QJorwell Itttueratij ffiibtarg Jiljaca. Ncui flodi BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF HENRY W. SAGE 1691 Cornell University Library DG 124.S97 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924028269490 BY LOUIS MATTHEWS SWEET Roman Empbkob- Worship The Verification of Christianity Divination and Prophecy — A Study in Comparative Religion A Critical History of the Theory of Evolution A System of Christian Theology RICHARD G. BADGER, PUBLISHER, BOSTON ROMAN EMPEROR WORSHIP BY LOUIS MATTHEWS SWEET, S.T.D., Ph.D. Professor in the Bible Teachers Training School of New York City; Author of " The Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ, " "The Study of the English Bible," etc. BOSTON RICHARD G. BADGER THE GORHAM PRESS Copyright, 1919, by Richard G. Badges All Rights Reserved A 4(9^.013 Made in the United States of America The Gorham Press, Boston, U. S. A. TO THE MEMORY OF MY FATHER AMOS LEWIS SWEET, M.D. New York University, Class op 1866 WHO LEFT US WHEN THIS WORK IN WHICH HE WAS DEEPLY INTERESTED HAD JUST BEGUN "How well he fell asleep/ Like some proud river, widening toward the sea; Calmly and grandly, silently and deep, Life joined eternity." "Reliquos enim deos accepimus, Csesares dedimus." — Valerius Maximus. "Stulte verebor, ipse quum faciam, Deos." Nero in "Octavia" Act ii. I. 450. FOREWORD THE following pages contain, in substance, a dissertation presented to the authorities of New York University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Doctorate in Philosophy. The work now appears in print and is submit- ted to the judgment of the public with the ap- proval of the University. The research which has gone to the making of the book was carried on and much of the actual writing done in the Latin Seminar Room at University Heights. I wish to put on record my sense of privilege in having access to this noble sanctuary of learning and the incomparable classical library which it contains, especially as this has involved ma,ny hours of fellowship with the presiding genius of the place, Professor Ernest G. Sihler, Ph.D., him- self an embodiment of the best traditions of mod- ern scholarship. My work has been done con amove and it is with the deepest satisfaction that I now connect it with the University, the Seminar Room and Dr. Sihler. CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE INTRODUCTION n I. THE RULER-CULT IN EARLY ANTIQUITY . 15 1. In Babylonia 15 2. In Persia 18 3. In China 20 4. In Japan 21 5. In Egypt 22 II. THE RULER-CULT IN THE MACEDONIAN- GREEK PERIOD 24 1. Alexander the Great 24 2. The Ptolemies 25 3. In Greece 31 4. Greek-Asiatic Dynasties 36 III. BEGINNINGS OF THE RULER-CULT AMONG THE ROMANS 37 1. The Universality of Deification in Paganism 37 2. Deification and Mythology 38 3. Deification Native to the Roman Genius . 42 IV. THE RULER-CULT AND JULIUS CESAR . . 53 1. Cesar and the Divi 53 2. The Divine Ancestry of Cesar .... 54 3. Divine Honors of Gssar During His Life- Time 56 4. Cesar As Divus . 58 5. The Julian Cult 60 6. The Worship of Roma 62 V. THE RULER-CULT IN THE REIGN OF AUGUS- TUS 64 1. Life-Time Worship of the Emperors . . 64 2. The Worship of Augustus and the Augustan Cult 69 9 io CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE VI. THE RULER-CULT UNDER THE SUCCESSORS OF AUGUSTUS 75 i. The Cult of the Augusti 75 2. The Manifoldness and Pervasiveness of the Emperor-Cult 80 VII. THE RULER-CULT AS A POLITICAL • INSTRU- MENT 84 1. Its Politico-religious Origin 84 2. Its Influence in Consolidating the Empire . 88 VIII. THE RULER-CULT AND THE POSITION OF THE EMPEROR 93 1. Deification and the Mind of the Emperor . 93 2. The Ruler-Cult as a Symptom of Decadence 99 a. The Taint of Sycophancy 99 b. The Glorification of Bad Men .... 104 IX. THE RULER-CULT AND POLYTHEISM . . 108 1. The Self-Contradiction of Polytheism . . 108 2. Polytheism Essentially Elementary and In- adequate no 3. Emperor-Worship the Final Phase of Pagan- ism in a. The Supersession of the Olympians . . 112 b. The Absorption of Mithra and Apollo . 115 4. Polytheism and Pantheism 124 X. THE RULER-CULT AND THE JUDiEO-CHRIS- TIAN MOVEMENT 126 1. The Jews and Emperor-Worship .... 126 2. Christianity and Emperor Worship . . . 127 a. The Teaching of Christ and the Imperial-Cult 128 b. Church and Empire in the Book of Acts . 132 c. Church and Empire in Nero's Reign and After the Beginning of Persecution . 133 d. The Causes of Persecution 134 c. Conclusion — Christ and Caesar . . . 140 BIBLIOGRAPHY 143 INDEX 149 INTRODUCTION THE Roman Imperial Cult began with the first Caesar and continued until the final overthrow of paganism in the Empire. An ex- haustive study of the Cult in all its ramifications would practically involve a survey of Roman his- tory during the imperial epoch and would tran- scend all reasonable limits. A bald analytical re- view, merely, of the data which have passed under my own eye in the course of this investigation, would break bounds. A rigid and somewhat pain- ful process of elimination has, therefore, been ex- ercised both in the use and presentation of the available data in this field. Particularly in the matter of the local origins and spread throughout the empire of the ruler-cult I have been com- pelled to turn a deaf ear to many alluring sug- gestions. There are in this region many urgent problems awaiting solution, which I have not ventured even to broach. They can be solved only by the examination and analysis of hundreds of additional inscriptions and historic references — an undertaking which waits upon occasion. A , ii 1 2 Introduction fit and appropriate opportunity for a more ade- quate and exhaustive presentation of the theme may at some future time offer itself. Meanwhile what is herein contained may be counted as vital prolegomena to a great and still largely unworked field of investigation. "Ars longa, vita brevis est." The quite sufficient task, which I have actually set for myself, is two-fold. First, to exhibit the grounds upon which my conviction rests that the Roman system of imperial deification has a broader context in antiquity, and strikes its roots more deeply into the past, than has often been realized even by those most conversant with the facts. Second, to exhibit the fact and to unfold the significance of the fact, that the imperial cult, to a surprising extent, displaced and superseded, not only the hereditary and traditional gods of the Romans, but also absorbed and subordinated the imported cults, both Greek and Oriental, which were superimposed upon the native worship, hastened the decay and overthrow of the entire syncretic aggregation and gradually gathered to itself the whole force of the empire, becoming in the end the one characteristic and universal ex- pression of ancient paganism. ROMAN EMPEROR-WORSHIP ROMAN EMPEROR-WORSHIP CHAPTER I THE RULER-CULT IN EARLY ANTIQUITY i. In Babylonia THE absolute beginning of the ancient and widespread custom of deifying human be- ings cannot now be discovered. Historic dawns are for the most part veiled in impenetrable mist and when the sun has fairly risen and landscapes are clear and open before us, human affairs are already midway of something, — beginnings are already lost in the distance. Of this much, how- ever, we may be certain, the custom was al- ready established at the beginning of that portion of history the records of which have come down to us. The most ancient documents afford, once and again, most striking parallels with later de- velopments in the Orient and among the Greeks 15 1 6 Aspects of Roman Emperor-Worship and Romans. A dim and far-away reflection of the movement in its first phases may be afforded by the great Babylonian Epic in which the hero, Gilgamesh, becomes a solar-deity with accom- panying worship. Another semi-mythical hero, Etana, is also elevated to godhood. That this elevation of heroes to divine honors is something of an innovation is indicated by the fact that hero-deities do not enter the celestial sphere oc- cupied by other gods but are kept in the nether world. 1 It was a very general custom, also, to grant divine honors after death to prominent persons whose careers made a deep impression upon the minds of posterity. Moreover (and the fact is of vital importance to this study) well-known histor- ical personages whose reigns we can date and place were the recipients of divine honors not only after death but during their life-times. This is demonstrable in several instances. Both Gudea, patesi of Shirpurla about 3000 B.C., and Entemena of Lagash about the same date, were deified, receiving offerings and appear- ing in tablets with the determinative for deity con- nected with their names. The latter's statue was set up in the temple E-gissh-vigal at Babylon. 