¹ P. Veyne, Tenir un buste: une intaille avec le Génie de Carthage et le sardonyx de Livie à Vienne, Cahiers de Byrsa 8 (1958–59), 61ff.; id., Latomus 21(1962), 83f.

² This relief should not have been omitted from my “Domitian, the Senate and the Provinces,” Mnemosyne, IV: 14 (1961), 296ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. The relief shows us once again that an emperor, painted in gloomy colors in most of the senatorial sources, could be and in fact was popular in the provinces; for the problem of Domitian, cf. further a statement by E. Birley, who remarks with regard to the appointing policy of Domitian: “indeed one is tempted to reconsider the reputation of Domitian as an emperor, if his military appointments met with such general acceptance under his successors as is indicated by prosopographical study.” Roman Britain and the Roman Army (London, 1953), 143.

³ Though much work has already been done in the field of the ruler-cult in antiquity (cf. Fr. Taeger's Charisma, vols. I and II, and L. Cerfaux — J. Tondriau, Le culte des souverains dans la civilisation gréco-romaine, 1957), Veyne's words are worth repeating: “Une étude de l'opinion publique d'après ces documents souvent humbles, d'usage domestique, achetés par goût, aurait son interêt; elle permettrait de considérer moins abstractement moins ‘theologiquement’ l'idéologie impériale, et de voir comment elle répondait à la sensibilité populaire ou s'efforçait de la façonner” (art. cit., 75); cf. for a correct approach of the “religion impériale” also Veyne, P., “Ordo et Populus, Génies et Chefs de File,” MEFR 73 (1961), 229ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 266–68.

⁴ Cf. the words of J. Bayet: “Marc-Aurèle fut déclaré spontanément ‘Dieu propice’ et prophétique; … on est loin des ironies sur l'apothéose des pamphlétaires rationalistes, Sénèque au Ier siècle ou Lucien au IIe.” Histoire politique et psychologique de la Religion Romaine (Paris, 1957), 190; the Greek rhetor Menander describes in his De encomiis (p. 414, 16 Sp.) the scheme of the ideal παραμυθία, in which he suggests, inter alia: ὑμνὦμεν οὖν αὐτὸν ;[i.e., the deceased]ὡς ήρωα, μάλλον δέ ὡς θεόν, αὐτòν μακαρισώμεν, εἰκόνας γράφωμεν, ἱλασκώμεθα ὡς δαίμονα. This “appeasing” or “concilating” (ἱλάσκεσθαι) is intended to put the deceased (e.g. Marcus Aurelius, as mentioned above; or in general anyone dying prematurely) in a merciful mood; in such a mood he can be called εὐμενής to the ordinary mortals, as the deified Romulus declares about himself after his ascension to heaven: Ἐγὼ δέ ὑμῖν εὑμενς ἔσομαι δαμων Κυρῖνος (Plutarch, Vita Romuli, cap. 28); for “propitius” applied both to gods and to rulers, cf. PW, s.v. propitius (St. Weinstock rightly points out that this epithet when applied to the emperor in expressions like “Habeas propitium Caesarem,” implies the rendering of divine honor to the living emperor on a private level [col. 824]); a recent example of ἴλεως applied to a god in BE 1963, n. 253 (L. Robert promises a study of ἴλεως-acclamations). For the relation ἥρως/θεός, cf. P. Boyancé, Le culte des Muses chez les philosophes grecs (Paris, 1936), 291–92, who shows that hardly any difference needs to be made between apotheosis and heroization of a deceased.

⁵ Will, E., “Autour du culte des souverains (à propos de deux livres récents),” Rev. de Phil, (1960), 76ffGoogle Scholar.

⁶ E. Will, art. cit., 79.

⁷ Life of Romulus, 28; for ancient ideas concerning apotheosis cf. Bickermann, E., “Die römische Kaiserapotheose,” Arch.f.Religionswiss. 27(1929), 1ffGoogle Scholar. and Holland, “Zur Typik des Himmelfahrts,” ibidem 23(1925), 207ff.; K. Latte's short paragraph on apotheosis (Römische Religionsgeschichte, 317f.) is too rationalistic for us to recognize the impact of this phenomenon on the sentiments of the man in the street; a very good treatment of the meaning of the apotheosis of the ruler, especially for the consciousness of the common man, is given by Pippidi, D. M., “Apothéoses impériales et apothéose de Peregrinos,” Studi e Materiali di storia delle religioni 21 (1948), 77ffGoogle Scholar. (referred to by Latte, op. cit., 317, n. 8).

⁸ Rh. M. 48(1933), 246; cf. also GGR II², 385ff.

