Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:45:20.633Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New Document of the Last Pagan Revival in the West, 393–394 A.D.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2011

Herbert Bloch
Herbert Bloch
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the summer of 1938 an important discovery was made in Ostia. In the area at the west of the magnificent Horrea Epagathiana was excavated a temple dedicated to Hercules Invictus according to an altar set in its pronaos. Although inscriptions and works of art referring to Hercules had come to light in Ostia before, these findings in themselves were not sufficient evidence to indicate the existence of an important cult of Hercules in Ostia. So the discovery of a large temple of Hercules came as a complete surprise.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , October 1945 , pp. 199 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1945

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 I wish to express my appreciation to Professor Guido Calza, Director of the excavations at Ostia, for having allowed me to publish and discuss the inscription of Numerius Proiectus in this periodical, and to Professor Arthur D. Nock for many helpful suggestions.

2 First official notice of the discovery was given by Calza, G., Gnomon XIII (1938), 606 fGoogle Scholar. and Le Arti I (1939), 388 f.; cf. G. Becatti, Il culto di Ercole ad Ostia ed un nuovo rilievo votivo, Bull. della Comm. Archeol. Com. LXVII (1939), 37 ff. Van Buren, A. W., Am. J. Arch. XLIII (1939), 515Google Scholar, fig. 8. Fuhrmann, H., Arch. Anz. LV (1940), 425 ffGoogle Scholar.

3 They are all collected by Taylor, Lily R., The Cults of Ostia, 1912, 36 f.Google Scholar; cf. Becatti, loc. cit., 37 f.

4 Becatti, loc. cit., 39.

5 Also the city walls of Ostia go back to Sulla.

6 In a test below the pavement of the cella made in January 1939, a broken roof tile was discovered with the stamp of L. Flavius Philippus, CIL XV 1, 1154 b, whose stamps have been found in the first ship of Nemi. He worked therefore in the time of Caligula and Claudius. However, the nature of the discovery of the stamped brick does not preclude the possibility that it was used as second-hand material. The restoration in the time of Trajan is certain, for in the remains of the walls of the cella the brickstamp CIL XV, 1, 60 was found in situ, which is one of the characteristic stamps of the Bath of Trajan.

7 The inscription has been briefly transcribed by Calza, Le Arti, I, 388, and by Becatti, loc. cit., 39.

8 The mutilated inscription of P. Flavius Priscus is hitherto unpublished; since it does not contribute to the problem here discussed, its publication will be reserved to another place. On Flavius Priscus, patronus coloniae Ostiensis, cf. CIL XIV S I, 4452, 5335, 5340.

9 CIL VI 1151 = Dessau, ILS 707 and CIL XIV S I, 4449. Hirschfeld, O., Philol. XXIX (1870), 48Google Scholar; cf. E. Stein, Geschichte des spätrömischen Reiches, I, 185, n. 3.

10 Fuhrmann, , Arch. Anz. LV (1940), 426Google Scholar dates the inscription at the end of the fourth century on the ground of the “Schriftcharakter.” The evidence discussed above in the text excludes definitely Fuhrmann's opinion. As to the “Schriftcharakter” of the inscription, I can only affirm that it is totally different from that of the numerous inscriptions of the last quarter of the fourth century which have come to light in Ostia.

11 The inscription was shortly mentioned by Becatti, loc. cit., 39.

12 On the introduction of the epithets pius felix in the title of the emperor by Commodus cf. Heer, J. M., Der historische Wert der vita Commodi, Philol. Suppl. IX (1901), 89Google Scholar. On the position of ac cf. also the address used by Symmachus in his relationes, e.g., rel. XII 1: domini imperatives Valentiniane, Theodosi et Arcadi inclyti victores ac triumphatores semper Augusti.

13 The literature on this last struggle between paganism and Christianity is very large. Boissier, G., La fin du paganisme II, 1891, 155Google Scholar ff. is still valuable, although the position of Praetextatus is gravely misrepresented, 265: Praetextat ne fut guère qu' une décoration pour les païens de Rome. S. Dill, Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire, 3 ff. G. Rauschen, Jahrb. der christlichen Kirche unter dem Kaiser Theodosius d. Gr., 119 ff. O. Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt, V, 217 ff. J. Geffcken, Der Ausgang des griechisch-römischen Heidentums, 90 ff. 141 ff. E. Stein, Gesch. des spätröm. Reiches, I, 313 f. 326 ff. P. de Labriolle, La réaction païenne, 335 ff. F. H. Dudden, The Life and Times of St. Ambrose, I–II, 22 ff. 214 ff. 371 ff. 412 ff. J. Wytzes, Der Streit um den Altar der Viktoria, Amsterdam, 1936, 26 ff. Alföldi, A., A Festival of Isis in Rome, Diss. Pannonicae, ser. II, fasc. VII (1937), 30 ff.Google ScholarMcGeachy, J. A. Jr., Quintus Aurelius Symmachus and the Senatorial Aristocracy of the West, Diss. Chicago, 1942, 129 ffGoogle Scholar.

14 On the famous controversy resulting from the removal of the altar of Victoria cf. particularly the special study by Wytzes referred to in the preceding note. The importance of the financial side of the question has been lately more and more emphasized.

15 Symmachus and the Pagan Revival, Transact. Am. Philol. Ass. XLVI (1915), 87 ff. The quoted passage is found on p. 100.

16 Fundamental, as in general for the prosopography of this period, Seeck, ed. Symmachus, MG. Auct. Ant. VI, 1883, LXXXIIIGoogle Scholar ff. Nistler, J., Vettius Agorius Praetextatus, Klio X (1910), 462 ffGoogle Scholar. is but an industrious collection of material, which adds near to nothing to Seeck's treatment. — The aspects of Praetextatus emphasized in the present study have been almost completely neglected.

17 Cod. Theod. IX 16. 7 (Seeck, Regesten der Kaiser und Päpste, 217); Zos. IV 3.

18 E. Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums I, 196 ff.

19 CIL VI 102 = Dessau, ILS 4003. Platner and Ashby, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, 1929, 421 f. G. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer 2, 99, n. 2. Geffcken, Ausgang, 143.

20 CIL VI 1779 = Dessau, ILS 1269 = Anthol. lat. II, 1, ed. Buecheler, no. 111. On this inscription cf. also Boissier, Fin du paganisme II, 284 f. De Labriolle, Réaction païenne, 349 f.

