STUDIA HERCYNIA XIX/1–2, S. 206–217
oman pie as and He od he g ea
Adam Pažou
aBS aC
Deep poli ical and cul u al connec ions which He od had o Rome and o Augus us s emmed om his posi‑
ion o aclien king o he Romans. This clien ship was based on pe sonal ela ion be ween bo h He od and
Augus us, and he e o e we may d aw pa allels om pa onus -cliens ela ionship known and documen ed
om a ious ancien sou ces, and hen in e p e He od’sbuilding p og am. Recip ocal bonds we e based
on concep s o ides (loyal y, secu i y) and pie as (pie y). Augus us ex ended his bene ac ions on He od
on many occasions and He od ewa ded him in gene ous manne , emula ing he ypically Roman i ue
o pie as in simila manne as Augus us did himsel in Rome. Roman ‑ ype emples o Augus us in Judaea
(Sama ia ‑Sebas e, Caesa ea, Paneas) a e p oo s o He od’s‘ex ension’ o Augus us’ cul u al p og am. Fu he
a es a ion o He od’spie as is ac , ha i was Augus us’ genius ha was ene a ed in emples dedica ed o
him. These beginnings o he impe ial cul may be aced, as is e idenced also in Augus an Rome, o he cul
o pa e amilias– pa onus which was p ac iced by his espec i e cliens.
kEywo dS
He od he G ea ; Augus us; clien ship; eligion; pie as.
in oduC ion
He od’sin ol emen in he sphe e o Roman cul u al milieu has been opic o se e al s udies
since la ge ‑scale exca a ions e ealed his building endea ou s, beginning wi h Yadin’s e‑
sea ch on Masada in 1960s. To name some, i was wo k o Duane Rolle (1998) ha showed
s ong connec ions be ween He od and he Roman poli ical and cul u al éli e and he way
hey in luenced o ma ion o He od’sa chi ec u al ideas. This heme was u he explo ed
by Japp (2000). Recen ly, K opp (2009) e ‑examined Impe ial cul unde clien kings in he
Nea Eas , including He od. Geige (1997) p esen ed He od as philo homaios and philokaisa in
con ex , and Rege (2010) examined He od’sRoman and Jewish iden i ies. Bloch (2006) no es
simila i ies in bo h Augus us’ and He od’sp og am o pie y p opaga ion in hei espec i e
places, as o He od in aso o imi a io Augus i. The pie y will be o conce n o his a icle.
Josephus o en w i es abou He od’spie y o e en pious ac s and ‘suppo ’ o pie y (e.g.
BJI.400, I.462; AJXV.375 e c.). Howe e , he Roman dimension o his ‘pious conduc ’ has been
le a he unno iced. Thus, he aim o his pape is o explo e a a ie y o o ms in which king
He od exp essed his i ue o pie y and, o be mo e p ecise, especially his ela ion o Roman
pie as and he pie as o his g ea con empo a y– Augus us– and o in e p e hem in hei
his o ical, social and poli ical con ex o he es ablishmen o Roman p incipa e.
Le us sho ly e iew how we unde s and he e m ‘pie y’ in an iqui y. Fi s o all, i is he
e e ence o he dei y and app op ia e conduc o one’sobliga ions owa ds hem. O in o he
wo ds, he e exis s ace ain ecip ocal ela ionship be ween wo shippe and dei y which can
be exp essed as do u des (Gill 2004, 527; Rüpke 2001, 148–149; Wa io 2006, 6; Maha am
2000, 1009–1010. See e.g. Cice o De na . deo. I.3). Simila ela ionship o espec , e e ence and
obliga ion is expec ed in he amily con ex , be ween pa ons and hei clien s, bene ac o s
207ADAM PAŽOUT
and bene i e s (e.g. Cice o De o . II.46; III.41; D ummond 2006, 160–163; Wa io 2006, 13),
as well as in Hellenis ic mona chies whe e kings we e awa ded wi h honou s ese ed only
o gods (Walbank 2006, 90–94).
