1 On criteria for defining ruler cult proper in Egypt, see for instance Pfeiffer (2008), p. 45-48 (for the Greek side) and p. 77-93 (for the Egyptian side). Less ‘strict’ is Hauben (1989). On the hyper formula (and its multiple purposes) see specifically Caneva (2016b) and Pfeiffer in this volume.
2 According to the traditional understanding of it, the Demotic associations’ regulations and the synbasilistai kai Dioskouriastai of I.Varsovie 44 would represent examples of ruler cult proper. Plus, one can perhaps mention the dedication of the gymnasium of Samareia to the King and possibly the synodos of the theos Euergetes in an unpublished Trier papyrus (and the technitai of Dionysus and of the Theoi Adelphoi, who however operated in a civic context).
3 For instance, in the regulations of the synodos of Zeus Hypsistos (see below), the rites were said to be performed hyper ‘on behalf of, for the welfare of’ the King, who was however called θεός ‘god’ (P. Lond. VII 2193, lines 9-10). See also Caneva (2016b), p. 123-124. The Greek language notably had no proper word for ‘worship’ (reserved for gods) as opposed to ‘honour’ (reserved for men); this, however, does not mean that the distinct nature of the two was never appreciated— the existence itself of the concept of ἰσόθεοι τιμαί for rulers would further substantiate this, see Chaniotis (2003), p. 433 and Chaniotis (2007), but cf. Iossif (2014), p. 130-132—but rather that a univocal lexical differentiation was not possible and a fluid interpretation was thus more easily fostered: see also Parker (2011), p. 280. On the non-clear-cut differentiation, see also PFEIFFER’s contribution in this volume. For an appraisal of ruler cult within traditional Greek religion, see for instance Van Nuffelen (1998/1999) and Paul (2016). Furthermore, on our difficulties for a true understanding of what the ancient inhabitants of the Greek world perceived as god, see for instance Erskine (2010), esp. p. 508-510 and (2014), p. 583-584.
4 Exceptions are Chaniotis (2003), Aneziri (2005), Iossif (2005), Pfeiffer (2008), Caneva (2014a), esp. p. 91-96, and Jim (2017), who also acknowledge cults for rulers in ‘non-official’ settings.
5 See Carbon – Pirenne-Delforge (2013), p. 66 with further bibliography.
6 Details on the matter, as well as on the workings of civic institutions in general, mostly escape us due to the lack of sources: how (far) could, for instance, ‘civic’ magistrates operate and be elected at Alexandria, where assembly (and council?) no longer existed from the second century BC onwards? Cf. Fraser (1972), I p. 94-95 and Bowman – Rathbone (1992), p. 108-109. On gymnasia in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Habermann (2004), Paganini (2012), and Paganini (2015). A more comprehensive study is in preparation by the author.
7 For a discussion of ‘private’ and ‘public’, in particular applied to ancient associations, see Gabrielsen – Thomsen (2015), esp. p. 9-16.
8 Launey (1949-1950), II p. 853 and p. 855-856. See also Delorme (1960), p. 342-346. But cf. Aneziri – Damaskos (2004), p. 262-268.
9 SB I 1164 = I.Louvre 13. With Fraser (1972), II p. 353 n. 149. On the value of thrones as symbols of continuity of royal power, see Caneva (2016c), p. 207-208; Palagia (2018b).
10 Not so Caneva (2020a). I thank the author for his scholarly generosity in sharing his work before publication.
11 Pfeiffer (2008), p. 74-75.
12 It may be worth noting here briefly that Lanciers (1993), p. 206 n. 12: “θύματα hat ganz allgemein die Bedeutung ‘Opfertiere’” (criticising the interpretation of the term as ‘incense offerings’ in Habicht [20173], p. 99) seems questionable: first of all, the bibliography referenced does not stress the preferential animal character of θῦμα; secondly, in the present case, a verb like σπένδω necessarily implies liquid offerings.
