Price, Imperial Mysteries

7/30/2019 Price, Imperial Mysteries

1/18

Gods and Emperors: The Greek Language of the Roman Imperial CultAuthor(s): S. R. F. PriceReviewed work(s):Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 104 (1984), pp. 79-95

Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/630281 .

Accessed: 27/01/2013 14:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:44:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hellenichttp://www.jstor.org/stable/630281?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/630281?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hellenic


2/18

Journalof HellenicStudiesciv (1984) 79-95

GODS AND EMPERORS: THE GREEK LANGUAGE OFTHE ROMAN IMPERIALCULT

THEGreeks nderRoman ule uffer roma doubleprejudice.'Ontheonehand,Hellenistslose nterestntheGreeks fter heclassicalperiod; n theother,Romanhistoriansind thard oavoida Romanocentricperspective.hisdoubleprejudiceecomesparticularlycutewhentheissues thereligiousanguage sedby the Greeks o refer o theRomanemperor.Forexample,the Greeks alled heliving emperor oth theou uios('sonof god')andalsotheos('god').Thelanguageooks oddfromtheperspectivesothof classicalAthensandof imperialRome.Oneway to makesenseof it is to treat t asa translationut of Latin.Thusthebizarrepractice fcalling heemperorheou uiossseenasperfectly atural ecauset issimply hetranslationfdiviflius. Whynatural? ecause, stheheirsof Rome,we canattempt o ignore he culturaldifferencesetweenus and heancientworld.But thetacticof treatingGreek sa translationutofLatindoesnotalwayswork.Callinghelivingemperorheos annotbe seenasa translationfdivus, termwhichapplies nlyto deademperors.Modern cholars re hereforeorced o treattheusageas deviant',heproduct f either ollyorflattery.nfact hefailure f theoso translatedivusundermineshe firstassumptionhattheou uioss a translationf diviflius.The first ectionof thisarticle xaminesheusageof theos, oth ngeneral nd nrelation othe Romanemperor;t shows that theos s a very different erm from divusand that itspredicationf theemperormustbe understoodn aGreek ontext.Thesecond ectionexploressomeof theimplicationsf thispointby lookingatotherrelatedaspects f thelanguage sedboth in describing ndin addressinghe emperorn religious ontexts.The thirdand finalsection eflects n thesignificancef thislanguageorourunderstandingf Greekreligion.Doestheoscompareunfavourably ith 'God'?Doesitspredicationf theemperorit thecommonview of theGreekgodsasanthropomorphic?

ITheos,hougha basic erm of Greekreligion,has never beengivena detailed emanticstudy.2Scholars,n theireagernesso examinewhatthe Greeksthoughtabout heirgods,havegenerally otpausedo considerhepriorquestion-whatdoes heosmean?Theres,however,onepointof general greement:heoss notaname, ike Tiberius'.3ake, orexample,hetwosentencesThis s Tiberius' nd'This s a theos'.Thefirst s, logically peaking, statement fidentity; t merelyasserts he identityof 'This'and 'Tiberius'withoutaddingany otherinformation.Bycontrast,This satheos' as hesamegrammaticalormas hefirst entence, utislogicallydifferent.tsays omething bout hesubject f thesentence;hat s,theoss a (logical)predicate.4So far so good. But what sortof predicate s theos?What were the conditions for itsuse?As a preliminary move I want to set out three possible types of predicate. There are, first,

1 I should like to thankMaryBeardand LuciaNixonwho have greatly improved this article. The analysisruns parallelto that of my book Rituals andpower:theRomanimperial ult in Asia Minor(Cambridge 1984). Irefer to corporaof inscriptionsby the standardabbre-viations; those not listed by J. J. E. Hondius, SaxaloquunturLeiden 1938) are mainly to be found in theseries Inschriftenriechischertlidteaus Kleinasien(Bonn1972- ).2 See, however, W. P6tscher, Theos. Studien zuriilteren riechischenGottesvorstellungDiss. Wien 1953);W. Burkert, GriechischeReligionderarch.u. kl. Epoche

(1977) 406-8.3 U. von Wilamowitz, Der Glaube der Helleneni(Berlin 1931) 17-18; C. Habicht, Gottmenschentumundgriechische Stadte2 (Munich 1970) 157; cf. M. P. Nilsson,Geschichte ergriechischen eligion i2 (1961) 197-8. SeecontraPitscher (n. 2) 187-218.4 For this distinction see, for example, P. F. Straw-son, Subjectandpredicaten logicandgrammarLondon1974). Of course it is possible to convert theos into aname by adding the definite article.'This is the theos' scomparableto 'This is Tiberius'.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/18

80o S. R. F. PRICEpredicates uchas 'is a Knight',which aresimplya matterof humanascription.X 'is a Knight'ifandonly if he hasbeenmadeaKnight by themonarch.The predicatedoesnot inform oneof X'snatureor characteristics. second classof predicate sexemplifiedby Roman Catholicusesof'isa Saint'.The ascriptionof this status s unlike the arbitrarydubbingof a Knight. A decisionismadeby abody of the Roman CatholicChurch(theCongregationfor the Causesof Saints),butthe elaborateprocedure s designedto discoverthe factsof the case.5Was the 'candidate'reallyaperfectexemplarof theholy life?The finalceremony,performedby thePope, does not so muchcreate as recognizea Saint.Thirdly, predicates ike 'is a person' ack clear criteria or use. Theparadigmcaseof'is aperson' san adulthumanbeingof 'normal'intelligenceandphysique,whohasboth rightsandresponsibilities.But when one or more of the featuresof the paradigmareabsent (aswith a foetus immediately afterconception, or a patient sufferingfrom irreparablebraindamage)it ceases to be clear that the predicatestill applies.Irresolvableargumentsarisebecausethe predicate is a person',like 'is a Saint',claimsto recognizethe way thingsare;but,unlike 'is a Saint',it has no institutionalcontrol.To which of these threecategoriesdoes theosbelong?No ancientsource offersa semanticanalysisof theosand we thereforehave to teaseout assumptionswhich were not normallymadeexplicit. A Greek debate on the limits of polytheism shows that the term theos s in factcomparableto 'person'.Carneades,a member of the Academic school of philosophy in thesecondcenturyBC,propoundeda seriesof argumentsabout the gods, which proceedon a 'littleby little' basis from secure premises to unacceptableconclusions. One specimen of thesearguments,as reportedby Cicero, runs:6

Ifgodsexist,are henymphs lsogoddesses?fthenymphs re,are hePans ndSatyrs lsogods?Butthey are not gods;therefore he nymphsalso are not gods.Yet theypossess emplesvowed anddedicatedo themby thenation.Thereforehe othergodswho havehadtemplesdedicatedo themare not godseither.7

Cicero makes clear that Carneadesdid not advance these arguments 'with the object ofestablishingatheism .., but in orderto prove Stoic theology worthless'.One partof the Stoicprojectwas a rationaltheology which proposedtojustify popularpolytheism by showing thattheinnumerablendividualdeitieswereaspectsof one cosmicdeity. Carneades' imwas to showthat thisprojectwas a failurebecauseof its inabilityto discriminatebetweendeitiessuchasZeus,whose divinity was not in question,and otherbeingswho were clearlynot gods. He placedtheStoics in a fork: eithernothing is god or everything is god.Carneades'concern was not to draw out the semanticimplicationsof his 'little by little'reasoning,but his argumentsare of interestin this context becausethey appealto commonGreekusage;his caseagainst he Stoicswastellingonly if hisown usageoftheoswasnot aberrant.Argumentsof similartype canbe used on numerousotherpredicates e.g. onesconcerningsizeor colour), but Carneades' arguments (the most celebrated ones of this type in antiquity) do helpto characterizethe term theos.They make clear that there were no uncontroversial criteria for thepredication of theos. The boundaries of the concept were not unequivocally defined.The implication of this is that theos s the same sort of predicate as 'person'. Admittedly theoshas sometimes been seen as 'a sort of rank or status achieved through merit, with no implicationwhatever of divine nature .... Essentially the conferring of divinity was a political act that

s P. Molinari,New Catholic ncyclopediaii (1967)55-9.6 SextusEmpiricus,ontra athematicosx I82-9o andCicero,denaturaeorumii43-52,quoted rom43: sidisunt, untne tiamNymphaedeae? iNymphae,Paniscietiamet Satyri? iautemnonsunt;neNymphae deae]quidem gitur.at earumtemplasuntpublicevota etdedicata.eceteriquidem rgodi,quorum empla untdedicata.'eeon thistypeofargument .Couissin,Les

soritesde Carneade ontre e polytheisme', REG liv(1941) 43-57; J. Barnes, Medicine,experienceandlogic', in Science ndSpeculation,d. J. Barneset al.(Cambridge 982) 24-68; and esp. M. F. Burnyeat,'Gods and heaps',in Language nd logos,ed. M.Schofield,M. C. Nussbaum(Cambridge982) 315-38.7 Cicero'suse of the argument howsthat deus scomparableo theos.