1 Consult Jastrow: Religion of Assyria and Babylonia (N. Y., 1898), p. 47of. The Ruler-Cult in Early Antiquity 17 The proof has been pointed out to me 2 in a date list of Abeshu (2049-2021 B.C.), the eighth king of the First Dynasty, in which appears the state- ment: "The Year in which he (Abeshu) dec- orated the statue of Entemena for his godhead." The same king erected his own statue in the same temple. Gimil Sin (2500 B.C.) was deified in his own life-time and had a temple of his own at Lagash. Dungi, of Ur (2000 B.C.) was deified. "Shar- gani-Sharri, Semitic king of Agade, writes his name commonly, though not always, with the di- vine determinative, and Naram-Sin has his name seldom without it." 3 These instances are suffi- ciently numerous to indicate that the custom of deifying rulers both before and after death was quite common. 8 By Prof. R. W. Rogers, of Drew Theological Seminary, to whom I am also indebted for the translations which appear in the text. For the antiquity of the custom consult Jastrow: Civ- ilization of Assyria and Babylonia, p. 336. 8 Dr. Rogers. The same competent authority says: "Deifica- tion was at that time evidently begun even during the king's life-time." So, also, Jastrow, Religion of Assyria and Baby- lonia, p. 561. Prof. Jastrow says: "We may expect to come across a god Hammurabi some day." Dr. Rogers tells me (1918) that this King's name actually appears coupled with the gods in oath formulas. Jastrow's references on this subject shquld be carefully noted. In the famous "Lament of Tabi-utul-Enlil," 2d tablet, occurs this line: "The glorification of the king I made like unto that of a god" (Jastrow: Civilization of Assyria and Babylonia, p. 478). The context shows that the king's homage was an essential element of religious duty. 1 8 Aspects of Roman Emperor-Worship 2. In Persia How ancient the idea of a royal divinity among the Persians was we have no way of knowing. It thoroughly permeates the Zoroastrian docu- ments and must, therefore, be as ancient as they. The Zoroastrian instance is of particular value because it is really alien to the system as such, and reveals more clearly than elsewhere the rul- ing ideas which produced it. The Zoroastrian system of cosmogony begins with Ahura Mazda, the creator, and ends with Saoshyant, the re- storer, of all things. Throughout this entire cycle of cosmic history there is an unbroken succession of leaders and rulers possessing one element in common, the so-called "divine glory." This ele- ment corresponds, exceptis excipiendis, to the "di- vine blood" or ichor in the veins of the Egyptian Kings. A brief resume of the facts will serve to bring to light the essential principles involved. In Yast XIX 4 sixteen sections are devoted to the praise of this heavenly and kingly glory, which is transmitted through the line of Iranian Kings, both legendary and historical, to Saoshyant. In this Yast, 5 the glory is spoken of as a quality "that cannot be seized." Elsewhere 8 it is said 4 Zamyad Yast — see S. B. E., v. 23, pp. 286 seq. °XIX. 55 et passim. "Aban Yast, XLlI—cf. Zamyad 51, 56, etc. The Ruler-Cult in Early Antiquity 19 that this glory took refuge in the sea during the reigns of foreign dynasties and wicked kings. This means that the divine quality and dignity belong exclusively to the legitimate line of Iranian Kings. 7 The Dinkard 8 deals with the descent of the heavenly glory from king to king. The royal genealogy is a part of the system. It has been well said that this passage would serve as a short history of the Iranian monarchy. The person of the legitimate ruler is sacrosanct because of an unique divine substance, imparting a correspond- ing divine quality which puts him on a level with the first man, with the Amesha Spentas, with Zarathustra himself, and with Saoshyant, the re- storer, all of whom with his royal ancestors are manifestations and embodiments of Ahura Mazda. Two tendencies of thought, moving towards a common center, meet in this conception, which, as I have said, is really alien to the spirit of Mazdaism, namely, an excessive idealization of royalty and a tendency to materialize the di- vine glory. 9 This deification of the Persian rulers persists through all later history. In a passage of ^Eschy- T See Bundahis XXI=32, 33; XXXIV 14. 8 Bk. VII, Ch. I. "Herodotus (1:131) expresses the spirit of Mazdaism when he says of the Persians : "is iiiv kn&t Soxtav in. oix &vffpuvo(j>{it&s hd/uaap rotis Bais naT&irep ol "EXXijves." 20 Aspects of Roman Emperor-Worship lus 10 Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus, is addressed as consort and mother of the god of the Persians. Diodorus Siculus u states that Darius was ad- dressed as a god by the Egyptians, adding, quite incorrectly, " popov roiv avkvTOsv PaaiXkwv." Momm- sen points out that uniformly the title of the tri- lingual inscriptions at Naksi Rustam js "The Mazda-servant God Artaxerxes, King of Kings of the Arians, of divine descent," 12 while we have a palace inscription 13 of the Emperor Alexander Severus (222-235 A.D.) 'EmS-nula 0eov'A\e%a.v5pov. This brings us through the Graeco-Asiatic blend- ing to the Roman Imperial house, well on toward the end of its history. A Roman emperor deified in Persia and in Persian style presents a striking example of historic continuity. Nor is this by any means the end of the story as we shall see later. 14 3. In China So far as China is concerned I need simply call attention to the fact that in addition to the regular process whereby deceased ancestors are raised to "Persae, v. 157 8tov nev ebp&rapi JlepaZv Beov St k&i mri\i> ivs' "I: 95 . u MSo-Jootos fkAs' Apraf ipjjs f3a(ri\&vs fiaaiKkav 'Api&vwv U ykvovs Beuv (C. I. G., 4675.) The Arsacide title was nearly identical. See Moram. Rom. Gesch. Achtes B. Kap. XIV, pp. 414, 420. " C. I. G., 4483. "Below, p. 115. The Ruler-Cult in Early Antiquity 21 the position of deities, a certified group of in- stances occur, some of them very ancient, in which conspicuous individuals were elevated to a special place among the deities. For example, Fu Hi (B.C. 2952-2838), noted as a great civilizer, was elevated to god-hood. Nung Shen and How Chi, founder of the Chow dynasty, were both elevated to the position of gods of agriculture. 15 They were both kings who had done much for this branch of applied science. The living emperor during the entire imperial epoch has been an ob- ject of worship throughout China, the most uni- versal of all the gods of China. 16 4. In Japan Shintoism, which is usually considered the one peculiarly indigenous and characteristic religious development of Japan, involves the deification or quasi-deification of the Emperor. This deification is the core of the system which is for that reason frequently called "Mikadoism." 17 The Japanese have also a well-developed ancestor-worship which some scholars look upon as an exotic from China. 18 "See Ross: Original Religion of China, p. 154. "De Groot: The Religion of the Chinese, pp. 6si; Moore: History of Religions (N. Y., 1914), p. 12. " Griffis: Religion of Japan, N. Y, 1895, pp. 45k "Moore: History of Religions, p. no. 22 Aspects of Roman Emperor-Worship 5. In Egypt The extreme antiquity of the custom of apo- theosizing kings as well as its persistence to later times finds yet another illustration in the history of Egypt. At a very early period, before the earliest pyramid texts, there was brought about, probably through the influence of the priests of Heliopolis, a synthesis of primitive solar panthe- ism with the deification of the state in the person of the deceased ruler. 19 This takes us back to at least 2750 B.C. The king ascends to the realm of the sun-god; later becomes his assistant and sec- retary, then his son and finally becomes identified with him. He is frequently spoken of as god, e.g., he is called "a great god." 20 At the time when the fourth dynasty was suc- ceeded by the fifth, which was an usurping and "Renouf: Hibbert Lectures, 1879 (London, '84), pp. i6if, cf. Breasted: Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Effypti (N. Y., 1912), pp. i2if. 20 The following text (Breasted, R. A. E.) gives the technical phraseology of deification (Vol. I, Sec. 169). "Snefru: King of Upper and Lower Egypt; favorite of the two goddesses; Lord of Truth; Golden Horus; Snefru. Snefru, Great God, Who is Given Satisfaction, Stability, Life, Health, all Joy Forever." Cf., Sees. 176, 236, 264, same volume, in which expressions equally strong occur. For the origin of the title Son of Re consult Rawlinson: Egypt, vii, pp. 60, 84. For the details of applied deification see Erman: Life in Ancient Egypt, pp. 56, 60, 73, 77> 503. Almost all details found later, including the marriage of brothers and sisters, go back to the earliest days. The royal title "Son of the Sun" is found among the Incas of Peru. The Ruler-Cult in Early Antiquity 23 conquering dynasty championed and established by the priests, the theory was introduced and suc- cessfully promulgated that the reigning king was the literal and physical Son of Re. This "state fiction," as Prof. Breasted calls it, had a long and interesting history. 