¹ Or. 35 K. Keil's numbering will be used here for the speeches that he edited (Aelii Aristidis … quae supersunt II [1898, repr. 1958]), James H. Oliver's for the Panegyricus (The Civilizing Power, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s. LVIII, I [1968]), and W. Dindorf's edition (3 vols., [1829, repr. 1964]) for the rest.

² Münscher, K., Jahresb. über die Fortschr. des klass. Altertumswiss. 149 (1910), 37.Google Scholar

³ Boulanger, A., Aelius Aristide et la sophistique dans la province d'Asie au II^e siècle de notre ère (1923), 382.Google Scholar

⁴ As by Ensslin, W., CAH XII (1939), 88–9Google Scholar; Fr. Oertel, ibid. 264; Rostovtzeff, M., SEHRE² (1957) I, 438Google Scholar; 451. ff.; 732, n. 15.

⁵ Aristidis orationum tomi tres nunc primum latine versi (1566).

⁶ Collectanea historica ad Aristidis vitam, accessible in Dindorf's edition, vol. III, pp. lviii–lxi.

⁷ Mémoire sur la chronologie de la vie du rhéteur Aelius Aristide, Mémoires de I'Institut impérial de France, Académie des inscriptions et belles lettres 26 (1867), 255; 259, n. 3 (53; 57. n. 3 of the separate publication).

⁸ Nachr. Ges. der Wiss. zu Gött., phil.-hist. Kl., 1905, 381–428 (henceforth referred to as ‘Keil’). I have not seen J. Turzewitsch's Russian study of 1907, in which he argued to the same conclusion as Keil: for a report, Wendland, P., Berl. Phil. Woch. 1907, 1449–50.Google Scholar

⁹ Mommsen apud Wilamowitz in Die Kultur der Gegenwart I, 8 (1905), 161–2 (‘eine Entdeckung des Th. Mommsen’). Still there in the second edition (1907), 163–4, it is silently dropped in the third (1912), 237, evidently as a result of Keil's paper.

¹⁰ Philologus 65 (1906), 344–56.

¹¹ Wiener Studien 40 (1918), 20–45 (henceforth referred to as ‘Groag’).

¹² Thus Swift, Louis J., GRBS 7 (1966), 267–89Google Scholar, especially 272 (‘the emperor must be Philip’); Behr, C. A., Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales (1968), 88, n. 92 (on p. 89).Google Scholar

¹³ Trattato di Storia romana II (1956), 406–7.

¹⁴ Social and Political Thought in Byzantium (1957), 220–5.

¹⁵ Note, however, the allusion to Plato, Rep. 374 E at 35. 3 (Keil, 390). Aristides cites the Republic more than any other work of Plato except the Gorgias (a special case because of the essays In defense of Rhetoric and In defense of the Four): Behr, op. cit. II, n. 28.

¹⁶ Keil 390–4.

¹⁷ Isocrates: e.g. Menander, περὶ ἐπιδεικτ. III, 372. 6 Sp. Xenophon: e.g. Theon, Progymnasm. II, 68, 27 Sp.

¹⁸ Note that Demosthenes is not on Theon's list of models for the encomium, II, 68, 24 ff. Sp. On the dangers of athetizing a work, Tacitus' Dialogus for instance, without regard for the genre in which it is written, cf. Norden, E., Die antike Kunstprosa² I (1915), 11–12.Google Scholar

¹⁹ For examples, see pp. 136–7. Note also Philostr., VS 584.

²⁰ Keil 395.

²¹ Thus ἡοἰκεία (13), νικᾷ ἐν (42), μόνου ἤδη (43), τοῦ ἑῴου (52).

²² Keil 395–7.

²³ cf. 35, 1, χρηστῇ καὶ φιλανθρώπῳ τύχῃ.

²⁴ Keil 397, claiming eighteen. Cf. Münscher op. cit. (n. 2), 37; Boulanger op. cit. (n. 3), 384.

²⁵ In ten of these, it is true (8; 11; 13 twice; 25; 26; 32; 33; 36; 37), Keil ends the previous clause with a colon or period, so that they might be argued not to have a subordinating function. But the distinction is merely editorial, since all of them could be punctuated so as to be part of the previous sentence; and in any case they should all be equally ‘beleidigend’.

