^{page 172 note 1} Keil, Bruno, edition of Aristides (Berlin, 1898), ii (only vol. published), critical apparatus, p.253Google Scholar. The oration is number 35 in Keil's edition. It is number 9 in Wilhelm Dindorfs edition (³ vols.; Leipzig, 1829; repr. Hildesheim, 1964). It should, however, be noted that the oration is placed at the head of a manuscript which includes four other orations (some of the other manuscripts omit it).Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 2} Canter, William, ed. of Aristides (1566; repr. Geneva, 1604), i. 101Google Scholar, identified the emperor as Marcus Aurelius, as did de Tillemont, Lenain, Histoire des empereurs (Paris, 1691), iii. 424Google Scholar. Masson, John, notes to Jebb's Oxford edition of 1722Google Scholar, cited in Dindorf, , ‘Collectanea historica ad Aristidis vitam’’, in his edition, op. cit. iii, pp. lvii–lxiiGoogle Scholar, identified the emperor as Pius. The attribution to Marcus is accepted by Fabricius, Johann Albert, Bibliotbeca Graeca (rev. edn., Hamburg, 1798Google Scholar; repr. Hildesheim, , 1961), vi. 17Google Scholar, and by Dindorf, , op. cit. i. 101 n.Google ScholarWaddington, W. H., ‘Mémoire sur la chronologie de la vie du rhéteur Aelius Aristides’’, Mém. Ac. Inscr. 26. 1 (1867), 255Google Scholar, noting the reference to the pacification of the Tigris, and Euphrates, (ch. 35, p.263, line 8 K.)Google Scholar, dates the oration to the reestablishment of peace between Antoninus Pius and the Parthian king Vologeses. This theory was followed by Lacour-Gayet, G., Antonin le Pieux et son temps (Paris, 1888; repr. Rome, 1968), e.g. p.xviGoogle Scholar, and by Bryant, E. F., The Reign of Antoninus Pius (Thirlwall Dissertation, 1894; Cambridge Historical Essays, No. 8; Cambridge, 1895), e.g. p.32Google Scholar. Schmid, Wilhelm, ‘Die Lebens- geschichte des Rhetors Aristides’’, RhM 57, N. F. 48 (1893), 83Google Scholar; idem, ‘P. Aelius Aristides (24)’’, RE 2 (1895), 892Google Scholar; idem, ‘Aurelius’’, RE 3 (1896), 2494Google Scholar, dated the oration to the last years of Marcus Aurelius' reign, while von Rohden, P., ‘Annius’’ (94), RE 1 (1894), 2279Google Scholar, speculated that the oration was given at the time of Marcus' initiation into the Eleusinian mysteries on the occasion of his visit to Athens in A.D. 176. Stein, , RE (1896), 1854Google Scholar, noting that the oration is addressed to a single ruler, states that if this ruler is Marcus, the oration must have been delivered between Verus' death in 169 and Commodus' accession as co-ruler in 176. Heitland, W. F., Last Words on The Roman Municipalities (Cambridge, 1928), p.285, called the oration ‘a fulsome panegyric on Marcus Aurelius’’.Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 3} Op. cit., p.253Google Scholar; idem, ‘Eine Kaiserrede (Aristides R. XXXV)’’, N.Ak.G. 1905, 381–428Google Scholar (in this article he tried to prove on grammatical and stylistic grounds that the oration could not have been written by Aristides, but was written in honour of Macrinus); idem, ‘Ein N.Ak.G. 1913, 4 n.Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 4} Conclusions similar to Keil's were arrived at independently by Turzewitsch, I., Reports of The Historical-Philological Institute 'Prince Bezborodko’’ in Nezhin (in Russian) (1905), pp.49–78Google Scholar, available to me only through the review of Wendland, Paul, BPW 27 (1907), 1449–50Google Scholar. Before Keil's detailed article appeared Schmid, Wilhelm, ‘Bericht iiber der Litteratur 1894–1900 zur rweiten Sophistik’’, Bursians Jabresbericht 108 (1905), 231Google Scholar, had criticized Keil's remark in his edition for giving insufficient grounds for denying authenticity. Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf expressed the theory that the oration was written under Pertinax, but later retracted it: cf. Keil, ‘Ein …’’, loc. cit.; Wilamowitz, , ‘Die griechische Litteratur des Altertums’’, Die griechicbiscbe und lateinische Litteratur und Sprache (Die Kultur der Gegenwart, Teil I, Abteilung 8; 1st edn., Berlin, 1905), p.161; 2nd edn. (1907), pp.163–4; in the third edition (1912), p.237Google Scholar, the reference to the oration is omitted; cf. C. P. Jones, ‘Aelius Aristides, ’’, JRS (1972), 134Google Scholar. A. von Domaszewski, ‘Beitrage zur Kaisergeschichte II. Die Rede des Aristides ’’, Philologus 65, N. F. 19 (1906), 344–56Google Scholar, criticized the thirteen criteria advanced by Keil, , ‘Eine Kaiserrede’’, art. cit. 385 ff.Google Scholar, who tried to prove that the emperor praised in the oration could, on the basis of the vague remarks in the text (mostly rhetorical topoi), be identified by process of elimination from among those ruling between A.D. 193 and 284. Only two of these, victories over the Germans (ch. 35, p.263, lines 4 ff. K.) and the anti-Hellenism of the emperor's predecessor (ch. 20, p.258, lines 7 ff. K.) are important, according to von Domaszewski, who concluded on that basis that the emperor who should be selected by process of elimination is Gallienus, not Macrinus. Keil, ‘Ein ’’, stuck to his earlier theory on the grounds that the rhetorical tecbne of Menander, which is followed to some extent in the oration, says that the empress should be praised (Menander, , 3 76, 9Google Scholar Spengel = 103 Bursian). There is no such praise in the oration. Therefore the emperor praised must have been either single or widowed. Macrinus was a widower. Jones, , art. cit. 150, similarly argues, since Antoninus Pius was a widower at the time at which Jones dates the speech. As will be seen below, however, another explanation of the lack of mention of an empress is possible.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 1} Groag, Edmund, ‘Studien zur Kaisergeschichte, II. Die Kaiserrede des Pseudo-Aristides’’, WS 40 (1918), 20Google Scholar; cf. Keil, , ‘Eine Kaiserrede’’, art. cit. 404.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 2} Groag added to Keil's criteria six others, e.g. the emperor was abstemious and moral, as if any panegyrist would fail to include so common a topos. Groag thought the oration was written by the sophist Nicagoras, who went on an embassy to Philip. Cf. Suda, s.v. Nicagoras; Stegemann, Willy, ‘Nicagoras’’ (8), RE 17 (1937), 217Google Scholar, notes correctly that the oration gives no details of the embassy. His attempt to answer another objection, the absence of any reference to the millennial celebration of A.D. 248 (Groag, , art. cit. 40Google Scholar) is weak, as is his explanation of the lack of reference to an empress (ibid., p.39).

