PART III
CHAPTER 6
The third part of this book argues that Augustus constructed the first thirteen chapters of his Res Gestae (RG) as an extended arrival narrative. These thirteen chapters serve as an ideological framework for Augustus' arrivals up to 13 BCE, offer a reworking of the memory of Caesar, and provide an interpretive key for select Augustan monuments. Furthermore, the narrative of these chapters alludes to different chronological strata of Roman history—including the regal period, the recent civil war past, and Augustus' own story—in a kind of palimpsest. Augustus uses allusions to Romulus and Numa to thematize the civic arrivals of this passage in two phases. The arrival events are also connected to a group of predominantly Augustan monuments that form an itinerary ending at the Forum of Augustus. There in the Forum, one sees the culmination of Augustus' career in the image of the triumphal quadriga inscribed with his honorific title pater patriae.1 Through these different devices, the RG presents a unique theological case for deifying Augustus.2
Augustus' decision to allude to Romulus and Numa in the depiction of his arrivals is noteworthy because, in doing so, he largely bypassed recent precedents for associating one's self with peripatetic Greek deities in one's arrival at the city to return to more traditionally Roman models.3 As argued in the last chapter, Augustus became the New Apollo in his return to Rome after his victory in the Sicilian War. Antony fashioned himself as a New Dionysus, particularly in his interactions with eastern cities. Rome had its own tradition of identifying arriving victors with the founders and heroes of the past. Marius was called a founder of the city (perhaps specifically a third founder) upon his triumphal return from his victory over the Cimbri and Teutones. In this way the arriving Marius was connected to the memories of men like Romulus and Camillus. Sulla's arrival and refounding activities were so influential that they subsequently became a model for the arriving savior. Lentulus Sura thus depicted himself as the “Third Cornelius” in 63.
The RG combines this uniquely Roman tradition with an implicitly euhemeristic argument for the deification of Augustus. The synthesis of these elements is reflected in the final stage of the narrative's itinerary in the Forum of Augustus.4 At the Forum, the emperor's deification is strongly hinted at in the form of a visual theology in which Augustus' quadriga, having reached this final stage of the journey, strategically situates him in a hierarchically arranged gathering of founders, heroes, and gods wherein Augustus is assimilated to the latter. Moreover, the RG induces its reader to re-perform an ideal, imperial arrival at Rome of a divine Augustus, and in doing so, it implicates that reader in an identity shaped by the princeps' historical, political, and theological vision.
Res Gestae: Form and Theology
Bosworth elucidated the theological nature of the Res Gestae over a decade ago, but much remains to be said regarding the particular form of theological expression constituted both in its physical form and in its text.5 On the one hand, the RG belongs in the tradition of elogia inscriptions, which graced the tombs of prominent Romans going back to the Middle Republic.6 At the same time, the RG departs from this tradition in its overall length, its narrative passages, and its grand monumental context.7 To elucidate the theological nature of the RG, the present chapter examines it in the context of a handful of other documents that will be treated, in a broad sense, as forerunners of the RG: Pompey's inscription before the Temple of Minerva, the text of which is preserved in Pliny (Nat. 7.97–98); the silver tablets (στήλας ἀργυρᾶς) recording Caesar's honors, which were deposited at the feet of Capitoline Jupiter; the bronze tablet of Capys; the books of Numa that miraculously appeared and were ceremonially destroyed in 181 BCE; and the fictional golden stele of Zeus Triphylius in Euhemerus' Hiera Anagraphê.8
The Honorific Inscription of Pompey
Pompey's inscription related directly to his celebration of a triumph and the fulfillment of a vow to Minerva.9 The inscription was erected at Pompey's delubrum Minervae, which was located in the northeastern Campus Martius.10 Pompey's inscription was set up in a grand monumental context, but its content was not as innovative as the text of the RG. As a dedication to Minerva (Athena) in celebration of eastern victories, it was reminiscent of the feats of Alexander, who considered Athena his patron.11 Augustus' RG emulated Pompey's inscription in several respects. The RG owes a clear debt to Pompey's inscription in terms of substantive content, in that both documents recount the campaigns of their respective subjects. More interesting are the shared references to Alexander the Great, but these are far more extensive in the RG.12 The more striking parallels between the two documents are to be recognized in their monumental context and location in the northern Campus Martius. Travelers approaching Rome on the Via Flaminia would have seen the monuments of Augustus and Pompey and may have stopped to read the prominent inscriptions. Significant differences between the two documents highlight the novel nature of the RG. Pompey's inscription is more limited in scope than the RG, in that it concerns the fulfillment of a single vow in connection with one campaign. The RG, in keeping with the elogiastic tradition, provides a retrospective of Augustus' career up to the year 2 BCE. Pompey's inscription, aside from its obvious debt to the memory of Alexander the Great, contains nothing of the complex allusions to heroes and historical figures that one finds in the RG.13
Silver Tablets at the Feet of Jove
Another possible influence on the RG was the silver tablets of Caesar located at the feet of Jupiter in the Capitoline Temple. Caesar's silver tablets, like the RG, provided a public list of officially decreed honors. These tablets, however, were far more provocative in their uniqueness than Pompey's inscription and thus provided the princeps a more problematic but seductive precedent. In the final months of Caesar's life, the Senate voted Caesar a series of heroic and divine honors, including burial within the pomerium and silver tablets listing, in gold lettering, the senatorial decrees honoring Caesar. The tablets were to be deposited at the feet of Capitoline Jupiter.14 The symbolism of tablets with gilded lettering may relate to the frightening prodigy of bronze tablets being effaced in 65, which was among signs the haruspices interpreted as signaling the fall of Rome.15 Lightning had struck a statue of Jupiter at the same time as the destruction of these bronze tablets. As Rome's savior, Caesar had prevented the very disaster these signs had predicted.
