the elder and younger pliny on emperor worship

American Philological Association

The Elder and Younger Pliny on Emperor WorshipAuthor(s): Kenneth ScottSource: Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 63 (1932),pp. 156-165Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/283211 .

Accessed: 13/01/2014 06:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Philological Association and The Johns Hopkins University Press are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions and Proceedings of the American PhilologicalAssociation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 13 Jan 2014 06:31:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/283211?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


156 Kenneth Scott [1932

X.-The Elder and Younger Pliny on Emperor Worship

KENNETH SCOTT WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

The Elder and Younger Pliny, though occasionally employing the language of the ruler cult, approve consecration of a good emperor only as a reward for virtue; they show no religious belief in the imperial cult, but accept it as a political institution.

From the very beginnings of the Roman empire the theme of the divinity of the ruler was sung by the court poets with varying degrees of sincerity. Thus we can at least credit Virgil with the expression of genuine admiration, even if he did not expect his words to be interpreted literally, when he referred to Octavian as deus; I on the other hand the fulsome adulation heaped upon Domitian by Martial rings false and was absolutely insincere, as the poet's recantation under Nerva shows: "In vain, 0 wretched Flatteries, do you come to me with shameless lips: I am not going to call anyone dominus and deus.2 Now there is no place for you in this city. Go far away to the turbaned Parthians, and as base and lowly suppliants kiss the soles of painted kings. Here is no dominus but an imperator, aye, the most just senator of all, by whom rustic Veritas with unperfumed locks has been restored from her Stygian abode. Under this prince, 0 Rome, beware, if you are wise, of speaking with such words as you used before." 3 Since, therefore, poets, and writers of prose as well,4 frequently followed the tradition of bestowing adulation upon the em-

I Ecl. 1, 5 f. 2 On Martial's adulation of Domitian cf. 0. Weinreich, Studien zu Martial

(1928), and Fr. D6lger, "Die Kaiserverg6tterung bei Martial und 'Die heiligen Fische Domitians "', Antike und Christentum i (1929), 163-173. Cf. W. Kubitschek, "Deus et dominus als Titel des Kaisers", Numism. Zeits., N.F. viii (1915), 167-178.

3 Ep. x, 72; cf. Dio Chrysqstom in his Third Discourse on Kingship 12-13, where he tells of Domitian's reign, "when it seemed best to all to resort to false- hoods on account of fear."

4 So, for example, Seneca the philosopher and Quintilian.



Vol. Ixiii] The Plinys on Emperor Worship 157

peror, it is interesting to obtain comments upon the imperial cult from two distinguished and talented Romans who at the time they wrote were under no necessity to indulge in flattery, but were free to express their true convictions. The two authors to be considered here are the Elder and the Younger Pliny.

The Elder Pliny, belonging as he did to the upper classes, a man of profound learning and a scientific turn of mind, was not in sympathy with the tendency of the Romans to populate their pantheon with manifold divinities. He protests against the folly of paying "divine honors to the departed spirit, thus making a kind of deity of him who but just now ceased to be a man." 5 In the same vein he remarks that "it may be under- stood why the number of heavenly bodies is greater than the number of men, when all individuals also make of themselves so many divinities by adopting Junos and Geniuses." 6

There is, however, one grant of divinity to mortals which he will condone, though he evidently looks upon it merely as a reward for virtue and an incentive to good deeds, as a memorial to the benefactions of a good ruler. "To be a god," he writes, "is for a mortal to aid a mortal, and this is the path to everlasting glory. By this path have gone the Roman leaders, by this path at the present moment the greatest ruler of every age, Vespasianus Augustus, in company with his children, is now with heavenly tread (caelesti passu) ad- vancing, by coming to the aid of the exhausted world (fessis rebus). This is the most ancient manner of paying thanks to those who deserve them, namely to enroll such men among the divinities (numinibus). Indeed, the names both of other gods and of the constellations which I have mentioned above are sprung from the merits of men." 7 In adopting this view of apotheosis for good rulers after their death Pliny is following a tradition found not only in the adulatory verses of court

6 H.N. vIII, 56. 6 Ib. ii, 16. 7 Ib. ix, 18.




poets,8 but also cited by Tacitus as popularly accepted,9 and especially in treatises on political science of the type of the numerous specula principum.10 Indeed, neither in the thought of his predecessors nor of Pliny himself was the power of benefactions to secure deification limited to monarchs, for inventors of arts or sciences useful to mankind had been raised to the rank of gods."1