^{page 173 note 3} Rostovzeff, M., The Social and Economic History of The Roman Empire (2nd edn.; Oxford, 1957; originally publ. in 1926), pp.451 ffGoogle Scholar. and notes, and Ensslin, W., CAH 12 (Cambridge, 1939), 88Google Scholar, accepted Groag's theory, while the following simply denied Aristidean authorship: Wilhelm Sieveking, De Aelii Aristidis oratione (Diss. Goettingen, 1919), p.58Google Scholar; Boulanger, Andrè, Aelius Aristide et la sopbistique dans la province d'Asia au lie siecle de notre ire (Bibliotheque des Écoles Françhises d'Athenes et de Rome, fasc. 126; Paris, 1923), p.382Google Scholar (who says that the Eis Basilea is perhaps the only speech attributed to Aristides of which the authenticity cannot be affirmed); Hüttl, Willy, Antoninus Pius, iGoogle Scholar: Historisch-Politische Darstellung (Prague, 1936), 22Google Scholar. Mazzarino, Santo, Trattato di storia romana, iiGoogle Scholar: L'impero romano (Rome, 1956), 285, argued against Philip as subject of the oration in favour of the phil-hellene Decius.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 4} ‘An Anonymous Address to an Unknown King’’, appendix to Social and Political Thought in Byzantium (Oxford, 1957), pp.220–5.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 1} Ibid., p.224.

^{page 174 note 2} Ibid., p.225.

^{page 174 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 174 note 4} Swift, Louis J., ‘The Anonymous Encomium of Philip The Arab’’, GRBS 7 (1966), 271–2; there follows an English translation and a commentary.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 5} Jones, , art. cit. 150.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 1} Keil, , ‘Eine Kaiserrede’’, art. cit. 404.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 2} Jones, , art cit. 144.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 3} Cf. [Pseudo-] Aristides, Rbet. Sp. 3, 481Google Scholar; Sophista, Nicolaus Sp. 3, 471Google Scholar; Ar. Rbet. 1. 9. 29Google Scholar; Quintil, . 3. 7. 25Google Scholar; Pl. Phaedr. 267 BGoogle Scholar; 273 D–E; Isoc, . Pan. 8. 7Google Scholar; cf. Burgess, Theodore C., ‘Epideictic Literature’’, The University of Chicago Studies in Classical Philology 3 (1902), 94.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 4} Rostovzeff, , op cit, p.455 n.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 5} Ensslin, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 6} Keil, , ‘Eine Kaiserrede’’, loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 1} Burgess, , arc. cit. 133.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 2} Ibid. 132 ff.

