¹ e.g. in this Journal xxv (1935), 83 ff. My thanks are due to the Rev. M. P. Charlesworth and to Professors F. E. Adcock, A. R. Bellinger, C. Bonner, A. Cameron, W. S. Ferguson, G. M. A. Hanfmann, and F. R. Walton for friendly aid.

² Mattingly, H., BMC Rom. Emp. IV, CLXXVI, 816Google Scholar.

³ Pink, K., Num. Z. LXIV (1931), 26Google Scholar. For the other coin evidence, cf. Mattingly-Sydenham, Roman Imperial Coinage; J. M. C. Toynbee, Roman Medallions; J. Maurice, Numismatique Constantinienne; H. Usener, Weihnachtsfest (ed. 2), 357, 363; Kubitschek, W., Num. Z. XLVIII (1915), 172 ff.Google Scholar (expressing reservation as to Sarapis medallion of Gallienus); A. Alföldi's papers, e.g. JRS XXII (1932), and in Pisciculi F. J. Dolger dargeboten (1939), Ant. u. Christ. Beih. I; O. Seeck in P-W IV, 629; Grossi-Gondi, F., Diz. Epigr. II, 468Google Scholar; Schoenebeck, H. V., Klio, Beih. xliii (1939)Google Scholar.

⁴ CIL VI, 305; JRS XIII (1923), 98.

⁵ CIL X, 5331.

⁶ CIL VIII, 18230, reading with Costa, Diz. Epigr. II, 1854, n for m.

⁷ CIL VIII, 18240; ILS 3811.

⁸ CIL VI, 31403–4.

⁹ cf. Kubitschek, l.c., 170 ff. on ‘deo et dominonato’, as used of Aurelian.

¹⁰ So Seeck, l.c.; Weber, W., Arch. f. Rel. XIX (1919), 324Google Scholar; A. Alföldi, A Festival of Isis in Rome 17; Ensslin, W., CAH XII, 357 ff.Google Scholar On 360 f. E. brings out the other aspect of imperial authority here stressed. The question as a whole is one of nuances rather than of alternatives.

¹¹ e.g. Apul. Met. X, 31, 3, of Dioscuri in relation to Juno; CIL VII, 924 (as restored by Rostovtzeff, , JRS XIII, 1923, 97 f.Google Scholar). So Calpurnius Siculus IV, 87, ‘facundo comitatus Apolline Caesar’, to which Professor P. W. Harsh drew my attention.

¹² Observed by Seeck.

¹³ Dittenberger, , OGI 331, 51 ff.Google Scholar; C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period 267 ff., no. 67 (I borrow his translation). So in 332/1 B.C. the Athenians voted to Amphiaraus a golden crown in recognition of his excellent care for their fellow citizens. (IG VII, 4252; J. Ziehen, Leges graecorum sacrae, 97, no. 31). The inscription is of the regular honorific type. As Ziehen remarks, the proposer Phanodemus received on the same day a crown of equal value (SIG ³ 287). There is no question of secularism; Lycurgus was one of the epimeletai of the festival of Amphiaraus in 329 (IG VII, 4254). It is one more illustration of the universal significance of the idea of honour, τιμή, in Greek religion and life.

¹⁴ cf. Gnecchi, , Medaglioni II, 54Google Scholar: HERC. ROM. CONDITORI; Aymard, A., Rev. ét. lat. XIV (1936)Google Scholar; cf. the honours paid to the sober Hadrian at Antinoopolis (Bell, H. I., JRS XXX, 1940, 140 f.Google Scholar).

¹⁵ Remarked by Minucius Felix, 29, 5.

¹⁶ Pink, l.c. 21. Does COMITES AVG in Mattingly-Sydenham V, II, 527, refer to the wife and son of Carausius ?

¹⁷ For comes, cf. Virg. Aen. VI, 292, ‘docta comes’ (of the Sibyl); CIL VIII, 9831, ‘Dianae deae nemorum comiti’ (in a dedication which has a suggestion of poetic language. The verbal quality of comes appears as in Lucr. v, 741); Claud. Cons. Stil. I, 80Google Scholar, ‘comitata parentibus.’ cf. Apollo as ỏπαδός of the Muses in Horn. H. Herm. 450; Artemis in Soph. OC, 1092, as ỏπαδỏν ὠκυπόδων ἐλάφων (as in the inscription about Diana; cf. Liddell-Scott-Jones, 1238); Athena Ergane as πάρεδρος in relation to the arts in Plut. Fort. 4, p. 99 B; Bacchus as ὁμόστολος of Maenads in Soph. OT, 212; and for ἀκόλουθος, Zosim. I, 2, p. I, 17, θεοῦ βούλησιν τοῖς ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν μετὰ τὸ δίκαιον ἀκόλουθον οὖσαν.

¹⁸ To be emphasized in view of Alföldi's observation (Röm. Mitt. XLIX, 1934, 44), that in certain scenes emperors are seated and gods (even Juppiter) stand; so it is with Juppiter and Diocletian on the Arch of Salonica (K. F. Kinch, L'arc de Salonique 26). G. Rodenwaldt has remarked (Abh. Berlin 1935, III, 17). that the emperor sits in the exercise of the virtue of iustitia.

¹⁹ Edict of Milan (Lactant. Mort. Pers. 48).

²⁰ Note A. Wifstrand's remarks, Bull. Soc. Roy. Lund., 1941–2, 412, on Cels. ap. Orig. C. Cels. I, 24, καὶ πλεῖον οὐδὲν ἔγνωσαν: ‘Dieses πλεῖον, das sie hätten lernen sollen, war gewiss die Existenz der vielen Götter und ihr Verhältniss zu der einen grossen Gottheit’; also Festugière, Rev. ét. gr. LVII, 255 f.Google Scholar; Orig., Mart. 46, P. 42Google Scholar K.; Macrob., Sat. I, 17, 4 ff.Google Scholar on ‘quo numine laeso’ (admitting the unity of divine power, it had ‘diversae virtutes’). Again Constantine on his Arch has Sol, and Licinius has Juppiter (H. P. L'Orange, Der spätantike Bilderschmuck des Konstantinsbogens, 141; ib. 142 on coins); there can have been no risk of Constantine being thought to have a minor patron. ‘Divomque numen multiplex’ (Carm lat. epigr., III, 15) is the crucial phrase; the multiplicity was genuine (cf. Plotin. II, 9, 9, 1. 37 ff., Bréhier), as well as the ultimate unity, when that unity was asserted in the name of philosophy (e.g. Sen., Ben. IV, 7 f.Google Scholar), or of the oneness of Isis; contrast this with the oneness of Jahve (Mal. I, II; Acts 17, 23).

