¹ George H. Williams, The Norman Anonymous of 1100 A.D. (Harvard Theological Studies, XVIII: Issued by the Harvard Theological Review), Cambridge, 1951.

In the present “Note” the discussion of many a problem that might have been interesting and even essential, has been omitted or sidestepped. I have consciously avoided embarking on interrelated problems, all of them subtle and complicated, and have preferred to concentrate on the one question which the title indicates. Besides the obligations acknowledged in the footnotes I wish to thank Professor Harold F. Cherniss for many fruitful conversations, suggestions, and improvements; for similar courtesies my thanks go to Professor Arthur D. Nock and Dr. George H. Williams, both at Harvard, to Professor Ludwig Edelstein, at Johns Hopkins, and Professor Theodor E. Mommsen, at Princeton University.

² Williams, 128ff.

³ See Williams’ Foreword, p. vii, for the original title of his doctoral dissertation. Meanwhile Dr. Williams has elaborated this problem in his study “Christology and Church-State Relation in the Fourth Century,” Church History, XX, 1951, No. 3, pp. 3–33, No. 4, pp. 3–26, in which he touches also upon the problems discussed in the present “Note.”

⁴ Williams, 57f, nos. 168ff, has collected the parallels within the writings of his author and has indicated several relevant antecedents.

⁵ Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Libelli de lite, III, 662ff. I shall quote this tractate simply by quoting page and line.

⁶ 667,36f: “Potestas enim regis potestas Dei est, Dei quidem est per naturam, regis per gratiam.”

⁷ 667,37–40; “Unde et rex Deus et Christus est, sed per gratiam, et quicquid facit non homo simpliciter, sed Deus factus et Christus per gratiam facit. Immo ipse, qui natura Deus est et Christus, per vicarium suum hoc facit, per quem vices suas exequitur.” For Deus factus, see, e.g., Augustine, De fide et symbolo, c. 9, PL., XL, 189: “Non enim sunt naturaliter dii, quicumque sunt facti atque conditi ex patre per Filium dono Spiritus sancti.” See also Augustine, De civ., X, 1, ed. Hoffmann (CSEL., 40), I, 447: “[Deus] facit suos cultores deos“; also IX, 23, Hoffmann, I, 440f, and below, nos. 19, 65. For vicarius Christi, see now, in addition to the standard studies of Harnack and Rivière, also Michele Maccarrone, “‘Vicarius Christi’ e ‘vicarius Petri’ nel periodo patristico,” Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia, II, 1948, 1–32, and “Il Papa ‘vicarius Christi,’ Testi e dottrina del sec. XII al principio del XIV,” Miscellanea Paschini, Rome, 1949, II, 1–37.

⁸ 665,17–23.

⁹ 665,24ff: “… non tamen per naturam, sed per gratiam, quia solus Christus, filius Dei et filius hominis, hoc habet et per gratiam et per naturam.” This argument (Christ deus per gratiam) has been often discussed in earlier times and has been canvassed also by Peter the Lombard, e.g., Sententiae, III, dist. X, passim, PL., CXCII, 777f.

¹⁰ 664,20ff: “Itaque in unoquoque gemina intelligitur fuisse persona, una ex natura, altera ex gratia… Una, qua per conditionem naturae ceteris hominibus congrueret, altera qua per eminentiam deificationis et vim sacramenti cunctis aliis precelleret. In una quippe erat naturaliter individuus homo, in altera per gratiam Christus, id est Deus-homo.” This is the mediaeval version of the later Tudor theory of the King's two Bodies (natural and politic); see Maitland, F. W., “The Crown as Corporation,” Selected Essays, Cambridge, 1936, 104–127Google Scholar, and my forthcoming study on that subject.

¹¹ 667,2ff. For the consortes divinae naturae, see 2 Peter,1,4. For the baptismal meaning of adoption (cf. Rom.,8,15–23; 9, 4; Gal.,4,5), see L. Wenger, Art. “Adoption,” Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, I, 107f (e.g., Hesych: νἱοθεσία = ἅγιον βάπτισμα), also col. 108, for the Pauline antithesis of Son of God φύσει and sons of God θέσει (Gal.,4,8: “qui natura non sunt dii”). See, above all, the introductory prayer of the Benedictio Fontis: “ad recreandos novos populos, quos tibi fons baptismatis parturit, spiritum adoptionis emitte”; H. A. Wilson, The Gelasian Sacramentary, Oxford, 1894, 84. It should be added that on other occasions the Anonymous uses the idea of adoption in the normal way, that is, referring to all Christians; see Williams, 143ff, and passim.

