William Van Andringa gods without being gods, just as they were monarchs without being monarchs, since the powers shaping the imperial office simply made emperors official representatives of the Republic. This fact which belongs to the rhetoric of power explains the great ambiguity of religious language developed around the imperial Rhetoric and Divine Honours: On figure; it also explains the maintenance of the institution with Constantine and the Christian emperors, who kept the essential meaning of the “imperial cult” based the “Imperial Cult” in the Reigns on an admittedly ambiguous ritual arsenal, but adapted to the celebration of the of Augustus and Constantine highest honours that shaped the imperial function. Therefore, to find a precise meaning for the varied terms used by Roman people to honour the emperor is just William Van Andringa as difficult as solving the necessary ambiguities of political rhetoric. Political rhetoric often uses linguistic shortcuts and ambiguities, which Princeton Institute for Advanced Study (Florence Gould Member) and Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies inevitably give rise to controversies, contradictions and endless debates. The Augustan regime is not an exception: it left us apparently contradictory literary and epigraphic testimonies on the cults delivered to the living emperor, while the This article examines what the historians have called the “imperial cult” to describe Roman religious rules made any deification of the prince unthinkable, especially a wide variety of homages celebrated in the imperial era for the emperor and the in the context asserted by the new political power of a restoration of the Republic members of his family. From Augustus, a new religious language was organized and its traditional cults. This supposed contradiction of our sources is at the origin around the imperial person on the rhetorical basis of isotheoi timai, of honours equal to those made to the gods. This type of amplified tribute, set up from Actium of a very abundant modern literature, produced on what the historians baptized as 1 and exploiting the Caesarian heritage (divus Julius), founded the institutional the “imperial cult”. This term is, of course, a reducing concept in the sense that the architecture of the Principate, giving the Emperor a necessarily prominent position. term often recovers a large number of honours and rites celebrated for the emperor In fact the cults and honours devoted to the emperor belongs to the rhetoric of in his role as representative of the Roman Republic and thus of the State.2 Another power and explains in particular the great ambiguity of religious language developed element, which does not hold in light of the documentation, is the strict separation around the imperial figure; it also explains the maintenance of the institution with which we make today between politics and religion, while in Roman times, both Constantine and the Christian emperors, who kept the essential meaning of the domains overlapped: in the city state, where the gods lived together with men, any institution based on an admittedly ambiguous ritual arsenal, but adapted to the 3 celebration of the highest honours that shaped the imperial function. political expression or social ritual necessarily conveyed a religious dimension. In this particular case, imperial power could not exist without a specific religious To the Memory of Simon Price expression or, to put it in another way, the power of the emperor necessarily had a place in public religion.4 In Rome, political action is deified and plays a role in This article examines what the historians have called the “imperial cult” to describe structuring the community. But that does not mean that the emperor is a god even a wide variety of homages celebrated for the emperor and the members of his family after his death, when he becomes not a god, deus, but a kind of hero, a divus, in the imperial era. The established cults and honours have indeed participated in through an institutional process ordered by the senate.5 a moving dialectic of power. The emperor and his subjects finally adapted to a monarchy that from an institutional point of view was not, and to an empire consisting 1 This term has, of course, been discussed and criticized for a long time. See, for example, Elias of autonomous cities. A new religious language was thus organized around the Bickerman in Le culte des Souverains 1972 and the discussion, p. 26. imperial person on the rhetorical basis of isotheoi timai, of honours equal to those 2 One of the best introductions on the subject is Simon Price’s book, Price 1984b, especially 1-22 made to the gods. This type of amplified tribute, set up from Actium and exploiting and 234–248. Among many other stimulating contributions are Bowersock 1994 and Gordon 2011 the Caesarian heritage (divus Julius), founded the institutional architecture of the (both republished versions of previous articles). Principate, giving the Emperor a necessarily prominent