13 One may also mention here the sacrifices for the welfare of Queen Berenike IV and her ancestors performed by Herodes, a distinguished member (and gymnasiarch) of the gymnasial community of Aphroditopolis, in a fragmentary passage of Herodes’ honorific decree by ‘those of the gymnasium’: I.Prose 41, lines 32-33 (57 BC). Although likely, it is uncertain whether they took place on the premises of the gymnasium, due to the fragmentary state of the text.
14 See also the critique in Pfeiffer (2008), p. 48 n. 97 (with further bibliography) for the use of dative in dedications.
15 See, for instance, CIJ II 1440 = CPJ III Appendix I 1440 (246-222 BC from Schedia, Delta): ὑ̣πὲρ βασιλέως | Πτολεμαίου καὶ | βασιλίσσης | Βερενίκης ἀδελ|φῆς καὶ γυναικὸς καὶ | τῶν τέκνων | τὴν προσευχὴν | οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, “The Jews (dedicated) the synagogue on behalf of King Ptolemy and of Queen Berenike, his sister and wife, and of their children.” See also Pfeiffer (2008), p. 32 and in this volume.
16 Similar conclusion is reached already by Pfeiffer (2008), esp. p. 117-121, who however differentiated into Greek and Egyptian practices. I would adopt a less exclusive approach, avoiding a strict dichotomy and allowing for a more fluctuating reality: a combination of options for ruler cults proper and honours for the welfare of the rulers (following whichever elements of either cultural tradition) could in fact coexist at the same time and be performed by the same agents.
17 Regardless of what Egyptian temple rituals and priestly directives might have been and what Greek traditional religious propriety might have advocated on the subject, the faithful could always find their own interpretations of practices that best suited them. A parallel may be drawn from the Roman Catholic tradition of the cult of saints, for instance in Italy: although according to the Doctrine of the Church only God is object of worship, fulfils prayers, and is source of grace, whereas saints are venerated and invoked as intermediaries to God on the basis of the doctrine of the Communion of the Saints (Concilii Tridentini Canones et Decreta, Sessio XXV “Decretum de invocatione, veneratione et reliquiis sanctorum et de sacris imaginibus”: Ganzer – Alberigo – Melloni [2010], p. 149-151; see also New Catholic Encyclopedia XII p. 602-605 s.v. “Saints, Intercession of”), Italian religious popular culture does not normally appreciate such subtleties and usually ascribes ‘le grazie’ (the acts of grace or ‘miracles’) to the various saints to whom the faithful directed their prayers (e.g. “San Gennaro m’ha fatto la grazia”).
18 P.UB Trier inv. S 159-5, lines 3-5 (after 133/2 BC); courtesy of Prof. B. Kramer. The ‘Boethos archive’ will be published by Kramer and Pfeiffer. On Boethos, see Kramer (1997) and Heinen (1997).
19 Already noted by Poland (1909), p. 6: “Der Name einer Gennossenschaft braucht aber doch nicht ihren Zweck anzudeuten.”
20 See also Habermann (2004), p. 343. On royal feasts and celebrations, see Perpillou-Thomas (1993), p. 151-163. Statues of Kings in gymnasia of Egypt: SEG LV 1847 (152/1 BC, unknown provenance: statue base, no specific terminology for the statue but simple accusative of the name of the King); I.Prose 27 + SEG XLII 1500, lines 8-9 (104 BC, from Ptolemais?: εἰκών of the King and of a gymnasiarch). Although the term ἄγαλμα ‘cult statue’ is not employed, this does not imply that such portraits were not perceived as such, for at least two reasons. First: it has been observed how the Greek terminology for ‘cult statues’ was not always clear-cut (see now Scheer [2000], esp. p. 33-34). Second: according to Egyptian practice, any statue (or in fact any object) becomes cultic, after it has been made nṯr ‘rendered divine, blessed’ with the customary (incense) preparatory rituals before the worship (see, for instance, Smith [1987], p. 79, n. b to line 18 for the causative usage of nṯr; LÄ s.v. ‘Räucherung’: Dunand – Zivie-Coche [20062], p. 27-33).
21 Ruler cult itself, as a matter of fact, could be viewed as a further development of honorific practices for benefactors; see already Delorme (1960), p. 344-345; also Chaniotis (2003), esp. p. 440-442.