^{page 176 note 3} Jones, , art. cit. 138.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 4} Noted by Sieveking, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 5} It may well be wondered why Keil, , ‘Eine Kaiserrede’’, p.385Google Scholar, considers the references to paideia to indicate that the ruler was uneducated, or why Jones, , art. cit. 141Google Scholar, says that they indicate that the ruler received only the normal education of a Roman senator; cf. Menander, , p.98, lines 24 ff. B. = 371 Sp.Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 1} Why does Keil, , ‘Eine Kaiserrede’’, p.402, say that there is no mention of tycbe?Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 2} Burgess, , art. cit. 132.Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 177 note 4} Jones, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 5} Cf. Burgess, , art. cit. 129; 132.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 1} Ibid., pp.132 ff.; cf. Ovornik, Francis, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy. Origins and Background (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 9; Washington, D.C., 1966), ii. 661Google Scholar; Bidez, J., Bude, ed. of Julian, I pt. 1, introd., p.4 (Paris, 1932).Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 2} Boulanger, , op. cit., p.322Google Scholar; Bauer, Johannes, Die Trostreden des Gregorios von Nyssa in ihrem VerhSltnis zur antiken Rhetorik (Diss. Marburg, 1892), p.279.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 3} Behr, C. A., Aelius Aristides and The Sacred Tales (Amsterdam, 1968), p.129. The speech is no. 44 D., 24 K.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 4} Cf. above, n.2.

^{page 178 note 5} Jones, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 1} Cf. Burgess, , art. cit. 134 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 2} Ibid., 138 ff.; Forte, Bette, Rome and The Romans as the Greeks Saw Them (PAAR 28; Rome, 1972), 409 ff.Google Scholar; Dvornik, , op. cit. ii. 552 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 3} Bleicken, Jochen, ‘Der Preis des Aelius Aristides auf das romische Weltreich’’, N.Ak.G., 1966, no. 7, p.223.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 4} Art. cit. 150.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 5} Cf. Keil, , ‘Eine Kaiserrede’’, p.389.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 6} Burgess, , art. cit. 113Google Scholar, defines an encomium as ‘a presentation, with more or less extravagant praise, of the good qualities of a person or thing’’; cf. the ancient definions cited by Burgess, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 7} This is emphasized by Jones, , art. cit. 145.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 8} Cf. Oliver, James H., The Ruling Power: A Study of The Roman Empire in the Second Century after Christ through the Roman Oration of Aelius Aristides (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, N.S. 43, Part 4; Philadelphia, 1953, 998 (Greek index). In §96 of To Rome the emperor is praised as a phil-hellene for giving privileges to the Greek cities, not for advancing Greek paideia. Certain other key words, including philanthropia, will be discussed below, in connection with style.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 1} Cf. Dvornik, , op. cit. ii. 554.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 2} Cf. e.g. Metochites, Theodore, Miscellanea, pp.616–17 Müller.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 3} Cf. Starr, Chester G., ‘The Perfect Democracy of the Roman Empire’’, AHR 58 (1952), 1–17Google Scholar; Oliver, , op cit, passim, e.g. p.877. The To Rome refers to elected magistrates (ch. 36) and to the senate (ch. 90); there are no corresponding references in the Eis Basilea.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 4} In various passages in the To Rome the emperor is also called prytanis (ch. 90) and kosmetes (ch. 60).

