Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:33:33.147Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Roman Army and the Roman Religious Year

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2011

Arthur Darby Nock
Arthur Darby Nock
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Dura-Europos on the Euphrates has given us many surprises, and not the least of them was that from this outpost we should acquire a Feriale, or list of days with prescribed offerings, and that these holy days should be exclusively Roman, Imperial, or military. After preliminary publications by Rostovtzeff, under whose guidance the whole work has proceeded, the text was edited by Robert O. Fink, Allan S. Hoey and Walter F. Snyder with a commentary indispensable to students of Roman religion and Imperial history.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , October 1952 , pp. 187 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1952

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 Yale Classical Studies, VII (1940); I refer hereafter to the individual contributors by name and page. For instructive reviews, cf. St. Weinstock, J.R.S. XXXII (1942), 127ff.; Taylor, L. R., A.J.A. XLVI (1942), 310Google Scholarf.; Boyce, A. A., Cl. Phil. XXXVIII (1943), 64CrossRefGoogle Scholarff. (Note also her contribution, Am. J. Arch. LIII (1949), 337ff. on the Imperial acclamations of Septimius Severus).

My warmest thanks for generous aid are due to Martin Percival Charlesworth, by whose death scholarship and his friends have lost so much, and to Professors A. R. Bellinger, H. Bloch, A. E. R. Boak, Campbell Bonner, J. Carcopino, S. Dow, Charles F. Edson, Jr., W. S. Ferguson, J. F. Gilliam, A. H. M. Jones, L. R. Taylor, S. L. Wallace, C. Bradford Welles, John A. Wilson, and to Mr. Harold Mattingly and Mr. Colin H. Roberts. I am indebted to the Yale Department of Classics for the plate.

2 Supplicatio memoriae Germanici. Ovid's numine dexter ades (Fasti I 6) is poetic phraseology with no bearing on the status, then or later, of Germanicus; for official action, cf. Minto-U., A.Coli, Notizie d. scavi, LXXII (1947), 51Google Scholarff.

3 Cf. Fink, , Am. J. Arch. XLVIII (1944), 17CrossRefGoogle Scholarff; he points to App. B. C. V 136 as evidence for military observance of January 1 before the Principate; it was not an official feria.

4 On January 7, cf. Weinstock, l. c. The apparent omission of the Volcanalia (p. 153 f.) is strange, (cf. n. 8). In the gap in col. III 3, there may have been some celebration on Sept. 13 for Iuppiter Optimus Maximus on the anniversary of the founding of the Capitoline temple.

5 Religion u. Kultus d. Römer (ed. 2), 432 (cf. 398ff.); Warde Fowler, Roman Essays, 79ff.; Latte, K., Z. Sav. Stift. rom. Abt. LXVII (1950), 54Google Scholarf. and Proc. VII Congr. Hist. Rel. 120.

The penalty for noncompliance mentioned by Macrob. Sat. I 16.9 applied only to those who worked within sight of the rex sacrorum and flamines. The popular misuse of nefastus to mean ‘unlucky’ (Wissowa 443 n. 7: also Tac. Ann. XIV 12, to which Professor Bloch drew my attention) suggests that it was not a term as familiar to the public as feria(e). Dies fasti and nefasti are spoken of primarily in relation to public affairs; in relation to private concerns, feriae and dies festi are used, as are also dies religiosi, atri dies.

6 Cf. H. H. Rowley, Bull. J. Ryl. Libr. XXXIV (1951), 109ff.

7 So Cato makes the vilicus responsible for the keeping of feriae but proceeds a little later to say rem divinam nisi Compitalibus in compito aut in foco ne faciat (De re rustica 5.1,3; cf. Fowler, op. cit., 62f.); the only other positive observance prescribed is that on Kalends, Nones, Ides and festivals the vilica is to wreath the hearth per eosdemque dies Lari familiari pro copia supplicet (143.2).

The public at Rome were specially asked and aided to participate in ceremonies such as supplicationes and the Secular Games, but there was normally (cf. n. 90) no compulsion (Wissowa in Pauly-Wissowa, IV A 943). For voluntary acts of piety on festival days cf. Martial XII 67.

8 For the Saturnalia cf. Macrob. Sat. I 10.1. Hoey's evidence (166) about the Volcanalia refers to a reluctance to start fighting, not to the performance of ceremonies; on the character of the day cf. Wissowa in Roscher, Lex. VI 359 and Rose, H. J., J. Rom. St. XXIII (1933), 56Google Scholarff. Dio Cass. LXXVIII 25.2 shows that the meaning of the day was familiar in 217; cf. DEO VOLK(C)ANO on coins of Valerian and Gallienus and n. 178.

9 Serv. in Georg. I 270 alii hoc secundum augurale ius dictum tradunt, quod etiam in bello observetur, ne novum negotium incipiatur, as a generalization about festal days seems to go beyond the facts.

10 Macrob. I 16.19 (quoting Varro); I interpret viros vocare as L. Jan: on the days of grace cf. Mommsen, Staatsrecht, III 387. How unlucky the dies Alliensis was thought to be is shown by the indignant words of Tac. Hist. II 91; but it remained comitialis and we find two dedications (C.I.L. VI 163, Ann. épigr. 1927, no. 65) and one missio honesta (Ann. épigr. 1942/3, no. 83) falling on it.

11 I take it that the days when the ancilia, or sacred shields, were 'set in motion' were for the army like dies religiosi. Polybius XXI 13.10 speaks of P. Scipio as delaying during them because he was a Salius (for a taboo affecting the commander alone, cf. Tac. Ann. I 62.3), but Livy's statement (XXXVII 33.6) is confirmed by Tac. Hist. I 89 and Suet. Oth. 8.3; cf. Kobbert, Pauly-Wissowa, I A 581.

For degrees of scrupulosity cf. Wissowa, Religion, 443 n. 8. Scipio is said to have overcome his brother's reluctance to attack on a later dies religiosus (Frontin. IV 7.30). Note Gell. IV 6.10 for the justification of religious action on an ater dies (on the principle discussed in Harv. Theol. Rev. XXXII, 1939, 83ff).

(Somewhat similar was the closing of temples on the anniversary of the death of Germanicus; Minto-Coli, cited n. 2.)

The official calendar shows a remarkable freedom from superstitious fear. For the Roman point of view cf. Rose, , U. Cal. Publ. Class. Phil. XII (1941), 91Google Scholar n. 7 (on the dies Paréntales).

12 Wissowa, Religion, 585, 591, 589; Mancini, Notizie, 1921, 110 (Aug. 24 marked C[omitialis]. It may well be that in fact the Comitia did not meet on such days. Cf. Fest. p. 144.29).

13 Cf. I 20.5 quibus hostiis, quibus diebus, ad quae templa sacra fierent, and Athenae. 274A.

14 Cf. W. Rist. Die Opfer d. röm. Heeres (Diss. Tüb. 1914, pub. 1920); Latte, Pauly-Wissowa, IX 1117; and for a lustratio, G. Macdonald, Roman Wall in Scotland (ed. 1934), 363f.

15 So in the ritual of the Arval Brethren (C.I.L. VI 2107.8), of the ludi saeculares (Romanelli, Notizie, 1931, 343); for grass altars in private cultus cf. F. J. Dölger, Ant. u. Christ. VI (1950), 312f.

16 F. E. Adcock, Roman Art of War, 20.

17 Dessau, Inscr. lat. sel. 6087 § 64; these days were thereafter mandatory (ib. § 70f., ludi are prescribed as an obligation binding on magistrates, but times are not specified). The cult of the Capitoline deities may be assumed in all Capitolia; otherwise individual choice will have predominated.

Each local community could have its own celebrations, like that referred to by Horace, Carm. III 18.9.

18 (I exclude the old use of exercitus to mean comitia centuriata). From the standpoint of sentiment, an army was Rome in partibus, and foreign potentates did homage before the standards; but what is said above represents the constitutional fact.

19 C.I.L. VI 32329.11f.

20 Cf. Bohn, O., Gennania, X (1926), 25Google Scholarff.

21 For references, see Kübler in Pauly-Wissowa, IV A. 905ff.; W. Kroll, Kultur d. ciceronischen Zeit, II 70; cf. the personal choice of celebrations ascribed to Severus Alexander in S.H.A. Alex. Sev. 37.6.

22 Cf. Hoey 167.

23 Amm. Marc. XXII, 12.6; cf. XXV 4.17 and the apologetic remarks of Liban. Orat. XVIII 170.

24 Cf. Cic. Leg. II 25 and later Carm. lat. epigr. 873.

25 Charlesworth kindly drew my attention to a striking instance of how Augustus thought about military administration, the quotation in Dig. XLIX 16.12.1, and to E. Albertini's discussion thereof in Rev. ét. anc. XLII (1940), 379ff. (A. concludes that it comes from a letter to Tiberius.)

C.I.L. XIII 11831 gives a fragment of an ordinance by a later Emperor, possibly, as v. Domaszewski suggested, Septimius Severus, referring to [discipli]nam castrorum; there is something about the standards and possibly something also about the guarding of the military gods. The text is too fragmentary to prove more than that the supreme authority continued to care about the detail of military arrangements.

26 Suet. Aug. 35.3.

27 Cf. C. T. Seltman, Camb. Anc. Hist. Vol. Plates IV 148b, 146c. Sulla had used the lituus on coinage earlier (B.M.C.R. Rep. II 459); there may be a suggestion of divinely guaranteed luck. In general cf. M. Grant, Aspects of the Principate of Tiberius (Num. Notes and Monographs, CXVT, 1950), 45.

28 Varro spoke of the gods as not wanting or asking for sacrifice (Ant. div., ed. Agahd [Fleck. Jahrb. Suppl. XXIV], 155) but he also said et religiones et castus id possunt, ut ex periculo nos eripiant nostro (ib. 156). For a possible reflection of Augustan piety in an ex-soldier's inscription cf. Wilhelm, Anz. Wien, 1948, 325f. Cf. again M. Aurel. I 17 (the more important in view of the remarks about superstition in I 16) and W. Kroll's magnificent discussion in Pauly-Wissowa, XXI 412ff. of the attitude of the elder Pliny, which is so easy to misunderstand.

29 Plin. N.H. II 94; does segue in eo nasci refer to the fact that Octavian was starting a new life as an adopted Caesar?