²¹ BMC Rom. Emp. IV, 746. Commodus appears with Hercules in a Janiform type (Gnecchi II, 66, no. 131; BMC IV, CLXXXI), which does not involve more than the idea of correspondence of emperor and god discussed later. He did, indeed, shock feelings (cf. Weinreich, O., Arch. f. Rel XVIII (1915), 14Google Scholar). Yet there is no record of his having gone to the Jengths of Caligula's appearance between the statues of the Dioscuri (Suet. Cal. 22, 2), and even in 191 Juppiter, whom he had magnified as Exsuperator, is ‘sponsor securitatis Augusti, defensor salutis Augusti’ (BMC IV, CLXIX).

²² cf. Nock, , J. Bibl. Lit. LX (1941), 94Google Scholar, on the axiomatic validity ascribed to religious sanctions.

²³ To appear in Harv. Theol. Rev. XLI (1948).

²⁴ Toynbee, , Medallions 162, 208Google Scholar. Incidentally, to put the claims of emperors into perspective, note that the deep theism of Apollonius of Tyana seemed compatible with the contention that sages in general and he in particular could properly be called gods; Epist. 44 might be genuine, cf. also Corp. Herm. x, 24 (man in a way superior to the socalled gods in heaven); IV, 5 (on some men); XII, I (Heraclitean remark, cf. x, 25, ascribed to Agathos Daimon); P. Vallette, L'Apologie d'Apulée 285, ‘ni entre les démons et Dieu, ni entre l'homme et les démons, il n'y a de différence essentielle’; Galen, , Protr. IX, 21–2Google Scholar, I, p. 117, 14 ff., Marquardt; Porphyr. Marc. 15–16. When Philostratus makes Apollonius say of Heracles (VIII, 7), ‘I chose him as a fellow-worker,’ his language goes far beyond the use of comes.

²⁵ Not only when jugate with the emperor (n. 54 below), or when Sol faces Carus (Toynbee, 158); but also above all under Aurelian with SOL DOMINVS IMPERI ROMANI, Aurelian being relegated to the reverse (Mattingly-Sydenham V, I, 301).

²⁶ Numismatique II, XVIII (I doubt his interpretation of Pan. lat. v, 14, 4, p. 200; ‘cum tu numinum nostrorum conservator adveneris et ille quasi maiestatis tuae comes et socius …’ ‘Ille,’ might, as Maurice suggests, be the sun, particularly if it is deictic, and the orator is thought to be pointing skywards. Yet the reference is probably to some human associate; so Baehrens, Diss. Groning. 1910, 56).

²⁷ Grabar, A., L'empereur dans l'art byzantin II, 152 f.Google Scholar; cf. a bronze disc showing the radiate Caracalla in full face (Brendel, O., Antike XII, 1936, 275Google Scholar, fig. 2).

²⁸ ‘Virtues of a Roman Emperor’ (Proc. Brit. Acad. XXIII, 1937), 22Google Scholar. cf. καθωσιωμένος in Herodian VII, 6, 4 and 9, 3.

²⁹ cf. Plin, Pan. 80, 4Google Scholar; A. V. Harnack, Sitzungsber. Berlin, 1927, 436 ff.; Alföldi, , Röm. Mitt. LII (1937), 58Google Scholar; Toynbee, Num. Chr., 1936, 328 f., on Juppiter handing thunderbolt to Trajan, interpreted by Hamberg, P. G., Studies in Roman Imperial Art (Copenhagen, 1945), 67Google Scholar, as a weapon given to the emperor for his campaign; Joh. A. Straub, Vom Herrscherideal in der Spätantike 76 ff.; Charlesworth, , Harv. Theol. Rev. XXIX (1936), 118Google Scholar, etc.

³⁰ Maurice I, 23 f., II, CXVIII, 122, etc. cf. the sun with AETERNIT(as) IMPERI (L'Orange, Konstantinsbogen 177); also TVTELA on coins of the Gallic emperors.

³¹ Mattingly-Sydenham V, II, passim.

³² cf. Pan. lat. XI, 6, p. 279; IV, 16, 2, p. 169, ‘mereatur’; IV, 18, 4, p. 171, ‘subnixum deo’; SHA Aurel. 19, 4; L'Orange, op. cit., 173, 176 (in spite of p. 156, ‘diese Glücksmächte … ist es die Gottesmacht des Kaisers selbst, die in sie ausstrahlt und sich durch sie über die beglückte Welt ergiesst’); Charlesworth, , JRS XXXIII (1943), 1 ff.Google Scholar

For the fluidity of thought and expression, cf. BMC IV, CLXVII, GEN AVG FELIC(iter). The Genius of the emperor is a supernatural entity; yet you wish luck to the Genius, as being a channel of blessings to the emperor. Eitrem, S., Symb. Oslo. XXII, 1942, 62Google Scholar, regards the wide-open eyes of Constantine as superhuman; yes, but as the eyes of the man who could pierce the veil.

³³ For the disappearance of cult, cf. Charlesworth, , JRS XXVII (1937), 58 ff.Google Scholar; for bad emperors, SHA, Elagab. 34, 4 f.Google Scholar, Aurel. 42, 3 ff.

³⁴ So Usener, Dölger, etc., and already W. Froehner, Les médaillons de l'empire romain 226 f.

