Deified emperors and actual beliefs

[Jona Lendering]

Three weeks ago, I spotted an inscription in the Museum of Thessaloniki, which mentions the cult of a divine being named Fulvus, who is almost certainly identical to the son of Marcus Aurelius who died and was consecrated in 165 (more...). It appears that the boy was still worshipped in the mid-third century, and that he had found real believers - I mean, outside the official state cult.

I know only one other example of a member of the imperial family who is worshipped by private individuals (a statue of Marcus Aurelius in a late second-century tomb). I have a feeling that it is extremely rare. Thoughts about this, anyone?

[L C Cinna]

Well the whole thing got a bit out of hand, when each and every emperor was deified. The original idea was not that a "divus" might really be a god but that his good attributes are worshipped and followed like the Clementia Caesaris and such things. So they are more of an example to follow. Of course IF someone shows such great qualities there are people who see them as their idol and want to follow their example. It gets all a bit spoiled if everyone is deified even if he had no great qualities but was just emperor because of his birth or whatever.

Something I always found interesting was Germanicus. he was worshipped by soldiers for a very very long time after his early death.

[Jona Lendering]

Something I always found interesting was Germanicus. he was worshipped by soldiers for a very very long time after his early death.

That's interesting. What's the evidence?

[L C Cinna]

I will check for more later. One thing is the calender from Dura Europos (dating to 223-227CE!) which contains the birthday of Germanicus Caesar (24th May).

[floofthegoof]

Diefying emporers seems like such a cynical act to modern sensibilities. The idea of 'worship' must have been quite different to them than to us. Perhaps it was also different to earlier Romans.

When praying to a previously mortal man, did they hope for divine intervention when things weren't going their way? When you're separated from your cohort and about to be run down by a squadron of Hun cavalry, do you exclaim, "Holy Julius Caesar! Get me out of this!"

I wonder if, rather than personal devotion, if it wasn't more for political theatre. That you want to be seen worshipping the late emperor, rather than actually believing.

[M. Demetrius]

Could it be just acknowledgement of greatness or prowess, and respect for the memory of some ancestral figure?

[Carlton Bach]

Much more likely. Our modern concept of deity is very strongly influenced by the idea of an omnipotent, unitary, single God who takes a personal interest in every last human being. That is not something I guess most ancients would have understood. I'm no more 'in' on the secret than anyone, but from what I gather the idea behind deifying emperors was to give proper credit to someone who was larger than life. Divinity is not a moral quality as much as a personal one - Julius Caesar is a divus (which is not the same as a deus) because he did great things, and his cult is a way of acknowledging that. I don't think anyone prayed to the divine emperor *for* anything most of the time. It was more of an empirewide ancestor cult. You were part of a good thing and gave proper credit for that.

[Jona Lendering]

I will check for more later. One thing is the calender from Dura Europos (dating to 223-227CE!) which contains the birthday of Germanicus Caesar (24th May).

Don't check: this is sufficient! I now recall that Germanicus (or was it Drusus?) is also mentioned in a Spanish inscription!

.... It was more of an empirewide ancestor cult. You were part of a good thing and gave proper credit for that.

That all very true, yet there remains this nagging doubt: if ruler cult in Antiquity was so well-accepted (and it certainly was on state and municipal level), then why don't we see the Divus Imperator and his relatives in the private cults? Why is Fulvus so extremely rare?

[L C Cinna]

What has been said here before is quite true. People nowadays have a different view of "gods" and "omnipotence" and that makes the thing kind of hard to understand if you don't look at the concept first.

The difference between men and gods is not that big in the old faith. You will notice that no god is omnipotent or without mistakes. Humans are just a level lower and therefore have more mistakes or less power but by proving that you can do more than a human could possibly do in one area you can kind of achieve a higher level in that area. Well kind of simple explanation.

The gods are "just" a more pure version of good and bad human features. Athena/Minerva is (in one aspect) just wisdom or knowledge/inventivness. She kind of is what a human would be if he would be perfect in this area. Of course the ancients noticed that being perfect in one area would also make you imperfect in another, so she's quite jealous if someone may be better at one of her features (like a human would be). Another example is Juno/Hera: the perfect example of a wife loyal to her husband or at least willing to fully contribute to the union called marriage, but no matter how much they quarrel she loves her husband and that makes her incredibly jealous (well she has reasons) and unfair because most of the time it's her husbands fault that he cheats.

Heracles and Dionysos showed that humans can become gods by being good in one perspective and make this feature adorable. Heracles couldn't control his emotions and did some bad things but he was the strongest and best in what he did and it's ONLY this part of him which is adored.

