Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:59:38.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Refusal of Divine Honours, an Augustan Formula

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2013

M. P. Charlesworth
Get access

Extract

In the worship of the Roman Emperors there were at the beginning at least two elements that stood in sharp contrast to each other. The Greeks had been accustomed for some three centuries to the rule of hereditary Basileis; a basileus during his lifetime was often entitled θεός and honoured as such, and this title and honour sometimes continued after death. In Rome the attitude towards an Emperor was different: strictly speaking there was at first no such thing as an ‘Emperor,’ but merely a citizen entrusted with great powers; writers of the imperial age are never weary of pouring scorn upon ‘mores regii,’ on the evils of a court and of despotic rule. Neither by tradition nor by education were Romans favourably disposed towards worship of a living man as a god. True, they were accustomed to the notion that every man had a genius, and the genius was entitled to sacrifice on that man's birthday; even so, the genius was hardly 'a god,’ save in so far as men were liable to think of it as if it were that fundamentally different thing δαίμων.

Type
Research Article
Information
Papers of the British School at Rome , Volume 15 , November 1939 , pp. 1 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © British School at Rome 1939

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A recent, and admirable, study of the Hellenistic King-Cult is that of U. Wilcken, ‘Zur Entstehung des hellenistischen Königskultes,’ in Sitzungsber., d. Preuss. Akad. (Ph.-hist. Kl), 1938, p. 298. I need only refer here to the various studies by Prof. Nock and Prof. L. R. Taylor and Prof. K. Scott upon Roman Ruler-Cult, to which my debt must be evident.

2 The letter of Tiberius to Gytheum was first published by Kougéas, S., in Έλληνικά, I, 1928, p. 7 and p. 152Google Scholar. Several articles contain a reproduction of the text, e.g., Rostovtseff, M. in Rev. Hist. CLXIII, 1930, p. 1Google Scholar, Kornemann, E., Neue Dokumente zum Lakonischen Kaiserkult, Breslau, 1929Google Scholar, Seyrig, H. in Rev. Arch. (ser. V) XXIX, 1929, p. 84Google Scholar, and Wenger, L. in Zeits. d. Savigny-Stiftung, Roman. Abt. XLIX, 1929, p. 308Google Scholar.

3 A full list will be found in Rietra, J. R., C. Suetoni Tranquilli Vita Tiberi neu kommentiert, Amsterdam 1928, pp. 13 ffGoogle Scholar.

4 Dessau, ILS, 157 and 158.

5 On the significance of Providentia see my article in Harv. Theol. Rev. XXIX, 1936, p. 107Google Scholar.

6 The Germanicus edict was first published by U. v. Wilamowitz Moellendorff and F. Zucker in Sitzingsberichte Pr. Akad. d. Wiss., 1911, p. 794; it is treated by C. Cichorius in Römische Studien, 1922, p. 375. An emendation, ἐν ὑποπαραιτίᾳ, proposed by Wilhelm in Wien. Anzeiger, 1922, 12 July, p. 40 is declared untenable by Wilcken, U. in his article in Hermes, LXIII, 1928, p. 48Google Scholar (Wilcken first cited the parallel from the Alexander Romance, for which see p. 7).

7 The letter of Claudius is published in Jews and Christians in Egypt, ed. Bell, H. I., London, 1924Google Scholar, Pap. Lond. 1912, pp. 1 ff. (text on pp. 23 ff.).

8 Perhaps because a golden statue should be for a god alone: see Scott, K. in Trans. Amer. Phil. Assoc. LXII, 1931, p. 101Google Scholar.

9 His attitude here is consistent with what is related of him by Dio Cassius LX, 5, 4–6 (Boissevain).

10 See Cameron, A., ‘The Letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians,’ in Class. Quart. XX, 1926, p. 45Google Scholar. Cf. too Lucian, , pro Imag. IGoogle Scholar, where Polystratus declares he blushes, .

11 See her article in Trans. Amer. Phil. Assoc. LX, 1929, p. 87Google Scholar.

12 This inscription was first published (as far as I know) by Boeckh, , in C.I.G. II, no. 3524Google Scholar, then in H. Collitz, Sammlung d. griech. Dialekt-Inschriften, 1884, no. 311, and is reproduced in I.G.R.R. IV, no. 1302. Unfortunately there does not appear to be any detailed commentary upon it. It has been cited both by Prof. K. Scott (op. cit.) and by Prof.Eitrem, S., in Symbolae Osloenses, XV and XVI, 1936, p. 111CrossRefGoogle Scholar, but not for phraseology.

13 This passage was first cited by Wilcken (op. cit. p. 50), and later by Miss Taylor (op. cit. p. 100) in this connection.

14 Jäntere, K., Die römische Weltreichsidee und die Entstehung der weltlichen Macht Jes Papstes, Turku, 1936, p. 51Google Scholar.

15 Aurelius, Marcus, Meditations, VI, 30Google Scholar (Schenkl).

16 Hosius, in Athanasium (Migne, , P.G. XXV, 745Google Scholar).

17 Synesius (Migne, , P.G. LXVI, 1076–7Google Scholar).

18 A reference to Plato, Philebus 21c.