21 After Aurelian introduced in Rome pontifices Solis, the members of the ancient college of pontifices assumed the title pontifex Vestae, pontifex maior, and the like; cf. Wissowa, Relig. u. Kultus d. Röm., 522. Nock, A. D., Harv. Theol. Rev. XXIII (1930,) 259Google Scholar.

22 The proof that Praetextatus was a priest of Sarapis is given in the Appendix, below, pp. 242 ff.

23 K. Praechter, Die Philosophie des Altertums, in Ueberweg's Grundriss I12, 1926, 648, 651. He may be also the author of the treatise De decem categoriis which is preserved in the Corpus of St. Augustine's writings. Paulina's words suggest that he had a part in salvaging works of Latin literature by having them copied and preparing better editions; cf. in general below, p. 240.

24 Macrobius' Saturnalia has been unduly neglected by historians and philologists alike. In concentrating on the invaluable material that he preserved and in hunting down his sources one was apt to forget Macrobius' merits as a writer and his ability of presenting a picture of his society. Wessner's article in PW s.v. Macrobius is characteristic of this tendency. It never occurs to him that something in Macrobius' work may be attributed to Macrobius himself. In the fifth volume of Seeck's famous history of this period Macrobius is not even mentioned. A reaction against this attitude is found in Whittaker's, T. book on Macrobius (Cambridge 1923)Google Scholar and in K. Mras' study Macrobius' Kommentar zu Ciceros Somnium, S. B. Preuss. Akad. 1933, 232 ff. But both authors are chiefly interested in problems of philosophy.

The opinion on Symmachus' letters has been unfavorable throughout. Dudden's verdict (I 39) that Symmachus was “an indefatigable writer of the dullest epistles in the Latin language” will hardly find an opponent, and Boissier's statement (II 157) “jamais on n'a tant écrit pour dire si peu de chose,” is not unfair. One should remember, however, that the collection has been severely purged by Symmachus' son when he edited it soon after his father's death. By eliminating all politically objectionable letters he undoubtedly deprived us of some of the most interesting letters in the correspondence.

25 He is in all probability identical with the vicarius Hispaniarum Macrobius, to whom the law against vandalism Cod. Theod. XVI 10. 15 (Seeck, Regesten, 298) is addressed, and Dill is right in assuming that Macrobius himself may have evoked this law (Roman Society in the Last Cent., 38). In 410 he reached the high position of proconsul Africae and in 422 he was praepositus sacri cubiculi (Cod. Theod. XI 28. 6 and VI 8. 1). Sundwall's agnosticism (Weströmische Studien, 98, no. 284, and 139, no. 467) is unwarranted.

26 Wessner is certainly correct in asserting that the source question for the speech of Praetextatus is not yet satisfactorily solved (PW XIV 196; cf. M. Schedler, Die Philosophie des Macrobius, etc., Münster, 1916, 98). But this is not the decisive problem; it is important that we have here the theology of Praetextatus and of his followers. However certain it may be that Macrobius and Praetextatus have used older material, it would be rash to assume that an earlier treatise was simply excerpted here, be it Porphyrius' Περὶ Ἡλίου (Ausgang, 267) or one of Iamblich's treatises, as Geffcken and Wissowa believed; cf. also F. Cumont, Die orientalischen Religionen im röm. Heidentum, 19313, 310, n. 24. — It is possible to use Praetextatus' speech in the Saturnalia as at least ideally true of the man. This opinion apparently is also held by Cumont, op. cit., 188. The views put forward in the speech agree so closely with everything we know about Praetextatus that Macrobius must have either used a lost treatise by Praetextatus himself or gathered his information from people who had an excellent knowledge of Praetextatus and bis ideas.

17 Paulina's numen multiplex finds a striking analogy in Praetextatus' reference to the solis multiplex potestas (Saturn. I 22. 1). For the monotheistic character of Praetextatus' solar theology, cf. Cumont, op. cit., 191 and in general Nock, Conversion, 159.

28 A. D. Nock, Sallustius, LVII.

29 Nock, Sall., CIII. On the identification of the author with Julian's friend see Nock, Sail., CI; Latte, Litteris IV (1927), 156 ff. The treatise was composed in 363 A.D.: Nock, Sall., CII.

30 A connection between Praetextatus and the cult of the twelve gods can also be seen in his remarks Saturnal. I 23. 5 f.

31 Rel. III 4. Cf. in general McGeachy, Symmachus, 135 ff. Wytzes, Streit, 32. His conservatism was not limited to the religious field. In his relatio IV he asks Theodosius to withdraw a favor conferred on him and his office (praefectura urbis) in the form of a ceremonial carriage: submovete vehiculum, cuius cultus insignior est; illud maluimus cuius usus antiquior (IV 3). The superbia of Tarquinius and of Camillus serves him as a warning, the modesty of Publicola as a model. Cf. on this relatio Wytzes, Streit, 34; Ensslin, W., Carpentum oder Carruca, Klio XXXII (1939), 89 ffGoogle Scholar.

32 Epist. IX 147 f. Wytzes, Streit, 30. McGeachy, Symmachus, 136 f.

33 Both inscriptions were found in Symmachus' house on the Caelius in Rome. On Flavianus see Seeck, PW VI, 2506 ff.

33a For an analogous inscription of Praeteztatus in which not one of his priesthoods is mentioned cf. CIL VI 1777 = Dessau, ILS 1258.

34 Cf. the sketchy references in Robinson, , Transact. Am. Philol. Ass. XLVI (1915), 90Google Scholar. Geffcken, Ausgang, 144 and 146. De Labriolle. Réaction païenne, 349.

35 It is noteworthy that the lists of priesthoods held by Kamenius in all three of his inscriptions are practically identical in contents and order, even in the two set up in his honor by people outside his family. This shows that the list was given out by himself or by his widow. The epitaph, Dessau, ILS 1264, put up by his widow contains a poem, wherein she addresses her husband according to the fashion of Fabia Paulina's poem in Praetextatus' epitaph, which latter undoubtedly influenced that of Kamenius. He apparently was a grandson of Ceionius Iulianus Camenius, consul in 325, and thus a cousin of the emperor Julian who also was a grandson of Ceionius Iulianus Camenius; cf. Seeck, PW III, 1863 f.

