Ancient authors offer different traditions over the last days and wishes of the philosopher Heracleides Ponticus. The tales combined of Philodemus and Hermippus (in Diogenes Laertius) probably go back to Demochares of Leoconoe and his work against the philosophers, which thus could constitue the oldest and reliable source about it. After an exam of the political and religious context of Heracleia Pontica and Greek world in the times of Heracleides, we can accept that the philosopher managed to receive heroic honours post mortem, as described in the version of the nephew of Demosthenes.

The cult of the Ptolemies spread in various ways. Apart from the Lagids, the initiative came from poleis themselves; private cult was also very important. The ruler cult, both that organised directly by the Ptolemaic authorities and that established by poleis, was tangibly beneficial for the Ptolemaic foreign policy. The dynastic cult became one of the basic instruments of political activity in the region, alongside acts of euergetism. It seems that Ptolemy II played the biggest role in introducing the ruler cult as a foreign policy measure. He was probably responsible for bringing his father’s nickname Soter to prominence. He also played the decisive role in popularising the cult of Arsinoe II, emphasising her role as protector of sailors and guarantor of the monarchy’s prosperity and linking her to cults accentuating the warrior nature of female deities. Ptolemy II also used dynastic festivals as vehicles of dynastic propaganda and ideology and a means to popularise the cult. The ruler cult became one of the means of communication between the subordinate cities and the Ptolemies. It also turned out to be an important platform in contacts with the poleis which were loosely or not at all subjugated by the Lagids. The establishment of divine honours for the Ptolemies by a polis facilitated closer relations and created a friendly atmosphere and a certain emotional bond. The ruler cult also offered many possibilities for Greek cities. Granting kings divine honours was not only an expression of the city’s gratefulness for the experienced kindness, but also a way of securing the king’s continued favour.
 

The following paper presents an extensive overview over the motivations, circumstances and consequences of the foundation of an Hellenistic gymnasium and the constitution of a civic group of “Antiochenes” within early Seleucid Jerusalem by the philhellenic Jewish elite gathered around the high priest Jason.
 

The fifth chapter of the First Book of Maccabees recounts a whole range of wars waged by Judas Maccabeus against Judaea’s neighbours, who are depicted as threatening the lives of the Jews living in their midst. The account of these punitive expeditions contains the only explicit reference found in the book to an anathema (ḥerem) against a foreign people, a reference which has led some scholars to see Judas as re-enacting the biblical prescription of the ḥerem against the Canaanites. In contrast with this interpretation, the present article argues that the description in 1 Maccabees 5 is highly literary and rhetorical, and that it is part of a strategy which aims at presenting Judas as the heir of the first kings of Israel. In particular, a careful literary analysis shows that nearly all the differences between the accounts in 1 and 2 Maccabees can be explained by taking into consideration the project of the author to present Judas’s military expeditions in the light of Saul’s campaigns, following 1 Samuel 10–15 (especially 14:47–48). Given the indebtedness of 1 Maccabees 5 toward such biblical traditions, the historicity of Judas’s wars against Judaea’s neighbours should be re-assessed.
 

The success of Roman expansion in the Republican period and the durability of the empire, which survived the fall of the Republic and continued to function for the next few hundred years under the rule of emperors, drew the attention of both scholars and rulers in subsequent eras. The Imperium Romanum became a model for other states that attempted to build their own empires in later times. What captures our attention in discussions on Roman imperialism is mainly one, so far unresolved, dilemma: was Roman expansion a result of the material and psychological benefits that individual social groups enjoyed as a result of the aggressive policy, or a product of the Roman society’s atavistic tendencies for using violence? This seems to be a very difficult question to answer. If we also consider other elements that cause aggression, such as fright, fear (metus Gallicus, Punicus, Etruscus, etc.) of something or someone and a desire to win fame or glory over an enemy, then solving the problem seems impossible indeed. Finding the right answer is not made any easier by the historical sources. On the one hand, they are very biased, as they hide the actual reasons under a thick layer of propaganda and apologetic slogans; so thick, in fact, that in many cases the Romans’ true motives seem incomprehensible. The majority of available accounts present the Romans as the defenders of the weak and their allies. This is the result of a strong propaganda rhetoric used by the Romans in order to justify themselves in contemporary eyes and in posterity too.
We should also note one more element that could have had an influence on the development of an imperial mentality in Rome, i.e. the broadly defined civilisation and cultural milieu in which Rome came to be – Italy. A cursory comparison of various Roman war rites with the rituals of other inhabitants of Italy indicates that war was very much a part of the mentality of Italic communities. The presence of war rites in Italic tribes suggests that in Italy, war was an important element of existence. Rome was an integral part of this world, which meant that the presence of a strong military component and aggressiveness in the life of the Roman community was natural.
 