³⁵ cf. Sen. HF 900, ‘laborum socia et adiutrix’; Val. Flacc. III, 489, ‘Pallada consortem curis cursusque regentem.’

³⁶ cf. Richmond, I. A., Arch. Ael.⁴ XXI (1943), 171Google Scholar, pl. x, A 2, for a representation at Corbridge of Athena (small, presumably for reasons of perspective) helping Hercules. For the relationship in general, cf. L. R. Farnell, Greek Hero Cults 304, 308, on Athena Aiantis, and Apollo Sarpedonios. cf. [Plat.] Min. and Plut., Max. c. princ. I, p. 776 E, on Minos as pupil of Zeus.

³⁷ cf. Cleomed. De motu II, I, p. 168, 6. Against exaggerations, cf. Rose, H. J., Harv. Theol. Rev. XXXI (1938), 113 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁸ Pan. lat. IX, 10, 2, p. 254.

³⁹ In spite of some identifications or assimilations which disregard a difference of sex (Suet. Vit. 15, 4Google Scholar; Nock, , JHS XLVIII (1928), 32Google Scholar, n. 55; Alföldi, , Z. Num. XXXVIII (1928)Google Scholar; Eitrem, , Symb. Oslo. X, 1932, 39 ff.Google Scholar), or of order of being (Nock, , Harv. Theol. Rev. XXVII, 1934, 98Google Scholar).

⁴⁰ BMC II, XCV, 404.

⁴¹ Van Buren, AJA 1940, 377 f., fig. 2; Hamberg, Studies 50 ff. Monument and literature alike I know thanks to Prof. Hanfmann, who refers also to Petron. 29 (‘Minerva leads Trimalchio into Rome’; ‘als die Verleiherin der Fähigkeiten denen er sein Fortkommen verdankt,’ remarks Friedlaender, ad. loc., p. 216). See also JRS XXXVI (1946), 179 ff.

⁴² cf. K. Scott, The Imperial Cult under the Flavians 166 ff.; note ib. 178, Hercules and Domitian holding small statuettes of Minerva, i.e. with the thought discussed under (v), 186, on possible association of Germanicus and Fortuna Primigenia.

⁴³ The relevance of Homeric analogy is illustrated by Themist. XI, p. 147 f., Hardouin; Th. cites Il. X, 279 f., 291, as setting forth the lesson of Prov. 21, 1, ‘The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord,’ quoted as Assyrian since that was an epithet more fitted to a cultural context.

For deities visiting men incognito, cf. Fontenrose, J. E., Univ. Cal. Publ. Cl. Phil. XIII, IV (1945), 93 ff.Google Scholar; ib. 105, he speaks of Acts 14, 11–13. (Certainly relevant; but hardly, as he urges, local folklore about divine visitants. Rather, a transformation of a story familiar in literature, to represent the Lycaonians as in effect saying ‘We are not going to make the traditional mistake’).

⁴⁴ Max. Tyr. IV, 8, p. 49, 18, Hobein; cf. Plut., Pericl. 13, 12. cf. Beazley, J. D. Potter and Painter in Ancient Athens (Brit. Acad. Proc. XXX), 8 f.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Longinianus in Augustine, Ep. 234, 2; cf. Max. Tyr. VIII, 7, p. 94, 13; Julian, p. 233 D (personal), 275 B; and for an earlier time, when the gods were thought to give an added impetus to men for weal or woe, cf. Ed. Fraenkel, , ‘Aeschylus, New Texts and Old Problems’ (Brit. Acad. Proc. XXVIII (1942), 22Google Scholar, and Rose, , Harv. Theol. Rev. XXXIX (1946), 12Google Scholar). Such ideas are relevant to our understanding of what a Gentile might have made of Romans, 8, 28 (the pendant of I Cor. 3, 9).

⁴⁶ cf. Nock, , Harv. Theol. Rev. XXXVII (1944), 150Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ To Zeus 26 (1, 10, Dindorf; II, 346, Keil); cf. J. Amann, Zeusrede des Ailios Aristeides 95.

⁴⁸ Heroicus, passim; cf. Eitrem, , Symb. Oslo. VIII (1929)Google Scholar; Bonner, , Harv. Theol. Rev. XXX (1937), 132 ff.Google Scholar We may perhaps compare CIL in, 897, ‘Marti amico et consentienti,’ 898, ‘Mercurio consentienti’ (for amico, cf. n. 76); also the special Semitic linkings of man and god discussed by A. Alt, Gott der Väter, and texts in E. Dhorme, ‘Les religions de Babylonie et d'Assyrie’ (Mana I, II) 15, ‘Que mon dieu se tienne à ma droite; Que ma déesse se tienne à ma gauche! Que le dieu gardien se tienne à mon côté!’ words to be used by an ordinary individual; 77, oracle to Asaraddon, ‘Je suis l'Ishtar d'Arbèles; devant toi, derrière toi, je marcherai, ne crains pas; 263, complaint about a sorceress, ‘Elle a éloigne’ de mon corps mon dieu et ma déesse’ (cf. 268).

⁴⁹ cf. Nock, , JHS XLVIII (1928), 41 f.Google Scholar, and Cl. Phil. XXXVIII (1943), 53, Harv. St. Cl. Phil. XLI (1930), 29, 34, 57 ff.; also Zeus Philippios in Dittenberger, OGI 8 (with G. De Sanctis, Riv. Fil., 1940, 9, n. 1). Nero expresses his gratitude to the Greek gods, SIG 814, 36.

⁵⁰ Plut. Ant. 75; cf. Rose, Ann. Arch. Anthrop. XI, and Scott, K., Cl. Phil. XXIV (1929), 133 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵¹ Suet. Domit. 15, 3Google Scholar; cf. Scott, l.c., and in Imperial Cult.

⁵² Amm. Marc, XXV, 2, 3; ‘Genius populi Romani’ is prominent on the coins of the first decade of the fourth century.

⁵³ Amm. XX, 5, 10; cf. Plut. Alex. M. Fort. II, 13, p. 344Google Scholar A, on Tyche as supposedly guardian of the Persian king, which belongs to the ideas discussed under (VI) below.

