^{page 131 note 1} An introduction to the topic is provided by The Conflict of Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (1963), ed. A. Momigliano; the question of the transposition of pagan modes of expression in art into Christian ones has been recently studied by Grabar, A., Early Christian Iconography, a Study of its Origins (1969); also below, p. 136 n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 131 note 2} See Nock, A. D., , in Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, i (1972) = H.S.C.P. xli (1930).Google Scholar

^{page 131 note 3} On the temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath, see Toynbee, J. M. C., Art in Britain under the Romans (1964), 130–8Google Scholar (137–8 on the nature of the divinity); Wightman, E. M., Roman Trier and the Treveri (1970), 209,Google Scholar 210 f., 219; 225 on Mercury and Rosmerta and similar pairs; also Toutain, J., Les Cultes païens dans l'empire Romain iii (1917), Africa: 15 f.,Google Scholar 133 f.; Spain: 136 f. for Netus-Mars, and Cosus-Mars; 141–3; Gaul: 197 ff. On Syrian gods in Roman guise, Latte, K., Römische Religionsgeschiehte (1960), 345–8;Google Scholar Cumont, F., Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism (1911)Google Scholar is still important, and can now be supplemented by the series Études préliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l'empire Romain, ed. Vermaseren, M. J. (1961 f.).Google Scholar

^{page 132 note 1} Cf. below, p. 139.

^{page 132 note 2} Cod. Theod. 16. 10. 12.

^{page 132 note 3} See below, p. 141. For the loci of the horoscope see Riess, R.E. s.v. Astrologic, cols. 1803–5;Google Scholar for the position of the genius in these loci Firmicus Maternus, Mathesis 2. 19, de duodecim locorum potestatibus; for instances of the sales of the emperors determining the sales of the state in astrology Housman, A. E. ed. Manilius i lxix ff. (cf. below, p. 141 n. 2);Google Scholar for the connection between lares compitales and the genius of the emperor, below, p. 136, and for the penates of the state, Koch, K., Religio (1960), 163 f.Google Scholar The question of the Penates of Troy as the gods of the Roman state is taken up by Augustine, C.D. 1. 3 (cf. below, p. 133). The official, public lares and penates should be distinguished from those mentioned in Cod. Theod. 16. 10. 12, which refers to the domestic worship of a pagan household, but there did exist a direct correlation between domestic and public cult in Roman paganism (Wissowa, G., R.u.K. [1912], 161 f., 166 f.), especially through the household of the pagan emperor, and a fusion of one into the other, as the sequence of topics in the law indicates.Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 1} Mero genius = Hor. C. 3. 17. 14 ‘cras genium mero / curabis’; spirantia exta consukre = Verg. Aen. 4. 64 ‘pectoribus inhians spirantia consulit exta.’

^{page 133 note 2} Stein, E., Histoire du Bas-Empire i (1959), 2I0 f.;Google Scholar Jones, A. H. M., Martindale, J. R., Morris, J., Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire i (1971),Google Scholar Tatianus 5. See also Piganiol, A., L'empire Chretien, ed. Chastagnol, A. (1972), 288 ff.; 291–2 on the legislative context of Cod. Theod. 16. 10. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 3} See Ensslin, W., ‘Die Religionspolitik d. Kaisers Theodosius d. Gr.’ S.B. München (1953), 83–4: ‘Die fast im Ton einer Missionspredigt gehaltene Verschärfung früherer Erlasse [so Geffcken, Ausg., 156 f.] hat man, wean auch etwas verfrüht, den Grabgesang des Heidentums genannt.’Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 4} For the background see W. Otto in R.E.vii¹ cols. 1155–70, s.v. Genius; Wissowa, R.u.K. (1912), 175 ff.;Google Scholar K. Latte, op. cit. (p. 131 n. 3), 103 f.; and Nock, A. D., ‘The emperor's divine Comes’ in Essays on Religion and the Ancient World ii (1972), 653 ff.Google Scholar = xxxvii (1947). More recently, see Fishwick, ‘Genius and Numen’, The Harvard Theological Review lxii (1969), 356–67,Google Scholar and more generally, Le Culte des souverains dans l'empire Romain, Entretiens, Fondation Hardt xix (1972).Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 5} C.D. 7. 2, 13, 6, 23, 33.