Dio reports Caesar's honors of burial within the pomerium and the silver tablets in the same passage. In doing so, Dio's report may simply reflect his sources. It may, however, also indicate that Dio's organizational scheme was influenced by the apparent contrast between Caesar's honors and Augustus' RG. Caesar's burial within the pomerium may have been interpreted as religiously significant given the general ban on burial within the city included in the Twelve Tables.16 The Vestals were excepted from the ban, as were the families of the Republican heroes P. Valerius Publicola and C. Fabricius Luscinus.17 Another noteworthy exception was Romulus, whose tomb was believed to be located in the Comitium.18 The honor of burial within the pomerium may have been conferred on Caesar to liken him to the deified Romulus.19 In contrast, Augustus instructed that his Res Gestae be placed before his Mausoleum, located outside the pomerium.20
Caesar's silver tablets belong at the peak of a collection of ascending honors that culminated in the dictator's close association with the state gods. Dio reports three groups of honors coming to Caesar after the victory at Thapsus. The sequence is as follows: (1) after Thapsus, the Senate decreed a chariot and statue on the Capitol; the statue had the inscription hêmitheos upon it;21 (2) after Munda, his statue inscribed with the inscription deo invicto was placed in the Temple of Quirinus;22 (3) in 44, the Senate decreed a long list of honors for Caesar, including the cult title Divus Iulius, a flamen, a state temple, and a pulvinar for his image.23 These final honors placed Caesar on par with the gods of the state, and they were fittingly recorded on the silver tablets.24 Dio, however, interpreted their significance quite differently. According to him, by placing the decrees on silver and depositing them under the feet of Jupiter, the Senate was indicating its view that Caesar was mortal.25 Dio's interpretation is puzzling, since it cuts against the character of many of the other honors he listed, as well as the method of the tablets' inscription and place of deposition. The tablets' placement may indicate a subordinate position relative to Jupiter, but it does not necessarily point to the distinction between mortality and divinity.26 Caesar's honors instead strongly suggest his divine status. The specifics regarding the honors recorded on the silver tablets also point in the direction of Caesar's official deification.27
Taken as a whole, the inscribing of decrees in silver and gold and their deposition in the temple of Rome's chief divine patron were a highly marked religious process. The Capitoline Hill was the home to numerous bronze tablets recording senatorial decrees and plebiscites concerning foreign alliances, treaties with foreign cities, and honors for individuals.28 It has been argued that the reason for erecting bronze inscriptions in and around the Capitoline Temple was primarily religious.29 Bronze was nevertheless not marked with the same clear divine associations as silver and gold. Caesar's tablets are, in comparison with the bronze tablets on the Capitoline, senatorial decrees of Caesar's personal honors inscribed on precious metal and deposited right at the feet of the statue of Capitoline Jupiter. As such, they would have stood out brilliantly in the field of bronze tablets. Their location at the feet of the god's statue may have been solitary too. No other Roman had received an honor quite like it. Indeed, the uniquely brilliant silver tablets at the feet of Jupiter call to mind the words of Cicero in the Pro Marcello: non ego eum cum summis viris comparo, sed simillimum deo iudico.30 Summi viri get tablets of bronze. Caesar's silver tablets were clearly a divine honor in themselves.
The story of these honors, including their inscription in gold letters on silver tablets and the deposition of those tablets under the feet of the statue of Jupiter, serves as an excellent example of the theological performances of the Late Republic. The physical process of placing the honors of Caesar on precious metals associated with divine images and then placing the tablets at the feet of Rome's chief patron deity served as a spectacle expressing Caesar's unique status and assimilation to the company of the gods. If the process of honoring Caesar in this way signaled his subservience to Jupiter in the divine order, it also arguably placed him on a plane higher than everyone else—one that gods alone ordinarily occupied.31 By contrast, Pompey's inscription may have implicitly likened him to Alexander the Great, but it was situated outside the pomerium in front of the delubrum Minervae. To which mortal might the silver tablets deposited at the feet of Jupiter within his own temple liken Caesar?
Several of Caesar's honors would have invited an increasing identification of the dictator with Jupiter. Dio seemed to intuit this despite himself. The historian had, after all, just reported that the Senate was addressing Caesar as Jupiter Julius and that the Senate had provided him a flamen on the model of Jupiter's flamen Dialis.32 It seems likely that the honors on these tablets were voted sometime before the controversial Lupercalia in which Antony attempted to crown Caesar with a diadem. They are likely the honors that an embassy of senators, led by the consul Marc Antony, brought to Caesar as he sat on the Rostra or in front of the Temple of Venus.33 Caesar neglected to rise to receive the honors and caused great offense thereby.34 If the honors brought to Caesar on this occasion were the same as those inscribed on silver tablets, the parallels between this event and the Lupercalia crowning are most interesting. In both cases, the consul Antony brings Caesar excessive honors that he refuses, and those honors are placed in the Temple of Jupiter. Indeed, once the Lupercalia crown had joined Caesar's tablets at the god's Capitoline image, Jupiter may have come to appear ever more Julian.
The deposition of certain honorific items in the vicinity of the statue of Jupiter is reminiscent of the act of dedicating one's triumphal costume to the god. This is not a coincidence; the highest honors of the state were associated with the exercise of imperium, which came ultimately from Jupiter. A magistrate bearing this imperium went out to meet the city's enemies in battle, and when he attained a certain level of success in wielding that power, that success was recognized by the further honor of a procession up to the Capitoline in a costume that evoked the image of the god himself.35 Placing his laurel wreath in gremio Iovis (“in the lap of Jupiter”) and then banqueting in the presence of the god brought the triumphator into closer proximity and a more intimate relationship with Rome's chief deity.36 In the Late Republic, those triumphal honors were extended beyond the celebration of the triumph itself. Whereas Marius was criticized for continuing to wear the triumphal costume in his first meeting with the Senate, subsequent dynasts, including Caesar, were voted the privilege of continuing to wear triumphal garb well past the day of the ceremony.37 The right to wear the triumphal costume on public occasions would have facilitated continuing identification with Jupiter.
Silver tablets recording the honors of a new state god and deposited right under the feet of Jove in the Temple of Capitoline Jupiter evoked, appropriately enough, Euhemerus' utopian tale of Panchaea, wherein the sanctuary of the cult of Zeus Triphylius housed a golden tablet on which were inscribed the achievements of the itinerant king Zeus, who united the three ethnically diverse tribes of the island and whose postmortem worship formed the basis of the community's continuing peace and prosperity.38 Diodorus Siculus describes the golden stele on the god's couch (κατὰ μέσην δὲ τὴν κλίνην ἕστηκε στήλη χρυσῆ μεγάλη), a location not all that different from the placement of Caesar's silver tablet beneath the feet of Capitoline Jupiter.39 A euhemeristic interpretation of the silver tablets would fit the unusual contention of Dio that by placing the tablet at the feet of Capitoline Jupiter, the Senate made it clear that Caesar was a man. In first-century euhemerism, there was no necessary contradiction between the simultaneous existence of mortal ruler gods and higher divine powers. Diodorus distinguishes between celestial and terrestrial deities in his description of euhemerism.40 The placement of Caesar's tablet at the feet of Jupiter would be an apt expression of such a hierarchy.
The Bronze Tablet of Capys
Dio views the silver tablets as one of the excessive honors through which Caesar's enemies made him more vulnerable to assassination. The bronze tablet of the Trojan hero Capys, which was unearthed during Caesar's consulship, also contributed to the cultural discourse on inscribed monumenta out of which Augustus' RG emerged, partly because the tablet of Capys had become part of the lore surrounding Caesar's assassination. In 59, Caesar passed legislation to send a commission down to Campania to distribute land to poor citizens.41 Pompey was the most prominent member of this board of commissioners. Allegedly, at Capua, the colonists came upon the tomb of the Trojan hero Capys, founder of the city, in the process of clearing old tombs in order to build new country houses. Inside was a bronze tablet with a curse inscribed in Greek, saying that a son of Ilium (or of Iulus) would be slain by his kin when the bones of Capys were uncovered and that his death would be avenged at a great cost to Italy.42 Suetonius offers the testimony of Cornelius Balbus as proof that the story is true.
