Rome versus the Egyptian priesthood

This article is from Ancient Egypt issue 141

Subscribe now for full access and no adverts

When Octavian (Augustus) took over Egypt in 30 BC, the relationship between the state and religion changed. In his propaganda war against Mark Antony and Cleopatra, Octavian had portrayed Egypt as the barbarian ‘other’ compared to Rome. This is exemplified by the description of the Egyptian gods at the Battle of Actium by Virgil as:

Barking Anubis, and monstrous gods of every kind, brandish weapons against Neptune, Venus, and Minerva.

(Aeneid 8.671-713)

Once Cleopatra was defeated, Octavian was reluctant to take on the role of pharaoh, as he was conscious of the perception of his political position by the Roman elite. In Rome, he cloaked his pre-eminent power in the traditional offices of the Republic, because of the long-standing suspicion of kings felt by the Romans. Octavian refused to present offerings to the Apis bull at Memphis, which was one of the intrinsic duties of an Egyptian king. This may have been due to a general Roman dislike of deities in animal-form. Cassius Dio reported Octavian stating that he was accustomed to making offerings to gods, not to cattle. However, Octavian’s reluctance to take on the traditional role of pharaoh was a fundamental problem for the Egyptian priests, since the performance of religious rituals by the king was an indispensable part of their cult.

Gods step in

Over time, the Roman emperors’ reluctance to adopt fully the role of pharaoh meant that the Egyptian gods acquired powers once tied to the Egyptian ruler. One traditional task for pharaoh had been to preserve order (ma’at) by fighting chaos. However, in the Roman Period, the god Tutu began to take on the role of militant protector, as demonstrated by imagery on a late 1st-century naos, where Tutu is described as ‘the most violent, the valiant lion who strikes whoever opposes (him) eternally and forever’. The progressive ‘exaltation’ of Tutu during the Roman Period reached its climax in several temples where he gained virtual focal status. For example, at the Roman temple in Coptos, Tutu was hailed as ‘great of valour, the great god in the middle of Coptos, the chief of the entire land’. The iconography of Tutu focused on his powers over capricious demons. Further, the god Petbe gained the vengeful powers of the pharaoh, and so Petbe and Tutu formed part of a trend towards independent personification of royal powers.

However, the seeming rise in the popularity of these gods may only be illusory: in reality, this may simply reflect the preferential preservation of certain types of evidence. Virtually all the documentation referring to Tutu and Petbe comes from the Graeco-Roman Period. In addition, both Horus and Anubis began to appear as figures wearing Roman armour during the Roman Period, and this may reflect a similar personification of previously royal militant powers.

However, later Roman emperors sought to re-establish the idea that the power of protection lay with the ruler. For example, Domitian (AD 81-96) cultivated an association with Tutu, and Antoninus Pius (AD 138-161) attempted to link himself with the Theban warrior-god Montu, who was associated with pharaonic vengeance.

As in other provinces, the imperial cult was introduced into Egypt, but in many cases this was implemented in Egyptian terms, with the emperor portrayed making offerings to the gods, rather than being worshipped himself. The image of the emperor received the customary priestly devotions only as one of the ‘associated gods’, and received exclusive worship only in wholly Graeco-Roman shrines. The other cult developments under Roman rule tended to reflect the economic importance of Egypt as a source of grain for Rome, and thus emphasised fertility. Therefore, the Roman administration became closely involved in the cult of the Nile-god, and he acquired a new companion: Euthenia, the Roman personification of abundance.

Unlike Near Eastern deities such as Astarte, who was considered a daughter of Ptah, Roman deities were never incorporated into the Egyptian pantheon structure. This may have been because few Romans emigrated to Egypt. Besides the imperial cult, specifically Roman cults were scarce in Egypt, including only such as that of Jupiter Capitolinus and Mars in Oxyrhynchus. Ironically, the legacy of the early propagandist ‘othering’ of Egyptian gods by Octavian, sustained by their continued separation from Roman cults, may have eventually been to increase their attractiveness to those elite Romans seeking something new and exotic. This, ultimately, led to a growth in the popularity among Roman pilgrims of indigenous cults such as Mandulis at remote Talmis (Kalabsha).