¹² 685,42ff; 686,4.

¹³ See also 668,39: “Nee puto quod aliquis iustius debeat ea prerogare quam Christus ex natura per Christum ex gratia, sanctus ex natura per sanctum ex gratia.” See below, n. 65, for the “throne-sharing” of all men with Christ.

¹⁴ PL., XLIV, 247ff.

¹⁵ For the political situation, see Williams, 58, n. 169; P. E. Schramm, Der König von Frankreich, Weimar, 1939, I, 36ff; and, for the general papal predicaments in that period, Engreen, F., “Pope John the Eighth and the Arabs,” Speculum, XX, 1945, 318–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the salvator mundi title, see Heinrich Linssen, “ΘEOΣ ΣΩTHP: Entwicklung und Verbreitung einer liturgischen Formelgruppe,” Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft, VIII, 1928, 32ff, 70f, who however, does not consider the mediaeval ruler epithets. But on soter cf. also Nock in The Joy of Study, ed. Sherman E. Johnson, N. Y. 1951, 127ff.

¹⁶ Bouquet, Recueil des Historiens des Gaules, VII, 694ff; Mansi, Concilia, XVII, Appendix, p. 172.

¹⁷ Anselm of Lucca, Collectio canonum, I,79, ed. M. Thaner, Innsbruck, 1906–1915, pp. 52f.; PL., CXLIX, 489 (here numbered I, 78); Deusdedit, IV, 92, ed. Victor Wolf von Glanvell, Die Kanonessammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit, Paderborn, 1905, I, 439.

¹⁸ Above, n. 7; also 664,19f: “… ut in regendo populo Christi Domini figuram vicemque tenerent et in Sacramento preferrent imaginem.”

¹⁹ In Psaltorum Librum Exegesis, LXXXI, PL., XCIII, 924D, 926A; see also, for Psalm 49,1, P.740BC: “Unus namque Deus est per naturam, multi per gratiam; unus natus est ex substantia Patris, multi facti ex eius gratia…” The author here draws heavily from Augustine, Enarratio in Psalmos, XLIX, 2, PL., XXXVI, 565 (see below, n. 21). For the authorship of the Psalter Exegesis, see M. L. W. Laistner, A Hand-List of Bede Manuscripts, Ithaca, N. Y., 1943, 159.

²⁰ Nor do others; see, e.g., Augustine, De fide et symbolo, c. 9 (above, n. 7), and Enarratio, XLIX (above, n. 19). Cassiodorus, one of the sources of Pseudo-Bede, says in the Expositio in Psalterium, XLIX, 1: “Dii dicuntur homines, qui bonis conversationibus gratiam supernae Majestatis accipiunt… Ita ergo filii dicuntur sicut et dii, quia utrumque gratia praestat utique, non natura”; and similarly LXXXI, 6: “(filii) per gratiam utique, non per naturam,” since only Christ “proprie dicitur Dei Filius” whereas the others are sons only κατ᾽ ἀναλογίαν; PL., LXX, 348D, 594CD. Also Justin Martyr, Dialogus, c. 124, ed. E. J. Good-speed, Die ältesten Apologeten, Göttingen, 1914, 245, stresses the fact that all men may become sons of God; to Irenaeus, Adv. haer., III, vi, 1, ed. Harvey, II, 22, those having received the grace of the adoption appear as the “gods.” It would be easy to collect similar places in great numbers.

²¹ Pseudo-Bede, In Psalt., XLIX, PL., XCIII, 740B: “Deus deorum, id est Deus iustorum, Deus deificatorum. Si enim est iustificans, est et deificans, quia de iustis dictum est: ‘Ego dixi: Dii estis.’” The Justification betrays Augustinian ideas; see Enarratio, XLIX, 2, PL., XXXVI, 565: “Manifestum est ergo, quia homines dixit deos, ex gratia sua deificatos, non de substantia sua natos… Qui autem iustificat, ipse deificat, quia iustificando filios Dei facit.”

²² Tractatus in Librum Psalmorum, LXXXI, 1, ed. G. Morin, Anecdota Mared-solana, Maredsou, 1897, III: 2, p. 77; see also Williams, 72, n. 214, who adds a few more places (Augustine, the Glossa ordinaria, etc.) for dii as applied to all Christians, an interpretation which was, of course, well known to the Norman Anonymous as well; see Williams, 144f, 146f, passim.