Farney has suggested that the convenient discovery of the tablet had to do with Capuan resistance to Roman colonization.43 In other words, through the prodigy, the Capuans were warning Caesar's colonists and, therefore, Caesar, Pompey, or both men not to settle the area if they did not want a dead leader and subsequent cataclysmic upheaval in Italy.44 Already possessed of a perfectly good founder in Capys, Capua did not need another. The disturbance of the tomb of the founder presented a religious problem that might recommend scuttling the colony.45 The Capuan threat against Caesar and Pompey seems risky but not outside of the realm of possibility. Its reasoning was well targeted at Caesar, a son of Ilium who was not above the creative use of religion to achieve his ends, but it is also possible that the immediate target audience was Pompey, since he was likely on-site when the inscription was “discovered.”46 In any case, the tablet placed the burden of responsibility for dealing with this religious problem on the colonists who discovered it, shifting risk from the Capuans themselves. If historically accurate, these events at Capua represent one more piece of evidence supporting the continued belief and exploitation of the secular doctrine of the connection between the life of a prominent Roman leader (e.g., Sulla, Pompey), on the one hand, and both the balance of power and the welfare of Italy, on the other. In this case, the people of Capua were utilizing this secular script to warn off Roman intruders.
At the same time, it is difficult not to see in the Capuan tablet a deliberately fabricated ex eventu prophecy about Caesar's assassination. After all, the man who colonized Capua in the Sullan era was M. Junius Brutus, the father of one of Caesar's principal assassins.47 Cicero had formerly spoken passionately on the dangers of Rullus' plan to colonize Campania, making particular reference to the former wickedness of Brutus in colonizing Capua.48 In that speech, Cicero reported that Rullus and Brutus were the only men who had ever planned to move the Republic to Capua.49 The act of setting up a colony in Capua was, according to Cicero's argument, nothing less than an act of treason, since it would lead to a Capua that was a prideful rival of Rome.50 The specter of Capuan tyranny was perhaps aggravated by the false etymology connecting Capys and Capua with caput, something Vergil would later exploit to fine effect in the Aeneid.51 Cicero implied that the colonists' impiety in seeking to obtain a new caput rerum further resulted in their deaths.52 Caesar's colonists in the story Suetonius credits to Balbus lived up to Cicero's past warning: in their eagerness to acquire easily large homes and great wealth, they impiously demolished and plundered the tombs of those who were cousins of their own ancestors. One plank of Cicero's rhetorical strategy was to accuse the colonial commissioners of aiming to acquire a royal power that could be used against Rome—the very same case that was constructed against Caesar with regard to the Republic.53 Seen in this light, it is difficult not to interpret the assassination of Caesar as an appropriate response to actions that carried such dire implications for the Republic. After the murder of Caesar, subsequent interpretation of the discovery of the Capuan inscription would have rendered it prophetic.54 The outcome it predicted did indeed come to pass. Aside from the murder of Caesar at the hands of a Brutus, Italian unrest erupted during the Perusine War and the Sicilian War, with the attendant suffering arguably constituting a kind of vengeance for Caesar's death. Certainly Suetonius cast Octavian's alleged human sacrifice of Perusians as an offering to the Divus Iulius in an act of revenge that clearly alludes to Achilles' sacrifice of twelve Trojan prisoners at the funeral pyre of Patroclus at Iliad 23.170–76.55
The Capuan inscription as Suetonius reports it seems a little too conveniently prescient to be faithful to the original events. A garbled version of the anecdote preserved in Servius points to the existence of another tradition about the discovery of a bronze calf inscribed with a dire prediction about the death of a descendant of Capys: nam his temporibus, quibus Caesar occidi habuit (occisus est?), Capuae iuvencae aeneae dicitur inscriptum fuisse, isdem temporibus unum de genere conditoris periturum.56 Given the problematic nature of Servius' text at that locus, one hesitates to be confident about the precise details, but the bronze calf is difference enough to raise suspicions about the neat fit presented in Suetonius' version of the inscription. At the very least, it could be that more than one version of the incident was handed down and that Servius reported one, while Suetonius reported the version transmitted by Cornelius Balbus.
The description of the Capuan tablet (tabula aenea in monimento) provides a fitting model for the bronze tablets of the Res Gestae set before the Mausoleum of Augustus. Indeed, looking back at the events of the Ides of March with the benefit of hindsight and with the Capys tablet in mind, one notes the manner in which Capys, founder of Capua, differs from Caesar, founder of the Capuan colony, in the very way that the former resembles Augustus more closely. The mausoleum of Capys must have occupied a site in a suburban necropolis outside of the city Capua proper, since the colonists broke into it while looting tombs in the process of clearing space for their country villas. This contrasts very directly with Caesar's honor of being buried within the pomerium at Rome. Furthermore, the tablet of Capys is bronze and predicts the death of Julius Caesar, while Caesar's tablets were silver, inscribed with gold letters, and constructed to intimate strongly the dictator's divinity. It is possible that Cornelius Balbus and other contemporaries recalled the Capuan incident through the eyes of associates of Caesar (not all friendly) who knew the consequences of the honors that he had received in early 44. Augustus' RG would hew closer to the model of Capys' bronze tablet than to that of Caesar's silver tablets, in that the RG was made of bronze and adorned the Mausoleum of Augustus outside the city proper—a fitting emulation of the Trojan founder-hero Capys.
The Books of Numa
Another historical incident that should be mentioned in a discussion of the form and placement of the Res Gestae is the discovery of the books of Numa.57 Livy's interest in the topic is consistent with the Roman intellectual community's fascination with Pythagoreanism in the first century BCE.58 In the year 181 BCE, a pair of boxes was either excavated from the Janiculum or uncovered by a torrential rain.59 One of the boxes, which had been intended to house the body of king Numa, was empty; the other box contained two texts, carefully sealed up to be preserved from weather damage. One text, written in Latin, contained the details of pontifical law, while the other, written in Greek, contained Pythagorean philosophy.60 When the texts were brought to the attention of the Senate, the Senate decreed that the urban praetor should see to their sacrificial destruction by fire at the hands of victimarii in the Comitium.61 The site was appropriate: the Comitium was the home of a statue of Pythagoras, which was erected in accordance with the advice of the Oracle at Delphi during the Third Samnite War (298–290).62
Some of the details regarding the discovery of the books of Numa suggest a parallel with the discovery of the bronze tablet of Capys. The years 182 and 181 were marked by a terrible epidemic that took the lives of numerous prominent Romans and may have sparked fears for the future of the city. Livy mentions one or more epidemics and their victims several times in book 40.63 Obsequens reports a consultation of the Sibylline Books, which resulted in a supplicatio of the gods, in response to an epidemic.64 Evidently, the number of the epidemic's victims prompted a consultation of the Sibylline Oracles, and then the consuls were ordered to celebrate games to the healing gods Apollo, Aesculapius, and Salus.65 In a gesture that was reminiscent of Roman religious intervention in Italy during the Suppression of the Bacchanals, supplications were ordered for all of the markets and local places of assembly (fora conciliabulaque) in Italy.
