a Platonic philosopher (Costantini 2019; Moreschini 2015). Here too scholars have been dismissive of the Platonic influence (Fletcher 2014). But by focusing on his justification for worshiping a wooden statuette (Apol. 65), we can see how Apuleius invokes Plato to explain the meaning of his ritual behavior. Apuleius worships in accordance with the principles of Platonic cult (as prescribed by Laws 955e-56a) and Platonic theology (Phdr. 247b-c; Epist. 2.312e). Apuleius’ ritual practice is underdetermined and can equally be interpreted as illegitimate magic or acceptable religion. Plato tips the scales in favor of Apuleius’ genuine piety, and therefore serves as Apuleius’ defender in court and teacher in life (vitae magistro…causae patrono, 65).

Despite writing in two wildly different geopolitical contexts (late-Republican Rome and Imperial North Africa) and adopting two wildly different philosophies (Stoic-tinged skepticism and Middle Platonism), Cicero and Apuleius employ Plato in complementary ways: to conceptualize religious ritual and justify potentially reformative practices as legitimate expressions of Roman religion. These attempts to interpret Roman religion philosophically (cf. Van Nuffelen 2011) in turn reveal the possibilities Plato provides for Roman philosophers.