position. This policy of 3 Scheid 1985. reverence framed the power relations in the imperial era and often took the form 4 Imperial rituals were a way of conceptualizing the world. See, for example, Price 1984b, 7-8: “I do not see rituals merely as a series of ‘honours’ addressed to the emperor but as a system whose of cults and rituals intending to raise the emperor to divine equivalence, which structure defines the position of the emperor.” however fooled no one. Even when dead, the emperor was consecrated as divus, 5 On this distinction, see Price 1984a, 83 and Bowersock 1994, 330. Price notes in particular not as deus. The emperors were in a way and from an institutional point of view, that from the cult of the deceased Julius Caesar, divus referred exclusively in official terminology to former emperors and members of their family. “They were thus,” he adds, “distinguished from the traditional dei.” On the process of divinization, see Arce 1988, esp. 127-131. Maijastina Kahlos (ed.) Emperors and the Divine – Rome and its Influence Studies across Disciplines in the Humanities and Social Sciences 20. 11 Helsinki: Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies. 10–21. Emperors and the Divine – Rome and its Influence William Van Andringa This ambiguity in our sources is quite obvious in a little story told by Suetonius, alive or dead.9 That is why Nock compared the cult of the emperors to the cult of who plunges us into the reality of Augustus’ reign (Augustus 98, 2.5). Shortly before the Roman standards in the army, arguing that the standards, like the emperor’s his death in 14 CE, Augustus travels along the coastlines of Campania.6 While he images, were symbols rather than divine entities.10 Tertullian (Apologeticum 32-33) goes along the bay of Pozzuoli, the great harbour of the time, the passengers and is not at all afraid to say: “I would not call the emperor a god (deus), maybe because the sailors of a ship from Alexandria who had just disembarked came to him, said I do not know how to lie or because I would not like to laugh at him or because he Suetonius, “dressed in white, crowned with flowers and burning some incense, would not like to be called a god.” As noted by Glen Bowersock, this is again simply lavishing him with all their wishes of happiness, the most magnificent praises: it is respectful language.11 thanks to you, they say, that we live, thanks to you that we can navigate, thanks to Within the context of a religion mixing public cults with the functioning of the you that we enjoy our freedom and our properties.” civic community, and the functions of the emperor gradually being assimilated with Apparently, Augustus was so delighted by the honour that he gave forty gold those of the State,12 it is not difficult to understand that the accumulation of powers coins to the people accompanying him, making them promise that they would in the same person led to a game of one-upmanship and an increase in the number spend the entire sum in the purchase of goods from Alexandria. If we follow of tributes given to the emperor. In the same way, we can explain the institution Suetonius literally, the Alexandrians greeted Augustus with divine honours, this of rites and sacrifices centred on the action of the emperor and the gods who being indicated by the white clothes, a symbol of purity, floral wreaths and offerings accompanied him in the task of restoring the State. After the victory of Actium in of burning incense, which reflect the usual ceremonies celebrated for the immortal 31 BCE, Octavian is installed in the position of his adoptive father Caesar, as head gods. Augustus for his part reacts not as a god, but as a good man and patron, by of the Roman world. The honours showered upon Octavian then, in a calculated ordering his men to be pleasant to the Alexandrians. graduation that literally, year after year and according to the decrees passed by the Divine honours on one side and behaviour of a patron on the other, is that a Senate, shaped the exceptional position of the emperor, made him a ubiquitous double language? Certainly not, because the Alexandrians, who were known for figure in public religious events.13 their sycophancy and their excesses, chose to pay tribute to Augustus according to Cassius Dio (51, 19-20) gives us an impressive list of honours voted by the Greek tradition, by using isotheoi timai, that is equal honours to those celebrating people after Actium: triumphs, quadrennial games celebrated for Augustus’ health, the gods.7 Of course, there is no worship here addressed to the living emperor, prayers of thanksgiving decreed for the anniversary of his birth (September 23) but distinguished, supreme honours, returned to the one who governed the world and the announcement of his victory at Actium (September 2), tribunician power and who, by the peace that he instated during his reign, the Pax Augusta, made decreed for life with extended powers, and his association with the people and thus navigation possible and Alexandrian business prosper.