Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:52:54.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Symmachus and the Oriental Cults

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

J. F. Matthews
J. F. Matthews
Affiliation:
Corpus Christi College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The decline of late Roman paganism could hardly be said to have been an under-studied subject in the past, nor one which currently lacks appeal among late Roman historians: indeed, one has the impression that it is often through this, and the broader question of the ‘conflict’ between paganism and Christianity in the fourth century, that students of Roman history have acquired their interest in the late imperial period. This is all for the best: at the same time, it may be that in this, as in other aspects of late Roman history, there is a danger of ‘over-familiarity’ in the interpretation of well-known evidence.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 63 , November 1973 , pp. 175 - 195
Copyright
Copyright ©J. F. Matthews 1973. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 In MGH, auct. ant. VI, 1 (1883, repr. 1961), lxxiii; ‘scriptorem ingenii tam pauperis pauci certe lecturi sunt, sed multi hic illic inspicient, ut singulas res excerpant.

2 See my article, ‘The Letters of Symmachus’, in J. W. Binns (ed.), Latin Literature of the Fourth Century (forthcoming).

3 This is not to deny the interest, for example, of Klein, R., Symmachus: eine tragische Gestalt des ausgehenden Heidentums (Impulse der Forschung 2, 1971)Google Scholar—nor indeed the value of McGeachy's, J. A. earlier dissertation, Q. Aurelius Symmachus and the Senatorial Aristocracy of the West (Chicago, 1942).Google Scholar See also Kötting, B., Christentum und heidnische Opposition in Rom am Ende des 4. Jahrhunderts (Gesellsch. z. Förderung der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität zu Münster 46, 1961).Google Scholar

4 See for instance Sheridan, J. J., ‘The Altar of Victory: Paganism's Last Battle’, L'Ant. Class, xxxv (1966), 186–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPaschoud, F., ‘Réflexions sur l'idéal religieux de Symmaque’, Historia xiv (1965), 215–35Google Scholar, is nothing if not vigorous, and embraces far more than the third Relatio in its onslaught—without, it seems to me, providing the real basis for a re-assessment. See also his Roma Aeterna (1967), 71–109.

5 ‘The Date and Identity of Macrobius’, JRS lvi (1966), 25–38.

6 See for example Dill, S., Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire (1899), 74 f.Google Scholar; Wissowa, G., Religion und Kultus der Römer 2 (1912), 95 f.Google Scholar; and recently R. Klein, o.c. (n. 3), 16–46. For the development of the theme by D. N. Robinson and H. Bloch, see below, p. 180 f.

7 This too is common ground; for instance Warde Fowler, W., The Religious Experience of the Roman People (1911), 169 f.Google Scholar; Latte, K., Römische Religionsgeschichte (1960), 211 f.Google Scholar

8 Olympiodorus, fr. 44—a famous passage—mentions expenditures of 2,000 (the case of Symmachus in 401) and 4,000 pounds of gold.

9 The allusion is to the ‘economic’ interpretation of Symmachus' motives, developed by McGeachy, o.c. (n. 3), 142 f. and Paschoud (n. 4), from the hypothesis of Malunowicz, L., De Ara Victoriae in Curia Romana, quomodo certatum sit (diss. Wilno, 1937), 108 f.Google Scholar See the critique of Baynes, N. H. (reviewing McGeachy), JRS xxxv (1945), 175 f.Google Scholar [= Byzantine Studies (1955), 361 f.].

10 Byzantine Studies 363.

11 Zosimus iv, 59, 3. The historicity of Theodosius' visit seems to me gravely doubtful, despite the arguments of Cameron, Alan, Harvard Studies lxxiii (1968), at 248–65.Google Scholar

12 See Book ii of his De Divinatione, esp. (on augury) 70 f. The compatibility was achieved ‘rei publicae causa communisque religionis’ (28), cf. 70; ‘retinetur autem et ad opinionem vulgi et ad magnas utilitates rei publicae mos, disciplina, ius augurium, collegi auctoiitas’.

13 Symmachus, cxix–xx.

14 Festus, p. 348, 22 Lindsay; see Wistrand, E., ‘Textkritisches und Interpretatorisches zu Symmachus’, Symbolae Gotoburgenses lvi (1950), 87 f.Google Scholar [= Opera Selecta (Stockholm 1972), 229 f.] .