²⁶ Keil 397–8. cf. Pan. 108 τὸ γὰρ…ἐξετάζοντι; 172, τὸ δὲ … θαυμάσαι; 211, ἢ πάντα … νομίσαντες (where the period usually placed after προσθήσεοθαι obscures the construction).

²⁷ cf. Isocr. Paneg. 4, 93–5; 104–5; 107–9

²⁸ Below, pp. 148–9.

²⁹ Pan. 172, cf. 108.

³⁰ Keil 398.

³¹ Keil 398.

³² For examples from Aristides, Boulanger 420–1.

³³ Keil 399–400.

³⁴ Keil himself correctly explained its use here: it echoes the preceding ὑπήκοον. For Keil this was ‘geschmackloses Wortspiel’: it is precisely the kind of pun illustrated above from the Panegyricus.

³⁵ Egle, Fr., Untersuchungen über die Echtheit der Rede Ἀπέλλᾳ γενεθλιακός (diss. Tübingen, 1906), 16–17.Google Scholar

³⁶ Thus Keil incriminates ὁλόκληρος in the phrase ἐντελῆ καὶ ὁλόκληρον 35, 21. But this collocation is a natural one: compare, in the preface of the τέχναι ῥῃτορικαί attributed to Aristides (II, 459. 8 Sp.; I, 8 Schmid), ὁλόκληρος καὶ τελείως ἔχων. Similarly, Keil holds that ὡς ἄν (35, 14) is used ‘als einfache Vergleichspartikel’: this happens to be an idiom of the Attic orators (Kühner-Gerth, I, 243–4), and its absence from other works of Aristides, even if proved, would be no argument against authenticity.

³⁷ Hall, F. W., A Companion to Classical Texts (1913), 182–3Google Scholar; 188–9. One of Aristides' manuscripts in fact reads νῶ.

³⁸ Keil 400–5.

³⁹ III, 372, 10 Sp.

⁴⁰ cf. Isocr. 4, 13–4.

⁴¹ Keil 425–6.

⁴² I have not used statistical tests based on speech-rhythm, sentence-length, particles, etc. Though the speech appears to accord with Aristides' practice, it is probably too short for such tests to be conclusive.

It may be noted in passing that Aristides' admirer Libanius perhaps shows knowledge of the εἰς βασιλέα: cf. his Laudatio Constantii et Constantis 121–2 (vol. IV, p. 268, 11–269, 5 F.) with Aristid. 35, 27–9; 23–4.

⁴³ Hadrian can safely be excluded. The παῖς of 35, 39 would have to be Aelius Caesar in his mid-thirties, and Aristides could not be older than 19 or 20.

⁴⁴ Keil 382–90.

⁴⁵ The translations are mine. I have rendered βασιλεύς by ‘emperor’ throughout, though Aristides uses it indifferently of Greek and Roman monarchs (e.g. in 35, 24).

⁴⁶ Keil 405.

⁴⁷ For the details, PIR² A 1513; cf. Birley, A. R., Marcus Aurelius (1966), 54–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁸ Cass. Dio LXIX, 20, 5; Pius apud Fronto, p. 160, lines 4–5 van den Hout, ‘diem, quo me suscipere hanc stationem placuit’.

⁴⁹ Cass. Dio, LXIX, 2, 5; HA Hadr. 7, 1–4; cf. A. von Premerstein, Das Attentat der Konsulare auf Hadrian im Jahre 118 n. Chr., Klio Beih. 8 (1908).

⁵⁰ Cass. Dio, LXX, 2.

⁵¹ Keil 383–4; Groag 27.

⁵² Cass. Dio, LXIX, 17, 1; HA Hadr. 15, 8; 23, 2–3; 23, 8 (PIR² I 631). The HA asserts that Hadrian killed ‘many others’ on the same occasion, Hadr. 23, 8, but cf. R. Syme, Historia 17 (1968), 97. Similarly, in the passage of Isocrates which Aristides is imitating, Evag. 9, 23–6, the reference is to the usurper Abdemon who assassinated the Phoenician ‘tyrant’ of Salamis and so prepared the way for his own overthrow by Evagoras.

⁵³ Keil 396.

⁵⁴ Cass. Dio, LXIX, 23, 3; LXX, 2; HA Hadr. 25, 8; Pius 2, 4; 6, 3.