^{page 133 note 6} Note for instance the procedure of the argument in C.D. 7. 13.

^{page 133 note 7} C.D. 7. 13 (cf. Censorinus, De die natali 3); 7. 23.

^{page 133 note 8} C.D. 7. 23.1; 7. 13.

^{page 134 note 1} C.I.L. vi. 4². 35887, from an epigram of Epicharmos:

^{page 134 note 2} Censorinus, De die natali 3.

^{page 134 note 3} Censorinus, De die natali 2.

^{page 134 note 4} Firmicus Maternus, Mathesis 2. I9; Martianus Capella, 1. 45 ff., 2. 147 ff.

^{page 135 note 1} Cramer, F. H., Astrology in Roman Law and Politics (1954), 184–195; Augustine; C.D. 7. 33.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 2} 2. 152 (cf. the references given in A. Dick's Teubner ed. ad loc.); the word angel is used by Julian in a context which is relevant: Letter to the Athenians 275B: (Athene) .

^{page 135 note 3} On the date: Giet, S., Hermas et les Pasteurs (1363), 280–5;Google Scholar on the pagan idiom, Peterson, E., ‘Beitr. zur Interpretationen der Visionen im Pastor Hermae’, in Frükirche, judenturn, und Gnosis (1959), 234–70.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 4} Hennas 30. I.

^{page 135 note 5} See Peterson, E., Das Buch von den Engeln (1935), 68 f.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 1} Hermas 36. 2: cf. Maternus, Firmicus, Mathesis 2. 19. 12–13Google Scholar on bonus daemon Del genius and caws daemon; Capella 2. 162–3.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 2} Hermas 25; cf. Gregory of Tours, Historia Franeorum 2. 7, the guardian angel of Aetius (still without wings, cf. H.F. 4. 5). Here and in the idea of Christ the Good Shepherd, there is a coalescence of O.T. and N.T. notions with Greco-Roman ones; for this process in art, see Saxl, F., ‘Continuity and Variation in the Meaning of Images’, in A Heritage of Images (1970), 21–5,Google Scholar on angel with and without wings. Concerning the image of the Good Shepherd, see Klauser, T., ‘Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der christlichen Kunst’, jahrbuch fir Antike unc Christentwn i (1958), 20–51;Google Scholar iii (1960), 112–33;v(1962), 113–24; vii (1964), 67–76; viii–ix (1965/6), 126–70; x (1967), 82–120, Nations, like individuals, each had a genie. (Symmachus, Rel. 3. 8), and, in Judaism and Christianity, a guardian angel: see Peterson, E., ‘Das Problem des Nationalismus im alten Christentum’, in Frühkirche, judentum, and Gnosis (1959), 51–63.Google Scholar Something of this idea survived in Byzantium, supported by the convention of Byzantine art whereby angels were portrayed in courtly dress: see Wulff, Oskar, Die Koimesiskirche in Nicaa (1903).Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 3} Origen, , Contra Celsum 8. 34, translated and edited by Chadwick, H. (1965), 477.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 4} The Divine Liturgy of John Cluysostom (Faith Press, London, 1969), 32.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 5} As recent scholars have pointed out, see e.g. Millar, Fergus, ‘The Imperial cult and the persecutions’, in Le Culte des souverains, Entretiens Fondation Hardt xix (1972), 145–75.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 1} Ovid, , Fasti 5. 145–6,Google Scholar with Frazer's commentary ad loc., cf. on 2. 615, and the important assessment by Latte, K. op. cit. (p. 131 n. 3), 306–9;Google Scholar 308 principally in agreement with the present interpretation; Wissowa, R.u.K. (1912), 171–3.Google Scholar On the organization of the cult see also C.I.L. vi. 454 and commentary. The association of lar and genius in the law, however, is made on a basis which is not strictly imperial, although the solus of the emperors could be related to it: above, p. 132 n. 3: cf. Ovid, Fasti 5. 135 f. lases praestites: ‘stant quoque pro nobis, et praesunt moenibus urbis et sunt praesentes auxiliumque ferunt.’ Ammianus 16. W. 13: ‘Romani ingressus (Constantius II), imperii virtutumque omnium larem’: in view of Ammianus' description of the Senate of Rome (16. 10. 5): ‘asylum mundi totius’, lar should not, I think, be understood to mean merely ‘home’, but something more ambivalent, with a religious undertone, even though no cult is involved; cf. below, p. 142.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 2} Tertullian, Apologia 28. 4.