22 Dedications vel sim. ‘on behalf of’ the Royal House by gymnasial communities: SB I 2138 + Pros. Ptol. VI 17159 (201-181 BC, from Beni Hassan, Herm.; fragmentary); Paganini (2014) (185-181 BC?, from Terenouthis?); I.Alex. Ptol. 28 (163-145 BC, from Alexandria, fragmentary); I.Fayoum II 103-104 (150/49 BC, from Theadelpheia, Ars.); SEG XX 671 (116-108 BC, from the temple of Amon in Karnak—fragmentary); I.Fayoum III 200 (98 BC, from Ars.); I.Fayoum III 201 (95 BC, from Ars.); I.Fayoum III 202 (94 BC, perhaps from Tebtynis in the Ars.); I.Fayoum I 8 (69-51 BC, from Krokodilonpolis, Ars.); I.Prose 41 (57 BC). No dedication was found in situ in a gymnasium: it is therefore difficult to say whether such inscriptions were located there (although this seems likely in many cases).
23 The inscription is assigned to the second century BC by PP III 6433 (s.v. Paris); to the first century BC by Bernand (I.Prose 40) and Mooren (1975), p. 185 no. 0344; 242 no. 00312; by Fraser (1961), p. 145 no. 26; and by Geraci (1976), p. 33-34 (who agrees with Fraser in dating the stone to the reign of Auletes, even though he suggests the possibility that the text refers to Ptolemy X Alexander I, who reigned 107-88 BC). A date in the first century BC seems preferable. For a detailed analysis of the inscription, see Paganini (forthcoming a).
24 Splitting hairs by debating whether the association was performing sacrifices for the Kings in the gymnasium itself or rather in the oikos seems futile.
25 The criteria for evaluating private associations follow those elaborated by the Copenhagen Associations Project and adopted in the Inventory of Ancient Associations, see https://ancientassociations.ku.dk/CAPI/intro-criteria.php. On the nomenclature and terminology for associations in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Paganini (2018).
26 The sources are written in Greek and in Egyptian language; the associations could draw their features from either tradition (and more besides) but remained Egyptian, in as much as they were very much embedded in the local environment and represented an important constituent of society of Ptolemaic Egypt. On a critique of the division between Greek and Egyptian associations in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Paganini (2017).
27 Standard work on the Demotic regulations of associations is still de Cenival (1972). On associations in Ptolemaic Egypt, see also Muszynski (1977); Muhs (2001); Monson (2006) and (2007); Pfeiffer (2008), p. 90-93. List of Demotic rules of associations from the Ptolemaic period in P.Bagnall 42: to these add Short Texts I 158 (30 BC; CAPInv. 1963) and the very fragmentary P. Cair.dem. II 30654 (Ptolemaic period; CAPInv. 1707), plus perhaps also the pre-Ptolemaic and the oldest regulation from Egypt P.Bibl. Nat.dem. E 241 = de Cenival (1988) (391 BC; CAPInv. 1687), for a total of sixteen regulations in Demotic. The only two Greek regulations from Ptolemaic Egypt are P. Lond. VII 2193 = SB V 7835 (69-58 BC; CAPInv. 654) and BGU XIV 2371 (fragmentary; CAPInv. 1514); see also Boak (1937). In the Roman period, the trend changed: no Demotic regulation survives, whereas there are several in Greek. On regulations of associations in Roman Egypt see now Venticinque (2016), p. 35-66 and Langellotti (forthcoming).
