In recent years, Bandura has introduced the cognitive mechanism of self-efficacy into his theoretical framework to explain personal functioning and change (Bandura, 1977a, 1989b, 1989c). The concept of self-efficacy refers to people's ability to recognize their ability to engage in behavior appropriate to a specific task or situation. From Bandura's perspective, self-efficacy, or the perceived ability to cope with specific situations, influences several aspects of psychosocial functioning. The way a person evaluates his own effectiveness determines for him the expansion or limitation of the possibility of choosing an activity, the efforts that he will have to make to overcome obstacles and frustrations, and the persistence with which he will solve some problem. In short, self-perceptions of effectiveness influence patterns of behavior, motivation, behavioral structure and the emergence of emotions.
According to Bandura, people who perceive their self-efficacy put more effort into difficult tasks than people who have serious doubts about their abilities. In turn, high self-efficacy associated with expectations of success usually leads to good performance and thus promotes self-esteem. In contrast, low self-efficacy associated with the expectation of failure usually leads to failure and thus reduces self-esteem. From this perspective, people who perceive themselves as unable to cope with difficult or dangerous situations are likely to focus excessively on their personal shortcomings and constantly exhaust themselves with self-criticism about their own incompetence. Bandura says that those who perceive themselves as "unable to succeed are more likely to mentally imagine a bad scenario and focus on how bad things will go. Believing that they cannot succeed weakens motivation and interferes with behavior" (Bandura, 1989c, p. 729). In contrast, people who believe in their ability to solve a problem are likely to persist in achieving their goals despite obstacles and will not be prone to self-criticism. As Bandura notes, “those with a high self-efficacy mentality mentally imagine a successful scenario that provides positive cues for behavior and consciously rehearse successful solutions to potential problems” (Bandura, 1989c, p. 729).
Bandura (1989b, 1989c) proposed that the acquisition of self-efficacy can occur through any of four pathways (or any combination of them): ability to construct behavior, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and a state of physical (emotional) arousal. Let's look at each of these four factors.
1. The ability to build behavior. Bandura argues that the most important source of effectiveness is past experiences of success and failure in attempting to achieve desired results. Simply put, successful personal experiences create high expectations, while previous failures create low expectations. A performer who is suddenly overcome with performance anxiety may tell himself that he has performed many times before without incident and that he can certainly do it again. On the other hand, people who suffer from insecurity about their ability to speak in front of an audience due to past failure may come to the conclusion that they simply are not good at it. Of course, if a person with low self-efficacy is given some incentive to do what he is afraid of, self-efficacy will increase.
2. Indirect experience. Although not as powerful as actual behavior, vicarious experience can also be a source of high self-efficacy. That is, observing other people successfully engaging in behavior can give a person hope for self-efficacy and confidence that such activities can be managed. Students who are afraid to ask questions in a large class might, for example, change their performance prediction from “I can't do it” to “maybe I can” if they have witnessed their peers asking questions without disastrous consequences for themselves. At the same time, if a person observes other equally competent people repeatedly failing despite persistent attempts, this is likely to worsen his or her prediction of one's own ability to perform similar actions.
3. Verbal persuasion. Efficacy can also be achieved or changed through a person's belief that he has the abilities necessary to achieve a goal. Take a mother who assures her daughter that she can handle a difficult subject in school. Verbal encouragement not only helps your daughter believe that she can “do it,” but can also help develop the study skills and focus that lead to eventual success. Of course, such confidence can easily disappear if actual success in mastering a difficult subject does not correspond to the expected result. Moreover, verbal influence on a child who is trying to achieve some result must be within the scope of his real capabilities and abilities. If this rule is not followed, then an attempt to help may, on the contrary, undermine faith in the parent and leave the child with a reduced prognosis for effectiveness. Bandura hypothesizes that the power of verbal persuasion is limited by the perceived status and authority of the persuader. The therapist can persuade an overweight patient to eat less and exercise more; but the same therapist is unlikely to be able to convince the client that he is capable of climbing Mount Everest.