^{page 180 note 5} Oliver, , op. cit., p.913.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 6} Cf. Suet, . Aug. 53Google Scholar; Tib. 27Google Scholar; Tac, . Ann. 2. 87Google Scholar; Dio, Cass. 57. 8. 7Google Scholar; Tac, . Ann. 2. 1Google Scholar; Tert, . Apol. 34Google Scholar; cf. Oliver, , loc. cit.Google Scholar; Bleicken, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 7} Chrys, Dio. 1. 22Google Scholar: the good king dislikes to be called ‘master’’ not only by free men but even by slaves; the Roman senatorial aristocracy had a particular hatred for the title: Plin, . Pan. 45; 55Google Scholar; Mart, , 10. 77Google Scholar; cf. Tert, . Apol. 34Google Scholar. In Antonine times the Greek translation of dominus was kyrios, not despotes; the latter form replaced the former only in the time of Diocletian, and the change was then gradual: cf. Bréhier, L., ‘L'origine des titres impériaux à Byzance’’, BZ 15 (1906), 162–3.Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 1} Sieveking, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 2} Compare the lists of virtues in the rhetorical handbooks, cited by Burgess, , art. cit 120 ff.; 131, with the technically proficient exemplifications of them in the uncontestedly authentic imperial addresses of Aristides (or Dio Chrysostom or Themistius).Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 3} Jones, , art. cit. 141.Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 4} Ibid., p.148; the use of this term will be mentioned again below, in connection with chs. 32 and 34 of the Eis Basilea. Pronoia, a more common word, is found four times in To Rome (chs. 3, 36, 68, 96) and only once in the Eis Basilea (ch. 14, p.256, line 21 K.).

^{page 182 note 1} In Themistius Or. 1 (Downey), appears only once, closer to the usage in the Eis Basilea than to that in Aristides.

^{page 182 note 2} Harry, J. E., ‘On the Authorship of the Leptines Orations ascribed to Aristides’’, AJP 15 (1894), 71.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 3} Ibid., p.72; cf. Schmid, Wilhelm, Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertreten von Dionysius von Halicarnassus bis auf den zweiten Philostratus (5 vols.; Stuttgart 1887–1897), ii. 257.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 4} Harry, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 5} Keil, , ‘Eine Kaiserrede’’, p.397.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 6} Art cit. 136.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 7} Harry, , art. cit. 73.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 8} Ibid., passim.

^{page 182 note 9} Keil, , ‘Eine Kaiserrede’’, p.398Google Scholar; Jones, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 10} See below, p. 195 n.10.

^{page 183 note 1} Art. cit. 139.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 2} Boulanger, , op. cit., p.396Google Scholar; misquotation of Aristides has been used elsewhere to argue against authenticity: cf. Lenz, Friedrich Walter, ‘Die Pseudo-Aristidischen Leptinen’’. Aristidesstudien (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Schriften der Sektion fur Altertumswissenschaft 40; Berlin, 1964Google Scholar; revision of an article by Keil, Bruno, publ. in Hermes 71 (1936)), 248 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 3} Jones, , art. cit. 135Google Scholar; Keil, , ‘Eine Kaiserrede’’, p.383.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 4} Cf. e.g. Oliver, , op. cit., e.g. pp.874 ff.; 916; 930; 941Google Scholar; on the influence of Plato in Or. 21 K. (20 D.) see Forte, , op. cit, p.414Google Scholar; it might also be mentioned that the accumulation of synonyms in the Eis Basilea, of which cases are listed by Keil, , ‘Eine Kaiserrede’’, pp.395–7Google Scholar (cf. Jones, , art. cit. 136Google Scholar) is much more common in Dio Chrysostorri than in Aristides; cf. Schmid, , op. cit. iv. 523Google Scholar. The philosophical influence of Dio will be mentioned below (see also p. 180 n.l). Accumulation of synonyms is also very common in Aelian (Schmid, , loc. cit.).Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 5} Cf. Oliver, , op. cit., p.871Google Scholar; Keil, , ‘Eine Kaiserrede’’, p.389. Aristides' early funeral orations and indeed all his definitely attested orations lack this jerkiness.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 6} Keil, , ‘Eine Kaiserrede’’, p.404.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 7} Contra Jones, , art. cit. 138.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 8} Ibid.; Keil, , ‘Eine Kaiserrede’’, p.404.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 1} See above, p.173 n., ad fin.