⁵⁴ Toynbee, , Medallions 157, 208Google Scholar, ‘Postumus’ divine companion—HERCVLI COMITI AVG—who deigns to appear on the obverse beside his devotee; Mattingly-Sydenham V, II, 358, 360; Carausius appears similarly with Sol.

For the issues of Diocletian and Victorinus, cf. Mattingly-Sydenham V, II, 239, 389. The nearest that I know to an early parallel is the coin of Dios Hieron with Nero and Zeus facing (F. Imhoof-Blumer, Lydische Stadtmünzen 63, pl. III, 9). That posture is seen later for Carus and Sol (Mattingly-Sydenham V, II, 146). cf. Maximianus and Hercules (287 f., sacrificing), Diocletian and Juppiter (247; sacrificing, with the legend CONSERVATOR AVGG). Jugate heads of Commodus and Roma appear on a medallion of 192 (Gnecchi II, 65).

⁵⁵ Maurice I, XC, 100; II, 154, 236 ff., cf. Alföldi, , JRS XXII (1932), 13Google Scholar (coin with obv., Maximin as Sol, rev. SOLI INVICTO COMITI, A.D. 312–3).

⁵⁶ L'empereur Constantin 24. cf. Pan. lat. VI, 21, 5, p. 218, ‘teque in illius specie recognovisti,’ with the notes of Maurice II, XXXII, and H. Lietzmann, Sitzungsber. Berlin, 1937, 265 f.; also Alföldi, Festival of Isis 7, on ‘the unconscious assimilation of the profile of the god to the customary object of their work by the die-sinkers’.

⁵⁷ cf. Plut. Ant. 60, on Antony's association of himself (προσῳκείου δὲ ἐαυτόν) with Heracles in lineage (36, 7), and with Dionysus in mode of life; also Def. orac. 21, p. 421 E, on theophoric names as ideally involving something in common with the deities from whom they were taken. Such names were literally theophora (Clearch. ap. Athen. X, p. 448 E); yet, in spite of the Christian analogues discussed by Jalabert-Mouterde, , Diet. arch. chrét. liturg. VII, 636 f.Google Scholar, and Leclercq, ib. XII, 1511, we must not make too much of them; cf. Dow, S., Harv. Theol. Rev. XXX (1937), 216 ff.Google Scholar Nevertheless, there was the possibility of an equivalent to a belief in patron saints, just as daimon implies something like a guardian angel.

For a ruler, parallelism easily passed into quasiidentity; Gallienus had Sol as comes and was assimilated to Sol (SHA Gallien. 18, 2). Toynbee, Medallions 211, explains IOVI DIOCLETIANO on an obverse as Iovi et Diocletiano; now Diocletian had no mental confusion and he gave up his power before the statue of Juppiter; and yet the legend is accompanied by a single radiate bust (Gnecchi III, 78, no. 40). The thought is one of parallelism; cf. Pan. lat. X, 6, p. 268, 7, and the double herm of Saturn and Diocletian, meaning that Diocletian has brought back ‘saturnia regna’ (Fuhrmann, H., Röm. Mitt. LIII, 1938, 44Google Scholar), as also the invocation of Juppiter as the Augustus of the Romans, in Dio Cass. LXXIX, 20, 2, a scene which anticipates the acclamatory prayers handled by F. J. Dölger, Sol Salutis, ed. 2, 60 ff.

At a lower level, the Greeks called the strong Sostratus by the name of Heracles and believed him to be H. (Lucian, Demon. I); cf. Carm. lat. epigr. 879, and Nock, , JHS XLVIII (1928), 32 ff.Google Scholar and also Cl. Phil. XXXVIII (1943), 54 f. There were many forms of Zeus, with room for a Zeus Hadrianos, etc.; cf. Lucr. IV, 1185, ‘Veneres nostras.’

⁵⁸ Constantine continued to find the piety of his father, Constantius Chlorus acceptable (Eus. VC II, 49, p. 62, Heikel; cf. Maurice II, LVIII, LXVI, 243, and Piganiol, L'Empereur Constantin 35).

⁵⁹ Firm. Mat. Err. 20, 7, p. 54; cf. Pan. lat. II, 6, 4, p. 94, 27 (to Theodosius) ‘tibi istud soli pateat, imperator, cum deo consorte secretum.’

⁶⁰ cf. L. Brélhier-P. Batiffol, Les survivances du culte impérial romain; Grabar, , L'empereur, 15, 19Google Scholar, etc.; E. Kantorowicz, Laudes Regiae.

⁶¹ cf. Maurice II, CXXXI; Claudian, Bell. Poll. s. Goth. 511, ‘seu caelum seu Roma tonat.’ The sober Pliny says of Rome, ‘deorum quaedam immortalium generi humano portio’ (NH XXXVI 118), to point a contrast.

⁶² cf. Kubitschek, , Num. Z. LVII (1924), 84 f.Google Scholar, and for earlier use, Stroux, J., Philol. LXXXIV (1929), 238 ff.Google Scholar

⁶³ Firm. Err. 28, 6, p. 76, 16; cf. Pan. lat. VII, 12, p. 230; VI, 13, p. 211; XI, 15, p. 286; II, 6, 4, p. 95 (prayer to Theodosius), and for extreme language, CIL VI, 1080 (with 31236), referred to Caracalla by Mommsen, Ges. Schr. IV, 509 n., and discussed by Kubitschek, , Num. Z. XLVIII (1915), 172Google Scholar. cf. Ensslin, , CAH XII, 359 f.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ cf. Herodian I, 5, 6, on Marcus Aurelius; Pan. lat. VII, 14, 3, p. 231, on the dead Constantius Chlorus, IV, 14, 6, p. 167 (military commander in heaven); Eus. VC IV, 48. In Themist. XI, p. 147 D ὁ ἀγαθὸς βασιλεὺς σύνοικός τε ἐστὶ καὶ ὁμοδίαιτος τῷ θεῷ—as enjoying the guidance of divine wisdom. A sage possessed that (cf. Porphyr. Marc. 16).