Livy's account places the discovery of the books directly after a brief mention of the settlement of a colony on Etruscan territory, formerly owned by Tarquinii, at Graviscae, under the direction of a commission of three men.66 This pairing of the foundation of the new colony at Graviscae with the unearthing of Numa's books is parallel to the discovery of the bronze tablet of Capys in the context of the foundation of the land commission that founded Caesar's colony at Capua. One can infer from the reference to the six-month-long drought that strikes Rome in 181 BCE, causing crops to fail, that the foundation of the colony at Graviscae resulted in divine displeasure.67 It is possible that there was also an outbreak of malaria among the colonists.68 The wonder of rain unearthing books written by the king who had established Rome's cult of Jupiter Elicius, a deity concerned with lightning and rain, could have been seen as evidence of the abatement of the gods' anger.69 If the colony, the drought, and the discovery are to be seen as related to each other, it may be that the proper sacrificial disposal of the dangerous books of Numa was intended to avert a tragedy such as occurred to Tullus Hostilius, who was killed for improperly carrying out a ritual to expiate the prodigy of stones raining on the Alban Mount.
The books of Numa were discovered on a hill associated with Janus and Numa, two figures featured in the Res Gestae (see the next two chapters). The location of the tomb of Numa on a hill on the edge of the city is parallel in a couple of different ways to Augustus' Mausoleum. Both are on the edge of the city, and both are tombs connected to elevated land; the Mausoleum is in the form of a tumulus, and the tomb of Numa is on the incline of a hill.70 After the body of Numa had vanished, either by decay or by apotheosis, the text remained as a testament to the special knowledge that Numa had to impart regarding Roman religion and Pythagorean philosophy.71 Similarly, the Res Gestae combines on two tablets elements of Roman cult established during the life of Augustus with an underlying euhemerism that drives the theological logic of the text.72 In other words, the RG, which documents Augustus' cultic honors, seeks to persuade its reader that the man in the Mausoleum deserves official deification. Finally, Livy's account of the discovery of the books of Numa suggests that some version of the story related the discovery to the end of divine anger in the form of drought and pestilence caused, perhaps, by the colonization of Graviscae. The RG presents Augustus as a god who has brought peace and salvation to Rome and Italy at the end of a period of upheaval and natural disaster reminiscent of the troubles of 181. The similarity of this new god Augustus to Numa will be discussed at greater length in the next two chapters.
The Res Gestae and the Golden Stele of Zeus Triphylius
The final textual artifact to be compared here to the RG is the golden stele of Zeus Triphylius from Euhemerus' Hiera Anagraphê. Unlike the other artifacts discussed thus far, the golden stele is most certainly fictional. Nevertheless, as a well-known image of a document that stands as a monument to the divinity of an extraordinary ruler and predates the RG, it belongs in this discussion. Furthermore, it was an influential literary source of the idea that human rulers could attain a form of deification based on the merits of their achievements in life. Bosworth's argument regarding the theological aims of the RG hinges on the influence of Euhemerus' ideas on Augustus. A final interesting possibility, but one that remains uncertain, is that the author had Sicilian origins, which perhaps inspired Ennius and later Italians to take special interest in his work.73
The relationship between the RG and the stele is perhaps more compelling than even Bosworth recognized. The parallels between the golden stele and Caesar's silver tablets have already been noted. Augustus could have easily noted those similarities and considered them as he decided how he wanted to memorialize his achievements for posterity. The relationship between the RG and the golden stele, however, may have been more direct. An obvious parallel between the RG and the golden stele is the fact that Zeus Triphylius himself authored the inscription on the stele.74 Augustus makes a point of stressing his authorship of the RG in chapters 7 and 35.75 Similar to the RG, Euhemerus' golden stele in the Temple of Zeus Triphylius draws from both the mythological travel narrative and Hellenistic practices of parousia and ruler cult.76
In his Hiera Anagraphê, Euhemerus offers a fictional account of the origins of ruler cult by describing the process through which Zeus came to be recognized as a god.77 The author writes of his journey to an island called Panchaea, where he finds a multi-ethnic, ideal society that is bound together by its piety in the observance of the cult of Zeus Triphylius, the great king who discovered the island, founded a city there, and was worshiped by its inhabitants after his death. The Temple of Zeus Triphylius linked together the initial arrival of the god, his foundation of the city, and his perpetual cult, inasmuch as the god founded his own temple upon his arrival. It appears as though Zeus' Panchaean temple was envisioned to be the god's palace in life, perhaps combining domestic, governmental, and religious functions much like Latinus' palace in the Aeneid and, it should be added, Augustus' Palatine palace.78 The RG likely draws on Euhemerus for inspiration, whether directly or indirectly through Ennius' translation, in that the implicit argument of its narrative, which, like the golden stele, includes the career, travels, and accomplishments of the ruler, is the recognition of the deity and state cult of a mortal founder, benefactor, and ruler.79
Many of these ideas originated in the interactions of Hellenistic kings with poleis. In the Hellenistic period, the arrival of the king was a foundational event in the establishment of his local ruler cult, with altars set up for special sacrifices on the occasion of his arrival and, in one famous case, marking the place where the ruler first alighted on the ground from his chariot.80 The incorporation of the ruler in the sacrifices, calendar, and political divisions of the city would follow.81 Through these honors, the polis incorporated the king as a member of the community and showed its commitment to him as its benefactor and protector. In return, it was expected that the city would remain loyal to the king and send him support whenever he might request it. Such support could take the form of soldiers, provisions, or money. Although this exchange of honors and benefactions had material impact on both king and city, it would be a mistake to discount the theological significance of the relationship. Ruler cult was not a cynical exchange tarted up with phony trappings of cult. Rather, cultic honors were thought appropriate for the nature of the exchange and the status of the parties involved.82 A person of the magnitude of a Hellenistic king was, by virtue of his surpassing influence on the fortunes of the city, godlike.83 It was only proper to give him the honors that reflected this fact. Indeed, the Hellenistic king deemed savior of the city could also be a refounder, a model that seems to have influenced Romans like Sulla, Cicero, Caesar, and Augustus in conceiving the restoration of the Republic.84