^{page 137 note 3} See Gagé, , Basileia (1968), 222 ff.;Google Scholar Nilsson, , ‘Die babylonische Grundlage der griechischen Astrologie’, Eranos lvi (1958), 1–11, on the emergence of the idea that the position of the stars caused human destinies.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 4} Cramer op. cit. (p. 135 n. I), part 2, 232 ff. See also Gagé op. cit., 237 ff.; 285 ff. for more indirect methods of bypassing conventional astrological necessity.

^{page 137 note 5} Dio of Prusa, Or. I. 65 ff.; cf. Simon, Marcel, Hercule et le Christianisme (1955).Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 6} Augustine, who discussed the problem of predictability and predestination in paganism (C.D. 5 praef. 9–11), argued by means of the examples provided by history in general, and by the Christian empire in particular (C.D. 5. 11. 24–6), for predestination without predictability, or, as he put it in this particular context, for the operation of divine providentia: ‘(dens) qui dat potestatem volentibus’ (5. 10).

^{page 137 note 7} Mathesis 2. 30.

^{page 138 note 1} Neusner, J., A History of the jews in Babylonia, ii (1966), 85.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 2} Ibid. 84.

^{page 138 note 3} See Peterson, E., op. cit. (p. 136 n. 2).Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 4} On the angels of the nations, see Peterson, 10c. cit.; cf. Koran Sura 14. 4; 17. 72; 77. 10, on the apostles of the nations, a parallel to guardian angels, though a distant one, for Mohammed disallowed intercession on the day of judgement. On the star of Bethlehem, Koep, L., ‘Astrologia usque ad Evangelium concessa’, in Mullus, Festschr. Th. Klauser (1964), 199–208.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 5} The genius of the Roman people appears sporadically on the earlier imperial coinage: R.I.C. i 181–2, 184; ii. 51, A.D. 68–9; 94, A.D. 74–6; 130–1, A.D. 80–1; 355 A.D. 199–22; iii. 34, 116, 128 for Antoninus Pius; iv¹. 95, 97 for Septimius Severus; etc. Under Traianus Decius the genius exercitus appears for the first time on the coinage, a means at the same time of stressing the composition of that army: GENIUS EXERC ILLURICIANI, R.L.C. iv³, see Index iv. On the Tetrarchic coinage after the reform, the GENIC POPULI ROMANI issues provide one of the chief themes, see R.L.C. vi, index ii, GENIO POPULI ROMANI etc. (on the re-emergence of the genius of the emperors after 305, when the Tetrarchic system was under attack, see R.L.C. vi. 53–73 passim, 110). During the Tetrarchy, the personality of the emperor was set back behind an imperial type, so that no longer are personalized virtues and character praised in panegyric, as for instance by Pliny (and Dio of Prusa), but virtues which are beyond direct personal control, such as felkitas, as in the panegyric of 291 (Panegyrici Latini 3, ed. Galletier); see on this question, L'Orange, H. P., Art Forms and Civic Life (1965). (As may be understood from that work, observations such as the above are a matter of nuance and degree: Cicero, in De lege Manila, praised, among Pompey's other virtues, his felkitas; but it is the other virtues which determine the character of the felicitas in a manner they do not in the panegyric of 291.)Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 6} Cod. Theod. 6. 24. 3, 4; 7. 1. 7; 8. 1. 13; 8. 7. 4, 8, 9, 16; 12. 1. 70; Code of Justinian 2. 7. 25. 3; 12. 3. 4; 12. 17. 1; 12. 29. 2; 12. 33. 7; 12. 52. 1; 12. 53.1; see also Cod. Theod. 6. 8. 1 ‘adoraturi imperium’; 6. 13. 1 ‘adorandi principis facultatem’; the exception: 6. 23. 1 ‘in adoranda nostra serenitate’; 10. 22. 3 ‘adoraturus aeternitatem nostram’; 15. 4. 1 adoratio of imperial images. Cf. Gregory Nazianzen, C. Iul. 1. 80.