Pythagoras was, before birth, a companion of Apollo (Iambi. VP 8); cf. the soul in Plat., Phaedr. 249 C. See also Cumont, F., Rev. ét. anc. XLII (1940), 408 ff.Google Scholar on a possible representation of the sun accompanied by Trajan. Naturally poets were here and now companions of the Muses (Lucr. III, 1037). As for rulers, the full range of metaphor is early; cf. Pan. lat. II, 4, p. 93, 11, ‘deum dedit Hispania quem videmus,’ with Hor. C III, 5, 2, ‘praesens divus habebitur.’

⁶⁵ συντεταγμένη in Plat. Laws X, p. 903 D, and προσγένηται in Albin. Epit. 25.

⁶⁶ cf. Censorin. 3, 1, and 3, 5, ‘comitetur’ 3, 8, ‘adsiduus observator’; also 6, 2, ‘potentia spiritus semen comitantis.’

⁶⁷ Ovid suggests (Tr. III, 13) that his natalis (corresponding to Genius; Cesano, Diz. epigr. III, 449Google Scholar), should have left him when he went into exile; cf. Plut. Gen. Socr. 24, p. 594Google Scholar A, on the daimon as helping or leaving the soul. Plin., NH II, 28Google Scholar, knows heavenly bodies born and dying with the individual, but Horace's idea of the mortality of the Genius is uncommon; the Genius of a dead man sometimes received worship.

⁶⁸ cf. Rose, , Trans. IV Congr. Hist. Rel. II, 138 ff.Google Scholar, CQ XVIII (1923), 57 ff. Roman feeling survived to a greater extent than strictly Roman concepts. The fulness of identification is shown by Pers. IV, 27, ‘genioque sinistro,’ meaning. Here we are concerned with the ultimate effects of a long and forgotten process of fusion; and, in considering popular and official thought, must always allow for the influence of classical poetry, as in the coinage relating to Saloninus (Alföldi, N. Chr. 1929, 270 ff.), and in EXPECTATE VENI (Mattingly-Sydenham V, II, 510, etc.).

⁶⁹ On daimon, cf. Andres in P-W, Supp. III; Nestle, W., Gr. Relig. III, 72 ff.Google Scholar; Nilsson, M. P., Gesch. gr. Rel. I, 201 ff.Google Scholar, 348, 701, 713; Foerster in Kittel, G., Theol. Wörterb. II, 1 ff.Google Scholar

M. Pohlenz, Vom Zorne Gottes 133, n. 1, is probably right in postulating some popular ideas as lying behind Plato's notions; Phaedo 107 D professes to be quoting a current belief, which may after all represent literature under the name of Orpheus, cf. Leg. V, p. 730 A: ὁ ξένιος ἑκάστων δαίμων καὶ θεὸς τῶ ξενίῳ συνεπόμενοι Διί. In Eur. Suppl. 592, δαίμονος τοὐμοῦ μέτα, daimon approximates to the later personal Tyche; cf. Pind. Ol. XIII, 28Google Scholar (cf. 105).

⁷⁰ Menand. ap. Clem. Al. Strom. V, 14, 130, 3 (II, 414 St.). cf. Procl. in Alcib. I, 58, p. 165Google Scholar, Creuzer: καὶ γὰρ τὸν ἀγαθὸν δαίμονα σύμπορον ἡμῶν εἰώθασι λέγειν καὶ ἕπεσθαί φασιν ἡμῖν αὐτὸν ἐκ θείας ὁρμῆς.

⁷¹ cf. in general Harder, R., Über Ciceros Somnium Scipionis (Schr. Königsberger Ges. VI), 14Google Scholar, n. 4, on the identification of daimon with deity in itself rather than with subordinate deity.

⁷² cf. Pausan. VI, 6, 8 (with Frazer ad loc., IV, p. 24); L. R. Taylor, Divinity of the Roman Emperor 10, n. 22; Laumonier, , BCH LVIII (1934), 366 f.Google Scholar

⁷³ Including always that of deity, major or minor, external to the self, and with the constant possibility of a recollection of Hes. Op. 122 ff. (cf. Max. Tyr. VIII, 8, p. 97 f.).

⁷⁴ Plut. Ant. 33; Fort. Rom. 7, p. 320 A (τύχη).

⁷⁵ Porph. V. Plot. 10, τοῦ συνόντος αὐτῷ οἰκείου δαίμονος καλουμένου … τὸν συνόντα cf. Plot. III, 4, 6, with Bréhier's edition, III, p. 61 ff., and Procl. in Alcib. I, 23, p. 73Google Scholar, Creuzer. cf. E. R, Dodds above, p. 60.

⁷⁶ Proclus in Alcib. I, 25, p. 79Google Scholar, Cr. says that Socrates rightly called his daimon a god, though (p. 70) he refuses to follow Amelius in describing some of the gods as daimones); cf. Apul., De deo Socr. 14, p. 23Google Scholar, 4, Thomas, ‘deque eius amico numine,’ cf. n. 48. For ancient theories on the daimonion of Socrates, cf. Willing, A., Comm. phil. Jen. VIII, II (1909)Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ De deo 24, p. 35, 14, noted by Maurice II, CXI f. Such discussions, like Heraclit. Qu. Hom. 28, p. 43Google Scholar, 7, 75, p. 100, 1, imply an inkling of Nilsson's brilliant discovery, Arch. f. Rel. XXII (1923–1924), 374 f.

⁷⁸ cf. Apul. De deo 6, p. 13Google Scholar, where, as in Max. Tyr. VIII, 8, p. 96 f., reference is made to daimones in the sense of the Symp., as intermediaries. Max. Tyr. VIII, 8, p. 97, refers also to the Hesiodic daimones and represents daimones as corresponding to human occupations, etc. [Dion. Halic] Ars rhet. 7, 2 (II, 285, 12 Usener-Radermacher). ὁ δὲ (sc. Ἡρακλῆς) σὺν τῇ ᾿Αθηνᾷ πάντα κατώρθωσεν τὰ ἐπιταχθέντα: ἡ δὲ τί ἄν ἄλλο εἴη ἤ νοῦς τε καὶ λόγος; Coming as this does as a matter of fact statement in a rhetorical treatise, it is of particular significance.