Roman imperial cult differed from Hellenistic ruler cult, but Romans long understood the significance of arrival in Hellenistic royal culture, including its cultic aspects, and came to see their own distinctive arrival practices through a lens that was partially shaped by that understanding.85 Thanks to the deification of Caesar, the topic of apotheosis was of special interest in the last years of the Republic. The fragments of Varro, for example, attest to a Roman understanding of the relationship between the performance of great deeds and deification, albeit a postmortem one.86 The Res Gestae is an example of that engagement, not only in its use of benefaction as the justification for the state cult of Augustus, but also in the structure of the narrative. The RG can be interpreted as a meta-parousia text, which, like many Hellenistic parousia narratives, opens with the liberation of the city and ends in the honors conferred on the royal benefactor.87 In the RG, the honor of the title pater patriae corresponds structurally with the climax of such a parousia event, with the interesting innovation being that Augustus received his crowning honor during his thirteenth term as consul, not during his initial arrival or after his return as ruler.88 Nevertheless, the honor's context within an arrival is confirmed by the account of Suetonius, who reports that the people first sent a deputation to Augustus at Antium to offer him the title pater patriae but that he only accepted it after he had returned to Rome and entered the theater, where “[the people] attended in throngs, all wearing laurel wreaths.”89 Such scenes were indeed common in the celebration of a ruler's arrival. The princeps ends the grand arrival narrative of his RG with an iconic image of foundation and triumph—the title pater patriae is described as being inscribed under his triumphal chariot in the Forum Augustum.90 In this way, triumphal, royal, and divine themes are seamlessly combined in the RG so that Augustus' career appears at once both as the fullest expression of a Republican statesman's achievement and as a powerful implicit argument for official ruler cult.91
Conclusion
The relationship between the Res Gestae and the other documents discussed in this chapter was likely the result, at least to some degree, of the deliberate design of Augustus, acting as one who was aware of the rich polysemy of these artifacts, their contents, and associated narratives. Augustus' RG sought to advertise his honors in a manner that evoked not only Pompey's commemoration of his Alexander-like achievements on the dedicatory inscription before his delubrum Minervae but also Caesar's honors inscribed on silver tablets and placed at the feet of Capitoline Jupiter. Euhemerus' utopian tale brings together the two sides of this vision quite nicely. The silver tablets were also remarkable for the way they translated their honorand from the company of mortal men to the realm of the gods. This crossing of existential boundaries is a quality shared by the discovery of the tablet of Capys and the unearthing of the books of Numa. The translation of these documents across different realms (underworld, mortal, and divine) conferred on them an authority that was difficult to ignore, because it attested to the involvement of superhuman agency in the messages therein.92 In the three cases under discussion, the translation was arguably effective in that regard. The Res Gestae stands out from this group of texts in its deliberate but misleading evasion of the question of existential translation. It steps right up to the threshold of such a translation from mortality to divinity, by inviting comparison with these other texts and making a theological argument for the deification of Augustus, but it places the responsibility for crossing the threshold on others. First, the text never explicitly refers to Augustus as a god; it only implies such. Second, the Senate would ultimately be responsible for officially deifying Augustus as it had done for Caesar before him. At the same time, the RG recounts a series of arrivals that ultimately lead the reader on a journey to a place where the apotheosis of Augustus is very strongly suggested, the Forum of Augustus.
1. RG 35. The unique form of civic-paternal deity that Augustus fashions is perhaps anticipated in Horace's pater urbium in Carm. 3.24.25. On Horace's formulation of Augustus' divinity, see Cole 2001, 85–88. See figure 1 in the present book for the Forum of Augustus.
2. Bosworth (1999, 9–18) demonstrated how the RG makes the case for Augustus' deification. Gradel (2002, 271–82) has added new insights. Particularly ingenious is the argument that the RG sought to show that Augustus' benefactions had so far outstripped his honors that only deification could make up the deficit.
3. On assimilation to the gods in the Late Republic, see Tondriau 1949; Pollini 1990.
4. See figure 1.
5. For Bosworth, see n. 2.
6. Sandys 1927, 93–104; Flower 2000a, 160–84.
7. For a discussion of the unique nature of the text of the RG, see Cooley 2009, 30–41.
8. NTDAR s.v. Minerva, Delubrum; LTUR 3.253–54. On Pompey and Minerva, see Santangelo 2007a, 232–33. On the silver tablets, see D.C. 44.7.1. On the bronze tablet of Capys, see Suet. Jul. 81.1–2. On the books of Numa, see Liv. 40.29.3–14; V. Max. 1.1.12; Plin. Nat. 27.87; Plu. Num. 22.4. On the golden stele, see D.S. 5.42.4–46.7; Lact. Inst. Div. 1.11.
9. Plin. Nat. 7.97.
10. Palmer 1990, 2–11.
11. According to Palmer (1990, 13), Pompey erected this temple in emulation of Alexander the Great. The RG, by contrast, implicitly compares Augustus to Alexander as a world conqueror in chapters 26–33. See Cooley 2009, 36–37, 218, 221, 249–51.
12. Galinsky (2012, 31) notes how even Augustus' reference to his age at the opening of the RG would have put him in the company of Alexander. There is an implicit comparison with a thirty-three-year-old Caesar bemoaning his late start in the pursuit of world conquest while reading a history of Alexander in Spain. See Plu. Caes. 11.5. In Suetonius, Caesar is not reading a history of Alexander but standing before a statue of Alexander in the Temple of Hercules in Gades. Cf. Suet. Jul. 7; D.C. 37.52.2. In its chapters on Augustus' conquests, the RG's implicit comparison with Alexander is pervasive. One of the highlights is the embassy from India, where the people whom Alexander had formerly fought voluntarily presented themselves to Augustus as a world ruler. Cf. RG 31.
13. Pliny the Elder (Nat. 7.27) does liken Pompey to Hercules and Dionysus when he introduces the inscription.
14. Dio Cassius (44.1–11) provides a catalog of Caesar's honors. The lettering on metal tablets was probably painted or gilded. On painted letters, see Viola 1895, cols. 407–8; Adamesteanu and Torelli 1969, 1–17; Williamson 1987, 166 n. 23.
15. Cic. Catil. 3.19; D.C. 37.9. Dio refers to the blurring (συνεχύθη) of the characters on the tablets. The gilded letters on Caesar's tablets could be a response to that kind of baleful omen.
16. Cic. Leg. 2.58.
17. Serv. A. 11.206. On the Valerii Publicolae, see LTUR 4.301. On the Fabricii, see LTUR 4.288–89.
18. Gantz 1974, 350–61; Frischer 1982–83, 61–62. According to Fraschetti (2005, 92–93), the tomb of Romulus should not be identified with the shrine of Vulcan, which was discovered by Giacomo Boni at the end of the nineteenth century.
