To the latter they were the reincarnations of Ammon-Ra, and in their case the idea expressed by the adage, "The king is dead; long live the king", was fundamental. There could be no Pharaoh without an indwelling god; a god who was, of course, without beginning and without end-from everlasting unto everlasting; who simply revealed himself in the person of Alexander or Ptolemy. A similar conception of the king, as a great god incarnate in a ruler, made its appearance in the Asiatic world also in Hellenistic times; and, indeed, this idea, or one quite similar to it, proved helpful everywhere to overcome the reluctance of pious people to render divine honors to human beings. Alexander, no less than Mithradates and Mark Antony, was deified in Athens as a New Dionysus. Its acceptance in governmental circles, however, came only with the accession of Antiochos IV. to the throne of the Seleu cids in 175 B.C., when he presented himself to his subjects as the Beòs 'Emipavýs. Between 323 B.C. and 270 B.C., on the other hand, the divinity of the living ruler depended in Greek political thinking wholly upon the initiative of the city-community. Thus it was the Rhodians who in 304 B.C. classified the first Ptolemy as the Saviour God; later half a generation had passed that the Islanders followed the lead thus given, and it was not till his death (283 B.C.) when his physical power ceased, that a substitute for it was obtained when Ptolemy II. ordained his father's deification throughout the empire.13 Only in 270 B.C., when the second Ptolemy was joined to his deceased, and hence deified, sister-queen Arsinoe in the cult of the θεοὶ 'Αδελφοί, did a successor of Alexander venture to request everywhere in his realm the position demanded by the great conpriest for the cult of Alexander the Great in Alexandria lies apparently between 311 B.C. (Rubensohn, Elephantine-Papyri, 1) and 289/8 B.C. (ibid., 2 and 3). I conjecture that prior to this date Alexandria, like other colonies of Alexander, had the rights and governmental organs of an autonomous róiç (Schubart, Archiv für Papyrusforschung, V. 35 ff., 1909); hence also the right to select its own priest to minister to its god Alexander. After this date Alexandria was apparently governed by Ptolemy and his officials (see Mitteis and Wilcken, op. cit., vol. I. 1, pp. 14 ff.). 13 In the Seleucid empire also it was the need which Antiochus I. experienced of finding a legal basis for the enactments of his deceased father that led to the creation there in 281 B.C. of a Staatskult of Seleucus as Zeus Nikator. The worship of the living ruler was prescribed later by Antiochus II. (262-246 B.C.) Beloch, Griechische Geschichte, vol. III., 1, pp. 371 ff. Bevan (pp. 632 ff.) makes the honors of the living an anticipation of the honors due at death. This is to put the cart before the horse. There was no Staatskult of either Ptolemy I. or Seleucus I. during their lifetime. On the other hand, we may concede the probability that a halo tended to gather round the head of the son of one who was already a god-king, be he living or departed. Still, the crown-prince seems not to have received divine honors at least in the imperial cult (see, for example, the case of Germanicus, below, note 45). queror. Henceforth we have to distinguish in Egypt between the imperial cult (Staatskult) of the living ruler, which was prescribed by the monarch, and the city cult (Städtekult), which owed its existence to popular initiative. By the one loyalty was demanded, by the other it was tendered freely. Thereby the relation of ruler and subject ceased to be merely that of stronger and weaker and became instead legitimate and permanent. A Greek cult of double aspect thus appeared to supplement the worship accorded by the native Egyptians to their Pharaoh. Henceforth the Ptolemaic empire culminated from one point of view in the god-king Pharaoh Ptolemy-and from another in the new hybrid imperial god Osiris =Serapis. = The step thus taken by Ptolemy Philadelphus was quickly taken by his rivals and contemporaries also. It was not, however, a long one; for already scores of Greek cities had acknowledged their allegiance to their rulers, for the time being by elevating them to the hierarchy of their deities. Thus prior to 311 B.C. Skepsis had established a sacrifice, agon, procession, and fête (Ovoía, ȧyóv, στεφανηφορία, πανήγυρις), in honor of Antigonus Monophthalmus, and on coming definitely into his realm by the treaty of that year it provided him with the equipment of a god which could not be cancelled at a moment's notice-a temenos, altar, and idol.1 In 307 B.C. Athens had classified both Antigonus and his son Demetrius as its Saviour Gods.15 Four years later, when Demetrius revived the Corinthian League, Athens, now wishing to withdraw from its dependence upon him, chose to view him as bound by the conventions of the League to give the city complete internal freedom; but, as