BuildingS ConnEC Ed o HE od’SPiE y
Acco ding o Josephus we can dis inguish wo o ms o mani es a ion o pie y (eusebeia/pie as)
in e ms we de ined in he in oduc ion: naming o buildings and e ec ion o emples.
NAMINg OF BUILDINgS
Signi ican indi iduals we e honou ed in his way wi h he membe s o impe ial amily being
he mos p ominen . I included Augus us (Sebas os/Caesa ) and his sons ‑in ‑law Ag ippa and
D usus. Apa om hem, only one Roman igu e is ep esen ed by name– An onius– he
ium i in he eas e n p o inces. The ypology o buildings in ques ion a ies bu hey a e
all monumen al public cons uc ions (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1: Map o he si es men ioned in
he ex (by A. Pažou ).
208 STUDIA HERCYNIA XIX/1–2
The i s building o be cons uc ed1 was he o ess o An onia (BJI.402; AJXV.292; 403;
409; Richa dson 1996, 223) some ime be ween He od’sconques o Je usalem (37 BCE) and
ba le o Ac ium (31 BCE), o e lapping wi h An ony’ss ay in he eas . A e Ac ium we en‑
coun e e en mo e magni icen buildings. They include e ‑ ounda ions o Sama ia ‑Sebas e in
27 BCE (AJXV.292; 296–316); An hedon ‑Ag ippias (BJI.416) a unspeci ied da e, and ounding
o Caesa ea in 24/23 BCE (BJI.408–413; AJXV.331–341; XVI.136), which also included acili ies
named a e Augus us (Sebas os ha bou ) and D usus (ligh house; BJI.412; AJXVII.87–88).
In Je usalem He od buil banque ing halls in his palace named a e Augus us and Ag ippa
(BJI.402; AJXV.318).
Ano he ca ego y, al hough no belonging among buildings, should be men ioned. Quin‑
quennial games in honou o Augus us’ ic o y a Ac ium we e es ablished and held in Je u‑
salem. Fo his pu pose hippod ome and hea e wi h ophies and insc ip ions honou ing
Augus us we e buil (BJI.415; AJXV. 267–269). And inally, he e a e emples dedica ed o
Augus us (Caesa ea, Sebas e and Paneium).
TEMPLES OF AUgUSTUS
E ec ion o he i s emple began ea ly in He od’s eign, al eady in 27 BCE, du ing econ‑
s uc ion and ounda ion o mili a y colony in Sebas e (BJI.403; AJXV.298). He is he e o e
apionee in p omo ion o he impe ial cul in he Roman wo ld. The nex emple is linked o
he ounda ion o Caesa ea (BJI.414; AJXV.339). The las was concei ed a e Augus us’ isi
o Sy ia in 20 BCE, when He od was con ined new lands a he sp ings o Jo dan (BJI.398–399,
404; AJXV.354, 363–364).
Caesa ea
The emple s ood on alow idge, ca. 13m high, acing he ha bou . I s main axis is o ien ed
o he main axis o he ha bou and so i di e ges om he ec angula s ee g id. On he op
o he ele a ion apla o m o 100 × 90m was cons uc ed. The po ico is econs uc ed a ound
he p ecinc based on pa allels wi h o he emples. Towa ds he ha bou wo wings (21 × 9.5m)
a e p ojec ed wi h a10 m wide monumen al s ai case si ua ed in he space be ween hem. The
es is econs uc ed, a e Ne ze (Fig. 2 op), as a e aced ga den. Howe e , we lack su i‑
cien p oo s o his s a emen . Ano he s ai case on he sou he n side o pla o m connec ed
he p ecinc o one o he ca dines (Le ine 1975, 19; Ne ze 2006, 103, 105; Po a he al. 2008,
1667; Rolle 1998, 138–139).
Founda ions measu ing 46.4 × 28.6m su i ed om he emple. We can assume, om he
agmen s o mason y, ha he plan was pe ip e al hexas ylos, p obably Co in hian, bu
he e is no ag eemen as o whe he hese ounda ions a e es o k epis o podium (Ne ze
2006, 103, 105; Po a he al. 2008, 1667). Acco ding o Josephus he e used o s and as a ue
o Augus us modelled a e Olympian Zeus and as a ue o Roma a e A gi e He a (BJI.414).
