This work is dedicated to the question of how cultic worship and public deification developed within the framework of the Hellenic (i.e. originally Greek-Macedonian) religious and mythological world of the Ptolemies during the reign of Ptolemy II (ca. 285 [?]/282-246 BC) in the Egyptian core empire and in Hellenic areas of influence and whether, by whom and for what purpose they were specifically instrumentalised. Due to the complexity of the topic and the abundance of ancient sources and modern research literature, it makes sense to deal only with the Hellenic manifestations of the ruler cult during the reign of Ptolemy II. It should not be neglected that Egyptian ruler cults and Graeco-Egyptian mixed cults also existed in parallel. However, during the reign of Ptolemy II, in addition to the poleis of the eastern Mediterranean and Alexandria in the Egyptian core empire, larger, separate Hellenic communities, the majority of whose members were of Greek, Macedonian and Thracian descent, are documented. For these people, the Greek language, gods and culture formed the basis of their society, which is why separate Hellenic ruling cults were not just a marginal phenomenon, but a defining element of the Ptolemaic Empire.
Table of contents
1 INTRODUCTION
2 EARLY HELLENISTIC CULT WORSHIP OF HUMANS BEFORE PTOLEMY II
3 RULER-RELATED DEIFICATION AND CULTS OF PTOLEMY II
3.1 Epigraphic evidence of cult worship
3.2 Literary evidence of the deification of Ptolemy II
4 THE ROLE OF PTOLEMY II'S RULING CULTS IN HIS REIGN
5 CONCLUSION
6 BIBLIOGRAPHY
6.1 List of sources
6.2 Bibliography
6.3 List of illustrations
1 Introduction
The reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus1 was characterised, among other things, by the abundance of surviving, sometimes spectacularly publicly staged cultic worship for Ptolemy II as well as central members of the ruling dynasty and those closely related to him.2 Ptolemy II was also the first Hellenistic ruler to declare himself and his wife Arsinoe II gods during his lifetime.3 These sometimes systematic developments were trend-setting for the following centuries of Ptolemaic rule and for the (self-)staging of Hellenistic rulers in general.4 However, it is disputed in research whether and in which cases the Ptolemaic rulers were understood as gods or, according to Christian Habicht, only as gods in cultic worship.5 It is also debated to what extent certain associations with ancient gods, for example through attributes or genealogies, were intended to stage the worshipped as their reincarnation or, according to Marianne Bergmann’s theory, were merely metaphorical in nature.6 In addition, it is often argued that divinity was primarily staged for the purpose of a charismatic portrayal of a ruler.7 In contrast, Hans-Ulrich Wiemer, for example, assumes that the ancient Hellenes made a clear distinction between human rulers and gods and used ruler cults independently as an expression of loyalty within the framework of Hellenistic euergetism.8 The latter interpretation also facilitates the categorisation of the ruler cult in other models of Hellenistic rule than that of charismatic rule, which has been handed down particularly in German-speaking research.9
This work is dedicated to the question of how cultic worship and public deification developed within the framework of the Hellenic (i.e. originally Greek-Macedonian) religious and mythological world of the Ptolemies during the reign of Ptolemy II (ca. 285 [?]/282-246 BC) in the Egyptian core empire and in Hellenic areas of influence and whether, by whom and for what purpose they were specifically instrumentalised. Due to the complexity of the topic and the abundance of ancient sources and modern research literature, it makes sense to deal only with the Hellenic manifestations of the ruler cult during the reign of Ptolemy II. It should not be neglected that Egyptian ruler cults and Graeco-Egyptian mixed cults also existed in parallel.10 However, during the reign of Ptolemy II, in addition to the poleis of the eastern Mediterranean and Alexandria in the Egyptian core empire, larger, separate Hellenic communities, the majority of whose members were of Greek, Macedonian and Thracian descent, are documented. For these people, the Greek language, gods and culture formed the basis of their society, which is why separate Hellenic ruling cults were not just a marginal phenomenon, but a defining element of the Ptolemaic Empire.11
In order to answer this question, the development of the early Hellenistic claim to gods and cultic worship of humans before the reign of Ptolemy II is first outlined. Relevant extracts from various ancient contemporary sources are then analysed. The source situation is relatively good due to the comparatively long reign of Ptolemy II and the widespread dissemination of cults for him and his relatives. Due to different or similar addressees, recipients, patrons and contexts, the following source genres can be distinguished: lyrical and epic court literature, such as that of Theocritus, mostly epigraphically documented messages and resolutions of Hellenic poleis in exchange with the Ptolemaic court and epigraphic inscriptions of honour and dedication by Hellenic individuals and groups in Egypt. Subsequently, it will be determined whether and to what extent the ruler cult was instrumentalised by the Ptolemaic court for political purposes. In a final step, the previous results will be interpreted in terms of their compatibility with the prevalent explanatory models of Hellenistic rule.
2 Early Hellenistic cult worship of humans before Ptolemy II
In order to categorise the developments in the cult of rulers under Ptolemy II, it is first necessary to outline the development of the cultic veneration of people and the deification of rulers before the reign of Ptolemy II and to define the term ‘cult of rulers’ [‘Herrscherkult’].
