Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:
Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
DIVINE INSINUATION IN THE PANEGYRICI LATINI
Panegyrists and propagandists of the Late Empire insisted that there was a
special relationship between sovereign and divinity; extravagant insistence
seemed even to claim living deification for one ruler or another. When first-
century emperors (Gaius, Nero, Domitian) displayed their megalomania even
the ancients rejected their pretensions as soon as they safely could. One
occasionally hears nowaday that reports of their dementia may have been
exaggerated, that a later hostile tradition has inflated, if not invented, rumors
of their mad masquerades. Third- and fourth-century emperors may not so
easily be dismissed. In the first place, assertions of divinity by human beings
are repugnant to modern minds, and recent students of ancient history have
sought to reconcile their perception of an otherwise decent person, Diocletian
for example, with this abhorrent aberration by arguing away the aberration. A
second obstacle is the desire for order and consistency, although it requires
considerable ingenuity to reduce the mass of conflicting evidence about the
ruler-cult to a coherent system. Finally, one is struck by the absence of a
conflict over the emperor's status in the fourth century: the concept of rule by
divine grace became current so easily that it must not have had to supplant an
idea of rule by divinity.
Since no whole can cohere unless its parts fit together, I have chosen to
examine in this paper a small bit of evidence, eleven of the encomiastic orations
known as the Panegyrici Latini.1 The various speeches, even those addressed to
the same emperor, display no single, common theme, but they almost all reveal
a measure of ambiguity. The development of the ruler-cult during the first
three centuries of our era is not at issue here. The progression from princeps to
dominus was not linear; the apparent excesses of Domitian almost required the
apparent civility of Trajan. The notion of the emperor's superhuman stature
insinuated itself slowly into the minds of men; it needed a century of
turbulence and fear to settle itself in. When the night of the Principate had
passed, a figure emerged from the shadows of dawn: Diocletian, looking for all
the world like an eastern potentate.
l There is one similar discussion, that of J. Beranger, MH 27 (1970) 242-254 (= Beranger). His
brief review does not always do justice to the evidence in the Panegyrici, and I cannot agree with
some of his conclusions. J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, Continuity and Change in Roman Religion
(1979) (= Liebeschuetz) comments upon several of the Panegyrici: VIII, X, XI (237-243), XII
(285-288), IV (288-291), II (301-302). The panegyrics (both these and others) are part of a grander
whole in S. G. MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (1981) (= MacCormack).
Historia, Band XXXV/1 (1986) ? Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
70 BARBARA SAYLOR RODGERS
There were those in the fourth century who credited Diocletian with
instigating emperor-worship (Aurelius Victor 39.4, Eutropius 9.26). But
inflation had affected the imperial cult as well as the currency; one ought
perhaps to claim that Diocletian attempted to restore soundness to both. He
invented neither. Although Aurelian said that he was chosen by god to be
emperor, on some of his coins (as on issues later under Probus and Carus) are
the words Dominus et Deus. No one denies that third-century emperors
invoked sanctity of person as a defense against assassination, but whether
Aurelian or anyone else wanted to be considered a god is open to doubt.2
The ruler-cult was unquestionably a political device, although politics and
religion had united since early Republican times in the Pax Deorum. It is
difficult to separate the two at any period. Apotheosis was not only a means of
honoring dead rulers: an emperor with one or more divine ancestors enjoyed a
powerful dynastic claim and appeared to be more than mortal. Septimius
Severus employed this principle when he had himself adopted into the line of
Marcus Aurelius; Constantine used Claudius Gothicus (Pan. Lat. 6.2.2.).
Diocletian, on the other hand, found a divine parent in Jupiter himself.3
Ensslin has formulated three possibilities for the position of the emperor: he
might be either a god, the agent of the divine spirit, or god's personally chosen
ruler.4 In any case, the emperor is more than a man. Although all three of these
conceptions appear in some form in the Panegyrici Latini, the panegyrists most
often resort to the first two ideas, and they often employ both in the same
speech.
2 Compare for example the opposing views of E. Kornemann, Klio 1 (1901) 136, and N. H.
Baynes, JRS 25 (1935) 84. Baynes and A. D. Nock, HTR 23 (1930) 264, both find one piece of
evidence conclusive against a view of emperor as god in the late third century: the story (in Muller,
FGH 4.197) that Aurelian told his soldiers that god had chosen him emperor and fixed the length
of his rule. The evidence of Aurelian's coins points to the opposite conclusion. See Dessau, ILS
585, 5687 for inscriptions, and RIC 5:1.264, 299 nos. 305-306; legends include IMP DEO ET
DOMINO AVRELIANO AVG, DEO ET DOMINO NATO AVRELIANO AVG, SOL
DOMINVS IMPERI ROMANI. W. Kubitschek, Num. Zeitschr. 8 (1915) 167-178, however,
denies any official authority to this coinage, all of which was minted at Serdica or Siscia. He
attributes the legend domino et deQ to the initiative of the workers at the mint. For relevant coinage
of Probus and Carus see RIC 5:2.19, 109 no. 841, 114 no. 885 (DEO ET DOMINO PROBO
INVICTO AVG); 133,145 no. 96,146 nos. 99-100 (DEO ET DOMINO CARO INVIC AVG,
DEO ET DOMINO CARO AVG).