1 Fo ch onology o a ious building p ojec s see Kokkinos 1998, 370; Ne ze 1981, 1; Ne ze 2006, 302–305;
Richa dson 1996, 238; Rolle 1998, 87–90.
209ADAM PAŽOUT
Fig. 2: Compa ison o he emples. Caesa ea op, Sama ia ‑Sebas e bo om igh , Fo um Iulium bo om
le (a e Ne ze 2006, Fig. 56).
Sebas e
The emenos o he emple in Sebas e was cons uc ed in he same manne as in Caesa ea on
amonumen al pla o m (83 × 72m) on he ci y ac opolis. The ounda ions consis o wo pa allel
walls along he eas e n, no he n and wes e n pa o he p ecinc . The space be ween hem
was aul ed c ea ing ac yp opo icus. The a ea enclosed by he walls was hen ele a ed. The
en ance consis ing o amonumen al s ai case is belie ed o ha e been placed on he badly
p ese ed no he n ace o he pla o m. The c yp opo icus could ha e se ed as abase o
double po ico enci cling he cou .
210 STUDIA HERCYNIA XIX/1–2
The emple s ood in he sou he n pa o he pla o m on a4.5m high podium wi h access
in he o m o awide s ai case (Fig. 2 bo om igh ). The podium measu es 34.9 × 23.95m wi h
a6.95m deep po ico. The emple is usually hough o be aCo in hian hexas ylos o Roman
ype wi h columns s anding a ound he on al and wo long sides, he back consis ing o he
sou he n wall o he cela wi h an ae p ojec ing o he sides (pe ip e os sine pos ico) (A igad
1993, 1300–1310; Ba ag 1993, 3–18; C ow oo – Kenyon– Sukenik 1966, 123–124; Ne ze 2006,
85–88; Reisne – Fische – Lyon 1924, 170–172; Rolle 1998, 211).
Paneium
Paneium o Paneas is si ua ed on he wes e n oo o Moun He mon in he alley o Na‑
hal He mon, ibu a y o Jo dan. The sanc ua y lies on a20m wide ock e ace abo e he
i e , nea he en ance o ag o o wi h awa e sp ing. F om he Hellenis ic imes he e
s ood Pan’s emple a ound which se e al smalle ins alla ions we e e ec ed (Ma’oz 1993, 136;
Rolle 1998, 190).
The sanc ua y migh be iden ical wi h he Ionic e as yle emple, s anding on ak epis in
on o he g o o opening. Two pa allel walls a e p ese ed, s anding 10.5m away om each
o he wi h niches on he inne sides. The ympanum is econs uc ed, a e coins o e a ch
Phillip, wi h ophies simila o hose om Piazza della Consolazione in Rome (Ma’oz 1993,
140; Rocca 2008, 318; Rolle 1998, 190–191).
Ano he plausible emple is loca ed on he e ace (20 × 120m) wes o he g o o. Founda‑
ions o a ec angula hall 12 × 15m we e ca ed in he ock. In ce ain sec ions, emains o
mason y ha o me ly migh ha e been co e ed wi h ma ble slabs we e p ese ed. In on o
he hall, pe pendicula o i s main axis, he e a e wo pa allel walls made in opus e icula um
wi h 2.3m dis ance be ween hem. Ne ze sugges s econs uc ing he emple as adis ylos in
an is, whe e opus e icula um walls cons i u e ounda ion o po ico and monumen al s ai case
om he lowe e ace (Ne ze 2006, 219–221; Rolle 1998, 192).
OVERVIEW
The sanc ua ies buil by He od sha e se e al dis inc i e ea u es. The e is, in gene al, an
e iden e o o “monumen alize” he space, which is achie ed by se e al means. Fi s o all,
i is hei p ominen posi ion; o en enhanced by e acing o high podia. Ano he ea u e
is ahuge p ecinc ( emenos) enci cled by po icos wi h ga es (Caesae a, Sebas e) and monu‑
men al app oaches, mos ly s ai cases. The dimension played i s ole, oo. The emples could
become he ocal poin o ci y’spano ama hanks o hei o ien a ion owa ds impo an ci y
cen e as was he case wi h Caesa ea and i s ha bou (Le ine 1975, 19; Ne ze 2006, 270–271;
Rocca 2008, 319).