^{page 184 note 2} Bayless, W. A., ‘Anti-Germanism under Stilicho’’, Abstracts of Papers read at the 1975 Meetings of the American Philological Association, 28Google Scholar; Bengtson, Hermann, ‘Das Imperium Romanum in griechischer Sicht’’, Das Gymnasium 71 (1964), 164, states that it is very questionable whether the Stoic ideal corresponded with the reality of the time.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 3} Contra Jones, , art. cit. 152.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 4} As does Jones, , art. cit. 151. He admits, however, that the combative tone of the preface is conventional. Of course for a melete in the form of an encomium on a ruler an imaginary religious festival is an appropriate dramatic setting.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 5} Cf. the analysis in Swift, , art. cit. 281.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 6} Ibid.; cf. Keil, , ‘Eine Kaisserede’’, pp.384–5; 403.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 7} Jones, , art. cit. 150.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 1} S.H.A. Sev. 20Google Scholar; cf. Hartke, Werner, Romische Kinderkaiser (Berlin, 1951), pp.109–10; 187.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 2} Cf. Beranger, Jean, Recherches sur l'aspect idiologique du principat (Schweizersche Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, Heft 6; Basel, 1957), pp.142 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 3} Contra Jones, , art. cit. 142.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 4} Cf. Swift, , art. cit. 282Google Scholar, and evidence there cited; on the theme of the king ruling over willing subjects cf. e.g. Isoc, . Nic. 23. 39Google Scholar; Xen, . Mem. 4. 6. 1Google Scholar; on the king as the best man cf. e.g. Chr, Dio. Or. 2. 65; 71.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 5} S. H. A. Pius 1. 5Google Scholar; Hadr. 24. 1Google Scholar; Cass, Dio. 69. 21. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 6} Cf. Grenade, Pierre, ‘Le reglement successorale d'Hadrien‘, REA 52 (1950), 258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 185 note 7} S. H. A. Pius 4. 5Google Scholar; Hadr. 24. 1Google Scholar; Ael. 6. 9Google Scholar; Cass, Dio. 69. 21. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 8} S. H. A. Ael. 6. 7Google Scholar; Henderson, Bernard W., The Life and Principate of the Emperor Hadrian (London, 1923), p.261, states that Hadrian's initial choice of the elder Verus as successor was sentimental rather than practical.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 1} S.H.A.Hadr. 25. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 2} Cf. Henderson, , op. cit., p.262.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 3} It may incidentally be mentioned that Trajan, Hadrian, and Marcus Aurelius were all at least partly of provincial descent. Almost all the old Republican aristocratic families were extinct in Antonine times.

^{page 186 note 4} Eutropius, in the same passage, mentions Pius' connection with the illustrious Aurelius Fulvus family, which included many people famous in Roman history.

^{page 186 note 5} Oliver, , op. cit., pp.951 f.; another reading would be ‘even his father’’, which would, of course, not be critical of HadrianGoogle Scholar

^{page 186 note 6} Swift, , loc. cit.Google Scholar; cf. Beranger, , op. cit., pp.139 ff.; 153.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 7} This was first observed by Keil, , ‘Eine Kaiserrede’’, p.425.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 1} Cf. S. H. A. Pius 7. 3–4Google Scholar. I see no contradiction between this passage and anything in chapters 8 and 9, unlike Jones, , art. cit. 140.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 2} Many are discussed by Swift, , art. cit. 281 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 3} It is improbable that the orator is ‘thinking primarily of the year 69’’, as Jones, , loc. cit.Google Scholar, thinks. If the orator is Aristides, why would he refer to events occurring seventy-five years earlier? It may well be wondered whether this Greek knew very much about events in Italy in the previous century. Certainly the civil war of A.D. 69 would hardly have come to mind. Aristides, who knew no Latin, held no public office in Rome (which he visited only once), and shows virtually no knowledge of Roman history in his definitely attested works, is not very likely to have heard of the execution of the four consulars (contra Jones, , loc. cit.), which took place in Italy about the time of his birth.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 4} This has been observed by Mazzarino, , op. cit., p.407.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 5} Aristides, as noted above, n.3. visited Rome only once and knew no Latin. His friends at court seem to have been Greek sophists rather than Roman senators. It is unlikely that even Herodes Atticus would have taken an anti-Hadrianic position.

^{page 188 note 1} e.g. S. H. A. Hadr. 5. 5; 17. 1Google Scholar; Pius 5. 3Google Scholar; Marc. 8. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 2} Cf. Swift, , art. cit. 282.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 188 note 4} Swift, , loc. cit., says the orator knew more about the rules of rhetoric than about the emperor's training.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 5} Cf. above, p. 175 n.4.

^{page 188 note 6} The ruler described in ch. 13 is not Antoninus Pius, ‘an amiable and wealthy old man who had played an honourable but not remarkable part in public life. It would seem in fact that he had not seen the provinces, let alone the armies’’ (Birley, Anthony, Marcus Aurelius (London, 1966), p.53CrossRefGoogle Scholar). Birley, , p. 53 n.Google Scholar, goes on to say that Hüttl, , op. cit. i. 32–3Google Scholar, has no warrant for the assertion, accepted by Jones, , art. cit. 142, that Pius must have been a tribunus militum laticlavius and a legatus legionis (or proconsulis).Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 7} The ship metaphor, also found in ch. 14, is ancient and very common: cf. the literature cited by Swift, , art. cit. 283.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 8} Barker, , op. cit., p.220Google Scholar; cf. Swift, , art. cit. 283.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 9} Behr, , op. cit., p.213.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 1} … (lines 12—13 K.)