This did not prevent a hostile attitude being taken towards the memory of some of the actions of Julius; cf. Syme, R., A Roman Post-Mortem (with the review of A. F. Giles, J. Rom. St. XLI, 1951, 161Google Scholar), and the verdict of Suet. Iul. 76 that he was iure caesus for his acceptance of overweening honors (cf. Flor. II 13.91).

30 So the observance of March 1 perhaps acquired a special character (Fink, 82ff. St. Weinstock, J. Rom. St. XXXVIII, 1948, 37f.; Cat. codd. astrol. gr. IX i, 128, 131).

31 As for the question (Hoey 124f.) why the games of May 12 were commemorated rather than those of August 1, the explanation may be that they had probably been established earlier (in 20 B.C.) and that they may very well have been specially associated with the recovery of the standards captured by the Parthians. It is just possible that the pattern of the Feriale was created between 20 B.C. and 2 B.C., to which year the games of August 1 are ascribed; any time in or soon after 12 B.C. when Augustus became Pontifex Maximus, would be likely.

32 To be sure, Cybele is absent from lead tesserae, on which Sarapis appears four times, Isis once; but Juppiter appears only four times and Mars once (Rostowzew, Römische Bleitesserae, [Klio, Beih. III] 110), and I do not know what significance to attach to this. Neither Cybele nor the Egyptian deities appear in the dedications of iuvenes (S. L. Mohler, Trans. Am. Philol. Ass. LXVIII, 1937, 472f.).

It was festivals, not deities, that were commemorated; Mithras had none, save the Mithrakana in Asia Minor, and, as far as we know, Dolichenus had none; and so, quite apart from the fact that their cults were not taken into the official circle, there was nothing to celebrate.

33 It is not surprising that there was no celebration connected with the ludi Apollinares, July 6–13, for the only ludi commemorated are those of Mars ultor and of Salus. For the first there was a special reason (n. 31) and the second fell on the natalis Salutis (Cic. Ad Att. IV i. 4 and Sest. 131 show that this was a familiar occasion. Further, Salus had a lucky sound and Augustus restored the augurium Salutis.)

34 Wissowa, Hermes LVIII (1923) 383.

35 For feeling against the neglect of established rites in favor of new ones, Professor Dow quotes Lys. XXX 17ff. For Sol, cf. Hoey, , Trans. Amer. Philol. Assoc. LXX (1939), 479Google Scholarf.; Nock, , J. Rom. St. XXXVII (1947), 113Google Scholar; Fr. Altheim, Niedergang II 347 (on the possible addition by Aurelian of solar symbols to military insignia).

36 R. Bartoccini in De Ruggiero, Diz. epigr. IV 91.

37 Hoey, l. c. 456ff.

38 F. Cumont, Fouilles de Doura-Europos, 89ff. pl. L; Rostovtzeff, History of the Ancient World, II 316 pl. LXXXII: pl. I here. On the standard bearer, cf. Rostovtzeff, J. Rom. St. XXXII (1942) 93.

39 So also I suspect that the Tyche of Dura and the Tyche of Palmyra, as represented in the scene, are symbolic of the garrison town and of the nominal mother city of the troops and are not receiving a share in the act of worship; this is not as clear as it would be if they were facing one another, like the two Tychai in B.M.C. Galatia, 119 no. 31, but that would not have been compatible with the stylistic principle of frontality.

40 Dura-Europos, Rep. VI 345. Cf. Numbers 2.3ff. and Origen, In Num. IV 2 (G.C.S. XXX 21).

41 Rostovtzeff, Berytus, VIII (1943), 58f.

42 Renaissance I (1943), 57.

43 Gilliam, J. F., Yale Classical Studies, XI (1950), 216Google Scholar, 218.

44 Cf. W. W. Fowler, Roman Essays, 75 ff.

45 So C.I.L. II 3228, VIII 6041, X 3822.

46 E.g. the temple of Iuppiter Dolichenus, Kyria and a Syrian Baal identified with Zeus Helios Mithras (Du Mesnil du Buisson, C. R. Acad. Inscr. 1936, 144; H. N. Porter, Am. J. Phil. LXIX, 1948, 27ff.). Although the third god is called Zeus Helios Mithras Tourmasgade, I agree with St. Wikander, Etudes sur les mystères de Mithras, I (Vetenskaps-Societetens Lund, Årsbok, 1950), 27 that this is not Mithraism in the accepted sense of the word. We do not know who was worshipped in the shrine described in Dura-Europos, Rep. II 83ff., apparently on the Campus; possibly Disciplina, possibly Virtus or some Genius. [On the first temple, or cult-complex, cf. now J. F. Gilliam, Dura-Europos, IX iii 115ff.: ib. 130, he places it on the edge of the camp.]

47 G. C. Picard, Castellum Dimmidi, with the reviews by P. Grimal, Rev. ét. anc. LI (1949), 177ff., R. L. Scranton, Am. J. Arch. LIII (1949), 416f., H. G. Pflaum, J. Sav. 1949, 55ff., R. Lantier, Rev. arch. 1951, i 104f., Bloch, R., Rev. phil. LXXVII (1951), 122Google Scholarff. This Castellum included a stele with the crescent of Caelestis, a shrine of the Palmyrene deities, and a Dolichenus stele.

48 Corp. inscr. Lat. VI 31138ff.; cf. ib. 414 for a shrine of Dolichenus in the statio of cohors II vigilum, but these men, though having a quasi-military life, were not regular soldiers.

49 On scholae cf. Cagnat, Mém. acad. inscr. XXXVIII (1909), 249ff., etc. and L'armée romaine d'Afrique (éd. 2), 386ff.; to call them 'chapels' seems to me unwarranted. — A. v. Domaszewski, Westd. Z. XIV (1895), 80 argues that one dedication to Silvanus was set up within a camp, and since the dedicators were the centurions of the legion (Dessau 2451) this is possible. Cf. Cumont, Et. syr. 163 on an ambiguous Silvanus castrensis. An Aesculapius castrensis at Rome (C.I.L. VI 15) may belong to the praetorians (cf. ib. 20).

50 Dig. XLIX 16.9.13. When soldiers were permitted to lease portions of the territorium legionis (Liebenam, Pauly-Wissowa, VI 1677), they may well have set up dedications and private altars there. So at all times they may have owned small statuettes of the type discussed J. Rom. St. XXXVII (1947), 112; I so interpret the signa deorum argentea castrensia of C.I.L. XII 3058; since these had been kept at home and were apparently being given to a temple, they can hardly have belonged to a military shrine. On small statuettes cf. also Toynbee, J. Rom. St. XLI (1951), 171f.

51 M. Durry, Les cohortes prétoriennes, 115. The commander's wife might take a part (cf. C.I.L. VIII 2630); for her place in the scheme of things, see Tac. Ann. III 33–4 and R. Dussaud, C.R.A.I. 1937, 385.

52 Trans. Cumberland and Westmoreland Antiq. and Arch. Soc. N.S. XXXIX (1939), 19ff.

G. C. Picard, op. cit. (n. 47) discusses dedications of an ara cerei on May 3.

53 Arch. Ael. IV, xxi (1943), 162ff., 173ff., 149 n. 34; ib. 176ff. we have perhaps an echo of the cult of Mars ultor. Cf. W. Kubitschek-S. Frankfurter, Führer durch Carnuntum (ed. 6), 45 fig. 21, for a relief of Neptune being crowned by Victory; is this perhaps to be connected with the observance of the Neptunalia?

54 Cf. n. 23 above and Joseph. B. J. VII 16.

55 So Taylor, L. R., Am. J. Arch. XLVI (1942), 311Google Scholar. Cf. Liv. X 23.1 for the distribution of wine and incense to the Roman people on the occasion of a supplicatio; Plut. Brut. 39 for gifts to the soldiers on the occasion of a lustratio; n. 23 for Julian's sacrifices. Yet Asterius speaks of the celebration of Jan. 1 as costing the soldiers money (P.G. XL 221).

56 The Roman Citizenship, 168. Cf. the self-Hellenization of I Mace. 1. 11ff.

57 Sherwin-White 3, 38. Cf. A. Momigliano's admirable review in J. Rom. St. XXXI (1941), 158ff.

58 Cf. Hammond, M., Harv. St. Class. Phil. LX (1951), 147CrossRefGoogle Scholarff.; J. H. Oliver, Hesperia, XX (1951). 348f.

59 Cf. Ziebarth in Pauly-Wissowa, XVIII iii, 583f.; Fraser, P. M., J. Rom. St. XL (1950Google Scholar), 77ff.; Oliver, l.c., 31ff.

60 Cf. A. H. M. Jones, The Greek City, 61; W. Kubitschek, Sitz.-Ber. Wien, CLXXVII iv (1916). [Dio Prus.] XXXVII 26 addresses the men of Corinth as having become Greeks (they belonged to the Panhellenes; J. A. O. Larsen, Cl. Phil. XLVII, 1952, 8); ib. 25 the speaker makes a cryptic reference to himself as sacrificing property, civic standing and everything else by reason of his inclining to Greek rather than to Roman ways.

61 Vell. Paterc. II 118.1; cf. S.H.A. Tacit. 15.2, Zosim. IV 30.4.

62 F. Haverfield, Romanization of Roman Britain (ed. 4), 29. Cf. B. Saria. Historia, I (1950), 448 on the spread of Latin in Noricum and Pannonia before conquest; Charlesworth, Lost Province, 65 on Latin words in Old Irish. But against exaggerated views of the supersession of the vernacular in Roman Britain cf. K. Jackson, Mediaeval Studies in Honor of J. D. M. Ford, 94ff. and L. Bieler, Vig. Chr. VI (1952), 66.

63 Tac. Ann. III 43; cf. O. Hirschfeld, Kl. Schr. 124f., 191f., 206f. It is reasonable to suppose that when Sertorius established teachers of Greek and Latin at Osca (Plut. Sert. 14), his primary purpose was to train native Spaniards for positions of command.

64 H. Fuchs, Augustin u.d. antike Friedensgedanke, 11f.; cf. St. Weinstock, Brit, Sch. Rome, XVIII (1950), 46. Prudent. Peristeph. II 427f. idem loquuntur dissoni ritus, id ipsum sentiunt, shows how far a statement of sentiment could outrun the linguistic facts; it was not long since Greek had been the common language of Christian worship in Rome (Chr. Mohrmann, Vig. Chr. III, 1949, 67ff.) as also of hymns to Cybele (Serv. in Georg. II 394).