3MacCormack 106-107 describes the departure under the Tetrarchs from dependence upon
consecratio, and kinship with one's (now divine) predecessor: "Death could add nothing."
4Ensslin (CAH 12.387, SB Munich, Phil.-hist. KI. [1943] Heft 6, 49-50) says that it does not
matter which formulation came closest to the truth. MacCormack 168-196 details the involvement
of the divine in the election of an emperor.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Latini 71
To which not all scholars attach equal weight. For example, Beranger 246-247 and nn. 33-34,
cites the TLL definition (see n. 6) of divinus = imperialis, and assumes as well that the adjective
"souligne plus la d6pendance que l'identit6." Cf. G. Herzog-Hauser, RE Suppl. 4 (1924) 851.
6 TLL 5:1.7.1623, 34-71 i. q. imperialis, regius, de vivo et consecrato principe, necnon de domo
Augustorum.
The lists in the Appendix contain many examples from all the speeches, arranged in two
categories, depending on whether the word modifies emperor or divinity. I have omitted the word
caelestis from consideration here, but included it in the Appendix. It has about the same range of
meaning as divinius, although it occurs infrequently, and its usage underwent the same changes.
8 Cf. also sanctitas (I 1.19.3) and Diocletian's divina majestas (Dessau, ILS 627). M. P. Charles-
worth, HTR 29 (1936) 107-132, has shown that by the end of the second century, aeternitas had
also become an attribute of the emperor.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
72 BARBARA SAYLOR RODGERS
' D. Fishwick, HTR 62 (1969) 356-367; D. M. Pippidi, REL 8 (1930) 136-137; cf. Pfister, RE
17:2 (1937) 1286-1287.
'? Fishwick, op. cit. (n. 9) 364-365; cf. Etienne, Le culte imperial dans la peninsule iberique
d'Auguste a Diocletien (1958) 313.
0 O. Schafer, Die beiden Panegyrici des Mamertinus und die Geschichte des Kaisers
Maximianus Herculius (1914) 86-88.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Latini 73
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
74 BARBARA SAYLOR RODGERS
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Latini 75
II
'5 Whether or not the same orator, one Mamertinus, wrote both Panegyrics X and XI, I prefer
to treat the two orations separately. In the first place, the identity of authorship cannot be proven
beyond a doubt; in the second, each effort is a literary unit and deserves to be treated as such.
" A. D. Nock has distinguished between the literal and figurative use of deuis. He says (UHS 48
[1928] 31) that you call someone a god "either unreservedly or with reference to yourself, a god to
you." To the second category belong most of the examples from the Republican and Augustan
periods (see his p. 31 n. 51). The instance here belonigs to the first. Praesens deus = &6g
'7 See S. R. F. Price, JRS 70 (1980) 28-43, on sacrifice in the imperial cult, especially the
conclusion (p. 42) that the evidence precludes systematization. The emperor's position was often
ambiguous, between men and gods; but occasionally the ruler was unquestionably treated in
sacrificial matters as divine.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
76 BARBARA SAYLOR RODGERS
18 It is strange that Liebeschuetz 238 and n. 5 has chosen section 6.4 as evidence of distinction
between god and emperor.
9 Cf. 1. S. Ryberg, Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art (1955) 98: "The actual ritual of the
imperial cult reappears in monumental art only when the reigning emperor receives offerings in his
own person as a praesens deus, and when the worship of the living ruler finally displaces the old
rites of the triumph and the payment of vota to the grcater gods of the state."
2 With, for example, N. H. Baynes, op. cit. (n. 2) 84. But see MacCormack 169-172 for a very
different conclusion.
21 E. Galletier, editor of the Bude edition, supplies initium. Mynors prints D)iocletianus tfacit
and notes alius aliud supplet.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Latini 77
more majestic the emperors' presence would make the city, quae nunc sine
dubio praesentiam vestri sibi fingit, aedes vestrorum numinum frequentando et
... invocando Statorem lovem Herculemque Victorem (10.13.4). Both here
and in the next sentence, when the author reminds Maximian that Hercules
derived the title Victor from a victory over pirates (10.13.5), Galletier
translates numen "divinite protectrice." One could argue that by numen the
orator means "godhead," a divine force emanating from Jupiter and Hercules
in which the emperors partake, but in this speech there is no information about
the emperors' powers which would warrant such an interpretation of this
passage. Jupiter and Hercules are the "parents" of the emperors. It is
Herculius, though, cui iam sic tempestatum opportunitas obsegnatur, who will
overcome the pirates (10.12.1-8). What is more, the Romans worship at the
temples of Jupiter and Hercules only because the emperors are not there in
person: they imagine the emperors' presence by worshipping the gods. Far
from picturing the emperors as subordinates through whom the gods manifest
themselves, this orator characterizes the gods as substitutes for the real thing.