⁷⁹ On the source problem, cf. R. v. Scala, Festgabe Büdinger 119 ff. (I would ask whether Marius Victorinus has in some way contributed to the knowledge of Amm. Marc). For the dissemination of such thought, cf. also Aug. Civ. D. VIII, 14Google Scholar, ‘exquo genere numinum Socrates habebat adiunctum et amicitia quadam conciliatum’; Philostr. Ap. Ty. 1, 2; [Socr.] Ep. 1, 8, 10.

Apul. Apol. 43 mentions daimones as intermediaries in what professes to be a court-speech, but cannot be taken as specific evidence of the intelligibility of the concept.

⁸⁰ In the way in which Zeus Olympios was the Gad (Fortune) of Dura-Europos, and cf. Du Mesnil du Buisson, Inventaire des inscriptions palmyréenes de Doura-Europos, new ed. (1939), 65, on names interpreted as ‘Le Soleil est Gad, ou mon Gad’, ‘Arsu est Gad’.

Dedications often couple the name of a specific deity with that of the Genius of a locality or of a group as distinct. Sometimes, however, there is identification; e.g. CIL VIII, 11430 (with a natalis), 7956. cf. W. F. Otto, P-W VII, 1168. Genius is ‘protettore, patrono’ (Cesano, , Diz. Epigr. III, 481Google Scholar); cf. CIL V, 5112, ‘Iunoni pagi Portuensis.’ Sen. Ep. 110, 1, on the daimon, not so named, quotes as Ovid's ‘de plebe deos.’

⁸¹ So Isis is wisdom (P. Oxy. 1380, 44, 124; Nock, AJ Phil. LXIII (1942), 478 f.). In Plut. Is. Os. 49, p. 371 A, Osiris is nous and logos of the universe. cf. Varro in August. Civ. D. VII, 13, on the mind of the universe ‘tamquam universalis genius’; also O. Gross, Diss. phil. Hal. XIX, IV (1911), 355, on Genius as meaning ‘ingenium’, also 377, on Minerva, 381 and 384, on Muses, 341, on Apollo as meaning ‘indoles poetica’.

⁸² cf. R. Reitzenstein, Vorgesch. d. chr. Taufe 76 ff.; Johansson, N., Parakletoi (Lund, 1940), 186Google Scholar; and for nous in more strictly philosophical contexts, Sallustius 8, p. 16, 6, with my notes (LXV ff.).

⁸³ Pan. lat. XII, 2, 5, p. 291 (note 4, 1, p. 292, ‘sua enim cuique prudentia deus est,’ with perhaps a recollection of Aen. IX, 184 f.). cf. IX, 10, p. 254, ‘ubi ex proximo iuvat mens divina’ (note 4, 2, p. 292).

⁸⁴ On such statuettes, cf. Vallette, Apologie d'Apulée 310 ff., and Dölger, , Antike u. Christentum IV (1933–1934), 67 ff.Google Scholar, 277 f., to which Fr. Festugière referred me; also the paper by E. R. Dodds above, p. 63 f. Protective value could be ascribed to a statuette which had not received any ‘consecration’, and which did not have the value of a specially secured paredros. Apuleius says (Apol. 63) that he always took with him on a journey some image—not the same always; ib. 55, he refers to the emblems kept and venerated by the initiates of Liber Pater. cf. Babrius 119.

^84a cf. ἀγαλματοφορέω in Philo, Opif. m. 69 and Euseb. Hierocl. 6, of the carrying of Mind or God in the soul (in Philo V.M. II, 11, of patterns).

⁸⁵ I do not believe in the presence of Christ and Abraham; Moses would have been just possible. Fr. Festugière draws my attention to Plin. NH XXXV, 5Google Scholar and Cic. Fin. V, 3Google Scholar, on representations of Epicurus. For the statuettes or painted figures of Pompeian lararia, cf. Boyce, , Mem. Amer. Acad. Rome XIV (1937)Google Scholar. For representations of the imperial family as so used, cf. Scott, , Trans. Am. Phil. Ass. LXII (1931), 107Google Scholar, and in particular the words of Ovid, , Ex P. II, 8, 70Google Scholar (with significant parallel to aquila).

⁸⁶ cf. Weber, W., Herm. L (1915), 55 ff.Google Scholar, on the religious objects supposedly taken into court by Alexandrians and Jews in their case before Trajan. The Alexandrian delegation to meet Caracalla went forth μεθ᾽ ἱερῶν ἀπορήτων(Dio Cass. LXXVIII, 22, 2 = vol. III, 400, 23, Boiss.). For gods taken to battle, cf. Bloch, H., Harv. Theol. Rev. XXXVIII (1945), 236Google Scholar; also Jos. AJ III, 103Google Scholar, on the Tabernacle.

⁸⁷ K. Gross, Unterpfänder d. röm. Herrschaft. (cf. the protective companionship given by the physical possession of relics of martyrs; e.g. Max. Taur. Homil. 81, PL LVII 428, and Delehaye, Origines du culte des martyrs 163. Here, however, there is also the older sentiment attached to the relics of heroes.) For the idea of a star coming to birth together with an individual man, cf. A. Amand, Fatalisme et liberté dans l'Antiquité grecque, 539, n. 7.

⁸⁸ cf. W. F. Otto, P-W VII, 37; Alföldi, , Röm. Mitt. L (1935), 122Google Scholar, n. 3 (unwilling to generalize on the practice). The Tyche of Himer. Ecl. 12, p. 196 Wernsdorf, was something visible to any visitor to the court.

⁸⁹ Scott, Imperial Cult 180 ff.

⁹⁰ L'Orange, Konstantinsbogen 55, 57, 126 ff. (representation shows as 37–8 cm. high), 132 ff.