36 The full name of this Albinus was Publilius Ceionius Caecina Albinus. He belonged to one of the most illustrious families of the fourth century, the Ceionii, a family which could boast (n. 35 above) of having had an emperor (Julian) in its ranks. Their genealogy has been treated by Seeck, Symmachus, CLXXVII ff. and PW III, 1858 ff. on the basis of the assumption that the names Albinus and Volusianus are used alternately generation after generation. He overlooked the important inscription CIL VI 512 = Dessau, ILS 4154 (in our chart (17)), in which the dedicant Ceionius Rufius Volusianus, ex vicario Asi(a)e, calls himself the son of Ceionius Rufius Volusianus, v. c. et inlustris ex praefecto praetorio et ex praefecto urbi, which offices the latter held in 355 and 365 respectively. Therefore this is a case in which a Volusianus was the son of a Volusianus, in contrast to Seeck's “law.” In addition, it has long been known that the pontifex Albinus had a son of the same name, Caecina Decius Albinus, a fact which has been neither denied nor explained by Seeck (PW III, 1864 f.). Like his father, he takes part in the conversations of the Saturnalia: cf. especially Saturnal. I 2. 3. Under these circumstances, both, Seeck's “law” and part of his stemma of the Ceionii have to be relegated into the realm of phantasy. That the pontifex Albinus actually was the son of Ceionius Rufius Volusianus, also called Lampadius, as Seeck assumes, is suggested only by his name Caecina which may have been given him in honor of his mother Caecinia Lolliana. If this hypothesis is accepted, the descendants of Lampadius — as far as they interest us here — can be represented as follows (the numbers in parenthesis refer to our chart, the numbers which precede the names refer to Seeck's stemma, PW III, 1862).

There must be some connection between Sabina (21) and the pontifex (5) in whose name Sabinus figures, whether it be in the name of his father, if one reads Rufius Caeionius, Caeioni Sabini filius, v. c., or in his own name as Seeck assumes, or in both as I should like to suggest, since he calls himself later in the inscription nobilis in causis formas celsusque Sabinus. Hence I would read Ruf(ius) Cae(i)oni(us) (Sabinus), Cae(ioni) Sabinif., v. c. This involves, at any rate, a less radical change than that suggested by Seeck. So the pontifex Sabinus (5) and Sabina (21) were undoubtedly relatives. Seeck is probably right in identifying him with the Sabinus mentioned by Symmachus (see appended chart, no. (5), remarks). A new and more cautious treatment of the Ceionii is needed to correct Seeck's errors and to fill the gaps left by him, also others, not mentioned here.

37 The fact that he restored in Cirta speleum cum signis et ornamentis (CIL VIII 6975) can be interpreted as an action to strengthen paganism in general; it does not prove that he himself was a worshipper of Mithras or of some other Eastern deity (cf. L. Robert, Mél. Bidez, 795 ff.).

38 Ambrose is not mentioned by Prudentius in his appraisal of Christian senators of Rome, Contra Symm. I 551–572.

39 This motive became the most efficient weapon of the last pagans against the Christians, and accordingly the chief theme of the last apolegetic treatises of Christian antiquity; see below, p. 240.

40 Rel. III 10. Cf. the special study by Wytzes quoted in n. 13. Nock, Conversion, 260.

41 Licebit tibi ad ecclesiam venire, sed illic non invenies sacerdotem, aut invenies resistentem. Quid respondebis sacerdoti dicenti tibi: munera tua non quaerit Ecclesia, quia templa gentilium adornasti? (Epist. 17. 13 f.).

42 Rel. X 1: Praetextatus vester, Praetextatus bonorum, antiquae probitatis adsertor, invida sorte subtractus est, vir omnium domi forisque virtutum, in cuius locum vestrae quoque aeternitati, quae optimos novit eligere, nimis arduum est similem subrogare.

43 Epist. 23, 2. 1 and 3. 2 (to Marcella) (CSEL, vol. LIV, 21): O rerum quanta mutatio! ille quem ante paucos dies dignitatum omnium culmina praecedebant, qui, quasi de subiectis hostibus triumpharet, Capitolinas ascendit arces, quem plausu quodam et tripudio populus Romanus excepit, ad cuius interitum urbs universa commota est, nunc desolatus est, nudus, non in lacteo caeli palatio, ut uxor conmentitur infelix, sed in sordentibus tenebris continetur. The last remark about Praetextatus' wife refers to some utterance by Fabia Paulina who as the most distinguished pagan lady must have been well known in Rome. It is not surprising therefore that the idea alluded to by St. Jerome is found in the epitaph of Praetextatus set by Paulina (cf. above, n. 20):

38 ff. His nunc ademptis maesta coniunx maceror,

felix, maritum si superstitem mihi

divi dedissent, sed tamen felix, tua

quia sum fuique postque mortem mox ero.

In saying that she will be reunited with her husband after death, she implies that he is in heaven — as St. Jerome says. How familiar this conception was to Paulina is shown by v. 9:

cura soforum, porta quis (= quibus) caeli patet.

St. Jerome may have had knowledge of Paulina's poem before he wrote his letter to Marcella.

44 Rel. X 2–3: Et ille quidem functus est lege naturae, nos vero socios animi sui vestrique iudicii tanto dolore confudit, ut otii remedium postulemus. Sileo cetera, quae me non sinunt praefecturam ferre patienter: vel haec una consortis admissio iusta est ad impetrandam vacationem.

45 Symm., rel. XXIII. Nicentius who was praefectus annonae Febr. 1, 385 (Seeck, Regesten, 266) may have been the immediate predecessor of Celsus in this position, since Celsus had been in office for a number of years by August 389 (CIL VI 1759 = Dessau, ILS 1272). But whether Nicentius was the praefectus annonae prosecuted by Celsus in 384, cannot be decided. It is noteworthy, however, that Nicentius' name is not mentioned in Symmachus' corresporidence. Cf. Seeck, Symmachus, LVI f.

46 This seems to me certain in spite of A. Degrassi's doubts (Riv. di filol. class. LVI (1928), 519, n.). Since Coelia Concordia dedicated the statue in her capacity as Virgo Vestalis Maxima (which can be concluded from Paulina's words in the inscription treated below), and since she lived in the Atrium Vestae, it is most likely that she erected the statue there. Whether or not she mentioned the other Vestals (see the following note), she represented the whole college by virtue of her office (cf. Wissowa, Relig. u. Kultus d. Röm., 509). The statue of Praetextatus is not preserved, as Degrassi has demonstrated conclusively (loc. cit).