Note in an earlier time Liv. XL 42.13 Cumanis eo anno petentibus permissum ut publice Latine loquerentur et praeconibus Latine vendendi ius esset (with Weissenborn's note).

65 Arch. 23.

66 Palmyrene also was recognized, but Palmyra was an exceptional community. Egyptian was recognized to the extent that candidates for priestly offices in temples had to pass examinations in it. The trilingual inscription of Gallus (Dess. 8995) was exceptional; the trilingual inscription on the Cross, set there as a warning, may have had parallels.

On Greek in official usage cf. A. Stein, Untersuchungen z. Gesch. u. Verwaltung Ägyptens, 132ff. and J. Stroux — L. Wenger, Die Augustus-Inschrift (Abh. Bayer. Ak. XXXIV ii, 1928), 18ff.

67 Suet. Claud. 16 (with Smilda's note) 42; F. Jacoby, F. Gr. H. no. 276; cf. M. L. W. Laistner, The Greater Roman Historians, 141f.

68 Cf. Ensslin in Pauly-Wissowa, VII A 2478; Nock, Speculum, XXVI (1951), 504f.; F. Dornseiff, D. Lit.–Z. LXXII, 1951, 250 (on a papyrus of Juvenal with Greek scholia).

69 Germ. 43.4; it is Romana, not Latina, perhaps with an emphasis on the proud name of the imperial people; Romanos rerum dominos gentemque togatam (Aen. I 282).

70 Cf. n. 104.

71 Röm.-germ. Komm. XIV Ber. (1922), 7. For a statement that the gods are the same everywhere cf. Liv. XLII 3.9. Of course, even within a cultural unit local epithets such as Delios, Pythios, Ephesia had special value; for local rivalries cf. A. Daudet, Lettres de mon moulin, no. II.

72 Euseb. V. Const. IV 19.

73 Cf. Cantacuzène, G., Musée Belge, XXXI (1927), 168Google Scholar; Wickert, L., Würzb. Jahrb. IV (1949–1950), 109Google Scholar. R. Marichal, L'occupation romaine de la basse Egypte, 31f.

74 Suet. Tib. 71; Dio Cass. LVII 15.3.

75 Cf. W. L. Westermann, Class. Phil. XXXVI (1941), 21ff., and Stein, Unters. 173ff. In the Dura painting (p. 199 above), the tribune is described in Latin, Themes and the Tychai in Greek.

76 Cf. H. T. Rowell, Yale Class. Stud. VI 83.

77 B. J. III 472ff., VI 34ff. (esp. 38); cf. Herodian IV 14.7, VIII 7.4. On Disciplina cf. Richmond, Arch. Ael. IV xxi 165ff. Professor Bloch draws my attention also to Suet. Iul. 24.2 on the Transalpine legion raised by Caesar.

78 Aristid. XXVI 74, p. 112 Keil (i. 352 Dindorf): I quote Saul Levin's version (Glencoe, Illinois, 1950).

79 Cf. the criticism of E. Visser, Götter und Kulte im ptolemäischen Alexandrien, 20ff. If some Greek rulers seemed to favor Buddhism (W. W. Tarn, Greeks in Bactria and India, 175ff.), that was a different matter.

A word may be said about the tradition in Polyaen. IV 15 that Antiochus I ordered his troops and the whole countryside to celebrate a Persian festival, Περσικὴν ἑoρτὴν θαλιἀζειν (discussed by W. Otto, Beitr. z. Seleukidengesch. [Abh. Bayer. Akad. XXXIV i, 1927], 13 n. 1 and E. Bikerman, Institutions des Séleucides, 97). Surely it means simply ‘a sumptuous banquet’; cf. Ps. Xen. Cyrop. VIII 8.10; Cornel. Nep. Pausan. 3.2; Hor. C. I. 38.1; Strab. 734; Hesych. s. v. συμβαριτικαῖς: and Dio Prus. III 136ff. (on Persian hunts). On a possible earlier attempt to use the cult of Nebo to unite Babylonia and Assyria cf. Lehmann-Haupt in Roscher, Lex. IV 679ff.

80 Cf. F. Ll. Griffith, J. Eg. Arch. XV (1929), 73f. and Cat. Demotic Graffiti … Dodecaschoenus, 3, 36; H. Kees, Pauly-Wissowa, XIX 2111. For Diocletian's policy cf. W. Ensslin, Sitz.-Ber. Bayer. Akad. 1942, i, 55.

81 Cf. J. Carcopino, Aspects mystiques de la Rome païenne, 30 with my comments, J. Rom. St. XXXVIII, 1948, 157. Liban. Orat. XI 103 speaks of Seleucus I as continuing to hellenize what was barbarous; he is speaking of the foundation of cities.

82 Cf. Tarn, Greeks in Bactria and India, 187, 191; H. Seyrig, Syria XX (1939) 298ff.; C. H. Kraeling, Gerasa, 31. For what was involved in self-equation with Zeus cf. Class. Phil. XXXVIII (1943) 54f. and an epitaph discussed by A. Wilhelm, Griechische Epigramme aus Kreta (Symb. Oslo. Fasc. suppl. XIII, 1950), 15f. Φερσεφόνας ἐσιδὼν κρέσσoνα Φερσεφόναν (with the type of hyperbole discussed by H. W. Prescott, Trans. Am. Philol. Assoc. LXIII, 1932, 105). The variation in Hammurabi's titulature (C. W. McEwan, Oriental Origin of Hellenistic Kingship, 10) is a warning against the ascription of too much meaning to any identifications of kings with gods. Cf. Pan. Lat. XI 10. p. 284.34f. ed. Baehrens, where the implied Iovius shades into Iuppiter and the implied Herculius into Hercules and W. Ensslin, Sitz.— Ber. Bayer. Akad. 1943, vi, 49.

83 W. Otto, Z. Gesch. d. Zeit d. 6. Ptolemäers (Abh. Bayer. Akad. N. F. XI, 1934), 85, appreciates the strangeness of the edict but regards it as genuine and explains it from the neurotic condition which he attributes to Antiochus, after the day on which the Romans brusquely compelled him to evacuate Egypt. A slightly hysterical note is indeed seen in some Imperial edicts of the fourth century A.D. (J. Bibl. Lit. LX, 1941, 91), but Tarn, op. cit., 183ff. seems to me to have disproved Otto's view of the king's psychology.

The statement of Seleucus 'I will impose on you, not the customs of Persians or other races, but this law, which is common to all, that whatever a king determines is always just' (App. Syr. 61; Ed. Meyer, Blüte u. Niedergang d. Hellenismus, 44) has been quoted as a parallel; but Seleucus was making a speech to gain the army's consent to an arrangement, and he was perhaps echoing the supposed Persian law which Herodot. III 31 makes the Persian judges quote to Cambyses. (Cf. the Athenian decree quoted by Plut. Demetr. 24.9.)

84 Ursprung u. Anfänge d. Christentums, II, 158.

85 E. Bickermann, Der Gott d. Makkabäer, 127ff.; I. Heinemann, Monatschr. Gesch. Wiss. Jud. LXXXII (1938), 161ff. As for the suggestion that Antiochus was setting up a general cult of Zeus Kapetolios, I feel that the king's unfinished temple to that god at Antioch (Liv. XLI 20.9; cf. U. Bianchi, Mem. Lincei, VIII, ii, 1949, 371 n.3, 376 n.3, on its possible completion by Tiberius, which would be like Hadrian's completion of the Olympieion at Athens, but hardly fits the emperor's economical policy as described by Suet. Tib. 46f.) belongs to an early phase of his rule. His later concern was probably to create an Eastern counterpoise to Rome (Tarn, op. cit., 206).

86 In XII 269 he does echo I Macc. 2.19, which implies the same idea. — I Macc. 3.29 shows a comparable lack of sense of proportion; it was natural under the circumstances. (On Daniel 3ff., cf. H. H. Rowley, The Servant of the Lord and other Essays, 263ff.)

87 Cf. Tarn, 193f.

88 Cf. Joseph B. J. I. 34.

89 Cf. Otto, op. cit. 84, ‘Der König hat offenbar geglaubt, eine im Gang befindliche Entwicklung nicht mehr abwarten zu dürfen.’

90 Liv. XXII 10. The penalty imposed on senators who did not observe the birthday of Divus Julius (Dio Cass. XLVII 18.5) was a political measure. Cf. J. Bibl. Lit. LX (1941) 93 n.21.

91 Cf. Last, H. M., J. Rom. St. XXVII (1937), 80CrossRefGoogle Scholarff.; Nock, Camb. Anc. Hist. X, 481, 489ff. 495f., 500, 503.

92 Cf. Cic. Leg. II 37; Grant, R. M., Harv. Theol. Rev. XLI (1948), 273CrossRefGoogle Scholarf.

93 Cf. Mommsen, Strafrecht, 562ff.; McDonald, A. H., J. Rom. St. XXXIV (1944), 15Google Scholar, 27ff.; W. Kroll in Pauly-Wissowa, XVII, 201f. (on sodalicium sacrilegii Nigidiani: there was a suspicion of occultism); Acta proc. S. Cypriani 4 (nefariae … conspirationis): Cels. ap. Orig. in Cels. I, 1.

94 Cf. A. J. Festugière in Coniectanea Neotestamentica XI (1947, Lund), 66ff. It is hard to imagine a Roman parallel to the ephebic oath at Athens ‘I will honor the ancestral hiera’ (L. Robert, Et. épigr. philol. 296ff.), there was at Rome nothing like the ‘éducation religieuse’ described by A. J. Festugière–P. Fabre, Le monde gréco-romain aux temps de Notre-Seigneur, I 87ff.

95 Liv. I 20.6, IV 30.11, XXV, 1.12, XXXIX 15.3, 16.8; cf. Virg. Aen. VIII 185ff., Propert IV 1.17ff. and Dio Cass. LII 36.2 (Maecenas represented as advising Augustus to tolerate neither godless men nor magicians).

96 Ann. XI, 15.

97 Cf. p. 196 above and Camb. Anc. Hist. X 475ff.

98 The statement in Dio Cass. LI 16, and Julian Ep. III Bidez that Augustus gave the god Sarapis as one of his reasons for sparing Alexandria in 30 is not supported by the parallels quoted by Nachstädt on Plut. Mor. 207A and may be regarded as coming from Alexandrian propaganda such as we see in the so-called ‘Alexandrian martyr-acts.’