⁹¹ Plut. Caes. 38, 5. cf. Joseph., BJ VI, 413Google Scholar (Titus' Tyche as ally); Dio Cass. LXXII, 23 = vol. III, 304, Boiss. (his encourager in historical writing); BMC IV, CLXV, FORTVNA MANENS. ‘Adsistere fata cum tabulis’ in Pan. lat. II, 18, 4, p. 105 (p. 103 above) affords a parallel to the FATIS VICTRICIBVS of Diocletian's coins.

⁹² In Hastings, , Enc. Rel. Eth. IV, 592Google Scholar. cf. Cook, A. B., Zeus 11, 1041 ff.Google Scholar, on the representation of projected emotions.

⁹³ On Charis, cf. Farnell, , Pindar II, 461Google Scholar (Charites in Ol. XIV, as cult-deities, whereas in Pindar charis is usually the quality in a man or thing which evokes in others a sense of pleasurable approval); Plut. An seni 6, p. 786Google Scholar, E; Bonner, , Hesperia xv (1946), 56Google Scholar f. It was the Charites who sought and found a fit precinct in the soul of Aristophanes (Plat. Ep. 14, Diehl; cf. for Clementia, Stat. Theb. XII, 494, Claud. Cons. Stil. II, 13). Charis and Charites remain personal; cf. Theocr. XVI, 109. On personifications in general from this point of view, cf. F. Stoessl, P–W XIX, 1044 ff.; Nock, , J. Bibl. Lit. LII (1933), 137Google Scholar. Latin poetry was freer even than Greek in the use of divine names by way of metonymy, and there was a basis for this in native ideas (Gross, , Diss. phil. Hal. XIX, iv, 311 f.Google Scholar).

⁹⁴ cf. Aristoph. Ran. 1045; Plat. Phileb. 12 B; Lucian Demon. 10; Carm. lat. epigr. 1233, 6 (‘in toto corde plicata inerat’); Nock, , Harv. Theol. Rev. XXXIII (1940), 313Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ Plut. Num. 6; cf. Scott, , Trans. Am. Phil. Ass. LX (1929), 132Google Scholar; and note Pind. P VIII, 70–1, on Dike.

⁹⁶ cf. the Jewish Wisdom as partner of God in Proverbs 8, 30, etc., and the various parallels for Logos from the Near East discussed by Dürr, L., ‘Die Wertung d. göttlichen Wortes im A.T. u. im antiken Orient’ (Mitt, vorderas.-aegypt. Ges. XLII, 1, 1938Google Scholar). Even Gnostic abstractions were not perhaps as thin as they look to us; they expressed the fundamental conception that universe and man, creation and redemption, were parallel, and that ultimate processes were psychological.

⁹⁷ Premerstein, A.v., Vom Werden u. Wesen d. Prinzipats (Abh. Munich, N.F. 15, 1937), 125, 127Google Scholar.

⁹⁸ cf. in general Charlesworth, cited n. 28.

⁹⁹ cf. also Sen. Ben. IV, 8Google Scholar, 3; Schoener, , Acta sem. phil. Erlangensis II, 490Google Scholar; Schubart, W., Klio xxx (1937), 62 f.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Under the tetrarchy VIRTVS AVGG (ET CAESS) is coupled with a Hercules scene or Mars or the representation of a ruler or a personified figure, cf. Voetter, O., Num. Z. LVI (1923), 3Google Scholar; A. B. Brett. Num. Chr. 1933, 294 f.; Damerau, P., Klio, Beih. XXXIII, 94 ff.Google Scholar; Toynbee, Medallions 162; Mattingly Sydenham V, II, 360 (VIRTVTI AVG with jugate busts of Postumus and Mars). In general, on the representation of abstractions, cf. P. G. Hamberg, Studies in Roman Imperial Art 18 ff., 41 ff.; also cf. n. 81 above.

¹⁰¹ P. Oxy. 1449, 2 n. with the comments of Eitrem, S., Symb. Oslo. x (1932), 45Google Scholar, and P. Oslo. III, 99, on no 94; also Corp. Herm. XVIII; de Jerphanion, G., Mem. Pontif. Accad. Arch. III (1932), 112, 116Google Scholar, fig. 10 (Victory leading cortège, on Arch of Galerius).

¹⁰² Dölger, F. J., ΙΧθΥΣ II, 484 ff.Google Scholar cf. Hope in Lucian, Merc. cond. 42.

¹⁰³ As in Rev. Hist. 171 (1933), 1 ff., and Rev. Hist. Phil. Rel. XIII (1933), 370 ff.

¹⁰⁴ Röm. Mitt. XLIX (1934), 97. cf. Berlinger, L., Beitr. … Titulatur (Diss. Bresl., 1935), 16, 19 f.Google Scholar, 95; Scott, Imperial Cult 177 f.; Grabar, L'empereur 31 ff.; Bengtson, W. Otto-H., Z. Gesch. d. Niederganges d. Ptolemäerreiches (Abh. Munich, N.F. 17, 1938), 236Google Scholar, s.v. Nike, etc.; Fink, R. O., Yale Classical Studies VIII, 99Google Scholar, etc.; Hamberg, P. G., Studies 20, 59Google Scholar; Birt's ed. of Claudian LXIV.

¹⁰⁵ cf. Pan. lat. VII, 14, p. 231; VIII, 14, 2, p. 241; x, 11, 5 f., p. 272; also XI, 13 f., p. 285 f. And yet Rome is where the ruler is; Herodian I, 6, 5.

¹⁰⁶ cf. Kantorowicz, , Laudes Regiae (Univ. California, Publ. Hist, XXXIII, 1946Google Scholar).