⁵⁵ Cass. Dio, LXX, 2. Cf. Dodd, C. H., Num. Chron., 4th ser., II (1911), 6–41Google Scholar; Strack, P. L., Unters. zur röm. Reichspr. des zweiten Jahrh. II (1933), 191–2.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ HA Pius 7, 3–4. The second of these, Cornelius Priscianus, was condemned in 145, so probably after the delivery of the speech, cf. Pflaum, H.-G., Historia-Augusta Colloquium 1964/1965 (1966), 145.Google Scholar On the date of the speech, see below, p. 150.

⁵⁷ cf. above, on section 7.

⁵⁸ Thus Cass. Dio. LXIX 20, 4; Philostr., VS 534–5; HA Pius II, 8.

⁵⁹ M. Aurelius, Med. I, 16, 7.

⁶⁰ Syme, , Tacitus (1958), 251, n. 5.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Keil 385.

⁶² As Agricola was restrained by his mother from excessive study of philosophy, Tac., Agr. 4, 4.

⁶³ Cass. Dio, LXIX, 20, 4.

⁶⁴ Groag 22, silently correcting Keil's notion that the emperor had held only a minor position before his elevation (385).

⁶⁵ For the evidence, PIR² A 1513.

⁶⁶ Note especially OGIS 493; Dig. 48, 3, 6; Philostr., VS 534–5; 554–5; HA Pius 3, 2–5.

⁶⁷ Above, on section 8. Cf. below, p. 145.

⁶⁸ So Keil 385, Groag 21, correctly.

⁶⁹ HA Pius 9, 6, ‘Parthorum regem ab Armeniorum expugnatione solis litteris reppulit. Abgarum regem ex orientis partibus sola auctoritate deduxit’; coins of 140/144 showing REX ARMENIIS DATVS, Strack, , Unters. zur röm. Reichspr. des zw. Jahrh, III (1937), 66Google Scholar; 262 no. 851. Cf. Hüttl, W., Antoninus Pius I (1936), 232–237Google Scholar; Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor (1950), I, 659–60Google Scholar; Ziegler, K.-H., Die Beziehungen zwischen Rom und dem Partherreich (1964), 110–112Google Scholar; Stroheker, K. F., Banner Historia-Augusta Colloquium 1964/1965 (1966), 243–6.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ ILS 1076, showing legionary detachments sent to Syria under Pius for a bellum Parthicum. This was dated to the beginning of the reign by Schehl, Fr., Hermes 65 (1930), 177–93Google Scholar, cf. Groag, , RE XVI (1935), 2551–2.Google Scholar On Nero's settlement, Ziegler, op. cit. 67–78.

⁷¹ HA Pius 5, 5, ‘Alanos molientis saepe refrenavit’; cf. BGU VII, 1564, requisitions for troops in Cappadocia in September 138. This might refer either to the Alani or to the Parthians, cf. Schehl, art. cit. 192; Strack, op. cit., III (1937), 50; Nesselhauf, H., Athenaeum, n.s., 36 (1958), 224–6.Google Scholar

⁷² HA Pius 9, 6, cf. Cass. Dio, LXIX, 15, 3. See now Nesselhauf, art. cit., 219–28 = AE 1959, 38.

⁷³ Lazi: HA Pius 9, 6, cf. Hüttl, op. cit., I (1936), 320–1. Osrhoene: HA Pius 9, 6. If ‘Abgarum’ here is an error, however, as Ziegler suggests (op. cit. 112, n. III) the rex might be the same as the one ‘given’ to Armenia, which is mentioned in the previous sentence.

⁷⁴ Keil 385–6 thought of Crassus and the Seleucids: there is also C. Caesar, on whose Armenian campaign see now Zetzel, James E. G., GRBS XI (1970), 259–66.Google Scholar Aristides' phrase ‘despaired of themselves’ (αὑτοὺς ἀπεῖπον) fits well the accounts of Gaius' end (Vell. Pat. II, 102, 2–3, Cass. Dio, LV, 10, 8).

⁷⁵ Perhaps there is also a glance at Hadrian's Jewish War, personally conducted by the emperor from 134 to 135.

⁷⁶ HA Pius 5, 4; Paus. VIII, 43, 4. Cf. Hüttl, op. cit., I (1936), 254–63Google Scholar; Birley, E., Roman Britain and the Roman Army (1953), 31–47Google Scholar; Frere, S., Britannia (1967), 141–50Google Scholar; PIR² L 327.