Th ee emples o Augus us o mally adop he schemes o G eek emple a chi ec u e (Co‑
in hian/Ionian o de ), which we e ne e heless unde he s ong Roman in luence. These
emples a e among he i s Roman podium emples in he Roman Eas . The Roman in luence
in Paneium is appa en in cons uc ion me hods (opus e icula um). The abo e men ioned
me hods o monumen aliza ion– emenos wi h po icos, monumen al s ai way e c. a e again
o G aeco ‑Roman o igin, hey ha e pa allels in bo h Hellenis ic (Temple o A hena in Lindos,
Temple o A hena in Pe gamum e c.) and Roman a chi ec u e (Fo um Iulium, Fo um Augus i;
Fig. 2 bo om le ), al hough simila emple enclosu es we e designed and cons uc ed in he
Nea Eas app oxima ely a he same ime (G ea emple o Pe a, Temple o Jupi e in Damascus
and Temple o Bel in Palmy a a e sligh ly la e ). The ac ha he impe ial o a inspi ed hese
buildings is widely accep ed (Ne ze 2006, 291; Rolle 1998, 94; on Hesbe g 1996, 9–25).

211ADAM PAŽOUT
wHa do HE od’SBuildingS Ell uS aBou HiS PiE aS?
He od’sac ions can be in e p e ed in se e al ways which, as we shall see, a e in e connec ed.
They de elop a ound opics o poli ical ma e s, pe sonal ies o he ac o s in ol ed, s uc u e
o powe and exp ession o pie y.
POLITICAL CONTEXT
Rome had become he hegemon o Eas e n Medi e anean om he Pompey’scampaign
(64–63 BCE) a he la es . Judean eli es quickly ealized he impo ance o good ela ions wi h
Romans.2 This connec ion be ween Roman s a e and local a is oc acy was achie ed h ough
impo an poli ical igu es in Rome i sel (B un 1971, 48; B aund 1990, 138–141; Wallace‑
‑Had ill 1990, 75). An ipa e cul i a ed ela ions wi h Gabinius (BJI.175; AJXIV.98–99) and
a e Pompey’sdea h he be iended Caesa who ele a ed him o he s a us o Roman ci i‑
zen as a ewa d o his se ice and who p obably made him one o his clien s (BJI.187–194;
AJXIV.127–137; B aund 1984, 44; Richa dson 1996, 111; Schä e 2003, 85). An ipa e ’s amily
(and so He od) was g an ed ci izenship and was unde pa onage o Roman s a esmen om
he ime o Caesa ; wi h He od “swi ching”3 la e om being cliens o Iulii o ha o An onii and
hen back again in 30 BCE. In ac , we possess apiece o e idence, in he o m o an hono a y
insc ip ion om he island o Kos, epo ing He od’s ull name as Gaius Iulius He odes and so
a es ing him o ha e indeed been amembe o he Iulii amily (Jacobson 1993–1994, 31–36).
He od se ed loyally o Sex us Caesa in Sy ia a e lea ing Galilee ollowing he bandi a ai ,
Sex us s ood behind He od on he same occasion and made him s a egos o Sama ia and Coele
Sy ia (BJI.199–214; AJXIV.127–160; 163–170; 177–178).