²³ The Pauline trichotomy (1 Thess.,5,23) should be noted; cf. Erich Dinkier, Die Anthropologie Augustins, Stuttgart, 1934, 255ff; also F. E. Brightman, “Soul, Body, Spirit,” Journal of Theological Studies, II, 1901, 273ff, for the Eastern liturgies; the trichotomy, however, is found also in the West despite later “emendations”; see, e.g., Wilson, H. A., The Gelasian Sacramentary, Oxford, 1894, 70Google Scholar, in the Benediction of Oil for Anointing the Sick: “tutamentum corporis, animae et spiritus.”

²⁴ Eusebius, In Psalmos Commentaria, LXXXI, PGr., XXIII, 988B; see also XLIX, 2 (col. 433D): The Seventy θεοὺς ἐκάλεσαν τoύς τε ἅρχοντας καὶ κρίτας, ὄπερ ἳδιον μόνου Θεoῦ. For later times see, e.g., Euthymius Zigabenus, PGr., CXXVIII, 853f, with reference to Exod.,22,28. Antonius Melissa, Loci communes, II, 3 (al.CLXXIII), PGr., CXXXVI 1020B, apparently reproducing John Chrysostom, interprets Exod.,22,28, in the sense that the “gods” are the “priests” as opposed to the “princes” mentioned in the second half of the versicle; see, however, next note; and, for the great variety of interpretations, the summary by J. J. Reeve, Art. “Gods,” International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Chicago, 1915, II, 1270–1272.

²⁵ John Chrys., Expositio in Psalmos, XLIX, PGr., LV, 240f, who gives as the first meaning of θεοί that of princes: τίνας ἐνταῦθα λέγει θεούς; Tοὺς ἂρχοντας. He, too, refers to Exod.,22,28, while discussing Ps.,49,1: Θεòς θεῶν.

²⁶ Origen, In exodum Homilia VI, c. 5, ed. Baehrens, I, 196,22f; also Homilia VIII, c. 2, Baehrens, I, 200,25. The nomen interpretation is applied by others as well (see, e.g., John Chrys., PGr., XLVII, 758f) and may go back, in the last analysis, to the λεγóμενοι θεοί of 1 Cor.,8,5.

²⁷ In evang. Joannis, X, 35, PGr., LXVI, 760D. See also the Scholia vetera in Joannem, X, 34, PGr., CVI, 1260CD, which come very close to Theodore's text. Since in John,10,34, the versicle Ps.,81,6, is quoted most authoritatively by Christ himself, the exegesis of John frequently is concerned with the interpretation of θεοί.

²⁸ Theodoret, Quaestiones in Genesim, I, 20, PGr., LXXX, 108A.

²⁹ Above, n. 8.

³⁰ Athanasius, Oratio I, c. 39, a quotation from 1 Cor.,8,5. (See next note.)

³¹ Athanasius applies that antithesis very often; see, e.g., Contra Arianos Oratio I, cc. 8, 39; Oratio II, cc. 51, 61; Oratio III, c. 6, and passim, PGr., XXVI, 29A, 93A, 272C, 273C, 277A, 334A. Some of his definitions are interesting: Or. I, 8, the gods by charis are set over against Christ, “the true image of the Father's ousia”; Or. I, 39, the “true and one Son of the true God,” who is God, not as a reward for virtue (μισθòς ἀρετῆς), but φύσει κατ᾽ ούσίαν, is distinguished from πάντες ὅσοι υἱοί [τοῦ θεοῦ] τε καὶ θεοὶ ἐκλήθησαν, εἴτε ἐπὶ γῆς, εἴτε ἐν οὐρανoῖς (see below, n. 76); Or. II, 59, the “Becoming” sons of God by adoption is Stressed: τὸ μὲν γὰρ ῾γενέσθαι᾽, διὰ τὸ μὴ φύσει, ἀλλὰ θέσει αὐτοὺς λέγεσθαι υἱούς φησι; and in the same chapter he contrasts κατὰ χάριν with κατὰ φύσιν; Or. II, 61, he discusses the nature-grace problem with regard to Christ alone who is the Bringer of grace rather than the Son by grace (above, n. 9).

³² John Chrys., In Joannem Homilia III (al. II), c. 2, PGr., LIX, 39.

³³ Cyril plays throughout with the nomen interpretation (above, nos. 26, 28, 29): men are only “called” gods; see, e.g., In Psalmum LXXXI, PGr., LXIX, 1205; In Joannis Evangelium, I, c. 10 (to John,1,18), PGr., LXXIII, 179A.B; VII (to John,10,34), PGr., LXXIV, 25C, 32A; see also, for the problem of adoption, I, c. 9 (to John,1,13), PGr., LXXIII, 153f.