4. Emotional uplift. Finally, because people measure their level of performance against their level of emotional tension in the face of stressful or threatening situations, any intervention that reduces arousal will increase the prediction of performance. A man who is insecure when communicating with women may feel his heart begin to beat faster and his palms become wet when he calls a woman to set up a date with her. If he attributes these physiological reactions to anxiety, he may decide that he is too nervous to bear it all. If, however, he notices that he is quite calm while dialing a number, he may decide that he is more efficient than he thought. As this example shows, people are more likely to succeed if they are not stressed and emotionally calm.
There was never a single cult of the emperor, characteristic of all parts of the Roman Empire. In addition, the form of veneration of the emperor varied from Caesar to Caesar. But it is characteristic of all cults that the emperor, already during his life or after his death, was given cult worship as a god or godlike. The Roman cult of Caesar had a model in the East, where kings have long been considered “sons of God.” Particularly important was the example of Alexander the Great, who, during his visit to the oracle of Amon in the oasis of Siwa, was greeted by the high priest as the “Son of God,” i.e. Amona. Various cults of the divine Alexander then arose in the Greek cities of Asia Minor and Greece.
Generally speaking, the deification of a person during his lifetime or posthumously was alien to the Romans. However, over time, eastern influences on the Roman population and its religiosity increased. Eastern Hellenistic ideas about the king-god are gradually adapted to the Roman emperors and rulers. They served Julius Caesar practically, when he wished to give religious sanction to his political position. The Roman Senate made a series of ever-increasing decisions to honor Caesar. In 44 BC. these decisions took the form of actual deification (Dion Cassius 44, 6, 4). Finally, in 42 BC. Caesar was posthumously officially accepted into the pantheon of state gods. On the forum a temple was dedicated to him as Divus Iulius.
Emperor Augustus during his lifetime prohibited the official deification of himself in the West of the Empire, especially in Rome. In the East of the Empire it was different. He allowed the provinces of Asia and Bithynia to erect temples to themselves and the goddess Roma (in the cities of Pergamum and Nicomedia). This measure, taken in 29 BC, served two purposes. First, Augustus pleased Roman circles by showing restraint and allowing his own cult only in connection with the cult of Roma, the patron goddess of Rome. Secondly, he pleased the provincials by appearing before them as a reassuring sovereign, to whom cultic worship was simply due in the East. This worship expressed a real religious need. After the many wars that these provinces endured, Augustus was the one who, after want and misery, guaranteed the Pax Romana, “peace and security” (cf. 1 Thess. 5:3). This sentiment is expressed in the famous calendar decree from Priene (9 BC). In this document, the Greek cities of Asia were congratulated on the birthday of Emperor Augustus. He was spoken of as a savior (sôtêr) and god, whose birthday was the beginning of the good news (gospel) for the whole world, and with whose birth the time of new life began.
Augustus's successor, Tiberius, demanded divine veneration for Augustus, his predecessor, but rejected such veneration for himself. The situation was different with Caligula and Nero. In fact, the mad Emperor Gaius Julius Caligula was the first to demand that the entire population of the Empire worship themselves as a god. He issued a decree to build altars to himself and his own images in everyone temples of the Empire, including the Jerusalem Temple. The latter did not happen only due to the fact that Caligula was killed. Nero, the last of the Julian dynasty, at least at the end of his reign, also ordered himself to be worshiped as a god. However, it would be unfair to say that Nero persecuted anyone for refusing to give him divine honors. The cruel persecution of Christians undertaken under him was persecution for an imaginary criminal offense, for the fire in Rome, and not for religious reasons. So under Nero. And, on the contrary, the ancient Roman tradition was answered by the skepticism of Vespasian, who on his deathbed mockingly said: “Woe is me! I think I'm becoming a god." But his son Domitian, under whom the Book of Revelation was written, tried to introduce absolute Caesareanism. His understanding of his own power is characterized by the formula “Lord and God.” Suetonius reports this in his