The Roman populace must be content with an approximation but the citizens
of Trier may celebrate enthusiastically since the deus is actually praesens.
Diocletian chose Jupiter and Hercules to symbolize his and Maximian's
relationship to each other and to the gods.22 The author of X employs this
imperial propaganda for his own purpose. Jupiter and Hercules are only
symbols in his speech, useful for drawing analogies or for being compared
unfavorably with the living emperors. The gods play the role of stock figures
in comparisons, like Alexander and real or mythical Roman heroes. One of the
emperor's duties as Pontifex Maximus was to preserve the form of official
Roman religion by offering sacrifice to the gods, as his predecessors had done.
The orator represents Maximian performing these official functions, but he
robs them of importance when he reveals the emperors as the real authors of
the empire's well-being. Their subjects, therefore, owe them appropriate
honors (10.6.5); the source of the greatest benefits to the provinces is the
physical presence of the emperor himself (10.14.4-5).23
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
78 BARBARA SAYLOR RODGERS
24 Beranger 247 cites this phrase as an example of Diocletian's subordination to the god, but in
this context auctor means that Jupiter is the progenitor of Diocletian's race: TLL 2.6.1204, 58-59.
25 In this connection it is interesting that within this same passage the orator says that Hercules
was once a man. One might interpret this in two ways, either as a compliment, with Hercules
setting a precedent as a god who had lived among men, or as an allusion to the apotheosis of
outstanding men and therefore an indirect hint that Maximian may still be a mortal. Cf. 11.6.4:
manifestum est ceterorum hominum animas esse humiles et caducas, vestras vero caelestes et
sempiternas. Do only emperors have immortal souls?
26 The emperors seem in this passage to be independent powers: vester vero immortalis animus
omnibus opibus omnique fortuna atque ipso est maior imperio.
27 Cf. 11.18.4, where fortuna is the donor. But the orator has already said that the emperors'
soul is greater than fortune (see n. 26).
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Latini 79
themselves, equated here with Jupiter and Hercules. The speaker ignores the
official titles Jovius and Herculius: Diocletian and Maximian are gods in the
flesh.28
Pietas is the cause of the emperors' meeting in Milan; their ability to leave
the empire's borders is proof of their felicitas (11.13.1-4): Neque enim pars
ulla terrarum maiestatis vestrae praesentia caret, etiam cum ipsi abesse
videamini (11.13.5). It is clear from his explanation of this statement that the
orator separates the emperors' maiestas from their persons:29
Itaque illud quod de vestro cecinit poeta Romanus love "lovis omnia
plena," id scilicet animo contemplatus, quamquam ipse Iuppiter
summum caeli verticem teneat supra nubila supraque ventos sedens in
luce perpetua, numen tamen eius ac mentem toto infusam esse mundo, id
nunc ego de utroque vestrum audeo praedicare: ubicumque sitis, in
unum licet palatium concesseritis, divinitatem vestram ubique versari,
omnes terras omniaque maria plena esse vestri. Quid enim mirum si,
cum possit hic mundus lovis esse plenus, possit et Herculis? (11.14.2-4)
No matter where their bodies are, their divinitas is everywhere, just as
Jupiter's numen and mens fill the world. The god's and emperors' divine aspect
is similar to the power of thought: an inseparable part of each individual which
nevertheless, since it is not corporeal, is not bound by time and place. The
orator has used his description of Jupiter in 11.14.2 to explain the emperors'
power, and the final sentence of the analogy fulfills a twofold purpose, to
equate the two emperors' capabilities and to unite again ruler and god: after
divinitatem vestram . . . vestri, Iovis and Herculis stand for Iovii and Herculii.
The main point of the final sentence is vindication of Maximian's status; the
orator established earlier (11.10.5) the ruler-god equation with the words
praesens Iuppiter and imperator Hercules.
28 11.10.5: dis immortalibus laudes gratesque cantari, non opinione traditus sed conspicuus et
praesens Iuppiter cominus invocari, non advena sed imperator Hercules adorari. See Ensslin, SB
Munich (op. cit. above n. 4) 49 and MacCormack 23-26 on this passage.
29 Ausonius (Gr. Act. 1.5) treats the topic differently; Gratian's subjects are nowhere without
reminders of his benefits. Cf. Symmachus Orat. 1.1 on Valentinian's knowlege of his empire.
30 Beranger 248.
3' Note his frequent use of sacer (9.5.4, 9.6.2, 9.11.1&2, 9.13.1&2, 9.16.4, 9.21.4) and divinus
(see Appendix).