⁷⁷ HA Pius 5, 4, cf. Hadr. 23, 13; Ael. 3, 2; ILS 1058; coins dated 140/144 showing REX QVADIS DATVS, Strack, op. cit., III (1937), 262, no. 852. Cf. Hüttl, op. cit., I (1936), 271–3; PIR² H 30; Mócsy, , RE Suppl. IX (1962), 554–5Google Scholar; Dobó, A., Die Verwaltung der römischen Provinz Pannonien von Augustus bis Diocletianus (1968), 107–8.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ HA Pius 5, 4–5. Cf. Hüttl, op. cit., I (1936), 277–87 (Dacia: but the tripartition of Dacia is now known to have occurred under Hadrian, Daicoviciu, C. and Protase, D., JRS LI, 1961, 67–9)Google Scholar; 290–5 (Egypt: on the date, see below); 301–15 (Mauretania); 315–20 (Judaea); 320 (Achaea). For early trouble in Dacia and Mauretania, Aristides, 26, 70. Aristides' reference there to war ‘on the Red Sea’ is generally taken to refer to the rebellion in Egypt (on the chronological difficulties, Reinmuth, O. W., BASP 4, 1967, 97)Google Scholar; it might, however, refer to the province of Arabia.

⁷⁹ Strack, op. cit., III (1937), 53–9.

⁸⁰ Fronto, p. 40, lines 25 ff. van den Hout; on the date, Mommsen, , Ges. Schr. IV (1906), 481.Google Scholar Compare the picture of the empire as a walled enclosure that begins to appear in writers of this period, Aristides 26, 82–4; Appian, praef. 28.

⁸¹ Paneg. Lat. 8 (4), 14, 2. This fragment (not in van den Hout) is probably from the gratiarum actio of 143, cf. Rohden, v., RE II (1896), 2502.Google Scholar

⁸² PIR² A 1513, p. 311 (‘inde ab initio fere imperii’), Strack, op. cit. II (1933), 190–2, III (1937), 2–3, 25, n. 44.

⁸³ References in Hüttl, op. cit., I (1936), 340; cf. Rostovtzeff, , SEHRE ² (1957) I, 371.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ HA Pius 4, 10; cf. Strack, op. cit. III (1937), 39–43.

⁸⁵ On Hadrian's finances, cf. Cass. Dio, LXIX, 5, 1; HA Hadr. 6, 5; Rostovtzeff, op. cit. I, 362–71; and below, p. 152.

⁸⁶ 26, 107. On Hadrian and the law, B. d'Orgeval, L'Empereur Hadrien: œuvre législative et administrative (1950); d'Ors, A., in Les empereurs romains d'Espagne (1965), 147–58.Google Scholar Cf. also below, pp. 146.

⁸⁷ Pekáry, Th., Syria 38 (1961), 275–83Google Scholar; Parsons, P. J., JRS 57 (1967), 134–41.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ HA Pius 12, I, ‘multa de iure sanxit’. The references in the Digest and elsewhere are collected by Hänel, D. G., Corpus Legum (1851), 101–14Google Scholar; Gualandi, G., Legislazione imperiale e Giurisprudenza I (1963) 58–102.Google Scholar Cf. Hüttl, , Antoninus Pius I (1936), 70–129.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ 26, 38; 107 (where Keil adduces this passage).

⁹⁰ Swift, Louis J., GRBS 7 (1966), 286.Google Scholar

⁹¹ 35, 35.

⁹² Luc., Nigr. 21.

⁹³ Preisigke, Wörterbuch s.v.

⁹⁴ Thus Keil 382: ‘das (the identification with Pius) widerlegt einfache Lektüre. So würde Hadrian als Vorgänger des Pius zu einem der Herrscher, welche griechische Bildung verachtet und unterdrückt haben’.

⁹⁵ Note Marcus' tribute to Pius, Med. I, 16, 5: ‘his tendency to honour true lovers of wisdom, but not to reproach the other kind nor yet to be easily led by them’.