work “The Lives of the 12 Caesars”: “With the same conceit, he (Domitian) used to begin some circular dictated on behalf of his tax inspectors with the words: “Our Lord and God commands the following.” Hence arose later the custom of addressing him this way in writing and orally” (Domitian 13). In many places in the empire, statues of marble, gold and silver were erected to him (Cassius Dio 67, 8, 1). In Ephesus they built a temple for him and erected a statue larger than life-size. It was under Domitian that persecution began in lèse-majesté trials. At first these persecutions were directed against the Senate aristocracy. In Rome, the consul Flavius Clemens was sentenced to death for “atheism,” and his wife Flavia Domitilla was sentenced to exile. They were accused of having switched “to the customs of the Jews” (Cassius Dio 67, 1, 4). This could be due to the refusal to worship Caesar. For the same reason, Christians were persecuted in Asia Minor. Pliny the Younger, the Roman proconsul in Bithynia, reports in some detail about these persecutions of Christians. This was already at the beginning of the 2nd century, but Pliny mentions people who renounced Christianity 20 years ago, i.e. in the time of Domitian (Letters X 96). Pliny does not view Christian trials as something new. It is noteworthy that he, in his own words, had never participated in a judicial investigation against Christians, very quickly mastered the detailed experience of such investigations. This suggests that he was using a pre-existing practice. The accused Christians had to call on the gods, sacrifice incense and wine in front of the statues of Caesar and other gods, and also had to curse Jesus Christ. Pliny himself notes: They say that true Christians cannot be forced to take these actions. This means that he knew about the details of the practice of persecuting Christians under Domitian, and now he himself applies this practice.
The imperial cult primarily served political purposes. This cult was proof of loyalty, a sign of devotion to the ruler, expressed in religious and cult forms. The common imperial cult was the Empire's means of strengthening the unity of the so diverse peoples of the Empire. At the same time, honoring the emperor was an external criterion of loyalty to the state, a manifestation of patriotism, and for Christians this became a very big test.
Asia Minor, for which the seer John wrote his book, was particularly zealous in the cult of Caesar. The local Greek cities, which very early began to deify their rulers, became accustomed to their cult and soon applied this cult to the Roman rulers. In any case, the cult's initiative came from these provinces. Already in 195 BC. In Smyrna, a temple was dedicated to the goddess Roma, who was considered a deified expression of the power of Rome. Power is divine, the cult of power was obligatory and commonplace. Rome used this religious custom for its diplomatic purposes, in order to strengthen its political position in distant lands. Julius Caesar in 48 BC, like Roman officials before him, “condescendingly” agreed with the increased worship of his person in the provincial cities of Asia. Caesar was called there “descended from Ares and Aphrodite, apparently appearing as a god and the universal savior (sôtêr) of human life.”
It was in this environment that Revelation was written. The upper strata of provincial society appointed the high priest of the cult of Caesar and contributed to this cult as much as possible. Under Domitian, who, unlike Augustus, was not inclined to restrain the veneration of his own person, these circles experienced a special takeoff. After Pergamon and Smyrna erected temples in honor of Augustus and the goddess Roma, Ephesus built a third temple in honor of Domitian. Most of the cities of Asia Minor sported dedication inscriptions with the divine titles of Caesar: Augustus, Divus, Dominus, Deus, Salvator. The persecution of Christians who rejected the worship of the emperor was quite natural in this era. However, one should not think about the general persecution of Christians organized by Domitian. On the contrary, these were rather individual actions organized by local activists of imperial propaganda, for example, priests of the cult of Caesar. It is not for nothing that in the book of Revelation it is the second “beast from the earth,” the false prophet, who forces the cult of Caesar (13, 14), while revealing all the signs of a magician-priest. The persecution was not yet total. But John foresees such things. In the very near future he expects a general, systematically organized persecution. And so it happened.
Conversation No. 30.
Victory of Christians in the face of the total threat of the cult of Caesar (14:1-5).