¹⁰⁷ A crucial text is Plut. Ad princ. inerud. 3, p. 780 f.; cf. Themist. 27, 4. In general, see Goodenough, Yale Class. St. I, supplemented by his Politics of Philo Judaeus (e.g. 91, a king is not whoever has royal power, 96, on parallelism), and by Berlinger, Beitr. 92. Straub, Vom Herrscherideal, in his valuable treatment of the theme, suggests (101) that Constantine's objection to sacrifice on the Capitol would have been comprehensible in view of the idea that sacrifice was not appropriate to the ‘deus summus’. Such a view was doubtless not uncommon outside inner philosophic circles, and daily worship by hymns and incense had gained in popularity (Nilsson, , Harv. Theol. Rev. XXXVIII, 1945Google Scholar); but would senators have applied it to traditional Roman cult?

¹⁰⁸ cf. Nock, AJA 1946, 155; add Claud., Pan. Manl. Theod. Cons., e.g. 253 f.; Augustine Ep. 118, 33, ‘Plotini schola Romae floruit habuitque condiscipulos multos, acutissimos et sollertissimos viros,’ to say nothing of the possibility that the Hosius to whom Chalcidius dedicated his work on the Timaeus was the bishop who enjoyed Constantine's confidence and the certainty (Zosim. 11, 40, 3) that Sopatros was for a time an intimate of Constantine's.

Note, however, that Plutarch distinguished between the visible sun and Apollo (Def. orac. 42, p. 433 D-E); cf. 7, p. 413 C, Pyth. orac. 12, p. 400 D), as a Pergamene distinguished between the visible sun and the god Helios (Hepding, H., Ath. Mitt. XXXII, 1907, 357 ff.Google Scholar).

The significance of the physical sun as such in figurative language has been noted, p. 108 above; cf. Stat. S. IV, 1, 3Google Scholar, ‘atque oritur cum sole novo.’ The Sol who was comes Augusti had various associations; the physical sun; the sun of philosophical speculation, and of its larger background (Ensslin, , CAH XII, 359Google Scholar); the sun-god of oaths; the Syrian worship from which Aurelian made a new cult, Roman, and possessed of tremendous emphasis; the solar piety of Illyricum and Gaul; the sun from whom good kings came (Nock, , JRS xxx, 1940, 195Google Scholar, n. 32); and for some, though not for official purposes, Iranian ideas associated with Mithraism (Soli socio in ILS 4233, Cumont, , Textes II, 143Google Scholar, inscr. 336, 339, and 162, inscr. 486; it refers to the myth of the alliance of Mithras and the Sun).

¹⁰⁹ cf. Born, L. K., Trans. Am. Phil. Ass. LXIV (1933), 128 ff.Google Scholar, esp. 131, n. 26, for the wide dissemination of forms of ‘speculum principis’.

¹¹⁰ Müller, C., FHG IV, 23Google Scholar. cf. Julian 260 C; J. Bidez, Vie de Julien 204 ff. For the ideal, cf. Dio Prus. 1, 23.

¹¹¹ To some extent Julian may have sought to be a pagan counterpart of Constantine; his hymns and publicist utterances correspond, even in the midnight oil (Eus. VC IV, 29, p. 128Google Scholar). ‘A beast but an effective beast.’ cf. Bidez, , JRS XXIII (1933), 64Google Scholar, on the similarity of the two temperaments, e.g. in irascibility.

¹¹² Bidez, Discours 139, n. 4.

¹¹³ In spite of the fact that theories of monarchy were produced under the broad shield of Pythagorean names, the representatives of religious Neopythagoreanism, e.g. Apollonius of Tyana, thought like Neoplatonists. So does the Corpus Hermeticum, apart from the accidentally appended XVIII.

For Julian, note Ad Themist. 264 C (contrast of Alexander and Socrates, much to Alexander's disadvantage).

¹¹⁴ cf. Conv. 330 D, 332 D, 335 C (ἄνδρεϛ); Sallustius 18, p. 34, 11, with Nock, LXXXIX; Baynes, Historia Augusta 120, 128 (restriction of homage). Pan. lat. IV, addressed to Julian, is conspicuous for moderation.

¹¹⁵ P. 97. Bursian (p. 370, Spengel).

¹¹⁶ With its opening, cf. Themist. xv, p. 185 C.

¹¹⁷ Lightfoot, , Apostolic Fathers II, II, I, 478Google Scholar.

¹¹⁸ For a possible parallel, cf. Ruinart, Acta Martyrum (ed. 1859, 519; the Acta Phileae et Philoromi): ‘Qui immolat diis eradicabitur nisi soli Deo. Culcianus dixit, Immola ergo deo Soli.’ Delehaye, , Anal. Boll. XL (1922), 304Google Scholar, argues against the idea of a pun, as incidentally implying a Latin original. This is not decisive, since a Latin adapter could introduce a verbal point (cf. ib. 328, on the rewriting of an Egyptian tale at Constantinople). His other contention, 311, that the text shows a pagan approximation to monotheism, is stronger, and the Christian is made to object to any notion of sacrifice; but I incline to think that there may be the pun as a subsidiary motif.

¹¹⁹ cf. C. Theod. xv, 4, 1 (A.D. 425): ‘Iudis quoque simulacra proposita tantum in animis concurrentium mentisque secretis nostrum numen et laudes vigere demonstrent; excedens cultura hominum dignitatem superno numini reservetur’; which shows how pale numen could be as applied to the emperor. However, for surviving strength of feeling, cf. Vegetius 2, 5. In general, see K.M. Setton, Christian Attitude towards the Emperor in the Fourth Century (e.g. 72 f., parallel in Athanasius for Corp. Herm. XVIII). As in Mycenaean times, the pattern of monarchy was transferred to the world above. Just as earlier various gods assumed Hellenistic royal military dress, so now the type of barbarians bringing gifts was used for the scene of the Adoration of the Magi; Cumont, , Mem. Pontif. Accad. Arch. III (1932), 81 ff.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ cf. in general, Nock, , Harv. Theol. Rev. XXXII (1939)Google Scholar. I cannot imagine a Greek equivalent; also, no Greek monarch save Alexander was universal as the emperors were.

¹²¹ Amm. Marc, XVI, 10, 10; discussed by Baynes, , JRS xxv (1935), 87Google Scholar. Coins ceased to give portraits (Grabar 9). Cf. M. P. Charlesworth above, p. 36.