47 CIL VI 2145 = Dessau, ILS 1261; cf. Nock, , Harv. Theol. Rev. XXIII (1940), 274Google Scholar no. 32. The quoted passage follows in the original: tum quod haec (scil. Coelia Concordia) prior eius viro Vettio Agorio Praetextato v. c., omnia singulari dignoque etiam ab huiusmodi virginibus et sacerdotibus coli, statuam conlocarat. The plural is an additional argument in favor of the opinion that the statue of Praetextatus was set up by Coelia Concordia in the name of all Vestals.

48 St. Jerome, Contra Ioann. Hieros. 8; cf. Dudden, Saint Ambrose, 31, n. 1. Caspar, Gesch. des Papsttums I, 198.

49 For Damasus see the incident reported above; for Ambrose Symmachus' correspondence with him, epist. III 30–37, and Ambrose's respectful handling of Symmachus, epist. 18, 1–2. Symmachus recommended Christian bishops to his brother (I 64) and in a letter without addressee (VII 51). See in general McGeachy, Symmachus, 131.

50 Hartke, W., Zwei chronologische Fragen um Nicomachus Flavianus, Klio XXXI (1938), 430 ffGoogle Scholar.

51 The latest treatment of this difficult question is found in Hartke, W., Geschichte und Politik im spätantiken Rom. Untersuchungen über die Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Klio, Beiheft XLV (1940), 38Google Scholar ff. 74 ff. Theodosius, in a message to the senate, mentioned the annals of Nicomachus Flavianus (in 394), CIL VI 1783 = Dessau, ILS 2948; see below, n. 64, 66, 90.

52 On Flavianus' retirement see Seeck, Symmachus, CXVII; on his translation of Philostratus' Life of Apollonius cf. Sidon. Apoll., Epist. VIII 3.1.

53 On the incident of Callinicum cf. Seeck, Gesch. V, 222 ff. v. Campenhausen, Ambrosius, 231 ff. Caspar, Gesch. des Papsttums, I, 274 ff. Palanque, Saint Ambroise et l'empire romain, 205 ff. Dudden, Saint Ambrose, 371 ff.

54 Setton, Christ. Attitude towards the Emperor in the Fourth Century, 1941, 123; cf. also Dudden, Saint Ambrose, 270 ff. Baynes, N., Engl. Hist. Rev. LIII (1938), 116CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 On the massacre of Thessalonica cf. Seeck, Gesch. V, 229 ff. v. Campenhausen, Ambrosius, 235 ff. Caspar, Gesch. d. Papsttums, I, 277. Palanque, Saint Ambroise, 227 ff. Dudden, Saint Ambrose, 381 ff. Baynes, Engl. Hist. Rev. LIII (1938), 115.

56 The description given here of Theodosius' policy since his victory over Maximus in 388 is in contrast to von Campenhausen's picture of these crucial years (Ambrosius von Mailand als Kirchenpolitiker, 1929, 222 ff.). That picture is based on a preconceived assumption of a consistency in Theodosius' religious policy which is not borne out by the facts. According to v. Campenhausen, Theodosius, from the beginning of his reign, considered the extermination of paganism as his primary goal (223). His tolerance toward the pagan aristocracy during the years 388 to 390 is dictated by the desire to win the support of these influential circles for his plan to brush aside Valentinian II in favor of his own son Honorius (226 ff.). But, strangely, two years before appointing Honorius, he suddenly abandons this policy and attacks and insults the very aristocracy whose support allegedly had been so important for him. The only explanation which v. Campenhausen can offer is that Theodosius then was so sure of the strength of his position in Italy that he threw off the mask of tolerance and started his antipagan legislation for the West (243). How weak in reality his position in Italy was is eloquently demonstrated by the fact that Eugenius and Arbogast conquered Italy apparently without opposition. True enough, Theodosius was a faithful son of the Orthodox Church and a bitter enemy of paganism, but on the other hand, he sincerely admired pagans like Flavianus, Symmachus, Pacatus, Libanius. Since v. Campenhausen's explanation of the period of tolerance 388 to 390 does not hold, there remains only the traditional interpretation of seeing in it a reaction against Ambrose's interference in the incident of Callinicum, whereas Theodosius' sudden turn to almost fanatical antipagan measures must be understood as a consequence of Ambrose's increased influence on the emperor, which was due to the aftermath of the massacre of Thessalonica. — This criticism of v. Campenhausen's book is not intended to detract from its unquestionable merits. As an example of excellent criticism may serve his elimination of the testimony of Ps.-Prosper, De promissionibus et praedictionibus dei, III 38 regarding Symmachus' attempt in 390 to persuade Theodosius to return the subsidies to the pagan cults (256 ff.). I have consequently omitted Ps.-Prosper's additional “information” in my account above, p. 222.

57 On the destruction of the Sarapeum see especially the dramatic report of Rufinus, Hist. eccl. XI 22–30. Dudden, Saint Ambrose, 404 ff. Nock, Later Egyptian Piety, Coptic-Egypt, 23 ff.

58 The law of November 8, 392 starts as follows:

Nullus omnino ex quolibet genere ordine hominum dignitatum vel in potestate positus vel honore perfunctus, sive potens sorte nascendi seu humilis genere condicione fortuna in nullo penitus loco, in nulla urbe sensu carentibus simulacris vel insontem victimam caedat vel secretiore piaculo larem igne, mero genium, penates odore veneratus accendat lumina, imponat tura, serta suspendat.

Cf. on the validity of this law in the West Stein, Gesch. d. spätröm. Reiches I, 327. Palanque, Saint Ambroise, 278; against it: v. Campenhausen, Ambrosius, 243. Dudden, Saint Ambrose, 403 ff.

59 On the date see Seeck, Gesch. V, 537. Seeck's assumption that the fall of Tatian in the summer of 392 was a signal to Arbogast that he must act for self-protection is impossible for chronological reasons.

60 For the portrait of Eugenius cf. R. Delbrück, Spätantike Kaiserporträts, 1933, pl. XVI, Eug. 1–3; for Julian, pl. IX, Jul. 1–6. Seeck, Gesch. V, 244 explains the beard as “philosopher's beard.” This interpretation is denied by v. Campenhausen, Ambrosius, 249, n. 4 (cf. also Wytzes, Streit, 149), who attributes no meaning to the beard. Hartke, op. cit. in n. 51, 91.