The portrayal of an extremely powerful enemy of Christians in Revelation 13 should lead to a troubling question: Who is ever able to endure constant oppression and withstand constant threat? To this, John has something encouraging to say. At 13.16 it was reported: “And he will cause everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their forehead.”. Now, in deliberate contrast to the followers of the emperor's cult, Christians are designated as those “one hundred and forty-four thousand, having the name of the Lamb and the name of His Father written on their foreheads.”(14.1). Although 14:1-5 looks into the future, and sees the present as if from a perfect future, looking back into the past, there is still no doubt that the seer is talking about overcoming the present, about victory in it. With Christ, with the Lamb, they will achieve victory if they now shy away from worshiping the emperor as a god.
An innumerable multitude of those saved (cf. 7:1-17) are with the Lamb on Mount Zion (14:1). This is based on the view that the Messiah will gather around Him the saved people of God at the end of time on Mount Zion. (4 Ezra 13:35-36; Ser Bar 40:2). Zion was known as the mountain of salvation: “And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved; For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be salvation, as the Lord has said.”(Joel 2:32). Those who belong to the true Israel (cf. 7:1-8) have a chance of being saved at the end of the ages.
The essence of the features of the formation of the Chinese cult of the ruler, according to M.E. Kravtsova, is that the official religious tradition of ancient and imperial China was concentrated primarily around not the cults of divine characters, but the cult of the ruler, who until the beginning of the 20th century. exhausted the official ideological system of ancient Chinese society.
The probable origin of the image of the Chinese ruler from the image of the priest is a generally accepted point of view in science. With this approach, the reasons for vesting the sovereign in China, starting with the Yin Wangs, with both secular and priestly powers become clear, as a result of which he united in himself the secular and spiritual hierarch of the country. “Unlike other regions and states of the Ancient World, a priestly class never formed in China. The devinator fortune-tellers, who at one time carried out the fortune-telling procedure, if they formed a semblance of a social organization, it was only in their infancy. Consequently, the cult of the ruler did not have its own social organization, distinct from state structures. All sacred functions were assigned to the sovereign and administrative officials in accordance with their rank."
In all other respects, the Chinese set of ideas about supreme power and its bearer fully corresponds to the properties of the global universal - the so-called “cult of the sacred king.” The defining property of this cult is, as is known, the belief in the ruler’s possession of magical powers, thanks to which he is able to perform the sacred functions assigned to him - to exert a world-building influence on the Cosmos and establish communication with higher powers. This means faith in the divine origin of the ruler: he was considered the son not only of an earthly father, but also of higher powers that in one way or another took part in his conception. “The motif of the “miraculous conception” (episodes of the mothers of future sovereigns eating wonderful food, after which their pregnancy occurs, their meetings in reality or in dreams with divine characters or fantastic animals, most often with dragon-like creatures, etc.) is certainly present in the legends about legendary sovereigns and semi-legendary sovereigns of antiquity, as well as in the biographies of the founders of dynasties. Since the Zhou era, the combination “Son of Heaven” has become the accepted designation for the sovereign, which is by no means reducible to a metaphor.”
In addition to divine participation in the conception of the Son of Heaven, the future ruler had external distinctive features, the set of which varied extremely widely. Such signs included “dragon-like” features, details of appearance that were somehow different from the ethnic stereotype of the Mongoloid race, for example, a thick beard, a hooked nose, reddish hair, the presence of moles or age spots on the body. Like other peoples of the world, special importance was attached to the physical merits of the ruler, primarily his sexual potency, on which the fertility of the fields and the material well-being of the country were thought to be directly dependent.
Another important component of the cult of the ruler is the so-called concept of the “heavenly mandate,” which was first used by the Zhou people to ideologically justify their overthrow of the Yin dynasty and was subsequently actively developed by many theorists and statesmen. The essence of this concept boils down to the following: if the reigning sovereign for some reason is no longer able to perform the functions of the supreme ruler (a sign of which was precisely the designation of crisis tendencies in society), then he is deprived of the right to sovereign power, which is transferred by Heaven to his new chosen one . It is significant that, according to the concept under consideration, any of the inhabitants of the Celestial Empire could become the chosen one of Heaven and the bearer of the “heavenly mandate”, regardless of his pedigree, initial public and social status and financial situation. Even his possible ethnicity was not specified. The contender for supreme power was not required to present any material evidence of the legitimacy of his claims. They were verified only by the results of historical and political events: if the rebellion raised by the “bearer of the heavenly mandate” was suppressed by government troops, then this person was declared a “villain”, a “traitor” and sent to the chopping block; if the rebel leader managed to reach the capital, take it by storm and seize the imperial residence, then he was considered the true “bearer of the heavenly mandate” and, therefore, the legitimate monarch. Disobedience to the ruler was considered in China not just as a criminal offense and a violation of moral principles, but as a true sacrilege, an attack on the very foundations of the universal order. “This explains, among other things, the ruthlessness with which even the most timid protests against state power were suppressed.”
