I start by making two assumptions, as being facts known to every serious student of antiquity. One is, that Aeschylus was not only a poet but a theologian. The other is, that practically every Greek of that time, if he thought at all concerning deity, did so along mythological lines. The second postulate perhaps needs a little exposition. We have long got rid of the error which supposed the myths, or any of them, to form a kind of “pagan creed,” belief in which did or might constitute a test of orthodoxy. We know that creeds are rather rare phenomena, confined to a few religions, of which that of classical Greece was not one. No one in all Hellas was expected to declare that he believed in the Labors of Herakles, and no heresy hunts were started if someone doubted that Prometheus stole fire from heaven. Decent regard for the official cults was, indeed, in a general way, required of everyone, and the public conscience was liable to be shocked if some too bold thinker proclaimed that he did not accept the tacit assumption on which all such cults must rest, if their followers reflect on them at all, namely that certain beings superior to man exist. But everyone had from early childhood heard traditional tales about those beings, which agreed pretty well in their main outlines, no matter whether the teller or the hearer was Athenian or Boiotian, Spartan or Argive.

Most of the objects to be discussed in this paper belong to the class known as “Gnostic” amulets. That term has been so widely accepted that there is something to be said for retaining it; for even those who recognize its inaccuracy find it a convenient designation for things that cannot easily be brought under any other descriptive name.

The exact status of the fourth tractate included among the Opuscula Sacra of Boethius is still uncertain, though the other theological works are now almost universally accepted as genuine. Boethian scholars of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were generally inclined to reject Tractate IV. Viktor Schurr, in the outstanding recent work devoted to the theological treatises, takes the same view, basing his judgment upon the lack of a title indicating authorship and upon the notation ‘actenus Boetius’ found between Tr. III and IV in Codex Augiensis XVIII (saec. IX). Schurr, like some of his predecessors, was strongly influenced in this conclusion by the doctoral dissertation of E. K. Rand. In that study Professor Rand attacked the authenticity of the unsigned treatise with vigor but also with prudence, tempering, in certain instances, the views of earlier proponents of his own position. Though he concluded that Tr. IV was not genuine, he made no secret of the uncertainties of the case.

There is a saying of Jesus, found in Mark x. 15 and Luke xviii. 17, which seems to have exercised considerable influence on the imaginations of early Christians. “Whoever will not receive the kingdom of God as a child shall not enter into it.” Another form of the same saying apparently interprets it in relation to conversion and regeneration. “Unless you turn and become like children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew xviii. 3). A further development of the same thought is to be found in John iii. 3: “Verily, verily, I say to you, unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” And in John iii. 5, after Nicodemus' misunderstanding, the saying is finally clarified: “Unless a man is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Justin thinks of the two sayings as closely related, for in Apol. i. 61. 4 he conflates them: ἂν μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν.

An interesting sidelight on our knowledge of the mystery cult of Mithras in antiquity is provided by a group of provincial Roman sculptures which represent Mercury carrying the infant Bacchus. The popularity of the representation, attested by at least thirteen votive reliefs and three statues, and the concentration of these monuments in the region which is today Alsace-Lorraine are facts which need explanation. The subject is not unknown in other provinces of the Roman Empire, but it appears in isolated examples of sculpture and minor arts unlike the unified group from Germania Superior and adjacent territory, which in geographical distribution and in iconography is unique.