61 Hartke, op. cit. in n. 51, 83, n. 2. Cf. Sulpicius Alexander in Gregor. Tur., Hist. Franc. II 9. CIL XIII 2.2, 8262 = Dessau, ILS 790; the inscription records the reconstruction of a building which, apparently, was ordered by Arbogast personally. It may be convenient to list here the other inscriptions in which Eugenius is mentioned: CIL X 1, 1693 = Dessau, ILS 791. Restoration of the Basilica Alexandriana in Puteoli … sabois d[dd. nnn.] [Theodosio Ar]cadio et E[ugenio] [invictissimis prineip]ibu[s]. On the other side of the stone there is a similar inscription set after the fall of Eugenius by Fabius Pasiphilus, whom Theodosius had appointed to take temporarily the place of both Flaviani, father and son, as agens vices praefectorum praetorio et urbi (CIL X 1, 1694) cf. Seeck, Regesten, 153. — De Rossi, Inscr. Christ. urb. Rom. I 411, 413, 415–6. III 1 (ed. Gius. Gatti) 846–8. N. S. (ed. Silvagni) I 1449 dated XVIII Kal. Maias 393 A.D., 727, 1448, 1940. II 4828. CIL X 1, 4492 is also a Christian inscription. The Christian inscriptions show that Eugenius was recognized in Italy by the middle of April 393. Cf. Stein, Gesch. d. spätröm. Reiches I, 328, n. 5.

62 It is usually assumed that the decision about the consulate was made on January 1, 393. But such a procedure would have been contrary to the practice of that time. Praetextatus, it will be remembered, died in the autumn of 384 as consul designatus. It is probable that Eugenius nominated himself and Theodosius soon after having been proclaimed emperor and Theodosius' countermove must have been made before January 1, 393. The antipagan law of November 8, 392 seems to have been both the consequence of the utter disregard accorded to Theodosius' earlier law of 391 in Rome and, at the same time, the cause for more determined action on the part of the Roman aristocracy. — For Eugenius' gift to the pagan leaders cf. Ambrose, Epist. 57, 6 and Paulinus, Vita Ambrosii 26.

63 This letter is preserved as Epist. 57; it constitutes one of the most important sources for the reign of Eugenius. Latest edition: Wytzes, Streit, 102 ff.; cf. Dudden, Saint Ambrose, 424 ff.

64 Whether Apodemius, who occurs as p(raef.) pr(aet.) Illyrici et Afric. on February 15, 392, when Flavianus was still in office (Seeck, Regesten, 279 arbitrarily adds Italiae to Apodemius' title), later took Flavianus' place is at least doubtful. In Cod. Theod. XII 12. 12 of July 28 Apodemius is called p(raef.) p(raetori)o per Illyricum, but in Cod. Theod. XII 12. 13 of September 10 he is simply addressed as p(raef.) p(raetori)o, which does not prove anything, since this law directly follows no. 12, also addressed to Apodemius, in which his title was given more exactly. There remains as the only positive evidence for a possible dismissal of Flavianus by Theodosius, Cod. Theod. XI 30. 51 of June 9, 393 in which Apodemius is called p. po. Illyrici et Italiae II. This may mean that Theodosius had made Apodemius also praef. praet. of Italy while he was already preparing for war against Eugenius. Cf. Seeck, Regesten, 279 ff. 474. Stein, Gesch. d. spätröm. Reiches, I, 326. Palanque, Essai sur la préfecture du prétoire du bas empire, 1933, 76 ff. This hypothesis was opposed by Mommsen and Krüger, Cod. Theod. I 2, 636 and they are supported by Hartke, (Klio XXXI (1938), 431 ff.Google Scholar) with a good argument: Flavianus is called praef. praet. iterum in a public as well as in a private document (CIL VI 1783 and 1782 = Dessau, ILS 2948 and 2947; the latter inscription is reproduced above, p. 210), whereas his consulship, bestowed on him by Eugenius, is mentioned only in the private inscription. If he had been appointed for the second term of the praefectura praetorio by Eugenius, this term under all circumstances would have been omitted in the public inscription set in 431; see below, n. 66. This problem is linked to the question of whether Flavianus had been praef. praet. in 383; see above, p. 220.

65 All Roman inscriptions of 394 with consular dates mention Nicomachus Flavianus as only consul: Inscr. Christ. urb. Rom. III 1 (ed. Gius. Gatti), 1854–7. N. S. (ed-Silvagni) II 4503, 6460. Particularly interesting is III 1, 1855: XV kal. Octob. Nicomacho Flabiano conss. because it indicates that on September 17 the death of Flavianus, which had occurred on September 5, was not yet known to the man responsible for this inscription. The inscriptions III 1, 1858 and N. S. I 2811 are dated Arcadia III et Onorio II cons.; they belong to the last part of the year, after the regime of Eugenius and Flavianus had collapsed; this is borne out by N. S. II 4487 which is dated after the same consuls VII idus Oct., a month after Flavianus' death.

66 Nicomachus Flavianus the Younger is called praef. urbi saepius in the official inscription of 431 set by his son Appius Nicomachus Dexter upon the restitution of his grandfather's memory by Theodosius II (CIL VI 1783 = Dessau, ILS 2948). Flavianus the Younger calls himself praefectus urbi iterum in his inscription in honor of Arcadius found on the Forum of Caesar (Paribeni, Not. Scavi 1933, 434; Hartke, Klio XXXI (1938), 435), but in the private subscriptions of books VI–VIII of Livy which he emended he refers to himself as III praef. urbis. The office given him by Eugenius in 393 was omitted in public documents (“saepius” is a very unusual and rather amusing way to avoid the issue), but not necessarily in utterances of a private nature. See above, n. 64.

67 H. Delbrück, Die Consulardiptychen, 1929, 209 ff. pl. 54. Delbrück's rejection of Seeck's original explanation (Symmachus, LIX, n. 242) on the ground that one would expect an erotic theme if the diptych had been a sportula offered upon a wedding is certainly not convincing. To think of an appointment to office as the occasion for the gift of the diptych seems to me out of place on account of the inscriptions. To exclude the diptych from the time of Eugenius because of the restrained character of the representation (213) is an even more arbitrary conclusion. On the contrary, this reserve is in complete agreement with Symmachus' own behavior during the reign of Eugenius and very fitting to his daughter. — On the whole group of diptychs belonging to the “Renaissance movement under Theodosius” cf. Weitzmann, and Schulz, , Arch. Jahrb. XLIX (1934), 132 f.Google Scholar; latest literature in Alföldi, A Festival of Isis, 38, n. 53.