21 It prevailed without question in Egypt until the latest period of an- tiquity. "Breasted, R. A. E., II, pp. iSjf. The full account is given here and should be studied in detail. CHAPTER II THE RULER-CULT IN THE MACEDONIAN-GREEK PERIOD i. Alexander the Great THE theory that the King of Egypt was the son of the sun-god in the literal sense was in full operation when Alexander the Great en- tered Egypt as its conqueror ; for he went at once to the distant Oasis of Amon, at Siwa, in the Lybian desert, and was there formally proclaimed Son of Re, or Amon — hence, legitimate ruler of Egypt. The story of Alexander's apotheosis was incorporated into the Romance of Alexander, called Pseudo-Callisthenes, which was translated into Latin near the end of the third century A.D., or at the beginning of the fourth, by Alexander Polemius. 22 There is another line of continuity here, also. " Consult Teuffel: History of Roman Literature (Eng. Tr.)» Sec. 399; cf. also Maspero: Comment Alexandre, etc., Ecole de Hautes Etudes Annuaire, 1897; C. W. Miller: Didot Ed. Ar- rian sub Scriptores Rerum Alexandra; Plutarch: Alex., 52-55; Diog. Laert., v. I. 24 Ruler-Cult in the Macedonian-Greek Period 25 In the Westcar papyrus (2350 B.C.) the idea of the sonship of the Pharaoh to the sun deity takes the form of a folk tale and, somewhat convention- alized in form, appears in sculpture on several buildings, notably at Luxor and Der-el-Bahri. It is to be noted that even at this early date the divine king theory involves a combination of the political motive with the religious. Kingship, ac- cording to this system, is a divine institution — the king, a divine being. 23 We have next briefly to trace the continuity of the Egyptian divinely-begotten king theory through later history. It has one early aberrant development in the case of Hephaestion, the friend of Alexander, who, according to Diodo- rus, 24 was deified in obedience to a specific com- mand of the Oracle of Amon. 2. The Ptolemies In the case of the Ptolemies (330-30 B.C.) the Macedonian and Egyptian traditions are thor- oughly blended and deification marks the entire history. The only Ptolemaic kings for whose M See below, page 61, n. 108. For the Westcar papyrus, see Erman : Life in Ancient Egypt, pp. 373f. M XVII. 115. We shall note other cases where the shadow of divine royalty, falling upon a king's relative or favorite, seems to possess the power to create divinity. 26 Aspects of Roman Emperor-Worship deification we have no documentary or epigraphic evidence are the minor individuals about whom we know practically nothing. In a text 25 of the year 312-311 B.C. Ptolemy I (Soter 323-283 B.C.) is repeatedly called "Son of the Sun" in old Egyptian style. An inscription of the Cyclades makes the claim that these island- ers first gave Ptolemy I divine honors. The Rhodians (B.C. 306) advanced the same claim. They first called him Soter and established shrines and sacrifices in his honor. 26 In the next reign, that of Ptolemy II (Philadel- phus 283-247) the process of deification attains unexampled elaboration. 27 It should be studied with some care as it throws light upon everything that follows. On the Mendes Stele, Ptolemy is designted: "The lord of the land, the lord of power, Meri- amon-user-ka-ra, the son of Re, begotten of his body, who loves him, the lord of diadems, Ptol- 20 See Mahaffy: Greek Life and Thought, pp. 180-192. ™ See Mahaffy : History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty, pp. 43, 44. Authorities are somewhat at variance as to whether this deification was Greek or Oriental. We shall have good reason to conclude that it was both. "The idea of Revillout (revue Egyptologique I, 1880) that genuine deification began with the second Ptolemy is untenable for the simple reason that it had already been in operation for centuries. It was (sicut supra) greatly elaborated in this reign. For the meaning of "Soter" see Mahaffy: Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 62 n3, cf. p. 125. Ruler-Cult in the Macedonian-Greek Period 27 emy, the ever living." On the same stone, Ptol- emy's famous wife, the first woman of antiquity, so far as I am aware, to attain such honors, is spoken of as the "divine Arsinoe Philadelphos." For the sake of its bearing upon the later history of deification the method of deification followed in the case of Ptolemy and Arsinoe should be carefully noted: On coins she was deified with her husband — ■ the two pictured together as gods and designated 6tbi &Se\6i. She was made officially avwalos with the accept- ed "great gods" throughout Egypt. After death she was granted a Kav^Spos. . . . She was coupled on a basis of equality with Ptah, as in the expression (from a demotic stele) "Sec- retary of Ptah and Arsinoe Philadelphos." 28 Votive inscriptions and temples (called Arsi- noeia) were dedicated to her in many places. She was made the tutelary goddess of the Nome adjacent to Lake Moeris. I have dwelt at length upon this instance chiefly for the reason that the operation of the machinery of deification is so complete and typical at this early date. Arsi- noe died in 270 B.C. The bestowment of divine honors including a permanent priesthood, was al- " See Krall : Studien, ii, p. 48. 28 Aspects of Roman Emperor-W orship ready a finished art, leaving little room or need for subsequent elaboration. The dynastic history of the Ptolemies offers a number of facts full of interest and suggestion from the point of view of this discussion : The formation, almost at once, of a divine dynasty each successive member of which has a birthright participation in deity. An inscription of Ptolemy IIP 9 reads thus: "The Great King, Ptolemy, Son of King Ptolemy and Queen Arsi- noe, Brother Gods; Children of King Ptolemy and Queen Berenice, Saviour Gods ; the descended on his father's side from Heracles, son of Zeus, on his mother's side from Dionysus, son of Zeus," etc. The assumption, immediately upon accession to power, of a throne-name significant of deity, coronation and deification thus becoming coinci- dent. An interesting and instructive side-light is thrown upon the practice among the Ptolemies by this list of throne-names. 30 Not the least sug- gestive item is the evident fact that the implied claim of deity becomes stronger as the list goes " C. I. G., 5127. Boeck, in his note on C. I. G. 2620 (given below) holds that these kings were not deified during their life- times, but more or less promptly after death. In this judgment I cannot concur. The evidence is all in favor of the statement in the text. "This list transliterated by F. L. Griffith is published by Mahaffy: Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty, pp. 255, 256. Ruler-Cult in the Macedonian-Greek Period 29 on. The most frequently used and most signifi- cant of the formal titles of these rulers, male and female, are Empykrris, Swr^p, 'A5eX<£6s. 31 In this connection attention should be called to the Decree of Canopus. 32 This, inscription of Ptolemy III, which is dated from the temple of the Benefactor gods in Canopus, speaks of Ptol j emy, son of Ptolemy and Arsinoe 0«6i &Se\6i and Berenice, his sister and wife, as "Benefactor gods." The decree (which I merely summarize) in- creases preexisting honors so as to include the entire dynasty under the three titles given above. It was also voted to "perform everlasting hon- ors" to Queen Berenice, the deceased daughter of Ptolemy and his wife. This princess was granted temples, feasts, hymns, offerings etc. in great profusion. We have also to note the frequent bestowal of special divine names upon individual members of the dynasty: e.g., Ptolemy V (205-181 B.C.), by decree was called 0eos "Emavfis E6xavels and the latter appears on coins as Isis. "The term dSeX^Jt in the phrase Btbt &5e\oi>Ta Tys TrAXetos Kai t&v irepl AiSvvtrov k&l deovs Efapykars rexvifiov" etc. 84 For the connection of M. Antony with Dionysus see Plu- tarch: Antony c. 24. This reference gives us a definite line of tendency from the Ptolemies to the Romans. "Compare Hirsch, p. 835, n. 9. "'Maspero: op. cit, p. 19. "Recur to p. 28, note 29, and compare the following inscrip- tion to the third Ptolemy, found in a Greek temple at Ramleh: Kit Oeoi5 &Se\0oTt Ai'i 'OXv/MTt&t nth All Evpafurdiaii tovs puyovs, etc. Ruler-Cult in the Macedonian-Greek Period 31 30 B.C.), who was called Ptolemy Cffisar, and ascended his mother's tottering throne as the god Philopator Philometor. Here once again we have direct connection between Greece, the Orient and Rome. Cassar's son was deified in Egypt just about the time that Caesar conquered Pharnaces at Zela. 88 3. In Greece In order to complete a rapid sketch of the gen- eral movement which culminated in the deification of the Roman Emperors, we must now retrace our steps a little, chronologically speaking, in or- der to be in at the beginning of things among the Greeks. An actual beginning may be traceable here. Dr. Sihler asserts S9 that according to the true and original text there is no actual deification of men in Homer. In the Iliad, as the text now stands, this is true. Even Heracles is overcome by fate, dies and departs to the realm of the shades. In the present text of the Odyssey, how- ever (Bk. II, 601 ff.), Heracles has taken his place among the Immortals and has a goddess for his wife. 40 *" 47 B.C. 80 T. A., p. 68. "Ibid., p. 69. Interesting parallels to this case are found in connection with Erechtheus, who in Homer (II. Bk. ii, 11. 