28 No mention of sacrifices for the sovereign in: de Cenival (1972), p. 103-135 = P.Berl.dem. 3115 (the Demotic rules of the choachytes of Thebes from 109/8 BC; Pestman [1993]); CAPInv. 1480: although one has to admit that the text seems mostly complete, some lacunae may possibly account for the absence of mention of ruler cults); P.Bagnall 42 (fragmentary Demotic rules of an association of Soknebtynis from 250-210 BC Tebtynis; CAPInv. 1691); and BGU XIV 2371 (fragmentary Greek regulations of an association from first century BC Herakleopolites; CAPInv. 1514). Hints to ruler cult in: Short Texts 158 (from January 30 BC; CAPInv. 1963: the association of the weavers of Coptos may have had disposition in their Demotic regulations for fines being used for sacrifices and offerings to the Kings in line 28, on the basis of the parallel of Arlt – Monson (2010) = P.StanfordGreen.dem. 21, l. x+7 = CAPInv. 1686); P. Cair.dem. II 30654 (very fragmentary Demotic regulations with mention of payment of money, possible fines, for gl [l.w ‘burnt offerings’ in line 12). All other twelve regulations by associations (eleven in Demotic and one in Greek) have clear indications of sacrifices to/for the Royal House being performed.
29 It is interesting to note that, although the cults in question are indicated to be performed for the well-being of the King (and thus would not qualify as ruler cult), the sovereign is however addressed as θεός ‘god’ (which is obviously one of the characteristics of ruler cult). Ruler cult embodied a fundamental ambivalence in it: as a man the King needed divine support (sc. worship to the gods for his welfare) and as a god- (like being) he could be object of worship himself. See also Caneva (2016b). See Price (1984b) for the use of θεός.
30 On this inscription (together with the possibility of interpretatio graeca of an Egyptian cult, which seems to me unwarranted), see also Pfeiffer (2008), p. 57-58. The presence of one priest and of common possessions (the letting of which arose revenues for the financing of the scheduled sacrifices) seems to speak against the possibility that the synbasilistai and the Dioskouriastai were two distinct associations who sacrificed together in the same shrine, as maintained in Pfeiffer (2008), p. 57: they may have been originally two distinct groups but at the time of the present dedication they formed one single association. The first two earliest associations in the Greek sources of Ptolemaic Egypt are the technitai of Dionysus of the polis of Ptolemais (I.Prose 3 and 6, from 269-246 BC; CAPInv. 115) and some thiasitai from Syene (SEG LX 1812, third century BC; CAPInv. 1533). On the early associations of Ptolemaic Egypt in Greek sources, see Paganini (2017), p. 136-139.
31 A prominent member (but not official) of the association was Herodes, son of Demophon, who had the aulic titles of archisōmatophylax and of ‘one of the diadochoi’ and held military and civil offices, as well as religious ones, in Setis, Elephantine, Abaton, and Philae. With the other priests of Setis (CAPInv. 48) he set up the dedication I.Louvre 14 = I.Th.Sy. 302: the priests had met to celebrate the customary acts of worship to the Royal House as part of their priestly duties; they did not constitute an association. See Mooren (1977), p. 17-73 (on aulic titulatures) and p. 127 (on Herodes).
32 On the basilistai, see Fischer-Bovet (2014), p. 287-289. For a critique of the traditional division of associations into ‘cultic/religious’, ‘professional’, etc. which claims to capture the real purpose of an association, see Gabrielsen (2001), p. 218-219 and also Arnaoutoglou (2011), p. 258-260.
33 This association was active during the festivals in honour of Dionysus (τὰ Διονύσια): see also San Nicolò (19722), I, p. 27 and Aneziri (2003), p. 116. Technitai were present in Ptolemy II Philadelphos’ procession (FGrH 627 F 2 = Ath. 5.198c; CAPInv. 1524) and were certainly contributing to the political agenda of the Ptolemies. On Ptolemy II’s procession, see Thompson (2000) and Caneva (2016c), p. 81-127. On the technitai, see Aneziri (2003).
34 In Teos (Ionia): the koinon of the technitai of Ionia, the Hellespont, and of Dionysus Kathēgēmōn who worshiped the Attalid Kings (CIG 3068; 237 BC – AD 150; CAPInv. 1801); possibly the koinon tōn Attalistōn (OGIS I 325 et al.; 159-130 BC?; CAPInv. 1692). Possibly in Limyra (Lycia): the basilistai worshiping the Ptolemies (Wörrle [2015], 243-197 BC; BÉ [2015], no. 649; CAPInv. 1657). Possibly at Paphos (Cyprus): the basilistai worshiping the Ptolemies (I.Paphos 97 = Mitford [1961a], p. 39, no. 105, with Buraselis – Aneziri [2004], p. 175; I BC?; CAPInv. 1518). Possibly at Lapethos (Cyprus): Peristianes (1910), p. 945, no. 34. Possibly at Petra: the marzeaḥ of Obodas, possibly worshiping the deified King Obodas I (RÉS 1423; I cent. BC-I cent. AD; CAPInv. 601). Whether the basilistai on Thera may also have been involved in the performance of cults for the rulers is uncertain: IG XII 3, 443 (III-II cent. BC; CAPInv. 15).