^{page 139 note 1} Nock, A. D., ‘The emperor's divine comes’, in Essays on Religion and the Ancient World ii (1972), 653 ff = J.R.S. xxxvii (1947).Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 2} Pan. Lat. 7. 21. 4 f.

^{page 139 note 3} For the similarity between the individual and his genius in art see Rink, E., Dig bildliche Darstellung des römischen Genius (Dias. Giessen, 1933), 17 f.Google Scholar On Constantine and Sol, see Alföldi, M. R., ‘Die Sol-Comes Münze vom Jahr 325’, in Mullus, Festschr, Th. Klauser (1964), 10–16.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 4} Cf. Baynes, N., Constantine the Great and the Christian Church, ed. Chadwick, H. (1972), 7 f.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 5} Plutarch, Titus 16, hymn to Flaminius: … . See alsoAbbot, F. F. and Johnson, A. C., Municipal administration in the Roman Empire (1926), no. 150, p. 271,Google Scholar thanks offered ; no. 17, p. 273. 30 offering a gold wreath on the capitol for the victory and leadership of the Roman people; Nock, A. D., op. cit. (p. 131 n. 2), 223 f.; F. Richter in Roscher's Ausführliches Lexikon d. gr. und rom. Mythologie iv, s.v. Roma, col. 131Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 1} Polybius 6. 7–8.

^{page 140 note 2} Cf. above, p. 139 n. 5.

^{page 140 note 3} R.E. ii 7 s.v. Tyche cols. 1682 ff., on Tyche in art. Cf. Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum viii, s.v. Fortuna. For the famous Tyche of Antioch by Eutychides of Sikyon, Bieber, M., The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age (3967), 40.Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 4} Fink, , Huey, , Snyder, , ‘The Feriale Duraonum’, Yale Classical Studies vii (1940), 102–12;Google Scholar Weinstock, S., Divus Julius (5972), 188 f.Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 5} Cf. Cato, , De re rustica 139 ‘Si deus si dea es’; C.I.L. vi. 110, 111;Google Scholar Norden, , Agnostos Theos (1912), 57 n. 1;Google Scholar Wissowa, R.u.K. (1912), 36–8.Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 6} Auct. Serv. ad Aen. 2. 351.

^{page 140 note 7} Although possible in religious speculation: Varro in Augustine, C.D. 7. 13.