Plutarch tells us, the suzerain forced the Athenian assembly to decree that his will was supreme in all matters secular and religious.16 As yet there was no god Demos to contend with him for priority among the Olympians. In general it seems that the cities-viewing dependence as inevitable-voluntarily elected their rulers to godhood, thus saving their self-respect by escaping the necessity of yielding to illegal commands. Oftentimes the conferring of divine honors upon a ruler was little more than a compliment: it was a mere expression of respect or loyalty, and might signify as little as when a Spaniard offers his guest all his possessions.18 Not infrequently, however, the presence in the autonomous city of an epi14 Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, 6, n. 6.. 15 Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens, pp. 64, 108 ff. 10 Plutarch, Demetrius, 24; Hellenistic Athens, pp. 121 ff. 17 The best account of the development just sketched is to be found in Kaerst's appendix already cited. states showed that the divine ruler condescended to use other than spiritual weapons.19 Nowhere can a safe inference be made as to the practice and extent of monarchical interference in a city's government from the fact that it enrolled a king among its deities. The situation must be investigated in each particular case. It was, indeed, inevitable that a city which, like Athens, Rhodes, or Delos, strove to maintain a neutral position should have several god-kings at one and the same time. For this purpose a community was divisible into parts, over each of which a human deity might preside. Thus Athens had at times rival kings as the eponymous "heroes of various of its phylae.20 The world of the Greeks into which the Romans came, first in Magna Graecia and Sicily and then beyond the Adriatic, had become thoroughly habituated to the view that a monarch who created laws and did not have to obey them was a god; and though men were reconciled to this issue on different grounds-some by disbelief in all supernatural powers, others by the doctrine of an incarnation, which might be direct or by descent from one or both parents or more frequently from a remote ancestor, and still others by confusing the cultus of the living king with the heroic honors accorded to his departed predecessor, no one was unfamiliar with Alexander's device of legalizing absolutism by deification. The question must, accordingly, be asked: Was this expedient used to give a legal basis for the demands put by Rome upon its Greek amici in excess of or without warrant in treaty stipulations? Theory presented no difficulty. Thus in the teaching which Aristotle had given to Alexander no distinction was drawn in this respect between the one and the few-monarchy and aristocracy. If however there is an individual or more persons than one, although not enough to constitute the full complement of a State, so pre-eminent in their excess of virtue that neither the virtue of all the other citizens nor their political capacity is comparable to theirs, if they are several, or, if it is an individual, to his alone; such persons are not to be regarded any more as part of a State. It will be a wrong to them to treat them as worthy of mere equality when they are so vastly superior in virtue and political capacity, for any person so exceptional may well be com "IG., XII. 3, 320; 5, 2, 1061; Dittenberger, OGIS., 254; cf. Hellenistic Athens, p. 47; Holleaux, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, XVII. 52 ff. (1893), and Cardinali, Il Regno di Pergamo, pp. 275 ff. Into the theological question which arose when a Ptolemy or an Attalus obtained Athenian citizenship it is inexpedient to enter. He, of course, did not really mean to obey the laws and decrees of Athens. A courtesy was all that was involved. It is noteworthy that Attalus II. belonged to the deme Sypalettos, of the phyle Cecropis-not to the phyle Attalis. Ptolemy VI., on the other hand, was registered in the phyle Ptolemais (IG., II. 966). Politics, III. 13, 13 (p. 1284a). pared to a deity upon the earth (ὥσπερ γὰρ θεὸν ἐν ἀνθρώποις εἰκὸς εἶναι TÒV TOLOÛTOV). . . . It remains then, as indeed seems natural, that all should render willing obedience to such an one, and that he and his like should thus be perpetual kings within their States. Was, however, the step actually taken of adapting the Greek institution to the needs of the Roman government? The answer must be given in the affirmative. To take the place of a Seleucus, Attalus, or Ptolemy, the Greeks invented a goddess Roma. "An sich", says Richter in Roscher's Lexicon,22 "hat also eine dea Roma keine Existenzberechtigung; sie ist denn auch der römischen Religion zunächst durchaus fremd und, wie Preller, Röm. Mythol. 