4/18

GODS AND EMPERORS 81grantedhonours due for benefactions.'8 n other words theos s like Knight-a purelyhonorificterm. My argumentplacesit in a quite differentcategory. Unlike 'is a Knight' and 'is a Saint'there were no institutionalcontrols and no uncontroversial riteria or the use of 'is a theos'.Aswith 'isaperson', isa theos'makesa statementabouttheworld whichis not basedon humanfiat.There areunproblematicusesof both concepts(e.g. of Zeusor of healthyadults)but at theedgesproblemsarose.Were thenymphs,or satyrs,or emperors heoi?The elasticityof the term meantthat the emperorcouldbe included. We need now to seein some detail how theoswaspredicatedof the emperor.Wasits predicationof the emperoraberrantn comparison o its predicationofthe traditionalgods?How are we to explainits seemingly randomusage?Theoswas predicatedquite commonly of both HellenistickingsandRoman emperors.Asearly as the fourth century Bc one Greek writer commented that it was easierfor Philip ofMacedonnow to becomea theos han t hadbeenforhim to reachhispresentpositionof politicalsupremacy.9Alexander and his successorswere from time to time called theoi,both in theirlifetimes and posthumously.1' In Egypt there were official cults of the TheoiAdelphoi 'GodBrothers')and TheoiSoteres('GodSaviours'),"1 nd AntiochosIV of Syria(175-164 Bc) placed,for the firsttime, the title of theoson his coins.12 The term was alsoappliedsporadicallyn thesecond and first centuriesBC to Roma, the personificationof the power of Rome.13The Romanemperorsdid not use theosof themselveswhen communicatingin Greek withtheir subjects.14The significant exception was Gaius who railed against a Jewish embassybecausetheJews failed to recognizehim as a theos.15Claudius,Gaius'successor,reassertedhenorm of imperialbehaviour n publicly criticisingGaius'foolish and mad attemptto force theJews to call him theos.'6 Despite the standardimperial attitude, the Greek subjectsof theemperor repeatedly referred to him as theos.There are numerous uses in the lifetime ofAugustus,17and this continuesthrough the first and second centuriesAD.18However, in thethirdcenturytheoswas rarelyappliedto a living emperor;19 insteadthe adjectival orm theios('divine') was used.20 The expectation that a ruler would be acclaimedas theos s neatlyillustratedby the aspirations f an outsider. BothJewishand Christian ourcesnote thatHerodAgrippa,the Roman client rulerofJudaea,was calledtheos,andwas immediatelystruckdownby the True God for his presumption.21The usesof theos n imperialcontextsaresimilarto two of its usesin connection with thetraditionalgods. First, 'the theos'on its own could refer unambiguouslyto the emperor.Forexample, a text recording the building of imperial temples and the celebratingof imperialfestivalsby a local benefactor twice says that he displayed piety towards 'the god'.22 Thereferenceto the emperor, Augustus,was clear.Similarlythe assemblyof the provinceof Asiawhen reformingthe calendar o begin on Augustus'birthday alkseasilyabout 'thebirthdayofthe god' and about the earlier decision of the assembly'that a crown be awarded to the one

8 D. Fishwick, The ImperialCult in the Latin West(Leidenorthcoming),ollowingHabicht n. 3).9 Isoc. Ep. 3.5.10 Habicht(n. 3) 156-9; E. Badian,in AncientMacedonian tudies nHonorofCharlesF. Edson(Thessa-loniki 1981) 27-71, esp. 54-9.11P. M. Fraser,PtolemaicAlexandria(Oxford 1972)

215-20.12 0. Morkholm, Studies n theCoinageof AntiochusIV of Syria (Copenhagen 1963) 68-74.13 R. Mellor,9EA 'POMH(G6ttingen 975)12.14 Habicht ndeedargues hat Augustus xplicitlyprohibitedhe Greeksromusing t themselves:n Lecultedessouverains ansl'empire omain,Entr. Hardtxix(Vandoeuvres1973) 41-88.is Philo,Leg.353.16Josephus,AJxix 284.17 F. Taeger, Charismai (Stuttgart I960) 187 n. 3;

Habicht n. 14)84.18 E.g. Tiberius,Ann.Ep. 1934 89;Claudius,IGR iii328; Nero, P. Le Bas, W. H. Waddington, Inscriptionsgrecques t latines . . iii (i870) 6ooa; Domitian, I.Priene229; Hadrian,IGR iii 286;AntoninusPius, IGR iv 594;Commodus,TAMii 829.Cf.also P. Veyne,Latomusxxi (1962) 57; M. Le Glay, BCH c (1976) 351-3.19See, however, Plautilla, F. Imhoof-Blumer,KleinasiatischeMiinzen (Vienna 19oI) Io6 no. I , 10o7no. 6; SNG vonAulock2412-15, 2694-6; JuliaDomna,IGBulg i 623;JuliaMammaea,IGBulg i 640; Gordiani,T. E. Mionnet, Descriptionde midaillesantiques.. iii545 no. 45; alsoJulian,SideAgorasive CivarindakiBinalar(Ankara1956) 8I no. 48.20Price(n. I) ch.9.21Josephus,AJ xix 345, 347; Actsof Apostlesxii 22.22 IG xii suppl.124 (Eresus).



5/18

82 S. R. F. PRICEsuggestingthe greatesthonoursfor the god'.23 Therewas no need for the assembly o spelloutthat 'thegod' was Augustus.Thisuse of theos o referto whicheverparticular eity was in mindat the time can be documentedas early as Homer.24Secondly, theoswas addedto the name of the emperor(e.g. theosNero).25 Some scholarshavesuggestedthatthisusagewaspeculiar o imperialcontextsandimplicitlydistinguished heemperorfrom the traditionalgods, who did not need to be calledtheos.26In factthe sameusageis found in connectionwith the gods. By the imperialperiod it was common to refer to theosDionysos or theaAphrodite.27While theoswas sometimesused when the standingof the deityhad been threatened28 r aspartof a phrase n appositionto the name of the diety (suchas 'theleading gods Artemisand Apollo'),29in most casestheos s added to the barename of the godwithout any discerniblereasonfor emphasis.30Thus the use of 'theosNero' is not a markofuncertaintyabout the emperor'sstatus; t is in line with contemporaryreligioususage.There was considerablefluidityin the usesof theos.First, t was employed in both religiousand non-religioussituations.While the inscriptionsbelow imperialstatues n the sanctuaries fthe gods sometimescalledthe emperor heos,31tatueserectedelsewhere n secularcontextsweredescribed n the same way,32 and secularbuildingssuch as porticoes, theatresand bathswerededicatedto the theoiemperors.33Secondly, within religiouscontexts the emperorwas calledtheos n what seems a haphazardashion.Priesthoods, or example, sometimessimply give thename of theemperorandsometimesaddtheos ranotherdivinename.Thusonly aquarterof thecivic priesthoodsof Augustus term him theos in his lifetime.34 The flexibility of usage isillustratedby the differencebetween the titles of the two priesthoodsof Augustusheld by onemanfromBargylia n Caria n about AD80.35This manwashighpriestof thegoddessRomaandof the god SebastosCaesar(either n anothertown or in theprovincialassembly),high priestofEmperorTitus and priestof ArtemisKindyasand SebastosCaesar(both at Bargylia).This all seemsvery confusing,asif the Greeksusedtheoscompletelyat random.In fact thereasonfor the variability n usageis that therewere no institutionalproceduresnor establishedcriteriacontrollingthe predicationof theosof the emperor.When a city came to passa decree twas not concernedto debate the status of theosbut to establisha cult of the emperor.36Theclearestexpressionof the procedure s a decree of the city of AcraephiaepassedafterNero hadrestoredfreedom to Greece.37

23 R. K. Sherk,RomandocumentsfromtheGreekEast(Baltimore969)no. 65 lines41 and43 (a slightlysuperior ext isinU. Laffi,SCO xvi [1967]atp. 22). Cf.also I.Olympia53.8 and 37 and OGIS 456.17.24 References n G. Frangois,Lepolytheismetl'emploiau singulierdesmots THEOS, DAIMON (Paris 1957)317-23.

25 SNG CopenhagenAeolis 139-43 (Cyme), Phrygia567-8 (Laodicea),702 (Synaos).26 L. Cerfaux,J. Tondriau,Lecultedessouverainsansla civilisation grico-romaine (Tournai 1957) 191.27 L. Robert, Hellenicaxiii (1965) 176 analysesthedata from Aphrodisias; e.g. LEpEbVStL flov OEotlAtovVaoov (MAMA viii 454), 70ro lpoi 8GEas'AfpoSEtrryL (MAMA viii 521).28 Syll.3 867=I.Ephesosia 24.29 IGR iii 583-4= TAM ii 188-9.30 As Robert notes, the development of this usagehasnot receiveddetailedstudy. It seems to be largely aphenomenon of the later Hellenistic and Romanperiods, but it has roots in Homer (Od. xiii 189-90; xix396-7). I candiscernno significance n the variations nthe titlesofjoint priesthoodsof a traditionalgod andtheemperor (e.g. IGR iv 229, 984; TAM ii 1200).31 IGR iv I8o = I.Lampsakos i i; Hist. Zeits. xxix

(1921-2) 217 n. I; BCH ix (1885) 79 no. Io.

32 SEG xxiii 450 (Demetrias).33 SEG ix760(Ilyas);GRv 8o8 Hierapolis);GRiii 664= TAM ii 4o8 (Patara); .Labraundai 65.34 Namely, IGR iv 256=I.Assos 15; IGR iv

1302= I.Kyme 19; Altertiimer von Pergamonviii.3 (1969)164-5.35 BCH v (1881) 191 no. 14 with BCH xviii (1894)25 no. 21 and C. Fayer,II cultodelladea Roma(Pescara1976)142-3.It spossiblehat heuseof theawithRomainfluencedhe mperialsagenthe irstpriesthood.36 See,however,he (obscure)ebaten AthensaboutAlexander:adianoc. it. n.Io).