^{page 141 note 1} See Kähler, H., Alberti Rubeni dissertatio de Gemma Augustea (1968) for the identifications.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 2} The representation rests on the fact that when Augustus was born, the moon was in Capricorn (see Housman, A. E., M. Manilii Astronomicon i [1937], 93–6),Google Scholar so that, taken literally, Capricorn refers to Augustus only. But this reference is to be extended to the state, personified by Roma, whose salus depended on the sofas of the emperor. Ritual expressions of this idea occur in the prayer formulae employed by the Arval Brothers on imperial feast days, Ada Fratrum Arvalium, C.L.L. vi. 1, p. 463, 4 01. A.D. 27; p. 465, 3 Jan. A.D. 36, etc. Cicero, Pro Marcello 32 ‘Nisi te, C. Caesar, salvo et in ista sententia … manente, salvi esse non possumus’; a similar interdependence of Theodosius and Rome, Pan. Lat. (ed. Galletier) 12. 1. 2 ‘ita mutuo ambo crevistis ut nec to fueris adhuc maior nec ills felicior’; more poignantly, Sidonius Cann 7. 102 f. The astrological connections between Roma and emperor could be explicitly and directly stated under Tiberius, for Rome was founded, and Tiberius born, when the moon was in Libra: Housman, op. cit., 95. Cf. Kähler, op. cit. (above, n. 1), 26–9, on the date and import—highlighting Tiberius—of the Gemma Augustea.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 3} See e.g. Richter, G. M. A., Engraved Gems of the Romans (1971), figs. 424–5,Google Scholar 501 (the Gemma Augustea), 599; Hamberg, P. G., Studies in Roman Imperial Art (1945), 56 ff.,Google Scholar 80 Two occasions in particular provided a meeting ground for Rome and the emperor, the Parilia or Natalis Urbis, and the Ludi Saeculares. On the Parilia cf. above, p. 140 n. 4; on the templum urbis, Nash, A Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome s.v. Venus et Roma, templum, and for late antiquity, the important contribution by Brodsky, N. L'iconographie oublitée de Fare Ephésien de S. Marie Majeure (1966), esp. 66–73.Google Scholar For the ludi saeculares, Gage, , Rech. sus les jeux séculaires (1934);Google Scholar numismatic documentation: Toynbee, J. M. C., Roman Medallions (1944), 102 ff.;Google Scholar also Gnecchi, , I Medaglioni Romani (1912), pls. 100. 1–2, 101. 9, o8. 9, 109. 5–6.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 4} Pan. Lat. 2, ed. Galletier, with Galletier's introduction.

^{page 142 note 1} Pan. Lat. 2. 1–2. Note, in this context, the urban, almost antiquarian bias of the Decennalia Base in the Roman Forum, for which see L'Orange, H. P., `Ein tetrarchisches Ehrenmal auf dem Forum Romanum’, Röm. Mitt. liii (1938), 1 ff., now in his Likeness and Icon (1973), 131 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 2} Wes, M. A., Dar Ends des Kaisertums im Wester des RÖrnischen Reiches (1967), 9–24.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 3} Above, p. 141 n. 2.

^{page 142 note 4} Sidonius, , Cann. 7. 102, 2. 341–2.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 5} Claudian, , On the sixth consulship of Honorius 331 ff., 356 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 6} Sidonius, , Carm 1. 2. 522–3.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 7} Claudian, , Sixth consulship 39 f.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 8} Sixth consulship 407–8; on Ammianus' similar phrase, above, n. 337 p.

^{page 142 note 9} Sixth consulship 611–12.

^{page 143 note 1} On the Christianization of the idea of Rome, see N. Brodsky, op. cit. (p. 141 n. 3); on views, Augustine's, Paschoud, F., Roma Aeterna (1967), 234 ff.,Google Scholar and, in particular, Markus, R. A., Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of St. Augustine (1970).Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 2} A collection of the sources is in Christ, F., Die römische Weltherrschafl in der antiken Dichdung (Tübinger Beitr. zur Altertumswissenschaft xxxi), 1938; I have not been able to consult Gernetz, Laudes Romae, (Dias. Rostock, 1918).Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 3} Rutilius I. 140.

^{page 143 note 4} Rutilius 1. 47 ff. In the present context one could revealingly contrast ‘inter sidereos Roma recepta Polos’, with mankind, controlled by their fata.