⁹⁶ Cass. Dio, LXIX, 8, 3, ὁ Εὐφράτης ὁ φιλόσοφος ἀπέθανεν ἐθελόντης, ἐπιτρέψαντος αὐτῷ καὶ τοῦ Άδριανοῦ κώνειον καὶ διὰ τὸ γῆρας καὶ διὰ τιὰ τὴν νόσον πιεῑν. It is generally assumed (though not by Sherwin-White, A. N., The Letters of Pliny [1966], 108Google Scholar) that Euphrates' suicide was voluntary, but Dio's language makes clear that he was merely allowed the arbitrium mortis: cf., of another of Hadrian's victims, HA Hadr. 15, 4, ‘ad voluntariam mortem coegit’. On Euphrates, see Pliny, Epp. I, 10 with Sherwin-White's commentary; PIR² E 121. Some connection with the supposed conspirators of 118 may be suspected, perhaps with the philosophic Avidius Nigrinus (PIR² A 1408; Jones, C. P., Plutarch and Rome [1971], 53–4Google Scholar).

⁹⁷ Cass. Dio, LXIX, 4, I (PIR² A 922).

⁹⁸ Cass. Dio, LXIX, 3, 4; 6; HA Hadr. 15, 12–13; 16, 10 (PIR² F 123; Bowersock, G. W., Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire [1969], 51–2Google Scholar).

⁹⁹ Cass. Dio, LXIX, 3, 4, καταλύειν ἐπεχείρει (PIR² D 105; Bowersock, op. cit. 52; for a new inscription, Anz. Akad. Wien 106 [1969], 136–7).

¹⁰⁰ HA Hadr. 15, 3, ‘Eudaemonem prius conscium imperii ad egestatem perduxit’; ILS 1449. Pflaum, , Les Carrières procuratoriennes équestres I (1960), 264–71, no. 110Google Scholar; Bowersock, op. cit. 50–3.

¹⁰¹ Cass. Dio, LXIX, 3, 5; HA Hadr. 15, 5; 16, 10. PIR² A 1405; Pflaum, op. cit., I (1960), 251–3, no. 106; Bowersock, op. cit. 50–3. Pflaum, 253, distinguished the ab epistulis from the discarded friend, but see Bowersock 51.

¹⁰² Reinmuth, , BASP 4 (1967), 95Google Scholar; Coles, R., Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Papyrology (1970), 85–7Google Scholar, a new edict of Heliodorus, perhaps showing that he became prefect between 28 August and 7 September, 137.

¹⁰³ Reinmuth, op. cit. 96.

¹⁰⁴ A. Gellius, II, 26. However, the date of 143 assumed for this anecdote in PIR² F 123, e.g., is not assured.

¹⁰⁵ Heliodorus: Behr, , Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales (1968), 16; 82.Google Scholar Alexander as imperial tutor: Aristides, 32, 14; HA Marcus 2, 3 (PIR² A 502). Herodes: HA Marcus 2, 4; Verus 2, 5 (PIR² C 802).

¹⁰⁶ See below, p. 151.

¹⁰⁷ Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor (1950), I, 630–3.Google Scholar The ‘Italian’ aspects of Pius' rule do not show that he ‘did not share the philhellenic and cosmopolitan tastes of his predecessor Hadrian’ (Toynbee, J. M. C., CR 39 [1925], 170Google Scholar). Cf. Beaujeu, J., La réligion romaine a l'apogée de l'empire I (1955), 298–311Google Scholar: ‘Antonin philhellène’.

¹⁰⁸ Paus. VIII, 43, 4–6; HA Pius II, 3. Cf. Philostr., VS 534, and also CIG 2811 b, lines 8–11 = Lebas-Waddington, 1620 a, lines 7–9.

¹⁰⁹ Dig. 27, 1, 6, 2; 7, cf. HA Pius 7, 7–8. See Bowersock, G. W., Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (1969), 33–4Google Scholar; 40. Similarly Groag 36, n. 3, correctly argued that Philip's denial of immunity to poets, Cod. Just. 10, 53, 3, does not disqualify him as the emperor here.

¹¹⁰ Thus cf. Julian, Caes. 311 D–312 A; Suda, A 527; 2762, with Aur. Vict. 14–15; Eutr. 8. 6–8; Epit. de Caes. 14–15. Cf. now Stroheker, K. F., Bonner Historia-Augusta Colloquium 1964/1965 (1966), 247–53.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ On his origin see (most recently) Bowersock, , Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (1969), 7–8Google Scholar; Nutton, V., Latomus 29 (1970), 719–28Google Scholar; Syme, , Emperors and Biography (1971), 167–8Google Scholar; on his philhellenism, Robert, L., CRAI 1970, 14–6.Google Scholar

¹¹² For this suggestion, Groag 35–6. Maximinus apparently gave ornamenta consularia to Apsines of Gadara (Suda, A 4735; on the reading, PIR² A 978). See now R. Syme, op. cit. 179–93.