Participation in wars was undesirable for the ruler, because it was believed that the shedding of blood defiles it, and possible wounds and mutilations lead to the loss of its magical power. Although the ancient Chinese kings and subsequent emperors often personally led campaigns, ideally the ruler should have transferred his function as the supreme military leader of the country in the event of military operations to its direct executor - a specific military leader who led the troops. This was carried out through a special ritual of “sending the army on a campaign”: before the army left, the sovereign in the Temple of the Imperial (Royal) Ancestors handed the military commander a battle ax, symbolizing the transfer of absolute power to him, and then, bending down, he personally pushed the wheel of the military commander’s chariot.
The sovereign power of the emperor was indivisible and did not allow opposition; the emperor himself had to rule in accordance with natural changes, primarily the change of seasons. The ancient Chinese even believed that the ruler should live in a special tower, the so-called Luminous Hall, where he was supposed to occupy a room, eat food and wear clothes corresponding to the season of the year.
As the first sage of the empire, the emperor was obliged to study throughout his life. In China, since ancient times, there has been the position of teacher of the sovereign, and this person was the only mortal to whom the Son of Heaven honored. For the future emperor, studies began in early childhood. By the age of six, he was supposed to know by heart the basics of the Confucian canons and some of classical poetry. “Every third lesson (and classes were usually daily) the young ruler had to demonstrate his newly acquired knowledge. In adulthood, the sovereign was supposed to listen to lectures and talk with learned men in a special pavilion of the palace - the so-called Hall of the Canons.”
The morning hours were usually reserved for palace audiences, where the emperor sat on a high throne on top of the heads of his courtiers, which is why the very address: “Your Majesty” in Chinese literally meant “the foot of the throne.” For this occasion, he wore his ceremonial dress, decorated with a writhing dragon with five claws. The emperor's robes were yellow - the color of gold and earth; According to tradition, there were supposed to be 12 of them. The Qing emperors usually wore white socks and black leather shoes trimmed with blue fabric on their feet. Instead of a crown, they wore a high headdress decorated with precious stones, which in shape resembled the caps of officials of ancient times. The ruler of the Celestial Empire also had his own scepter - a crystal or jasper rod, which was called zhu and symbolized the fulfillment of all desires.
V.V. Malyavin points out that the body of the Son of Heaven was considered so sacred that it was not appropriate for the emperor to wear washed clothes. “Thanks to the detailed records of palace servants, it is known, for example, that in the 18th century. The Qianlong Emperor changed his underwear on average every two weeks. But the emperor of the Ming dynasty, Yongle, stated that he could change his underwear ten times a day, but he prefers to wear old clothes and not wash, so as not to “wash away his happiness.” At the beginning of the 19th century. Emperor Daoguang, known for his frugality, wore patched clothes, and his courtiers also began to sew patches on their ceremonial suits.”
As for the imperial table, there was its own symbolism: the sovereign was supposed to eat dishes that “correspond to the season,” and, moreover, in a certain composition and number. It was believed that the emperor should be served exactly one hundred dishes each time.
After his death, the ruler was known in history by his temple name, which to a certain extent reflected his lifetime achievements and included the word “ancestor” (zu, zong, di). Calling the emperor by his personal name was considered sacrilege, so the hieroglyphs that were part of the sovereign's name were deliberately written in a distorted form.