³⁴ Cyril, In Joannis Ev., V, c. 5 (to John,8,42), PGr., LXXIII, 884D, and passim.

³⁵ Theodoret, Quaest. in Gen., I, 20, PGr., LXXX, 104ff, almost verbatim repeated by Anastasius Sinaita (below, n. 37).

³⁶ Philo, De opificio, 69, Cohn-Wendland, I,23,2ff, in addition to other places; cf. Harry A. Wolfson, Philo, Cambridge 1948, I, 116, 347, passim.

³⁷ Anastasius Sinaita, Quaestiones, XXIV, PGr., LXXXXIX, 541ff, esp. 544D, 545B. I am much obliged to Professor André Grabar, of Dumbarton Oaks, for calling my attention to this author and his influence on later Byzantine thought.

³⁸ PGr., LXXX, 108CD: Πῶς οὖν Θεοῦ εἰκὼν ὁ ἅνθρωπος; Kατὰ τὸ ἀρχικὸν, κατὰ τὸ ἐξουσιαστικόν. I am grateful to Professor G. B. Ladner for mentioning this place to me. See also, for Chrysostom, above, n. 25; further, Ps. Athanasius, Quaestiones in Vet. Test., LV (to Gen., 1, 26), PGr., XXVIII, 733B: Just as God βασιλεύει, ἅρχει, ἐξουσιάζει in the universe, οὔτω καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἄρχων καὶ βασιλεὺς καθέστηκε πάντων τῶν ἐπιγείων πραγμάτων.

³⁹ (Ambrosiaster), Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti, XLV, 3, ed. Souter (CSEL, 50), 82, 20. See also Williams, 175ff, for the problem Rex imago Dei, sacerdos Christi.

⁴⁰ Op. cit., CVI, 17, Souter, 243, 12ff. It would be probably worth while to study Ambrosiaster within the framework of the Eastern Quaestiones literature, since the similarities are rather remarkable.

⁴¹ See, e.g., Philo, De opificio, 148, ed. Cohn-Wendland, I, 51f. The kingliness and godliness of the Sage, who in many respects is comparable to the vision of the kingly man as created originally by God, will not be considered here; see, for some aspects of the problem within the Philonic context, Goodenough, , The Politics of Philo Judaeus, New Haven, 1938, esp. 90Google Scholarff, 98ff, passim, and below, n. 81.

⁴² Gregory Nyss., De hominis opificio, 4–5, and In verba ‘faciamus hominem’ Oratio I, in PGr., XLIV, 136f, 264f. For the connections with Philo and Plato, see Harold F. Cherniss, The Platonism of Gregory of Nyssa (University of California Publications in Classical Philology, XI), Berkeley, 1934, 29f. (nos. 43f, p. 75); cf. 82, n. 45.

⁴³ Aponius, In Canticum Canticorum, ed. H. Bottino and J. Martini, Rome, 1843, p. 235 (Lib. XII, ad Cant. VIII, 10). In addition to Harnack, “Vicarii Dei vel Christi bei Aponius: Ein Beitrag zur Ideengeschichte des Katholizismus,” Delbrück-Festschrift, Berlin, 1908, 37–46, see Michele Maccarrone, “Vicarius Christi e Vicarius Petri nel periodo patristico,” 20ff (see above, n. 7). Cf. Williams, 176, n. 586.

⁴⁴ Aponius, p. 202 (Lib. X, ad Cant. VII, 5).

⁴⁵ Basil, De Spiritu sancto, c. 45, PGr., XXXII, 149C, and Homilia XXIV contra Sabellianos, c. 4, PGr., XXXI, 608A. For the later repetitions of that passage by John of Damascus, see Setton, Kenneth M., Christian Attitude towards the Emperor in the Fourth Century, New York, 1941, 199Google Scholar, n. 9. Basil's comparison has its antecedents in the writings of Athanasius; see next note.