^{page 144 note 1} The idea of marking the unique moment of the emperor's accession with the unique act of his coronation was new in late antiquity. Earlier, emperors and others were crowned for victory, an act which could be repeated indefinitely. The decisive stet towards coronation for accession was taken during the reign of Constantine: at his accession he was clothed in the chlamys, but at his death, his insignia had become chlamys and diadem: Eusebius V.C. 1. 22: and 4. 64. For the further elaboration of the moment of accession see De Cer. 1. 01–6 (Bonn).

^{page 144 note 2} Cf. above, p. 142. As a result of the disorders of the third century, and the proclamation of emperors on the frontiers, rather than in Rome, Adventus in Rome could become a form of accession ceremony, and the association of Roma and the emperor because it could no longer be taken far granted, was highlighted. An early example occurs in Pliny's Panegyricus (20 f.) Trajan, who became emperor while absent from Rome.

^{page 144 note 3} Ammianus 20. 5. to; cf. Julian, Letter to the Athenians 2840: about sunset, the soldiers began to shout for Julian to be made Augustus; he retired to an upper room: , sign from heaven, i.e. star, was Julian's Greek way of expressing Ammianus' Latin and Roman genius publicus.

^{page 144 note 4} He himself, according to Ammianus, had an acute sense of being seized by a destiny: , Julian said, quoting lliad 5. 83, after being made Caesar (Ammianus 15. 8. 17). Cf. preceding note and below, p. 146 n. 3.

^{page 144 note 5} Ammianus 25. 2. 3–4.

^{page 144 note 6} Ammianus 24. 6. 17 (cf. omens before the death of Pertinax, H.A. Pertinax II. 2; 14. 3; Septimius Severus had a dream of his. death, which preceded other omens, H.A. Sept. Sev. 22). Here the emperor's fatum is understood as depending on forces beyond human control, exactly as astrologer maintained. Firmicus Maternus' reservation; that the emperor's fate was not predictable. does not quite apply, for Julian himself on the Persian campaign was constantly torn between seeking out diviners and then not listening to them: e.g. Ammianus 25. 2. 5 f.: but a distinction must here be made between astrology and the divinatory rites of the Roman state religion as used by Julian.

Julian, the partner of the genius publicus, was himself acclaimed as ‘genius salutaris’ in ceremonies of Adventus: see Ammianus 21. 10. 1, in Vienne: 24. 2. 21, in Pirisarbora; he was also welcomed as ‘sidus salutare’see Change and Continuity in Late Antiquity: the Ceremony of Adventus’, Historia xxi (1972), 733–4.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 1} See Agapetus P.C. 861. 1164 ff., and below, n. 3.

^{page 145 note 2} For the genius publicus, cf. above, p. 138 n. 5. The tenaciousness of certain pagan ideas, even their appropriateness, in public life is interestingly illustrated in late antique Constantinople. Pagan ideas manifested themselves in a certain pious antiquarianism, the import of which, as e.g. in Claudian, should not be underrated. Constantine, was not shown as Helius on his column in Constantinople, this would have been too direct an association between pagan and Christian empire: see Karyannopulos, , Konstantin der Grosse and der Kaiserkult’, Historia v (1956), 341–57.Google Scholar None the less, the column became a cult-site of sorts, as is noted by Philostorgius, H.E. 2. 17. In its basic conception, the medieval legend that Constantine took the Senate of Rome with him to the East (cf. Treitinger, O., Oströmische Kaiser und Reichsidee [1938], 161–2)Google Scholar started early, for the Paschal Chronicle a.a. 328 Bonn p. 528 already notes that Constantine took with him the Palladium and placed it in the column-base of his statue: see also Procopius B.G. 1. 15.9–14. For the inauguration of Constantinople the Paschal Chronicle notes unbloody sacrifices a.a. 328 ibid. (A related matter is the hieratic name of Constantinople, Avilogaa, which was modelled on Flora, the hieratic name of Rome, a fourth-century production: Lydus, de meas. 4.Google Scholar 25. 50; see Wissowa, in R.E. i 2393 s.v. Anthusa, with references; also Chron. Pasch. p. 528 (Bonn).)Google Scholar