35 For associations of Egypt with possible cults of the Emperor, see Pfeiffer (2010), pp. 304-310. Cult of the Emperors in associations is attested in: CAPInv. 462 (Xenoi Tekmoreioi of Phrygia/Pisidia, late II – IV cent. AD?); CAPInv. 1019 (synbiosis tōn Philosebastōn of Pergamon; imperial period); CAPInv. 1092 (navicularii of Pozzuoli, AD 117-150); CAPInv. 1123 (Plateitai of Mylasa, Caria, I-II AD); CAPInv. 1611 (hoi pro poleōs Dēmētriastai of Ephesos, AD 19-200?); CAPInv. 1679 (Kaisariastai, Lydia, I-III AD); possibly CAPInv. 125 (nauklēroi of Nikomedia, Bythinia, AD 69-III AD).
36 On burnt offerings and libations (alongside discussion of possible types of altars employed), see Lanciers (1993); Dils (1993), esp. p. 114-115; Quaegebeur (1993), esp. p. 342-345; see also Vittmann (1998), p. 455-456. The usage of portable offering tables or braziers is attested in the koinon of the technitai of Ionia, of the Hellespont, and of Dionysus Kathegemon in CIG 3068 (Teos; 180-158 BC = CAPInv. 1801); such practice, which had the advantage of practicality and versatility but obviously left no archaeological trace, seems to have been used of preference in ceremonies before statues (of sovereigns or benefactors): see Caneva (2020a). The base of an altar has been found in the courtyard of the gymnasium of Philoteris (Arsinoites), the only Hellenistic gymnasium of Egypt to have been identified archaeologically: my warmest thanks to C. Römer for sharing the preliminary results of the excavations conducted by the DAI of Cairo.
37 P.Oxy. XXVII 2465.
38 Lanciers (1993), p. 205-206 and 213-214.
39 In P. Lille.dem. I 29; P. Cair.dem. II 30606; P.Hamb.dem. 1; P. Cair.dem. II 31179; P. Cair.dem. II 30605; P.Prague.dem.; P. Cair.dem. II 30619. See de Cenival (1972), p. 17-18.
40 In P. Cair.dem. II 31178; P. Cair.dem. II 30606; P.Hamb.dem. 1; P. Cair.dem. II 31179; P. Cair.dem. II 30605; P. Cair.dem. II 30619. See de Cenival (1972), also p. 18.
41 See, for instance, Quaegebeur (1993), p. 346-347.
42 Lanciers (1993), p. 216-217.
43 Quaegebeur (1993).
44 I.Prose 40, line 41.
45 I somewhat follow here Pfeiffer (2008), p. 117-121, who however maintains the distinction between Greek and Egyptian practices in his analysis; in the case of associations, at any rate, such a clear-cut division may be unwarranted. The interpretation of crowns by the offerings in ruler cult as typically Greek in Lanciers (1993), p. 215 seems overplayed: see also Moyer (2011a), p. 31-37 and (2011b), esp. p. 129-135. On the rituals of ruler cult by the Hellenistic poleis see Habicht (20173) and Lanciers (1993).
46 See Lanciers (1993) and Pfeiffer (2008). This is one of the characteristics that grosso modo differentiate—by no means in an exclusive way—‘ruler cult’ (Herrscherkult) from ‘dynastic cult’ (Dynastie-kult). See also Walbank (1984), p. 87-99.