Fundamentally, it is important to understand that Greek-Hellenic religion is difficult to compare with a modern Western understanding of religion. On the one hand, Greek religion is above all a cult religion, for which the public practice and celebration of the cult is so fundamental that some scholars argue that the decisive factor that constituted the divinity of a figure in the eyes of ancient Hellenes was precisely their cultic worship.12 Although the latter is a more extreme interpretation, it emphasises the outstanding importance of cultic acts compared to what we would understand today as faith and firm dogmas of belief. Although the ancient Greek religion was united by a common belief in central myths and the Olympian gods, the wider world of myths and gods, their interpretation and cultic realisation was by no means static. Even in pre-Hellenistic times, this had proven to be very flexible and changeable, especially at a local level, due to local characteristics and external cultural influences, so that the adaptation of foreign or conceptualisation of new deities was often possible without further ado.13 In addition, religion as a primarily publicly celebrated cult was closely linked to the political leadership of a polis via the cult community, which at least originally united large parts of the entire society of a polis as a central sanctuary. Thus the cultic offices were mostly public and political offices, which in turn gave the powerful of a polis decisive power over the cult and its community.14
Furthermore, even in pre-Hellenistic times it was possible for people to claim a special status based on a particular proximity to or similarity with heroes, demigods and gods and, in individual cases, to receive cultic honours.15 It was possible to claim a special status and god-like honours, for example, through paradigmatic references, the imitation of mythological heroic deeds, genealogical references, alleging genealogical descent from mythological heroes, local references, the pretension of a communal relationship to previous mythological inhabitants of a place (of residence), references of identity, the (self-)staging as a reincarnation of mythological heroes and (demi-)gods and personal equality, the claim to personal equivalence as an independent (mythological) heros.16 In principle, the distinction between people with extraordinary qualities and gods was blurred in Greek religion.17 On the one hand, Greek myth had numerous hybrid beings: Demigods and even Olympian gods were often thought of as relatively anthropomorphic. On the other hand, people could become gods in the eyes of their ancient contemporaries through special deeds or at least attain a status that justified god-like cultic honours.18 There is early evidence of funerary cults for polis founders (ktistes), some of whom were mythologised or mythical, and from the end of the 5th century at the latest, living people could also receive cult honours for extraordinary, mostly military, achievements.19 Such honours were bestowed on Philip II of Macedon, for example, who is said to have deliberately staged himself on the same level as the Olympian gods.20 In addition, Alexandros III achieved the status of a god in his own right during his lifetime, partly due to his reputation as a ‘liberator’ of the Greeks from foreign rule and partly through acts of deliberate self-presentation.21
In the early Hellenistic period, there were various cultic apotheoses (deifications) of powerful rulers by Greek poleis in the eastern Mediterranean, often as a result of a large-scale political-military or material boon from the deified for the nominally or actually independent polis.22 However, the extent to which the ruler was genuinely perceived and worshipped as a true god in such cults, as suggested by fragments of an Athenian cult song for Demitrios Poliorketes, for example, which describe him as more tangible and more powerful than the old gods, is disputed in research,23 or whether this was a special formal expression of gratitude and loyalty in return for the favours performed and still to be expected (euergetism).24 However, this question can only be answered, if at all, in relation to individual cults at specific points in time - here too, it is quite likely that both views already existed in parallel in the ancient world at the same time and place.25 The same applies to the question of how and to what extent a particular ruler should be worshipped as a reincarnation or as a god in his own right.
Due to the special significance of the publicly celebrated cult, Stefan Pfeiffer sees the central criteria of the Greek ruler’s cult as being the addressing of the ruler as a god on dedicatory inscriptions, god-like sacrifices, a separate priesthood and a separate place of worship with a sacrificial altar.26 A distinction is also made between rulers’ cults that were established by poleis, associations or private individuals, usually for euergetic purposes, or that were ordered directly by the ruler himself in order to additionally legitimise himself.27 During the reign of Ptolemy I Soter there is no evidence of an empire-wide Hellenic ruler cult. Ptolemy I’s own cult with its own sanctuary can only be proven for Rhodes, after Ptolemy I had stood by the polis in the war against the Antigonids, for which the polis also gave him the epithet soter (‘saviour’) and had the deification confirmed by the Panhellenic oracle in Siwa.28 The creation and instrumentalisation of the empirewide, eponymous cult of Alexander, which was equated with that of the Olympian gods, is regarded as more important in relation to the Hellenic population of the empire.29 Thus Ptolemy I also endeavoured to stage a fictitious dynastic unity with the Argead by means of the corpse of Alexandros and his own historiography, among other things, and to distinguish himself from other nobles as a companion of powerful gods.30 Although there are isolated private Hellenic dedicatory inscriptions and it is possible that Ptolemy I was honoured as ktistes in Ptolemais during his lifetime, the establishment and widespread dissemination of the apotheosis and the cult of Ptolemy I can be attributed primarily to Ptolemy II.31
3 Ruler-related deification and cults of Ptolemy II.
On the basis of various extracts from epigraphic and literary sources from the reign of Ptolemy II, the main features of deification and cults for Ptolemy II (and his relatives) as well as their main actors and mechanisms will be determined in the following.
3.1 Epigraphic evidence of cult worship
One epigraphic source that can provide information about the relationship between nominally independent Greek poleis and city alliances of the eastern Mediterranean and Ptolemy II in the context of cult politics is a resolution of the koinon of the Nesiotes in honour of Ptolemy I and II, which is dated to ca. 280/278 BC and can thus be classified as a primary source of the early reign of Ptolemy II.32 The inscription, which can be divided into a preface, reasons for the decision and the actual decision, is preserved on a stele that was installed in a private house on Nicuria and has two smaller, non-reconstructable gaps at the beginning of the decision section.33 It begins by explaining that the decision to recognise and participate in the cultic games that Ptolemy II wanted to organise in Alexandria in honour of his deceased father was taken at a meeting of the council members on Samos at the instigation of the king of the Sidonians and the leader of the Nesiotes. It is then emphasised that Ptolemy I, who is referred to here as basileus and with the deifying epithet soter, had brought great benefits to the Nesiotes and all Hellenes by liberating their cities and restoring the old legal order - this could allude to the fact that Ptolemy I had removed the Nesiote League from an originally Antigonid control.34 Ptolemy II, who like his father was well-disposed towards the Nesiotes, sacrificed to his father and was generally very pious and therefore asked all Hellenes to recognise the pan-Hellenic, gymnastic, musical and hippic competitions that he had organised in Alexandria (Ptolemaia) in honour of his father as equivalent to the (sacred) Olympic Games. They were obliged to comply with this, as they had already shown Ptolemy I godlike honours due to his deeds and because they wanted to reciprocate the favour and good deeds of Ptolemy II. It is clear from the actual