"Because August was adopted at one time Caesar, he became the son of God. Legends about the divine origin of Octavian himself begin to spread. So, they said that his mother Atiya came to the temple for worship even before his birth. Apollo and stayed there to spend the night in her stretcher, and there a snake suddenly slithered towards her. It was Apollo; nine months later, Atia gave birth to the future emperor - he, therefore, turned out to be the son of Apollo.
The deification of Augustus began in the eastern provinces, where traditions of religious veneration of kings were strong. In the first years after the victory at Actium, full of hopes for an end to violence and robbery, the inhabitants of these provinces dedicated enthusiastic inscriptions to Augustus and erected sanctuaries (the first sanctuaries to Augustus were erected, of course with his permission, in 27 BC in two cities of Asia Minor ). In an inscription from the city of Priene dating back to 9 BC. e., Augustus is directly called a god; the day of his birth was, according to the inscription, the beginning of the “Good News” (in the Greek text - I want to draw your attention to this - the word “gospel” is used, which Christians will subsequently use to designate their “good news” about the new creed).
For the Romans, who were not accustomed to the deification of living people, the cult of Augustus was given the form of a cult of his genius, in which the ancient Roman ideas about the existence of each person’s personal guardian geniuses were used. They tried to give the cult of the genius of Augustus a mystical character; the genius was presented not just as the emperor’s guardian, but as a kind of higher power that inspired all his actions and decisions. Shrines were erected to the emperor's genius, and a special priesthood appeared to serve this cult. Statues of Augustus were erected throughout the empire; his appearance in these images was idealized: in life he was sickly and frail, but he was portrayed as strong, beautiful, stately.
Under Augustus' successors, the cult of the emperor gradually spread throughout the state. Worship of statues of the emperor became mandatory, and the emperor's birthday was celebrated throughout the empire as an official holiday. Even during festivals in honor of other deities, an image of the emperor was carried in processions. It was the deification of emperors that became the main form of ideological justification for their power.
After the death of Augustus, the inconsistency of the form of government he created became particularly acute, primarily because no legal form of transfer of power from one emperor to another had been developed. The power of Augustus, as he himself declared, lay in his personal authority: to some extent this reflected the actual popularity of Augustus, who had proven his political abilities during the period of struggle for power. But subsequent rulers (emperors of the Julio-Claudian dynasty) became emperors as a result of intrigues, murders, and a combination of random circumstances. The openly monarchical principle of direct inheritance could not be proclaimed, since the state was still considered a republic, but this republic was increasingly becoming a fiction; everything was decided by strength.”
Sventsitskaya I.S., From community to church: on the formation of the Christian church, M.,« Politizdat", 1985, p. 15-16.
The sacred-agonal nature of Roman culture. Play as a function of Roman culture.
For ancient civilization agonism- This is the basis of cultural life. Roman culture is no exception. The principle of competition was clearly manifested in speeches at trials. While defending their client, the masters of eloquence competed in the art of words.
Roman historian and rhetorician of the 1st century. AD Tacitus in his famous “Dialogue on Orators” notes the harmful influence of monarchical power on the art of eloquence. The forum is empty, and only in schools continue to make fiery speeches in defense of Brutus and Cassius. In the structure of Roman culture (unlike Greek), the moment of competition early shifted from the personal participation of citizens to the spectator's perception of battles presented by other people intended for this purpose. The agonism of Roman culture is most clearly represented in the slogan “panem et circenses” (“bread and circuses”). The Roman public could not live without games. The Roman historian Titus Livius (1st century BC) talks about the excessive pomp with which they were given in Rome ludi publici (public spectacles), pomp in which the rivalry of the top officials of the state was manifested. Suetonius in the Lives of the Twelve Caesars and Augustus in the Acts of the Divine Augustus detail the number of people and exotic animals participating in the games, and the enormous financial costs that went into organizing such spectacles.