68 Anthol. lat. I2, 20 (the constitution of the text in this edition is open to objections). Still important: Mommsen, Hermes IV (1870), 358 ff. = Ges. Schriften VII, 485 ff. Main study: Barkowski, O., De carmine adversus Flavianum anonymo, Diss. Königsberg (under Wünsch,) 1912Google Scholar. (This thesis is not a final study, however. The poem deserves a new treatment.) Cf. now also Hartke, op. cit. in n. 51, 92 ff.

69 In the appended chart under no. (8) Flavianus' affiliations with the cults listed are marked by a cross. The evidence for the cults mentioned in the text is found in the following passages of the Carm. adv. Flav.: Iuppiter: 2, 9–18, 26 f., 31, 122; Vesta: 3; Saturnus: 68 Saturni cultor; Mercury: 92; Vulcanus: 97; Bellona: 22, 68 Bellonae semper amicus; Sol: 46–8; Magna Mater and Attis: 44, 57–66, 72–7, 103–9; Liber: 49 Bacchique magistrum (scil. Flavianum), 71 Bacchique comes; Trivia (scil. Hecate): 71 Triviaeque sacerdos; cf. Barkowski, 53 f.; Sarapis, Anubis, Isis, Osiris: 50 Sarapidis cultor (scil. Flavianus), 91 Dic mihi Sarapidis templum cur nocte petebas, 95, 98–102; Ceres, Proserpina: 96; cf. Barkowski, 66.

70 Isis: Carm. adv. Flav. 98 ff. Magna Mater and Attis (Megalensia): 103–9.

71 Carm. adv. Flav. 53 f.:

Perdere quos voluit, percussit luridua anguis

contra deum verum frustra bellare paratus …

ibid. 78–84: Christicolas multos voluit sic perdere demens:

Qui vellent sine lege mori, donaret honores, etc.

72 85f.:

Leucadium fecit fundos curaret Afrorum,

perdere Marcianum, sibi proconsul ut esset.

On Leucadius, who is otherwise unknown, cf. Mommsen, Ges. Schriften, VII, 494. Secck, Gesch. V, 540. Marcianus received the proconsulship of Africa, a key position because of the dependence of the capital on Africa's grain. And indeed, the grain supply of Rome from Africa was not interrupted under Eugenius. This was due in part at least to Marcianus' efforts, not only to provide grain, but especially to appease Gildo, the powerful magister militum of Africa who was virtually in control of the province (cf. Seeck, Symmachus, LXVII). Characteristically, Marcianus again played an important part in 409 under the short reign of Attalus, another member of Symmachus' circle. At that time he became praefectus urbi (Zos. VI 7; cf. Seeck, Symmachus, CXCII). On Marcianus' position in 393 cf. also Hartke, op. cit. in n. 51, 93, 100.

73 Carm. adv. Flav. 46 f.:

Sacratus vester urbi quid praestitit, oro,

qui Hierium docuit sub terra quaerere Solem …

On Hierius see PW VIII, 1458 no. 4 and 7. Mommsen, Ges. Schriften, VII, 494.

Seeck, Regesten, 284. De Labriolle, Réaction païenne, 354.

74 The Carmen ad senatorem is most conveniently edited by Peiper, R. in CSEL, vol. XXIII, 227 ffGoogle Scholar. Cf. Schanz, Gesch. d. röm. Lit., IV 1, 222. Nock, Conversion, 159 f. Alföldi, A Festival of Isis, 40. In the same class belongs the so-called Poema ultimum of Paulinus of Nola, ed. Hartel, CSEL, vol. XXX 2, 329 ff., no. XXXII. It is addressed to a certain Antonius (perhaps Claudius Antonius, cos. 382, a friend of Symmachus, Morelli, Didask. I (1912), 498) and was composed soon after the author's own conversion to Christianity. It strongly attacks pagan cults, among them those of Magna Mater (88 ff.) and Isis (117 ff.), C. Morelli, L'autore del cosidetto poema ultimum attribuito a Paolino di Nola, Didask., I (1912), 481 ff., produced strong arguments in favor of the hypothesis that both poems are by the same author; cf. Schanz, Gesch. d. röm. Lit., IV 1, 222 f. 262 f. — How much the cult of Isis (and the other Egyptian deities) was in vogue among the Roman aristocrats can be gathered also from Ambrose's remark written in 395 concerning the shocking effect upon pagan circles when Paulinus of Nola retired from worldly life: “They themselves shave their heads and eyebrows when they consecrate themselves to Isis; but if a Christian, out of zeal for religion, takes to wearing the dress of a monk, they call it a shameful deed” (Epist. 58, 3 ; Dudden's translation, Saint Ambrose, 488). Cf. above, p. 230 and, in addition, Carm. adv. Flav. 98 f. and below, pp. 242 f.

75 For the return of the haruspices cf. Carm. adv. Flav. 8: Etruscus ludit semper quos vanus aruspex: the Etruscus vanus aruspex is of course Flavianus himself; v. 35 (quoted below, p. 329) and 50: Etruscis semper amicus (scil. Flavianus) and the passage of Rufinus quoted in the text.

76 Aug., De civit. dei XVIII 53–4. Cf. also the beginning of the Cann. adv. Flav. (v. 1) Dicite qui colitis lucos antrumque Sibyllae and Barkowski, 4 f. Flavianus an expert in ius augvrale: Macrobius, Saturn. I 24. 17.

77 This may be concluded from Cann. adv. Flav. 39 f.; cf. Seeck, Gesch. V, 248 and 541. But the interpretation of these verses remains doubtful.

78 Carm. adv. Flav. 112–4:

Sola tamen gaudet meretrix te consule Flora,

ludorum turpis genetrix Venerisque magistra,

conposuit templum nuper cui Symmachus heres.

The right explanation of Symmachus heres was given by Mommsen, Ges. Schriften, VII, 497. The identification of the heres with Q. Aurelius Symmachus is generally accepted (only McGeachy, Symmachus, 134, n. 3 is more cautious), but not understandable in view of the family relationships and of Symmachus' own restrained attitude during these years. The Floralia is mentioned also by Ausonius in De feriis Romanis (Opusc. VII 23. 25); cf. Alföldi, A Festival of Isis, 47, n. 108.