⁴⁶ All that is expressed, in essence, already by Athanasius, Contra Arianos, III, 5, PGr., XXVI, 332A.B. who (333A) stresses that the oneness of the Son with the Father is οὐ κατὰ χάριν but according to the ousia of God which here takes the place of physis. See, for the survival of the Athanasian argument in Pseudo-Athanasius and John of Damascus, Setton, op. cit., 199, n. 8. The seemingly strange comparison of Christ with the imperial images derives from the concept that Christ was the perfect image of the Father, even his mimetes (Ignatius, Ad Philad., 7, 2: μιμητὴς τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ). The comparison with imperial images is found time and again; see, e.g., Sirarpie der Nersessian, “Une apologie des Images au septième siècle,” Byzantion, XVII, 1944–45, 60f, for Chrysostom (In inscriptionem altaris homilia I, c. 3, PGr., LI, 71f) and for the Armenian tractate on images by Vrt'anes K'ert'ogh (shortly after 600 A.D.); also Gregory Nyss., De hominis opificio, 4–5 (above, n. 43), and De professione Christiana, PGr., XLVI, 245A, a place to which Professor Werner Jaeger kindly called my attention. The otherwise very useful study of Helmut Kruse, Studien zur offiziellen Geltung des Kaiserbildes im römischen Reich, Paderborn, 1934, is less satisfactory with regard to the Christian problems.

⁴⁷ PGr., XXXII, 149C: δ οὖν ἐστιν ἐνταῦθα μιμητικῶς ἡ εἰκὼν, τοῦτο ἐκεῖ φυσικῶς ὁ ϒἱός.

⁴⁸ Stobaeus, IV, vi, 22; vii, 61–64, ed. Hense, IV, pp. 244f, 263–279; Erwin R. Goodenough, “The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship,” Yale Classical Studies, I, 1928, 55–102; Louis Delatte, Les Traités de la Royauté d'Ecphante, Diotogène et Sthénidas, Liége and Paris, 1942, according to whose edition the texts are quoted here, whereas the English translation follows that of Goodenough. For the date of the texts, see Delatte, 284f, and passim (especially the arguments on pp. 87 and 108f); the date seems to be accepted by the reviewers; see, e.g., M. P. Charlesworth, in Classical Review, LXIII, 1949, 22f; J. S. Morrison, in Journal of Hellenic Studies, LXIX, 1949, 91f; A. D. Nock mentioned some doubts because there is no evidence “that any Gentile read Philo” (see also Charlesworth, p. 23, n. 1).

⁴⁹ For the name Sthenidas, see Delatte, 283.

⁵⁰ Stobaeus, IV, vii, 63; Delatte, 45f, cf. 56 and 274ff; for “vivifies” (ζωοῖ), see 103f, 107.

⁵¹ Above, n. 16. For the Byzantine emperor as mimetes of God and Christ, see Baynes (below, n. 78), who indicates Eusebius as the mediator of those ideas which, however, are found throughout (Agapetos). For the Jewish strand, see the Letter of Aristeas, 188, 210, 281; Goodenough, Politics of Philo, 90ff; see also Nock (below, n. 81), 215: “Jews and Christians alike accepted the philosophical view that the king was the counterpart of God and that it was his duty to imitate the moral excellences of divinity.” In general, see Michaelis, Art. “μιμέομαι, μιμητής” in: Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. G. Kittel, Tübingen, 1939, IV, 661–678, who, however, does not consider the ritual mimesis of myths (see Sallustius, c. iv, ed. Nock, Cambridge, 1926, p. 8) or the spiritualization of the painter's mimesis: the mass-celebrating priest a “painter” imitating the true mass in heaven; see, e.g., R. H. Connolly, The Liturgical Homilies of Narsai, Cambridge, 1909, 46, passim; R. H. Connolly and H. W. Codrington, Two Commentaries on the Jacobite Liturgy, Oxford, 1913, 35, cf. 17; also the Nestorian Order of Baptism, in H. Denzinger, Ritus Orientalium, Würzburg, 1863, I, 336f; Chrysostom, In Actus Homilia XXX, 4, PGr., LX, 226–228, where the Holy Spirit is the painter of the truly “imperial” (divine) images.

⁵² For ὠσία in that place, see Delatte, 45, 270; cf. supra, nos. 31, 46; and for the antithesis of Time and Eternity, above, p. 263 (n. 35).

⁵³ Delatte, 39,11, and 255; Goodenough, 68. For the kings as Animate Law, see the recent study by Artur Steinwenter, “NOMOΣ EMΨϒXOΣ: Zur Geschichte einer politischen Theorie,” Anzeiger der Wiener Akademie, LXXXIII, 1946, 250ff, and Delatte, 245ff.

⁵⁴ See, for this passage (Stobaeus, IV, vii, 61, Hense, 265, 5), the commentary of Delatte, p. 254.