There is no doubt that the Romans wore these ludi publici sacred character. Gladiator fights are an archaic echo of human sacrifices to the underground gods that took place in earlier times, and not a tribute to the bloodthirsty nature of the Romans. When conducting ceremonial games (ludi votivi), Usually held in honor of the dead or to ward off the wrath of the gods, the ritual was carefully observed, because the slightest disturbance would nullify the entire celebration. And this also reveals the sacred nature of the action. Gladiator fights, chariot races, and auguries simultaneously belong to the agonistic and sacred spheres. During the imperial era, the Roman crowd no longer felt the religious sanctification of the ludi. And yet, the more eloquently speaks of the importance of play as a function of Roman culture is the fact that in every Roman city the circus, along with the forum, occupied a central place.
2.3. Worldview of a Roman in the Age of Empire
In the era of empire emperor cult occupies a central place in the religious and political life of the empire. The praise of the ruling dynasty, the living and deceased emperor was the responsibility of numerous colleges that revered the emperor, and also constituted to a large extent the content of the activities of religious, funeral, craft and military collegiums. The cult of the emperor was completely secular in nature, especially in the newly annexed provinces, where participation in the service of the cult of the emperor was a way to express one’s loyalty to the central government, as well as an indicator of a person’s position in the social hierarchy.
The origins of the imperial cult should be sought in the traditional beliefs of the Romans in the Genii and Lars. In Roman religion Lara- these are the souls of deceased ancestors. Cicero, in his essay “On the Laws,” writes that everyone should look at their dead relatives as gods. Sons were supposed to honor their deceased father as a god. By picking up the first bone from his father's funeral pyre, the son declared that the deceased had become a god. Typologically related to the Larov cult is the cult of the Genius - the head of the family, who personifies the ability of the eldest man in the clan to reproduce offspring and his other creative powers. On the birthday of the head of the family, the household made sacrifices to his Genius. The Egyptians, who celebrated the holiday, had similar ideas about the divine power of a leader or king. Heb-sed – ritual rejuvenation of the pharaoh, strengthening of his creative powers.
The victories of Roman weapons in the East were reflected in the formation of the cult of the emperor. In Hellenistic countries, there has long been a tradition of deifying rulers, and this led to the fact that in honor of the Roman commanders Flamininus, Lucullus, Metellus in the eastern provinces they began to erect temples and altars, establish cults, and organize games. This trend especially intensified on the eve of the fall of the republic: Sextus Pompey, a rival of Yu. Caesar, adopted the name of the son of Neptune on coins, began to wear azure-colored clothes, and made generous sacrifices in honor of his “father” - the god of the seas Neptune. Caesar's comrade-in-arms, Antony, identified himself with the god of wine Bacchus, and Cleopatra met him in Cilicia on a golden ship in the form of the goddess of love Aphrodite. Even during the life of Gaius Julius Caesar, his statue was placed in the temple and he began to be revered under the name of Jupiter-Julius, temples were erected in his honor and colleges of priests were established.
The cult of Caesar received its final form under Augustus, who began to call his adoptive father “the divine Julius.” The custom of lifetime deification was completely alien to the Romans. Julius Caesar's attempt to introduce his own cult during his lifetime, along with his desire for royal power, played a fatal role and accelerated his death at the hands of the conspirators. August took into account the sad experience of his adoptive father. The first temples and cult in honor of Augustus arose in the Eastern Provinces. In Rome itself the cult of Augustus was embodied in the cult Genius Augustus, incorporating purely Roman family traditions. Augustus was perceived as the father of a large family - the Roman state. The cautious policy of the Augustan government contributed to the fact that from the depths of traditional religion a completely new ideological phenomenon arose - Emperor cult. After his death, Augustus was finally deified, as was subsequently his wife Livia.
Roman of the era of the Principate.
Vivid image of a man era of the Principate(30 BC - 284 AD) appears to us in the poetry of Horace (1st century BC). This image reflected the breakdown of the basic republican Roman values: collectivism, honesty, rigor and even severity. Horace's Rome is a city where everyone strives for immediate personal gain, the satisfaction of their petty passions, forgetting to think about the good of society. Therefore, the Roman intellectual elite in the 1st century. BC turned to the philosophy of Epicurus. Nowhere are Horace’s Epicurean views more evident than in his philosophical odes:
Levconoia, leave:
no way to know
is it early or late
the gods will send us death...