resolution that Ptolemy II’s wish was honoured and the Ptolemaia and its winners were placed on an equal footing with the most important ritual pan-Hellenic competitions. In addition, three envoys were appointed to sacrifice to Ptolemy I and present Ptolemy II with a valuable gold wreath for the salvation of the alliance in Alexandria. In addition to provisions on financing, it is also stated that the resolution was to be placed on stelae at the altar of Ptolemy I in Delos and in the sanctuaries of the confederates, which indicates that the primary addressees of the inscription were the Nesiotic citizens. Obviously, this inscription, which had a special significance simply because it was placed in sanctuaries, was intended to convey more than just news. On the one hand, the euergetistic aspect of the message is very clear: Ptolemy I is to be thanked for his deeds and Ptolemy II, who acts in the spirit of his father, whereby the latter can also indirectly legitimise his own status through his proximity to his father,35 and would like to secure the Nesiotes’ favour. On the other hand, however, it can be assumed that this depiction of a free decision by the supposedly independent koinon, which was merely friendly to the Ptolemies, was political propaganda by courtiers (philoi) of Ptolemy II.36 Not only was the koinon under Ptolemaic control at the time in question, but the leading co-author of the decision, the first-named Philocles, king of the Sidonians, was a general and naval commander of the Ptolemies and de facto viceregent of the Ptolemaic territories to the north of Egypt.37 It can therefore be assumed that Philocles wanted to present himself as very loyal and therefore suitable for future honours within the framework of the Hellenistic philoi system with his prominent mention in the resolution, but also that the koinon effectively had no free choice in complying with Ptolemy II’s request, but that it was desirable to convey this impression.38 According to Stefan Pfeiffer, the golden wreath of honour should also be seen in this context as a symbolic tribute to Ptolemy II.39 The effort to portray the act as the free decision of a Greek confederation was presumably intended to legitimise the panhellenic festival, the deification of Ptolemy I and ultimately the closely associated rule of Ptolemy II himself and thus also to ensure the widest possible dissemination of the Ptolemaia and the associated ideas throughout the Hellenistic world.40 In this way, Alexandria and thus indirectly its own rule could be staged as the decisive cultic centre of the Hellenistic world.41 Moreover, according to Athenaeus (2nd/3rd century AD), the wealth of the Ptolemaic dynasty was effectively demonstrated and the magnificence and divinity of the Ptolemies was openly staged; due to the temporal distance, however, Athenaeus’ account is above all a testimony to the effectiveness of Ptolemaic propaganda and the massive staging of Ptolemaic wealth.42 The potentially unifying and identity-forming effect of such supra-regional imperial cults and competitions for the rather heterogeneous Hellenic population of the Ptolemaic core empire should certainly not be underestimated.43 Furthermore, epigraphic sources also show that regional Hellenic competitions in Egypt under Ptolemy II were also integrated into the cultic veneration of the ruler. For example, agonic inscriptions were dedicated to Ptolemy II and a separate adolescent stage was named after the ruler (ptolemaikoi) - both of which were actually privileges of the Olympian gods.44
The fact that the Nesiote Decree is a prime example of Ptolemy II’s communication with poleis in his sphere of power is also demonstrated by an almost completely preserved inscription on a marble stele from Miletus, which is dated to around 260 BC.45 In this case, Ptolemy II’s original message to the boule and the demos of Miletus is also documented: Both sides repeatedly emphasise the euergetic reciprocity of the relationship. However, the prominent role of Kallikrates’ control function regarding the loyalty of Miletus indicates that Miletus also acted less independently than depicted, since Kallikrates was for a long time fleet commander, eponymous priest and one of Ptolemy II’s closest philoi and also regularly donated cultic monuments to him.46 In addition, the prestige of Ptolemy I’s good deeds is also transferred to his son and Ptolemy I is apparently worshipped as a temple-sharing saviour god in the sanctuary of Apollo in Miletus.
A central component of Hellenic cult festivals and agons, which often included musical competitions, were the cult co-operatives of Dionysus known as ‘Technites’(technitai), which frequently brought together musicians and actors.47 Significant for the widespread and systemic relevance of the deification of rulers during the reign of Ptolemy II. is the epigraphically documented self-designation of such a cult community in Ptolemais Hermiou in a decree of honour: “sSo^sv TOig TSxvÍTaig TOig nspi tov | Aióvuoov Kai Osoug ASsk^oug Kai TOig | rqv oúvoSov vépovoiv”.48 For example, in the resolution formula of such a Dionysian cult association, Ptolemy II and his second wife and sister Arsinoe II are mentioned as sibling gods theoi adelphoi in the same breath as Dionysus as patron of the association. The main reason for this is likely to have been the fact that the artists involved also sought the favour of the powerful outside the agones.49 The person honoured in the inscription was also a prytan (prytaneis) for life, whose favour the technitai sought to secure as part of his local power and which he could not easily deny to such an association dedicated to the cult of the king.50 The association with Dionysus was also particularly obvious, as he had already been depicted as the mythical progenitor of the Ptolemies and a link to the deified Alexandros the Great since Ptolemy I.51 According to Sabine Müller, the ambivalent nature of the Dionysus myth as the god of tryphs (as in tryphé) and as a conqueror provided an important model for the Ptolemaic representation of the ruler as a metaphor for the prosperity and expansive power of the empire.52
3.2 Literary evidence of the deification of Ptolemy II
In addition to cultic deifications of Ptolemy II and his close relatives, which were mostly motivated by local euergetism or the philoi system, they were also increasingly venerated throughout the empire, for example through the inclusion of the theoi adelphoi in the eponymous imperial cult and through propagandistically charged festivals organised directly by the Ptolemaic court.53 The court-controlled Hellenic staging of the ruler also included various works by contemporary writers, as musical artists such as Kallimachos, Poseidippos and Theokritos were dependent on the philoi system at the court of Ptolemy II and therefore wrote many of their often mythologising works in the spirit of the ruler’s propaganda.54 At first glance, this could give the impression that they were genuine hymns of praise, similar to those for mythological heroes and gods - a Homeric style was often used to create this impression.55 In addition to the material dependence of the artists on the ruler, which is also hinted at in places in the works56, narratives glorifying the ruler, which appear in a similar form in works by various artists, also suggest that basic guidelines of courtly propaganda were followed.57 However, such works did not always have to contain direct praise of the ruler or his relatives, but could also subtly incorporate important elements of the ruler’s representation. These include five poems by Theocritus for (demi-)gods with whom the Ptolemies liked to associate themselves.58
However, Theokritos also wrote Eidyll 17, the only surviving detailed encomium from the Hellenistic period.59 According to Dee Clayman, it combines stylistic elements of the Homeric hymn with encomia intended for humans.60 61 At the beginning of Eidyll 17, Ptolemy II is only referred to as the first among men, but with a parallel to Zeus, the first of the gods:
’Ek Atog àpxo'jpsoOa Kat èg Aia Ziy/ste Motoat, àOavatrnv tòv aptotov èn^v aùòàtpsv àotòatg: àvòpàtv 5’ aù n-toZspaìog èvt npÓTOtot ZsysgOoj Kat nt'ipa-tog Kat péoooog: ó Yap npopepéatatog àZZotv. l’ipojsg, Tot npóaOsv àp’ liptOéojv èYévovro, pégavteg KaZa epxya oopòv èKupnoav àotòòv: aùtap èYÒ ntoZepaìov èntotapevog KaZa 61 etnetv upv^oatp : upvot 5e Kat àOavatrnv Yspag autrnv.