4
The de o ion o Rome pe sis ed e en
du ing Ci il Wa s. In hei beginning, An ipa e and his sons we e suppo e s o Caesa , hen
when epublican o ces seized eas e n p o inces, hey swi ched allegiance o hem (BJI.217;
220–225; AJXIV.268–280). Subsequen ly, He od ollowed his a he in he “gues ‑ iendship”
wi h An ony, wi h whom He od main ained good ela ions also in he ollowing yea s and
who made He od e a ch (BJI.216–244; AJXIV.268–300; 324–326). A u ning poin came in he
yea 40 BCE when Pa hians in aded Sy ia. He od sough help in Rome (as aRoman ci izen!)
and was made king o Judaea by he Roman sena e. Le us ecollec opinions o An ony and
Oc a ian and Sena e’sp oceedings in Josephus: “[An ony]… calling o mind how hospi ably he
had been ea ed by An ipa e , bu mo e especially on accoun o He od’sown i ue… and as o
Caesa … emembe ing e y esh he wa s he had gone h ough oge he wi h his a he [An ipa e ],
he hospi able ea men he had me wi h om him, and he en i e good -will he had showed o him…
ga e a ull accoun o he me i s o his a he , and his own [He od’s] good -will o he Romans… An ony
came in, and old hem ha i was o hei ad an age in he Pa hian wa ha He od should be king;
so hey all ga e hei o es o i . And when he sena e was sepa a ed, An ony and Caesa wen ou ,
wi h He od be ween hem…” (BJI.282–285).5 A ha ime He od had all impo an igu es on his
2 See o example Caesa ’sand An ony’sdec ees in AJXIV.190–222, 306–322; Richa dson 1996, 105–112;
Schä e 2003, 83–84; G an 1973, 68–73.
3 I was no uncommon o ha e mo e han one pa on and o ans e one’sloyal y; see B un 1971, 48–49;
Salle 1990, 53.
4 Richa dson 1996, 111. The La in equi alen would be p obably p ae ec us and Coele ‑Sy ia migh e e o
Decapolis. See Gabba 1999, 103.
5 Ἀντωνίου δὲ πρὸς τὴν μεταβολὴν οἶκτος, καὶ κατὰ μνήμην μὲν τῆς Ἀντιπάτρου ξενίας… ἐνῆγεν δὲοὐκ
ἔλαττον τῆς εἰς Ἡρώδην φιλοτιμίας…Καίσαρα μὲν οὖν εἶχεν ἑτοιμότερον αὐτοῦ τὰς Ἀντιπάτρου στρατείας
ἀνανεούμενον, ἃς κατ᾽ Αἴγυπτον αὐτοῦ τῷ πατρὶ συνδιήνεγκεν, τήν τε ξενίανκαὶ τὴν ἐν ἅπασιν εὔνοιαν…
212 STUDIA HERCYNIA XIX/1–2
side and he knew how o ake ad an age o his si ua ion. He emained loyal o An ony, who
con olled eas e n p o inces, despi e di icul ies caused by Cleopa a, he queen o Egyp . A e
he ba le o Ac ium He od managed o win Augus us’ a ou when he app oached him as an
o dina y ci izen (and as an old cliens o Iulii). In his speech he s essed loyal y o his iend,
he ac he was agood ad ise and his du i ul se ice. Bu he mos impo an sen ence is
his: “Iown mysel also o be o e come oge he wi h him [An ony]; and wi h his las o une Iha e
laid aside my diadem” (BJI.390).6 We do no ind such an explici s a emen o dependence on
Rome e y o en. In u n, Augus us es o ed He od o his kingdom, ga e him back lands aken
away om him by Cleopa a and also o he ci ies (Sama ia, Gada a, Hippos, Gazah, An hedon,
Joppa and S a on’s owe ; BJI.386–397; AJXV.161–201). A ound 23/20 BCE du ing Augus us’
isi o he Eas he again awa ded He od wi h new e i o ies, gi ing him Ba anaea, Gaulan‑
i is and T achoni is om he hands o hei o me ule Zenodo us. A e Zenodo us’ dea h
he es o his domain– Ula ha and Paneas a he sou ce o i e Jo dan, was gi en o He od,
oo (BJI.398–400; AJXV.342–364).7 A ha ime he also made He od p ocu a o o Sy ia.8 The
cons uc ion o emple o Augus us ollowed soon a e wa ds.
He od kep de eloping c ucial ela ionship wi h Augus us and Ag ippa in his ule u he
on. Apa om ul illing his obliga ions, ape sonal con ac o ule s and hei amilies played
pa , e.g. educa ion o He od’ssons in Rome e c. The peak o good ela ions was p obably
exp essed in Ag ippa’s isi o Judea in 16 BCE, oge he wi h he ac ha He od was gi en
pe mission o choose his successo eely (AJXVI.12–15; Richa dson 1996, 229–231).