^{page 189 note 2} Art. cit. 144.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 3} Cf. Swift, , art. cit. 286Google Scholar; Smallwood, E. M., edition of Philo of Alexandria Legatio ad Gaium (Leiden, 1961), commentary, pp.209 ff.Google Scholar; Charlesworth, M. P., ‘Some Observations on Ruler-Cult, Especially in Rome’’, HTbR 28 (1935), 16 ff.Google Scholar; Stern, Henri, ‘Remarks on the Adoratic under Diocletian’’, JWarb 17 (1954), 184Google Scholar; Alföldi, Andreas, ‘Die Ausgestaltung des monarchischen Zeremoniells am römischen Kaiserhof’’, Röm. Mitt 49 (1934), 55–6Google Scholar; Ensslin, W., CAH 12 (1939), 362, correctly states that die author takes proskynesis for granted.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 4} Isoc, . Evag. 47; 50Google Scholar; Pl, . Menex. 245 DGoogle Scholar; Rep. 470 CGoogle Scholar; cf. Keil, , ’’Eine Kaiserrede’’, p.389 n.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 5} Them. Or. 17.213 c–214 a: ‘Again after a long interval the most divine emperor [Theodosius] has brought philosophy back to the administration of public affairs more manifestly than those who have lately ruled;’’ cf. Or. 3. 29Google Scholar c (Constantius II); 5.64 c ff. (Jovian, ); 6. 72Google Scholar a (Valens); Pan. 11 (3) 23. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 6} On phil-hellenism as a trait of each good emperor see also Bleicken, , art. cit. 241 n.Google Scholar, and Schmid, , op. cit. iv. 569, who gives several citations from Philostratus VS.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 7} Jones, , art. cit. 145.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 8} Keil, , ‘Eine Kaiserrede’’, pp.382; 384.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 9} Jones, , art. cit. 146Google Scholar; Robert, Louis, ‘Bulletin Epigraphique no. 74’’, REG 87 (1974), 195–6, notes, pace Jones, that Hadrian so encouraged traditional Greek religious festivals that he could not have been attacked as anti-Hellenic in an oration in which the fire of Demeter is said to be ‘now more brilliant and sacred than ever’’ (ch. 37, p.263, lines 22–3 K.).Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 1} Jones, , art. cit. 151.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 2} Favorinus' facetious remark (S. H. A. Hadr. 15. 12) is not serious criticism and anyway comes to us through the dubious authority of the Historia Augusta (see below).Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 3} Art cit. 152 n.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 4} In August, A.D. 146, according to Behr, , op. cit. p.277.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 5} Oliver, , op. cit., e.g. p.949, discussing ch. 106 of To Rome.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 6} Keil, note to this passage in his edition; Zucker, rev. of Luigi Stella, Achillea, In gloria di Roma, Gnomon 21 (1949), 57–60Google Scholar; Weber, Wilhelm, Untersuchungen zur Geschicbte des Kaisers Hadrianus (Leipzig, 1907), p.90.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 7} op. cit., p.919.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 8} Ibid.

