25 CAES Vol. 3, № 4 (December 2017) New gods for a new world: observations on an epigraphic interplay between Greeks and Romans (part 1) Jenny Wallensten Swedish Institute at Athens; Athens, Greece; e-mail: [email protected] Abstract In this paper is considered a certain type of close association between mortals and gods that developed during the late Hellenistic and Imperial era. The phenomenon can be traced in the epigraphic and in some numismatic sources, and features members of royal or Imperial houses honoured literally as New Gods, i.e.: Nero New (Neos) Apollo, Sabina New (Nea) Hera or Caracalla Neos Helios, etc. Why and when was an old god chosen for the creation and celebration of a new one? These titles are not just honorific and these combinations of mortal-gods are not random. They are a part of the constant, albeit not always direct, dialogue between rulers and subjects, between Roman emperors and Greek local communities. This particular conversation used traditional religion and civic display as its medium and was expressed through the language of mythology. Keywords: Dedications; Ancient Greek Religion; Greek Epigraphy; Epithets, Neos Theos 1. Introduction Greek polytheism was generally an inclusive system. The pantheon of a Greek city was not static, but moved along with the times and remained open to a potentially endless amount of new divine members. From the early Imperial era, among newly introduced deities were the Sebastos and the sebastoi: the reigning emperor and his predecessors, alongside other imperial family members. This cult could honour the emperor and his relatives as gods in their own right. At other times, members of the imperial clan were paired with pre-existing, traditional deities, in order to be honoured as Hera Sabina: (IEphesos 3411=IGRom IV 1595) or Hadrian Zeus Olympios (Isager & Pedersen 2012; IEphesos 3410; Milet I 7, 290). In this paper, I wish to explore aspects of a specific type of association between mortals and gods that developed during the Hellenistic period and continued to flourish in the Imperial era. The phenomenon can be traced in the epigraphic, and to some extent the numismatic, sources and features members of royal or Imperial houses honoured literally as New Gods, i.e., Titus New (Neos) Apollo, Sabina New (Nea) Hera or Caracalla Neos Helios, etc.1 The term Neos inserted between the human and the divine name distinguishes this group of other combinations human- god.2 The emperor is in fact given the name of the god, but because of the term Neos, he is not 1 It is possible that the “New Gods” eventually will be detectable in iconographic sources as well; many of the inscriptions, if not most, once belonged to statues. However, in the current state of research, the statue of a New God needs an inscription to be thus recognised. Furthermore, we cannot be sure that all dedicated statue bases once carried an image of the Neos or Nea divinity, see for example IGRom IV 1492, in which a woman dedicates a statue of Aphrodite to Sabina Nea Hera. 2 Some scholars do not make a distinction between, e.g., Livia Aphrodite and Livia New Aphrodite, but assume that they amount to the same thing and are interchangeable. See for example Nock 1928: 34, 37; Hahn 1994, 313, calls the 26 CAES Vol. 3, № 4 (December 2017) straight-forwardly assimilated with the old deity.3 This complex phenomenon clearly merits an analysis on its own terms. The Neoi have indeed been noted and commented upon before, most importantly by A.D. Nock in his 1928 paper “Notes on Ruler Cult I-IV”. Nock, focusing on the Hellenistic period, believed that the Neos-title was an equivalent of the divine title used to render homage to the mortal thus designated, celebrating the mortal’s achievements within the activity sphere of the god in question (Nock 1928: 144, 148, 149, 151). He pointed out that the line between comparison and identification was vague, but argued that only in some very specific cases was a Neos-designated ruler considered as an incarnation of the named god (Nock 1928: 31, 147-148, 152). In this article I will try to further nuance this discussion through an examination of the Neoi Theoi visible in the epigraphic sources. I will briefly comment on the appearance and spread of the New Gods. The emphasis of this paper however lies on an interpretation of the function of the Neos-titulature during the Imperial era until the 3rd century AD.4 Why was an old god chosen for celebration and creation of a new one? What were the functions of these New Gods? I will firstly argue that these titles are not purely honorific and secondly, that the combinations mortal-gods are not random. Rather, they are part of a constant dialogue between ruler and subjects, between Roman emperors and Greek local communities. This particular conversation used traditional religion and civic display as its medium and was expressed through the common language of panhellenic mythology. 