7/28/2019 118.2br_huss.pdf

1/4

Der makedonische Knig und die gyptischen Priester: Studienzur Geschichte des ptolemaiischen gypten (review)

Richard A. Billows

American Journal of Philology, Volume 118, Number 2 (Whole Number

470), Summer 1997, pp. 343-345 (Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press

DOI: 10.1353/ajp.1997.0024

For additional information about this article

Access Provided by University of Belgrade at 02/20/13 9:56AM GMT

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ajp/summary/v118/118.2br_huss.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ajp/summary/v118/118.2br_huss.htmlhttp://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ajp/summary/v118/118.2br_huss.html

7/28/2019 118.2br_huss.pdf

2/4

WERNER HUSS. Der makedonische Knig und die gyptischen Priester: Studienzur Geschichte des ptolemaiischen gypten. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Ver-lag, 1994. 238 pp. Paper, DM 80. (Historia Einzelschriften, 85)

The aim of this monograph is to elucidate the interactions of Staat andKirche (authors quotes) in Egypt under the Ptolemaic rule. In placing theseterms always between quotation marks the author clearly seeks to create a littledistance between his usage and the standard modern connotations, which imme-diately poses the question of just how appropriate it is to attempt to understandand discuss the ancient institutions and structures of Ptolemaic Egypt in this way.The present reviewer is very willing to allow Huss the term Staat, and indeedso far as I am concerned the quotation marks around this term could be dis-pensed with. The situation, however, is rather different with respect to the termKirche.

Even when used circumspectly with scholarly caveat regarding meaning(see the authors Einfhrung, n. 5), the term Kirche seems to me to importwith it a set of institutional and theological suppositions that are entirely out ofplace when discussing the preChristian religion of Egypt. Simply as a way ofthinking and talking about Egyptian religion, the notion of Kirche inevitablyleads one to see this religion in a certain waywith a rather unified and uniforminstitutional framework and hierarchy, and a set of accepted beliefs and dog-maswhich I doubt is the right way to see it. One could argue, indeed, that oneshould speak rather of Egyptian religions, given the lack of theological or evenmythological coherence between the various cults of the great temples in differ-ent regions of Egypt. And one could further note that each of these great tem-ples had its own structure and hierarchy, and that they were related to each otherby no set and uniformly accepted hierarchy, but rather competed for prestigeand standing while each assiduously building its own power and wealth.

To be fair, Huss is not at all unaware of these facts, and despite the shakytheoretical ground on which he stands, his monograph does have much good tooffer. It is divided into two parts: Part I discusses the dealings of the state towardsthe Kirche, outlining the ways in which the Ptolemies attempted to win accep-

7/28/2019 118.2br_huss.pdf

3/4

tance of, or even outright cooperation with, their rule on the part of the Egyptiantemples and priests; part II discusses the stance of the Kirche towards thePtolemaic rule, and is itself subdivided into two parts, dealing with forms of co-operation and forms of opposition respectively. The treatment is extraordinarilythorough with respect to its presentation of source material and secondary liter-

atureat times indeed too thorough. It is not unusual to find pages in which thefootnotes take up considerably more space than the text. The most extreme case,note 163 on 5860, takes up almost a full two pages of space for a list of abbrevi-ated references to secondary works discussing the early Sarapis cult. Even in amonograph devoted to the cult of Sarapis, which this is not, such a footnotewould seem irksomely long and detailed, and this is only the most egregiouscase. The author would do well to observe the common practice of providing ref-erences only to the most important and the most recent secondary literature,trusting to the ability of interested readers to do further followup research for

themselves. That said, this monograph is a mine of information, and I heartilycommend Huss for his excellent bibliography and four indices (person, subject,place, and source).

Part I of the monograph shows very clearly the lengths to which the Ptole-mies went to placate and win acceptance of the Egyptian priests, illustratingthereby without question the very powerful and important role the priests had inEgyptian society. Huss documents a whole range of financial, political, and socialprivileges and concessions granted to numerous temples and priests by thePtolemies, making it clear that all of the Ptolemies followed this politics of ap-

peasement to a greater or lesser degree, and that virtually all of the templesbenefitted from this policy (see the impressive tabulation of Ptolemaic buildingactivity at temples in 2639). All of this is the subject of sections 1 to 9 of part I(1455). It greatly outweighs the negative side presented in sections 1113, whereHuss collects evidence of Ptolemaic limitation and control of priestly influenceand activity (section 10 deals with official propaganda aimed at the priests).These sections (5668) do show that the Ptolemies attempted to control andlimit priestly activities in some ways and at some times. However, the evidence isrelatively slight, and in fact pages 5868 are concerned with the establishment of

the Sarapis cult, concerning which Huss concludesrightly in my viewthatit was not an attempt to undermine in any way the traditional authority of thepriests among the indigenous population, being rather aimed at the Greekspeaking immigrant population.

Part II begins with a full discussion of the ways in which the priests co-operatedpassively and/or activelywith the Ptolemaic regime (69128).Again the documentation is full, and students of the Ptolemaic regime will beparticularly interested by the prosopography of priests holding official postsand/or titles presented by Huss at 7390, arranged by locality, by time period, by

priestly title, and by official rank. As Huss concludes, it is clear that, even thoughonly a minority of known priests are also known to have held official posts

344 BOOK REVIEWS

7/28/2019 118.2br_huss.pdf

4/4

and/or titles, nevertheless there was no great reluctance on the part of priests tocollaborate openly and actively with the regime. It is also clear, however, that themain role of the priests in support of the government lay in the less concretefields of organizing progovernment festivals and displays intended to guide pop-ular opinion.

To this reviewer, the most interesting part of the monograph is the lastpart, that dealing with the various overt and covert, subtle and forthright formsof opposition to Ptolemaic rule emanating from priestly circles. It is true that,perhaps bound by the confines of the monographic format he has chosen, Husslists and describes these forms of opposition, rather than subjecting them to athorough and probing analysis. The list is, however, quite an impressive one,ranging from the relatively harmless leaving out of honorific titulature and soforth when mentioning the Ptolemaic king in documents, through more activebehavior such as promoting Egyptian patriotic tales like the Nectanebo legend,

to outright denunciations of the regime of the foreigners such as those found inthe Lamb Prophecy and the Oracle of the Potter, and ultimately to physicalacts of disloyalty (see 17980 for the latter). All of this forms, it seems to me, arich field to be exploited by exponents of socalled subaltern history and op-position history, a field into which Huss himself barely enters, contenting him-self with the unsurprising and rather disappointing conclusions that the Ptole-maic regime sought by every available means to coopt the priests as supportersof their rule, that the priests were by and large willing to support the regime inreturn for tangible benefits, but that there was nevertheless some opposition to

the Ptolemies from priestly circles deriving mostly from resentment of foreigndomination.Again, to be fair, Huss aims at no more, expressing in his preface doubts as

to the feasibility of grand analysis and synthesis based on lacunose evidence (9),and in his introduction (12) describing his work as a sketch (Skizze) intendedto give the reader only a provisional orientation (vorlufigen Orientierung). Itis a pity that he takes such a restricted view of what can be made of and donewith the ancient evidence, admittedly inadequate as it is, and that in his analysishe has aimed no higher. He clearly has the requisite learning to have produced a

very much richer treatment of this topic. Even as it is, he has provided a rich veinof research data for other students of Ptolemaic Egyptian religion, institutions,and society to mine.

RICHARD A. BILLOWSCOLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK

345BOOK REVIEWS