19. Weinstock 1971, 175–77.
20. D.C. 44.7.1. Suetonius (Jul. 84) also records the honor of burial within the pomerium. See map 1 in the present book for the location of the Mausoleum of Augustus.
21. D.C. 43.14.6; Weinstock 1971, 40–59; Gradel 2002, 54–55.
22. D.C. 43.45.3; Weinstock 1971, 133–52, 175–88.
23. D.C. 44.4–7; Cic. Phil. 2.43.110; App. BC 2.106; Suet. Jul. 76.1, 84.2; Weinstock 1971, 270–310.
24. See Scott (1931) for the use of precious metals in statues of the gods.
25. D.C. 44.7.1: καὶ ἅ γε μάλιστα τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν ἐξέφηνεν, ἅμα τε ταῦτα ἐψηφίζοντο καὶ τάφον αὐτῷ ἐντὸς τοῦ πωμηρίου ποιήσασθαι ἔδοσαν: τά τε δόγματα τὰ περὶ τούτων γιγνόμενα ἐς μὲν στήλας ἀργυρᾶς χρυσοῖς γράμμασιν ἐνέγραψαν, ὑπὸ δὲ δὴ τοὺς πόδας τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ Καπιτωλίου ὑπέθεσαν, δηλοῦντές οἱ καὶ μάλα ἐναργῶς ὅτι ἄνθρωπος εἴη.
26. The confusion arises from failing to grasp Dio's purpose in this passage, which is to show how Caesar's honors were calculated to lead to his assassination. Dio tells us he is revealing the senators' mind-set (τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν) as expressed in their decrees, which consist of voting Caesar the right to a tomb or funeral rites (τάφον) within the pomerium, inscribing his honors on στήλας ἀργυρᾶς, and depositing those tablets under the feet of Capitoline Jove, to show very clearly that he was mortal. The word στήλη indicates the kind of tablet inscribed with treaties that Romans displayed in the Temple of Jupiter but can also refer to a grave marker. See LSJ s.v. στήλη. At 44.7.3, Dio explicitly states many senators vote Caesar honors with the intent to make him hated and thus to precipitate his swift demise.
27. Meier (1995, 474) recognizes that the honors pertained to Caesar's divinity, but he offers no argument to support his position. See also Gelzer 1968, 317. Scott (1931, 114 n. 49) notes, “We need not accept Dio's interpretation of the matter, and it seems rather that the inscription in gold letters on a silver tablet was one not fitting a mortal, and it must not be forgotten that Tiberius branded the proposition of a similar inscription as insolentia and designated gold letters contra patrium morem.”
28. Suet. Ves. 8.5: aerarumque tabularum tria milia, quae simul conflagraverant, restituenda suscepit undique investigatis exemplaribus: instrumentum imperii pulcherrimum ac vetustissimum, quo continebantur paene ab exordio urbis senatus consulta, plebiscita de societate et foedere ac privilegio cuicumque concessis. On such tablets, see Williamson 1987, 160–83.
29. Williamson 1987, 174–79. Williamson (179–80) also argues that the increasing significance of the Capitoline temple in the last two centuries BCE as the sacred center of Rome's empire rendered the symbolism of placing bronze tablets there especially potent.
30. Cic. Marc. 8.
31. The deposition of the tablets may have looked something like the procession of priests, followed by choirs of noble boys and girls, conveying Caligula's honorific gold shield to the Capitoline. See Suet. Calig. 16.4. Williamson (1987, 175 n. 59) suggests that “[t]ablets in temples were probably directed to the gods as well as to men.” In Rome, a silver tablet with gold lettering was probably only ever, if ever, directed to a god before Caesar.
32. D.C. 44.6.4.
33. Gelzer (1968, 317) reconstructs the event in this way.
34. Plu. Caes. 60.4; Suet. Jul. 78.1; D.C. 44.8.1–2. Since Antony was the other consul of the year, he is undoubtedly the consul mentioned in this episode, even though he is not specified by name.
35. As both Rüpke (2012, 64–71) and Beard (2007, 225–33) have argued, the triumphator's resemblance to Jupiter does not necessarily indicate his identification with the god. However, it also does not prevent such an identification. A distinction must be drawn between the origins of the ceremony and the different perceptions or manipulations of it. The increasing tendency of late-republican dynasts to assume divine roles recommends the view that the association of the triumphator with Jupiter could be exploited in order to lend a divine air to the mortal commander. Suetonius (Aug. 94.6) reports the prophetic dream of Augustus' father in which he saw his son appearing like a Helios-Jupiter figure (cum fulmine et sceptro exuviisque Iovis Optimi Maximi ac radiate corona), mounted super laureatum currum.
36. For the deposition of the laurel wreath in the lap of Jove, see Plin. Nat. 15.134; Sil. 15.118–20. Versnel (1970, 71) speculates that all the insignia triumphalia were placed in gremio Iovis.
37. Dio (37.21.4) reports that Pompey was given the honor of wearing a laurel wreath at public games, donning the paludamentum at all games, and wearing triumphal regalia at horse races. He also reports (44.4.2) that Caesar was granted the privilege of wearing triumphal garb wherever he was conveyed, whether in the city or outside it.
38. D.S. 5.42.4–46.7; Lact. Inst. Div. 1.11.
39. D.S. 5.46.7.
40. D.S. 6.1. Diodorus, relying perhaps on Hecataeus of Abdera, attributes to Euhemerus the view that there are two classes of gods: one celestial, the other terrestrial. One might argue that Dio interpreted the Senate's actions through this particular version of euhemerism. On these two classes of deities in Euhemerus, see Cole 1967, 157; Voegelin 2002, 133–34.
41. Suet. Jul. 81.1. Caesar proposed the colony at Capua during his consulship. Cf. App. BC 2.10; Gelzer 1968, 81; Meier 1995, 207. Pompey personally led the commission to found the colony. Cf. Cic. Att. 2.19.3. Two legions were stationed at Capua at an early stage of the conflict between Pompey and Caesar. See App. BC 2.29–31. Caesar (Civ. 1.14.4–5) disapprovingly reports the Pompeian Lentulus' attempt to raise soldiers from Caesar's Capuan gladiators and his colonists, although, as Gelzer points out, Pompey was one of the commissioners who established the colony and thus was equally entitled to be viewed as its patron. See Grillo 2012, 69–70.