¹¹³ Cass. Dio, LXIX, 5, 1; HA Hadr. II, 4–6, cf. Syll³. 830.

¹¹⁴ HA Pius 7, 2.

¹¹⁵ Paus. VIII, 43, 5–6.

¹¹⁶ HA Pius 6, 4; 6, 12; 7, 6; 7, 10; 11, 1. Cf. M. Aurelius, Med. I, 16 passim; VI, 30, 2–4.

¹¹⁷ Menander III, 375. 8–18 Sp.

¹¹⁸ HA Pius II, 1.

¹¹⁹ M. Aurelius, Med. I, 16, 9.

¹²⁰ Cass. Dio, LXVIII, 7, 4; Julian, Caes. 311 C; 318 C-D; 327 B-C; 333 A; HA Hadr. 2, 7; 3, 3; 4, 5; 14, 5–7; 23, 10. Similarly, in the Roman Oration the mockery of the Persian King always travelling around his empire may glance at Hadrian, 26, 18.

¹²¹ That is, διδομένων stands for the finite ἐδίδοτο; cf. ὄντος, 20; περιόντων καὶ ὠτακουστούντων, 21 (Kühner-Gerth, 1, 200, Anm. 9). Swift, Louis J., GRBS 7 (1966), 279Google Scholar, translates, ‘even when he provided them with a great many—or rather, limitless—donatives’, and adduces coins of Philip with the legend LIBERALITAS.

¹²² As Groag 22.

¹²³ HA Hadr. 5, 7 (donative); Fronto, p. 195 lines 8–12 van den Hout (familiarity).

¹²⁴ HA Pius 8, 1 (donative); Cass. Dio, LXX, 1, 3 (fear). On Pius' liberalitates, Barbieri, G. in Ruggiero, De, Dizionario epigrafico 4 (1957), 845–50.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ M. Aurelius, Med. 1, 16, 7.

¹²⁶ Note the coins of 140/144 proclaiming DISCIPLINA: Strack, , Unters. zur röm. Reichspr. des zw. Jahrh. III (1937), 56Google Scholar; 260, no. 828

¹²⁷ Thus Keil 386, Groag 32–3.

¹²⁸ HA Pius 5, 4; 7, 11; 9, 6; cf. Schehl, , Hermes 65 (1930), 193–208Google Scholar.

¹²⁹ Appian, praef. 26; 43. On Appian's date, Schwartz, E., RE II (1895), 216.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Above, p. 137.

¹³¹ Keil, app. crit. ad loc., and also 405; so also Groag 21; 34.

¹³² Keil adds 〈ἡ〉 before θάλαττα, unnecessarily. Cf. also Pan. II, ὥστε ἔοικεν, κτλ.

¹³³ Keil, app. crit. ad loc.; in his article 413, he thought of Britons.

¹³⁴ Above, p. 143.

¹³⁵ Above, p. 143. That is, Aristides uses Κελτοί in preference to the unclassical Βρεταννοί, as he uses Γέται of the Dacians, 26, 70. For Κελτοί cf. also 22, 8.

¹³⁶ Paus. VIII, 43, 4, of Pius, ἀπετέμετο δὲ καὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Βριταννίᾳ Βριγάντων τὴν πολλήν, ὅτι ἐπεσβαίνειν καὶ οὗτοι σὺν ὅπλοις ἧρξαν ἐς τὴν Γεουνίαν μοῖραν ὑπηκόους ΄Ρωμαίων. It has been argued, however, that this refers to the campaign of Julius Verus about 158 (PIR² 1 618): see the works cited above, p. 143, n. 76.

¹³⁷ Thus Keil 386; 405.

¹³⁸ Above, pp. 142–3.

¹³⁹ Strack, op. cit. III (1937), 58–9. Cf. HA Pius 9, 10; 13, 4.

¹⁴⁰ 26, 99–100 (peace); 82–4 (wall, cf. p. 143, n. 80 above). On the date of 26, below, p. 150 and n. 159.