672-4) is simply a buried hero, while in 5th Cen. inscriptions he is assimilated to Poseidon — C. I. A.: I, 387; III, 276, 815; IV, 556c. 32 'Aspects of Roman EmperbfrW orship Two things are clear from this. First, that some time between the formation of the original Homeric text and the present one the belief in the transition of mortals into the company and felicity of the gods has found open expression. Second, the conception of the hero who is, so to say, a superman, easily lends itself to the idea of apotheosis. The fundamental fact is that men do not need to be magnified very greatly to bring them over the rather vague line which separates them from gods. We must agree with the judg- ment of Dr. Sihler 41 that gods and men are essen- tially the same, "apart from immortality and an irrevocable title to happiness." The same scholar points out * 2 that the favor of gods extended to heroes for their character and deeds is the begin- ning of hero-worship. This latter cult, an en- tirely spontaneous and popular movement, was very widely disseminated and combined in various ways with the worship of the gods. This far- reaching cult carries us already a long way toward deification, because historically it so often in- volved the junction of gods and men in common lines of descent. cf. Farnell: Cults of Greek States, Vol. IV, pp. nqi. Asclepius, who is neither god nor hero in Homer (II. ii, 729-732), is Son of Apollo in Pausanias (ii:26), and the Dioscuroi who attain godhood between the Iliad and Odyssey, cf. II. iii, 236; Od., xi:3oo; see Wassner: De Heroum apud Graecos Cultu, Pt. z. a Op. cit, p. 68. "Op.cit., p. 74. ''Ruler-Cult in the Macedonian-Greek Period 33 One leading motive for the establishment and spread of the hero-cult Avas the claim on the part of tribes, families, and leading individuals to di- vine descent. 43 Moreover, it is clear that gods and heroes not infrequently changed places — the hero rising to godhead and receiving worship and the god be- ing depressed to the hero level. 44 As a matter of fact, any essential distinction between gods and heroes is done away in the fact already stated that at least Heracles and the Dioscuroi were both heroes and gods; and that many heroes, at a very early date, had temples and all the para- phernalia of worship. 45 It is undoubtedly true that the faint and wandering line of demarkation between gods and men, on the one hand, made easy the process of deification by removing or minimizing any shock which might be felt in ap- plying divine categories to beings otherwise ob- 43 According to Dollinger such claims were urged even on behalf of the founders of trade-guilds and industrial corpo- rations. H. J., Sec. 67. "Ibid., Sec. 68. "The gods and heroes were sometimes honored in conjunc- tion ; e. g., Hermes and Heracles, C. I. G., Ins. Mar. Aeg., 1091, Hermes and Minyas, C. I. G., Sept. 3218 Sometimes, apparently heroes have been constructed from divine epithets, viz., Kapvtlos, from Apollo. See Farnell: op. cit., IV, p. 135; occasionally gods and heroes have been con- fused, ibid., p. 151. For connection between hero-worship and ancestor-worship, see below, p. 46, note 67. For the universality of hero-worship, see Ramsay: Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, I. p. 384; for Heroes as Kings; Harrison: Prolegomena to Study of Greek Religion, p. xiv. Cf. Plut. Cleom., xxxix. 34 Aspects of Roman Emperor-Worship viously human. On the other hand, it tended to produce skepticism as to the specific character of the gods such as we find in Euhemerus and Lucre- tius. Two items, before we take up Philip of Mace- don and Alexander the Great again, deserve special mention. The first is the instance men- tioned by Herodotus, 46 where a Spartan king made the charge that the prince who was nomi- nally his son was actually the son of the hero As- trabakos, who had become embodied and taken the form of the royal husband. This I take to be a distinct echo of the Egyptian theory or dogma which ascribes a divine genesis to the Pharaohs through an actual embodiment of the sun-god. The second instance is that of Titus Quintus Flamininus (sec. Macedonian War, 200-197 B.C.), 47 to whom the Chalcidians dedicated tem- ples and altars, made offerings and sang pasans. In these dedications and acclamations, Flamininus was named in company with Zeus, Apollo, Her- acles, Roma and Fides Roma?. He was called, in what is clearly an echo of the Egyptian habit: "Savior Titus" (Swr^p, etc.). We are to note, again, the combination of a living deified Roman dignitary with the Olympian 40 6.69. " Plutarch: Flamininus c. XVI. Ruler-Cult in the Macedonian-Greek Period 35 deities. Here also we have one of the earliest appearances of the Roma cult, the expression of a tendency which continued and increased in later times to personify and deify the Roman state. It is not to be forgotten or under-estimated that these were lifetime honors bestowed upon men who were not actually of the blood royal, but who possessed and exercised, in certain local jurisdic- tions, de facto powers of royalty. These Chal- cidians, moreover, were following an example al- ready two centuries old, for the Spartan general, Lysander, had received almost identical honors at the Hellespont in 405 B.C. 48 More directly in line with the historical movement, is the case of Philip of Macedon. According to Pausanias, 49 Philip built a temple at Olympia in which images of his dynasty were kept. This was in 338 B.C. And, strikingly enough, the king was murdered at the very time when, clothed in the dignity of mem- bership among the Olympians, he was presented to the people as a god. This is important because it establishes the fact that Alexander had an he- reditary claim to divinity, established and widely acknowledged within the limits of his father's domains, before he allowed himself to be acclaim- ed as the son of Amon Re, in Egypt. 'Plutarch: Lysander, c. 18. ' 5.20.9-10 — see Sihler, T. A., p. 124. 36 Aspects of Roman Emperor-Worship We have thus already discovered several lines of communication through which from primitive times to the Roman era the ancient tradition of deified men might easily have been handed down: 4. Greek-Asiatic Dynasties The Seleucidae and Attilidae, 50 Graeco-Asiatic dynasties of Antioch and Pergamos, may be dis- missed with a sentence. The history is quite par- allel with that of the Ptolemies. Seleucus I (312- 281 B.C.) received divine honors at least by 281 B.C. 51 Antiochus I (281-261 B.C.) was called Swri7p and Antiochus II (261-246) was called Oeos. Deification, in several instances, if not always, was accomplished in the life-time of the king. 52 "For Roman Emperor-Worship in Asia Minor, see below, p. 79- 01 See Hirsch. p. 834, n. 4 for references. " In connection with Attalus and Eumenes we have a group of inscriptions (C. I. G., Nos. 3067-3070) which show that certain members of the Association of actors of Teos, who had charge of public games in general, were specifically ap- pointed priests of the ruling dynasty and received honors as such. No. 3068 gives a good idea of such inscriptions. It re- fers to the presentation of a crown in the theatre to one who has become AyaivoSkTys kAi Upivs fiaoiK&as Evpkvov, etc. No. 3070 is still more specific as to the divine status of the king. Attalus Philadelphus is agonothete and priest 6e>v Ei/ikvov ipurrahv. Others of the same general tenor might be cited from later times. CHAPTER III BEGINNINGS OF THE RULER-CULT AMONG THE , ROMANS i. The Universality of Deification in Paganism THE early development and widespread prev- alence of the great-man cult, to designate it by a term sufficiently broad to cover all the facts, are not without immediate bearing upon the ques- tion now before us — the beginning of this cult among the Romans. It is not merely that we are able to trace a num- ber of interlacing lines of historical