As for the Jerusalem incident, the explanation probably lies in cultural antipathy such as Horace expresses; certainly there was no loss of Jewish privileges under Augustus and Jews could depend on Roman protection against local pressures.

99 E. Aust, De aedibus sacris (Diss. Marburg, 1889), 47ff. shows that there was not in early times any general principle of excluding imported cults from the pomerium.

In early times, executions were naturally performed outside the pomerium (Latte, Pauly-Wissowa, Supp. VII 1618); but in later years its main significance was constitutional. For the feeling that worship extra pomerium entailed some inferiority cf. Dio Cass. XL 47.4.

100 Lucan X 63; on Cleopatra cf. my forthcoming paper in Aegyptus.

101 I 3.23ff., 7.27ff. (with Gnomon XXI, 1949, 221ff. and Klingner, Eranos, XLIX, 1951, 117ff.).

102 Suet. Claud. 25.5. — Augustus vowed and dedicated a temple to the Gaulish wind-god Circius (Sen. N.Q. V 17.5), presumably in gratitude for some special mercy.

103 J. Rom. St. XXXIX (1949), 1ff.

104 Trans. Am. Philol. Ass. LXIX (1938), 319ff.

105 C. Cichorius, Röm. Studien, 7ff. Cf. S. H. A. M. Ant. phil. 23.8 sacra Serapidis a vulgaritate Pelusiaca summovit (did Arnuphis advise the emperor?).

106 Suet. Aug. 31.1.

107 Tac. Hist. IV 54; cf. Dio Cass. LXII 6.1 on Boudicca's art of divination.

108 Plin. XXIX 54; ib. XXX 13 on Druids as magicians and on what a good thing it was to suppress them (also XVI 249). Cf. for the latitude of the definition of magic, Nock in F. J. Jackson–K. Lake, Beginnings of Christianity, V 172ff. For the feeling against magic cf. Virg. Aen. IV 493, with A. S. Pease's note. It was a good charge to combine with others, ad invidiam.

109 Bell. Gall. VI 13 (which Claudius must have read).

110 Tac. Ann. XIV 30 (here too the cruelty of their ritual is stressed); cf. Macdonald, Pauly-Wissowa, XVI 42f.

111 Tac. Ann. II 27ff.; cf. XII 52 and note Hist. I 22, where they are a genus kominum, like the Christians in Suet. Nero, 16. No special reason is given for the expulsion of astrologers from Italy by Vitellius; but when a prophecy of his doom followed, he condemned to death without a hearing all who were accused (Suet. Vitell. 14.4). Again, just as Pliny asked whether the nomen ipsum or the flagitia cohaerentia nomini should be punished, it was later debated which was punishable, knowledge of astrology or the active practice of the art (Mommsen, Strafrecht, 863 n.7, cf. 641 n.2 on magic). Dio Cass. LVI 25.5 remarked that Augustus, while taking strong measures against astrologers, displayed his horoscope prominently (as on coins); again, Manilius addressed his poem to Augustus.

112 For the way in which coercitio lacked precise limits cf. Mommsen, Ges. Schr. III 396; for the arbitrary character of the action of provincial governors, S. Lieberman, Ann. inst. philol. hist, orient, et slaves VII (1939–44), 428ff. In the mandata principum (on which cf. M. I. Finkelstein, Tijdschrift v. Rechtsgeschiedenis, XIII, 1934, 150ff.) provincial governors were given general instructions malis hominibus provinciam purgare (Dig. I 18.3); Proculus laid down the principle that a governor was to consider not what had been done at Rome but quid fieri debeat (ib. I 18. 12). After all, Tacitus says of Augustus' actions on the discovery of adultery in his family circle, suasque ipse leges egrediebatur (Ann. III 24.3).

113 Tac. Ann. XV 44; cf. H. Fuchs, Vig. Christ. IV (1950), 65ff.

114 Mommsen, Strafr. 638; R. Reitzenstein, Zwei religionsgeschichtliche Fragen, 1ff. Cf. Dio Cass. LXXIX 11.1 for horror at the circumcision of Elagabalus.

115 S.H.A. Sev. 17. Note that he safeguarded Jewish superstitio in relation to the decurionate. (Dig. L 2, 3.3)

116 Mommsen, Ges. Schr. III 398 n.6, 408 n.1.

117 Mos. et Rom. leg. coll. XV 3.4; K. Stade, Der Politiker Diokletian, 88. For the parallel, cf. Val. Max. I, 3.3.

118 Euseb. V. Const, I, 53, III 55 (there was no such objection to the cult of Asclepius at Aegae, ib. 56 — with Sozomen II 5 — unless the charge of priestly fraud was raised): cf. III 58, IV 25.

119 Baynes, Camb. Anc. Hist. XII 655; for later discussion cf. J. Zeiller, Anal. Boll. LXVII (1949) 49ff.

120 Cf. Gnomon, XXIII (1951), 48ff. and for a later period, Euseb. H. E. VIII 1.

121 Certainly the private cults of Dionysus in Italy revived after the suppression of the Bacchanalia; the statement in Serv. on Ecl. V 29 that Julius Caesar was the first to introduce the rites of Liber Pater into Rome is properly dismissed by H. J. Rose, The Eclogues of Vergil, 132.

122 O. v. Gebhardt, Ausgewählte Märtyreracten, 25.

123 Ep. X 96.3.

124 Cf. Liv. XXXIX 9.1 velut contagione morbi; R. M. Grant, Harv. Theol. Rev. XLI (1948), 274. Contrast Julian Ep. 84 ‘Hellenism (i.e., paganism) is not yet progressing as it should.’

125 Cf. (for the continuation of the policy under Valerian) Acta Cypr. 1, eos qui Romanam religionem non colunt, debere Romanas caeremonias recognoscere (with R. Reitzenstein, Sitz.-Ber. Heidelberg, 1913, xiv 12). This is how it looked to Christians at least. On Decius cf. Baynes, l. c. 656f. I do not know of any evidence on the point, but Jews must have been dispensed from compliance; cf. Cels. ap. Orig. Cels. V, 41 and p. 221 later (on Julian) for the attitude towards them of opponents of Christianity. [S. Lieberman, Ann. phil. hist, orient. VII, 1939–44, 403 quotes a Talmudic statement that Diocletian dispensed the Jews from offering libations.]

126 Harv. Theol. Rev. XXIII (1930), 251ff.

127 Knipfing, ib. XVI (1923), 345ff. Pionius was apparently asked to make an offering in the Nemeseion at Smyrna (v. Gebhardt, Märt, 101f.).

128 He had the title (C.I.L. II, 4957f.). Its omission on coins is sometimes inexplicable; so on those of Hadrian after ca. 125 (B.M.C. III xxv), of Antoninus Pius after 141 (except for B.M.C. IV 72; cf. Mommsen, Z. f. Numism. I, 1874, 238ff.), of Commodus before 184 (B.M.C. IV cli n.1). But the predecessor and successor of Decius alike used it, and so the failure of Decius to do so perhaps deserves note. On his coinage in general cf. Mattingly-Sydenham-Sutherland, R. Imp. Coinage, IV, iii, 116, and Mattingly, Camb. Anc. Hist. XII, 719 and Num. Chron. 1949, 80. A similar neutrality is however to be seen in the issues of Constantius II and Constans (Mattingly, ib. 1933, 190f.) and of Julian in general, (Webb, ib. 1910, 238ff.), as also later (J. W. Pearce in Mattingly etc., R. Imp. Coinage, IX xli).

129 J. Rom St. XXXVII (1947), 104; cf. Anon. De Hippomacho, cited in Nock, Conversion, 293. (For the need of such advice in Egypt, when the problem was neither Judaism nor Christianity, cf. F. Zucker, Abh. Berlin, 1937, vi, 14 n.3 and Juvenal XV).

130 A. Rehm, Philol. XCIII (1938), 74ff.; H. Grégoire, Byzantion, XIV (1939), 319ff.

131 Dessau 625; for other religious activities cf. Ensslin, Pauly-Wissowa, VII A 2479.

132 Dessau 659.

133 Cf. n. 231.

134 Liv. I, 2.4 Latinos utramque gentem appellavit.

135 Excavations at Dura-Europos, Rep. VII/VIII 85; G. Lugli, I monumenti ant. di Roma I 428 fig. 95 and M. J. Vermaseren, De Mithrasdienst in Rome (Diss. Utrecht, 1951), 80ff. The recent discoveries at Carrawburgh include votive altars dedicated by three praefecti of the cohors I Batavorum (I. A. Richmond – J. P. Gillam – E. Birley, The Temple of Mithras at Carrawburgh [in Arch. Ael. 1951], 45ff.).

136 Dess. 4311a.

137 H. Mattingly, B.M.C.R. Emp. IV cxxxix; J. Guey, Rev. Phil. LXXIV (1948), 16ff. and Mél. arch. hist. LX (1948), 105ff., LXI (1949), 93ff.; J.-L. Robert, Rev. ét. gr. LVII (1944), 239 and LXII (1949), 159; Alföldi, Pisciculi [Ant. u. Chr. Erg. I. 1939], 13.

138 Cf. J. Vogt, Alex. Münzen, I I71f.

139 Wissowa, Rel. 89; for Sarapis as later comes of the emperor cf. J. Rom. St. XXXVII (1947), 102.

140 Cf. Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship, 220ff. For Caracalla's flamboyance, cf. Dio Cass. LXXVIII 3.3.

141 Dio LXXVIII 15.6.

142 Cf. J. Toutain, Cultes païens, I 191f.

143 Cumont, Et. syr. 162ff.

144 L'armée romaine d'Egypte (Mém. inst. fr. d'arch. or. XLI), 279ff. Mr. C. H. Roberts observes that in the remarkable military correspondence published by H. C. Youtie and J. G. Winter in P. Mich. VIII Sarapis is the only divinity to count (no. 499.5 ‘the gods here’).

145 Dessau 2096; cf. Alföldi, Camb. Anc. Hist. XII 211 n.3. For the strength of regional character in armies cf. Plut. Galb. 22, Herodian III 7.2.