To sum up, He od was aking by he will o Romans, he was aRoman ally and a iend o Ro‑
man people (socius e amicus populi Romani), all his powe and legi imacy was de i ed om
Roman a ou , om ium i s a he beginning, la e om he Empe o . We can see subo ‑
dina ion o Rome du ing he wa in T achoni is agains bandi s and Naba eans in 12–9 BCE.
Al hough He od sough pe mission o mili a y ac ion om he Sy ian go e no Volumnius,
Augus us lea ned abou he si ua ion om Syllaeus, aNaba aean. Augus us go upse wi h
He od who in u n e ea ed and le A abs pillage he coun y (AJXVI.271–299). He od speaks
abou he impo ance o Rome’s a ou ( he “ ule s o he wo ld”) in his speech be o e he
econs uc ion o he Je usalem Temple, he e he emphasizes las ing iendship and implies
hey a e gua an ees o peace (AJXV.387).
PATRONAgE AND IMPERIAL CULT
We demons a ed he dependence o He od on his Roman pa ons in p e ious pa ag aph. In
he pa onus -cliens ela ionship, pie as (pie y)
9
and ides
10
(loyal y, eliabili y) we e equi ed
τὸν Ἡρώδην τάς τε πατρῴας εὐεργεσίας καὶ τὴν αὐτοῦ πρὸς Ῥωμαίους εὔνοιαν διεξῄεσαν… Ἀντώνιος καὶ
πρὸς τὸν κατὰ Πάρθων πόλεμον βασιλεύειν Ἡρώδην συμφέρειν ἔλεγεν, ἐπιψηφίζονται πάντες. λυθείσης
δὲ τῆς βουλῆς Ἀντώνιος μὲν καὶ Καῖσαρ μέσον ἔχοντες Ἡρώδην ἐξῄεσαν…
6 συνήττημαι δ᾽Ἀντωνίῳ καὶ τέθεικα μετὰ τῆς ἐκείνουτύχης τὸ διάδημα.
7 Augus us’ isi is da ed by he yea 17 o He od’s eign, hus ma king he yea 23 BCE. The dedica ion o
Ba anaea, T achoni is and Au ani is should hen be ea lie (ca. 24/23 BCE). The BJ, howe e , s a es he
yea en (a e Ac ium), i.e. 21/20 BCE.
8 He was p obably esponsible o collec ing axes, see Gabba 1999, 120.
9 We may supply ew une a y insc ip ion o illus a e ha , o example: “…pa ono bene me en i…pie a is
causa“ (CIL 6.9187); “…pa onis suis eci dignis e me i is p o eo um pie a i e sibi e suis“ (CIL 6.2225); “…
pa onus pie a is causa“ (CIL 3.3658); “…pa ono pie a is causa…“ (CIL 3.6778) e c.
10 E.g. Cice o, Fam. XII, 21.2: “nam cum p op e ea mihi es p oba us, quod es in pa onum suum o icio e
ide singula i…“Be ween Romans and allied kings e.g. Cice o, De o . II.27; Tac. Ann. IV.47.
213ADAM PAŽOUT
om clien owa ds he pa on (and ice ‑ e sa). T ue, He od o o he allied kings we e no
desc ibed as clien es o he Romans o o he empe o in he ancien sou ces; ins ead hey a e
coined as amici. Bu amici ia and clien ela we e o en in e dependen and hey a e simila in
many aspec s. Mo eo e , Romans could a oid he e m cliens in ela ion o hei allies ou o
poli eness (Rich 1990, 124; Salle 1990, 56, 60–61). Sue onius, o example, only goes as a as
saying ha he allied and iendly kings ( eges amici a que socii) used o pay hei espec o‑
wa ds Augus us “…mo e clien ium (in he manne o clien s [ o hei pa ons]).” (Sue ., Aug. 60).