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
80 BARBARA SAYLOR RODGERS
32 [Britanni] vera imperii luce recreati. Cf. the words REDDITOR LVCIS AETERNAE on the
Arras Medallion (RIC 5:2 no. 430), which represents Constantius' arrival at London, and
interpretation thereof in MacCormack 30-31.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Latini 81
3 Unlike his predecessors, this orator prefers the vocative, imperator invicte. to other forms of
address, e. g. sacratissime.
34 At 8.4.2 numen means imperial power; elsewhere it usually is equivalent to "you" or to
"your majesty."
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
82 BARBARA SAYLOR RODGERS
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Latini 83
36 RIC 6.283, 355, 358, 465, 531, 532, 580, 581, 621-622, 667, 670, 675, 690-691.
37 6.1.5: Vt enim ipsos immortales deos, quamquam universos animo colamus, interdum tamen
in suo quemque templo ac sede veneramur, ita mihi fas esse duco omnium principum pietate
meminisse, laudibus celebrare praesentem.
3 Constantine's illustrious family allows the orator to compose a longer section on his
ancestors, real or adopted.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
84 BARBARA SAYLOR RODGERS
3 For one recent discussion with bibliography, see Rodgers, Byzantion 50 (1980) 259-278.
4 The legends include SOLI COMITI AVG N and SOLI COMITI AVGG NN, SOLI
COMITI CONSTANTINI AVG, SOLI INVICT COM DN, SOLI INVICTO, SOLI
INVICTO AETERNO AVG, SOLI INVICTO COMITI, SOLI INVICTO COMITI DN: RIC
7.752-753. See also G.H. Halsberghe, The Cult of Sol Invictus (1972) 167-169; H. P. L'Orange,
Symbolae Osloenses 14 (1935) 101 (.- Likeness and Icon [1973] 344).
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Latini 85
temple;4' he hopes that Constantine might soon do the same for the
Apollo at Autun. He asks, Di immortales, quando illum dabitis
praesentissimus hic deus omni pace composita illos quoque Apol
sacras aedes et anhela fontium ora circumeat? (6.22.1). Should C
visit Autun, he would admire the temple of his numen in that city
orator has just referred to the emperor as praesentissimus hic
numen therefore Constantine or Apollo? In the context, ambigu
deliberate.
4' 6.21.7: Iam omnia te vocare ad se templa videantur: whereas flowers spring up where
Jupiter and Juno have lain, in the wake of Constantine's footsteps rise cities and temples (6.22.6).
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
86 BARBARA SAYLOR RODGERS
42 Beranger 250 says of the numen in this speech, "-1 n'apparait qu'une fois." See Appendix.
4' The panegyrist also compares Constantine favorably to the emperor's deified father
(12.24.4-25.2).
44 A Virgilian echo; Aen. 9.184-185: dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,/Euryale, an sua
cuique deus fit dira cupido ?
4 On golden statues see A. D. Nock, HSCP 41 (1930) 1-62; K. Scott, TAPA 62 (1931)
101-123. Many scholars agree that Constantine was represented with the attributes of a god,
whether Apollo or Sol. See A. Alfoldi, The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome (1948) 69,
132 n. 23; J. Maurice, op. cit. (n. 14) 172; A. Piganiol, L'Empereur Constantin (1932) 67-68;
C. Ligota,JWI 26 (1963) 178-185. T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (1981) 46 and n. 16,
supports M. R. Alfoldi's view (ING 11 [1961] 19ff) that the manuscript reading dee should be
emended not to dei but to deae, and that the statue was of Victoria.
46 Cf. expressions for god in Ausonius, Gratiarum Actio: aeterne omnium genitor, etc. (18.80),
caeli et humani generis rector (4.20). In the present instance of the prayer form, the speaker does
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Latini 87
truly immortal. Constantine has sons, yet this writer finds unsa
sort of immortality which the author of VII had so carefully de
will be truly happy, he says, if in addition to his imperial offspring,
Constantine himself should remain forever the greatest emperor (12.26.2-5).
Obscurity and inconsistency nearly overwhelm the assertion of immortality
and divinity, but it remains.
not refrain from speculation on the god's nature, but does not find a name; rather, he tries to
ensure that the god will hear him by listing his possible forms instead of his epithets, and resumes,
te, inquam, oramus. Cf. MacCormack 34-37. The orator has, at least, correctly reproduced the
argument about eternal motion and immortality, unlike the author of XI. Compare also the
description of the spirit in Aen. 6.724-751. On the eternity of the emperor, see F. Cumont, Rev.
d'hist et de litter. relig. 1 (1896) 435-452; H. U. Instinsky, Hermes 77 (1942) 313-355.
" Although his head (4.29.5) and even his person (4.35.3: divinus princeps) merit the adjective
divinus.