Gods and especially deified people are not almighty they are more like idols. it's much more like, let's say people saying "Oh that Magic Johnson guy was great, being such a good player and fighting HIV" and people who have such a disease look up to him and see him as a positive idol of what is possible.

Well the whole concept is kinda complicated but i tried to make it short.

It's like the cult for Caesar's Clementia. Noone adored him all of the things he did but they thought that his mercy towards opponents was really a thing people should follow, THAT is his divine feature.

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

The traditional Roman religion was the system of exchange between worshippers and gods based on the principle do ut des. There was no clear distinction between honor and worship. Worship to the gods was the honor paid to the gods to which they were morally obliged to respond. Thus, ruler worship did not constitute a problem—the question was not whether a ruler was a god in essence, in the absolute sense, but whether the highest kind of honors could be paid to the ruler. Thus, in 86 BC people erected statues of Marius, in street shrines, and sacrificed wine and incense to these images in gratitude for beneficial currency reforms. In 46-44 BC, Julius Caesar was given divine honors because of his status (After the battle of Thapsus in 46 BC, the Senate decreed Caesar a chariot and statue to be placed on the Capitol; the statue had an inscription stating that he was a demigod, hemitheos acc. to Cassius Dio. After the battle of Munda in 45 BC, his statue was decreed to be placed in the temple of Quirinus, with an inscription declaring him an unconquered god. In the last months of his life, he was declared state divinity, with a cult name of Divus Iulius, a flamen, and temple—i.e., all the paraphernalia of the state gods of Rome). In the time of Augustus, inscriptions from all over Italy testify to the existence of temples, priests, and sacrifices to the living emperor (whereas in the East this kind of worship was an older tradition carried out on the state level). By honoring the living ruler, his subjects established with him a contract mutually binding for both parties—the subjects expressed their appreciation for their well-being, and by receiving the worship, the emperor was morally obliged to continue the benefactions, i.e., to rule well.

As far as I remember, worship/honoring of the deceased emperors was not widespread on a private level, but I will need to check on that.

The Feriale Duranum, a calendar of army religous festivals refered to above, contains the celebration of not only Germanicus' birthday, but those of many emperors and members of their families.

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

Wasn't this all begun for Romans with the deification of Julius Caesar by Octavian/Augustus?(that of worshipping the memory of emperors, I mean)
Also, weren't family members worshipped as household gods? Little statues of your grandfather on the home altar with others.
People still worship movie stars/sports figures in a similar fashion, though more modern in concept.

[Jona Lendering]

As far as I remember, worship/honoring of the deceased emperors was not widespread on a private level, but I will need to check on that.

I'm really interested; Fulvus Antoninus came to me as a big surprise.

[D B Campbell]

I know only one other example of a member of the imperial family who is worshipped by private individuals (a statue of Marcus Aurelius in a late second-century tomb). I have a feeling that it is extremely rare. Thoughts about this, anyone?

I think you are right to draw a distinction between emperor-worship and the private dedication that you have found, Jona.

Arthur Darby Nock, that great scholar of ancient religion, summed it up well (in a discussion about worshipping military signa):
"If the emperor was called deus, this was an honorary predication, ascribing to him a status with no more than the metaphorical and temporary equivalent of the active attributes of deity. Neither standards [i.e. signa] nor emperors were thought to hear your prayers, as were Juppiter or Aesculapius or even the little local Celtic and Germanic deities or the sacred stones of the Semitic world. The standards were symbols, not divine entities." (Harvard Theological Review 45, 1952, p. 240)

One of the few exceptions known to him is ILS 233, which is a vow undertaken and paid to a selection of deities which includes Divus Augustus. In other words, the dedicator actually believed that Augustus (and the other named deities) had heard and answered his prayer. All other examples (in his opinion) are simply paying homage out of respect.

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

Wasn't this all begun for Romans with the deification of Julius Caesar by Octavian/Augustus?(that of worshipping the memory of emperors, I mean)

Yes, In 42 BC, Octavian succeeded in admission of Julius Caesar into the state cult. Note that not the memory, but divine Julius himself was worshiped - in the same fashion, as other state gods - with his temple, priest, rituals, etc. However, as I said above, these divine honors (with Mark Antony appointed the priest) were bestowed on Caesar before his death, as Cicero (Phil. 2.110) - a contemporary witness to the event - as well as Suetonius (Div. Jul. 76) and Dio Cassius (44.6.4) confirm.

People still worship movie stars/sports figures in a similar fashion, though more modern in concept.

I hope by "a similar fashion" you do not mean to say that your failure to honor a celebrity will have disastrous consequences for you life :wink: For the Romans, religion had very real impact on every aspect of their daily existence.

[Jona Lendering]

One of the few exceptions known to him is ILS 233

Thanks!