15 For the inscrs., see below, p. 182 f.; the Phrygianum, Curiosum Urbis Romae Reg. XIV, ‘Transtiberem’ (ed. A. Nordh, 1949, p. 95); ‘Gaianum [cf. Dio lix, 14, 6] et Frigianum’.

16 CIL vi, 499 (= ILS 4147).

l7 CIL vi, 510 (= ILS 4152); ‘in aeternum renatus’. For the dedicant, below, p. 182.

18 CIL vi, 1779 (= ILS 1259), vv. 22–5; ‘tu me, marite, disciplinarum bono/puram ac pudicam sorte mortis eximens,/in templa ducis ac famulam divis dicas:/te teste cunctis imbuor mysteriis’, etc.

19 Jerome, Ep. 23, 3; ‘non in lacteo caeli palatio, ut uxor conmentitur infelix, sed in sordentibus tenebris continetur’.

20 CIL vi, 754 (= ILS 4269); see Baynes, Byzantine Studies 366 (the interpretation was already in CIL).

21 CIL vi, 2151.

22 For other cases of pontifices Solis who were also priests of Mithras, cf. CIL xiv, 2082 (Iunius Gallienus, late III C); CIL vi, 846 (= ILS 4413; C. Caeionius Rufius Volusianus Lampadius, PUR 365–6); and, of course, Praetextatus (ILS 1259).

23 CIL vi, 508 (= ILS 4146), mentioning the priest, FI. Antonius Eustochius. The ‘honesta femina’ was called Serapias.

24 G. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer 2, 63 f.; 320 f.; 543: and in general Graillot, H., Le Culte de Cybèle (Bibl. de l'Ecole franç. d'Athènes et de Rome 107, 1912).Google Scholar

25 Wissowa, 322 f.; see esp. Beaujeu, J., La Politique Religieuse des Antonius (1955), 312 f.Google Scholar, and for inscriptions from the cult, ILS 4119 f. The involvement of the XVviri is clearly attested by CIL x, 3698 (= ILS 4175, Capua: A.D. 289), which explains ILS 4131 (Lugdunum: A.D. 160; cf. ILS 4140, 4184–5 for provincial ‘sacerdotes quindecimvirales’): and on CIL xiv, 2790 (= ILS 4118, Gabii) a XVvir ‘taurobolium movit’ (c. 200; cf. PIR P 489).

26 To judge by ILS 4131; ‘Vires excepit et a Vaticano transtulit’. It seems clear that the ‘Vatican’ in question was at Lugdunum, not Rome, but the inference is not impaired; see K. Latte, Römische Religionsgeschichte 353, n. 2; Beaujeu, 315–6. For the syncretism (of obscure origin), see Cumont, F., Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism (1912), 227Google Scholar, n. 34; Graillot, 153 f.; Latte, 353 f.

27 viz. the dedication of the ‘vires’ (testicles) of the bull; ILS 4127, 4129, 4131, etc. See Clement, , Protr. ii, 15Google Scholar (ed. GCS, 1972, p. 13), with Boyancé, P., ‘Sur les mystères Phrygiens: “J'ai mangé dans Je tympanon, j'ai bu dans la cymbale”’, REA xxxvii (1935), 161–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar [= Etudes sur la Religion Romaine (1972), 201–4].

28 For the description, Perist. x, 1011 f. (and below, n. 100); for ‘rebirth’, above, n. 17. Some accounts (e.g. RE VA, 16–21, s.v. ‘Taurobolium’ Cumont, 66; Graillot, 155 f.) apply Prudentius' evidence unquestioningly to the second- and thirdcentury taurobolia; but contrast Latte, 354 f. and esp., with full documentation, Rutter, J., ‘The three phases of the Taurobolium’, Phoenix xxii (1968), 226–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 The earliest is CIL vi, 505 (= ILS 4143), of A.D. 295 (the alleged case of the Emperor Elagabalus, Hist. Aug., Elag. 7, 1 is historically valueless). No other fourth-century taurobolium of any description is recorded from any other provenance than Rome, except two late inscrs. from Athens; IG iii, l, 172 and 173—the second dated 387, the first, slightly earlier, claiming to be the first Athenian taurobolium. I would take the phrases ‘taurobolium accipere/suscipere’ on II/III C. inscrs. as being equivalent to the ‘Vires excepit’ of ILS 4131; cf. 4128, 4136, 4139, etc.