48 Erat quod tollere velles. An example is his parenthetical comment, cum dico proelia, significo
victorias (4.19.4).
49 4.7.4 pietatem tuam texit; 4.16.1 summam illam maiestatem quae te circumplexa tueatur;
4.18.4 te per omnia subnzxum deo vadere; 4.26.1 tu non intutior tempore quam deo tectior.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
88 BARBARA SAYLOR RODGERS
5 Reports of divine intervention in battle were common in the ancient world. See Pfister, RE
Suppl. 4 (1924) 277-323. In the second chapter (Military Epiphanies) of The Greek State at War III
(1979), W. K. Pritchett cites examples taken from inscriptions as well as literary sources, and
concludes that visions were not necessarily inventions made up after the event.
5 A. Alfoldi, op. cit. (n. 45) 70.
52 Rerum arbiter deus 4.7.3; illa vis, illa maiestasfandi ac nefandi discriminatrix 4.7.4; divinitas
4.7.3, 4.13.5; maiestas 4.16.1, 4.19.2; deus 4.16.2 (bis), 4.18.4, 4.26.1, 4.28.1: the use of deus
without qualification by ille or any other modifier is exactly the way a monotheist would describe
the deity.
5 See A. Alfoldi, op. cit. (n. 45) 30-31, 75-81, 91, 134 n. 30, on Constantine's problems with
Rome and attempts to maintain good relations with the inhabitants of the Eternal City.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Latini 89
54 See R. Browning, The Emperor Julian (1975) 160; S. G. MacCormack, Historia 21 (1972)
734.
5 Cf. Symmachus Orat. 2.23: negotiis tuis auxilio fuisse caelestes.
S' Cf. Ausonius Gr. Act. 18: supremus ille imperii et consiliorum tuorum deus conscius et
arbiter et auctor.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
90 BARBARA SAYLOR RODGERS
humanorum terminos curent qui semper divina meditantur (4.2.6); Julian, too,
is incapable of thinking merely human thoughts: Non potest quicquam
abiectum et humile cogitare qui scit de se semper loquendum (3.31.2).
Constantine's purity of soul both reveals and merits divine favor (4.16.1-2);
Julian's equal purity has as its aim immortality: te ... dirigere omnes opes et
cogitationes tuas ad memoriam posteritatis aeternam (3.31.1). Nazarius
measures Constantine's greatness in terms of divine protection; Julian's
immortality is that which men bestow. That is the Stoic ideal; it had been
generations since a man of such sympathy for Republican forms had ascended
the throne.
Other emperors have been likened to the sun, or emit a more or less blinding
fulgor from their bodies or from their eyes (12.19.6). Julian is like a star.
Claudius Mamertinus calls him quasi quoddam salutare humano generi sidus
(3.2.3),57 rather than a source of the life-bringing lux imperatoris, and Julian's
eyes flash with sidereis ignibus (3.6.4). The astrological orientation of 3.2.3
avoids equating emperor and sun, and the qualifiers quasi, quoddam make the
orator's metaphorical intention abundantly clear. Cicero was less restrained
when he spoke of Pompey.
Thrice, Mamertinus does compare Julian with the gods, but two, if not all
three, of the instances have no serious content. When he asks, Ecquis deus uno
in anno multiplicesfructus agro uni dedit?, he does not mean that the fields are
more productive or even, as at 5.13.6, that the emperor has lowered the taxes.
The orator himself is the fertile field, bearing the fruits of three successive
offices (3.22.1-2) (cf. Ausonius Gr. Act. 5.22: dei munus imitaris). Again,
Mamertinus affects to despise the fruitfulness of the Blessed Isles:
Quantula ista sunt, si deum auctorem consideres, munera! Nempe nobis
quoque, cum agrum non nostris manibus excolamus, haec illaborata
nascuntur.... provinciae, praefecturae, fasces sponte proveniunt.
(3.22.2-3)
The passage is a parody of other panegyrists' descriptions of utopias and the
golden age.
The third follows the reference quoted above to the nameless god (3.28.5),
who, when he gazes down upon earth, affects the elements by his facial
expression, shakes the world at his nod, and in gladness brings fair weather. It
echoes the anonymous orator who spoke before Constantine and Maximian in
307 (7.12.7-8; above under Panegyric VII). Claudius Mamertinus employs the
description in a way also familiar from Tetrarchic panegyrics. He says that this
is what poets relate (poetaeferunt) of the god, and he believes that it has been
proven by a recent experience in the human sphere. When Julian smiled upon
5 Compare Ammianus Marcellinus 21.10.2 (ut sidus salutare); Galletier Bude 111.9 notes the
similarity of expression. Cf. also 22.9.14, and see especially MacCormack 47-50.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Latini 91
his consuls the crowd went mad (3.29.1-3). This was not the last
panegyrist would employ such a theme: see below on Panegyric
67. But Mamertinus immediately retreats from what he has sa
himself in the joyful multitude to emerge as the honored consul. It
hint, and nearly lost amid the commotion. It may even be ano
inserted for the amusement of his emperor, who was himself an ex
genre of encomiastic oratory.