⁵⁵ See above, n. 10. Goodenough, 76; Delatte, 25f, 28 (the passage has been transmitted twice by Stobaeus), and the important commentary, pp. 179ff. Delatte has not made use of the Philonic parallel adduced by Goodenough, Politics (above, n. 41), 99, a Philo fragment transmitted by Antonius Melissa, Loci communes, II, c. 2 (al. CIV), PGr., CXXXVI, 1012B: Tῇ μὲν οὐσίᾳ τοῦ σώματος ἴσος παντὸς ἄνθρώπου ὁ βασιλεὺς, τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ δὲ τοῦ ἀξιώματος ὄμοιός ἐστι τῷ ἐπί πάντων Θεῷ. This passage is verbatim repeated by the composer of the Russian Laurentian Chronicle, ed. P. Bychkov (3rd ed., Archeographic Commission), St. Petersburg, 1898, p. 351 (ad a.1175), who actually quotes Philo, though he purports to quote Chrysostom, when he writes: “By his earthly nature the Tsar is like all men; by the power of his rank, however, he is like God.” I am grateful to Dr. Michael Cherniavsky, at Princeton, for having called my attention to this passage. See also below, n. 72.

⁵⁶ For σκᾶνος and its equivalents, rendered by the Vulgate (2 Ptr., 1,13–14) as tabernaculum and meaning the dwelling place of the soul, which is the body, see Delatte, 181. The word is used also with regard to the incarnate Christ, e.g., Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos, XC, 5, PL., XXXVII, 1163: “In ipso tabernaculo Imperator militavit pro nobis.” According to the Acts of the Persian Martyrs, it is used also by King Shapur to designate his own body (“so long as I remain in my tabernacle”); cf. Oskar Braun, Ausgewählte Akten Persischer Märtyrer (Bibl. d. Kirchenväter), Kempten and Munich, 1915, p. 3, where the translator's question-mark may be safely omitted.

⁵⁷ Above, n. 11.

⁵⁸ Clement, Stromata, V, 5, 29; Goodenough, 76, n. 75, gives that parallel, but Delatte, 177ff., discloses its true implications.

⁵⁹ Delatte, 179, gives parallels from Timaeus, but believes that Eurysus was inspired by Genesis, 1, 26.

⁶⁰ Origen, In Celsum, I, 50, ed. Koetschau, 101, 17.

⁶¹ Huillard-Bréholles, Vie et correspondance de Pierre de la Vigne, Paris, 1865, p. 426, No. 107; see, for a fuller discussion, Kantorowicz, “Kaiser Friedrich II. und das Königsbild des Hellenismus,” Varia Variorum: Festgabe für Karl Reinhardt, Munster and Cologne, 1952.

⁶² The material has been neatly summed up by Albert Michael Koeniger, “Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur,” Beiträge zur Geschichte des christlichen Altertums und der byzantinischen Literatur: Festgabe Albert Ehrhard, Bonn and Leipzig, 1922, 273–300. As usual, the papal maxim finally became a cornerstone of royal absolutism; see, e.g., Salmasius, Defensio regia pro Carolo I., Paris, 1650 (first published in 1649), ch. VI, p. 169: “Rex a nemine iudicari potest nisi a Deo”; and p. 170: “… ilium proprium (regem esse), qui iudicat de omnibus et a nemine iudicatur.”

⁶³ Stromata, II, xx, 125, 5, and IV, xxiii, 149, 8, Stählin, II, 181, 314; see also Protrepticos, XX, 123, Stählin, I, 86, 18.

⁶⁴ Paedagogus, I, vi, 26, 1, Stählin, I, 105, 22. Immortality is, per se, divinity: εἰ οὖν ἀθάνατος γέγονεν ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἔσται καὶ θεός (Hippolytus, Sermo in sanctam theophaniam, c. 8, PGr., X, 860A). See G. W. Butterworth, “The Deification of Man in Clement of Alexandria,” Journal of Theological Studies, XVII, 1916, 159ff, and in the same volume (257ff) some further notes on the subject by Cuthbert Lattey, who points out that “deification” does not imply polytheism, but sanctifying grace. For the Christian deification in general, see J. Gross, La divinisation du chrétien d'après les pères grecs, Paris, 1938; also M. Lot-Borodine, La doctrine de la déification dans l'église grecque, Revue de l'histoire des religions, CV–CVII, 1932–1933, and the remarks as well as bibliographic notes of A. D. Nock, in: The Journal of Religion, XXXI, 1951, 214f.