47 The same applies to P.StanfordGreen.dem. 21 = Arlt – Monson (2010) = CAPInv. 1686.
48 Occasionally a dedication or another ritual act accomplished hyper a living sovereign could also mention deceased and deified members of the Royal Family. This can be seen as an ideological solution to stress dynastic continuity: cf. above, I.Prose 41, lines 32-33, θύσας] | [δὲ] ὑπὲρ τῆς κυρίας βασιλίσσης καὶ τῶν [προγόνων (the supplement seems the only acceptable one; τέκνων is not a possible alternative, as Berenike IV died childless). More generally, see Caneva – Bricault (2019); for texts from Egyptian milieus, see Pfeiffer in this volume.
49 For ‘private’ or ‘unofficial’ cults and on the risks of a simplistic ‘public vs private’ approach, see Aneziri (2005) and Caneva (2014a), p. 92-94.
50 The association of P. Cair.dem. II 31178 (179 BC; CAPInv. 1971), for instance, met on the dromos of the temple. In fact, associations often had meeting places (marked with inscriptions) in courtyards of temples or along the processional dromos: see, for instance, the synodos of gooseherds who met in the courtyard of the temple of Pnepheros in Theadelpheia (I.Fayoum II 109; 102 BC? = CAPInv. 63). The practice continued into Roman times: see the deipneteria along the dromos of the temple at Tebtynis; Rondot (2004), p. 150-152 and 158-159.
51 On religion being ‘civic and communal’ in Hellenistic poleis, see Erskine (2014), p. 586. Ruler and dynastic cult in Egyptian temples, besides rites within the shrines reserved for the temple staff, included ceremonies in the courtyards and processions outside of the temple in which the community of the faithful took part (from a distance) in the cult of their divine rulers: Pfeiffer (2008), esp. p. 77-79.
52 Even in the case of the synodos of the divine Euergetes of P.UB Trier S 159-5, despite what the name might suggest.
53 Mention of the debate on the issue of true religiosity of ruler cult for Hellenistic poleis is found in Erskine (2014), p. 581-582. See also Price (1984a), esp. p. 23-52, with Caneva (2016c), p. 119- 126. The importance of the social aspect of royal cults is already stressed in Walbank (1987), p. 381-382. On feasts in Hellenistic cities generally, see for instance Chaniotis (1995) with further bibliography.
54 On the rules and regulations of ancient associations, see now the papers in Gabrielsen – Paganini (forthcoming). For internal dispute resolution by associations, see Paganini (forthcoming b).
55 Erichsen (1959), p. 25. de Cenival (1972), p. 182 does not comment.
56 That the activities of associations often took place in open spaces (dromos of temples, cemeteries, temple courtyards) is well known and attested by their inscriptions and Demotic regulations; conversely, some associations met in clubhouses and halls or rooms reserved for them in temples or other complexes. Still, their ceremonies were not public, in the sense that anyone could join in: they therefore happened between the four walls (physical or imaginary) of the association. The idea that the associations’ (empty) display of loyalty to the Ptolemies could be a way to prevent or discourage possible local revolts against the established monarchy, as hinted by Erichsen (1959), p. 25, is now passé.
57 For the concept of ‘trust’ and ‘trust networks’, especially for their economic implications, Tilly (2005) remains the standard reference. For the concept of ‘social capital’, developed in sociology and institutional economics, see, for instance, Coleman (1988) and Burt (2005), with Ogilvie (2005). For a theoretical treatment of prestige, esteem, and social recognition, including their economic implications, see for instance Brennan – Pettit (2004).
58 Introduction by a ruler of cults for himself is less common and normally of later date: Chaniotis (2003), p. 439-443. The possible request by Alexander the Great to be treated as god in Greek cities would be an exception to this: see Walbank (1987), p. 365; Chaniotis (2003), p. 434-435; Erskine (2014), p. 582-583.
59 Caneva (2016c), esp. p. 217-218.
60 See Gabrielsen – Thomsen (2015), p. 16.
61 For an example of the impact of associations also on the visual space of rural communities in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Paganini (2020); on the role of the military in temple building, see Fischer-Bovet (2014), p. 329-362. For the spatial impact of associations in Hellenistic Athens, see Skaltsa (2016).