Throughout the rest of the oration, the panegyrist restrains
impulse caused him to liken the emperor, however ambiguo
supreme being. Although Julian receives divine guidance and hel
never leaves the human realm, and his immortality will be gain
through apotheosis, but on human terms. Claudius Mamertinus
careful of all the orators to represent the emperor as a human
concern extends even to the avoidance of imperial terminology
mentions the emperor's numen, divinitas or maiestas; caelestis never
the emperor, although Nazarius called Constantine's prudentia
(4.9.3). Divinus appears only three times; it modifies munus (3.16
bestowed upon the speaker, and two abstract nouns (prudentia
Nazarius used the adjective twice as often, thrice of the emper
Ammianus Marcellinus, although an historian, is more like a pan
Mamertinus. The historian describes the appearance of Julian
Constantinople (tamquam demissum aliquem .. . de caelo: 22.
Antioch (in speciem alicuius numinis votis excipitur: 22.9.14) as i
old hand at respectably moderate praising (compare Panegyric
summation of Julian's brief reign (22.9.1) also contains the requisite
tic elements (the horn of plenty, martial felicity).
One cannot know what combination of emperor, orator, and
responsible for Mamertinus' depiction of Julian, but one passage sug
the orator is wary of the listeners' prejudices."i His cautious ref
reinstatement of philosophy (3.23.4-6) reads like a pagan apolo
philosophy is linked with virtutes (cf. 3.19.3-21.5), literature, and th
applications of star-gazing. Mamertinus' genuine, if exaggerated
Julian's accomplishments aside, in terms of the vocabulary of th
the speech might be called an anti-panegyric.
Public expressions of ideas about the emperor's relationsh
divinity seem to have undergone a transformation in little over
until finally the emperor himself has lost the trappings of divin
remains god's chosen ruler who can rely on heavenly support. In
58 R. Pichon, op. cit. (n. 14) 135-136, explains that in the presence of the Ch
Mamertinus is silent about Julian's intended religious reforms. It was still too earl
speak of that.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
92 BARBARA SAYLOR RODGFRS
and Theodosius issued the first anti-pagan legislation since the reign of
Constantius II;s9 by 389, therefore, there should have been no question about
acceptable convention. One would not expect Pacatus, whatever his private
convictions, to say that Jupiter had helped Theodosius to overcome Max-
imus.60 This is not to say, however, that an orator must invoke Christ and all
the saints. The time was not quite yet when bishops usurped the functions of
rhetoricians and poets, but in view of the scanty evidence on Latin panegyric,
changes had occurred. The gap of forty years between Nazarius and Claudius
Mamertinus is frustrating; Symmachus and Ausonius, however, are closer in
tone to Mamertinus than to anyone else. By the time it was Pacatus' turn, the
rule was that there was one god and that a very special human being was
emperor.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Latini 93
" Of these, Pacatus addresses only the emperor, and vestra natura = tibi eadem ac illis natura
est. The plural ad jective happens also to give him a better clausula (-u---), but Pacatus did not
write vestra for the sake of the rhythm alone. The vestra may also embrace, as a politeness,
Valentinian II and Arcadius; it is still linked with divina and aeternitas.
65 Beranger 253, however, cites only 2.30.2 for the numen in this speech.
"' Liebeschuetz 302 finds the passage, "which seems to imply full worship of the emperor,"
"astonishing, coming from a Christian." He characterizes it, however, as "an expansion of a
traditional theme," citing Pliny Pan. 4.4. The expansion is considerable; there is nothing like this
statement in any of the other panegyrics. Pliny's description (cuius dicione nutuque maria terrae,
pax bella regerentur - I do not know the source of L's punctuation of this passage [comma after
pax]) is of the commander-in-chief: Trajan rules the land and seas as head of the army and navy.
Hie is not in charge of the weather.
" Compare 10.2.5: Finguntur haec de Iove, sed de te vera sunt, imperator; 11.10.5: non
opinione traditus sed conspicuus et praesens luppiter; 4.15.1-7 (Castor and Pollux compared to the
heavenly armies; imitated at 2.39.4). A. Lippold, Historia 17 (1968) 245, uses the passage from
Panegyric II as proof that the orator had doubts about the (pagan) gods' existence. The author(s)
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
94 BARBARA SAYLOR RODGERS
of X and XI must have had the same doubts. Denying or doubting the gods is still a compliment to
the emperor's more present power.
68 For a variety of opinions, see Liebeschuetz 301 (Christian), Beranger 253 (possibly a
Christian); R. Etienne, Bordeaux Antique (1962) 281 (tolerant, not a Christian); Pichon, op. cit.
