“Theism” and Related Categories in the Study of Ancient Religions

Some scholars have denied altogether the possibility of pagan monotheism (e.g., Edwards 2000) in response to the recent interest (e.g. Frede 1999 and 2010). One objection is that “monotheistic” authors also believed in other supernatural beings (see, e.g., Versnel 2011, 239-308, on Xenophanes). Another objection is the lack of cult to a monotheistic God. The first objection, taken strictly, would rule out Judaism and Christianity, which admit lesser spiritual beings (Hurtado 1998, 27).

Nock’s observation that, “no one appears to have said his prayers or did sacrifice to the living Augustus or any other living king in the hope of supernatural blessings,” (1932) was reaffirmed by Fishwick’s (1990) examination of alleged votive offerings to the emperor. The conclusion that the emperor was most likely not a regular recipient of votive offerings in pursuit of personal salvation from illness and danger is consequential for our understanding of ancient popular perceptions of the emperor as a divinity.

The pompa circensis (the procession preceding the wildly popular chariot races in the arena) was both a prized moment of public visibility for the praeses ludorum who conducted the procession and, above all, one of Rome’s most hallowed religious ceremonies, hedged with ritual rules and regulations whose violation could lead to dire consequences (Gailliot).

Cicero’s penchant for self-praise has been a source of amazement (and sometimes scorn) since antiquity. As is well known, he rarely fails to insert a reference to his consulship into a dialogue, legal case, or political speech (e.g., Kurczyk 2006). In this paper, I analyze a more surprising instance of Cicero’s aggrandizement: calling himself a god. This accusation, and Cicero’s defense against it in De Domo Sua 92 is an opportunity to explore Roman, and especially the political elite’s, thoughts on the gray area between great human achievements and divine providence.