⁹ Römische Religionsgeschichte (1960), 308.

¹⁰ Gnomon 8(1932), 518; HTR 45(1952), 237ff.; Gnomon 27 (1955), 245; JRS 47 (1957), 115ff.

¹¹ For the distinction between these two attitudes of mind cf. P. Veyne, art. cit. (cf. note 13), 83, n. 3.

¹² Nock, JRS 47(1957), 121.

¹³ Cf. Benjamin, A. S.–Raubitschek, A. E., “Arae Augusti,” Hesperia 28 (1959), 65ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Veyne, P., “Les honneurs posthumes de Flavia Domitilla et les dédicaces grecques et latines,” Latomus 21(1962), 49ff.Google Scholar, esp. 71ff. on domestic altars for the emperor.

¹⁴ Cf. Morenz, S., “Vespasian, Heiland der Kranken: Persönliche Frömmigkeit im antiken Herrscherkult,” Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft, 4 (1949/1950), 370Google Scholar. Nock, A. D., JRS 47(1957), 118Google Scholar with note 28, argues that Vespasian, who cured sick people in Alexandria on his accession to the throne, “does not appear as a wonderworker in his own right.” He denies that we have to do with a “power intrinsically belonging to the legitimate monarch.” This may be correct, but one wonders whether the common people really bothered about such scholarly distinctions. In IGRom IV, 1273, the gods, together with the κνριοι αὐτοκράτορες, are worshipped; εὐχαί and θυσίαι are addressed to both; it may be that both were supposed to hear prayers. For an emperor called ἐπήκοος, cf. Abh. Akad. Berlin 14 (1943), 9, n. 7, with A. D. Nock's remarks in JRS 47(1957), 121, with notes 45 and 46. Just as both the emperor and an ordinary mortal could be merciful towards the living (cf. note 4), both categories could hear prayers after their death; cf. the epitaph of a 4 year old boy, who was called by his parents “their own God, who hears our prayers” (Kaibel, Epigr. Gr., 314 = Peek, Griech. Versinschriften, 1166, with C. Bradford Welles, HTR 34(1941), gof. and W. Seston, Hommages à J. Bidez et à Fr. Cumont [Collection Latomus II], 313 ff.); cf. also note 65.

¹⁵ Inscriptions from Mytilene and Thasos, in which certain terms could point to the existence of imperial mysteries, I leave undiscussed here; they cannot give us information about the nature of the mysteries; cf. Nilsson, GRR II², 370 and “Kleinasiatische Pseudo-Mysterien,” Bull.Inst.Arch.Bulg. 16 (1950; = Serta Kazaroviana), 19. J. Pouilloux, Recherches sur l'histoire et les cultes de Thasos, II, 163, esp. n. 7, denies (and in my opinion rightly so) that IG XII, Suppl. 387 would imply any existence of imperial mysteries. In imperial mysteries in general Pouilloux sees not much more than “représentations sacrées” in a closed club. He denies that the deified ruler was supposed to guarantee a blissful hereafter to the worshipper.

¹⁶ JRS 47(1957), 120, in connection with the sentiments (described by Philo, Leg. ad Gaium 151) aroused in sailors when seeing the Sebasteion in Alexandria.

¹⁷ M. P. Nilsson, Kleinasiatische …, 17–20; id., The Dionysiac Mysteries of the Hellenistic and Roman Age, 60, n. 83; see also id., “Dionysische Mysterien in Phrygien,” Eranos 60(1962), 180fGoogle Scholar. (cf. J.-L. Robert, Bull, Épigr., 1963, n. 262): Nilsson sees in the Dionysus mysteries only drinking parties combined with some ritual. The only reaction to Nilsson's thesis known to me is that of Robert: “nous ne le suivrions pas entièrement, notamment pour le culte impérial.” Bull. Épigr. (1951), n. 43; cf. also REA 62 (1960), 322, n. 3.

¹⁸ The Roman imperial mysteries correspond to the royal mysteries in Egypt alluded to in a small scrap of papyrus from Antinoopolis and interpreted by Nilsson, , “Royal Mysteries in Egypt,” HTR 50(1957), 65fCrossRefGoogle Scholar. The words μεμυηκ [ and μυστικός clearly refer to initiation into the mysteries. The Egyptian kings were identified with Triptolemos who initially seems to have been the chief personage in the mystery cult.

¹⁹ Cf. M. P. Nilsson, The Dionysiac Mysteries, 60ff.

²⁰ Kleinasiatische Pseudo-Mysterien, 19.

²¹ Ibid., 18.