146 For another view of this incident cf. p. 222 above.

147 Cf. Idolol. 19 and P. Franchi de’ Cavalieri, Studi e testi, LXV (1935), 357ff. Compare again Tertullian's intransigent attitude about Socrates (Hanfmann, Harv. St. Class. Phil. LX, 1951, 217) and philosophy in general.

148 Cf. Baynes, Carnb. Anc. Hist. XII 659, 663; W. Seston, Mél. Goguel, 239ff. and Historia, I (1950), 257ff; also the Passio Fabii (Anal. Boll. IX, 1890, 123ff., to which Professor A. H. M. Jones drew my attention).

149 H. Delehaye, Bull. acad. roy. Belg. 1921, 150ff. There is little evidence for Christians in the praetorian guard; cf. M. Durry, Hommages Bidez-Cumont (Coll. Latomus II) 85ff. For their numerical strength in the army under Diocletian, cf. Euseb. H.E. VIII 4.2.

150 XXVI 85, p. 115 Keil (i 358 Dindorf). Cf. Artemidor, II 31 p. 128.4 Hercher ‘the soldier is neither idle nor needy.’ (Contra, a homily in B. Aubé, Polyeucte, 76 speaks of military life as seeming to most people unpleasing.)

151 Liban. Orat. XVIII 168; Socrat. IV 1.10 (cf. Alföldi, Conflict of ideas, 10). Constantine adopted a skilful policy, providing leisure for worship on Sunday and a neutral form of prayer for non-Christian soldiers (Eus. V.C. IV 18ff. cf. Sozomen I 8 on his provision for the sacraments). Cf. n.156.

152 Cf. Euseb. H.E. VI 41.22f.; Acta S. Marinae et S. Christophori, pp. 62, 69 ed. Usener (soldiers who had been sent to make an arrest). The martyrdom of the soldier Polyeuctus is assigned to the time of ‘Decius and Valerian’ (Aubé, op. cit. 81); but even the text on which the extant homily depends was written much later (Duchesne, Bull. critique, III, 1882, 223 ascribes it to a contemporary of Theodosius or even Arcadius) and Polyeuctus is represented as having torn up an Imperial edict and destroyed images (Aubé 95f.). Minias has been regarded as a military martyr under Decius (A.A.S.S. Oct. XI 415ff.) but the text clearly means ‘soldier of Christ’ (H. J. Rose, St. mat. storia rel. V, 1929, 231) and is unhistorical (Delehaye, A.A.S.S. Propyl. Dec. 477).

153 Alföldi, Camb. Anc. Hist. XII 203.

154 XVI, 20.

155 For the motif of jealousy cf. Delehaye, Saints militaires, 185.22. — The much discussed Acta S. Dasii do not constitute an exception; the saint's existence is not doubted, but I cannot believe that human sacrifice at the Kronia was permitted in a Roman camp; cf. Delehaye, Passions des martyrs, 321ff. and A.A.S.S. Propyl. Dec. 536. St. Weinstock, J. Rom. St. XXXVIII (1948), 41 n.48 has produced evidence to confirm the statement of the Acta as to the length of the festival; perhaps it was a fragment of information which came to the author without any context in time or place.

156 H. Muller, Christians and Pagans from Constantine to Augustine, I (Pretoria, 1946; we await eagerly the second part). 26, 46, 73f. For the hymn cf. Lactant. Mort. pers. 46; for sanctus Sol, Dessau 8940.

For the paganism of the troops led by Constantine against Maxentius cf. Liban. XXX 6; for his attitude toward the praetorian guard, Baynes, J. Rom. St. XXXIX (1949), 173. Zosim. II 29.5 represents Constantine as starting to perform a traditional rite on the Capitol from fear of the soldiers, but the indignation when he desisted was among the Senate and People (cf. Alföldi, Conversion of Constantine, 101f.). Ephraem Syrus tr. S. Euringer (Bibl. d. Kirchenväter XXXVII), 229 speaks of the secret paganism of soldiers of Constantius as accounting for a disaster; it was so to speak an alibi for the emperor and corresponds to Liban. XVIII 167, on the other side (the troops had failed because the gods were not with them). On Julian's soldiers cf. n. 151: Liban. XVIII 166 speaks of his old troops as invoking the gods; cf. Julian Ep. 26, p. 54.6 Bidez and Greg. Naz. Or. IV 64f., P.G. XXXV 585C (stating that many were won over). Yet Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 124.7 (P.L. XXXVII 1654) strongly suggests that Christian soldiers were not normally under great pressure in his reign.

157 On Jovian cf. Seeck, Pauly-Wissowa, IX, 2007; on Valentinian, Alföldi, Conflict of Ideas, 11.

158 J. Rom. St. XXXIII (1943), 8. Cf. von Bülow's Memoirs (E.T.) IV 263. General von Petery, commandant of Spandau under Frederick William IV was a Catholic, his wife a Protestant. When his wife asked him to which church she ought to go on the King's birthday, to the Protestant or the Catholic, the worthy husband answered: ‘It doesn't matter which of the two Gods you pray to, Minna, it's all the same, as long as you pray fervently for His Majesty.’ This corresponds to the words put in the proconsul's mouth in Passio SS. Scillitanorum 3 (v. Gebhardt 23) et nos religiosi sumus et simplex est religio nostra et iuramus per genium domini nostri imperatoris et pro salute eius supplicamus.

159 Cf. J. Rom. St. XXXVII (1947), 108, 115; G. H. Williams, Norman Anonymous of 1100 A.D. (Harv. Theol. St. XVIII, 1951), 155ff.

160 Cf. F. J. Dölger, Ant. u. Chr. II (1930), 273ff.

161 Ensslin, Pauly-Wissowa, XIV 2547.

162 Cf. Tac. Ann. XV, 67ff. (cf. XIV, 2); Herodian V 2.4ff., 8.2; Dio Cass. LXXX, 17.1; S.H.A. Macrin. 14.1, Heliogab. 10.1, 15.

163 The Greater Roman Historians, 150. Cf. again the realistic remark, imperatorem esse fortunae est, ascribed to Constantine in S.H.A. Heliogab. 34.4, and the coins of Gallienus honoring loyal troops (F. Altheim, Niedergang d. alten Welt, II 164).

164 Cf. J. A. McGeachy, Cl. Phil. XLIV (1949), 225ff.

165 Cf. W. Ensslin, Klio, Beih. XVI (1923), 48ff., 83ff.

166 Cf. H. Bloch, Harv. Theol. Rev. XXXVIII (1945), 209, etc.; Baynes, J. Rom. St. XXXVI (1946), 175; U. Knoche, Symbola Coloniensia Iosepho Kroll (1949), 143 ff.

167 Cf. Alföldi, Kontorniaten, and Schweizer Münzblätter, II (1951), 57ff., 92ff. May I remark that, for his interpretation of contorniates in general, it is not necessary to find anti-Christian sentiments in all types? For the clash of Senate and emperors cf. Alföldi, A conflict of ideas in the late Roman Empire. Liban. Orat. XXX 33 says ‘those who did not dare to deprive Rome of the practice of sacrifice.’

168 For rustic piety, cf. F. H. Dudden, Life and Times of St. Ambrose, I 244 and Dölger, Ant. u. Chr. VI (1950), 297ff. (Liban. XXX 55 hints that landowners may resist the suppression of all observances); for Sufes cf. Augustine Ep. 50 and Bloch, l.c. 237 n.88. Liban. Ep. 1351 indicates that before Julian's revival, pagan sentiment ran high at Apamea.

169 Cf. Suet. Tib. 48.2 (the Syrian legions rewarded quod solae nullam Seiani imaginem inter signa coluissent); Tac. H. III 24 orientem solem (ita in Suria mos est) tertiani salutavere; p. 200 above on Castellum Dimmidi, etc.

170 Mommsen, Ges. Schr. VIII 15ff.; Dessau 4918.

171 C.I.L. VIII 1859; S. Gsell, Inscr. lat. Algérie, I 3041.

172 A celebration of the Floralia was natural, but the days identified as Carmentalia and Equirria were perhaps local or personal celebrations which happened to coincide with these occasions in the Roman calendar; we should certainly expect some festival for Liber or the Cereres and perhaps one for Caelestis. Hoey 310, 312 points out that some days were probably omitted for the reason that provision was already made for oil, etc. Cf. Hoey 109 for a benefaction at Gortyn, and B. Laum, Stiftungen, I 88ff., for other foundations to provide oil. Weinstock's criticisms (J. Rom. St. XXXII 129) are to be noted.

173 Add February 24 in leap-years (Amm. Marc. XXVI 1.7). Against Snyder's view (293) that the Ides of February and March were systematically avoided note C.I.L. VI 31151 (dedication by equites singulares on March 15). The Mnndus patet days (p. 190 above) were not completely avoided.

174 C. III 14–13f.; cf. Dessau 7213.9 die felicissimo n(atali) Antonini Aug. n(ostri). So was a friend's birthday; cf. [Tibull.] IV, 5.

For corporate observances on Imperial days cf. Dess. 3546 (collegium Silvani met on birthdays of Domitia and Domitian, upon the occasion of the dedication of Silvanus, and on the Rosalia); C.I.L. VI 9254 (collegium centonariorum) and 33885 (collegium eborariorum); Dittenberger, Or. gr. inscr. sel. 595 (the Tyrians at Puteoli). D. M. Pippidi, Recherches sur le culte impérial, 109, remarked that Caligula chose the natalis of Augustus as the day for Drusilla's consecration (Balsdon, Oxf. Class. Dict. 301, adds ‘probably’). Suet. Tib. 58 records that one man was condemned for allowing an honor to be voted to himself in a colonia on a day on which honors had been voted to Augustus.

175 Cf. n.7 and Dessau 8366 (a lighted lamp and incense to be set on a tomb).

176 Cf. A. H. Salonius, Zur röm. Datierung (Ann. acad. scient. Fennicae, B. XV 10, 1922), 17 for datings by festivals; he quotes no examples later than Livy, but we have at Pompeii pridie Nonas Capratinas (C.I.L. IV 1555). Calendars multiplied in the century after the rise of Augustus to power.

177 April: Ann. épigr. 1921 no. 23.

May: C.I.L. III 5575, 5580, 5690, 14361.

June: Cf. S. Lambrino, Mél. Marouzeau 319ff. (5 texts in 33 years, which clearly establishes a habit).

July: C.I.L. III 10981.