(n. 14) 147 (neither Christian nor pagan in an obvious way; purposely vague); Galletier, Bude
111.51 (old-fashioned pagan); Ensslin, SB Munich (op. cit. n. 4) 64 (pagan).
69 Pichon, op. cit. (n. 14) 147-148, dismisses this as insignificant. The expression Vestale
sec-retum (2.21.3) is a figure of speech. To 2.3.2 compare Ausonius 1.2: gratias ago: verum ita, ut
apud deum fieri amat, sentiendo copiosius quam loquendo.
'0 Cf. 5.8.4 where, however, the orator does not mention priests.
' 0. Hirschfeld, Kleine Schriften (1913) 503-504.
72 A sacerdos, unlike a flamen, was definitely a pagan priest: see Servius on Aen. 2.863 and
Isidore Orig. 19.30.5: Apex est pilleum sutile quod sacerdotes gentiles utebantur.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Latini 95
Pacatus was not one of those who followed Eugenius in 392. After his
performance in 389 he was promoted, to Proconsul of Africa in 390 and in 393
to Comes Rei Privatae at Constantinople. Theodosius had found in Pacatus a
loyal adherent; the emperor rewarded the man who called him a god, but the
propaganda of the panegyric had little effect. Theodosius' acts and enactments
as emperor far outweighed Pacatus' efforts to commend him to the Romans.
After 390, no one could have doubted Theodosius' religious intentions. Nemo
se hostiis polluat, nemo insontem victimam caedat, nemo delubra adeat, templa
perlustret et mortali opere formata simulacra suspiciat, ne divinis atque
humanis sanctionibus reus fiat (Codex Theodosianus 16.10.10 of 24 February
391. The language of his legislation against apostates in 16.7.4 of 11 May 391 is
just as strong; compare 16.7.1 and 16.7.2 of 381 and 383).
Pacatus has given the Romans a view of the emperor with which they could
sympathize. Theodosius is like the best rulers of tradition: te ipsum qua ...
priscorum duritia ducum, castitate pontificum, consulum moderatione,
petitorum comitate viventem (2.20.5). The word pontifex points to a particular
religion only by the context. The orator feels that Brutus himself would
approve of the present emperor. The words prisci duces, pontifices, consules,
petitores all recall the Republican period. But Pacatus includes more recent
traditions as well: Theodosius is a deus, even the Persian king worships him
(2.22.5), scenes of his victories will decorate Roman temples (2.44.5), and his
subjects pray to him for help. A. D. Nock feels that the emperor could not
have appeared to anyone as a real divinity, for no one directed prayers to the
ruler.73 Pacatus says that people in various situations pray to the emperor.74
Whether they really did or not, the orator wants to say something that the
Romans find comfortable and familiar. Whereas the Romans of the first and
second centuries were appalled by an emperor who so far broke with
convention as to call himself dominus et deus, by the end of the fourth century
tradition required this very appellation: better deus than Christianissimus
princeps.75
Pacatus owes many of the themes in his panegyric not only to his being the
latest in a long line of official orators. He has taken some of his ideas
particularly from the traditions of the earlier panegyrists, who spoke before
A. D. Nock, JRS 37 (1947) 104, HTR 45 (1952) 241; Fishwick, HTR 62 (1969) 366.
74 Mention of soldiers asking for the emperor's auspicium makes the other two kinds of request
seem almost ordinary.
" A. Alfoldi, CAH 12.194, observes, "This theological transfiguration of the person of the
emperor and, even more so, his direct deification, had originally been in sharp conflict with the old
humanistic conceptions and, above all, with the mentality of the Senate. Now, however, the
opposition of Christianity made the worship of the emperor a part of the policy of the patriotic
conservatives, and so it remained until paganism had drawn its last breath."
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
96 BARBARA SAYLOR RODGERS
III
The men who praised the emperors had considerable freedom of choice, and
despite their 'modest' opinions of their own speaking ability, they were not
stupid provincials who understood little about the emperor's policies. Neither
were they summoned to the court to have their speeches dictated to them.
While they were sure to give adequate coverage to the emperor's successes at
home and in the field, and reproduced accurately enough the present
emperor s version of his relationship with colleagues and would-be colleagues,
the degree to which they magnified the emperor's person was left to the
inclination of each speaker. The authors of IL, VI, X and XI equate various
emperors with gods and/or call an emperor deus, without abandoning the
themes of divine selection and the emperors' continued support of the official
deities (in VI, X and XI). The language of the eighth panegyric assumes an
imperial divinity which the speaker does not emphasize. Eumenius, Nazarius,
and the authors of V and VII see the emperors as recipients of divine favor who
enjoy a special relationship with the god(s). The emperors themselves drew
attention to this favor on their coinage, but despite Nock's conclusion that the
divine comes is a protector, attached to the throne and not to the individual
ruler,79 Diocletian and Constantine stressed their personal relationships with
Jupiter and Sol respectively. A relationship which develops into identity comes
closest to the ideas about the emperors in Panegyrics VI, X and XI, the three in
which imperial divinity is best defined. This notion and that of rule by divine
grace are worlds apart. The representation of an emperor's divinity, or the lack
of it, and the degree to which an orator may or may not forget the mortality of
the emperor, depended upon the orator himself as much as upon the
circumstances and the emperor. One panegyrist preferred to dwell upon the
" Deus: 10.2.1, 6.22.1; perpetual motion: 11.3.1-8, 12.22.1-2; vota: 10.6.5.