79 That the praefectus annonae in this period was subordinated to the praefectus urbi can be seen not only from the Notitia dignitatum, 113 Seeck (IV 2 Sub dispositione viri illustris praefecti urbis habentur amministrationes infrascriptae: 3 Praefectus annonae; 4 Praefectus vigilum, etc.), but also from the relationes of Symmachus as praefectus urbi. In rel. XXIII treated above (p. 217) the attack against the praef. ann. was represented as an insult inflicted on the praef. urbi. The relationes VIIII, XVIII, and XXXV deal with the problem of annona, usually in the form of request for help from the emperor. They clearly show that the praef. urbi had the final responsibility for the food supply of Rome.—It was customary for the praef. ann. to take a special interest in Ostia, particularly in the Late Empire. Therefore Ostia has furnished the greatest number of inscriptions of these officials. When the crop of inscriptions discovered during the excavations of 1938–40 has been published, a new study of the praef. ann. will be a promising task. All available treatments and lists (like Hirschfeld, O., Philol. XXIX (1870), 1 ffGoogle Scholar. De Ruggiero, Diz. ep. I, 479 f. Seeck, Regesten, 473) are out of date.

80 Symmachus, epist. III 6. 4:

cumulatissimas gratias ago, quod Proiectum familiarem nostrum avulsum contubernio tuo meo solacio deputasti.

Iulianus Rusticus, magister memoriae of Valentinian I, had been considered in 367 by the Gauls in the emperor's environment as a possible candidate for the throne. Probably he was from Gaul himself. In 387/8 he was praef. urbi, when Maximus ruled over Italy, and died while in office (Seeck, PW X, 95 f.). He obviously belonged to the circle of Symmachus like his otherwise unknown friend Proiectus. It is possible that this Proiectus may be related to the Proiectus mentioned by Sidonius Apollinaris (Epist. II 4; about 472) as coming from a noble family in Gaul (on him cf. Sundwall, Weström. Stud., 123, no. 395; 394).

81 Cf. the exhausting and convincing treatment of this relief by G. Becatti, loc. cit. in n. 1, 39 ff. Fuhrmann, , Arch. Anz. LV (1940), 439 ffGoogle Scholar. gives a different, and in my opinion fantastic, interpretation of the monument without attempting to refute Becatti's well founded arguments. — For the oracles of the Hercules of Tibur: L. Cesano, Diz. ep. III, 710; cf. Stat., Silv. I 3. 79.

82 Ambrose's letter no. 81, if interpreted rightly, may reflect the attitude of the clergy of Milan during Eugenius' stay (Palanque, Saint Ambroise, 283. Dudden, Saint Ambrose, 428). Arbogast and Flavianus' threats are reported by Paulinus, Vita Ambrosii 31:

Promiserat enim Arbogastes tune comes, et Flavianus praefectus Mediolano

egredientes, cum victores reversi essent, stabulum se esse facturos in basilica

ecclesiae Mediolanensis atque clericos sub armis probaturos.

They left Milan toward the end of July, since Ambrose returned to Milan about the first of August (Epist. 61, 2).

83 For the battle of the Frigidus cf. the reconstruction by Seeck and Veith, Klio XIII (1913), 451 ff., which is based on an actual study of the battlefield, and the account depending on it in Seeck, Gesch. V, 252 ff. Some points remain obscure, especially the reason for and the exact time of Flavianus' suicide. Dudden's description of the battle (Saint Ambrose, 429 ff.) is in part not supported by the sources.

84 About the statues of Iuppiter cf. Augustinus, De civ. Dei V 26, who based his report on the story of eyewitnesses. After Theodosius' victory they were of course destroyed and the gilded thunderbolts were distributed among the soldiers who declared with glee and joy that they liked to be hit by lightning of this kind. Barkowski, De carm. adv. Flav., 5, 24 sees a reference to the statue of Iuppiter in vv. 2, 26 f. of the Carm. adv. Flav. — The εἰκὼν Ἡρακλέους is mentioned by Theodoretus, Hist. eccl. When the battle seemed lost to Theodosius and his generals advised him to return to the East for the winter, he is reported to have replied: “One must not accuse the safetybringing Cross of such weakness, and admit such strength in the image of Herakles. For the Cross leads our army, the image of Herakles that of the enemy” (V 24. 4). After Eugenius' defeat “Theodosius derided the image of Herakles and the fruitless courage it had created” (V 24. 17). Augustine speaks of Iovis simulacra, i.e. a plurality of statues (Seeck without reason refers to only one statue, Gesch. V, 249). Theodoretus, by opposing to εἰκὼν Ἡρακλέους the Cross, has in all probability standards in mind of the type of Constantine's labarum (so apparently Dudden, Saint Ambrose, 429). In the triumphant description of the obliteration of paganism which St. Jerome gave a few years later, he says: vexilla militum crucis insignia sunt (Epist. 107, 2): the Cross has become the only symbol on the standards of the army.

85 Palanque, Saint Ambroise, 285 (“les dieux de Dioclétian”) is the only one who has pointed out this coincidence, without commenting on it.

86 On Julian and Hercules see J. Bidez, Julian der Abtrünnige (German (latest) edition), 1940, 214, 266. Schmid-Stähelin, Gesch. d. griech. Lit., II 2, 1008. Julian's interpretation of the life of Herakles (Or. VII 219 B–220 A) is similar in character to the Gospels: he even mentions as a miracle that Herakles walked on the sea as if it were dry land, an obvious imitation of Matth. 14. 22 ff. (= Marc. 6. 48 ff. John 6. 19 ff.); cf. Geffcken, Ausgang, 132. De Labriolle, Réaction païenne, 415.

87 Macrob., Saturn. I 20. 6:

Sed nec Hercules a substantia solis alienus est: quippe Hercules ea est solis potestas quae humano generi virtutem ad similitudinem praestat deorum. Nec aestimes Alcmena apud Thebas Boeotias natum solum vel primum Herculem nuncupatum: immo post multos atque postremus ille hac appellatione dignatus est honoratusque hoc nomine, quia nimia fortitudine meruit nomen dei virtutem regentis.

One sees that this is very much in the line of Julian's thought.