²² Cf. A. Bruhl, Liber Pater. Origine et Expansion du culte dionysiaque à Rome et dans le monde romain (Paris, 1953), 186f.: “… jeux sacrés …;… cet ἀγὼν mystique, qui a un caractère incontestablement religieux …”; for this ἀγὼν μυστικός cf. also L. Robert, Hellenica XI–XII, 366, with references to an ἀγὼν μυστικός in Side in honor of Dionysus and Demeter; cf. Rev. de Phil. (1958), 21.

²³ Kleinasiatische …, 19.

²⁴ SIG³: 820.

²⁵ GIBM III:600. cf. M. P. Nilsson, Kleinasiatische, 18; id., Dionysiac Mysteries, 60.

²⁶ Ath.Mitt. 24(1899), 429; Le Bas-Waddington, 1178, quoted by Nilsson GGR II², 371; Kleinasiatische …, 19.

²⁷ Inschriften von Pergamon II, n. 374 (= IGRom IV, 353 = Ziehen — von Prott, Leges Sacrae, I, n. 27).

²⁸ CIG 3211, 3199, 3200, 3194; cf. Nilsson GGR II², 357.

²⁹ About the meaning of the θεολόγοι, cf. L. Robert, Rev. de Phil. (1943), 184f.; REA 62(1960), 316ff. esp. 321; Hellenica VII, 210; for the increasing importance of the sermon in Hellenistic-Roman worship see Nilsson, M. P., “Pagan Divine Service in later Paganism,” HTR 38(1945), 63ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.; cf. also GGR II², 380f.

³⁰ So Latte, Römische Religionsgeschichte, 320; Ch. Edson, HTR 41(1948), 153ff., esp. 196, n. 45.

³¹ Kleinasiatische …, 19; GGR II², 371.

³² Ephesos II, 173ff., n. 61 and 63; Le Bas, 655.

³³ Robert, L., “Recherches Épigraphiques,” REA 62(1960), 316ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar., esp. 322, n. 3.

³⁴ Therefore, Latte's remark, op. cit., 320, n. 2, that nowhere is the sebastophant related to mystery cults, remains obscure to me.

³⁵ P. Foucart, Les Mystères d'Éleusis (Paris, 1914), 179.

³⁶ Latte's view, op. cit., 320, that the parallelism between hierophant and sebastophant was only intended to show that the imperial cult was just as sacred as the Eleusinian cult, is too vague to be attractive.

³⁷ SEG XIV, 752 (XVI, 726; XVIII, 494).

³⁸ So M. P. Nilsson (Dionysiac Mysteries, 138f.), rendering the opinion of the original editor J. Keil.

³⁹ Ibidem, 138.

⁴⁰ L. Robert, Hellenica VII, ch. 22, and p. 210.

⁴¹ Again it can only be guessed what the ἰερά are that the hierophant showed in the imperial mysteries in Bithynia: perhaps certain attributes of the Roman emperor or objects symbolizing the majesty of the Emperor and/or the Roman Empire?

⁴² Dionysiac Mysteries, 138.

⁴³ Op. cit., 320, note 2.

⁴⁴ Cf. Robert's “Recherches Épigraphiques.”

⁴⁵ Cf. L. Robert, Études Anatoliennes, ch. I.

⁴⁶ L. Robert has promised a study of this festival; cf. already now his remarks in REA 62(1960), 342.

⁴⁷ Cf. the edict of P. Fabius Persicus, published by F. K. Dörner, Der Erlass des Statthalters von Asia Paullus Fabius Persicus (diss. Greifswald, 1935).

⁴⁸ Curiously enough both Nilsson and Robert think that Augustus received these offerings on his birthday; cf. Nilsson, GGR II², 375 and Robert, Rev. de Phil. (1939), 191) n. 9; in fact line B, 19f. clearly occurs in the passage about the mysteries. It is true that the first day of the mysteries coincides with the monthly celebration of Augustus' birthday, but this is no more than a chance coincidence. The cake, incense and lamps are offered in the course of the celebration of the mysteries. For that matter, the ceremonies of the two festivals need by no means be the same.

⁴⁹ L. Deubner, Attische Feste, 154, 158, 163; about the meaning of the offering of incense and πόπανα, cf. P. Boyancé, Le culte des Muses chez les philosophes grecs (Paris, 1936), 278ff., esp. 282f.

⁵⁰ Cf. Nilsson, , HTR 38(1945), 63ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵¹ About the hymnodes, cf. literature and references with Robert, L., REA 62(1960), 318CrossRefGoogle Scholar, n. 4; 321, n. 6; 322, note 3; 341f.; Rev. de Phil. (1959), 214, n. 8; Bull, Éipigr. (1941), n. 9; (1952), n. 100; Gnomon (1959), 661.