30 Graillot, Le Culte de Cybèle 168, detected a tendency for the public festival to be followed by a ‘season’ of taurobolic dedications: of 32 dated taurobolia (and criobolia) known to him, 12 were dated April/May (7 and 5 respectively), none during the actual festival (late March). In any event, the entry ‘Initium Caiani’ in the Calendar of 354 (CIL I2 p. 314; 28 March) might suggest a link between the two aspects, and places the Vatican Phrygianum (above, n. 15) in relation to the public cult.

31 See Julian's Orations iv and v, To King Helios, and To the Mother of the Gods; and on such ideas, Nock, A. D., Sallustius: Concerning the Gods and the Universe (1926), p. xlix f.Google Scholar One of the Roman inscrs. to Attis describes him as συνέχοντι τὸ πᾶν (CIL vi, 509, of 370).

32 For Mithras, see esp. Or. iv. p. 130C (cf. Libanius, , Or. xviii, 127Google Scholar); Eleusis, , Or. v, p. 169AGoogle Scholar (cf. Eunapius, V. Soph., p. 475/6).

33 All from ILS 1259.

34 Sat. i, 17, 1–23, 22.

35 ILS 1259 (back), vv. 13–15. E. Groag was drawn to associate the XVvirate in particular with culture and learning; Zeitschr. Österr. Gymn. lv, (1905), 733–4 cf. Boyancé, P., ‘La science d'un quindécemvir au Ier siècle après J.-C.’, REL xlii (1964), 334–46Google Scholar [= Etudes sur la Religion Romaine 347–58].

36 Rel. 3, 10; ‘uno itinere non potest perveniri ad tam grande secretum’. The statement is of course diplomatic (below, p. 188); but for the philosophical context, with parallels, see Courcelle, P., ‘Anti-Christian Arguments and Christian Platonism: from Arnobius to St. Ambrose’, in Momigliano, A. (ed.), The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (1963), 157 f.Google Scholar

37 Robinson, D. N., ‘An Analysis of the Pagan Revival of the Late Fourth Century, with Especial Reference to Symmachus’, TAPA xlvi (1915), 87–101Google Scholar; Bloch, H., ‘A New Document of the last Pagan Revival in the West, 393–394 A.D.’, HTR xxxviii (1945), 199–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘The Pagan Revival in the West at the End of the Fourth Century’, in Momigliano, Conflict 193–218, esp. 202 f.

38 Robinson, 87.

39 For what follows, see esp. Bloch (1945), 203 f.

40 Amm. Marc, xxii, 7, 6. In office, he obtained alleviation for the Greek mysteries from Valentinian's law against nocturnal sacrifices (CTh ix, 16, 7, 9 Sept. 364); Zosimus vi, 3, 2 f. For Praetextatus' career, see esp. Chastagnol, A., Les Fastes de la Préfecture de Rome au Bas-Empire (1962), 171–8.Google Scholar

41 Rel. 10, 2–3. He had received a successor, Valerius Pinianus, by 25 February, 385; Chastagnol, Fastes 229.

42 For an attempt to do justice, see my ‘The Letters of Symmachus’ (above, n. 2).

43 La Fin du Paganisme8 ii, 262 f. Praetextatus, the ‘philosopher’ was the ‘décoration’ (but for Boissier, no more) of the pagan party; Nicomachus Flavianus, a ‘grand ambitieux déçu’, ‘au fond un mécontent’ (266); Symmachus, a lover of the past, whose devotion ‘avait quelque chose de plus calme que celle de beaucoup de ses contemporains’ (270).

44 Rel. 10–12, esp. 10, 2; cf. Jerome, Ep. 23, 3—at his death, ‘urbs universa commota est’. But there is clearly a ‘ceremonial’ aspect to these public demonstrations of grief; cf. the case of Iunius Bassus, who died (after baptism) as praefectus urbi in 359; ‘urbis perpetuas occidit ad lacrimas… flevit turba omnis matres puerique senesque’, etc. (AE 1963, 239).

45 xxvii, 9, 8 f.; cf. xxi, 7, 6.

46 cf. Sat. i, 1, 1; ‘nobilitatis proceres doctique alii’. At i, 17, 1 Praetextatus is described as ‘sacrorum omnium praesul’ and at the conclusion of his disquisition the company praises his ‘memoria’, ‘doctrina’ and ‘religio’ ‘hunc esse unum arcanae deorum naturae conscium’ (i, 24, 1). For dating, above p. 175, n.5.

47 See for instance Cumont, F., ‘La Polémique d'Ambrosiaster contre les paiens’, Rev. d'Hist. et de Litt. Religieuses xiii (1903), 417–36Google Scholar, esp. 421 f.

