There is extensive discussion amongst scholars as to the origin and flourishing of the phenomenon of the living deified ruler. The so-called ruler cult quickly gains popularity in the Hellenistic...Show moreThere is extensive discussion amongst scholars as to the origin and flourishing of the phenomenon of the living deified ruler. The so-called ruler cult quickly gains popularity in the Hellenistic era and continues long into the Roman period. Although scholars have long been trying to find an explanation for this in the source material, none have succeeded in finding one which satisfies all. It is possible that the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) could provide us with a new framework in which to place the already exciting evidence. Cognitive science is the interdisciplinary and scientific investigation of the mind and intelligence. Its advantages are that it focusses on general ‘laws’ of thinking that follow out of the structure of our brains. It follows then, that these are theories that should be applicable across cultures and, since the structure of our brains has not evolved since the beginning of history (ca. 3000 B.C.), they are also applicable through time. Cognitive science could therefore help in providing a framework in which the current theories on the ruler cult can function, by indicating what is even humanly possible to think based on the structure of the brain. It could perhaps, even suggest the most likely theories that can be discovered given certain tendencies the human mind has. This research examines the possibility of applying the Cognitive Science of Religion in the origin and flourishing of the Hellenistic and Roman ruler cults, as well as the study of Ancient History in general. It does this by examining the viability of the so-called Standard Model (a seven-point construct that outlines the major areas of consensus in CSR) in the primary material of the Hellenistic and Roman periods.Show less
This thesis undertakes a comparative analysis of the Roman Empire during the third-century 'crisis' (AD 249-284) on the one hand and the tetrarchic era (AD 284-324) on the other hand. As an...Show moreThis thesis undertakes a comparative analysis of the Roman Empire during the third-century 'crisis' (AD 249-284) on the one hand and the tetrarchic era (AD 284-324) on the other hand. As an analysis of the Roman Empire in all its aspects is obviously not feasible, the thesis limits itself to the three most important ones: first, Rome's wars against its external enemies; second, the internal instability that plagued the empire throughout this period; third, the empire's economic difficulties. After a short narrative chapter which serves to give a general chronological outline and introduce the key players, each of the three aspects is thouroughly discussed in its own thematic chapter. An important theme of the thesis is comparative historiography, which shows how there remains general agreement among historians that the tetrarchic era represents a significant improvement in the fortunes of the empire compared to the 'crisis' that preceded it. The thesis argues that, contrary to the general consensus, the tetrarchy only improved on the 'crisis' in some regards, while it did no better, and arguably even worse, on other points.Show less