^{page 190 note 9} Cf. Forte, , op. cit., p.325Google Scholar; she also noted, p.314, that none of the four consulars who conspired against Hadrian was, so far as is known, of Greek descent; cf. also Karl Stroheker, Friedrich, ‘Die Aussenpolitik des Antoninus Pius nach der Historia Augusta’’, Bonner Historia-Augusta- Colloquium 1964/5 (Antiquitas, Reihe 4, Beiträge zur Historia-Augusta-Forschung; Bonn, 1966), 250.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 1} Jones, , art. cit. 151Google Scholar; Stroheker, , art. cit. 251–2Google Scholar, disagrees with Oliver, , op. cit., thinking that the statement in To Rome, ch. 33, is a veiled criticism of Hadrian, but I remain unconvinced; at any rate the criticism of previous rulers in the Eis Basilea is far from veiled.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 2} Jones, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 3} A.D. 138–9: Mattingly-Syndenham 3 (London, 1930), pp.96–7, nos. 520–1Google Scholar; the struggle between Pius and the senate is discussed by Mattingly, and Sydenham, , pp.4 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Strack, Paul L., Untersucbungen von rbmiscben Reichspragung des zweiten Jahrbunderts, IIGoogle Scholar: Die Reichspragung zur Zeit des Hadrian (Berlin, 1933), pp.189 ff.Google Scholar; ibid. iii: Die Reichspragung zur Zeit des Antoninus Pius (Berlin, 1937), 26Google Scholar; Hiittl, , op. cit. i. 47.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 4} Hohl, Ernest, ‘Die Angebliche ‘Doppelbestatung’’ des Antoninus Pius’’, Klio 31 (1938), 172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 191 note 5} Epit. of Dio, . 69. 9. 2Google Scholar; cf. S. H. A. Hadr., e.g. 24. 6; 23. 4; Catilius Severus was deposed from office because he opposed the adoption of Pius and wanted the throne for himself.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 1} Cf. Philstr, . VS 532–3Google Scholar; see generally Forte, , op. cit., pp.301 ff.Google Scholar; cf. also CIG 3. 3148.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 2} Forte, , op. cit., p.315Google Scholar; cf. Jones, , loc. cit.Google Scholar; Pflaum, H.-G., Les Carrieres procuratoriennes equestres sous le haut-empire romain (Institut Franc, ais d'Archeologie de Beyrouth, Bibliotheque Archeologique et Historique 57; 3 vols.; Paris, 1969), i. 251 ff.Google Scholar; Bowersock, G. W., Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1969), p.52Google Scholar; Crook, John, Consilium Principis: Imperial Councils and Counsellors from Augustus to Diocletian (Cambridge, 1955), p.153.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 3} Cf. Forte, , op. cit., p.320.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 4} Or. 34, pp.450, 12 ff. and 453, 5 Dind.Google Scholar; Or. 17, pp.261, 31–262, 1 Dind.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 5} At the time of his death Hadrian was respected and kindly remembered by some Greeks: cf. CIG 3. 3208Google Scholar; IG 14. 737Google Scholar; cf. Hüttl, , loc. cit.Google Scholar; CIG 3. 3582Google Scholar; Or. Sib. 12. 163 (A.D. 267).Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 6} Art cit. 146 n.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 7} At 11.15, however, the author of the Epit. de Caes. asks ‘Quid praestantius Hadriano?’’

^{page 192 note 8} Cf. Oliver, , op. cit., p.952Google Scholar; Henderson, , op. cit., pp.66–7; 262 ff.Google Scholar; Birley, , op. cit., p.59Google Scholar; Stroheker, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 9} Bowersock, , op. cit., p.52Google Scholar; cf. Jones, , art. cit. 145.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 10} Bowersock, , op. cit., p.53.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 1} The Historia Augusta (Hadr. 15.12) merely jokes about a disagreement.

^{page 193 note 2} Bowerstock, , op. cit., p.36Google Scholar; cf. 51–2; Arelate, Favorino diOpera, ed. Barigazzi, Adelmo (Florence, 1966), intr., p.6Google Scholar; text of On Exile, col. 14; commentary, p.465.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 3} Bowerstock, , op. cit., pp.53 ff.; 93 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Philstr, . VS, e.g. 534.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 4} Millar, Fergus, A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford, 1964), p.65.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 5} Ibid., p.122;64;8;10;17;80ff.

^{page 193 note 6} Ibid., pp.71–2.

^{page 193 note 7} Ibid., p.190 (cf. PIR² F 219).