I37LS 8794= Syl.3 814: pPXLEPE" r&v ZEP-aa-rv 8tLdflov KaL NEpwcvos KAavstov KataaposZE aorrov 'ETazELtvCvS8a 'EirazEtvCLovvov ELTTEV7Tpo EPovAEv1LEPVOV Eav7rLo ELVaL TpOgS TrE77V povA7vKaG -r7v 8 tLOV' 7TL8r7d ro rTavT7O KOrLOVUKUptLONE'pwv, waVTOKpat7p /LEytLaOS, 8-rlapXLKr/9 EOU'Mls

SrptpLKaLt"KaTov7To08E8ELytVOS,TT-r77p7Tmarpl,vEoS 'HAtoSL7TAtdl4asro- EAA7ortvTpoELprl7tVOSEvEpyErTEv-v 'EAAdSa,EdlcfllIEVOs KaLKa EflVTroV9sEOvSg dv TTaptLr7avojlEvovgSv t 7raV7o7EErL7TpOVOLL KaGL UT77PtLa, 77/V Cd7T7TTLV7OS 70t vC WVOSaOLtyEv7/ Kat av7roXOova EAEvOEptlav7rrpOEpovdaLtpEOLaavwv 'EEAAmvwvSKaKLovoS 7rWVi7Taltovos avTOKpaTW p /iEyLUTOSqLAEAAqV EVO/EVOS



6/18

GODS AND EMPERORS 83Thehighpriestf theemperorsor ifeandof NeroClaudiusaesarebastos,pameinondasonofEpameinondaspoke:. . 'SinceNero he ordofthewholeuniverse,reatestmperor,oldinghetribunicianowerorthe hirteenthimeelect, ather f hiscountry,awned sa newSun or heGreeks,speciallyhoseno benefitGreece,nd everedurgodsnreturnor he act hat heyhadalwaystood esideim orhiscare ndprotection;nd,beingheoneand nlyemperororall ime,mightiest hilhellenicero ZeusEleutheriosZeus f Freedom)ave,grantedndrestoredheindigenousnd mmemorialreedomreviouslyemovedrom heGreekso tsancientonditionfautonomynd reedom..; thereforetwasdecidedythemagistrates,ouncillorsndpeopleodedicateor hepresentnaltar y[the tatuef]Zeus heSaviour,nscribingt"toZeusEleutheriosNero orever" nd o establishtatuesnthetemplefApolloPtoiosjointlyithourancestralgodsof NeroZeusEleutheriosndof TheaSebasteMessalina...'

The city did not have anelaborateprocedurewith clearcriteria,ikethatof theVatican orcanonization,hichunequivocallyudged hatNerowasto be identifiedwith ZeusEleutherios.Theemperorhad madea magnanimousestoration f freedomandthecity respondedwithadecision o establish cult.The terminologyand the associatedprocedureor divinizingan emperorwere verydifferentnRome.There heofficial ositionwasclear.Theemperorwasnot adeus('god')nhislifetime,butafterhisdeathhemightbemadeadivus.38 ntheRepublican erioddivus nddeushadbeenusednterchangeably;wo scholars f the irstcenturyBCVarro ndAteius) ttemptedtodistinguishetween heterms, aying hatdiviwereeternal utdei like hediimanes,rspiritsof thedead)werehonoured ecause f their onsecration.39 nfact heirprescriptiveefinitionwasunsuccessful;he two termsweredistinguishedn officialusage,butin the reverse ense.Fromthe cult of the deceasedJuliusCaesaronwardsdivusreferredexclusivelyn officialterminologyo formeremperors nd members f theirfamily.Theywere thusdistinguishedfrom the traditionalei.40Therewerea standardprocedure nd clearcriteriaor the creationof a divus.Aftertheemperor'suneral he senatemet and coulddecide o establish n official ult of the formeremperor orto do nothing,or to damn heemperor'smemory). nthe firstcenturyAD, iveemperorsndeightmembers f theimperial amilyreceived hese'heavenly onours'.41Thismayall soundvery 'political', ut despitepressures,heprocedurewas not likethearbitrarydubbing f aknight.Thesenate,iketheVatican,wastraditionallyhesupremeeligious rbiterand nthe caseof formeremperorst took a decision n the basis f thereport f a witnesswhohadseen hesoulof theemperorisingoheaven.Thecreationfadivus,ikethatof aSaint,was

[Npwv] ZE's 'EAEvU6ptoS 1E'wKEV, xaplaTro,Ya7TOKa~7EU77)rV ELS7rVapXatLd7T7a 7T7 aV'TovotltasKat EUEpltaS, rrpoQELsT) LyY Ka Lrpoo-S0KOK7W8WPE Kat dVELUOplotaV, VO 6SE7jV7rpd7EpovZEpaTr(WvO"ATEArWKEV' S 'a78 7T17aESYL'vovL EtvatL 70oS rTEpXovgt KavvLUVpOQ Ka7Twr3771W KaLEpWUaLtEVKaTa 7T rapov 70v 7rrp~sT LLtt 7(0 ZwrptL f WCLdV,E7rTLypda0ov7aSAL'EAv6EpA' [NEppwv]L tLatlova, KatLylyAa7ra v 7TOvaW 70oi 'An7'AAoVos 70"To 7wT'rovavvKaOE3tSpoV7'ra7oQSwY] ~a7ptoIL e9oES NEpwrvoS]zt'EAEvOEpl'ov Kat' Ec9LS 7E9ag77gs [ME9aailvs], Ltva70o7w)V oQU7WS7EhAEU0Evr7V Kat 7 7)trE7EpaTrdALScl1v)7cLTaUvL 7VEL/77V Kat EUU/ELcV EK7TETAVpW-KvIa Es rTOv Tro Kvptov EEEaa9Tro NeppwvosotKOV.]IEtvaL E'EVavaypa)T7 7 0bLUtaCarTapaTE70ALLtTw Worpt 'Vv ~ dlyop ^V aUT~A-iKa,v TWLtEPC70o3A7r'AAwVoS01o7WlotoU.This assimilationadextraresonance ecause f theancient cult of Zeus Eleutherios elebratedby theLeagueof Greeksat the neighbouring lataea.Cf.R.Etienne, M. Pierart, BCH xcix (1975) 63-7; W. C.West, GRBS xviii (1977) 315-I6. Note that Sebastoss

the Greek equivalentof Augustus see n. 45).38 S. Weinstock,DivusJulius(Oxford 1971) 386-92;E. Bickerman, 'Consecratio', n Cultedessouverains(n.14) 3-25 and 'Diva AugustaMarciana', AJPxcv (1974)362-76. See further W. Schwering, 'Deus und divus.EinesemasiologischeStudiealsErgainzungum Artikeldivus in Thesaurus linguae latinae', IndogermanischeForschungenxxxiv (1914-15) 1-44.39 Servius on Aen. v 45 (= Varrofr.424 GrammaticaeRomanaeragmenta, d. Funaioli).The Ateius is eitherAteius Praetextatus,a contemporaryof Varro (fr. 12Funaioli),or Ateius Capito, an Augustanwriter (fr. 15Funaioli).See also Servius on Aen. xii 139 (=Varro, delingua at.fr. 2, Goetz-Schoell).40 Deus was used 'unofficially' of emperors (andothers) (I.M. LeM. Du Quesnay,PapersoftheLiverpoolLatinSeminarii (I981) 104, on the late Republic; TLLs.v. 'deus', col. 891. 10-78), but this shows only thatdivusmight be seen as a subsetof deus; here remains acontrast with the undivided category of theos.41 For a list see R. Cagnat, Coursd'6pigraphieatine4(1914) 170--2 with E. Stein, Hermes lii (1917) 571-8.



7/18

84 S. R. F. PRICEtherecognition f a stateof affairs.t was also a definitive ecognition.When thesenatehaddecided, herewas none of the semantic uzziness boutdivuswhichis characteristicf thepredicationf theos.TheGreeks idnot create category omparableo divus.t wasnot thattheywereignorantof the officialRomansystem.Romansilvercoinage,which circulatedwidelyin the Greekworld,featuredhe Roman itles.Milestones,ut upby theRomanauthorities,enerally avethe emperor'sitles.42Letters rom the emperor o Greekcitiesstartedwith the fullofficialtitulature.Forexample,a letterfrom Nero to Rhodesbegins: Nero Claudius,on of theosClaudius,randsonf TiberiusCaesar ebastosndGermanicusaesar, reatgrandsonf theosSebastos,Caesar SebastosGermanicus,high priest, holding tribunicianpower, to themagistrates,ouncil and peopleof Rhodes,greetings.'43The emperorreferscorrectly oClaudius ndAugustus, ndnot to Tiberius ndGermanicus,s deified.TheGreeks husknewthat n Romethelivingemperorwas not deus r divus nd heycould ellwhichemperorsweredivifilius.Buttheydid not establish simple ermas a preciseranslationf divus.Occasionalperiphrases,uchas 'theheavenly mperor' r 'theemperor mong hegods',wereemployed,mainly n heavilyRomanizedontexts,44 utgenerallyhetermusedwas theos. t is thereforetempting o supposehat theou uios an be seenas a translationf divifilius.The numerousnstancesf thephraseheou uiosnimperialitlesndocumentsproduced ytheGreekshemselvesmightseem o betranslationsromLatinbearinghesamemeaning sthe'original'.45 hey mayindeedoften functionasequivalentsf theLatindivifilius,but theirmeaning annotbe the same incetheyformpartof a differentconceptualystem.46Thetheoselement f theou uiosetainedheelusivity f thecommonGreekusageoftheos. o,while t wasimpossibleo refer o thelivingemperor sdivifilius ivus, ecause eonlybecame ivus fterhisdeath, heGreeks ouldrefer o theliving emperor stheou uiosheos('god,son of god').Forexample,a statuewas erectedof 'EmperorCaesar, on of theos, heosSebastos,who hasperformedncomparableeeds orallpeople'.47Thismodifiedphrase ould even be used nconjunctionwith 'translations'f furtherRoman itles.Inthelifetimeof Augustusherewas a'priest f RomaandEmperorCaesar,on of theos,heos ebastos, ighpriestandfatherof hiscountry'.48 he factthat he Greeks ouldusetheou uios heos,ven nconjunction ith otherRomantitles,showsthattheydid not regard he simple heouhuiosn the sameway as theRomans awdivifilius.thadadifferentrangeofevocations,ormingpartof aradicallyifferentconceptual ystem.