2. New gods: the epigraphic dossier This study is based on a dossier consisting of 132 identified “New God inscriptions”.5 These I define as epigraphic documents featuring the combination of the name of a mortal in combination with the name of a deity, or, in some cases, a mythological or historical character, qualified by the word Neos or Nea.6 The inscriptions have been identified over an extensive geographical area, and Neoi a Sonderform of the identification of an empress with a god. It should however be noted, but in all but a few cases, the human name comes first, followed by Neos/Nea and the name of the god (in at least 111 cases of the 132 inscriptions studied for this paper, 86 cases of which are imperial Neos divinities). 3 For a discussion on association and assimilation, see Wallensten 2014. Assimiliations as different from Neoi gods seems to be implied by Robert 1980: 400 n. 21. 4 As noted, Nock’s focus lies with the Hellenistic Neos gods. I have not included later examples of an Emperor celebrated as another Emperor. Roueché 1989: 98ff, no 61 discusses these examples, first attested in 451 AD, when Marcian is called New Constantine. 5 There are also some occurrences of Neoi in the numismatic sources. For this article, I have chosen not to include and examine them in detail; I will however occasionally make mention of such examples in the footnotes. This evidence certainly merits a study of its own, as do the literary sources where Neoi occasionally occur, although mostly in text not contemporary with the Neos honorand and the actual use of the title, which is the focus of this article. A future article will fully treat the literary dossier. 6 It should be noted that in some cases, the honorand receives two New God titles in the same inscription, as for example Julius Nikanor New Homer and New Themistokles (SEG 26 166; IG II2 1069; IG II2 3786; IG II2 3787; IG II2 3788; IG II2 3789) and possibly Drusilla as New Hera and New Aphrodite (Asklepieion, 255). I have tried to identify as many New Gods inscriptions as possible: if the survey has missed some relevant inscriptions, the treated material is still representative. I have not been able to study all stones myself; for this study I have accepted published restoration. This is due to the large material, but also because of the fact that many inscriptions were published a long time ago and has since gone missing or are in a worse state than when first discovered. A complete corpus of the Neoi will be prepared 27 CAES Vol. 3, № 4 (December 2017) chronologically their dates span a period covered by the Hellenistic and the Imperial eras, into the third century AD.7 New Gods appear mainly in dedications and in honorific inscriptions on statue bases, but can also be found in other kinds of documents, such as honorary decrees and letters. They can furthermore be divided roughly into two groups; one containing inscriptions referring to members of the ruling Imperial family (Group 1, 98 inscriptions), and one referring to other more ordinary mortals (Group 2, 31 inscriptions).8 3. Chronological and geographical patterns 3.1. New gods of the Hellenistic period It is possible that Alexander was called Neos Sesogchosis and Neos Dareios; this information is given by Pseudo-Kallisthenes (Book I, 34.2; Book II, 22.9. ed. Kroll).9 Our earliest evidence of the New God title in the epigraphic sources is however later and stem from the Ptolemaic royal house.10 by a scholarly team led by Stéphanie Wyler (Université de Paris Diderot, AnHiMA) and Anne-Françoise Jaccottet (Université de Genève). 7 The first securely attested instance of a New God title in the epigraphic sources is Ptolemaios XII New Dionysos, thus the last decennia of the first century BC. A priest of Arsinoë New Aphrodite has been identified in a third century BC inscription, however, the title is a restoration without comparanda. The latest examples I have included date to the third century AD. 8 I have counted Antinoos among imperial honorands. The three “missing” inscriptions are those where no member of the imperial house has been identified or even suggested. 9 Moreover, Plutarch says that comedy referred to Aspasia as a New Omphale, Deianeira and Hera (Plutarch, Pericles 24.6; It is not entirely clear the next that Nea belongs with Deianeira and Hera as well as Omphale, I thank an anonymous referee for this reference). Alexander the Great was certainly painted with the attributes of Zeus (see for example Pollitt 1986; Stewart 1993 191ff.) and perhaps other gods, but again, a discussion of this kind of iconographic association falls outside of the scope of this paper.