Oppression of the Egyptian priesthood

The status and economic power of Egyptian temples declined significantly after the Roman takeover, completely reversing the previous trend under the Ptolemies. The temple land was nationalised, at least in part, and the former owners instead received payments from the state in the form of grain and money, or were allowed to lease back the land on favourable terms. By the end of the 1st century BC, the entire hierarchy of the Egyptian priesthood had also been reorganised. For example, a Roman official became the ‘High Priest of Alexandria and All Egypt’, and every aspect of priestly life was accounted for through a complex bureaucratic system as laid out in a set of regulations known as the Gnomon of the Idios Logos. Egyptian religious infrastructure became the most closely monitored of any province, as evidenced by the vast quantity of official papyri on religious matters, issued in Greek for Roman administrative purposes.

These reforms by Augustus were probably motivated by a consciousness of the past history of native, priest-led revolts against the Ptolemies. Under economic reforms by Septimius Severus (AD 193-211), temples were brought under the administrative control of local councils. This led to further decline in the power of temples because it forced them to be subject to the vicissitudes of the local economy, declining with the economy in the 3rd century AD, as evidenced by the drop in the amount of temple documentation. By the time of Diocletian (AD 284-305), the temple complex of Amun at Luxor was no longer in religious use and had become part of a Roman military camp. The pylon was integrated into the defensive wall, and the forecourt of Amenhotep III, combined with the hypostyle hall and the sacred rooms behind it, became the army headquarters. Statues of the emperors were probably set up between the columns of the hypostyle hall, since one pedestal dedicated to Constantius was found in situ. The first of the antechambers to the former sanctuary was changed into a shrine for the imperial cult. The ancient reliefs were covered with frescoes, including depictions of the four tetrarchs underneath an eagle symbolising the protection of Jupiter.

However, the Roman emperors, from Augustus onwards, did come to see the potential political advantages of patronage of temples. The removal of their assets made the temples dependent on the patronage of the emperors and other elite members of society. The generosity of Augustus to temples could have been a ploy to soften the blow of losing temple lands. The decline in the power of the native priesthood meant that temple festivals were taken over by the local elite as a pretext for associating the ceremony with the celebration of local civic patronage by individuals, or with the imperial cult. For example, a gold processional diadem, found at the Serapis Temple of Kysis (Dush) in the Kharga Oasis, suggests that a member of the local urban elite had a prominent public religious status.

Local civic elites also started displaying their prestige by providing the wine and animals for feasting. Furthermore, the local festivals were replaced by the Roman culture of ‘spectacle’, since many festivals started to culminate in games and displays of Hellenistic culture, also patronised by local civic elites. The Roman character of these innovations was exemplified by the addition of public libations and animal sacrifice, including that of pigs which had previously been considered unclean. Hence, the decline of the temples meant that local civic elites gained a greater role in religious life, more akin to Graeco-Roman city-states.

Oracles

Control of oracles was a source of political power, and thus they became the target of Roman policies. For example, the language of oracular enquiry probably changed from Demotic to Greek between the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD, which seems rather coincidental with the Roman takeover of Egypt. However, given the haphazard preservation of papyri, it may be simply a statistical artefact of the available evidence. Several potential explanations have been offered for this change, such as Greek being easier to write than Demotic, or Greek being the preferred language of the progressively more cosmopolitan enquirers. However, complementary evidence suggests that Greek was not easy for native priests in the more remote settlements such as the village north of Lake Moeris, where some priests still struggled with Greek even after it became the language of oracles there. It is unlikely, too, that enquirers would have switched to Greek, since the historical pedigree and tradition associated with oracles was part of their attraction, and Demotic was traditional. The importance of tradition, even to the Romans, is clear since the administration stated that priests still had to observe traditional forms of dress. This suggests that the Roman occupiers wanted the native population to think little had changed.