23, S. 353 sagt, den Römern von den Griechen aufgeredet worden." Just as Seleucus, Attalus, and Ptolemy were honored with agones-Seleuceia, Attaleia, Ptolemaeia-so Romaia were instituted in honor of Roma. The epithets Euergetes and Soter were the ones most commonly applied to the Hellenistic kings by their grateful subjects: the Roman senators and officials became Euergetae or Soteres.23 The nature of the goddess, whose orders were recognized as legal by the Greek cities, was further defined by her association with the deity Pistis or Fides the relation being symbolic of the fidelity to friendship and loyalty to obligation professed so insistently by the Romans. Where on earlier occasions access to the Greek councils and ecclesias was given to privileged persons μετὰ τὰ ἱερὰ καὶ τὰ βασιλικά it is given henceforth μετὰ τὰ ἱερὰ καὶ τοὺς Ρωμαίους. The honors due a god-king on his arrival in a dependency involved a pompe or procession: whenever one of the Euergetae came to Athens in the latter half of the second century B.C. a procession of ephebes and magistrates met him to escort him as he entered. It was, doubtless, similar elsewhere. In Athens, moreover, a special pulpit was erected for him to occupy if he chose to address a message to the assembled people. The god had his temple: the Roman senators and magistrates in Athens and elsewhere, in Sparta for example, had their Romaion -in Athens a temple-like structure with a stoa in front-in which they were lodged, presumably. We recall how Demetrius Poliorcetes took his residence in the Parthenon in the winter of 304-303 S. v. Roma, p. 130. 23 IG., II. 551. 94; Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum (second ed.), 521, 15; 930, 46; 329. Collitz-Baunack, Sammlung d. Griech. Dialekt-Inschr., II. 2724; Kern, Inschr. von Magnesia, p. 94; Wendland, loc. cit., p. 341, n. 4. B.C. and in the hieron of Apollo at Delos in the preceding summer. The account is still extant of the expenditure made by the Delian hieropoei to clean up the mess (κóπρos) he left. That Roma was primarily a political personage among the recognized deities of Athens is clear from her associations. When a republican government was restored in 229 B.C., after a generation of Macedonian rule, the god Demos was added to the cult of the Graces and a new temenos was laid out for them. When with Roman ascendancy the Romans became partners with the people in governing the Athenians, Roma also entered the coalition, and the priest who ministered to the triple alliance was styled "of Demos, Roma, and the Graces". The case was similar elsewhere. Thus, on the island of Delos, of which Athens got the government from Rome in 166 B.C., Demos became one partner of Hestia -the goddess of the civic hearth-and Roma another.24 The conclusion seems reasonably safe, therefore, that the Roman people got the right25 to make such demands as it pleased, or as Fides permitted, of the Greek cities with which its normal status was par et amicitia, by the enrollment of Roma among the deities of each city, and the recognition accorded to the Roman governing aristocracy as in fact Oeoí. This being the significance of the worship of Roma, it is clear that Roman citizens could not with propriety take part in it any more than a Ptolemy could worship himself.26 As a matter of References for the preceding paragraphs are given in Hellenistic Athens, pp. 366 ff. and 383. In 170 B.C. a decree of the Senate was passed reserving to this body alone the right to make arbitrary demands. See Livy, XLIII. 6; 17, 2; Polybius, XXVIII. 3, 3, 13; 11, 16, 2. Cf. Niese, Geschichte der Griechischen und Makedonischen Staaten, III. 136 ff. * Instructive in this connection is the Mytilenaean dedication with the following three inscriptions (Dittenberger, Syll., 338-340) : Γναίῳ Ποντηίῳ Γναίω νιῷ Μεγάλῳ, αὐτοκράτορι, τῷ εὐεργέτᾳ καὶ σωτῆρι καὶ κτίστᾳ.| ουδω ρίῳ φιλοπάτριδι Θεοφάνη, τῷ σωτῆρι καὶ εὐεργέτᾳ καὶ κτίστᾳ δευτέρῳ τῆς πατρίδος. | Ποτάμωνι Λεσβώνακτο[ς] τῶ εὐεργέτα καὶ σωτῆρος καί κτίστα τὰ [ς]πόλιο [ς]. In the case of Pompey no comment is necessary. Theophanes, however, was a Mytilenaean by birth; hence, seemingly, ineligible for divine honors in his own city. The fact was that he had received Roman citizenship (Cicero, Pro Archia, 24; Dittenberger, Syll., 341), and, as such, might receive without impropriety the same homage as his patron Pompey. After his death he continued to be a god, and on a coin appears the inscription →εòç Ðɛopáνnç Mvr(iλnvaíwv); Mionnet, Description de Médailles Antiques, III. 47, no. 108; Tacitus, Annals, VI. 18; Dittenberger, Syll., 340. Potamon, on the other hand, was simply princeps civium Mytilenaeorum: he appears, accordingly, in the inscription quoted above, as the son of the deceased "benefactor, savior and founder of the state", Lesbonax (Aɛoßìvaž ñpwę vɛós, Mionnet, III. 48, no. 116). The use in his case of the word πόλιος, in that of Theophanes of the word πατρίδος, emphasizes the difference in the status of the two men. A document published by Bechtel in Collitz's Sammlung d. Griech. Dialekt-Inschr., I. 373, no. 1271, runs as |