42. Sed Caesari futura caedes euidentibus prodigiis denuntiata est. paucos ante menses, cum in colonia Capua deducti lege Iulia coloni ad extruendas uillas uetustissima sepulcra dis[s]icerent idque eo studiosius facerent, quod aliquantum uasculorum operis antiqui scrutantes reperiebant, tabula aenea in monimento, in quo dicebatur Capys conditor Capuae sepultus, inuenta est conscripta litteris uerbisque Graecis hac sententia: quandoque ossa Capyis detecta essent, fore ut illo prognatus manu consanguineorum necaretur magnisque mox Italiae cladibus uindicaretur. cuius rei, ne quis fabulosam aut commenticiam putet, auctor est Cornelius Balbus, familiarissimus Caesaris. There are various Trojan and Italian Capyses in Greco-Italian myth. See Deutsch 1922, 119–27. The precise identity of this Capys is not the crucial issue. The important points about Capys, for the purposes of this discussion, were his consanguinity with Aeneas and his status as the founder and ruler of Capua. In the first instance, the purpose of stressing this relationship was probably diplomatic. Capua presented itself to Rome as a sister city with ancient ties of kinship.
43. Farney 2007, 205–6.
44. The description of the tablet—tabula aenea in monimento—may hint at its function as a warning, or monitus.
45. The taboo against disturbing burials was strong. In general, a tomb was considered a locus religiosus that was protected by the pontifices and was not susceptible to sale or seizure as private property. See Rives 2011, 172–75. The prohibition of the sale or seizure of a tomb as property is attested in the Twelve Tables. Cf. Crook 1967, 133–38.
46. Also, Cicero had previously cast Pompey in the role of secular savior in 66. See, in the present book, chapter 3, n. 4. It seems that other Italians accepted the idea that Pompey was a uniquely significant figure, since many of them made vows for his welfare when he fell seriously ill in 50 BCE. Cf. Cic. Att. 816.1; Tusc. 1.86; Vell. 2.48.2; D.C. 41.6.3; Plu. Pomp. 57.1. Perhaps the son of Ilium targeted in the Capys tablet was originally Pompey, not Caesar. According to the De vir. ill. (66.11–12), vows of a similar kind were also taken for the recovery of M. Livius Drusus from illness in 91 BCE. For discussion, see Fears 1981b, 882–83.
47. Cic. Agr. 2.89; Harvey 1982, 145–48. Gabba (1976, 57–59) attributed Marian sympathies to the Capuans.
48. Cic. Agr. 2.88–97. For a recent discussion of this passage, see Morstein-Marx 2004, 73–76.
49. Cic. Agr. 2.89.
50. On Cicero's characterization of Capua as an altera Roma, see Vasaly 1993, 231–43.
51. Paschális 1997, 59, 102.
52. Cic. Agr. 2.92: omnis acerbissimas impiorum poenas pertulerunt.
53. Ibid. 2.33–35.
54. Suetonius (Cal. 57) reports that lightning struck the Capitolium of Capua on the Ides of March in the year of the emperor Gaius' assassination; this strongly suggests that the Capys tablet had earlier been reinterpreted as a prophecy of Caesar's assassination.
55. Suet. Aug. 15.1: scribunt quidam trecentos ex dediticiis electos utriusque ordinis ad aram Divo Iulio extructam Idibus Martis hostiarum more mactatos. See also D.C. 48.14.3–4. Appian (BC 5.48) does not represent the execution as a sacrifice.
56. Serv. A. 2.35. For discussion of this comment, see Deutsch 1922, 120–21.
57. Liv. 40.29.3–14; V. Max. 1.1.12; Plin. Nat. 27.87; Plu. Num. 22.4.
58. Livy (1.18) himself dismisses the notion that Numa was a student of Pythagoras, based on the chronological inconsistencies. Numa's reign predated Pythagoras' presence in Italy by more than a century. On Pythagoreanism at Rome, see Kahn 2001, 86–93.
59. Plutarch (Num. 22.4–5) is the only extant source to attribute the discovery to a heavy rain. Briscoe (2008, 479) believes that Plutarch was relying on a source later than Pliny. Since Plutarch cites Antias directly before discussing the rain, it is possible that Antias, who predates Pliny, was that other source.
60. Livy (40.29) specifies that it was Valerius Antias who claimed that the Greek book contained Pythagorean philosophy. He seems to dismiss this idea as part of the mistaken tradition in which Numa was anachronistically regarded as a disciple of Pythagoras.
61. Ibid. This image of sacrificial destruction militates against the view that the books were officially deemed fraudulent at the time, regardless of the fact that they were most certainly a pia fraus. On the role of the praetor, see Brennan 2000, 123.
62. Plin. Nat. 34.26.
63. Liv. 40.19, 26, 37, 42.
64. 6.
65. Liv. 40.37.
66. Ibid. 40.29.1–2: colonia Graviscae eo anno deducta est in agrum Etruscum, de Tarquiniensibus quondam captum; quina iugera agri data; triumviri deduxerunt C. Calpurnius Piso P. Claudius Pulcher C. Terentius Histra. siccitate et inopia frugum insignis annus fuit: sex menses nusquam pluvisse memoriae proditum. Cf. Briscoe 2008, 479; Torelli 1971, 44–67; 1977, 398–448. Graviscae, which Greek merchants had anciently established as an emporium, was the port of Tarquinii. Since one of the commissioners, Calpurnius Piso, may have claimed descent from Numa as other Calpurnii did, the discovery of the books after problems emerged in connection with the colony may not be a coincidence. Cf. Evans 1992, 25–26; Farney 2007, 275. On the Etruscan origins of the Calpurnii Pisones, see Schulze 1904, 137–38, 178, 211, 244, 260; Forsythe 1990, 296–97. Forsythe notes that the first two historically attested members of the family performed duties in Etruria. It seems likely that Livy derived the detail about Graviscae from the history of Piso Frugi (cos. 133).
67. See n. 42 for the expression of warning on the Capuan tablet.
68. Graviscae was known to be a malarial area. Cf. Serv. A. 10.184; Briscoe 2008, 479; Sallares 2002, 192–200.
69. On the association with lightning, see Liv. 1.20.7; 1.31.8; Ov. Fast. 3.327–92; Plin. Nat. 2.140. The association with rain is proffered in modern scholarship. See Rubins 1932, 93–102. This theory finds its best support in Fest. 115 L: Manalem vocabant lapidem etiam petram quandam, quae erat extra portam Capenam iuxta aedem Martis, quam cum propter nimiam siccitatem in urbem pertraherent, insequebatur pluvia statim, eumque, quod aquas manaret, manalem lapidem dicere. According to Servius (A. 3.175), the pontiffs brought the stone into the city to alleviate drought in a ritual called the aquaelicium. Rubins (94–95) contends that there is no explicit connection between Jupiter Elicius and rain. The prodigy that caused Tullus Hostilius to perform rites to Elicius—a shower of stones—seems to hint in that direction, however. Cf. Liv. 1.31.1: devictis Sabinis cum in magna gloria magnisque opibus regnum Tulli ac tota res Romana esset, nuntiatum regi patribusque est in monte Albano lapidibus pluvisse. Perhaps a version of this story served as an etiology for the lapis manalis.