It would appear, however, that Pliny, though accepting the traditional theory that benefactors or good rulers might be rewarded after death by official deification, is still not over enthusiastic about the practical application in the Roman imperial cult. Ilis sceptical attitude is manifest, when, after recounting the very human misfortunes which had befallen Augustus, he writes, "In fine, this same god, who was raised to heaven, I am at a loss to say whether deservedly or not, died, leaving the son of his own enemy his heir." 12

In spite of Pliny's general scepticism he was himself not proof against the language of the ruler cult, for in the preface to the Natural History his words to Titus are such as a courtier would use to a divine monarch."3

The evidence relating to the Elder Pliny's views on emperor worship has been found to be scant but decisive. Let us now see whether the younger Pliny was of the same mind as his

8 For example Hor. C. iii, 3, 9 ff. 9 Ann. iv, 38, 5 f. 10 Cf. Scott, "Tacitus and the Speculum Principis", A.J.P. LIII (1932),

70-72. A detailed treatment of the speculum principis will be found in the forthcoming book, Erasmus on the Education of a Christian Prince, by L. K. Born, especially in chap. iII, entitled "Ancient Theories of Statecraft."

11 H.N. ii, 192; vii, 57; xv, 1; xix, 1. 12 H.N. vii, 46. 13 Weinreich, op. cit. p. 22 has collected and commented on this part of the

preface. The interesting expressions are the following: fulgurat . . . tonas, used with reference to Titus; religiose adiri; verum dis lacte rustici multaeque gentes et mola litant salsa, qui non habent tura, nec ulli fuit vitio deos colere quoquo modo posset; multa valde pretiosa ideo videntur, quia sunt templis dicata. The tone is that of Ovid when he writes in the Tristia ii, 75 f.:

. . . ut fuso taurorum sanguine centum, sic capitur minimo turis honore deus.



Vol. lxiii] The Plinys on Emperor Worship 159

uncle on the subject. To the younger Pliny, as consul in the year 100 A.D., fell the task of delivering a complimentary address to the emperor Trajan. This speech was, as we know from Pliny's Letters,'4 worked over and elaborated by the author, and the resulting composition, known as the Pane- gyricws, is preserved. Although it is a panegyric on the optimus princeps, much of its content is devoted to an attack upon Domitian, who, in the eyes of Pliny, is indeed the pessimus princeps. Fortunately these unfavorable references to Domitian afford considerable information on the imperial cult under that monarch as well as on Pliny's opinion of the institution.

Early in his address Pliny prays that his "rendering of thanks may be as far removed from the appearance of adulation as it actually is from necessity," 15 all of which is intended to imply that under Domitian adulatio 16 had been a necessary feature of such a speech. Such necessity is now removed, and Pliny writes, "Nowhere let us pay flattery (blandiamur) as to a god (deuw), nowhere as to a divinity (numen), for we are not speaking about a tyrant, but about a citizen, not about a master (dominus), but about a parent. And he is more excellent and distinguished because he thinks himself one of us and because he no less remembers that he is a man than that he rules mankind." 17 There had been a change from a short time past when the Roman people was wont to praise the beauty or bearing or voice of the emperor. "What!" cries Pliny, " are we ourselves all wont to celebrate the divinitas of our prince, or his humanitas, temperantia, and facilitas?" 18 In fact Domitian had gone so far as to demand veneration for his gladiators and to interpret speech against them as defama-

14 III, 13. 15 Pan. 1. 16 Adulatio usually refers at this period to the paying of superhuman honors

to a prince, to some phase of emperor worship. 17 Pan. 2, 3. Domitian had insisted that he be addressed as " deus et

dominus," forgetting that he was a man. 18 Ib. 2, 6.




tion of himself, and to see therein a violation of his own divinitas and numen, "since he looked upon himself as upon the gods (deos) and upon the gladiators as himself." 19

The whole character of the government had been changed under Trajan from a dominatio to a principatus, and according to Pliny a princeps is more pleasing to none than to those who find a dominus most oppressive.20 Under Domitian all novelty in conferring honors had been exhausted by adulatio, so that the only new honor which may be conferred upon Trajan is to dare sometimes to refrain from praise.2' Indeed, the Pane- gyricus gives a picture of the senate's former abject flattery: "And what spot longer remained unacquainted with wretched adulation, when the praises of emperors were celebrated evenl at games and revels and accompanied with dancing and degraded into every wantonness with effeminate cries, meas- ures, and actions? But it was unworthy that at the same time praises were spoken in the senate and on the stage, by an actor and by a consul." 22

Trajan, in contrast to Domitian, does not allow himself to be honored by actors and worshipped by their shameful praise (pudenda praedicatio), and the reverence (veneratio) shown by the rising of the audience to do honor to the emperor is the greater because the stage is silent concerning him. In the senate there is no longer a contest in flatteries (certamen adulationuin) as was the case under Domitian. In his reign, in the discussion of so unimportant a matter as increasing the number of fabri, the senators would act as though the boundaries of the empire had been extended and would decree huge arches and inscriptions that would surpass the pediments of temples, and now even designate with the names of the Caesars more than one month.23

19 Ib. 33, 4. 20 Ib. 45, 3. 21 Ib. 55, 3. 22 Ib. 54. 23 Ib. Cf. Scott, "Greek and Roman Honorific Months," Yale Classical

Studies ii (1931), pp. 201-278 and esp. pp. 232-236.