However, in the same section, the praise of Ptolemy II is equated with that of established (demi-)gods, which suggests that the distinction between Ptolemy II and the gods has been cancelled.62 In the following section, Theokritos describes Ptolemy I as an immortal god and in communion with Alexandros and the alleged common ancestor Heracles.63 The apotheosis of Ptolemy II’s mother, Berenice I, with the help of Aphrodite and the birth of Ptolemy on Kos are also described in a mythologising way (genealogical reference).64 The emphasis on the apotheosis of Berenice I in particular is often interpreted as an additional legitimisation of Ptolemy II vis-à-vis his half-brothers and other nobles.65
In the following two sections, Theocritus lists the territories of Ptolemy II, describes in detail his wealth and the generosity of his spending towards gods and men.66 67 In the final section, the cult of theoi soteres created by Ptolemy II for his parents is praised, the sibling marriage of Zeus and Hera is described, before Ptolemy II is finally explicitly named as a “'qp.iOeog” (‘demigod’) (personal equality).67 The latter categorisation of Ptolemy II as a demigod and the lack of mention of the theoi adelphoi suggests that Eid. 17 predates the introduction of the eponymous cult of the gods for Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II (273-272/1 BC). To a certain extent, the focus on the pairs of gods Zeus/Hera, Ptolemy I/Berenice I with clear references to Ptolemy II and his marriage to his sister - hence the emphasis on the sibling marriage of Zeus and Hera - describes not only a genealogical legitimisation of Ptolemy II but also the intermediate state of the Ptolemaic ruler’s staging after the introduction of the cult for the theoi soteres and before that of the theoi adelphoi.68 The emphasis on the paired deification of the first two Ptolemaic ruler couples was the origin of a separate god-ruler couple motif (cf. figs. 1 & 2), which also became widespread in numismatic depictions, emphasising the genealogical unity of both couples (cf. fig. 1).69
It is also noteworthy that Eid. 17 is structured in large parts as a typical encomium, but in the place that usually sings of the ruler’s (military) achievements, as paradigmatic references, here the territories controlled by Ptolemy II are listed and the ruler’s riches are described.70 The motif of the ruler’s victoriousness - partly for lack of it - is substituted by other elements, such as the successful fight against crime in Eid. 15 and, above all, the wealth and generosity of the Ptolemies, which also made the ruler the guarantor of prosperity. On the one hand, this substitution enabled the ruler to stand out from possible usurpers and, on the other, replaced a central element in the propaganda of Hellenistic kingship.71 The latter was to become particularly important for subsequent generations of Ptolemaic rulers.72
4 The role of Ptolemy II’s ruling cults in his reign
It is clear from the available sources that the empire-wide cults, initially for the parents of Ptolemy II as theoi soteres and later for his wife and himself as theoi adelphoi, were largely due to the initiative of Ptolemy II himself. On the one hand, the establishment of empire-wide, even eponymous, Hellenic cults for members of the ruler’s family is inconceivable without his consent and support, and on the other hand, the original initiative for the veneration in the various examples is to be found primarily with the ruler and his leadership.73 Thus the expressions of veneration by various poleis can initially be traced back to their military and/or material dependence on the Ptolemaic court in the context of euergetism, which is also indicated by the key roles that the Ptolemaic philoi played both for the Nesiote League and for Miletus. The veneration of music by court artists is also primarily due to their material dependence within the philoi system. Furthermore, the minting of coins of deified ruler couples and the invention and active panhellenic popularisation of the Ptolemaia, the associated veneration of Ptolemy I and the staging of Ptolemy II also demonstrate his active, central role in the establishment of the cults. Above all, however, the persistent endeavours of the ruler and his closest confidants (such as Kallikrates) to establish ruler cults show the great importance they attached to the cults as an instrument of power. Stefan Pfeiffer thus sees four of the five central pillars of Ptolemy II’s rule in the staging of the dynastic-divine origin of the ruler, the guaranteed Dionysian prosperity, the divinely legitimised sibling marriage and self-deification.74 However, it cannot be concluded from this that the establishment of the cults followed a static plan. On the contrary, Gregor Weber assumes that the various cult forms associated with the ruler developed in a larger, reciprocal context of communication between the ruler and the population.75 This is supported by the fact that, on the one hand, deification could vary greatly in its underlying motivation and extent depending on the context and could also influence the further construction of the ruler’s cult. Thus, various forms of political or material dependence on Ptolemy II can be seen as the starting point for cultic veneration by poleis, artists and other philoi. However, although the worship in individual cases follows familiar common threads, whether Ptolemy I was given his own cult area, as in Rhodes, or became the temple-sharing god in the Apollo sanctuary in Miletus, could not and should not have been determined by Alexandria. The epithet soter, which had once been bestowed on Ptolemy I by Rhodes for military assistance, was also taken up by the court when the empire-wide cult was later founded. Similar to the detailed divine legitimisation of Ptolemy II’s claim to rule, as expressed in the poems of Theocritus, Ptolemy II also used the establishment of further individual imperial cults for Arsinoe II, in part later also with his other deceased sister Philotera, as a legitimising instrument for concrete political goals, above all the consolidation of his personal claim to rule and that of his family branch against possible usurpers.76
In the absence of comprehensive, impartial historical sources, the religious effectiveness of centrally initiated rulers’ cults is often doubted, as already mentioned, and cannot be proven or disproven with any certainty, even for the reign of Ptolemy II.77 However, there can be little doubt that the Hellenic cults of Ptolemy II at least formally fulfilled the criteria constituting a cult and played a prominent role among various groups of the Hellenic population in large parts of his empire.78