transmission from age to age and from land to land, as indi- cated at the close of the last section — in this way connecting the Roman custom with the outside world and with earlier times. These inter-con- nections are important enough but not so impor- tant as a certain general fact or principle which we may discover even where no direct connection can be detected. That principle is this: What- ever may be the reason for it, a matter to be dis- 37 3 8 Aspects of Roman Emperor-JVorship cussed later, polytheists exhibit everywhere a spontaneous tendency to include great and power- ful human personalities among the objects of their worship. This conclusion is inevitable from the facts. It is impossible to suppose that this mode of worship started from a single centre and spread to the boundaries of the world. It has sprung up spontaneously everywhere on pagan soil, because it is universally indigenous to that soil. 2. Deification and Mythology This conclusion is of the utmost importance not merely because of the light it throws upon the origin of the ruler-cult among the Romans, sig- nificant as it is in that respect, but also because it really involves the whole science of Compara- tive Mythology. The first thorough-going systematizer of tradi- tional mythology according to a definite theory rigorously applied was Euhemerus of Messana in Sicily (cir. 300 B.C.). This daring innovator held that the gods were merely deified men and that the mythological narratives were transmuted history. Euhemerus has had comparatively few follow- ers among the scientific mythologists of modern times. Grote, who explains mythology by refer- ence to "the unbounded tendency of the Homeric Beginnings of the Ruler-Cult Among Romans 39 Greeks to multiply fictitious persons, and to con- strue the phenomena which interested them into manifestations of design," 53 had no difficulty in exposing the extravagances and fictions of Euhem- erus and the uncritical methods of the Church Fathers who followed him. What Grote and other mythologists of the modern school did not do was to discern the residuum of truth in the doctrine of Euhemerus. Emphasize, as much as one may, the operation of the personifying ten- dency; explain all that can be explained by false etymology, naturistic personification or folk-lore, room must always be found for the tendency, as spontaneous and universal as any other in ancient and modern paganism, to deify human beings. This is a vera causa of mythology. In some cases already cited and in others, the process of myth- spinning through deification can actually be ob- served in actu. As Sir Alfred Lyall says : 54 "It is a fact that men are incessantly converting other men into gods, or embodiments of gods, or emana- tions from the Divine Spirit, all over Asia, and that out of the deified man is visibly spun the whole myth which envelops him as a silk-worm in its cocoon." (Italics mine.) In mythologies Ea History of Greece (Am. Ed.), Vol. i, p. 342 — see entire chapter. M Asiatic Studies, London, 1882, p. 35; cf. whole chapter (3) and the same writer's Rede Lecture, p. 26f. 40 Aspects of Roman Emperor-Worship everywhere deification undoubtedly plays an im- portant part and must be taken into consideration in any adequate theory as to their origin. The entire body of data presented in this discussion may be urged in support of this particular con- tention, but the following group of items, other- wise somewhat miscellaneous and unrelated, is particularly pertinent. The Nusairiyeh of North- ern Syria, a sub-division of the Shiites, have deified Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of Mohammed, and other heretical Moslems have done the same with Mohammed himself. 55 It is a particularly inter- esting fact that Ali is identified with one or an- other of the heavenly bodies, constituting a rec- ognizable fusion of naturism and deification. I am convinced that this has happened oftener than we have been wont to think. According to the. same authority the Druses deify Hakim Ibn Allah, while the natives around Mt. Carmel deify, of all persons, Elijah, the stern monotheistic prophet of Israel. Elijah is the god Khuddr. 66 Hopkins says of the Jains of India: "Their only real gods are their chiefs or teachers whose idols are worshiped in the temples. . . . They have given up God to worship man." 57 K Curtiss: Primitive Semitic Religion To-day (N. Y., 1902), pp. 103, 104. 58 Ibid., p. 95. "Religions of India (Boston, 1898), p. 295, n. z. 'Beginnings of the Ruler-Cult Among Romans 41 In Buddhism, Gautama, the Agnostic, is deified. As Fairbairn says: "Buddhism deifies the denier of the divine." 5S A large part of the vast Bud- dhist mythology grows out of this primary deifi- cation which turned Buddhism from a philosophy into a religion. In China 59 the same fate over- took Confucius, whose negative attitude toward the spiritual world is well known. The comparatively modern systems of Babism and its more recent supersessive form of Bahaism in Persia involve deification as their central and fundamental principle. 60 The significance of these incidents is not only that they are undoubted cases of deification but that these deifications are accompanied or fol- lowed by mythologies more or less extensive, of which the deified person and his deeds form the substance. The statement is therefore justified that paganism even where it consists of decadent monotheism universally and spontaneously pro- duces deification. 61 ™ Phil. Christian Religion, pp. 243, 27\i., cf. Monier-Williams Buddhism (N. Y., 1889), Lecture VIII. M Legge, the greatest authority on the subject, holds that Confucius was actually worshiped in China, — cf. Underwood: Religions of Eastern Asia, pp. 1591. For qualification of this view consult Knox: Development of Religion in Japan, p. 173; Martin: Lore of Cathay (N. Y., 1901), pp. 246f. ""Speer: Missions and Modern History, Vol. 1, pp. 1191. — esp. 131, n. 4. Wilson: Bahaism and Its Claims (N. Y., 1915), pp. 3sf. with references. 61 For deification among Ancient Celts consult MacCuIloch: 42 Aspects of Roman Emperor-Worship 3. Deification Native to the Roman Genius When, therefore, we come to the Romans the presumption is that they also will show the same tendency to deify men of eminence and power which is so generally seen elsewhere. Hirschf eld 62 calls the worship of the Roman Emperor and the royal house: "Eine durchaus un-R6mische auf griechisch - orientalischen Boden gewachsene Pflanze, die aber gleichzeitig mit der neuen Mon- archic nach dem Westen iibertragen dort auffal- lend rasch sich acclimatisirt, tiefe Wurzeln ge- schlagen und eigenartige Bliithen getrieben hat." In this judgment I cannot concur. It is, of course, somewhat difficult to say just exactly what is and what is not strictly Roman, 63 since Roman Religion of Ancient Celts (Edin., 1911), pp. i6if ; Rhys: Hibbert Lectures, 1886 (3d ed., London, 98), Lecture VI. Those who wish to broaden the induction still further will find abundance of material: E.g., De La Saussaye: Science of Religion, Ch. XIV; Jevons: Intr. to History of Religions, pp. Z75f. ; W. Rob- ertson Smith: The Religion of the Semites, pp. 42f; Frazer: Golden Bough, Part I, Vol. ii, Ch. XIV and index sub. voc. There is a vast amount of data bearing on the subject of divine kings in this colossal work, but much of the material needs careful critical sifting; e.g., what Dr. Frazer says of the Latin kings is based upon passages which are both late and de- cidedly secondary, while the bridge of inference by which he reaches antiquity seems to me precarious and unsteady. Cf. Fowler: R. E. R. P., p. 20: J. B. Carter: Ency. Religion and Ethics, Vol. I, p. 464, col. 2. 02 Op. Cit., p. 833. 63 Fowler: R. F., p. 19, starts out with the year 46 B.C., "the last year of the pre-Julian calendar," as affording a firm basis Beginnings of the Ruler-Cult Among Romans 43 tradition and culture were from the start domi- nated by Greek influence, and the back-flow from Asia through Greece began so early. It is also obvious that the deification of Roman emperors began only when there were emperors to deify. It is also probable, though by no means demon- strated, that the worship of living emperors, as distinguished from the divi, or deceased emperors deified, began in the Asiatic provinces. Nevertheless, I venture to dispute the dictum that the worship of the ruler was a thoroughly un-Roman growth, introduced from the Hellen- ized Orient and merely domesticated among the Romans. 