48 HTR xxxviii (1945), after 244.

49 CIL vi, 497–504 (cf. ILS 4143 f.), 30966; AE 1953, 237, 238.

50 vi, 505–512, 30780.

51 AE 1945, 55 with improvements at 1955, 180.

52 I exclude from the count vi, 513; ‘Virius Macarianus v.c. deam Cybeben p(ecunia) s(ua)’, because of uncertainty as to its context.

53 vi, 510 (= ILS 4152), the inscr. of Sextilius Agesilaus Aedesius (above, n. 17); on whom PLRE Aedesius 7. Cf. CIL vi, 31118; ‘p.p. hierof. Hecatar.’.

54 vi, 30780: Εἴς δεκαπέντε ἀνδρῶν, Φοίβου στεφανηφόρος ἱρεύς. See Mommsen, , Ges. Schr, viii, 43Google Scholar, n. 1.

55 vi, 507 (of 313), C. Magius Donatus Severianus; he was ‘pater sacrorum invicti Mithrae, Hierophantes Liberi patris et Hecatarum’.

56 AE 1953, 237, part of a dedication to Magna Mater and Attis by ‘[Sextius Rus]/TICVS V.C. [et inlust]/RIS PATER PA[trum dei in]/VICTI MITHR[ae]’. The restored identification with Sextius Rusticus Iulianus, praefectus urbi under Maximus (387/8), is not mentioned by Chastagnol, Fastes, 230–1; PLRE (Iulianus 37) suggests as a possible alternative Pontius Atticus (Atticus 3; cf. CIL vi, 31118). In any event, the designation inlustris should suggest a prefecture, and a date in the late fourth century; RE ix, 1, 1075 f.

57 vi, 512 (= ILS 4154).

58 viz. AE 1945, 55 + 1955, 180. For the pontificate, vi, 846 (= ILS 4413).

59 vi, 509—the daughter (Rufia Volusiana) and son-in-law of C. Caeionius Rufius Volusianus Lampadius. See also below p. 191 and n. 99.

60 vi, 501–2 (= ILS 4149–50).

61 vi, 30966; Λαμπαδίου θυγάτηρ μεγαλήτορος, ὄργια Δηοῦς/καὶ φοβερὰς Έκάτης νύκτας ἐπισταμένη.

62 vi, 508 (= ILS 4146); above, p. 178.

63 Praefecti: C. Caeionius Rufius Volusianus Lampadius (in 365–6), above, n. 58; Clodius Hermogenianus Caesarius (374), vi, 499 (= ILS 4147). Vicarii: Sextilius Agesilaus Aedesius (Spain, c. 360), vi, 510 (= ILS 4152): Caeionius Rufius Volusianus (Asia, before 390), vi, 512 (= ILS 4154). ‘Nobilis in causis’ Rufius Caeionius Sabinus, vi, 511.

64 Ulpius Egnatius Faventinus (in 364/7), vi, 504 (= ILS 4153); Kamenius, Alfenius Caeionius Iulianus, AE 1953, 238Google Scholar (for dating, see below, p. 185, n. 69).

65 An exception would be the anonymous ‘v.c. et [inlust]ris’ of AE 1953, 237—if indeed he was a prefect (above, n. 56).

66 vi, 749–53 (= ILS 4267–8); above, p. 178. According to his grandson, Nonius Victor Olympius was ‘caelo devotus et astris’ (ILS 4269).

67 See Chastagnol, , La Préfecture Urbaine à Rome sous le Bas-Empire (1960), esp. 460 f.Google Scholar; L. Harmand, Le Patronat sur les Collectivités Publiques, des Origines au Bas-Empire (1957); and rather sketchily Arnheim, M. T. W., The Senatorial Aristocracy in the Later Roman Empire (1972), 143 f.Google Scholar Also (on Symmachus' letters) below, p. 191 f.

68 It is sometimes thought that the epitaph, in which Kamenius' widow addresses him in a poem, was influenced by the epitaph of Praetextatus of a few months earlier (ILS 1259). Possibly; but the argument cannot apply to the substance of the epitaph, which is almost identical with Kamenius' earlier inscriptions.

69 Thus providing, convincingly, a date later than 374 (cf. AE 1953, 238) for his governorship of Numidia. With his brother, Tarracius Bassus, Kamenius was accused but acquitted of maleficium under Valentinian (Amm. Marc, xxviii, 1, 27); the brother became praefectus urbi after Valentinian's death (?375/6; Chastagnol, Fastes 195–6).