42 E.g. IGR iii 82, 138, 145; iv 267, 599-601. IGR iv924-6 are peculiar in beginning roi^9 OBcAvEr-aavEardroL9(reign of SeptimiusSeverus).

43 IGR iv II24= Syll.3 810: [NEpwv] KAaU'8tos,0EovEKAavSl'ovLdO,tfEplov KaIo[a]pos ZEflaroTVKa EpLaptvLKOia'aapos 7yyovos, 0Eo- ZEP3aaTroQvadroyovos, Kataap [EE]aarOds' pptavLKdS, dpx-LEpeSa,8 apXLKr)9OUlUtaS, arTOKpa'oTWp,OSLo)VapXovUL ovAi^ [Sj]l XcalpEvW44 IGR iii 83= ILS 5883= OJhxxviii (1933)Beib. 64no. 13 (Amastris):divi Aug. perpetuus acerdos/ o r70oicrovpavlov OEovQ(,(E)Paa0rov ApX[LEPEst 8a fliov?];J. Reynolds, Aphrodisias nd Rome (London 1982) no.22. 6; IGR iv 115o=ASAA xxvii-xxix (1949-51) 284no.38(Camirus):TETELLrjEvoS97oSLEVEKSro'7-JvEvOE~stA7"TOKpaTodpwYv;EG xi 492-3 (Laconia):6 ivOEoQLe"ASptavds.45 Note also how the Greek 'sebastophantes'sedwrongly to be equated with the flamen Augusti, thestandard term for an imperial priest in the westernempire;in fact the sebastophantesrobably displayedanimperial image in the imperial mysteries, which areunique to the Greek world (H. W. Pleket, HThR lviii[1965] 338-41). It is alsowrong to imagine that Sebastos

is an exact translation f the LatinAugustus.t didindeedbecomethe standardequivalent lmost nstan-taneously e.g.SEGxxvi 1243= I.Ephesosii 902), butits semanticmotivation s morestrongly eligioushanAugustus.t also functioneddifferently;the Sebastoi'mayrefer o twojointAugusti,ut it mayequally eferto a soleemperor ndhis collective ncestors:e.g. IGRiv 1676 (Apollonia, Mysia; AD 40--); IGR iv15o9 = Sardisvii.i 45 (c. AD80); IGR iii 493 (Oenoanda;Trajanic);IG v.1 380 (Sparta;AD 15).46 Thus the questionwhether theouhuioswas usedofsomeone who was not divifilius s irrelevant o my case.47 IGR iv 201 =I.Ilion 81: A3TOKpa70opa KaL'aapaOEoQ vUdvOE8v 2E[pa]UTordV,d7rE#pfA-Tros97rpaoEULtvKEX[P)IE'VOVKaL EUEpYEUlaLS97T1S EtS a"7TraV]TaSdv0pdnrovs. Cf. IGR iv 309-II, 314 (Augustus,Pergamum);L. Robert,RPh xiii3 (1939) 181-3 = OperaMinoraSelecta i 1334-6 (Tiberius,Myra); IGR iii 286(Hadrian, saura).48 IGR iv 1302=I.Kyme I9, lines 54-7: rM LEpEos-r-S 'PT"tPas Ka' ATKp 70opoS Ka('aposc'w L'wOwZaEpaoUTw f PXLEPEos /yl4ELTW Kat 7aT7pOS7TaraTrpl80os.f. IGR iv 594 (Synaos).



8/18

GODSAND EMPERORS 85The mismatch etween helistof Romandiviandtheimperial ults n the Greekworldsupportshispoint.The thrustof the Greeksystemwas towards hefigureof the reigningemperor, ndcults i.e.priests rtemples) reattestedor almost ll thereigning mperorsnthefirstcenturyAD. nparticular,s we havealreadyeen(p.8i), theoswasfrequently sedof the

living emperor.The creation f a divusmade ittledifferencen the Greekworld. Greek ultsweregenerally ot initiatedspecificallyor a divus;49ndeedcultsof thereigning mperor idnot oftenoutlast isreign,even fhewasdeifiednRome.When,aswith cultsofAugustus,heydid endure, he Romanceremonialmade no difference.The titles of civic priesthoods fAugustus ontinued o refer o himin differentways,sometimes stheos,ometimes ot.50Somescholarsend otreat heos smeaningful nlywhen ttranslatesivus.Thisview oftherelationshipetween heGreek ndRomansystemseems o lie behind hemoderndictionariesof Greek erms or Roman nstitutions.5The Greek ntriesn suchdictionariesredeemed ohavemeaning nlyasbitsofersatz-Latin.hat s,correctnessf translationsthesolecriterion fsignificance.Of course, f a Greekwanted to say divifilius he would say theouhuios,butfunctionalequivalences not thesamethingasidentityof meaning.52Compare,orexample,theFrench,German ndTurkishwordsused n the samealcoholic ontextas'Cheers!':ante,prostand gerefe re functionalequivalents,but have quite different'meanings'-'health','advantage'nd 'honour'.Nor canthe mindsor intentions f the Greekspeakerserveasacriterion of meaning independentof the two languages.53 ntentionsmay indeed beindependentf languages, ut they do not give meaning o words.Humpty Dumptywaswrongtosay hatwhenhe usedaword t meantjustwhathe chose o make tmean.Weshouldtherefore otimagine hat heGreekswerereally hinkingn Latin,but hadthe misfortuneoexpresshemselvesn Greek.Thepredicationf theos f theemperor,hough t is in certaincontextsequivalentodivusnLatin,hasmeaningn thecontextof generalGreekusageof theos.

IITheosbelongs oarangeof Greekreligiousermswhichwillrepayanalysis.npart hiswillfilloutourunderstandingf theos.Afterall,no termcanbeunderstood nitsown;comparisonandcontrast reessential.54 naddition, nalysis f thewholesetof termswill showhow theylocatethe emperorbetweenhumananddivine.The argumentnvolvesa challengeo ourChristianizingssumptions.Wehavestrongviewsabout he nature f Godandhow Heshouldbe addressed,ut our ideasabout heinvisibilityf God andtheimportancef prayers onotnecessarilypply o the Greekworld.Theanalysiswill fall ntotwo sections:irst, hereligioustermsused o describeheemperor ndhiscult; econdly,hereligiousanguage ddressedotheemperor.(i) An analysis f thereligiousdescriptionsf theemperormaybeginwith thepractice fassimilatingheemperoro particularameddeities.55Thispractice,whichwe havealreadynotedbriefly p. 83), is a stronger ariantof the generalpredicationf theos.The namesof

49 L. Robert, Hellenica i (1946) 37-42.5soE.g. IGR iv 454 (Pergamum; AD 16): TrvvoEWKdpovOE-s'PTc"rs~9aLoEQOEaPuarouatoapos;IGR iii 360= L. Robert, Lesgladiateurs ans 'Orientgrec(Paris 94o)no.97(Sagalassos;ndcent.): pXLEpCa70oXEcaa-rou. The provincial assemblyof Asia, however,attemptedo follow the lead of Rome; ts high priestwas 'of theos Sebastos'only after Augustus'death(W. H. Buckler, RPh ix3 [1935] 177-88).51 H. J. Mason, Greektermsfor Roman institutions(Toronto1974).Note thereviewbyM.Crawford,JRSlxix (1979) 249-50.52 W. V. O. Quine, WordandObject Cambridge,Mass. 1960).

s3 G. W. Bowersock, in Culte dessouverains(n. 14)199: It is evident hatcultivatedGreeksat leastwerefullyconscious f the differenceetweendivus nddeus,evenif theywereobliged o renderbothby thesameword'.54 See e.g. P. Ziff, SemanticAnalysis(Ithaca 1960).An obvious areaof contrast,which I do not discusshere,is between 'god' and 'hero': see Price (n. I) esp. ch. 2. Inote here that the paganuse of 'son of god' probablyhasno bearingon earlyChristianusage:see M. Hengel, TheSon of God (London 1976) 30.5s P. Riewald, De imperatorumomanorumumcertisdis et comparationet aequationeDiss. phil. Halle xix. 31912) hasmuchof theevidence.