Pliny cannot commend sufficiently Trajan's refusal of divine honors. If another ruler had conferred but one of the many blessings bestowed by Trajan "his head would long before have been radiate and his effigy in gold or ivory would stand among the gods and he would be invoked with more august altars and with greater victims [i.e. than the gods]." 24 But Trajan enters the shrines only to worship, and the greatest honor for him is to have statues of himself keep watch outside the temples and stand before the doors.25 As a result the gods preserve for him the highest place among men, while he does not strive after the position of the gods. Indeed, he permits thanks for his kindness to be rendered not to his genius but to the godhead of Jupiter Optimus Maximus.

The senate decrees him one or two statues for the vestibule of the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, and these, so few in number and of bronze,26 will remain as long as the temple itself. Quite different were conditions under the last of the Flavians a short time before when all the approaches, all the steps, and the whole court of the temple were agleam-or rather were defiled-with gold and silver when the sacred statues (simulacra) of the gods were filthy from being mingled with the statues of an unclean prince. Huge flocks of victims were sacrificed to Domitian when the images of that most savage despot (dominus) were worshipped with as much blood of victims as he himself was shedding human blood.27 In the end, however, came a day of reckoning, a time when Domitian's divinitas was of no avail; 28 his golden images were torn down, hacked to pieces, and melted amid public rejoicings.29

24 Pan. 52. 25 Cf. the regulations of Tiberius as given by Suetonius, Tib. 26: " Templa,

flamines, sacerdotes decerni sibi prohibuit, etiam statuas atque imagines nisi permittente se poni; permisitque ea sola condicione, ne inter simulacra deorum sed inter ornamenta aedium ponerentur.

26 Cf. Scott, "The Significance of Statues in Precious Metals in Emperor Worship," T.A.P.A. IxII (1931), 101-123.

27 Pan. 52. 28 Ib. 49, 1. 29 Ib. 52.




The question of statues leads the Younger Pliny to moralize to the prince along the line traditional in the specula principum and from the same viewpoint as that expressed by his uncle on apotheosis: 30 "Therefore your images stand, like those which in the past were dedicated to private citizens because of their services to the state. The statues of Caesar are of the same material as that used in those of Brutus or Camillus, and the reason for them is the same. They drove out kings and a victorious enemy from the walls; Trajan keeps off and afar kingship itself and all the other things which captivity produces, and he holds the place of princeps that there may be no place for a tyrant (dominus). And when I consider your wisdom it seems less remarkable that you deprecate and restrain those titles which are mortal and perishable, for you know where lies the true, the everlasting glory of a prince. These are honors which give no license to flames, years, or successors, for oblivion destroys and obscures arches, statues, altars, and temples; posterity neglects and finds fault with them.

"On the contrary, the soul which despises ambition and conquers and bridles endless power flourishes with age itself and is praised no more by any than by those for whom it is least necessary. Besides, as soon as each man is made prince, it is at once a matter of doubt whether his reputation will be good or bad, but it is certain to be everlasting. A prince, therefore, must seek, not the eternal reputation which awaits him against his will, but a good reputation. This, moreover, is perpetuated not by likenesses and statues, but by virtue and merits. Nay, even these lesser matters, the form and nature of the prince, may not be better expressed and held by silver and gold than by the goodwill of men. And this, indeed, falls to your lot in excess and abundance in that your most joyous countenance and lovable expression are seated in the mouths, eyes, and minds of all citizens." 31

30 See above pp. 157 f. and notes 7-10. 31 Pan. 55, 6-11.




In spite of this bitter tirade against divine honors in general and those accepted by Domitian in particular Pliny is not averse to apotheosis after death, or at least he accepts the formal deification in some cases. Titus had provided for the security and vengeance of the senate and "was therefore made equal to the divinities." 32 This should provide justification for the deification of Trajan after his death, for Pliny adds, "How much more worthy of heaven will you sometime be, since you have added so many services to those on account of which we made him [Titus] a god!" 33