64 In the first place, it would be difficult to explain the rapid development and the ultimate magnitude of this system among the Romans were there not something in it inherently congenial to Roman thought and temper. We are not to for- get, in this connection, what will be brought out in detail later, that nowhere in all antiquity did the for the study of Roman religion while it was still Roman. By common consent the Fasti of the original calendar, pre- served through the successive modifications which have been made in it, afford trustworthy knowledge of the religion of the early Romans (ibid., p. 20). "Fowler in his great work on The Religious Experience of the Roman People gives small place to Emperor-Worship (see pp. 437-8), on the ground that in its developed form, it belongs neither to Rome nor Italy. Technically, he is correct, but I think he underestimates its importance within the period with which he deals; cf. Heinen, op. at., under J. Caesar and Au- gustus. 44 r Aspetcts of Roman Emperor-Worship ruler-cult reach such power or attain so complete an organization, inner and outer, as among the Romans. All other studies of this cult are merely introductory and auxiliary to the supreme historic example of organized and systematic deification afforded by the Roman system. In this sense the cult is characteristically Roman. In the second place, there is a sufficiency of positive evidence to show that the process of dei- fying men and of uniting gods and men in common life was as nearly native as anything Roman ever was. I adduce, first, the Trojan cycle, the pres-- entation of which, in one way or another, forms the staple of Roman literature from beginning to end. The traditional founder of the Roman race was the son of Anchises and Venus Aphrodite. iEneas, therefore, was himself a demi-god, a divine-human being who is the reputed ancestor of a great Roman family, the Iulii. It is a fact, the significance of which can hardly be over-esti- mated, that Julius Cassar traced his lineage to the gods. 65 My point here is that at the time when the Roman tradition was amalgamated with 85 See next section. I need hardly urge that the Hercule9 cycle and the hero-stories in general were part and parcel of the Roman literary tradition. Hercules, who was prob- ably the first foreign deity to arrive at Rome antedated by several centuries the beginnings of Roman literature. For the transformation of iEneas and others into gods, etc., see Ovid: Metam., Bk. XIV, 11. 512-771. Beginnings of the Ruler-Cult Among Romans 45; the early Greek, not absolutely primitive times so far as the Romans are concerned, but still very early, the tendency which expresses itself in deifi- cation was already in active operation. The im- pulse to claim kinship with the gods, to cross in one direction or the other the line which separates gods and men, was in the Roman blood as inherit- ors of the ancient Greek tradition. But I think that we are undoubtedly justified in going much further back toward primitive times than this. In fact, I am convinced that the im- perial-cult was rooted in the earliest stratum of Roman religion and was fostered by several of the strongest native tendencies of the Roman mind. I shall try to justify this assertion. Among the earliest beings worshiped by the Romansi, even in the period when their gods were dimly defined numina, deified powers, functions or ac- tions of nature and life, mostly unnamed and having no marked features of individuality, were the Di Manes, 66 or "divi parentum" of the Libri "That the cult of # the Dead involved actual deification is capable of very curious illustrations. Pliny expresses in a well- known passage (H. N, VII, 188) his scornful dislike of the Manes-cult and in the course of his remarks makes use of this expression: "sensum inferis dando et Manis colendo deumque faciendo qui iam etiam homo esse desierit." In a very different spirit but with the same underlying idea of what the practice involves Cicero approaches the subject of a proposed memorial to his beloved daughter Tullia. He says to Atticus (ad At- ticum, XII, 36) : "Fanum" (a word signifying a temple de- signed for the worship of a god) fieri volo, neque hoc mini 46 Aspects of Roman Emperor-Worship Pontificum, 67 the deified ancestors of the family; the Genius patris familias, which, in early times, has been described as masculinity raised to god- head, in the same sense as the deities of the house- hold; the Lar compitalis (afterward Lar famili- aris) or Genius of the common land of the com- munity. 68 Here within the cult itself, coming down from the earliest times, is the entire machinery of deification which operates in the case of the em- perors. Every regularly constituted family con- sisted of divine and human members and the line of demarkation between the groups was crossed at death. More than that, the idealization as an object of worship of the creative principle inherent in the pater-familias identified by the term erui potest. Sepulcri similitudinem effugere non tam propter poenam legis studeo quam ut quam maxim adsequar AiroSeaxriv. He wishes so to place this sanctuary and so to build it that "so long as Rome endures 'illud quasi consecratum remanere possit.'" Ibid., XII :i9. His whole idea is that Tullia is a living and glorified being as he plainly states in a fragment of his lost Consolatio: "Te omnium optimam doctissimamque, approbantibus dis immortalibus ipsis, in eorum coetu locatam, ad opinionem omnium mortalium consecrabo" (See Fowler: R. E. R. P., p. 388.) An idea of the extent of the Manes-cult is given by the number of inscriptions devoted to it, see C.I.L.X., See Teuffel — Hist. Rom. Lit., Eng. tr., sec. 73. One of these laws reads thus: "Si parentem puer verberit, ast olle ploras- sit, puer divis parentum sacer esto." Wassner holds and offers convincing evidence for his thesis that hero-worship is a de- rivative of ancestor-worship, — see De Heroum Apud Graecos Cultu, esp. pp. 42, 43. The same scholar works out the con- junction of hero-worship with that of the gods. 08 See Fowler: R. E. R. P., sub poSelrqs dedv iirujtav^ k&i koivov tov avBponrivov (3iou owrTJpa. Of like tenor are C. I. G., 2369, 22i4g, 2215, 2957 and C. I. A., Ill 428. Hirschfeld (op. cit., p. 836, note 19) refutes the con- tention of Boeck, who is strangely reluctant to believe that anybody could accept divine honors for himself in his own life-time, that these inscriptions were not addressed to the liv- ing Caesar. In 29 B.C. Caesar was honored as a hero under the title of Men or Sabazios, an Anatolian deity at Nikaia. See Pliny, H. N, VIII, 155. " See page 34 for case of Flamininus. 07 Ad Atticum, 5.21.7; cf. Ad Quintum Fr., 1.1.26. 88 Chariots for statues equivalent to tensae. 58 Aspects of Roman Emperor-W orship 4. Cesar as Divus Upon the death of Csesar, he was promptly voted both divine and human honors by the Sen- ate. According to Suetonius " he was deified not merely by the mouth of those making a formal de- cree "sed in persuasione volgi." The games in celebration of his apotheosis were marked by celestial omens. "Stella crinita per septem con- tinuos dies fulsit," which was believed to be the soul of Caesar received into heaven. 100 Dio's list 101 of posthumous divine honors be- stowed upon Caesar, which contains a rather por- tentous number of items, is very interesting. Out of the total which I have numbered from one to eleven, a few deserve special mention. His acts were made perpetually binding, the place and day of his assassination were both made accursed; his image was not to be carried at the funerals of his relatives KaBairep" Oeov twos ojs a\i)das but was to be carried together with a special image of Venus at horse races ; no one taking refuge in his shrine, which was formally set apart as to a god, could be banished or stripped of goods, oirep obbevi ovhi. tuv Gtiav ir\i\v t&v exi Po/joXou yevonkvwv. 89 D. I, LXXXVIII. 100 For Julian games cf. C. I. L., I, p. 293; cf. Beurlier: Culte, Sec. ssf. 101 Bfc. XLVII, 18, 19. The Ruhr-Cult and Julius Casar 59 It is quite evident from Dio's presentation of the ceremonial and other official acts, which are typical of the whole scheme of deification on' its mechanical side, that the process was carried out in strict accord with Roman customs and with the deliberate intention of making every item count. The contention of Wissowa, already alluded to, is sufficiently disposed of by the fact that Caesar was deified by the only authority capable of doing it, that is, the Roman Senate, and in the regular and accepted mode. It is also clear that in the dedication of a temple (45 B.C.) and the appoint- ment of a priesthood to perform the rites belong- ing to the new cult, Augustus followed — but did not lead — the Senate and the Roman people in their acknowledgment of the divinity of the great Gaius. Augustus, however, was a devoted ad- herent of the new cult. Velleius Paterculus (A.D. 30 flor.) in a very characteristic passage, 102 said of Augustus : "Sa- cravit parentem suum Caesar non imperio sed re- ligione, non appellavit eum, sed fecit deum." This last clause should be interpreted by emphasis: "he not merely called him but made him god." Valerius Maximus 103 ironically acknowledges the good offices of Cassar's assassins in procuring 103 2.126. 