9/18

86 S. R. F. PRICEemperorand god are sometimessimply collocated('TiberiusClaudiusCaesarSebastosGermanicus eusSaviour ndAgrippina ebasteDemeterKarpophorosHarvest-bringer]');56sometimesheyareseparated y neos 'new'): 'Emperor aesarTrajanHadrian ewDionysosOlympiosPanhellenios').57hemostcommonassimilationtogivethefiguresortheevidencefromAsiaMinor)was between heemperor ndZeus(26), though welveof theinstancesrefor Hadrian lone.Next in frequencywere assimilations ith Helios(12) andDionysos(8).Empresses ereassimilatedo femaledeities, speciallyHera 18),Aphrodite1) andDemeter(5).Thepractice f assimilatingmperor nddeitylooksveryodd to oureyes.We mightbetemptedothink hat timplieshat heemperorwasan ncarnationf thedeity nquestion, utincarnations a conceptwhich only becomesimportantwith the birthof Christ.58Ourdifficultiesrisebecausewe cannot ee how thecollocation f two names(e.g.'Tiberius'nd'Zeus') stablishesrelationshipetween wo separate eings. Zeus's of coursensomewaysthe familiar ame or an ndividualanthropomorphiceity,butit isimportanto seethat t canalsooperate sapredicate eferringo acertainypeof divinepower(apointto whichwe shallreturn, ectionIII).If 'Zeus'can thusoperateiketheos,t becomespossibleo understandheaddition f Zeusto theemperor's ameasthepredicationf divinepowerof him.Therange fsuchpredications,hichalso eemsconfusing,scomprehensiblenthelightofthe three-fold tructures f Greekreligion.First,at the most general evel, there was thehierarchyf theOlympian antheonwhichwasrecognized yall Greeks.Theposition f Zeusat the headof thispantheonxplainswhytheemperorwassofrequentlyssimilatedohim;anadditionaleasonnthe caseof Hadrianwashisclosecontactwith Zeusthroughhiscompletionof the templeof Zeus n Athens.Secondly,at the level of individual ities,a particulareitymight acquirehroughocalcultsand festivalsgreatermportancehanhe or sheheldat thePanhellenicevel.Thisexplainsmanyof theotherassimilations.orexample,t wasnaturaloassimilateheemperoroApolloandAsklepiosntheir anctuariesn Cos.59Thirdly,here sasmall categoryof uniqueassimilationswhich were made in response o particularocalcircumstancesutwhichdidnotrelate o a localcult.Forexample,Hadrian asonceassimilatedto ZeusKynegesiosZeusof Hunting)as a resultof hisexploits n a bearhuntin Mysia.60Assimilationsf this ortalsoreflect feature f Greekreligion. t wasalwayspossibleorespondto peculiar ventsby postulatingninterventionby theappropriateeity.Ifassimilationstemptus to thinkof theIncarnation,he useof the nextterm heosepiphanesrecalls he Epiphany-God mademanifestn the world.HellenistickingsfromPtolemyVonwardsusedEpiphan~sspartof theirofficialitles,Antiochus V of Syriacombiningt withtheos(n.12). Theemperoroo wasoftendescribedstheosepiphanesr,inthesuperlativeorm,as epiphanestatosheon,mostepiphanesf the gods'.Forexample,a statuebasereferredoClaudius s Tiberius laudiusCaesar ebastosGermanicusheosepiphanFs,aviour fourpeopletoo'.61 SimilarlyMarcusAurelius ndCommoduswerehonoured s'EmperorMarcusAureliusAntoninusheon piphanestatos,aster f landandsea,andEmperorCommodusCaesar,heonepiphanestatos,master of land and sea'.62 Scholars have often seen epiphanesas 'a peculiarly

56 A. Maiuri, Nuova sillogeepigrafica i Rodi e Cos(Florence1925) no. 468.57 SEG xv 530 (Chios).58 A. D. Nock, JHS xlviii (1928) 30-8 =Essays onReligion and the Ancient World (Oxford 1972) 144-52.Fora poet as'new Homer' see A. E. Raubitschek,Hesp.xxiii (I954) 317-19 and I.Side 107.59 Hist. Zeits. xxix (1921-2) 217 n. I (Apollo); AA1903 193, IGR iv Io53, io6i (Asklepios).60 L. Robert, BCH cii (1978) 437-52=SEG xxvii809.61 TAM ii 760c (Arneae): TL3E'ptovKAav'SLovKalaapa ZEfaar6v rFptzavLKo'v,OEO E'7rtbav-/,

rowrqpa KatL trofvl 7LEEOUV&ov, 'ApvEarTv-q9ovAn%al d8nOS eEuqTE4UV 7rat9 Tp1-[aLSTELtaLS].Also e.g. IGR iii 68o= TAM ii 420 (Patara), IGR iv 986(Samos). I discuss 4ukav7I and Errt'avis together as Icannot detect any significantdifferencesbetween them(cf.LSJs.vv.).62 C. H. E. Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia(Princeton 1971) 333 no. 93: av'roKpd'-ropa Mi(pKov)AlpCAto[v] 'AV-WVE-Vov,Ewv EcavE'rarov, y~^ KaLOaAduaar7sEcr7Tro'rV, Kat arTOKpa7Opaa Kd4LoSovKalaapa, rjvOvO vvqavEar'uarov, Yi OaAdaa&rs8Eca7rrrqv. lsoe.g. IGRiii 704 iii. 14-16 (Cyaneae),SEG xvi 758 (Derbe), IGR iv 341 (Pergamum).



10/18

GODS AND EMPERORS 87religiouserm',63both nthe contextof the cultof thetraditionalgodsandof theemperor, ndthey translateepiphaness 'manifest' ndepiphaneias 'manifestation'.ut epiphaness not auniquely eligiouserm;thasabroadrangeof uses npurely ecularontexts,where t canbestbe translated ot as 'manifest' ut as 'distinguished'r 'prominent'. orexample,countlessinscriptionseresetup'inthemostprominent' artof asquarersanctuary;eoplebelongedo'themostdistinguished'epiphanestatos)amily;64whileepiphaneiaould referto the sudden'appearance'f theenemy n battle.65Epiphanesas thusa wordwith a convenientwidthofmeaningwhich couldrefer o both divineandnon-divine.66Ourpreoccupationith theproblem f God'spresencentheworld eadsustoimaginehat'epiphanes'asparticularlysefulnsolving heproblem f thephysical resencef theemperorincontrastwith thegodswhoweregenerally ot visible o humaneyes.Onemightthink hattheosepiphanesasaresponseo thevisiblepresencef theemperorntheprovinces, ut tcouldbe usedofanemperorwhonevervisited heGreekworld n.61).Alternatively,nemight hinkthatthe useof thesuperlative as a way of handling he visiblepresence f the emperornRome;unlike hetraditionalgods,who weremanifest nlyfromtimeto time, heemperorwas'themost manifest f thegods'.Butthis dea srefutedby the factthat he traditionalgodstoowere often described ot only as theosepiphanesut alsoas epiphanestatosontheon.67Theosepiphan-sherefore eems o be applied o theemperor ndthe godsin the sameway.Our Christianizingerspectives in dangerof blindingus to the fact that the earthlypresencef theemperor osednoproblemorthe Greeks.Afterall,thephysical ppearancefthetraditionalodswasalwayspossible.Forexample, second-centuryDpriestesstDidymaasked he oracle here oradvicebecause hewasworriedsince, rom he timethat tookupthepriesthood,hegodshaveneverappearedepiphaneis)o much,bothin theformsof girlsandwomenandalso n the formsof men andchildren'.68Theseappearanceshichsoworriedhepriestesswerenormally aken o be a signof divinefavour.An Ephesian ecreeof the sameperiodclaimsthat the worshipof Artemiswas extremelywidespreadbecause f the clearepiphaneiaihatweremadebyher'(n. 28).The notionof epiphaneiaasthusappropriateortheemperor's irthdayndaccession. heassembly f theprovince f Asia tatedhat thebirthdayof the god (sc.Augustus)marked or the worldthe beginningof good tidings hroughhiscoming'.69 Theemperor'sccessionwasdescribedn similarerms: When heannouncementwas madeof the ruleof GaiusCaesarGermanicusebastos,whichhadbeenhopedandprayedforbyallpeople, herewasnolimitto the world'sjoy;everypeoplehasbeeneager orthesightof the god, sincethe happiest ra for mankindhasnow begun.'v7The predicationf theosepiphan-smplied hat theemperorwaspresentn the world ike one of thetraditionalgods.Themortality f theruler, ike hisphysicalpresence,mightseemto be anotherproblemwhichneeded olution.Ever inceHomer hegodshadbeenathanatoi('deathless').hegodsdidnotdie; heemperor id.Infact herewasno realdifficulty,sathanatosouldbeappliedo theemperornvariousways.Immortality aspredicatedf the ndividualemperor.A Greek ivic

63 Mellor(n. 13) 14; similarlyWeinstock n. 38)296-7 and M. Le Glay, BCH c (1976) 353, 365. Seegenerally .Pfister,REsuppl. iv (1924) 277-323 andE.Pax, RAC v (1962) 832-909.64 Syll.3 796 B IO;IGR iii 628= TAM ii 288.65LSJ .v. ZErtodkvEta.66 Nock (n. 58) 38-41I=Essays152-6.67 F. Steinleitner,Die Beicht m Zusammenhange itder sakralenRechtspflegen der Antike (Leipzig 1913)15-21; Altertiimer onPergamoniii. 3 no. IoI.68 I.Didyma 496 with L. Robert, Hellenicaxi-xii(1960) 543-6: wrTEL,r7E77"rlEparvf lavI dVrE''Aq)Ev,o08Vror7rV7sOLg ol t EavE-lsL''TrLcrrdcrEwVyEyEv7v-rat,-70ror70iv 8td TrapOEvwO Kal yuvaLKOV,70ro70 8E Kat St' dppEVWV Ka Vr7pWoWV,TL TOLOUrTO

Kat El E7TLaltiLo; Cf. POxy 1381 (2nd cent. AD).69 Sherk(n. 23) 65, lines4o-1: "pEV 47wLKdOULWL-rcv SLt' i-rov EvavyEMA[wv 7 yEva'Atos 7,]E'Ipa 70)0evo. 'Epiphaneia'was not often used explicitly. Forimperialvisitsepidemia,which lacksreligiousovertones,was more frequent. Cf also parousia (L. Robert,Hellenica xiii (1965) 129-31).70 IGR iv 251 = I.Assos 26: ELt7 Ka7rEvX7lV racLtvadvOpnots 'AmrtTLOEiGa alov Kalaapos rFEptavLKoO

EflaaUrov 7'yEp ovta Ka7'r/vyEA7aL, oE V3ESE 7pOVxap~s Evp7KE 0K6KcOS, ia a 8 7rLSo KaG rV "OvoETLrV 701) UEOvLv 0 ECYTrEvKEV,cs av 701Tlv7OTOavOpor7rots tcwvos vvv var~70ro, ... Cf. IGR ivII02, a dating ormula.