There is a general consensus that the establishment of ruler cults was intended to further legitimise the ruler’s power.79 The reign of Ptolemy II is generally regarded as comparatively stable: even if some of the peripheral areas of the empire were contested, Ptolemy II succeeded in ascending his father’s throne, ruling unchallenged for a relatively long time and bequeathing his empire to his son without his power in the core empire being seriously threatened, for example by attempts at usurpation.80 However, it would be a mistake to attribute this to the establishment of Hellenic ruler cults alone. Nevertheless, it is obvious that these had a stabilising effect on Ptolemy II’s rule over his Hellenic subjects. In this context, Germanophone research in particular argues that ruler cults were able to support Hellenistic rule, which is often thought to be based on Weber’s model of charismatic rule, by helping the ruler to legitimise himself before his Hellenic population as “sent by God or as exemplary and therefore as a ‘leader’”81, especially when this was not possible militarily.82 However, Hellenistic rule is often modelled in Anglo- and Francophone research according to the ‘institutional’ approach.83 The question as to which of the two models better characterises the rule of Ptolemy II over his
Hellenic population cannot be answered solely on the basis of his Hellenic cult policy. However, it should be noted that the historical facts on the Hellenic cults of Ptolemy II could support both interpretations. The necessity of the most ‘charismatic’ possible staging of rulers through cults, in the absence of propagandistically effective victories, is supported by the omission of the topos of victory in the works of Theocritus and, in general, the high status of the cults, which were also carried out at great expense, as the organisation of the Ptolemaia alone demonstrates.84 In an ‘institutional’ model, the cults would have had a more abstract function. On the one hand, the cults could have served to display the ruler’s wealth - as has been established, Ptolemaic wealth was also an important topos in the ruler’s worship. They could also have provided an adequate means of securing the loyalty of individual population groups and local elites, integrated into the philoi system and euergetism - this was undoubtedly an effect of the cults, especially in the case of nominally independent poleis.85 The impossibility of a clear assignment to one of the two explanatory models of Hellenistic rule is due not only to the fact that the rulers’ cults are only a set piece of the reign of Ptolemy II, but also to the fundamental problem of reliably categorising reconstructions of a complex historical context into an idealtypical model.
5 Conclusion
The sources show that during the reign of Ptolemy II, various Hellenic cults were established for him and his close relatives throughout the empire. This took place in different places and groups, sometimes in different ways, according to centralised basic ideas, but not according to an unchangeable plan of the ruler. Thus, the groups and individuals involved, who were often dependent on Ptolemy II within the framework of Hellenistic euergetism and the philoi system , were sometimes able to influence the development and further reception of the cults and use them to their material or political advantage in their relationship with the Ptolemaic court. Nevertheless, the fundamental decisions on the foundation and often costly sponsorship of the cults were made by Ptolemy II himself.
On the one hand, he used these cults to promote a common identity among the heterogeneous Hellenic population and to pledge the loyalty of Hellenic peripheral regions, but on the other hand, he used them above all to legitimise his personal claim to power. Furthermore, it was established that there are plausible theories for the questions of the extent to which the cults of Ptolemy II were actually regarded by Hellenic contemporaries as equivalent to those of the old gods and whether the establishment of the cults actually had a stabilising effect on the rule over the Hellenic population. However, in the absence of sufficiently neutral historical sources, these theories cannot be verified with certainty. Within the framework of these limitations, it can be said with certainty that the Ptolemies’ deifications and cultic worship played a central role as an instrument of power. The concrete importance of the cults for the rule of Ptolemy II can be interpreted differently depending on the explanatory model of Hellenistic rule used.
The results of this paper could serve as a starting point for answering the questions of the extent to which the Hellenic and Egyptian cultic deification of rulers and their instrumentalization during the reign of Ptolemy II showed parallels and differences and whether Ptolemy II’s reign as a whole can be adequately assigned to a particular model of rule.
6 Bibliography
6.1 List of sources
Brodersen, Kai/Günther, Wolfgang/Schmitt, Hatto (Hrsg.). Historische griechische Inschriften. Studienausgabe [HGIÜ]. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2011.
Effe, Bernd. Theokrit. Gedichte. Griechisch - deutsch. 2. Auflage. Berlin: De Gruyter (Sammlung Tusculum), 201.
Jacoby, Felix (Hrsg.). Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Teil 2 Zeitgeschichte A. Universalgeschichte und Hellenika (Nr. 64 - 105). Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961.
Pfeiffer, Stefan. Griechische und lateinische Inschriften zum Ptolemäerreich und zur römischen Provinz Aegyptus (Einführungen und Quellentexte zur Ägyptologie 9). Berlin: LIT, 2015.
- IG XII 7,506
- SEG XLIII 1103
- OGIS I 50
Wiegand, Theodor (Hrsg.). Milet. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899. Heft III Das Delphinion in Milet. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1914. 300-307.
- Milet I 3, 139
Welles, C. Bradford. Diodorus Sicilus. Library of History Volume VIII. Books 16.66-1. In Loeb Classical Library (online), abgerufen am 15.03.2023, https://www-loebclassics-com.ubproxy.ub.uni- heidelberg.de/view/diodorus siculus-library history/1933/pb LCL422.95.xml.
Yonge, Charles Duke. Athenaeus. The Deipnosophists. Book 5. Royal processions. 1854 In: attalus.org, abgerufen am 15.03.2023, http://www.attalus.org/old/athenaeus5a.html.
6.2 Bibliography
Bergmann, Marianne. Die Strahlen der Herrscher. Theomorphes Herrscherbild und politische Symbolik im Hellenismus und in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1998.