Yet Pliny does not approve the motives of former emperors who deified their predecessors, and in the following terms he points out to Trajan the difference which marked his consecration of Nerva: 4 "First, as became a son, you honored him with tears, then with temples, though not in imitation of those who have done the same thing but with a different motive: Tiberius deified Augustus, but in order to introduce the offense of maiestas; Nero did the same for Claudius, but in order to laugh at him; Titus consecrated Vespasian, Domitian Titus, but the former that he might seem to be the son of a god, the latter that he might seem to be the brother of a god. You raised your father to the stars not to cause fear to citizens, not to insult the deities, not to your own honor, but because you believe him a god. This act is less, when it is accom- plished by those who also think themselves gods. And, although you also worship him with incense, altars, pulvinaria, and a flamen, yet you in no wise make and prove him a god more than by being what you are; for, in the case of a prince who after choosing his successor has yielded to fate, a good successor is likewise the most certain guaranty of divinity. Has some arrogance, therefore, come to you from the immor- tality of your father, do you emulate these recent rulers who were indolent and haughty because of the divinity of their

32 Ib. 35, 4. 33 Ib. 34 In Pan. 10, 4-6 Nerva is praised for his adoption of Trajan, a service on

account of which "the gods claimed him for heaven."




kinsfolk rather than those former men of days gone by who founded this very empire?" 35

The provincial cult of the emperors flourished under Trajan,36 and Pliny's reference to the veneratio of Trajan even among the foes of Rome may not be a mere figure of speech.37 When he says that the Egyptians in time of need "invoked the aid of Caesar as they were wont to call upon their river," 38 the language is indicative of the worship of the ruler which was characteristic of the Egyptians. In Bithynia Pliny as gover- nor forced the Christians brought before him to perform religious rites with wine and incense before the statue of the emperor.39 When Caninius, a friend, is planning to write a poem on the Dacian war, he is bidden to act as the poets are wont to do, and invoke the gods and among them the very one [Trajan] whose deeds he is to sing.40 Nor does Pliny himself in his outbursts of praise of the optimus princeps hesitate to address him in the language of emperor worship as we find it in the poets.4'

So far, in fact, did Pliny follow the customs of his age that he asked and obtained from Nerva permission to remove from various of his estates statues of previous emperors and to add to their number one of Nerva. He had likewise been author- ized by the decurions, probably of Tifernum, to build a temple at his own expense in which to erect the statues. Before the erection of the temple Nerva died, and Pliny then asked and received permission from Trajan to add the new ruler's statue to adorn the temple.42 The emperor added, however, that he was most sparing in permitting honors of that kind.43

35Pan. 11, 1-4.

38 Cf. Herzog-Hauser, s.v. Kaiserkult in P.-W., Supplementbd. iv, 839. 37 Cf. Vell. II, 107; Dio LIX, 27, 3; Tac. Ann. xii, 17, 3 and xv, 29, 3-6. 38 Pan. 30, 5. 39 Ep. x, 96. 40 Ib. viii, 4. 41 Pan. 80, 3-5; 89, 2. See also Ep. x, 59 and 83 where he refers to Trajan's

aeternitas; cf. Beurlier, Essai sur le culte rendu aux empereurs romains (1890),

p. 53. 42Ep. x, 8. 43Ib. x, 9.




In their writings both the Elder and the Younger Pliny show that their acceptance of the official consecration of the deceased ruler was based upon their belief that the institution afforded an incentive to good deeds and a reward for the worthy prince. Both, however, hold that the only real deification is that which rests in the appreciative hearts and minds of men.

The Elder Pliny has grave doubts of the claim to deification even of Augustus, while his nephew violently assails the worship of Domitian as deus et dominus and, though approving the consecration of Nerva, assigns to Tiberius, Nero, Titus, and Domitian motives for each one's deification of his prede- cessor that are far from creditable to the donors or recipients of apotheosis.

Provincials in the East had long worshipped their rulers, and the act of worship served as a gesture of loyalty to Rome and the emperor; so it was natural enough that the governor of Bithynia should use this test of the loyalty of alleged Christians.

The Younger Pliny's erection of a private temple to house the statues of past rulers and the reigning emperor was in keeping with the custom of the day and clearly was motivated by a desire to show affection for his friend, the optimus pritnceps; Trajan, indeed, permits the addition of his own statue as an ornament and as a great favor to Pliny.

Both do not hesitate to employ the language of the ruler cult, the Elder Pliny in addressing Titus, and his nephew in speaking to Trajan, yet for both, as doubtless for all the upper classes of Roman society,44 there seems to have existed no religious belief in the imperial cult, and it appears to have been accepted and observed by them only for its theoretical and-practical value as a political institution.

44Cf. my article, "Humor at the Expense of the Ruler Cult", Class. Phil. xxvii (1932), 317-328.



the elder and younger pliny on emperor worship

Documents