11/18


12/18

GODS AND EMPERORS 89The useof eusebeiaepresentssignificanthoiceof terms.Eunoia 'loyalty')waswhat ocalcitizensdisplayedowards heirown communities.t was alsosometimesalled or in oathsofallegianceo the emperor,but eusebeia as a stronger erm,not used of allegianceo localcommunities. heimportancef the distinction etween hese erms s well illustratedy the

honoursawarded o a man on Samos forhis eusebeiaowards he FoundressHera,CaesarGermanicusebastoson of Germanicusi.e. Gaius) ndhishouse'andalsofor 'theeunoiandmunificentdisposition'whichhe showedto thecity and ts association f elders(gerousia).82Eusebeiaasa conceptwhichhelped o define hereligiousdomainof theGreeks, emainingimportant ownto the endof antiquity.83 hedisplay f pietyto thegodsthroughheregularperformance f cult secureda stableorder;it was even responsibleor specificdivineinterventions.84The displayof eusebeiao the emperoremphasizedhat the subjectsweredependent n theemperor s on thegods.Eusebeiaas,however,compatiblewith honours otstrictlydivine.85Thecityof Cyzicuspassed decree'concerningusebeiaowardsSebastostheemperorGaius) ndhonoursowardsthekings'andwemightexpect hat hedecree fferedheemperor ivinehonoursncontrastothosegiven ohisclientkings. nfact hiswasnot thecase.Theritualprescribedythedecreeorthevisitof theclientkings and heirmother)o thecitywasprayersythepriests ndpriestessesatthetemples f thegods on behalfof the eternal uration f theemperor nd hesafetyof thekings'.86The formula aises heemperor bovehisclientkings,but theprayerswere o thegodsonhis behalf.Thecity'seusebeiaidnotraise heemperoro aparwith thegods.Thecomplexcomparisonnddifferentiationf emperor ndgodswhich simplicitn theterm sotheoiimaisalsopresentn thetermwhichsumsup theaim of theimperial ult.

(ii)Thesecondtypeof languagewhichIwish oconsidersthataddressedotheemperornthecults. leave o one side heways n whichsubjectsddressedheemperornperson.87Theyarepoorlydocumentedntheearlyempire, hough t isclear hat he termswhichwe havejustbeendiscussingwereunacceptablen Rome.There heemperorwas treated scitizen,not asgod.Intheprovinces, owever, he formsof addressemployedntherituals,ikethe ndividualtermsdiscussed bove,establish complexrelationshipetweenthe emperorand the gods.These ormsof addressallinto threemaincategories:aths,praise ndprayers.(a)Oathspromisingoyaltyandobedience o theemperorweresworn nthe namesof thegodsandof theemperor.Forexample,heCypriotoathto Tiberius(n. 81)was in thenameofour AkraiaAphrodite',ther ocalgodsof the islandand he descendantf Aphrodite ebastostheosCaesar nd he eternalRoma'.HereAugustuss invokedposthumously,ut another ath,takenwhenPaphlagoniaasincorporatedntotheRomanempire3Bc),calledupon he ivingemperor:Zeus,Earth,Sun,all thegodsandgoddesses ndSebastos imself'.88Augustuss.placedat the end of the witnesses o the oathanddistinguishedromthesequence f godsand

82 IGR iv 981: Ev'oElEaSgpV [EVIEKEV7"S [ELS9 TIEr-iv [dpxrlYryE'wHpaVKa KalaoapaFEpptavLKO3vL'VrEptzavLKOV?E/aauov KaG7rv OLKOvTO, EvvolaS84%at LtAoo'dov StLaOE'uEWSls 7riV 7ralpuS Kaat rivyEpovalav. Cf. Milet i.3 134.

83 Rudhardt (n. 76) I1-17; D. Kaufmann-Biihler,RAC vi (1966) 985-o1052; Burkert (n. 2) 408-12. A newterm threskeia, lso meaning 'piety', but with a morespecifically religious connotation, appeared in theRoman period (L. Robert, Etudes epigraphiques tphilologiques [Paris 1938] 226-35; Hellenica ii [1946]132-3) and is attested twice of the emperor:Sherk (n.23) no. 65 lines 25 and B 5; REG xix (1906) ioo no. 14.84See the texts on the aid of Hekateand Zeus toStratonicea:I.Stratonikeia 10, 14, 20; ii.I 512, 1101(with L. Robert, EtudesAnatoliennes[Paris 1937] 29,516-23).

85 Eusebeiaasalso hown ofamilyand riends: ioOr. xxxi 12-15; Ath. Mitt. lxxv (1960) 162, no. 60;Syll.3 I107; IG ii2 1275.86 IGR iv 145= Syll.3 798: ElaaauOat Zv -rEp "77~Fa"tov Kaluapos alvoov 8tatov'q9 Kal rovo7WVcwrvplias.87 Note that 'MenanderRhetor'ends hisrecommen-dations for a speech to the emperor by stressingtheimportanceof prayersto the gods for the emperor (ed.D. A. Russell,N. G. Wilson [Oxford 1981] 92).88 IGR iii 137= OGIS 532= ILS 8781= StudiaPon-tica ii 66:OtCvow, la, Jr7v, 'HAtOV,OEobVrcadvra[9S a7Ta]Uas Kat aG -rv r'y ?E aU[T 'v EVvOrj[cELVKalcrapL?EZacrUcLLa O7 7[E'K]VOLS yydO'[VOLSE]avoi0 av[-r]a7--]voi,3lov] po'vovK,[ao']ywL[K]atEpyWLKaL,vC[L] ..



13/18

90 S. R. F. PRICEgoddesses;fterall, he oathexpressedoyalty o Augustussreigning mperor.Anotherwayofhandlinghelogicaldifficulty f invoking heemperorn oathsof loyaltywas to swearby theFortune(tyche) f the emperor.Thiswas one of the demandsmade of the Christians. orexample,whenPolycarp, ishopof Smyrna,wasbroughtbefore hegovernor,he wasorderedtoswearbythe Fortune f theemperor,orepent ndsay Awaywith theAtheists'.89olycarpwas not preparedo compromise is Christianprinciples, ut couldin good consciencesay'Awaywith theAtheists'. orhimthe Fortune f theemperorwasunacceptablyagan,butthetermdidnot implythedivinityof theemperor.(b) The offeringof praise o the emperorat imperialestivals,ike oath-taking, idnotnecessarilymply hedivinityof theemperor, ut t wasclearlymodelled nthepraise iven othegods.Two different arts f the festivals re nvolved.First, tthe celebrationsf theactualrituals herewerehigh-rankingfficialswhosespecificaskwas to praiseheemperor.A choirestablishedby theprovinceof Asiasanghymns n honourof Augustus90nd otherofficialspraisedheemperornverse.91nprose heologoionoured heemperor t theimperialemplesof Pergamum ndSmyrna.92 heyweresufficientlymportantortheirname o serveasthemodel or a newofficial,hesebastologos,ho servedntheprovincialultof Gaius tMiletus.93Theofferingof ritualpraise o theemperorhassporadic recursorsn thepraiseaccordedoHellenisticulers,94utbehind his ies hecultof thegods.Thetitlesof theimperialfficialsanallbe paralleledn divinecultsand the singingof hymnswasimportantn manytraditionalcults.95Praising othkingsandemperorswascalqued n the cult of thegods.Secondly, estivals ncludedcompetitions,not only in athleticsand music,but alsoinimperial ncomia.We hearof one Coan who 'inall the mostdistinguisheditiesof Asiawoncompetitionsnencomiao the founder f thecitySebastosCaesar nd hebenefactorsiberiusCaesar nd Germanicus aesar nd all theirhouseand to all the othergodsin eachcity'.96ContestsnpraisingheemperornproseandversewerewidespreadntheGreekworld,bothatfestivals n honour of the emperorand as part of the festivalsof traditionalgods.97Unfortunatelyhe encomiahemselves o not survive,but thesecompetitions o merit ourattention.Again heyareset nareligiousontext.Not onlyweresomeof thecompetitionseldat festivalsof the gods, but therewere also, from the firstcenturyBC onwards,similarcompetitionsn honourof the gods themselves, developmentwhich may be due to theincreasedimportance ttributedo hymns n the cultproper.98Thereligious ontext s alsoemphasizedy thewordingof the textinhonourof theCoan,whorecited ncomiaotjustinhonourof Augustus ndhisfamily,butalso or'allthe othergods neachcity'.Bothritual ndcompetitive raiseof theemperorocatedhim in thecompanyof thegods.(c) Prayers,ikepraise,havedivineresonances,ut it is muchhardero establishither he

89 R. Knopf,G. Krfiger,G. Ruhbach,AusgewahlteMdirtyrerakten4Tiibingen 1965) 3-4.90 I.Ephesos a 17.56-61; IGR iv 353: pLVcpOLEOl)EflaaurovKaLOEaStP4rLp.1 Thesmodoi: orschungenn Ephesosi 27= I.Ephesosi a 27. 457-8, 533; composer ndreciter f poems orthe god Hadrian' (CtEAo7roLotoaLGGa/p8o0o OEol)'ASpLavol^):BCH ix (1885) 124-8=I.Ephesos i a 22.3-4, 63-4.92 L. Ziehen, RE v A (1934) 203 I-3; L. Robert, RPhxvii3 (I943) I84-6.93 IDidyma 148 with L. Robert, Hellenicavii (1949)210.

94 I.Erythrae05 (paean o Antiochus);IG vii 417.68(for the Romans at Oropus).95 Nilsson (n. 3) ii 377-8 I.96 Robert, Etudes(n. 83) 23, who notes that the textneeds republishing: vLK]davra [yKYK] oLsp [iv] rai-E7rtarL7LOrras 7as 'AlAtas 0dao EA E "V KTLTav

r7iS roadAos EflaaurovKa'uapa Ka' Tr E'EpyE'rasTEPiE'povcuap'KaLtFEppraVLKtvat'apa KaL TVjAovOtKOVrC7VavEa "7r OA]AoSrTV E[KauTraLSra9 Trro'a] 0EOS'~ KaL HavaOlvara"laOpta.97 J. Frei, De certaminibusthymelicis (Diss. Bile 1900)34-41; Robert, Etudes (n. 83) 21-30. Add Ann.Ep. 1974602 andSEGxxix 452(Thespiae); orinthiii. I 14.87and19.1-3,5-7;viii.3153withL.Robert,REG xxix(1966) 743; Hesp. xxxix (1970) 79-83= Ann.Ep.1969-70 587 withJ. and L. Robert, REG lxxxiv (1971)434 no. 307 (Caesarea,Corinth);Hesp.suppl.xii (1967)189 line 22 (Athens,fragmentary).Note also theepideicticspeechesdeliveredby Aelius Aristidesatmeetingsof theprovincial ssemblyOrr.xxiii, xxvii,xxviii,xxxiv K).98 E.g. ApolloatDidyma:L.Robert,Hellenicai-xii(1960) 446-9. Robert suggests that the praise earliergivento theRomansactedas a spur.