70. Cassius Hemina described the location as in Ianiculo. Cf. Briscoe 2008, 483. NTDAR s.v. Ager L. Petilii locates the Ager Petilii and the tomb mentioned in Livy 40.29 in the area of the northwest slope of the Janiculan Hill, where the Via Aurelia rises up the hill. Harmansah (MAR s.v. Ianiculum, 148) finds the association persuasive. For the Janiculan Hill, see map 1 in the present book.
71. Livy (40.29.5) attributes the disappearance to decay. Briscoe (2008, 482) asserts that there is “no question of a miraculous disappearance of the body.” In the present discussion, however, Livy's interpretation is not the solely relevant issue. The salient point is the likely existence of stories that attributed the body's disappearance to miraculous causes. Given the Hellenistic infatuation with Pythagorean, pre-Socratic, and shamanic heroes and their miracles, it would be surprising if some version of the discovery of Numa's books did not depict the body's disappearance as miraculous.
72. The apotheosis of certain shamanic figures was a Pythagorean preoccupation. See Kingsley 1995, 253. On euhemerism in the RG, see Bosworth 1999, 10–12.
73. For discussion of Euhemerus as a Sicilian author, see Angelis and Garstad 2006, 211–42. Known as Euhemerus of Messene, Euhemerus may have come from the Messene in Sicily instead of the Messene of the Peloponnesus.
74. Lact. Inst. Div. 1.11: antiquus auctor Euhemerus, qui fuit ex civitate Messene, res gestas Iovis, et caeterorum qui dii putantur, collegit, historiamque contexuit ex titulis, et inscriptionibus sacris, quae in antiquissimis templis habebantur, maximeque in fano Iovis Triphylii; ubi auream columnam positam esse ab ipso Iove titulus indicabat, in qua columna gesta sua perscripsit, ut monumentum esset posteris rerum suarum.
75. RG 7: usque ad eum diem quo scripseram; 35: cum scripsi haec annum agebam septuagensumum sextum.
76. D.S. 5.42.4–46.7; Lact. Inst. Div. 1.11.
77. Diodorus and Lactantius ascribe somewhat different origins to the cult. Diodorus (6.1.10) reports that Zeus was proclaimed a god by the people he visited, while Lactantius (1.11.45–46, 22.21–25) says that Jupiter established his own cult. See Sulimani 2011, 64.
78. Verg. A. 7.59–192. See Rosivach 1980, 146–51. As Rosivach argues, the distinction between the palace of Latinus and the regia Pici is unclear. The regia Pici is modeled on the Capitoline Temple. These elements point to Vergil's use of euhemerism in establishing a model in which a relationship between the founder, ruler, and ruler cult transforms into divine cult over time.
79. See D.S. 46.7 on the contents of the golden stele. Bosworth (1999, 9–18) sees the influence of Hecataeus of Abdera and Euhemerus of Messene in the divine status of the ruler who combines a career of conquest and civilization.
80. For a fairly comprehensive early example of Hellenistic ruler cult, see Mikalson's discussion (1998, 75–104) of Demetrius Poliorcetes' cult at Athens. An altar was set up for Demetrius where he alighted from his chariot, and cult was there established for Demetrius as theos Kataibates. See Plu. Mor. 338a; Demetr. 10.5; Clem. Al. Protr. 4.54.6. On the epithet itself, see Habicht 1970, 156–59.
81. For the various honors and trappings of Hellenistic ruler cult, see Habicht 1970, 138–59. See also Chaniotis 2003, 431–45; Walbank 1987, 365–82; Price 1984, 23–52.
82. Price (1984, 23–24) discusses modern dismissals of ancient ruler cult as political flattery. Ancient criticism of ruler cult was, like ruler cult itself, both a political and religious act. It is crucial to note that the complaints of the Athenian Hypereides (Epit. 6.21) were inspired, to no small degree, by his political views as an anti-Macedonian: “[we] see sacrifices accorded to men, the statues, altars, and temples of the gods disregarded, while those of men were sedulously cared for and the servants of these men honored as heroes.” Trans. Walbank 1984, 95. See Habicht (1970, 213–21) on polemics against ruler cult.
83. Price (1984, 26) persuasively lays out the conditions that gave rise to Hellenistic ruler cult, which did not exist under tyrants or the rule of the Persian king: “The crucial development was a form of autocratic rule that was both external to the institutions of the city and yet at least partially Greek.”
84. For Antiochus IV as refounder of Babylon, see OGIS 253. On this inscription, he is called the savior of Asia, the founder, and the benefactor of the city. On the topic of Hellenistic kings' refoundations of cities in general, see Cohen 1995.
85. Livy (42.1.7–12) relates an early example of a Roman magistrate demanding Hellenistic-style apantêsis, a welcoming reception outside the city, from a Latin neighbor. The consul of 173 BCE, L. Postumius Albinus, angered about a prior perceived slight, sent letters ahead to Praeneste instructing its magistrates to come out to greet him (ut…obviam exiret) and entertain him at the city's expense. It was perhaps a predictably oppressive action on the part of a consul who was sent to police the boundaries between public and private land in Campania. Cf. Liv. 42.1.6. His assigned duties were no doubt resented.
86. Taylor 1934b; Sulimani 2011, 76–78.
87. On Hellenistic royal entry, see Strootman 2007, 289–305.
88. RG 35.1: tertium decimum consulatum cum gerebam, senatus et equester ordo populusque Romanus universus appellavit me patrem patriae, idque in vestibulo aedium mearum inscribendum et in curia Iulia et in foro Augusto sub quadrigis, quae mihi ex senatus consulto positae sunt, censuit. See also D.C. 55.10.9
89. Suet. Aug. 58.1: Patris patriae cognomen universi repentino maximoque consensu detulerunt ei: prima plebs, legatione Antium missa; dein, quia non recipiebat, ineunti Romae spectacula frequens et laureata; mox in curia senatus, neque decreto neque adclamatione, sed per Valerium Messalam. See also D.C. 55.10.9 for a cryptic reference to the honor.
90. RG 35.1.
91. Bosworth 1999, 1–18.
92. There is a long pre-existing tradition of such documents from the underworld. Diogenes Laertius (8.41) recounts Hermippus' tale of an emaciated Pythagoras emerging from an underground chamber to read an account of what had happened in the world above during his absence. He claimed to have received this information from his mother as part of the ruse. Burkert (1972b, 159) interprets the story to be about Pythagoras as the hierophant of Demeter, the earth mother. Pliny (Nat. 2.112.248) recounts the story of Dionysodorus the geometrician who allegedly sent a letter from the underworld confirming Eratosthenes' calculation of the earth's circumference.