Brill’s New Pauly (2006) s. v. Ptolemaios II. Philadelphos (W. Ameling), aufgerufen am 16.03.2023, https://referenceworks-brillonline-com.ubproxy.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/entries/der-neue-pauly/ptolemaios- e1012900?s.num=0&s.f.s2_parent=s.f.book.der-neue-pauly&s.q=ptolemaios.
Chaniotis, Angelos. „Religion und Mythos.“ In Kulturgeschichte des Hellenismus. Von Alexander dem Großen bis Kleopatra, hrsg. von Gregor Weber, 139-157, 448-454. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 2007.
Clayman, Dee. „Rulers and Patrons in Theocritus.“ In Brill’s Companion to Theocritus. Brill’s Companions to Classical Studies, hrsg. von Poulheria Kyriakou, Evina Sistakou und Antonios Rengakos, 559-583. Leiden: Brill, 2021.
Gehrke, Hans-Joachim. „Der siegreiche König. Überlegungen zur Hellenistischen Monarchie.“ Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 64 (1982): 247-277.
Gehrke, Hans-Joachim. „Hellenismus (336-30 v. Chr.)“ In Geschichte der Antike. Ein Studienbuch, hrsg. Hans-Joachim Gehrke, Helmuth Schneider, 211-275, 5. Auflage. Berlin: J. B. Metzler, 2019.
Grabowski, Tomasz. „The Cult of the Ptolemies in the Aegean in the 3rd Century BC.“, Electrum 21 (2014): 21-41.
Goyette, Michael. „Ptolemy II Philadelphus and the dionysiac model of political authority.“ Journal of Ancient Egyptians Interconnections Vol. 2.1 (2010): 1-13.
Habicht, Christian. Gottmenschtum und griechische Städte. Zetemata. Monographien zur klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 14. 2. Auflage. München: C.H. Beck, 1970.
Hölbl, Günther. Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches. 2. Auflage. Darmstadt: Konrad Theiss, 2004.
Hölscher, Tonio. „From Early on to Become a Hero (‘Held’). Mythical Models of Alexander’s Image and Biography.“ In The Legitimation of Conquest. Monarchical Representation and the Art of Government in the Empire of Alexander the Great, hrsg. von Kai Trampedach, Alexander Meeus, 21-44. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2020.
Meister, Klaus. Der Hellenismus. Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, 2016.
Mikalson, Jon. „Greek Religion. Continuity and Change in the Hellenistic Period“ In The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World, hrsg. Glenn Bugh, 208-222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Müller, Sabine. Das hellenistische Königspaar in der medialen Repräsentation. Ptolemaios II. und Arisone II. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 263. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009.
Pfeiffer, Stefan. Herrscher- und Dynastiekult im Ptolemäerreich. Systematik und Einordnung der Kultformen. Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 98. München: C.H.Beck, 2008, abgerufen am 16.03.2023, in: https://books.openedition.org/chbeck/1130.
Pfeiffer, Stefan. Griechische und lateinische Inschriften zum Ptolemäerreich und zur römischen Provinz Aegyptus (Einführungen und Quellentexte zur Ägyptologie 9). Berlin: LIT, 2015.
Pfeiffer, Stefan. Die Ptolemäer. Im Reich der Kleopatra. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2017.
Shipley, Graham. The Greek World after Alexander. 323-30 BC. Routledge History of the Ancient World. London: Routledge, 2000.
Walbank, Frank. „Könige als Götter. Überlegungen zum Herrscherkult von Alexander bis Augustus“ Chiron 17 (1987): 365-382.
Weber, Gregor. „Ungleichheiten, Integration oder Adaption? Der ptolemäische Dynastiekult in griechischmakedonischer Perspektive“ In Alexandria und das ptolemäische Ägypten. Kulturbegegnungen in hellenistischer Zeit, hrsg. von Gregor Weber, 55-83. Berlin: Antike, 2010.
Weber, Max. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der Sozialökonomie. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1922.
Wiemer, Hans-Ulrich. „Siegen oder untergehen? Die hellenistische Monarchie in der neueren Forschung“ In Monarchische Herrschaft im Altertum. Schriften des Historischen Kollegs. Kolloquien 94, hrsg. von Stefan Rebenich, 305-339. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Oldenbourg, 2017.
Wörrle, Michael. „Epigraphische Forschungen zur Geschichte Lykiens II“ Chiron 8 (1978): 225-230.
6.3 List of illustrations
Figure 1: Golden octodrachm from the reign of Ptolemy II, showing the ruling couples Ptolemy II/Arsinoe II and Ptolemy I/Berenice in profile
- Data source: <https://ikmk.smb.museum/object?lang=de&id=18203062&view=vs> (The picture from the German original is not shown here for legal reasons but can be viewed via this link.)
Mint: Alexandria, Egypt
Mint master: Ptolemy II Philadelphus (ancient ruler coinage)
Obverse: AAEAOQN. [Adelphon]. Draped double busts of Ptolemy II, front, and Arsinoe II, back, each with diadem, in bust view (to the right). In the left field is a monogram.
Reverse: 0EQN. [Theon]. Draped double busts of Ptolemy I, front, and Berenice I, each with diadem, in bust view (to the right). In the left field is a spearhead (pointing vertically upwards).
Nominal: Octodrachma
Material: Gold (embossed)
Weight: 27.49 g
Diameter: 27 mm
Stamp position: 12 o'clock
Date: ca. 260-240 BC (Hellenism)
State of preservation: good
Collection: Coin Cabinet of the National Museums in Berlin
- Photographs of a similar octodrachm:
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
- Open-source picture source; (obverse (left): CNG Coins (<https://www.cngcoins.com/>) via Wikimedia Commons
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ptolemy_I_and_Berenike_I.jpg>; Reverse (right): Matthias Kabel (‘Photographed by myself in Pergamonmuseum Berlin’) via Wikimedia Commons <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oktadrachmon_Ptolemaios_II_Arsinoe_II.jpg>.
