Dictator perpetuo: road to godhood? [On ancient personality cults]

[Die Neue Zeit]

Stefan Weinstock argued in his 1971 work Divus Julius that the mistranslated dictator perpetuo was but one title for Julius Caesar, whether of gentlemen's history or of people's history, on the road to living godhood as declared by the Senate.

He was, supposedly, descended from Aeneas and Venus. He became pontifex maximus (pontiff) and performed key priestly functions. In the Eastern Mediterranean, he was seen already as a savior and living god. Later on, he was declared parens patriae, not unlike those heading ancient peasant patrimonialisms or those in modern times being declared "Father" figures of the Fatherland.

What was the social impact of this ancient personality cult on the Roman population as a whole?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Does it matter? For most of its history Rome was a slave society. There wasn't a social class capable of moving society forward. Eventually that's why the empire collapsed.

I am not knowledgeable enough in this area to know the significance of the cultus of the Emperor. Was it as significant, did it play the same role as the semi-divine role of the Chinese or Japanese emperors? My understanding is that the roles of the East Asian emperors evolved from that of a "farmer/shaman" with the emperor being the chief priest, an intermediary between Heaven and the fertility of the crops. Its not widely known, probably including among Japanese people themselves, but once a year the Emperor of Japan takes a day to make love with Amateretsu, the Corn Goddess.

I am not sure but I think the Western idea of divine kingship differed from this. As far as mass mobilization of people, I think the West had a somewhat different tradition, influenced by Persian and Platonism..The idea of the "genius" of the emperor was more of a semi-legalistic tradition which asked for the outer appearance of loyalty from Roman citizens and subjects, but otherwise wasn't raken all that seriously.It seemed to be more strictly civic. I could be wrong about this though.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I am not sure but I think the Western idea of divine kingship differed from this. As far as mass mobilization of people, I think the West had a somewhat different tradition, influenced by Persian and Platonism..The idea of the "genius" of the emperor was more of a semi-legalistic tradition which asked for the outer appearance of loyalty from Roman citizens and subjects, but otherwise wasn't taken all that seriously.It seemed to be more strictly civic. I could be wrong about this though.

It is ironic that the period of the Dominate was one in which the public displays of loyalty from the citizenry weren't taken seriously. The Divine Right of Kings later on stressed legitimacy rather than some mobilization role. Neither the Dominate nor the Divine Right seemed to have genuine personality cults, and the Little Father only had sporadic periods of mass mobilization (the most effective, of course, happening after the demise of the hereditary czars).


Does it matter?

For modern lessons, of course it does. ;)

[Grenzer]

What was the social impact of this ancient personality cult on the Roman population as a whole?

Interesting question to ask, DNZ. I do not believe there is a clear cut answer as this is a complex question. It should go without saying that the upper classes tended to be aware that this was just a pretext to grant legitimacy, but defining the impact on the lower orders is much more difficult because they were illiterate for the most part and did not leave written records.

The actual cults were not that important in my opinion. What was important; however, was that the Emperor, or princeps senatus as they were known in the Principate period kept the people of Rome supplied with cheap bread and plentiful entertainment. I caution strongly against over emphasizing the role of religion. You are completely right that there was no personality cult in the Dominate.


t is ironic that the period of the Dominate was one in which the public displays of loyalty from the citizenry weren't taken seriously.

I'm not sure why you should say it was ironic, given the Second Century Crisis. The fact was that the Empire was just too big to administrate properly so it's not really a surprise that there would be separatist movements.


There wasn't a social class capable of moving society forward. Eventually that's why the empire collapsed.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a "class capable of moving society forward" but I would caution against simplifying the collapse of the Empire, as it is a topic that has been debated hotly by scholars and experts in the subject for centuries. In the period of the Roman Republic, large numbers of landless peasants drove the need for territorial expansion, as military veterans would get land grants and could then settle newly conquered areas. In the period of the dominate, there wasn't really a landless class anymore. Thus, military expansion pretty much came to a halt, and in addition, few citizens(relative to earlier times) bothered to volunteer for military service. In order to remedy this, the Empire had to draw most of its troops from beyond the border of the Empire in what is now Germany. The migration of the Huns caused a chain reaction that caused many Germanic tribes to end up flooding into France and Spain. It is important to note that despite making a up a significant portion of the Empire's armed forces, Germanic officers and troops were treated like second class citizens. As a result, there was a rebellion of German troops that ended up conquering Italy, which was the only remaining part of the Western Roman Empire.

There are other factors to consider as well, such as economic ones. In the Republic, healthy economic growth was always achieved by the influx of plunder and resources from newly acquired territories, as well as from the mines of Iberia. This kind of growth was unsustainable. In terms of trade, the Roman Empire did not make much. Their primary export was glass, but they imported many things which resulted in a heavily uneven balance of trade. This could only add to the malaise. Key thing to realize is that it's a complex issue, and this is only a very, very superficial exploration.

Guess I got a little off topic, but I think one thing we should be asking ourselves DNZ is whether the personality cult is a cause, or an effect. It seems more like the latter to me.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I agree. The personality cult is the effect of some leadership desire to mobilize the masses to doing something political.

[In today's circumstances, any National or Pan-National Leader of a potential Third World Caesarean Socialist movement would have this as a tool against "oligarchy" within the movement and against all the bourgeoisie and the comprador petit-bourgeoisie. Think of masses of people enthusiastically becoming the "goons and thugs" in the service of the National/Pan-National Leader for repressing those enemy social strata.]

[Grenzer]

Well it's interesting that you would mention that, because now that I think about it, I do recall that the various populares had thugs from the common strata out on the streets, though how they induced this kind of support, I'm not exactly sure. I'm not too well informed on the era of civil wars.

I can tell you with certainty though that religious and cultural symbols had little to do with their popularity. All that was needed for the early emperors to keep the loyalty of the masses was to ensure grain subsidies and the availability of regular entertainment. Of course, the occasional triumph along with the accompanying display of plunder and captives after a successful campaign didn't hurt either.

Although Augustus did succeed in finally putting down the Optimates, you can be damn sure that it didn't mean the aristocracy was no longer a threat. The illusion of Republic was maintained, but the aristocracy weren't stupid of course. I'm sure that they were well aware that it was only a shallow pretense, but the key thing is that the support of the masses kept the aristocracy in check. Over the span of generations as the institution of imperial rule became more ingrained, this became less important as both the aristocracy and the peasantry became resigned to its existence.

It's interesting to examine, but I am not exactly sure what you are hoping to find. The methods of mobilization with modern technology are drastically different. Take Hamid Karzai for instance. Though he's an unpopular and incompetent leader, I can't help but be a little impressed by his ability to use an insignificant event from half a world away to whip up crowds into a nationalistic fury.