¹⁴¹ HA Marcus 27, 1. Thus Schmid, W., Rhein. Mus. 48 (1893), 83Google Scholar; Rohden, von, RE I (1894), 2301Google Scholar; against, Keil 382; cf. 426, n. 3, calling the theory of a connection with the Eleusinia ‘bare Willkür’.

¹⁴² Groag 43. Cf. Philostr., VS 628; Syll. ³ 845; see now Millar, F., JRS 59 (1969), 16–17.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Initiate: Behr, , Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales (1968), 110.Google Scholar Threnody: Or. 22 K., cf. now Jones, C. P., GRBS 12 (1971), 45–8.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ O. Hirschfeld apud Keil 418; Groag 22.

¹⁴⁵ Thus for Nero, cf. ILS 8794 = Syll. ³ 814, lines 25–6; for Commodus, ILS 397.

¹⁴⁶ Note Aristides 26, 107, of Pius: ‘the present ruler, like a spotless competitor, so far exceeds his predecessors as, so one might say, he exceeds all others’ (the text is corrupt, but the general sense seems clear). Cf. ILS 8794 = Syll.³ 814, lines 45–6 (Nero); ILS 374 (M. Aurelius).

¹⁴⁷ cf. above, pp. 138–9, 141.

¹⁴⁸ Thus Hirschfeld apud Keil 406; 418. On γενναιότατος, Bureth, P., Les titulatures impériales dans les papyrus (1964), 114Google Scholar; 127; cf. Gelzer, M., Kleine Schriften I (1962), 150Google Scholar ( = The Roman Nobility tr. R. Seager, 1969, 157).

¹⁴⁹ On Marcus' ancestry, Syme, , JRS 43 (1953), 155–6Google Scholar; Tacitus (1958), 605; 791–5; Pflaum, , Historia-Augusta Colloquium 1963 (1964), 107.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ HA Verus 3, 4, ‘diu autem et privatus fuit et ea honorificentia caruit, qua Marcus ornabatur’; cf. Barnes, T. D., JRS 57 (1967), 68.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ HA Verus 3, 1. On the date, Barbieri, G. in Ruggiero, De, Diz. Epigr. IV (1957), 846.Google Scholar

¹⁵² References in PIR² A 697.

¹⁵³ Keil 384–5, 405 (but ‘niedriges Herkunft’, 408).

¹⁵⁴ Keil, , Nachr. königl, Ges. der Wiss. zu Göttingen 1913, 4Google Scholar, n. 3 (on p. 6).

¹⁵⁵ Groag 39–40, though he cites this as an argument against von Domaszewski's proposal of Gallienus, 27. On Otacilia Severa, Stein, , RE XIV (1930), 1607–8Google Scholar; Mattingly, H. and Sydenham, E. A., Roman Imperial Coinage IV, 3 (1949), 54–65Google Scholar; note especially the coins of Philip II with the legend DE PIA MATRE PIVS FILIVS, ibid. 72, no. 30.

¹⁵⁶ HA Pius 6, 7 (PIR² A 715, G 34).

¹⁵⁷ Note especially sections 38–9.

¹⁵⁸ παῑ, 39; so also Keil 406. In the sense of ‘son’, παῑς is used of Marcus as late as 153: 50, 75.

¹⁵⁹ On this visit, see now Behr, , Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales (1968), 23–4.Google Scholar Aristides started out for Rome in winter (48, 60; 50, 2); the journey took three months (48, 62), and he remained there until about September (48, 67; cf. also 50, 31 referring to the ludi Apollinares in July). This visit took place ‘in the tenth year’, so nine years reckoned inclusively, before the Asian proconsulate of ‘Severus’ (50, 12); under the same proconsul, Aristides delivered his speech To Athena when he was 35 years, I month old (subscription to Or. 37 K.). Since he was born in late 117 or early 118 (Behr, op. cit. 1–3, n. 1; AJP 90 [1969], 75–7), he should have reached that age in the proconsular year 152/3, and that fits the evidence for the proconsulate of C. Julius Severus, who appears to be the Severus in question and was consul ca. 138 (Syme, , JRS 43 [1953], 159Google Scholar; REA 61 [1959], 311; PIR² I 573 suggests 139 for the consulate, 151/2 for the proconsulate, but this is implausible, cf. Syme, , JRS 43 [1953], 153).Google Scholar Hence the visit to Rome should have occurred in spring and summer, 144.