14/18

GODS AND EMPERORS 91facts or the correct perspective on them. It is generally accepted that no one prayed to theemperor for his aid in sickness or shipwreck.99 I want to argue that personal prayers were indeedmade to the emperor, both living and dead, and that prayers had a prominent place in theideology of the imperial cult. But first it is necessary to question the Christianizingpresuppositions with which scholars usually approach the subject. Two opposing conclusionshave been drawn from the alleged absence of prayers to the emperor: first, that the imperial cultwas essentially political and not religious; secondly, that the imperial cult was of a higherspiritual type than the contemporary religions because the emperor was not bound by themechanical and demeaning contract of the do ut des.100 Both conclusions depend on theassumption that personal prayers are a fundamental aspect of true religion.1'1This assumption is peculiar to Christianity. Within the Christian tradition prayers are offundamental importance. The New Catholic Encyclopedia xi 672) describes them as 'a necessarymeans of salvation'. Heiler's classic comparative study of prayer is firmly rooted in this tradition.Setting out to 'write a history of religion by writing a history of prayer' he started by claimingthat 'religious people, students of religion, theologians of all creeds and tendencies, agree inthinking that prayer is the central phenomenon of religion, the very hearthstone of piety. Faithis, in Luther'sjudgement, "prayer and nothing but prayer".'102 The ranking of different typesof prayer, which lies behind the positive evaluation of the alleged absence of prayer to theemperor,s alsoaconcern f Christianity.nthewordsagainof theNew CatholicEncyclopaedia(xi 667), 'the commonesttype (of personalprayer) s the petitionaryprayer,which, inaccordance ithprimitiveman's hildlike elfishness,s concerned lmostexclusivelywithhisown materialwell-being'.Butpersonal rayersrenota universalharacteristicfreligions. orexample,hereligious ystemof theDinka,wholiveinthe southern udan,sbasedchieflyoncollectiveprayer.It srare o seea Dinkapray ndividually.On occasions fdifficultyrdangerhemayaddressshortpetitionorhelp oDivinityordivinities, ut much hegreater ndmoreimportant artof religiouspractices collectiveand formal."3 There s no more reason oapply he criterion f privateprayer o Greek hanto Dinkareligion.Prayersntheimperialultmustbeanalysedrom hepointof view bothofpracticendoftheory.The aspectsof practicewhich areparticularlyontroversial reprayersby privateindividualsnd the votiveofferingsmadeas the resultof successfulprayers.104Theemperorreceiveda scatteringf thesevotiveofferings, f whichthe clearestexample eads:

ToEmperorCaesarTrajanHadrian ebastosnd hepeople hevotive(euchin) assetup bySalmonson of Theon,priestof Zeusandsacrificeror the Sebastoi, longwith hiswife, at a cost of 200denarii.105Similarlynimperial rocuratoredicated votiveto theemperorCommodus.106Both these

99 A. D. Nock, Gnomoniii (1932)517-18; CAHx(1934)481. Helater ollected number f exceptionsohis rule: 'DeificationandJulian',JRS xlvii (1957)S15-23= Essaysn. 58) 833-46.100 W. denBoer, Heerserscultusnex-voto'snhetRomeinse Keizerrijk',Mededelingener KoninklijkeNederlandsekademiean Wetenschappen,fd.Letter-kundexxxvi.4(1973); erepeatedhecasenEntr.Hardtxxvi (1980)36-41.101Therehasbeena similarlymisconceived iscus-sion aboutmiracles.Manyhavefelt thattheirextremerarityscrucialNock,'Deification ndJulian'n.99]),thoughS.Morenz(WiirzburgerJb.f.d.ltertumswissen-schaftv [1949-50]370-8)attemptedo useonemiracleto show that theimperial ult was not anemptyshell.But it is arbitrarynd ethnocentrico use the 'royaltouch'as the criterion f significance;he practicesfoundalmostexclusivelynFrance ndEnglandnd orpeculiar istoricaleasons.

102 F. Heiler, Prayer trans.1932) xiii. H. S. Versnel,'Religious mentality in ancient prayer', in Faith, hopeandworship, d. Versnel(Leiden198I) 1-64 acceptsthat'it is possibleto describea phenomenology of prayer ngeneral' (p. 3).103 G. Lienhardt, Divinity and experience Oxford1961) 219.104Votives were made only by individuals; B.Kotting, RAC ix (1976) Io69-70 gives the exceptions.105 SEG ii 718 (?Pednelissus): A-TOKpiTroplKaiaapL Tpaiav6tL 'A8pLavZL?XEaal- KaL 78Lt rV0 E'X7VZcdA/tZwv[E']ovoS?LEpElNAZILSKaLrrpoOir7Tqs-7[CZvEfl]arjOv YeEVO/LEVOSaviTrl]KEVaV'vYUVaLKLqrlvdpLa) .

106 MAMA i 23 (LaodiceaCombusta),SeealsoIGRiv 363 (Pergamum, 7ri'q E"rr70jKoo f emperor);MAMA vi 370 (Synnada) s perhapsa votive jointly toZeus and the emperor; Denk. st.Ak.Wiss. lxxv.I(1952) 40 no. 78 (Claudiopolis, Antinous); IGR iv 93



15/18

92 S. R. F. PRICEvotiveswere made o theliving emperor, utliteraryextsalsorefer o thepractice f privateprayerso the deademperor.Suetoniusalksof the ritualatthe columndedicatedo Caesarnthe forumat Rome: at thisfor a long timetheyusedto sacrifice, ndertakeows andsettledisputes y swearing y Caesar'.107So too in fifth-centuryConstantinople,t issaid,peoplepropitiated ith sacrificesndlampsheimageof Constantineeton acolumn,honouredtwithincense ndutteredprayers sto agod.l08Votivesmustnot beprivilegedn our evaluationftheimperial ult;afterall,votiveswerenotmade o all deitiesequally.Asklepios,hehealinggod, received armore thanZeus,buthe did not challengeZeus'positionat the headof thepantheon.l09Buton this,admittedly artial, cale heimperial ult doesnot appear bsurd.Prayers lso formedanimportant artof thepublicexpectationsf rulercult.Thepoetsassumedhat heemperor othlivinganddead ouldbe called n inprayer.10Horace,ookingforward to the returnof Augustus rom Spain,describes he peacefulnessf Italy:thecountryman

returnsoyfullyfrom isvineyard)o hiscups ndnvitesourpresenceAugustus)sagodatthesecondourse;epliesyouwithmany prayer, ithpurewinepouredrom hecups, ndmixesyour divinitywith the householdods,like Greecen hermemoryof CastorandmightyHercules."'

Ovid alsoelaborateshetheoryof prayero theemperor.Writing rommiserablexile on theBlackSeaafter hedeathof Augustus ecarefully roclaims isvirtues, tressinghathispietywas known to the locals.The oreignountryees hat heresashrinefCaesarnourhouse.Theretand eside imhispioussonandpriestly ife TiberiusndLivia),eities s mportantshimwhohasnowbeenmade god.To make hehouseholdroupomplete,oth fthegrandsonstandhere,nenext o the ide f hisgrandmother,nenext o his ather.Whenhedayrisesrom heEastalwaysffer othemprayersand ncense.112Attheendof thepoem s aprayero Augustus,whowasamong hestars;hehopewasthat hedeceasedAugustusmightmitigate hepunishmentwhichtheliving Augustus adgiven.Thispublic xpectationfprayersven nvolvedadenial f thelegitimacy fprayersootherpeople.The Sage Apollonius f Tyanawasallegedlybrought o trialbefore heemperorDomitianbecausepeoplehad calledhima god andprayed o him.113

(Mytilene)maybe a prayero ZeusandAugustus, utthe text is uncertainIG xii suppl.p. 23); IG iv 584(Argos),votive ? to Titus;PSI 1261, a private etterfromEgypt (212-17), talksof the 'fortune'(rixrl) of theemperorsaving someone, presumably ollowing aprayer.107 Div.Jul. 85: 'apudeam (sc.columnam) ongotempore acrificare,otasuscipere,ontroversiasquas-daminterposito erCaesaremureiurandodistrahereperseveravitsc.plebs).'108Philostorgius, irchengeschichteDiegriechischenchristlichenSchriftstellerxxi3 [1981] 28 no. 17). Cf. S.Weinstock, RE xxiii (1957) 824-5 on propitius.109Cf thedisparityetween henumbersfvotivesfor ApolloandDionysos(Z. Tashlkhollu,Anadolu'daApollon kiilt'il ile ilgili Kaynaklar Istanbul1963]; W.Quandt, De Bacchoab Alexandriaetate n Asia Minoreculto[Diss. phil. Halle xxi.2 1913]) or in the usage ofepekoos0. Weinreich,OEOIEHHKOOI',Ath.Mitt.xxxvii [1912] i-68=Ausgewidhlte Schriften [Amster-dam 1969] 131-95).110 V. G. i 40-2, Aen.i 286-90. Cf earlierPlut.Dion29; hymn andprayer o DemetriosPoliorcetesAth.253e);andtheJewishresponseo AntiochosEpiphanes(Jud. ii 8; Dan. vi 6-14). Suchprayershad a long

history:A. Supp.980-2, Eupolis,Demoi(fr. 117K),Xenophon of Ephesus 12. SimilarlyPrudentius,looking back from a Christianperspectiveat thebeginningof the fifth century,assumedhatprayersformed a partof the rulercult:c. Symm. 245-8, 271-7."1 Odes v 5:hinc ad vinaredit aetuset alteriste mensisadhibetdeum;te multaprece, e prosequiturmerodefusopateris t Laribusuummiscetnumen,utiGraeciaCastoriset magnimemorHerculis.112 Epist. x Pont.v 9:necpietas gnotameaest:videthospita errain nostra acrumCaesarisssedomo.stantpariter atusque iusconiunxqueacerdos,numinaamfactononlevioradeo.neu desitparsulladomus, tatuterquenepotum,hicaviae ateriproximus,llepatris.hisego do totienscum tureprecantiaerba,Eooquotiens urgitaborbe dies.See also the earlierTrist.ii 8. I3-14 andv 2. 43-78.Livy 16talksof prayerso theapotheosized omulus.113 Philostr.VA viii 5 (P-. 99Kayser), (p. 3Io).