August: C.I.L. XIII 6630.

Sept.: C.I.L. III 7435. Ann. épigr. 1941, no. 116 (restoration but certain).

Oct.: C.I.L. III 3906; Ann. épigr. 1934 no. 73.

Dec: C.I.L. III 1078, 5187.

Many as are the other deities honored in the Ides, and free as men were to honor Juppiter on any other day — or to name no day in their dedications — this frequency is not fortuitous any more than is the fact that three temples of Juppiter in Rome were dedicated on the Ides (Wissowa, Rel. 114). Nor, again, is XIII, 6630, where Juppiter is coupled by an officer with Apollo and Diana, to whom the same man, with his troops, made a separate offering on the same day (6629); did he not have in mind the anniversary of Diana's famous temple on the Aventine, the code of which served as a pattern in the foundation of temples? (The same man dedicated two undated altars to Juppiter; 6644–5).

178 Dess. 7111; Gg. Steinmetz, Röm. — germ. Korrespondenzblatt, VII, 1914, 88f. Cf. Dess. 4914 and n.8 above for the way in which this occasion kept its significance.

179 Cf. n.177; Wissowa, Pauly-Wissowa, V 333 (with other evidence of the day's popularity); Dess. 7212 cultores Dianae et Antinoi at Lanuvium met natali Dianae et collegi, etc.

180 Dess. 4938; C.I.L. VI 31129. Nevertheless, other such statues of Vestals were erected on various different days and, in spite of Snyder 260, we should not connect Dess. 2185 (dedication to Hercules Invictus etc.) and C.I.L. III 11082 (to Victoria Augustorum nn. et leg. I) with the Vestalia.

181 C.I.L. II 1515, 4083, but on this day we find also dedications to Juppiter Dolichenus, (Ann. épigr. 1940 no. 72) and other dedications (Snyder 270).

182 On the natalis Mercurii we find a coactor at Colonia Agrippinensis setting up a dedication which may well have been to Mercurius and perhaps to Maia (Ann. épigr. 1926 no. 19 with A. Oxé, Wien. St. XLVIII, 1930, 54f.), and two men erecting a statue of Bonus Eventus and giving funds for an annual celebration (C.I.L. V 4203; Brescia). This is tenuous, but Mercurius was markedly a patron of merchants (cf. Ov. Fast. V 671ff.), and there may be some conscious thought of the day that was his and theirs.

In Dess. 238 the dedication of signum Libertatis restitutae on Oct. 15 during the ludi Iovi Liberatori in 68 A.D. is perhaps deliberate in view of the political sentiment of the time; cf. H. Mattingly, B.M.C.R. Emp. I cxcv.

183 Lactant. Mort. persec. 12, remarking inquiritur peragendae rei dies aptus et felix. Cf. Bell. Hisp. 31.8 on the poignancy of a rout which was nearly a disaster ipsis Liberalibus: n.8. Feralibus in Cic. Att. VIII 14.1 is probably not meant to strike an ominous note.

184 So A. Baumstark, Reallex. Ant. Chr. II, 91. (That the date was Sept. 13 seems to be certain, in view of H. Usener, Theodosios, 146f.; cf. N. Nilles, Kalendarium, I 274, II 601.). To be sure, after 70 A.D. each Jew was compelled to pay of Juppiter Capitolimus the didrachm which he had contributed to the Temple, and Jerusalem later become Aelia Capitolina. Yet if there had been any such intention, would not there be some reference to it in Euseb. V. Const. or even in Sozomen II 26? Further, was Constantine very conversant with Roman tradition? He is quoted as saying ‘My Rome is Sardica’ (F.H.G. IV 199) and he did not scruple to enter Rome on the dies Alliensis (C.I.L. I, ed. 2, p. 322).

185 Cf. Hor. C. III 13; cf. Plin. Ep. IX 39.2 (many vows made, many paid on the festival of the Ceres temple on his estate). For a durable dedication made by Emesenes ‘on the beautiful day’ (Dess. 8882), cf. H. Seyrig, Syria, XIV (1933), 278.

186 Cf. Harv. Theol. Rev. XXIX (1936), 85n. 165; for Rome, cf. [Tibull.] IV 2.

187 Le culte de Cybèle, 168. Other possible echoes of the celebration are a dedication to the Great Mother on March 27 (C.I.L. VI 30967), a memorial statue erected at Ostia by a high dendrophorus, on March 24 (XIV 324), and a dedication made by the cognate hastiferi on March 24 (Dess. 7095). The Megalesia followed hard upon the dramatic festival and may have provided some supporting influence.

188 It might be interesting to check whether in other dedications and private acts there was any avoidance of Saturday; cf. F. H. Colson, The Week, 14. On popular interest in knowing the days of the week cf. Dölger, Ant. u. Chr. VI (1941), 202ff.

189 This is emphasized by the use of the word σήμερον, ‘today’; Harv. Theol. Rev. XXVII (1934), 67.

190 H. Danby, Mishnah, 437. Kal. Ian. is mentioned as such in the calendar of the hymnodoi of the Imperial cult at Pergamon (J. v. Prott, Fasti sacri, 56 no. 27 C4, D6; Inscr. gr. res Rom. IV 353) and in the accounts of the temple of Zeus Kapitolios at Arsinoe (Wilcken, Herm. XX, 1885, 432, 45s) although each text uses local month-names. For an equation of local and Roman dating in a foundation at Laodicea cf. Mon. As. min. ant. VI 18.

191 C. I. L. XVI 72.

192 Cf. Naumann, G., Griech. Weihinschriften (Diss. Halle, 1933Google Scholar). A dedication at Beroea published by J. M. R. Cormack, Ann. Br. Sch. Ath. XLI 105 has ἐπì ἱερέως διά βιον; there can be no idea of a dating here.

193 The dedication at Priene of a plan of a building gives month and year (Dittenberger, Syll. ed. 3, 1156). Various records at Samothrace of the initiation of Romans give day and month (as well as year) in Latin; there is nothing like this in the Greek records there.

Professor Edson kindly draws my attention to (1) an unpublished dedication with full dating in 69 A.D. by a slave to Dionysus ‘in accordance with a (divine) command’ in ancient Mygdonia (in Macedonia); (2) to fully dated gifts by owners of slaves to Ma at Edessa (W. Baege, Diss. phil. Hal. XXII i, 113ff.); (3) to a fully dated dedication by a manumitted slave in Macedonia. In (2) and (3) what is involved is the passage from slavery to freedom, and a date is natural.

194 Cf. Gerlach, G., Griech. Ehreninschriften (Diss. Halle, 1908), 96Google Scholar.

195 Cf. Dittenberger, Or. gr. inscr. sel. 253; Tarn, Greeks in Bactria and India, 195.

196 Cf. Wissowa, Religion, 262; Latte, Arch. f. Rel.-Wiss. XXIV (1926), 247; Fr. Altheim, Röm. Religionsgeschichte (ed. 1951), I 109ff.

197 U. Edinburgh Journal, Spring 1949, 240; Parola del Passato XVIII (1951), 219ff.; Roman Anniversary Issues. Cf. the comments of R. A. G. Carson, J. Rom. St. XLI (1951), 174f., and C. H. V. Sutherland, Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy, passim. Note also Dess. 8940 (offerings to be made annually to deus sanctus Sol on the day on which his image was consecrated).

198 For datings cf. C.I.L. VI, 338, 349 (fragmentary: now no year) and (of an altar) Dess. 4907.

The earliest fully dated dedication in Latin which I have found is Dess. 3784, a restored statue of Concordia, with a base, step, and altar at Casinum in 40 B.C. There are earlier official votives by magistri which give the year (C.I.L. I, ed. 2, 672ff.; F. Durrbach, Choix d'inscr. de Délos, I, nos. 116.15, 164).

A strong awareness of days is shown by the early iovilae (J. Whatmough, Cl. Q. XVI, 1922, 181ff. and Harv. St. Class. Phil. XLII, 1931, 165, 171; R. M. Peterson, Cults of Campania, 329f.; C. Koch. Der röm. Juppiter, 37ff.), but they lie outside the main line of development.

199 Datings by regnal years are given as early as the 11th dynasty in the graffiti discussed by H. E. Winlock, Am. J. Sem. Lang. LVII (1940), 152, 154 and LVIII (1941), 156 (ib. 154f. one dating a visit as on the occasion of a festival); cf. R. Weill, Rec. inscr. ég. Sinai, 112, 130, 134f. There are prePtolemaic datings with year, month, and day of visits to Hammamat (J. Couyat-P. Montet, Mém. inst. fr. arch. orient. XXXIV, 1912, 10ff.) and of one to Abusir under Rameses II to make offerings (W. Spiegelberg, Rec. Trav. XXVI, 1904, 152f.: a reference which I owe to Professor John A. Wilson).

200 W. F. Edgerton, Am. J. Sem. Lang. L, 1934, 116: datings are not found here in Roman times.

201 Cf. Kötting, B., Peregrinatio religiosa (Forsch. z. Volkskunde, XXXIII–V, 1950Google Scholar). Or. gr. inscr. sel. 38 differs from the Abu Simbel inscription in giving month and day (not indeed year) and in striking the religious note ‘beside Pan who blesses travel.’ For fully dated acts of homage before Roman times cf. ib. 184–6, 188ff. and F. Preisigke-Bilabel-Kiessling, Sammelbuch, 8411; for dated building inscriptions, V. B. Schulman, Hesperia XVI (1947), 269.

202 Cf. G. Misch, Hist, of Autobiography, I 20ff.; A. Erman, Rel. Ägypter (ed. 1934), 202; D. Dunham, J. Eg. Arch. XXIV (1938), 1 ff.; J. Janssen, De traditioneele Egyptische Autobiographic voor het nieuwe Rijk, II. In general cf. Gnomon XXI (1949), 224f. on the genesis of the Ichstil in religious texts, and note the fully dated Demotic and Greek dream records in Wilcken, Urk. Ptol.-Z. I pp. 351, 353, 359, 365, 370.