Figure 2: Another example of the widespread motif of the theoi adelphoi - Ptolemaic cameo depicting a pair of rulers
- Data Source: <https://www.khm.at/objektdb/detail/59173/> (The picture from the German original is not shown here for legal reasons but can be viewed via this link.)
Cameo made of ten-layered Arabian onyx, dark brown and bluish-white with early modern gold reef setting
Culture: Greek
Figure: Portrait of the ruling couple Ptolemy II/Arsinoe II are cut from the eleven alternating dark brown and bluish-white layers of the stone. Ptolemy II is portrayed in profile in the right foreground (facing left). Ptolemy II is wearing an Attic helmet with the depiction of lightning bolts on the cheek flaps (actually attributes of Zeus, the father of the gods and alleged ancestor of the Ptolemies), the depiction of a serpent on the crest of the helmet and the depiction of a head on the neck guard. The depiction of the snake and the head is interpreted in the description of the Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna as follows: "The snake on the crest of the helmet is the Graecised descendant of the uraeus snake on the war helmet of the Egyptian pharaohs. The head of the Egyptian god Ammon is depicted on the neck guard of the helmet." Behind her, also in profile (facing left), is Arsinoe II, wearing a "bonnet-like crown" and a veil.
Dimensions: 11.5 cm (height), 11.3 cm (width)
Date: 278 - 269 BC (Hellenistic); possibly an official wedding gift to the ruling couple
Location: unknown
State of preservation: good
Collection: Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna, Collection of Classical Antiquities, IXa 81
- Photograph of a similar cameo (Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II depicted on the Gonzaga Cameo in the Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg):
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
- Open-source picture source: Sailko (Wikipedia contributor) via Wikimedia Commons <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cammeo_gonzaga_con_doppio_ritratto_di_tolomeo _II_e_arsinoe_II,_III_sec._ac._(alessandria),_da_hermitage.jpg>.
[...]
1 The epithet “Philadelphus” (from ancient Greek: nToZspaioc OiZaSeZ^og Ptolemaios Philadelphos [Ptolemy, sibling-lover]) is only attested for Ptolemy II from the 2nd century BC, i.e. not during his lifetime, and since the modern ruler counting is not problematic, it (Ptolemy II) is used below. Cf. Brill’s New Pauly (2006) s. v. Ptolemy II Philadelphos (W. Ameling).
2 Hölbl 2004, 87.
3 Mikalson 2006, 214.
4 Pfeiffer 2017, 55.
5 Cf. Habicht 1970 195f.
6 Bergmann 1998, 16-19.
7 See Pfeiffer 2008, Chapter IV, paragraph 65.
8 Wiemer 2017, 337.
9 Ibid.
10 Hölbl 2004, 69-107.
11 Pfeiffer 2015, 45, 49; In this sense, ‘Hellenic’ is used in this work as an umbrella term for the relatively heterogeneous group of Hellenised inhabitants of Greek, Macedonian and Thracian descent of the Ptolemaic Empire, who shared the Greek language, and culture. This population group was the main demographic of the Hellenic (based on set pieces of Greek and Hellenised mythology and theology) ruler cult of Ptolemy II.
12 Cf. Pfeiffer 2008, K. IV, para. 14.
13 Gehrke 2019, 258.
14 Ibid.
15 Chaniotis 2007, 141f.
16 Hölscher 2020 , 23-25.
17 Hölbl 2004, 85.
18 Ibid; Pfeiffer 2008, K. I, para. 15f.
19 Hölbl 2004, 85.
20 Cf. Diod. XVI 92,5.
21 Meister 2016 , 231f.; Hölscher 2020, 21-44; Tonio Hölscher explains in Hölscher 2020 that Alexandros III attempted, sometimes simultaneously, to unite all references in his (public) persona. For example, the sacrifices that Alexandros is said to have made at the tomb of Achilles at the beginning of his Asian campaign can be understood both as paradigmatic (equating the battle of Achilles against Troy with that of Alexandros against the Persian Empire) and as local references (Hölscher 2020, 41). Furthermore, in the sense of genealogical references, the Argeads emphasised their supposed divine descent from Zeus, Heracles and Achilles, among others (ibid., 23f.). As references of identity, Alexandros III consciously staged himself repeatedly with attributes of powerful gods, such as Dionysus, Heracles, Hermes or Ammon, like a kind of reincarnation of these (ibid., 24). Through the amalgamation of these various references and a permanent (self-)staging as a particularly great and powerful individual, Alexandros III already succeeded during his lifetime, in the sense of personal equality, in presenting himself de facto as an independent, (semi-) divine, mythological heros (ibid., 25).
