In the Alexandrian religious system the cult offered to the royal family occupied a special place. More even than in the case of Sarapis, it was a reflex of objectives that were above all political. The first act was the foundation by Ptolemy I of the cult of Alexander, with an eponymous priest, probably between 305 and 290 BC. Then, in 272 BC, came the foundation of the cult of the Theoi Adelphoi, Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, probably associated with that of Alexander. Next, in 270, came the foundation of a cult especially dedicated to Arsinoe, with an eponymous priestess, the canephore. From the reign of Ptolemy III, the living kings were regularly associated with their dead ancestors in a cult that could henceforth be termed ‘‘dynastic,’’ especially since, soon, under Ptolemy V (r. 204-180 BC), the Ptolemy I-Berenice couple was introduced into the protocol. The cult continued to grow as new ‘‘king-gods’’ succeeded. The queens were not left behind. New priesthoods were instituted for Berenice II and then for Arsinoe III. Cleopatra III distinguished herself in this field by founding, ca. 116 BC, a cult addressed to her under the name ‘‘Cleopatra Philometor Soteria Dikaiosyne Nikephoros,’’ with three priestesses, a stephanephoros, and a phosphoros (Fraser 1972:1.221). She it was too that instituted for herself the hieros polos, literally ‘‘Sacred Foal,’’ a sacerdotal or para-sacerdotal office apparently related to the cult of Demeter. But the institution of the hieros peolos disappeared on the death of Cleopatra III in 102 BC. One could of course relate this desire to multiply these cults, and therefore the honors rendered to a ruler, to the rivalries and conflicts of interest at the heart of the Lagid family in the course of the second century BC, all the while asking oneself about the effectiveness of such measures.
The dynastic cult is manifestly, in the first instance, a Greek custom. From the end of the fourth century, the Greeks had arrived in Egypt in great numbers, from all corners of the Greek world, and they constituted an important but very diverse group. The cult of the sovereign was probably held to play a unifying role. The holders of the eponymous priesthoods, in the third century BC, were men and women drawn from royal entourage, ambassadors, admirals, high functionaries, as well as their wives or daughters. In the second century BC some kings, such as Ptolemy IX (r. 116-107, 88-80 BC) or Ptolemy X (r. 107-88 BC) took on this role themselves. The official initiative could be supported by private initiatives. Cult associations, basilistai or philobasilistai, often recruited from among soldiers or veterans, were devoted to the worship of the sovereigns. In Alexandria itself individuals made dedications to the royal couple, sometimes in association with various gods, chiefly Sarapis and Isis. They would also build private chapels in their honor. Several streets in Alexandria bore the name of Arsinoe II accompanied by a cult epithet (Arsinoe Basileia, Eleemon, Teleia, Chalkioikos, Karpophoros, Nike, Sozousa...). They were probably so designated (up until the Roman period) because of the presence of a small sanctuary dedicated to the divinized queen (Fraser 1972:1.237). But we know practically nothing about the places in which the royal cult was officially celebrated, nor about the nature of the ceremonies. Ptolemy IV had built a new Sema in the center of the city designed to replace that of Ptolemy I, a monument which incorporated, besides the tombs of Alexander and the first Lagids, a space intended for cult use. It has yet to be found. The cult ceremonies were probably of the Greek type, with sacrifices and processions. An Alexandrian decree about the cult of Arsinoe prescribes that the inhabitants should sacrifice ‘‘in front of their house, or on their roof, or in the street along which the canephore passes.’’ They could sacrifice ‘‘whatever they wanted,’’ with the exception of a billy-goat or a nanny-goat (P. Oxy. 2465, 2.1).
It is difficult to estimate the religious significance of the dynastic cult. The desire to see a god embody himself in living form is undoubtedly one of the new characteristics of religious life in the hellenistic age. We need only think of the Athenians invoking Demetrius Poliorcetes, ‘‘We see you, you are not made from wood or stone, you are real... ’’ (anonymous ithyphallic hymn at FGrH 76 fr. 13). In this sense the king could easily appear, according to the formula of the enteuxeis (the complaints and requests addressed to the kings of Egypt) as the ‘‘common savior of all.’’ But we also know that the Alexandrians failed neither to criticize their rulers nor to adorn them with insulting nicknames. When the imperial cult was installed at Alexandria in the age of Augustus, the temple built by Cleopatra VII being transformed into the Kaisareion, it was modeled on the royal Ptolemaic cult and had, as the Ptolemaic cult had done, an overtly political purpose. But it is even more difficult to estimate the impact of that cult, the documents bearing upon it being few (Heinen 1995).
In the Ptolemaic era, in parallel with the Greek-style dynastic cult, an Egyptian-style royal cult was also celebrated. This was associated in the principal temples with that of the local gods. This cult was already in place for the benefit of Arsinoe II and became generalized thereafter. Various decrees of the synods, from Ptolemy III to Ptolemy V, prescribe that honors should be paid to the kings in each temple of the land (Clarysse 1999). The kings themselves are, furthermore, often depicted on Egyptian temple reliefs, where they are shown exercising their cultic function, in the image of their predecessors. This fiction endured into the Roman period, to the profit of the emperors, the new pharaohs.
World History