203 From earlier Syria we have the texts on the sarcophagi of the great; later we have Lebas-Waddington 1839 (life of athlete), 2549 (priestly autobiography, discussed by H. Seyrig, Syria, XV, 1934, 159n.4); Ch. Fossey, Bull. Corr. Hell. XXI (1897), 59ff. (servant of the Syrian goddess); A. Alt, Gott d. Väter, 79 (Abedrapsas); Dura-Europos, Rep. VII/VIII 321; J. Lassus, Inventaire archéol…. Hama, 134, no. 75. For datings of temples in Syria cf. Lebas-Waddington 2562g (with Seyrig, Ann. hist. phil. orient. VII, 1939–42) and J. Starcky, Palmyre Guide (Mél. Univ. St. Joseph, Beyrouth, XXIV, 1941), 14.

204 For Rome cf. H. H. Armstrong, U. Mich. Humanistic St. III (1910) 215ff., etc. (e.g., 265 on such dated records as C.I.L. VI 3005 of the performance of a duty by one of the vigiles); R. B. Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs, 16; A. Sizoo, Reallex. Ant. Chr. I 1050ff.

Mommsen, Ges. Schr. IV 250 n.1 remarks that the ability to be silent about personal achievements ended with the Republic. For the Roman taste for solemnity, cf. Fr. Altheim. Röm. Religionsgeschichte, I 207. The detailed realism of Roman portraiture may be ad rem. Cf. again in Apul. Met. XI 26 the date for the hero's arrival at Rome.

On the side of caution, two facts may be noted. Round about 318/7 B.C. Athenian decrees start giving month and day in addition to the prytany dating (e.g. Dittenberger, Syll. 317); why? Secondly, as Mr. Colin H. Roberts informs me, full datings of private letters in Egypt are common in Egypt from Augustus to Nero, and there are few before or later, save in letters of soldiers in the second century, A.D.; here again it is hard to imagine an explanation. (Cf. also n. 200.)

205 Gesch. d. a. Kirche, I 173f.

206 Cf. Harv. Theol. Rev. XXIX (1936), 86f. (also 80f. for earlier Ptolemaic evidence), Am. J. Phil. LXIII (1942), 219. We should not attach much importance to the fact that kings are sometimes named before gods; there is ascending order as well as descending order. Cf. G. A. Cooke, Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions, 265ff. (two Palmyrene inscriptions with ‘lovers of their city and fearers of the gods,’ where the accompanying Greek texts have εὐσεβεῖς καὶ φιλοπάτριδας).

207 Cf. Wissowa, Religion, 346f.; Platner-Ashby, Topographical Dictionary of ancient Rome, 153. Since Dio Cassius was a governor's son and himself consul, his coolness about honors for rulers is noteworthy; cf. Pippidi, D. M., Rev. hist. du Sud-est européen, XIX (1942Google Scholar), 407ff. (= Autour de Tibère, 135ff.).

208 E.g. C.I.L. VIII 2554, item diis conservatoribus eorum; and earlier Sen. Clem. I 1.2 egone ex omnibus mortalibus placui electusque sum, qui in terris deorum vice fungerer?; Martial XIII 4 (under Domitian); Sokolowski, F., Eos, XLII (1947Google Scholar), 169ff.

209 B. M. C. R. Emp. III, 418, 417.

210 xxvi 32 p. 101 Keil (p. 335 Dindorf).

211 For such expressions, cf. Inscr. gr. res Rom. IV 144. 3f. (Tiberius as ‘the greatest of gods’), Alföldi, Röm. Mitt. L (1935), 97f. and Ensslin, Camb. Anc. Hist. XII 356ff., 370; for comments, cf. Last, Am. J. Phil. LXI (1940), 88; Nock, J. Rom. St. XXXVII (1947), 102ff.

212 Ann. II 17.2 (cf. I 39, 7); Apol. 16; Adv. nat. I 12. For Jewish feelings on this point cf. C. H. Kraeling, Harv. Theol. Rev. XXXV (1942), 263ff.; Dupont-Sommer, Rev. hist. rel. CXXXVII (1950), 134, 159.

213 Cf. Sen. Ep. 95.35. For the analogy between emperor and standards cf. C.I.L. VII, 1030 G(enio) d(omini) no(ostri) et signorum coh. I Vardull(orum) et n(umeri) explorator (um) Brem(eniensium), with v. Domaszewski, Westd. Z. XIV (1895), 14f.; the inscription comes from a praetorium. Professor Bloch draws my attention to the instructive story in Tac. Ann. I 18.3: even mutineers had a strong feeling for their units and for their standards.

214 Cf. Julian, Ep. 89, p. 162. 11ff. Bidez as well as Arnob. VI 16.

215 Cf. L. Cesano in De Ruggiero, Diz. epigr. III 475f.; so from a freedman to the Juno of his former owner, C.I.L. XI 1324.

216 Thes. 1.1. VI 1836.

217 Mattingly, Harv. Theol. Rev. XXX (1937), 103ff.

218 Cf. my forthcoming paper in Aegyptus. Charlesworth drew my attention to Liban. Orat. XVIII 304, on the answering of prayers to the dead Julian (as pagan saint, I think, rather than as dead ruler; I hope to return to the point).

219 Yale Classical St. XI (1950), 215, 235. For this watch at the standards cf. Gilliam, Cl. Phil. XLVII (1952), 29f.

220 Fouilles de Doura-Europos, 376 no. 14; cf. Welles, C. B., Harv. Theol. Rev. XXXIV (1941), 98Google Scholar.

221 De Ricci, Arch. Pap. II 445 no. 67. Cumont, Rev. hist. rel. LXXII (1915), 161 n.1 suggests that the priest Azizus, mentioned here, may have been attached to the Emesenes who appear in a text. ib. 451 no. 94 (Dessau 8882), dated 315/6 and naming also a high priest, surely a civilian, but not the other priests. Cf. Seyrig, Syria, XIV (1933), 278n.1; Hoey, Trans. Am. Philol. Ass. LXX (1939), 476 n. 102.

222 Pauly-Wissowa, XII 1406 (this would be parallel to the substitution of sacerdos for aedituus, accepted p. 252 below). Passerini in De Ruggiero, Diz. epigr. IV 618 regards these priests in Egypt as a concession to the tendencies of the soldateska.

223 Cumont, Fouilles, 360; 94 (ib. 127, a private individual who makes an offering holds a similar object).

224 Ib. 113. G. C. Picard, Castellum Dimmidi, 165ff. interprets the fragments of a fresco as perhaps representing an offering in which a Roman officer and a high Palmyrene priestly dignitary in a purple robe took part. The condition of the remains does not seem to allow of any certainty. Picard 169, n. 126 argues for the reading SAC(erdos) in C.I.L. VIII 2515; but SAG(ittarius) as read — not conjectured — by Wilmanns is confirmed by the accompanying Palmyrene version published by J. B. Chabot, Corp. inscr. Sem. II, iii, 3908. Picard (ibid.) refers to evidence for a priest of Iahribol in the legio III Augusta; but the inscription in question (published by J. Carcopino, Bull, archéol. com. trav. hist. 1920, lxxxviiif. [= Ann. épigr. 1920, no. 35]) gives no indication that the priest in question was attached to the legion. The phrasing of the text, [cu]ltor dei Torhobolis [sac]erdotium meritus r (C. thinks iterum, which I doubt) a deo suggests that this was no professional priest. Professor Carcopino, to whom I am indebted for the reference, kindly informs me that the inscription was found outside the camp.

225 Y.C.S. XI, 236n.114.

226 Cumont, Fouilles, 122ff., pl. LV: cf. 76ff. pl. XLV.

227 Cf. Fouilles 382 for evidence for ‘courses’ of priests at Dura, just as at Jerusalem. Cf. Dura-Europos, Rep. VII/VIII, 129f. for son succeeding father as priest of some god, apparently a family concern, and herald of the city. On the position of the Magi cf. Am. J. Arch. LIII (1949), 282ff. A priest of one temple in Egypt was occasionally given a position in another; cf. H. Gauthier, Le personnel du dieu Min, 17; J. Vandier, Rel. Eg. (ed. 1), 160 f.; W. Spiegelberg, Abh. Bayer. Ak. N.F.I. (1929), 18, 22 (3d–2d cent. B.C.): W. Otto, Priester u. Tempel, I, 232. There were also pluralists, e.g. Or. gr. inscr. sel. 111; an interesting case, since the holder of these offices for a time (Otto, Pauly-Wissowa VIII, 918), is a soldier from Pergamon. They may have been bestowed upon him as on dignitaries in old Egypt; conceivably he received the revenues of his priestly functions without being responsible for any of the duties. It is perhaps likelier that he bought and then disposed of his priestly positions; for Greeks as owners of such posts, cf. Wilcken, Urk. Ptol.-Z. II p. 7 (which is a warning against any projecting back the rigor of Roman administration into Ptolemaic times). For another pluralist cf. Breccia, Ann. serv. ant. Eg. VIII, 1907, 64ff. The temple of Isis at Philae controlled other neighboring sanctuaries (W. Otto, Priester, I 43), but the ‘high priest of Alexandria and of all Egypt’ known in Roman times held an office created for administrative convenience. For groupings of priests in a locality cf. Otto, Priester, I 19ff.; Roberts, C. H., J. Eg. Arch. XX (1934), 23Google Scholar. — It is significant that the Gnomon of the Idios Logos gives express permission (§ 85) for the bringing in of priests from another temple (qualified by an adjective which is unfortunately mutilated) to join the processions of temples in which there is a shortage of staff.

228 Cf. Nock, Conversion, 50ff. and now Fr. Zucker in Otto, Beitr. Hierodulie, z. (Abh. Bayer. Ak. N.F. XXIX, 1950), 74Google Scholar.

229 Cf. Wilcken, Urk. Ptol.-Z., I 94; Robert, L., Rev. ét. gr. XL (1927), 222Google Scholar.

230 D. Halic. Ant. R. II 19.3f.; later the official cult was Romanized.

231 Cic. Balb. 55: each was given citizenship, ut deos immortalis scientia peregrina et externa, mente domestica et civili precaretur (cf. Fest. 268. 27 ed. Lindsay).

232 Diod. Sic. XIV 77; cf. Ferguson, W. S., Harv. Theol. Rev. XXXVII (1944), 119Google Scholarff.

233 Conversion, 49f.

234 Cf. Roussel, P., Syria, XXIII (1942/1943Google Scholar), 21ff.; cf. Wilcken, Festgabe Deissmann, 1ff. and M. Launey, Rech. sur les armées hellénistiques, II 990ff. on the emergence of the Syrian goddess in Hellenistic Egypt.