We should no o ge ha pa onage and amici ia we e bo h ecip ocal ela ionships, in
which pa onus, o he one wi h highe au ho i y gi es in e u n his ides (he e in he mean‑
ing “p o ec ion”) and bene icia. In ou con ex we can see wo le els o his ela ionship– on
he one hand, he Judaean s a e (He od) was in ea y ‑less alliance (p o ec ion) wi h Rome
(Augus us); ano he bene icium Augus us ga e o He od was e.g. ee hand in composing his
las will. Fu he e idence o hei amici ia could be he will jus men ioned in which He od
bequea hed Augus us la ge sum o money, se e al luxu ious i ems and pe sonal belongings
(AJXVII.190; Ga nsey– Salle 1987, 152–155; Rich 1990, 124–131).
A a ie y o names and buildings ( emples, ci ies, palaces) e lec s his obliga ion. Some o
he p ojec s can be in e p e ed as “g a e ulness”, an exp ession o pie as owa ds his pa ons.
The mos pa en exp ession o pie y a e wi h no doub h ee emples dedica ed o Augus us (and
Roma). The oldes one in Sebas e was buil sho ly a e Oc a ian was decla ed Augus us in
27 BCE and i was he e y i s emple whe e empe o was ene a ed buil by an indi idual–
king and ci izen (DioLI,20.6–9).11 The e is alink be ween he emple and Augus us’ suppo
o He od a e Ac ium. The emple in Paneium may be linked o Augus us’ isi in he Eas ,
when He od was gi en land and o ices om Augus us’ hands. The emple in Caesa ea may
no be connec ed di ec ly o any e en bu he choice o dei y was undoub edly in luenced by
poli ical eali y o he day.12
Among o he means o p omo ing He od’s ides and pie as we mus add games commemo‑
a ing ic o y a Ac ium held in Je usalem’shippod ome and hea e. Apa om he simple
ac o celeb a ing he Empe o ’s ic o y, ophies and p obably Augus us’ Res Ges ae we e
displayed, e en hough hey had o be emo ed since people hough hey de ied he com‑
mandmen conce ning idola y (AJXV.267–279; Be ne 2007, 52–66; Geige 1997, 79–80;
Rocca 2008, 315–316, 324).
The dei ica ion o he ule was ypical o Hellenis ic mona chies (Walbank 2006, 87–96;
Lund 1992, 169–174). In Rome, on he o he hand, he dei ica ion was g an ed pos humously
(Bea d– No h– P ice 2004, 349, 353). Du ing Augus us’ li e ime i was his genius wha was
ene a ed, as is again documen ed by Sue onius, decla ing ha cul in he es o ed emple o
Olympian Zeus in A hens included his genius (Sue ., Aug. 60).
Augus us modelled he wo ship o his own genius on ha o genius pa e amilias– he co e
cul o Roman sac a p i a a– oge he wi h he cul o la es and pena es (ThesCRA V, 143; Dumé‑
zil 2000, 366; Se e y 2003, 10, 120–121). In a adi ional household i was celeb a ed by he
pa e amilias himsel wi h liba ions and o e ings o ood. We lea n ha genius o pa e amilias
was celeb a ed on dies na alis, on Kalendae, Nonae and Ides and o he anni e sa ies. An impo ‑
an ac is ha i was celeb a ed by he whole ex ended amilia– apa om his ela i es, also
sla es, eedmen and clien es we e included (Dumézil 2000, 366, 600–601; G adel 2002, 36).
We can obse e his associa ion in se e al ways. Liba ions on behal o Genius Augus i we e
11 Ea lie emples in Pe gamum and Nicomedia we e dedica ed by koinon o Asia; Le ick 2006, 657. Fo
Sebas e see Be ne 2007, 66–68, 70.