88 Barkowski, under the impression of the account of Theodoretus, believed he saw allusions to Hercules in Carm. adv. Flav. 41 ff. and 67 (op. cit., 34 ff., 50 ff.). But his interpretations have been rightly rejected by Geffcken, Ausgang, 300. That Hercules was popular at the end of the fourth century among the pagans is shown by various other testimonies. Ausonius mentions in De feriis Romanis (Opusc. VII 23. 24) in the same verse the birthday of Hercules (natalem Herculis) and the day of the Bark of Isis. Rufius Festus Avienus in his Ora Maritima 269 ff. tells of visiting the sanctuary of Hercules at Gades, probably while he was proconsul Baeticae, in the last quarter of the fourth century (cf. F. Marx, PW II 2, 2388). Particularly noteworthy are two utterances by St. Augustine. One of them is a letter to the municipal council of Sufes in Africa proconsularis. Sixty Christians had been killed in a riot which had been caused by their destroying a statue of Hercules. With bitter irony Augustine promises to have a new god made for the citizens of Sufes or to buy them one from their own artisans, provided that they return so many lives (et, sicuti a nobis vester Hercules redhibetur, sic etiam a vobis tanlorum animae reddantur; epist. 50). Augustine, in calling them lawbreakers who neither respect nor fear the emperors, alludes to the antipagan laws, but not necessarily to the law of 399 (Cod. Theod. XVI 10. 16) as A. Goldbacher CSEL, vol. LVIII, 18 and Geffcken, Untergang, 184, believe. The letter can have been written at any time after the laws of 391 and 392, and may well belong in the period of the revival of 393/4, when the province of Africa was dominated by Eugenius' party. — The other testimony is found in a sermon given by St. Augustine in Carthage on June 16, 401 (serm. 24. 6 in Migne, PL XXXVIII, 166; on the date cf. Kunzelmann, A., Miscellanea Agostiniana II (1931), 497Google Scholar; G. G. Lapeyre, ibid., 138). “Hercules, who once was called a god, does not exist any more in Rome. But here he even wanted his beard gilded.” One gathers from Augustine's words that in some connection with this ceremony a Christian had cut off the beard of the statue, apparently through the connivance of the new iudex. And, of course, qui deaurari eum voluerunt, de raso erubuerunt. Augustine is not very clear since he deals with an event which was fresh in the mind of his audience (Suggestio itaque nescio quae novo iudici obrepsit. Quid egit? Non egit utique ut a christiano lapis honoraretur, sed ut christianus illi superstitioni ad radendum misceretur).

89 The decisive interference of the Bora is a feature upon which all reports of the battle agree. It was naturally interpreted as a miracle (cf. esp. Ambrose, epist. 61, 3; 62, 4. In psalm. XXXVI enarr. 25 (CSEL, vol. LXIV, 99 f.). Aug., De civ. Dei V 26. Oros. VII 35. Rufinus, Hist. eccl. XI 33, in order to quote the immediate contemporaries; cf. Seeck, Gesch. V, 255 f.). It left a deep impression also among the pagans and suggested to the pagan compilator of the Historia Augusta the forged account of the battle in vita Gord. 16, 2 (cf. Hartke, op. cit. in n. 51, 106 f.).

90 Rufinus, Hist. eccl. XI 33:

post etiam magistri horum et doctores errorum, praecipue Flavianus plus pudoris quam sceleris reus, cum potuisset evadere, eruditus admodum vir,

mereri se mortem pro errore iustius quam pro crimine iudicavit.

Mommsen, Ges. Schriften, VII, 497 concluded that Flavianus committed suicide before the battle because in Rufinus' account Flavianus' death precedes the report of the battle, and others accepted this view. But there is no other, more cogent, evidence for this hypothesis (cf. above, n. 83). Rufinus makes it clear that Theodosius would have liked to forgive Flavianus. This is confirmed by Ambrose, De obitu Theodosii 4: quin etiam iis, qui in se peccaverant, doluit quam, dederat periisse indidgentiam et veniam denegatam. In a message to the senate, Theodosius declared that he would have wished that Flavianus remained alive (CIL VI 1783 = Dessau, ILS 2948; cf. above, n. 51, 64 and 66).

91 Cf. Hepding, Attis, 167 f. Barkowski, De Carm. adv. Flav. 71.

92 Lommatzsch, E., Litterarische Bewegungen in Rom im vierten und fünften Jahrhundert n. Chr., Zeitschr. für vergl. Litteraturgesch., n. F., XV (1904), 177 ffGoogle Scholar. McGeachy, Symmachus, 170 ff.

93 U. Wilcken, Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit, I, 94 terms the ἱερεύς and the νεωκόρος the real backbone of the clergy of Sarapis (“das eigentliche Rückgrat der Serapispriesterschaft”). Cf. also W. Otto, Priester und Tempel im hellenistischen Ägypten, I, 113 ff.

94 On C. Valerius Serenus cf. PIR III 377, no. 131 and J. Hasebroek, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Septimius Severus, 1921, 125. He and his title are not mentioned by Ch. Starr, The Roman Imperial Navy, 1941, 109 ff. In this connection it may be permitted to note that Ser. Sulpicius Cn. f. Quir. Serenus, a tribunits militum of the legio XXII Deiotariana, who in 122/3 A.D. memorialized on the legs of the Colossus of Memnon his visit to this famous site, called himself νεωκόρος τοῦ μεγάλου Σαράπιδος, probably in Alexandria (IGRom I 1200); he was stationed in Egypt: IGRom I 1207; cf. Ritterling, PW XII, 1796.

95 Two other inscriptions of Ostia belong to the same category:

(1) CIL XIV 785 domui aetern[ae] Cassiae Rufinae quae v[ixit annis] XXVIIII mensibus IIII diebus … Carminia Cassia naeacore [matri] Sex. Carminins Neophytus coniugi ca[rissimae

(2) CIL XIV S 1, 4325: ‥‥ menus neacorus (= Diadu]menus (or something similar) neacorus)

96 Equipment for the Serapeum in Portus was dedicated by A. Cassius Eutyches νεωκόρος τοῦ μεγάλου Σαράπιδος according to the bilingual inscription CIL XIV 47 = IG XIV 915 = Dessau, ILS 4402 = IGRom I 390. This inscription concludes the group of documents from Rome and its environments in which the title neocorus is found and all of which must be related to the cult of Sarapis.