The Roman emperor accumulated political and religious power, which in republican tradition was divided between magistrates and priests. This does not mean, however, that the boundary between these authorities has been erased, which also confirms the manner in which the individual ruler held the pontifex maximus function. This article concerns two cases of Tiberius’ interventions as the pontifex maximus recorded by Tacitus. The first event is connected with the choosing of a new Vestal, and the next is related to the flamen Dialis’ (S. Cornelius Maluginensis) requests for governorship of the province. In both situations, the emperor appeared before the Senate in a dual role; he presented the pontiffs’ opinion as pontifex maximus, and as the princeps he made a decisions on its basis.
 

Publicly displayed statues constituted an important element of Rome’s presence in the life of a province. Until quite recently this form of communication has hardly been attested in the province of Iudaea/Syria Palaestina giving the impression that it was not practiced. However, large scale excavations in various regions in Israel and the intensive “hunt” for inscriptions and their systematic collection carried out by the CIIP yielded a corrective: there is no doubt left that this form of public communication was widely practiced here as well.

Vespasian and his sons were forced to create their own style of politics, and, in search of auctoritas and maiestas, they could not neglect the realm of religion. We should bear in mind that in the Roman world, religion was an integral and indispensable component of social and political life. For these reasons, these representatives of the Roman Imperial Dynasty, just like their predecessors and successors, successfully used different forms of activity surpassing the narrow interpretation of the domain of religio, including massive building programmes, monetary policy or even poetry, to express devotion and respect for mores maiorum as well as to confirm the legality of their power by presenting the divine approval of their political strength.
It seems legitimate to acknowledge that the Flavian era did not bring revolutionary changes in traditional religion. This clearly shows that the new dynasty was perfectly aware that one of the aspects of a well-functioning Rome was preservation of the ancestors’ customs and a belief in divine protection which could ensure safety, strength and belief in the unity of the Empire.

Literary sources, inscriptions and coins present Antoninus Pius as an emperor perfectly representing the traditional ideal of a pious emperor who promotes traditional Roman and Italian cults. On the other side his medallions which were meant to some extent as gifts for his close friends show a series of unusual gods and mythical scenes. Some of these medallions seem to reflect the emperor’s personal religious belief. Gods connected to mysteries like Ceres and Cybele as well as healing gods like Aesculapius seem to belong to the emperor’s religious strategies to handle difficult situations as illness and death within his family – and thus reflect a more or less ‘powerless’ side within the topic of ‘power and religion’.
 

The imperial cult was a local phenomenon. Religious colleges, like other social groups, included various forms of the emperor cult in the rituals they practised at their own discretion. Most frequently, the collegial imperial cult took the form of ceremonies organised to celebrate anniversaries connected with the emperor. They could be accompanied by foundations of statues or even temples dedicated to the emperor or members of his family. The imperial cult played a special role in the case of corporations, which embraced it as their axis of activity and the main element of their identity. Associations of cultores Larum et imaginum Augusti, regardless of their genesis, were an important element of the very complex phenomenon of imperial cult in the western part of the Roman Empire. Testimonies left behind by their members enable us, to a large extent, to verify the 19th-century vision of the imperial cult, which mainly interpreted it in the context of “religion of loyalty.”