Augustine discusses the Penates, the conquered gods of Troy, as part of his argument to show that the Roman empire was not unique: C.D. 1. 2–3; cf. 3. 8; but it was precisely the uniqueness of the empire that, in Byzantium, was stated anew, see e.g. Indicopleustes, Cosmas, Christian Topography ii. 69–70.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 3} One of the ceremonial acts of Justin II at his accession was presiding at the hippodrome, which his panegyrist describes as an image of the world: Corippus, , Laus justini ii. 314Google Scholar ff. It should perhaps be stressed that the emperor in the kathisma was not in the centre, in the position of the kosmokrator, but had to expose himself to the forces at work within the city, as crystallized in the hippodrome. Thus it can be understood that, when in 512 Anastasius during a revolt in Constantinople offered to abdicate, this was no mere theatrical gesture: Malalas pp. 407–8 (Bonn); Bury, , History of the Later Roman Empire i. 439.Google Scholar For the later period, see Brown, Peter, ‘A Dark Age Crisis: Aspects of the Iconoclastic Controversy’, E.H.R. lxxxviii (1973) 29 and n. 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 146 note 1} De Cer. (Bonn), p. 419. The idea of the ruler of heaven and his counterpart on earth is explored by Eusebius, e.g. V.C. 1–6, 3. 12; cf. Delatte, L., Les Traités de la Royauté d'Ecphante (1942), 123–63, on the earlier roots. In Byzantium ideas—some of them philosophical—about heavenly and terrestrial rule became common property to such an extent that they could form part of an acclamation such as the one cited: i.e. they acquired a practical, everyday validity.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 2} John of Nikiu, tr. Charles, R. H. (1916), 89. 1; this is not merely the approval of a monophysite holy man for an emperor of his own theological views; cf. John of Nikiu 90, where ‘Justin the Terrible’ is vindicated by the holy man Quamos as being ‘the emperor according to your hearts’.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 3} But contrast the content of pagan and Christian predictions about future emperors, where the two different traditions may be clearly distinguished: e.g., for Marcian, there is still a pagan portent, involving an eagle, Procopius, Vandal War 1. 4. 4; for Maurice, the portent is Christian, Evagrius H.E. 5. 21; likewise for Justin II, Corippus L.J. 1.32 ff.

^{page 146 note 4} Augustine, C.D. 5. 26. 1.

^{page 147 note 1} Bloch, , ‘The Pagan Revival in the West at the end of the Fourth Century’, in The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (1963), ed. Momigliano, A. 201.Google Scholar Simon, M., Hercule et le Christianisme (1955), esp. 127–60.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 2} De Cer. p. 411 (Bonn). Cf. Breckenridge, ‘The Numismatic Iconography of Justinian II’, Numismatic Notes and Monographs no. 144 (1959).Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 3} See Toynbee, J. M. C., ‘Rome and Constantinopolis in late antique art frorr 312–365’, I.R.S. xxxvii (1947), 135–44Google Scholar ‘Roma and Constantinopolis in Latc antique Art from 365–Justin 11’, in Studies presented to D. M. Robinson ii (1953), 261–77.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 4} e.g. Toynbee, J. M. C., Roman Medallions (1944), pl. 37. 3–8;Google Scholar Gnecchi, , I Medaglioni Romani (1912), p1. 11.Google Scholar 5, 7; see also Toynbee, J.R.S. xxxvii (1947), 138 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 5} URBS ROMA: e.g. Toynbee, , R. Medallions, p1. 38. 6, 35. 4–9,Google Scholar 37. I, 11; Gnecchi, op. cit., 132.2–3, 138. 1–3,140. 1, 7–8,136. 7–8 ROMA BEATA and URBS ROMA BEATA; CONSTANT11OPOLIS: e.g. Toynbee, , R. Medallions, pl. 38. 5 (helmeted); 37.10 (bust, helmeted); Gnecchi, op. cit., p1. 135. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 6} Compare Themistius, or. 3 to Constantius in 357, with Or. 14 (esp. 182B) to Theodosius in 379.

