H.’s Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte, originally published in 1956 and in a second edition with a significant addendum in 1970, has long remained the standard study of the early Hellenistic ruler cult as practised by the Greek poleis. This new volume, a superb translation of the 1970 edition with updates to the evidence for individual cults and bibliography, should do much to perpetuate the long-lasting influence of this study, and it is likely to become a near-mandatory inclusion in graduate reading lists throughout the Anglophone world.

H.’s principle contribution in this work was to present the civic practice of the royal cult not as a sign of the subservience and decline of the polis but rather as a marker of its adaptability and continued vitality. This remarkable argument was made through the recognition of civic cults as an extension of Greek euergetistic practices. By granting divine honours to a mortal man, Greek cities pronounced their gratitude for specific actions taken by individuals that had benefited the city by ensuring either its survival or liberty (p. 167) and expressed their hope for continued benefactions. As noted by reviewers of earlier editions (including O. Murray in CR 22 [1972], 167), this expressly political interpretation leaves aside religious aspects of the royal cult, and this omission has grown perhaps even more surprising in light of recent trends in scholarship. Despite this limitation, however, the work remains a classic of both method and conclusion, and is vital to understanding the development of the historiography not only of early Hellenistic ruler cults but also that of Greek poleis and their interactions with the emergent Hellenistic kingdoms.

The new material in the book serves to update the survey of evidence for individual cults discussing new inscriptions and interpretations published since 1970, and also includes a bibliographic supplement of works cited by these new entries. As this new material is integrated into the text of the 1970 supplement, however, it is often difficult to discern the new material and commentary from that simply translated from the 1970 edition. This mixture of old and new runs some risk of leading readers astray as to the state of scholarship on evidence dating from the earlier edition. Nonetheless, these updates will serve to further extend the usefulness of the volume as a reference work. Part 2, the historical synthesis, remains as in the 1970 edition despite the new material.

With this volume, Dillon and H. have provided an Anglophone audience ready access to this essential work. As P.M Fraser noted in his 1958 review of the first edition in these pages, ‘this is a book for which we must be very grateful’ (CR 8 [1958], 156). Despite the intervening 60 years, the same might equally well be said for this new translation.