235 Inscr. Délos, 2226; cf. Will, E., Ann. arch, de Syrie, I (1951Google Scholar) 59ff. Roussel, Délos, colonie athénienne, 253 n.4 well argues that Hieropolis had asked Athens for permission for her citizens on Delos to build a sanctuary; cf. the continuing interest of Tyre in her people at Puteoli, (G. La Piana, Harv. Theol. Rev. XX, 1927, 256ff.). He also points out (269 f.) the remarkable adaptation of the cult to Greek conditions shown in the attenuation of the taboo on fish — It is noteworthy that the Hypsistos worshippers at Tanais, who almost certainly practised a derivative form of Judaism, had ‘priests’ (Nilsson, Gesch. gr. Rel. II 637.) Cf. Or. Gr. inscr. sel. 594 (with full date), supplemented by Torrey, C. C., Berytus IX (1948), 45Google Scholarff. and Robert, J.-L., Rev. ét. gr. LXII (1949), 148Google Scholar, on the bringing of the god of Sarepta to Puteoli; Sokolowski, F., I Congr. ét. class. (1950Google Scholar), 388 on the introduction of Sarapis at Magnesia ad Maeandrum.

236 Cf. Otto's book cited n. 228; Bloch, H., Harv. Theol. Rev. XXXVIII (1945), 242Google Scholarff. (on neokoroi, who ranked high at Alexandria also). Apul. XI 21.6 de suo numero indicates that the priests were a specific group.

237 Cf. G. Lafaye, Hist, du culte des divinités d'Alexandrie, 218; Marucchi, O., Not. d. scavi, 1904Google Scholar, 118ff. (sculpture and obelisks with new hieroglyphic building inscriptions in Iseum at Beneventum); P. Gauckler, Sanctuaire syrien du Janicule, 187ff. (Pharaonic statue in this shrine, perhaps presented simply as a valuable object of art).

238 Met. XI 22.8.

239 Dessau 4413, 4153f.; cf. Bloch, Harv. Theol. Rev. XXXVIII (1945), 232 n. 74.

240 Amm. Marc. XXII 14.3 ostentationis gratia vehens licenter pro sacerdotibus sacra.

241 Cf. Dessau 4410 (priest of Isis who is sevir Aug.), 4406 (one holding another priesthood).

242 Cf. A. H. Kan, Juppiter Dolichenus, 39f.-Diod. Sic. I 73.5, expanding Herod. II 37, remarks on the single priest as characteristic of Greek cult; it was of Roman also except where a college, like the Fratres Arvales, had responsibility.

243 So one is dated sub scriba (Dessau 4317); cf. the restoration of a Mithraeum at Dura sub procuratore (Rep. VII/VIII 85). On sub cf. Wölfflin, Arch. lat. Lex. XII 449; in Dessau 4067 it corresponds to περί. Cf. n. 192 above. In the Dolichenum on the Aventine we have sub once (Ann. épigr. 1940 no. 72), per thrice (ib. 73, 75f.).

244 Dessau 4292.

245 Rep. VII/VIII 120f. no. 859. The difficult graffito, ib. 127 (cf. J. Bidez-F. Cumont, Mages hellénisés, II 155., C. M. Edsman, Ignis divinus, 221) refers to a literary tradition about the Magi. If the figures there represented on either side of a cult-niche are Zoroaster and Ostanes, they come from a similar source; but they may be the patres of the community (Cumont, C.R. Ac. Inscr. 1945, 417n.3). Magos in A. Ferrua, Il Mitreo sotta la chiesa di Santa Prisca, 29 (Bull. Comm. Arch. LXVIII, 1940, 85) is a very doubtful restoration.

246 Cf. St. Wikander, Etudes I (cited n. 46), 40: but the acclamation nama (‘homage to’) and the use of Persa as the name of a grade of initiation show the preservation of Persian appearances.

247 Plin. N.H. XXX 17; cf. Plut. Artax. 3.2.

248 Inscr. gr. XII Supp. 274; Cumont, Mystères (ed. 3) 241.

249 Ann. épigr. 1933 no. 121.

250 Dessau 4316.

251 Cf. Plaut. Rud. 285 huius fani sacerdos.

252 Cl. Q. XX (1926), 107ff (on sub iugum intrare, for which cf. Fasti Archaeologici, III no. 3496; Bikerman, E., Arch. Hist. Droit Oriental V, 1950, 141Google Scholar); Milet I vii 292, no. 203 (priest of the demos of the Romans and of Roma); possibly C.I.L. VIII 16759, sacerdos hoc loco initiatus; Seyrig, Syria, XXII (1941), 267ff.

253 Harv. Theol. Rev. XXIII (1930), 254ff.; n. 224 above; Dess. 6149.

254 So a priest of Dolichenus at Augusta Trajana was a wine merchant (Supp. epigr. gr. III 537; note the ‘law and discipline of the priesthood’).

255 Liv. XXXIX 13.8f. Cf. the limited term of hierophants in Pausan. II 14.1.

256 Cf. Dittenberger, Syll. 765.4; Harv. Theol. Rev. XXIII (1930), 256; L. Robert, Hell. I 10.

257 C.I.L. VII p. 97; Richmond. Arch. Ael. IV xxi (1943), 199ff. (Justin XVIII 4.5 suggests that at Tyre Heracles had a priest — or priests — rather than a priestess.) Cf. Cumont, Mus. Cinquantenaire (ed. 2), 160 no. 136 for a ‘public highpriestess’ obviously self-styled; Juvenal VI 544f. magna sacerdos arboris (cf. n. 266). For the low esteem in which such persons might be held, even by those who employed their services, cf. Demosth. XVIII 259.

258 Cf. C. Cichorius, Röm. Stud. 21ff.; G. Zuntz, Cl. Q. XLIV (1950), 70ff.

259 XXV 1.8 with Weissenborn — Müller ad loc.

260 ap. Orig. In Cels. VII 9. The description of the claims and preaching of these prophets is clearly a caricature of Christianity, but Celsus speaks of their performances as taking place inside and outside sanctuaries as well as on begging visits to cities and camps, and he may have known of devotees seized with ecstasy. We know the type from Wen-Amon's story (Ranke in H. Gressmann, Altor. T. z. A. T., ed. 2,72): cf. Paul. Sentent. V 21.1 vaticinatores, qui se deo plenos adsimulant and S. H. A. Macrin 3.1.

261 Dess. 4140.

262 C.I.L. III 3343, with Alföldi, Archaeologiai Értesitö, III i (1940), 218f. A. makes it very probable that the inscription comes from Aquincum and suggests that the priest of the provincial emperor-cult inspired the action.

263 Cf. Hoey, Trans. Am. Philol. Ass. LXX (1939), 471. Ann. épigr. 1927 no. 59 has β ὑπατικοῦ, i.e. beneficiarius consularis, as priest of Mithras at Histria, but the β is uncertain, and it may be that the consularis himself was priest (cf. A. Stein, Legaten v. Moesien, Diss. Pannon. I xi, 1940, 66). The priest of Juppiter Dolichenus named in C.I.L. VI 31181 (Westd. Zeitschr. XIV, 1895, pl. III 5) was apparently identical with the exercitator of the equites singulares named ib. 31187 (V. Gardthausen, Or. St. Nöldeke, 851ff.), but we do not know whether he had retired from military duties before assuming his priesthood. In any event, Hoey's general principle is valid.

264 Cf. App. Iber. 85: Scipio expelled from the camp before Numantia ‘all hucksters, prostitutes, soothsayers, and sacrificers, whose services were constantly used by the soldiers since their misfortunes had made them very timid; for the future he forbade the bringing in of any luxuries or any victim prepared for divination.’ [This involved a consideration of morale such as Aeneas Tacticus shows when he directs, 10.4, that in a beleaguered city a soothsayer must not make a (divinatory) offering without the presence of a magistrate.]

265 Cf. C.I.L. XIII 7786.

266 Gilliam, Y.C.S. XI, 235ff. Cf. again, Hoey, Trans. LXX, 471 n. 74 and M. Durry, Cohortes prétoriennes 321 on Dessau 2090 antistes sacer(dos) temp(li) Martis castror(um) pr(aetoriorum). Sacerdos and antistes converged in meaning (cf. C.I.L. VI 716; Cumont, Egypte des astrologues, 118 n. 2); since Mars was so often used to signify military might, I suspect that templum Martis was a new name for the shrine containing the standards and representations of the Imperial family.

For alternative titles, cf. C.I.L VIII 2985/6, where lib(rarius) leg(ionis) and cerar(ius) leg(ionis) are apparently synonymous (on III 14358.2, cf. Pflaum, J. Sav. 1949, 61).

For sacerdos used of a man in a subordinate position, cf. sacerdos virginum Vestalium — a freedman (Wissowa, Religion, 483, 519 n. 1). For its loose employment cf. n. 257 above and septe(m) pii sacerdotes, of a group in the Sabazius paintings in the catacomb of Praetextatus (C.I.L. VI 142c; Nilsson, Gesch. II 634ff. Abb. 5). Nilsson, Mél. Picard [Rev. Arch 1949] 766 explains this as meaning the most eminent worshippers.

267 In Wilcken, Chrest. 277 a priest of Soknopaiou Nesos appears also as arabotoxotes of the gate; he is not a soldier but a watcher of the toll station (with a title which is a survival; cf. Lesquier, Armée romaine, 427). Like some other local priests (C. Wessely, Denkschr. Wien, XLVII iv, 1902, 67), he had to supplement his official earnings.

268 In a Mithraic relief from Dura (Rep. VII/VIII 98, pl. XXIX), the upraised elbow of Barnaadath touches the bull, but that is a result of crowding. For the gesture of Themes cf. a Babylonian relief in F. Boll, Kl. Schr. 87 pl. IV 10 (where the priest is however grasping rather than touching the table on which the solar disk rests). It is to be distinguished from touching as a liturgical act, e.g., the touching of Ishtar's hand or of the royal scepter, discussed by M. T. Barrelet and A. Parrot in Studia Mariana [Doc. et Monum. Or. Ant. ed. Albright-De Buck, IV, 1950] 31, 37, or the touching of offerings by the Arval Brethren (for which cf. G. Metzmacher, Jahrb. f. Liturgiewiss. IV, 1924, 9), and again from a suppliant's grasping an altar or an image.

269 Cf. n. 220.