^{page 193 note 8} Millar, , op. cit., p.83.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 9} Attianus is treated as an innocent victim in Hadr. 15. 3Google Scholar, where Hadrian is said to have acted toward him as though he were an enemy, Hadrian having previously raised Attianus to the highest of honours, but in 8.7 it is stated that when Hadrian removed Attianus from the office of praetorian prefect, the emperor made him a senator with consular honours and said that he could bestow no greater honour on him. In 9.4 Hadrian is said to have attributed the execution of the four consulars to Attianus' orders. If Titianus, who was outlawed according to S. H. A. Hadr. 15. 6Google Scholar, is Atilius Titianus, he was also a conspirator against Pius (S. H. A. Pius 7. 3) who suffered condemnation for this crime against the latter emperor.Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 1} S. H. A. Sev. 21. 1Google Scholar; Pesc. Niger 12. 1Google Scholar; Geta 2. 3–4Google Scholar; Heliogab. 1. 2; 2. 4Google Scholar; Aurel. 42. 4Google Scholar; Gord, . 3. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 2} Syme, Ronald, ‘Not Marius Maximus’’, Hermes 96 (1968), 500Google Scholar; idem, ‘Marius Maximus Once Again’’, Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1970 (Antiquitas, 4, 10; Bonn 1972), 290 ff.Google Scholar, demonstrates that the discrepancy in the account of Hadrian's attitude toward intellectuals in Vit. Hadr. 15. 10–16Google Scholar. 12 falls into two parts, one favourable toward Hadrian and the other unfavourable, the latter deriving from Marius Maximus; thus the discrepancy represents divergent accounts of Hadrian's actual behaviour and is not merely a reflection of the emperor's capricious nature, pace Birley, Anthony, Septimius Severus (New York, 1971), p.318CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. also Kornemann, Ernst, Kaiser Hadrian und der letzte grosse Historiker von Rom (Leipzig, 1905), p. 59Google Scholar; Giacchero, Malta, Problemi dell'eta Adrianea (Genoa, 1972), p.103.Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 3} Cf. e.g. Johne, Klaus-Peter, ‘Zur stadtromischen Tendenz der Historia Augusta’’, Wissenscbaftlicbte Zeitscbrift der Universität Rostock, 18. Jahrgang (1969)Google Scholar, Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenachaftliche Reihe, Heft 4/5, Teil, 2, p.463.Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 4} Dig. 27. 1. 6. 7Google Scholar; Pius expressed irritation at the words of the sophist Alexander (Philstr, . VS 570–1Google Scholar) and quarrelled with Herodes Atticus (ibid. 534). He also abolished the pension of the lyric poet Mesomedes (S. H. A. Pius 7. 8Google Scholar). Philip the Arab also abolished immunities for intellectuals: Cod. Just. 10. 53. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 5} Cf. Bowersock, , op. cit., p.36.Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 6} Barker, , op. cit., p.221.Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 7} Cf. Xen, . Mem. 2. 39Google Scholar; Plato, , Statesman 298 CGoogle Scholar; 299 B; Rep. 551 C.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 1} Art. cit., 277.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 2} S.H.A. Tacitus 5. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 3} Aristides calls him in the first Sacred Tale (47 K., 23 D., ch. 36, p.384, lines 19–20 K.).

^{page 195 note 4} Cf. generally Swift, , art. cit. 286 ff., for the rhetorical models.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 5} Cf. Oliver, , op. cit., p.804Google Scholar; cf. Dio Cass. epit. 69.5.2; 9.2; in 69.9.4 Dio says (through the epitomator) that Hadrian so disciplined and organized the troops throughout the whole empire that his regulations remained in force in Dio's time; cf. Eutr, . 8. 7. 2Google Scholar; S. H. A. Hadr. 10. 2–7Google Scholar; Matt.—Syd. 2 (London, 1926), p.367, no. 231: Disciplina Augusta.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 6} Menander, , chs. 21 ff., pp. 100–1 B. = 373–4 Sp.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 7} Cf. Barker, , op. cit., p.223. There seems to be no similar expression in Aristides; perhaps the orator was influenced by the references to the rivers Ister and Scamander in Menander, ch. 25 B. Celts lived along the Ister (Danube) in the west, while the Scamander, near Troy, was in Asia Minor, to the east.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 8} ‘Eine Kaiserrede’’, p.405.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 9} Art. cit. 148–9.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 10} Schmid, , op. cit. ii. 286–7Google Scholar, notes that there are a few examples of asyndeton in Aristides and gives a list; cf. Keil, , ‘Eine Kaiserrede’’Google Scholar; Jones, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 1} The phrase is a topos, as Keil notes (‘eine Kaiserrede’’, p.413). There seems to be another lacuna in the Eis Basilea, in a passage comparing the king to Homeric heroes (end of ch. 28, p.261, line 3 K.).

^{page 196 note 2} Cf. Menander, , p.417Google Scholar, 20 Sp.; Gernentz, Wilhelm, Laudes Romae (Diss. Rostock, 1918), pp.50–1Google Scholar. Chapters 36 and 37 of the Eis Basilea generally borrow from Aristides To Rome, chs. 99–100; these topoi, which probably antedate Aristides, perhaps ultimately deriving from Horn, . Od. 19. 114 ff.Google Scholar, are cited by Menander, , ch. 37, p.105, lines 15 ff. B. = 377 Sp., as has been noted above.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 3} Cf. Keil, , ‘Eine Kaiserrede’’, p.406Google Scholar; Mazzarino, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 4} Events of A.D. 153 are referred to, according to Behr, , op. cit., p.269.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 5} PIR ² A 697; cf. Jones, , art. cit. 150.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 6} Jones, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 7} Ibid.

^{page 196 note 8} Ibid. 152.

^{page 196 note 9} Cf. Barker, , op. cit., pp.223–4; there are other examples, e.g. the disputed Leptines.Google Scholar