⁶⁵ Stromata, VII, x, 56, 6, Stählin, III, 41, 24. Lattey (above, n. 64), p. 261, stresses that the usage of the word synthronos indicates a connection of Christian deification with Ptolemaic king-worship; the connecting link, however, should be sought in Psalm 109(110),1, a problem which I shall discuss elsewhere on a broader basis. For the equation with angels, see also Friedrich Andres, “Die Engelund Dämonenlehre des Klemens von Alexandria,” Römische Quartalschrift, XXXIV, 1926, 131ff; Williams, 162, n. 548. The idea, widely spread in the East and especially in the early Church, was that Christ himself represented the “God of gods” with regard to deified men (“gods”) who shared the throne with him; see, e.g., Irenaeus, Adv. haer., Ill, vi, 1, ed. Harvey, II, 22; Athanasius, Contra Arianos, I, c. 39, PGr., XXVI, 92f. The idea is found also in the West: Augustine, Enarrat. in Ps., XLIX, 1, PL., XXXVI, 565 (with regard to the dii facti); Cassiodorus, Expos. in Ps., XLIX, PL., LXX, 348D (“Deus autem deorum est Dominus Christus”). This became finally the generally accepted interpretation, see Peter the Lombard, Comment. in Ps., XLIX, 1, PL., CXCI, 475B.

⁶⁶ Stromata, IV, xxiii, 149, 8, Stählin, II, 314, 26; Diels, fr. 146.

⁶⁷ Paedagogus, III, i, 2, 1, Stählin, I, 236, 25; Diels, fr. 67.

⁶⁸ Jerome, Commentarioli in Ps., LXXXI, 1, ed. G. Morin, Anecdota Mared-solana, III:1, 1895, p. 63: “[dii] angeli sive sancti.” See above, n. 20 (Cassiodorus), n. 21 (Pseudo-Bede), n. 65 (Athanasius, Augustine). Augustine prefers to think of men rather than of angels: “… non frustra in scripturis sanctis expressius homines nuncupatos deos quam illos inmortales et beatos, quibus nos aequales futuros in resurrectione promittitur.” De civ., IX, 23, Hoffmann, I, 440ff; cf. X, 1, and XV, 23, Hoffmann, I, 447, and II, 112.

⁶⁹ Rufinus, Hist, eccl., I, 2, PL., XXI, 468. See also Didascalia Apostolorum, II, 34, ed. R. H. Connolly, Oxford, 1929, 96,17ff, for the bishop as king and god.

⁷⁰ See the letters of Pseudo-Anaclet, c. xix, Pseudo-Marcellus, c. x, Pseudo-Melchiades, c. xi, ed. Hinschius, Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae, Leipzig, 1863, pp. 76, 228,248, and passim; the places have been collected by Dr. Schafer Williams, Visio aetatis aureae ecclesiae Pseudo-Isidorianae, Ph.D. Diss. (unpubl.), Berkeley, 1951.

⁷¹ Nicolaus I, Ep., 86, PL., CXIX, 961, Mon. Germ. Hist., Epistolae, VI, p. 486, 17ff; cf. Jean Rivière, “Sur l'expression Papa-Deus au moyen âge,” Miscellanea F. Ehrle, Rome, 1924, II, 279, who correctly refers to Exod.,22,28, and Ps. 81,6, but concludes that Nicholas wished to appear merely as primus inter pares. For the principle of monopolizing by exclusion, see Friedrich Heiler, Altkirchliche Autonomie und päpstlicher Zentralismus, Munich, 1941, 270ff, esp. 274f. Gregory the Great (Reg., V, 36, Mon. Germ. Hist., Epistolae, I, 318, 15ff) uses the Rufinus story with reference to priests in general, and Gregory VII, in his letter to Bishop Hermann of Metz (Reg., VIII, 21, ed. Caspar, 553), gives to the story an unmistakably hierarchic tendency.

⁷² “Vous êtes des Dieux, mais des Dieux de chair et de sang, de boue et de poussière”; quoted by Fritz Hartung, “L'état c'est moi,” Historische Zeitschrift, CLXIX, 1949, 20. As Dr. M. Cherniavsky kindly points out to me, the same arguments were used in Russia, around 1500, by the Abbot of the Volokolamsk Monastery, Joseph Sanin, Illuminator, c. 16, in: Pravoslavnyi Sobesednik, Kazan, 1857, Parts 3–4, pp. 602f: “You are gods and the sons of the most High… God has placed you in his place on his throne, because the Tsar in his nature is like all men, but in his power he is like the supreme God.” See above, n. 55.