16/18

GODS AND EMPERORS 93Panegyrics also played upon the importance of prayers to the emperor. A second-century

panegyric of Rome talks in elevated terms about how everyone, at the mere mention of theemperor's name, stands up and 'praisesand worships him and utters a two-fold prayer, one onthe ruler's behalf to the gods and one to the ruler himself about his own matters'.114 Twofourth-century speeches elaborate the idea of prayer to the ruler himself. A speech idealizing thelate emperor Julian, written perhaps two years after his death in 363, includes a striking accountof prayers to him:

I have mentionedrepresentationsofJulian);many cities have set him besidethe imagesof the godsand honoured him as they do the gods. Already people have requestedsome benefits of him inprayer,and it was not in vain. To suchan extent hashe literallyascended o the gods andreceivedashareof theirpower from them themselves.They were right,then, thosepeople who nearlystonedto death the firstmessengerto bring news of his end for telling lies about a god."5A generation later (in 389) another panegyric generalizes the importance of these prayers:

(The emperor)should be such asisadoredby thepeoples,to whom privateandpublicvows aremadeby the whole world, from whom the future sailor seeks a calmsea,the futuretravellera safereturn,the futurefighter good omens.116The ideal ruler was the recipient of world-wide prayers.

IIITheos was predicated quite commonly of the Roman emperor (as earlier of Hellenistic

kings). It was added to the name of the emperor and on its own it could refer to a specificemperor. Both uses were in keeping with the contemporary usage in connection with thetraditional gods. The predication of theoswas matched by other linguistic practices: the emperorwas assimilated to particular named deities; he was described as epiphanis or epiphanestatosinthein; the cults themselves were designed to express eusebeiatowards the emperor. The wholelinguistic system of which theos forms a part has to be interpreted primarily as the application oftraditional Greek categories; theos has a different meaning from the Latin divus.The predication of theosdoes, however, remain puzzling to our eyes. We might wonderwhether theoscould be used of the emperor because it was a weak term in contrast with Christian

114 Aristides,Or. xxvi (K) 32 (withcommentsofJ. H. Oliver,TheRulingPower,Trans.Amer.Philos.Soc. xliii. 4 [Philadelphia953]918):oUSeLs ~e'avrCw"r'qALKOaTOVbPOVEL,OrLSTOaVOpaKovuaagILOvovLto71TarLrTpElPE AA..avaarao~ U/VELl ataJ3EL Ka aUVEUXETaL 8L7TA-v EV2X7V, T7jV 1L1V YTTEpa;Vov 70 GeOL9S,T7 Se aVTC0 EKELVW7TEPL CVeavroV3. I assume the double prayer to be moresignificanthan the changeof prepositionn the twolimbs. The speech dates to AD I43: R. Klein, DieRomrede des Aelius Aristides (Darmstadt 1981) 77.

115 Libanius, Or. xviii 304: rrL ELKVWViLvpvOjqv,ToAAaLTO'AELSKELVOVOLSTWVOECWV7Tapar7)oavreTEs~Ev


17/18

94 S. R. F. PRICEusesof 'God'-while theGreeksplayedaroundwithpredicates, hristians ave n 'God'thelogicallypropernameof theSupremeBeing.In factthisChristianizingenigrationf Greekreligion is basedon an inadequate xaminationof Christianitytself. TheologiansandphilosophersromAquinasonwardshaverecognizedhat'God'is a descriptive, redicableterm.117It is otherwiseimpossibleo understand ow Christians ndpagans an talk to oneanother.Thepaganwhosays hathis dol s Godand he Christian ho contradictsim mustbeusing God' n thesamesense;f 'God'were a propername, t wouldbe logicallympossible,rather hanmerelywicked, o predicatet of lumpsof stone.ThispointaboutChristianusagehelpsto explainhow Greektheologians f the earlyChurchwere ableto predicateheos fhumanswho werebroughtnear o God,bothin this ife and n thenext.118ThusbothpaganGreeks nd Christianssetheos/Godsa predicativeerm.Thepredicationf theosplacedheemperorwithin he traditionaleligious ystem.Hewaslocatedn anambivalentosition,higher hanmortals ut notfullytheequalof thegods.Theculthe receivedwasdescribed s isotheoiimai, nd theeusebeia hichthe cultdisplayedwascompatiblewith honours otfullydivine.Wemightbetemptedo concluderom his hat heemperorwasanalogouso a Christianaint; aints eceive laborateultswithoutusurpinghehonours ue o God.Infact heanalogydoesnothold.Accordingo theofficialRomanCatholicposition aints ctas ntermediariesoruswith God.Theydo notthemselveseceive urprayers,but are nvokedas intercessors ith God on our behalf.119 ut theemperor id not hold thispositionof intercessor iththegods.He wasboth n needof divinesupport ndalsogod-like.Thus, noneof thepanegyricscitedabove, herewasatwo-foldprayer,o thegodson behalf ftheemperor nd o theemperor imself.Thisclearly xpresseshe ambivalencef theimperialcult.Wastheapplicationf theoso theemperor consequencef theanthropomorphismf theGreekgods? fthegodsareconceivednhuman orm, t issurelynotdifficultoconceive f theemperor sa god. Yet this modernemphasis n anthropomorphisms misguided.The Greekgodswerenotactually eople; heywereat most ikepeopleandpicturinghem nthiswaywasmerelyone(dominant)trategyormakinghemcomprehensible.omer'sgods,whoareoftenseenasabsolutelynthropomorphic,120lsohavemore earsomelementsntheirmakeup.121Similarlyhehuman ormsof divine tatues, artly product f theepic radition,bviouslydidnot encapsulatehe wholetruthaboutthe Greekgods.122TheGreekgodsarepowers,notpersons.Religious hought s a responseo the problemsof organizing ndclassifyinghesepowers.'123havearguedhat norder o understandheGreeklanguage f theimperialultwe

117 Aquinas, Summa TheologiaeIa 13. 9-10o; P.Geach, God andthe soul (London 1969) 57-8, io8; alsoM. Durrant,Thelogical tatusof'God'(London1973)ch.I. Note the debatein the early churchinspiredby thechallenge of Arius: R. D. Williams, 'The logic ofArianism',JThS xxxiv (1983) 56-81, esp. 81 (thoughnote the very differentemphasis n R. C. Gregg, D. E.Groh, Early Arianism-a view of salvation [London1981]).118 G. W. Butterworth, 'The deification of man inClement ofAlexandria',JThS xvii (1915-16) 157-69;J.Gross, La divinisationdu chritiend'apres es paresgrecs(Paris 1938). Note also the Indians'predicationof deva('god') of their kings:J. Gonda, Ancient ndiankingshipfrom the religiouspoint of view (Leiden 1966) 24-33.119 C. O'Neill, New CatholicEncyclopediaii (1967)962-3. Anglicans,for whom the practiceof invocationwas proscribed by one of the 39 Articles, tend to beunhappy and ignorant about the invocation of saints.Note the interesting Anglican controversyreflected in

D. Stone, The Invocationof Saints2 (London/N.Y./Bombay 19o9).120 P. Chantraine,La notiondu divin depuisHombrejusqu'd laton, ntr.Hardt (1954)60:'L'aspectumaindesdieuxest un traitessentiel.L'anthropomorphismedesdieuxn'estpasseulement lastique,l estfondamen-tal.'121 j. Griffin,Homeron lifeand death(Oxford 1980)ch. 5.122 R. L. Gordon,'The real and the imaginary:production ndreligionn theGraeco-Roman orld',ArtHistory i (1979) 5-34-123 J.P. Vernant,Mythandthought mong he Greeks(London 1983) 328. Cf. Rudhardt(n. 76) 55-III, and'Considerations ur le polyth isme', Revuedetheologietde philosophie xvi3 (1966) 353-64, = Du mythe, de lareligion recque t de la comprehensione l'autrui Geneva198I) 71-82. Forahelpful urveyof other iteraturenthe namingof godsseeB. Gladigow,RAC xi (1981)

1202-38.



18/18

GODS AND EMPERORS 95must have a clearnotion of traditionalGreekreligious terminology. A Greek maxim makesexplicit an important aspect of the traditionalsystem and shows how in consequencetheemperorcould be incorporatedwithin it:

What is a god? The exercise of power.What is a king? God-like.124S. R. F. PRICE

LadyMargaretHall, Oxford124 Philol. lxxx (1924-5) 339 with RhM cxii (1969)48-53.

T]LOCEdS;"r[] KpaTOiy"-71 t auLem[s; a']deoosrI quote these two maxims from a longer list of maxims

preservedon a second-centuryADpapyrus,but the ideasthey express were commonplace. Cf. Artemidorus,Oneirocr. i 36, 69, with F. J. D61lger,Antike undChristentumii (1932) 128-31.

Documents

Price, Imperial Mysteries