22 Cf. Meister 2016, 233f.
23 Ibid, 233f.; FGrHist 75 F 2; FGrHist 76 F 13; Chaniotis 2007, 139-141; Walbank 1987, 375.
24 Cf. Wiemer 2017, 337; Meister 2016, 233f.
25 Cf. Meister 2016, 233f.
26 Cf. Pfeiffer 2008, K. IV, para. 29.
27 Cf. ibid.; Meister 2016, 234.
28 Cf. Hölbl 2004, 70, 86.
29 Cf. ibid., 87.
30 Cf. Müller 2009, 248-251.
31 Cf. Pfeiffer 2008, K. IV, para. 33; Grabowski 2014, 26.
32 IG XII 7,506, in: Pfeiffer 2015, 35-41; ibid., 35.
33 Pfeiffer 2015, 36f.; Brodersen 2011, 109.
34 Pfeiffer 2015, 35, 39.
35 Pfeiffer 2015, 39.
36 Ibid., 38f.
37 Ibid; Wörrle 1978, 225-230.
38 Pfeiffer 2015, 38f.
39 Ibid.
40 Ibid. 38f.; Hölbl 2004, 87; Grabowski 2014, 27f.
41 Hölbl 2004, 87; Weber, Gregor 2010, 65.
42 Athens. 202f-203e; Pfeiffer 2017, 57f; Weber, Gregor 2010, 64f.
43 Weber, Gregor 2010, 62f.
44 SEG XLIII 1103; in Pfeiffer 2015, 45-47; ibid., 47-50.
45 Miletus I 3, 139; Wiegand 1914, 300-307.
46 Müller 2009, 264f.
47 Pfeiffer 2015, 51.
48 OGIS I 50, in: Pfeiffer 2015, 51.
49 Pfeiffer 2015, 52.
50 Ibid.
51 Müller 2009, 159-172; Goyette 2010, 1.
52 Müller 2009, 159, 163f.
53 Holbl 2004, 86f
54 Clayman 2021, 559-562.
55 Ibid, 562.
56 Cf. Theocr. oath. 17, 110-116.
57 Clayman 2021, 559-562.
58 Ibid, 567-570.
59 Ibid, 571.
60 Ibid.
61 Theocr. oath. 17, 1-8.
62 Clayman 2021, 572f.
63 Theocr. oath. 17, 13-34.
64 Ibid, 35-76.
65 See Clayman 2021, 572.
66 Theocr. oath. 17, 77-94; 95-120.
67 Ibid, 121-137; 136.
68 Clayman 2021, 572f.
69 Müller 2009, 353-364; Hölbl 2004, 33f.
70 Theocr. oath. 17, 77-94; 95-120; cf. Clayman 2021, 572.
71 Ibid; Clayman 2021, 563-566; Wiemer 2017, 317 f., 332.
72 Gehrke 1982, 259-261.
73 Weber, Gregor 2010, 73-77.
74 Pfeiffer 2017, 55f.
75 Weber, Gregor 2010, 57.
76 Müller 2009, 298f. On the individual cult forms for Arsinoe II and Philotera see Müller 2009, 266-300 (these cannot be discussed in detail here due to the given limitations).
77 See above (chapter 2)
78 Pfeiffer 2008, K. IV para. 29; see above (Chapter 2).
79 Müller 2009, 257; Mikalson 2006, 215; Pfeiffer 2017, 55f.; Weber, Gregor 2010, 60.
80 Shipley 2009, 298f.
81 Weber, Max 1922, 140.
82 Hölbl 2004, 83-86; Gehrke 1982, 250f.
83 Wiemer 2017, 332: “The king’s domain is conceived as an empire, as a conglomerate of economically and culturally heterogeneous spaces in which the king asserts his claims in three ways: 1. by threatening or exercising violence, 2. by distributing power and wealth to functionaries and soldiers, and 3. by allowing locally rooted, local authorities to participate in this system. Courtiers, soldiers, local elites and cities appear as groups of people who serve the ruler because they benefit from his rule.” [German original quote: “Der Herrschaftsraum des Königs wird als Imperium gedacht, als Konglomerat ökonomisch und kulturell heterogener Räume, in welchen der König seine Ansprüche auf dreierlei Art und Weise durchsetzt: 1. dadurch, dass er Gewalt androht oder ausübt, 2. dadurch, dass er Macht und Reichtum an Funktionsträger und Soldaten verteilt und 3. dadurch, dass er vor Ort verwurzelte, lokale Instanzen an diesem System teilhaben lässt. Hofleute, Soldaten, lokale Eliten, Städte erscheinen als Personengruppen, die dem Herrscher dienen, weil sie von seiner Herrschaft profitieren.”].
84 Clayman 2021, 563-566; Wiemer 2017, 317f., 332; see above (Chapter 3.2).
Frequently asked questions
What is the main focus of this academic text?
The text examines the development and instrumentalization of cultic worship and public deification within the Hellenic religious and mythological context of the Ptolemies during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (circa 285/282-246 BC) in Egypt and Hellenic areas of influence. It particularly investigates whether, by whom, and for what purpose these cults were strategically employed.
What aspects of Ptolemy II's rule are explored?
The text explores ruler-related deification and cults during Ptolemy II's reign, examining epigraphic and literary evidence of cult worship. It also investigates the role of Ptolemy II's ruling cults in his reign and their connection to various explanatory models of Hellenistic rule, like the charismatic rule model versus the institutional approach.
What were the conditions like for cult worship before Ptolemy II's reign?
The text outlines the early Hellenistic claim to gods and cultic worship of humans before Ptolemy II. It notes that in pre-Hellenistic times, individuals could claim a special status based on proximity to heroes, demigods, or gods, and receive cultic honors. It was even possible for people to claim a special status and god-like honors through paradigmatic references, the imitation of mythological heroic deeds, genealogical references, local references, references of identity, and personal equality.
What specific evidence is cited for cult worship under Ptolemy II?
The analysis includes examples of epigraphic evidence such as a resolution of the koinon of the Nesiotes in honor of Ptolemy I and II, and an inscription from Miletus documenting Ptolemy II's message to the boule and the demos. Literary evidence, such as Eidyll 17 by Theocritus, is also analyzed to reveal how Ptolemy II was portrayed and praised in ways that equated him with established gods.
What political purposes did the ruler cult serve in Ptolemy II's reign?
The text concludes that the empire-wide cults, initially for Ptolemy II's parents as theoi soteres and later for Ptolemy II and his wife as theoi adelphoi, were largely initiated by Ptolemy II himself. While expressions of veneration by poleis were influenced by their dependence on the Ptolemaic court, the establishment and sponsorship of these cults demonstrate their importance as an instrument of power and legitimization of Ptolemy II's rule. This included promoting a common identity among the Hellenic population and pledging loyalty from regions in the periphery.
What is the broader significance of studying these ruler cults?
Studying the ruler cults of Ptolemy II offers insights into Hellenistic rule, the relationship between rulers and their subjects, and the use of religion as a political tool. The findings can also contribute to a better understanding of how Ptolemaic rule can be assigned to a particular explanatory model of rulership by identifying where the Hellenic and Egyptian cultic deification of rulers showed parallels and differences. Furthermore, it serves to evaluate the extent to which Ptolemy's rule had a stabilizing effect on the Hellenic population.
Are there illustrations within the full text?
Yes, the full text mentions figures, particularly golden octodrachm coins featuring the ruler couples and a Ptolemaic cameo depicting a pair of rulers (Ptolemy II/Arsinoe II). Links to where these images may be found online are included, although the original text may not display the illustrations directly for legal reasons.
- Quote paper
- Pascal Johannes Harter (Author), 2023, The Hellenic ruler cults of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/1472026