1M I.VI:i3.V.M. wrote under Tiberius. 6o Aspects of Roman Emperor-Worship his exaltation. In an address to Caesar in which he speaks of the divine honors, including altars, temples, priests and ritual which were bestowed upon him, he says finally: "erupit deinde eorum parracidium, qui, dum te hominum numero subtra- here volunt, deorum concilio adiecerunt." In this connection a poetic touch is given to the Caesarean cult by the fact, which Plutarch records, 104 that Antony was pleased to be appointed a priest of Caesar. 5. The Julian Cult The extent and character of the Julian cult may be seen from a few selected inscriptions. A marble inscription 10B belonging to the pre-Augus- tan age (cir. 43 B.C.) now in the museum of the Vatican at Rome, reads: Divo Iulio Iussu Populi Romani Statutum est Lege Rufrena 104 Antony, 33. The words are worth recording: A&tos Se KaUrapi xapi^bptvos ikpds A.ire5eix8ii toD icpbripov Ka'urapos. Ci- cero (2d Phil. 43.110) points the finger of scorn at Antony for his delay in playing the role of Julian priest: "Et tu in Caesaris memoria diligens? tu ilium amas mortuum? quem is majorem honorem consecutus erat, quam ut haberet pulvinar, simulacrum, fastigium, flaminem? Est ergo, flamen, ut Iovi, ut Marti, ut Quirino sic divo Iulio M. Antonius? Quid igitur cessas?" etc. In the same connection Cicero expresses his dis- like of the whole proceeding. 1B C, I. L, IX, 2628, The Ruler-Cult and Julius Casar 6x Another most suggestive inscription 106 comes from iEsernia: Genio 107 Deivi Iuli Parentis Patriae Quem Senatus Populusque Romanus in Deorum Numerum Rettulit 108 A rather startling inscription comes from Athens, which specifically calls Cassar, god. 109 The extent of the cult may be inferred from the fact that in a group of three inscriptions recording flamens or sacerdotes of Cassar, one is from Treventum of Regio 4 in Rome, 110 one from Reii m in Narbonsensian Gaul, and one from Rusicade 112 in Numidia. 108 c. I. L., 626. lw On the use of genio in this inscription see below, page 68. 108 Particular attention should be called to this word. It sig- nifies that Caesar belongs inherently to the company of the gods, to which he is restored at death. Cf. Velleius Paterculus, 2.124 "post redditum caelo patrem et corpus eius humanis honoribus, numen divinis honoratum," etc. (Written under Tiberius.) The reference in "patrem," etc., is, of course, to Augustus. The word "Numen" is used exactly as in ordinary references to the gods. And see below, p. ioo. 108 C. I. A., 65 vird Taiov 'lovKlov Kaivapos 0eoO. 110 C. I. L., IX, 2598. m C. I. L., XII, 370. m C. I. L., VIII, 7986. 62 Aspects of Roman Emperor-Worship Taken all in all, the imperial cult is in full swing upon the death of Julius Caesar and the accession of Augustus. 6. The Worship of Roma At this point, I am compelled to go somewhat aside for the purpose of taking up a very impor- tant unattached thread in this development. I refer to the Roma-cult, which is closely united with the ruler-cult, and formed a sort of intermediate link between the new personalism and the old Olympian system of personified nature-powers. The glorification of Rome under the title of the goddess Roma, began, according to Hischfeld, 113 immediately after the entrance of the Romans into Asiatic affairs. According to their own claim, this cult was founded by the City of Smyrna, whose inhabitants boasted that "when Carthage yet stood and mighty kings ruled in Asia," 114 they had erected the first temple to Roma. Hirschfeld points out that Rome had thus become the tutelary goddess of Smyrna. This side-development is especially important because it exhibits the elasticity of the polytheistic creed which was continually expanding to admit "Op.eit, p. 835. "Tacitus: Annates, 4:56. The RulefrCult and Julius Casar 63 new members and also the operation of the polit- ical factor which contributed so largely to the ad- vancement of the emperors to the position of divine preeminence. The Roma-cult is interlocked from the beginning with the imperial. There were temples of Dea Roma and Divus Iulius for Roman citizens at Ephesus and Nicaea and prob- ably elsewhere. The worship of Roma was con- nected with that of the Augusti almost univer- sally. 115 115 See C. /. G., 3524, 2696, 2943, 478 (Roma and Aug. in four cities incl. Athens), and below, pp. 7if. On the Roma-cult in general, consult Wissowa, H. K. A., p. 383 and Preller: Rom. Myth., pp. 283f. CHAPTER V THE RULER-CULT IN THE REIGN OF AUGUSTUS i. Life-Time Worship of the Emperors WE are now fairly embarked upon the im- perial era, which I have divided into two sections, about equally balanced in importance; the era of Augustus, and that of the successors of Augustus. The Augustan age itself stands out as the period during which the imperial cult was organized, established, endowed with institutional machinery and generally put on a permanent and self-perpetuating basis. The question which occupies first place in all critical discussions of the emperor cult among the Romans is this: Were the emperors worshiped by the Romans of Italy during their life-times or only after death ? That they received divine hon- ors in the Eastern provinces while still alive is abundantly proved. The other point, which is of the utmost impor- tance for an understanding of the relationship of the cult to the history of Roman religion, is still 6 4 The Ruler-Cult in the Reign of Augustus 6$ sub judice. We may as well take up the matter now. Let us begin with Tacitus. This historian says lie that he found in the records of the Senate an entry showing that a certain Cerealis Anicius moved the erection of a temple Neroni Divo, on the ground that Nero had attained to more than human power. This honor though unusual was refused solely because the action was thought to be ominous of the emperor's death, — "nam," says Tacitus, "deum honor principi non ante habetur, quam agere inter homines desierit." The question at once arises whether this rule, as Tacitus states it, was kept. Formally, by the Senate, perhaps it was, but actually it was not. Take, for example, the paean sung to Nero himself at Rome on the occasion of his triumph, A.D. 68. He was called: "Olympian Victor, Pythian Victor, Augustus, Her- cules, Apollo," etc. He was also acclaimed: "Our National Victor, the only one from the beginning of time" and "Augustus, Augustus, Divine Voice, Blessed are they that hear thee !" 117 This repre- sents and expresses the flattery of an excited and servile populace, and there are not wanting indi- cations that the enthusiasm was officially and arti- ficially stimulated, but the point is that public adu- ™ Annates, 15:74. m Dio, 63.20.3. 66 Aspects of Roman Emperor-Worship lation so constantly takes the form of deifica- tion. 118 Wissowa 119 flatly affirms that Augustus was worshiped as god during his life-time, both in the East and in the West. From that time on, he holds, until Diocletian, the rule was, the divus received divine honors together with the Genius of the living emperor which included the adoration of the imperial statue. This statue cult was com- bined with the worship of the Lares. 120 As a matter of fact, the worship of the Genius, or hypostatized spirit or divine alter ego., of the emperor was a very frail barrier indeed against personal worship — it could scarcely be called more r than a convention — while the adoration of the im- perial statue became a system of down-right idol- atry. Moreover, the rules, whatever they may have been, were broken absolutely in the instances of Caligula and Domitian. 121 Hirschfeld holds 122 that Augustus, in his life- time, received divine honors throughout the em- pire, but that the cult was not so systematic or well w Dio says (63.3, 5) that Tiridates offered victims before the altar of Nero and addressed him as "Dominus" — Aottotjjs — and also as Mithra. "* Op. cit., p. 72. 120 C. I. L., VI, 307. Sergius Megalensis is spoken of as Cul- tor Larum et Imaginum Augusti. Under date 56 A.D. (Fynes- Clinton) we have an entry which identifies the Augustales "qui Neroni C.C. Augusto et Agrippinae Aug. . . . et genio coloniae ludos fecerunt." m See below, pp. 948. "" Op. cit., p. 838. The Ruler-Cult in the Reign of Augustus 67 organized in the West, as shown by the scattered epigraphic remains. 123 Dollinger 12i maintains that until Caligula it was understood at Rome that the emperor by a special decree of the Senate and the successor should be raised to godhood as divus. This process was analogous to the cult of the Manes. 