Behr, op. cit. 88–9, n. 92, arguing that Aristides was too ill for public speaking on that visit, has recently tried to revive the theory that the Roman Oration was delivered in the mid-150's, cf. Schmid, , RE II, (1895), 887Google Scholar; against, Bowersock, , Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (1969), 45 and n. 4 there.Google Scholar Although Aristides is eloquent on the subject of his illness of 144 (48, 62–4), there is no sign that he was incapacitated throughout his stay. Elsewhere he artlessly claims that he launched his poetic career on the same visit by composing a paean to Apollo (50, 31).

¹⁶⁰ Cf. above pp. 138–9 on 35, 17–18; 36, 19; 35, 23; 35, 36–7.

¹⁶¹ See especially Robert, L., Études épigraphiques et philologiques (1938), 21–30.Google Scholar

¹⁶² Sebasta: Geer, R. M., TAPA 66 (1935), 208–21Google Scholar; Wilcken, Chrestomathie no. 156. Capitolia: Wissowa, G. in Friedländer, , Sittengesch.^9–10 (1921), 276–80.Google Scholar

¹⁶³ Robert, L., CRAI 1970, 10Google Scholar, dates the foundation to 138; Moretti, L., Iscrizioni agonistiche greche (1953), 215, is agnostic.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ Note Aristides' dream, 47, 23; and compare his tribute to Alexander, 32, 15. Pius' proconsulate could also have brought him into contact with Aristides' family and friends.

¹⁶⁵ 35, 20. Cf. above, p. 145.

¹⁶⁶ 50, 63–93, especially 75; cf. Bowersock, op. cit. 36–40.

¹⁶⁷ Philostr., VS 582–3; cf. Bowersock, op. cit. 45–6; 49–50.

¹⁶⁸ Or. 19 K. (letter), 20 (‘palinode’), 21 (letter of thanks to Commodus).

¹⁶⁹ Philostr., VS 582.

¹⁷⁰ See now Syme, , Emperors and Biography (1971), 36–41.Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ Hoey, A. S., Yale Classical Studies 7 (1940), 181–7Google Scholar; Gilliam, J. F., Harvard Theological Review 47 (1954), 195–6Google Scholar; idem in Hommages à Marcel Renard, Coll. Lat. 102 (1969), 288–9.

¹⁷² Julian, Caes. 311 D.

¹⁷³ There may be a parallel in Fronto. Note Fronto's apparent discomfort over his speeches in praise of Hadrian still circulating under Pius (24, 13 ff. van den Hout), and his comparison of Hadrian's aloofness with Pius' affability (24, 17–23 van den Hout). The anonymous emperor criticized in Fronto's gratiarum actio to Pius for creating patricians from unworthy families (17, 11–13 van den Hout) could be Hadrian.

In the Cyzicene oration 27, 22, Aristides alludes to Hadrian as ‘the best of emperors up to that time’ (see Keil's apparatus and Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor [1950] II, 1472–3Google Scholar). However, that is no argument against the present interpretation of Or. 35, since Aristides obviously would not have spoken unfavourably of Hadrian when celebrating the rededication of a temple to him. Moreover, in a context that includes lavish panegyric of Marcus and Lucius, this anonymous and perfunctory reference amounts to faint praise.

¹⁷⁴ Above, p. 141, n. 60, p. 145, n. 95.

¹⁷⁵ Jewish War: see especially Strack, , Unters. zur röm. Reichspr. des zweiten Jahrh. II (1933), 132–9Google Scholar, showing that Hadrian was in the East from mid-134 to early 136. Pannonian War: Mócsy, A.RE Suppl. IX (1962), 554–5Google Scholar; Dobó, A., Die Verwaltung der römischen Provinz Pannonien von Augustus bis Diocletianus (1968), 51–52.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁶ Note the series of inscriptions showing benefactions of Hadrian completed by Pius: ILS 334 (Ostia); 336 (Puteoli); 337 (Athens); Moretti, Inscr. graecae urbis Romae nos. 235–6 = IGR IV, 149, 146 (the association of περιοδονίκαι at Rome); also perhaps ILS 338 = IGR IV, 1397 (Smyrna: cf. Cadoux, C. J., Ancient Smyrna 1938, 262–263Google Scholar); Philostr., VS 549 (Alexandria Troas).

¹⁷⁷ On these, see p. 145 above.