⁵² Cf. Nilsson's article HTR 38(1945).

⁵³ “Lampen und Kerzen im Kult der Antike,” Opuscula Archaeologica VI (1950), 96ff. (= Opusc. Selecta III, 189ff.); on λύχνος and λυχναψία see also L. Robert, Rev. de Phil. (1939), 189f.; A. Garcia y Bellido, “Isis y el Collegium IIlychiniariorum del Pratum Novum” (Conv. Cordubendis), Hommages à W. Deonna (= Coll. Latomus XXVIII), 238ff. (on the importance of λυχνάπτοι in the Isis cult and mysteries).

⁵⁴ L. Robert, Études Anatoliennes, 20ff.

⁵⁵ Metamorph. XI. 23.

⁵⁶ Or. V. 179c; cf. also an Ephesian inscription, in which two μυσται dedicate an Eros and a three-bracket chandelier to Aphrodite Daitis (Keil, J., Jahresh. 17(1914), 145ffGoogle Scholar.).

⁵⁷ P. Boyancé, op. cit., 54ff., esp. 57 (with a discussion of the texts of Aristotle and Proclus); idem, “Sur les mystéres d'Eleusis”, REG 75 (1962), 460ff. The problem of whether the illumination of the cult-images took place both in the Eleusinian mysteries of the imperial period and those of the classical age or only in the former is clearly irrelevant to us here.

⁵⁸ Op. cit., 58, note 1; art. cit., 473, n. 2.

⁵⁹ Attische Feste, 90.

⁶⁰ Cf. also W. H. Buckler — D. M. Robinson, Sardis VII, n. 21 where in connection with τ(ελεταί) of Athena Neikephoros χρυσαῖ εἰκόνες are mentioned; moreover, in the same text μυστήρια are recorded of the gods of the palaistra, Hermes and Heracles.

⁶¹ REA 62(1960), 316ff. (essential for a correct approach to the imperial religion).

⁶² G. Mihailov, IGB III, 1517, line 5; cf. Robert, Bull.Épigr. (1962), 175, n. 198.

⁶³ P. Boyancé, L'antre dans les mystères de Dionysos, Atti Pontif. Accad. Rom. di Arch. III: 33 (1960/61), 107–27, and D. M. Pippidi, Grottes Dionysiaques à Callatis, BCH 88(1964), 151ff., have recently and rightly stressed the importance of caves (ἂντρα) in Dionysian mysteries. Thus it is conceivable, though it cannot be proved, that the lamp (which on my theory may well have illuminated the image of the emperor) was lit in a dark cave.

⁶⁴ As stated rightly by M. Fraenkel in his commentary, ad loc., 270.

⁶⁵ CIG 3803 can no longer be used as evidence for the presence of a θεολόγος in imperial mysteries; the reading θεολγος τὦν τῇδε μυστηρίων proved to be incorrect; the correct version is θυηκόος etc.; the text originates from Bithynion-Claudiopolis and probably refers to the mysteries of Antinous; for all this, cf. L. Robert, Rev. de Phil. (1943), 184, n. 9; for Antinous' worship in Bithynia, cf. also F. K. Dörner, Denkschr. Akad. Wien, 75:1 (1952), 40, n. 78: Nέωι θεὢ[ι] Ἀντινωι εὕχην Σωσθνη[ς]. Antinous, who was worshipped in a mystery cult, apparently heard prayers; it is not inconceivable that in Pergamum likewise the Deified Augustus was supposed to hearken to prayer. In general, however, as Nock has emphasized, exvotos are rare in the imperial cult, JRS 47(1957), 115ff.

⁶⁶ We may look forward to a study on the Pergamene ὑμνῳδοί from L. Robert, see REA 62(1960), 342, n. 2.

⁶⁷ Class. Philol. 55(1960), 121.

⁶⁸ When dealing with the Hekate mysteries from Lagina (3rd century A.D.) A. Laumonier, Les cultes indigènes en Carie (Paris, 1958), 404f., distinguishes between “mystère-sacrement, renouvable, de caractère oriental et dionysique” and “mystère-initiation, avec formules et représentations …, qui préparait plus directement au bonheur de l'au-delà.” The Pergamene mysteries have, in my opinion, a share in both: the mystai had their heavy drinking and a good meal, but at the same time Divus Augustus was the centre of an initiation rite. In how far the expectations for the after-life were determined by the initiation cannot be decided in the present state of our sources.