70 viz. AE 1953, 238: dated 19 July 374.

71 One need only select for comment Proculus' priesthood of the imperial dynasty; see also CIL xi, 5283 (= ILS 6623, Hispellum; cf. ILS 705, v. 28 f.), Aur. Vict., de Caes. 40, 28 (Africa). See Latte, Röm. Religionsgesch. 366, n. 4.

72 CIL viii, 24521.

73 Chastagnol, Fastes 100, seems to go beyond the published evidence of context in describing the dedication as an ‘autel’ see de Villefosse, H., CRAI 1897, 222–5.Google Scholar

74 Above, p. 178.

75 Mathesis viii, 33 (ed. W. Kroll and I. Skutsch, Teubner, ii, p. 361). For the meeting in Campania, i, praef. 2 f. Chastagnol, Fastes 115.

76 Mathesis ii, 30, 1C (addressing the aspiring astrologer); ‘numquam nocturnis sacriflciis intersis, sive illa publica sive privata dicantur’: cf. RE vi, 2365. His later onslaught against the taurobolium (De Errore Prof. Relig. 27, 8 f.) need show no more than the usual knowledge of Christian polemic on these matters (below, p. 194).

77 e.g. CIL vi, 503, 504, 505–6 (cf. 402).

78 CIL vi, 1698 (= ILS 1257).

79 Above, nn. 57–9. For the building inscrs., Chastagnol, Fastes 168–9.

80 CIL vi, 1783 (= ILS 2948), vv. 19–20; ‘annalium, quos consecran sibi a quaestore et praefecto suo voluit’—not sufficient to associate Flavianus with the Historia Augusta. To judge by Theodosius' recorded historical tastes (Epit. de Caes. 48, 11–12, cf. Augustine, , Civ. Dei v, 26Google Scholar), the Annales are as likely to have been a work of Republican history.

81 Bloch (1945), 210. But it must be emphasized that, in Bloch's view, the distinction is established by reference to the Carmen contra Paganos (below, p. 189).

82 CIL vi, 1777 (= ILS 1258).

83 ‘legato amplissimi ordinis septies et ad impetrandum reb(us) arduis semper opposite’. For one of the embassies, Amm. Marc, xxviii, 1, 24 f.

84 Mommsen, , Hermes iv (1870), 350–63Google Scholar [= Ges. Sehr, vii, 485–98] cf. Anth. Lat. 2, i, pp. 20–25.

85 Rel. 3, 2; ‘gesta publica prosequor et…(civium) mandata commendo’. This was of course to some extent a ‘front’ which Symmachus probably expected to be penetrated; but it must be allowed to have influenced his manner of address.

86 e.g. ILS 1243, 1257 (the elder Symmachus; ‘multis legationibus pro amplissimi ordinis desideriis apud divos principes functo’), 1258 (above, n. 83), 1282 (cf. Zosimus v, 44–5), 1284, etc.

87 See my ‘The Historical Setting of the “Carmen contra Paganos” (Cod. Lat. Par. 8084)’, Historia xix (1970), 464–79.

88 Bloch (1945), 230, n. 69 and chart, after 244.

89 Historia xix (1970), 466 f.

90 Sc. after ‘Vidimus’ (vv. 103–9); Historia xix (1970), 473 f.

91 ‘Cella Herculis’, AE 1948, 127 (Bloch's ‘New Document’)—restoration by the praefectus annonae Numerius Proiectus: temple of Venus, Carm. C Paganos 113–4, with Historia xix (1970), 477.

92 Historia xix (1970), 478.

93 e.g. Epp. ii, 83–5—recommendations for visitors to Milan during Flavianus' consulship of 394 (cf. ix, 119): compare the letters on the quaestorian games of 393; ii, 46, 76–8 and esp. 81 (‘praeterea domino et principi nostro [sc. Eugenio] … auro circumdatum diptychum misi’); v, 20–22, 59, etc.

94 Seeck, Symmachus lxxi. Compare the case of Marcianus (below, n. 121).

95 Chastagnol, Fastes 198–200. For another reference to a ‘cave’ of Mithras, ILS 4169 (above, p. 178).

96 Bloch (1945), 213, n. 37.

97 PLRE Albinus 8; cf. Chastagnol, , ‘Les consulaires de Numidie’, Mél. Carcopino (1966), 224 f.Google Scholar

98 Above, p. 182 f. and n. 58.

99 Respectively CIL vi, 512 (= ILS 4154; Caecinia Lolliana); vi, 509 (Rufia Volusiana); vi, 30966 (Sabina; above, n. 61).