However, Egypt had a tradition of prophecies with political implications, which the priests could use to foment dissent. The predictions of chaos in the Oracle of the Lamb manuscript, dating from the 33rd year of Augustus’ rule (AD 4) may have been the product of an Egyptian backlash after the failure of an armed insurrection. The Roman elites tended to control oracles, given that it was predominantly the elites who held the position of augur, and certainly monopolised interpretation. Hence, there is little doubt that the Roman elite would have understood the power held by the Egyptian priesthood, and seen them as potential rivals with no equivalent in the other Roman provinces. The trend to written forms of oracles, and their monopoly on Demotic, granted priests powerful authority, and the language change would have undermined the power of the priesthood. The political content of oracles delivered in Greek would also have been more apparent to the Roman administration.

Around the end of the 1st century BC, Strabo wrote that:

in ancient times divination in general and oracles were held in greater esteem than at present. Now they are greatly neglected; for the Romans are satisfied with the oracles of the Sibyl, and with Tyrrhenian divination by the entrails of animals, the flight of birds, and portentous appearances. Hence the oracle of Ammon, which was formerly held in great esteem, is now nearly deserted.

(Geographica 17.1.43)

However, archaeological evidence suggests Siwa was used continuously until the 2nd century AD, and thus Strabo was misrepresenting reality. This may suggest the Graeco-Roman elite were still worried that native priests had greater authority, and so they wished to try to diminish their rivals’ reputation through downplaying the importance of their institutions.

Eventually, in the 2nd century AD, a Roman edict attempted to proscribe oracles whether ‘in writings as it were divinely delivered or through procession of images’. This suggested that traditional Egyptian priestly practices were seen as subversive to the state. The acquisition of temple assets by Augustus, and the exclusion of Roman senators from the province of Egypt, may suggest that Augustus’ actions regarding Egyptian religious institutions were merely motivated by the desire to control more monetary resources. However, the policies against oracles, together with the acquisition of temple lands, appears to represent a concerted plan on the part of the Roman authorities to reduce the massive political influence of the native Egyptian priesthood. Evidence for the existence of this Romanisation may be found, too, in the growth of resistance. Funerary art in Roman Thebes showed signs of archaising trends, suggesting attempts to preserve native culture against imperialism.

However, oracles were not uniformly seen as a threat by the entire Roman elite, since the incubation oracle of Mandulis at Talmis, also the site of a Roman garrison, is attested in inscriptions dating only from the first three centuries AD. Hence, it seems likely that it was developed, during the Roman occupation, specifically for the cultural Hellenisation of local tribes. At least 15 traditional Egyptian oracles survived in successful operation until the 3rd century AD, still with priests as an essential component. Finds of contemporary terracotta figures of priests demonstrate the continued reverence in which the priestly role was held. However, the Roman Period was associated with a trend away from the formal and communal, towards more personal religious experiences. An extension of incubation-type oracles to people outside the priesthood and for lay pilgrims was a greater ‘democratisation’ of what had previously been a priestly preserve, although priests remained on hand to interpret dreams for pilgrims. The funds provided to priests by these pilgrims would have provided some compensation for the loss of temple lands. Further democratisation may be reflected in domestic cults gaining more influence as the temple cults declined. For example, the typically domestic god Bes was promoted to a full-scale cult at Abydos, and took over the oracle there from Osiris.

Rome and the Egyptian priesthood

The Egyptian priesthood was therefore greatly affected when Egypt became a province of Rome. The fear of being seen to take on kingly attributes and anger the elites led the emperors to neglect their pharaonic role in Egypt, and Egyptian religion had to change as a result. The programme of Romanisation aimed at reducing the power of the old Egyptian priesthood ultimately encouraged a greater decentralisation and domestication of Egyptian religion.

Sean P Rigby is Professor of Chemical Engineering at the University of Nottingham in the UK, where his research interests include ancient glass manufacture. He also holds MAs in Ancient History and Ancient Religions from the University of Wales Trinity St David (UWTSD). You can read his article on the story of Exodus in AE 130, and his feature
on the god Min in AE 136.

Further reading:
C Riggs (ed.) (2012) The Oxford Handbook of Roman Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
D Frankfurter (1998) Religion in Roman Egypt: assimilation and resistance (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
R S Bagnall and D W Rathbone (2004) Egypt from Alexander to the Copts: an archaeological and historical guide (London: British Museum Press).