125 The same acute student points out two striking facts: (a) that divine honors were pressed upon the emperors, rather than sought by them, 126 and (b) that the divus became a new god added to the pantheon, whereas the living ^Heinen (p. 175, see bibliography) gives the following list of inscriptions as indicating the priests, altars and temples of the living Augustus in Italy: C.I.L., V, 18, 1 334i, a 4442,* IX, 1556 ; 4 X, 8i6, E 820," 837,' 1613, 8 5169, 9 630s; 10 XI, 1331," 1420," i 4 2i, B 1922," 1923," 3303," XIV, 73" 353, 18 2964. 1 ' Of these identifications of date 1, 3, 8, 12, 13, 17 seem probable but un- certain; 16 seems obviously incorrect; n belongs to the age of Nero but speaks of an Augustan priesthood which by inference H. carries back to Augustus; 19 depends upon a reading ques- tioned by Mommsen; the remaining references are beyond ques- tion. Throwing away those which are doubtful we have ten contemporaneous inscriptions from Italy. "H. J, p. 615. Manes — see P. W., sub. p;s avTonparopos 'Ze^aarov which establishes the fact that the year was named from the priest of Roma and Augustus. An im- portant inscription 147 from Auctarium in Gallia Narbonensis, furnishes the regulations governing the feasts of Augustus. Another type of inscrip- tion, most significant as indicating the general trend, .passes from the combination of Augustus with other gods to the mention of Augustus '< alone. 148 The tendency of the imperial cult to supersede the Olympian, and to throw the older 145 C. I. L., Ill, 2810. 148 So Boeck— n. C. I. G., 2943. 147 C. I. L., XII, 6038. 148 C. I. L., X, 885-890. a. 885-887, Mercury and Maia; b. 888, Augustus, Mercury and Maia ; c. 890, Augustus alone. Cf. also C. I. L., XIV, 3679, where also we find a com- bination of the gods with Augustus, then Augustus. The sec- ond column of this inscription combines Augustus with others. See also C. I. L., VIII, 6339, from Numidia, which unites Aug. with Jupiter Optimus Maximus. The Ruler-Cult in the Reign of Augustus 73 deities into the shadow began in the reign of Au- gustus. I have made no attempt to fix with exact- ness the dates of all these Augustan inscriptions to determine in each instance whether or not it precedes or follows his decease and formal deifica- tion. It is of no vital importance, as inscriptions of all the leading types belong in both periods. His death made little difference, as his deification was already practically accomplished and the post mortem celebration was merely formal. 149 Suetonius naively discloses the general, attitude in this matter when he ascribes to Augustus him- self the curious notion that his punctilio with re- gard to paying his gambling debts would redound to his ultimate glorification: "Sed hoc malo; be- nignitas enim mea me ad coelestem gloriam effe- ret." 150 148 Dio (51.20) gives an account of the honors decreed to Augustus in the year 39 B.C. Among other things it was decreed, is re vpvovs airov !£ laov rols Beols hyphfeaBat. /cot QvMiv Iov\iov «r avrov hiravonaguxBai., etc. The honors included a crown in all processions, senators in purple-bordered togas, a perpetually consecrated day and, particularly the following, ikpkas rk hvrbv kcU birep rdv Api-Bfidv Saovs hv &h We\i]6pos at Lesbos; Poppaea Sabina was honored at Ak- monia as the goddess of "Imperial Fertility" (2e/3aaT7; E6/3oo-£a). See C. I. G., 3858. 157 In the Narbo inscription of n B.C., referred to elsewhere (see p. 54), occurs the expression: "Qui se numini eius im- perpetuum colendo obligaverunt." It is no exaggeration to say that the system was intended to be permanent, and as human institutions go, was permanent — it lasted nearly as long as the Empire. The scope and effectiveness of the post-Augustan organiza- tion may be seen from the following facts in Asia Minor. Ramsay (Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia) shows that the Ruler-Cult Under the Successors of Augustus 77 For example, in the time of Claudius (41-54 A.D.) there are Augustales Claudiales. 158 Again, the Seviri, which were originally the six highest priests of Augustus, were perpetuated through successive reigns, thus : Seviri Tiberiani 1B9 Claud- iales 160 Neronieni, 181 Flaviales. 162 In the last title the dynastic tendency is in full bloom. It was Domitian who established a temple to the Flavian family, 163 and it is to this era that the form of oath to be taken by a prstor left in charge during the absence of a duum vir, which includes the em- perors among the gods, belongs. The oath runs thus, 164 "per Iovem et divom Augustum et divom provincial and municipal organization was practically com- plete. There were foundations of the imperial cult certainly in many, probably in all, the cities of Asia Minor. Whole provinces united in establishing foundations, and these KoivA held festivals in the principalities. Among the cities mentioned in this connection are those to whom the Epistles of the Apoc. were written (op. cit., p. 55). Under Caracalla and Commodus cities competed for the title "Neoicopos," which was bestowed upon those which built a temple dedicated solely to an em- peror. The imperial cult adopted and adapted the existent religious ministrants such as hymnodoi, theologoi, etc., in such a way as practically to confiscate the existing temple-founda- tions. Add to that the accompanying assumption of the func- tions and dignities of the established deities, and the taking over process seems quite complete. The festival of Zeus at Laodi- cea became the feast of Zeus and the Emperors before A.D. 150 (ibid., pp. nf). 188 See P. W., II, 2355. 159 C. I. L., IX, 6415. 160 C. I. L., XI, 714. 181 C. I. L., V, 3429. 182 C. I. L., V, 4399, XP, 4639; XII, 1159. 183 Suet.: Dom. V. 181 C. I. L., II, 1963, and 4. 78 Aspects of Roman Emperor-Worship Claudiura et divon Vespasianum et divum Titum Augustum et genium Caesaris Domitiani Augusti deosque penates." In the acts of the Arval brothers, 185 an entry for the year 69 A.D. which prescribes the mode of sacrifice on stated occasions (Feb. and March) reads : Iovi (bull) Iunono (heifer) Saluti Rom. Pop. (heifer) Divo Augusto (bull) Divae Augustae (heifer) Divo Claudio (bull) On March first, and again on the ninth, the em- peror offered sacrifice as this canon called for, and in addition offered a bull "Genio Ipsius." Just when the term Augusti was first applied as a collective designation for the divi, their liv- ing successor, relations and satellites looked upon as "a fast-closed group of new deities" 168 I have been unable to determine. The inscriptions are so numerous, so widespread, and so nearly contempo- raneous that it becomes difficult, if not impossible, M5 Henzen: Acta Ar-valia, year 69 A.D. Under date A.D. 183 the festival of the Arval Brothers was held in which the old ritual was gone through with the addition of sixteen divi (ibid.). The "Carmen Saliorum" was also addressed to the living emperors, see Wordsworth Fragments sub voc. Mar- quardt: Rom. Staats., iii, pp. 437-438, 1OT Wissowa: Op. cit., p. 71. Ruler-Cult Under the Successors of Augustus 79 to determine dates. I am convinced, however, that the epigraphic evidence will lead us back within a reign or two of Augustus himself. On the other hand, there are designated high-priests of the Augusti in a group of inscriptions in and about Athens which come down as late as 143 A.D. 167 (Antoninus Pius) . No worship, therefore, is more characteristic of the imperial age as a whole than this veneration of the Augusti. This becomes the more evident when we consider another re- lated fact, already hinted at, that these new deities exhibited a tendency to supersede the established and traditional Olympian gods. To exhibit this tendency in full bloom it is necessary only to refer to a group of inscriptions discovered in Asia Minor by the Wolfe expedition of 18 84-5. 168 I give a translation of a Greek inscription 169 from Kara Baulo, on the western edge of Zengi Ovasii : "The Council and the People Honored Councilor Bianor son of Antiochus, City-lover, gymnasiarch High-priest of the Augusti Founder of the City." lm C. I. A., Ill, 57, 389, 665, 668, 669, 670, 671, 673, 673, 675a. 185 Published by the Archaeological Institute of America in 1888 as Studies of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, vol. iii. Written by J. R. Sitlington-Sterrett, Ph.D. The numbers refer to this volume. 1(9 No. 403, see op. cit, p. 284, also cf. 283. 80 Aspects of Roman Emperor-Worship Another inscription 170 taken from the Temple of the Augusti and Aphrodite (who is ignored in the inscription, as she takes second place in the title of the temple) is dedicated by Antiochus, the Son of Tlamoos, designated as apx^pivs ruv Zeflao-Toiv, to deols Ze/?ats k c!;s fiovoyevovs irapa irarpds, irXr/pris x^piros Kai 6.\r)6ei.as. Qedv obdels t&panev ir&Tore 6 /wvoyevfis deos 6 uv els jbv k6\itov tov irarpds kneivos kl-r]yii