100 ILS 4154; ‘viginti annis expletis taurobolii sui’, cf. Carm. c. Paganos 62; ‘vivere cum speras viginti mundus in annis’.

101 I have made some attempt to do this in my ‘The Letters of Symmachus’ (above, n. 2).

102 e.g. vii, 42; ix, 35, 102; cf. v, 66, 6 etc.

103 Above, p. 177.

104 Dill, S., Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire (1899), 153.Google Scholar

105 e.g. ii, 25; vi, 48 ; vii, 82 (breviario): i, 46 ; ii, 38; ix, 116 (verbal exposition).

106 e.g. i, 85; ii, 49; vi, 65; viii, 33.

107 i, 51.

108 i, 46 (cf. above, p. 177).

109 i, 49; note his reference to ‘rebus anxiis’ and to Symmachus' own ‘angor animi’ in the circumstances.

110 i, 51, referring to ‘labantis patriae nuntius’, cf. ii, 7, cited above, p. 177.

111 ii, 36. Symmachus' reaction on this issue is notorious, and is exploited heavily by Bloch in favour of his ‘narrow-mindedness’ and obsession with tradition (art. of 1945, 217–8). But the situation was more complex than this: Symmachus was concerned not only with ‘longae aetatis usus’ but with ‘condicio temporis praesentis’ (ii, 36, 2). He was anxious to avoid offending ‘sacrorum aemuli’ but at the same time aware of the dangers of provoking ‘ambitus’ by the precedent—one suspects that he was only too aware of the contemporary condition of paganism. In the event a statue was erected, by the chief Vestal Coelia Concordia (cf. CIL vi, 2145 = ILS 1261), it is not clear whether at her own expense.

112 ix, 147–8.

113 ix, 108; ‘quare officio pontificis, fide senatoris admoneor proferre conperta’.

114 i, 68; ‘effice, oro te, ut divinitus videatur oblatum tui honoris auxilium, et utriusque te sacerdotii antistitem recordare’—interpreted by Seeck, Symmachus CVI, n. 491 as an allusion to Titianus' priesthoods of Vesta (sc. as pontifex maior) and Sol. See ILS 1206, 1243, 1451; Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer 2, 522.

115 ii, 59.

116 ii, 34 (above, p. 189).

117 ii, 53.

118 v, 85.

119 i, 3, addressed to his father (so before 377).

120 See my ‘Symmachus and the Magister Militum Theodosius’, Historia xx (1971), at 126–8.

121 Note esp. iii, 32, on a point of etiquette (two proteges sent by Ambrose to Symmachus with only one letter between them) and 33, on behalf of Marcianus, in trouble after his support of Eugenius (as proconsul of Africa; Carm. c. Paganos, 86).

122 cf. Symmachus' use of the metaphor of the ‘mystagogue’ in recommending protégés to a friend, e.g. ix, 9; ‘in domus tuae sacrarium tamquam mystagogus induco’ cf. v, 64, vii, 45, iv, 40, ix, 64 (the first three cases to known Christians).

123 An exception may be provided by CIL vi, 31118 (of 376), where three senators are listed, distinguished as ‘V.c., xv v(ir) s.f.’ (Turcius Secundus Asterius), ‘v.c.’ simply (Pontius Atticus), and ‘v.c, p.p., Hierof. Hecatar.’ (Sextilius Agesilaus Aedesius; above, n. 53). But the precise nature of the inscription is unclear

124 e.g. Ambrose of Milan, Ep. 79, 4Google Scholar (PL 16, 1270), to Bellicius; Gaudentius of Brescia, Praef. ad. Benivolum 4 (CSEL 68, p. 3).

125 Above, pp. 179 and 190: cf. Carm c. Paganos; 60, of the tauroboliate; ‘sub terram missus, pollutus sanguine tauri’, etc.

126 So Arnheim, M. T. W., The Senatorial Aristocracy in the Later Roman Empire (1972), is a rather narrower treatment than the title might suggestGoogle Scholar.

127 cf. esp. Ep. i, 47; ‘ingentem animum solitudine domas’, with i, 45; ‘si diis volentibus reconciliatae vires animi tui integraverunt vigorem’, and the delicate reference to the ‘pax deorum’ in i, 48. See also above, p. 181.

128 C. Symmachum, i, 624–30.