12 Fo possible in ol emen o Li ia in he cul see: Be ne 2007, 112–115.
214 STUDIA HERCYNIA XIX/1–2
o ed in Sena e as ea ly as 30 BCE (Dio LI, 19.7; Taylo 1920, 124), e en la e in 7 BCE his cul
was o icially combined wi h he public cul o La es Compi ales/La es Augus i in he ci y o
Rome (Bea d– No h– P ice 2004, 184–185. G adel 2002, 116–117, 124–128). Nex , Augus us
in oduced adi ion o oa h ‑swea ing o loyal y o him by his name (e.g. AJXVI.344; IGR III
137; OGIS 532 e c.), which was acommon ea u e o he pa e amilias cul as well as an exp es‑
sion o his auc o i as o e his amilia. O he no el y was he celeb a ion o Augus us bi hday
(P ice 1984, 54, 56, 106, 118), again p obably as an imi a ion o pa e amilias cul . Augus us
de ini ely sough away o be he “ a he ” o he people, hus emodelling he s uc u e o he
s a e o he one o aRoman amily wi h himsel a i s head (Se e y 2003, 153, 160–161; Taylo
1931, 182–183).13
He od’s esponse was es ablishmen o acul o Empe o ’sgenius. We ind He od ac ing
as aRoman ci izen, bound by pie as o his pa on, in he ins i u ional co e o Roman eligion
(ThesCRA II, 189–192). He delibe a ely claims allegiance o he closes ing o Augus us’ cli‑
en s, exploi ing all possibili ies his posi ion gi es him and, mos impo an ly, he consciously
expands Augus us’ own eligious p og am o abso bing Roman ci izen y o he sphe e o his
household ia old eligious cus oms.
The “Roman ‑ness” o his conduc was enhanced by he use o Roman a chi ec u al o ms
(Roman emple, Roman o a), e en ma e ials and building echniques (opus e icula um in
Paneium). Also, He od migh consciously expand o con inue in Augus us’ own building
p og am, ollowing aso o imi a io Augus i (Bloch 2006). Augus us lis s in his Res Ges ae,
19–21 sac al edi ices he buil o ebuil . The e a e he emples o Di us Iulius, Fo um Iulium and
Fo um Augus i wi h he emple o Ma s Ul o , which was owed a e ic o y in he wa agains
assassins o Caesa . They all emphasized Augus us’ pie as owa ds his adop i e a he Gaius
Iulius Caesa and dynas ic p opaganda ce ainly played i s ole. No o men ion o he cul
buildings symbolizing he e u n o he “golden age” unde lying pie as owa ds Roman gods
(e.g. Zanke 1988, 102–110, 167–169 and 172–179; Galinsky 1998, 86–88). This again poin s o
He od’sbuilding ac i i y, ex ending his own pie as– in nea ly iden ical a chi ec u al language.
Nex , Augus an a ollowed Classical a o i s “mo al” and aes he ic alue (Zanke 1988,
239–242, 245–254). Likewise he cul s a ues in Caesa ea we e de i ed om Classical G eek
sculp u e ypes (Olympian Zeus and A gi e He a; BJI.414). Finally, He od isi ed Rome on
se e al occasions, he main ained con ac wi h bo h Augus us and Ag ippa and hei building
ac i i ies su ely we e opic o hei con e sa ion (Richa dson 2004, 235; Rocca 2008, 317–318;
Rolle 1998, 10, 33, 45, 66–68, 92).
ConCluSionS
We demons a ed He od’sclose ies o leading igu es o Roman poli ics, beginning wi h
iendship be ween his a he An ipa e and Ceasa . This was ac ucial momen o He od
and his amily, since, wi hou any doub , hey became Roman ci izens and clien s o Caesa
and subsequen ly, h ough Caesa ’sadop ion o Oc a ian, la e empe o Augus us. The a ‑
‑ eaching poli ical changes a e he ba le o Ac ium 31 BCE esul ed in anew concep o
powe and sel ‑ ep esen a ion o Oc a ian ‑Augus us. He was ason o he dei ied Julius, son
o agod, b inge o peace and o he new golden age o Rome; which necessa ily pe pe u‑
a ed he eme gence and p opaga ion o he empe o ’scul . Wo shiping ule s (du ing hei
13 Augus us was indeed hono ed as pa e pa iae om 2 BCE. This again b ings us o wa d he opic o
ecip ocal pie y be ween amily membe s and especially o pa en s– pa e amilias.