⁷³ See Michaelis (above, n. 51), 663ff, also for the increase of the word μιμέομαι and its derivatives in the works of Philo; Cherniss (above, n. 42), 62, for the Platonic usage of that figure of speech; and Henry G. Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus, Manchester, 1949, 143f, for the commonplace character.

⁷⁴ See especially the tractate of Diotogenes; Delatte, 37ff (cf. 270ff); Goodenough, 71ff.

⁷⁵ The relevant places have been collected by Bywater, in his edition of Heraclitus, Oxford, 1877, 26f, and by R. Walzer, Eraclito, Florence, 1939, 101f; see also Carl Langer, “Euhemeros und die Theorie der φύσει und θέσει θεοί,” Angelos, II, 1926, 53ff. As late as the 11th century, the Byzantine emperor is addressed θεὸς ἐπίγειος, though χάριτι (V. Valdenberg, “Nikoulitza et les historiens contem-porains,” Byzantion, III, 1927, 97; cf. R. Guilland, “Le droit divin à Byzance,” Eos, XLII, 1947, 142, 149), and to Hobbes (Leviathan, c. XVII) the sovereign is a Deus mortalis.

⁷⁶ Above, nos. 31, 67; cf. n. 11, and below, n. 81.

⁷⁷ Hans Joachim Schoeps, Aus frūhchristlicher Zeit, Tübingen, 1950, 298f.

⁷⁸ Delatte, 152ff; N. H. Baynes, “Eusebius and the Christian Empire,” Mélanges Bidez (Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales et Slaves, II), Brussels, 1934, 13ff; Steinwenter (above, n. 53); also the study mentioned above, n. 61.

⁷⁹ Greg. Nyss., De professione, PGr., XLVI, 244C; also 244D; and In verba ‘faciamus hominem,’ Or. I, PGr., XLIV, 273D. Cf. Cherniss, 62.

⁸⁰ Cicero, Topica, 76; cf. Delatte, 277, also for additional places.

⁸¹ Augustine, De natura et gratia, c. 42(49), PL., XLIV, 271; also De civ., XIV, 13: “Dii enim creati non sua veritate, sed Dei participatione sunt dii. Plus autem appetendo minus est… Illud itaque malum, quo, cum sibi homo placet tamquam sit et ipse lumen, avertitur ab eo lumine, quod ei, si placeat, et ipse fit lumen.” The idea of grace in connection with imitation and deification is found already in the Epistle to Diognetus, X,4, ed. Meecham, 86, who in his commentary (p. 134) stresses that “it is the divine grace and initiative that enables men to imitate God.” On the other hand, A. D. Nock pointed out that there were many aspects of Christian “imitation of God” and that the purely human efforts towards imitation were considered effective too (Journal of Religion, XXXI, 1951, 214, in his review of Meecham which unfortunately came to my knowledge only after having finished the present study). However, also the pagan antecedents of Christian deification had many aspects. It was the current view of pagan philosophy in the postclassical era that the philosopher or the sage shared, one way or another, the life of the gods either by his nature or by his training (see also above, n. 41). It should be stressed, however, that for Plato the ὁμοίωσις θεῷ existed only κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν (Theaet. 176B) whereas Plotinus, when quoting that passage (Enn.,II,1), omitted the modification and allowed man to become god-like or even god without such restriction (cf. II,6). In that generalization, the Neo-Platonists certainly approximated Christian deification, a fact very strongly felt by Augustine. He fought the Platonici on the ground of their failure to make it clear that their immortals were, like good Christians, gods a summo Deo facti; for if the Platonists would only admit that their gods were not per se ipsos beati, there would be little difference between their teaching and that of the Christians who, in agreement with many passages of Holy Scripture, likewise called their exalted men dii (De civ., IX,23). Hence pagan and Christian deification, despite all obvious contrasts, did not appear totally incomparable, and the convergent trends might be exposed in a far more subtle and satisfactory fashion than by the essay of O. Faller, “Griechische Vergottung und christliche Vergöttlichung,” Gregorianum, VI, 1925. 426ff. For that purpose the most recent studies on Epicurus should be considered too, since they suggest a fellowship of the sage with the gods by some kind of homogeneity rather than as a result of supreme efforts. Further investigations in that direction might succeed in establishing a new link between pagan god-likeness and Christian deification by grace. See A. H. Armstrong, “The Gods in Plato, Plotinus, Epicurus,” Classical Quarterly, XXXII, 1938, 190–196; Norman W. De Witt, “The New Piety of Epicurus,” Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, 3rd Ser., XXXVIII, 1944, 79–88.