^{page 148 note 1} Delbrueck, R., Die Consulardiptychen (1927), 110.2.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 2} Delbrueck, , op. cit. (1929), 88–9, 91–2; for the (unusual) radiate crown of Constantinopolis cf. Sidonius Cann. 7. 426 ff. about Eos (Constantinopolis).Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 3} The association of the two capitals with their respective rulers is also shown on the column-base of Arcadius: see Kollwitz, J., Oströmische Plastik der theodosianischen Zeit (1941), 51 f.Google Scholar

circ;⁴ Themistius, or. 3, 44B, and similarly for Theodosius, or. 14, 18tc f.

^{page 148 note 5} 4.6D–4.8B; cf. 182A; cf. Wes, loC. cit. (p. 142 n. 2). On the founder and new founders of Rome, Weinstock, S., Divus Julius (1971), 175 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 6} Themistius 182A2; the acquisition of empire by is particularly appropriate for the emperor who is associated with Constantinople. 182A, accession and Adventus in Constantinople; 1832 f., request for honours for the Senate of Constantinople, .

^{page 148 note 7} Bruns, G., Staatskameen des 4. Jahrhunderts rach Christi Geburt (1948), figs. 17–18, cf. 19–20; pp. 22 f. and n. 88, Julian places Constantinople under the protection of the gods = Julian 274B ff Cf. p. 145 n. 2, above.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 8} Cf. Grabar, A., L' empereur dans l'art byzantin (1936, 1971), pl. 7. 1; pp. 34 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 9} For which cf. Athanasius, De Incarnatione 9.

^{page 148 note 10} Themistius 44B, 181D, and elsewhere. Themistius 182A: .

^{page 149 note 1} e.g. George of Pisidia (ed. Pertusi, 1959), In Heraclium ex Africa redeuntem 25 ff.

^{page 149 note 2} Baynes, , ‘The supernatural protectors of Constantinople’, Analecta Bollandiana lxvii (1949), 165–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The association of Constantinople and the Theotokos was paralleled by the association of emperor and Theotokos e.g. George of Pisidia P.G. 92, 1749c = Theophanes p. 298 ed. De Boor. For the intercessory patronage of a saint, see also Howell, , ‘S. George as Intercessor, Byzantion xxxix (1969), 129–36.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 3} As in Hadrian' s templum urbis, cf. above, p. 141 n. 3. Cassiodorus, , Chron. in Momm, enta Germaniae Historiae, Auctores Antiquissimi ix. 2. 142 ‘Templum Romae et Veneris … quod nunc urbis appellatur’.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 4} The tenth- or early eleventh-century mosaic in S. Sophia, showing Constantine offering a model of Constantinople to the Theotokos, and Justinian a model of S. Sophia (Beckwith, J., Early Christian and Byzantine Art [1970], fig. 190), indicates how the visualization of Constantinople qua city although city personifications survived in Byzantine art (Grabar, loc. cit. above, p. 548 n. 8), became diffused. This did not mean, however, that the concept of Constantinople did not live on, cf. below. Also, Constantinople, home of relics gathered during centuries, became itself a holy city.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 5} See Trypanis, C. A., Fourteen Early Byzantine Cantica (1968), 17 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 6} Mango, C., Homilies of Photius (1958), Homily 3.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 1} P.G. 111. 810; Dolger, F., Byzanz und die europäische Staatenwelt (1953), 150.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 2} For this interpretation, I am indebted to Gervase Mathew. On the mosaic, see Hawkins, , Further observations on the Narthex Mosaic in S. Sophia at Istanbul’, D.O.P. xxii (1968), 153–66.Google Scholar