" Divinitas, strictly speaking, has disappeared, although Pacatus unites divina, aeternitas, and
Theodosius at 2.10.1.
" Theodosius' life supplies adequate material for the family, upbringing, deeds and habits
sections, not to mention the comparison by contrast with his enemy Maximus: the apology, both
for the Gauls and for Theodosius, is the essential element.
79 A. D. Nock, JRS 37 (1947) 102-116.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Latini 97
8 J. Rufus Fears, Princeps a Diis Electus (1979) 184, notes the political aspect of the theme of
divine selection, which "never became an indispensable element in imperial panegyrics." The
notion was most useful in fending off rival claimants or defending virtual usurpations.
81 W. Seston, Historia 1 (1950) 257-266.
82 W. Seston, Diocletien et la Tetrarchie (1946) 225.
83 Diocletian surprised one fourth-century (?) person merely by having quoted Virgil once
(SHA [Car.] 30.13.3-4). If this anecdote is an invention of the author, his surprise is nonetheless
plausible.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
98 BARBARA SAYLOR RODGERS
VI, X and XI (not to mention II). Pagan orators often ignored or de-
emphasized the notion of divine ruler, and most of their successors in the
Christian period did the same. Finally, the beliefs of contemporaries and near
contemporaries must count for something; that our understanding is superior
is not the point.84 The attitude of the eighth panegyrist may be indicative of a
general tendency to exalt the emperor at the gods' expense:85 in the end, the
gods become less believable than ever. For three hundred years the empire's
citizens had grown more and more accustomed to looking up to the emperor
as the single most powerful potential in their lives. The emperors, through
advertisement of their claims and powers, did their part in propagating the
faith. Romans swore by the emperor's genius (or numen), they honored him in
temples along with the gods, they became more submissive in the outward
manifestations (e. g. the court ceremonial) of their relationship with the
emperor, and - who knows? - some of them may even have prayed to him.86
In the twentieth century, it is hard to imagine delivering a panegyric with a
straight face. In the twentieth century, when it is unfashionable to believe in
the possibility or efficacy of divine intervention, and when attempts by
national governments to solve human problems appear futile, the phenomenon
of divine rulership might find greater acceptance if one were to read potestas
for divinitas.87
Liebeschuetz (pp. 239-240) observes that miracles, or supernatural func-
tions, were not expected of emperors. It was fortunate for a few blind men of
the first centuries after Christ that they were unaware of their rulers' inability
to cure them.88 Miraculous actions have great political value. In the third and
fourth centuries, the miracles required were less spectacular, for the benefit of
individuals only as members of a larger body: peace and prosperity had been
virtually unknown for some time. A reputation for controlling not only the
Fishwick, op. cit. (n. 9) 366, objects: "If Jews or Christians chose martyrdom rather than
compromise their faith by paying cult to the emperor, the theological error was on their part."
Liebeschuetz 239 argues from the silence of Lactantius against the importance of the ruler-cult. He
notes the survival of the language and court etiquette under Christian rulers. But only some of the
language survived: see above section I. Price, op. cit. (n. 17) 36-37, remarks upon the distinction
between sacrifice to the gods and to the emperors, a lesser (but still acceptable) alternative. For
other views, see E.-Ch. Babut, Rev. historique 123 (1916) 225-252; H. Mattingly, HTR 45 (1952)
131-134; H. Stern, JWI 17 (1954) 184-189. For ancient viewpoints, biased or exaggerated, see
Aurelius Victor 33.30, 39.4, 41.5; Eutropius 9.26.
8 See M. P. Charlesworth, JRS 33 (1943) 1-10; F. Burdeau, Aspects de l'Empire Romain
(1964); S. G. MacCormack, CQ 69 (1975) 131-150, for discussions of this development.
86 R. MacMullen, Roman Government's Response to Crisis (1976) 35.
87 See MacCormack 170-173.
B Tacitus Hist. 4.81 and Suetonius Vesp. 7.2 both report that Vespasian sucessfully cured
blindness: an auspicious beginning for the founder of a new dynasty. See MacMullen, op. cit.
(n. 86) 35-37, for further examples.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Latini 99
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
100 BARBARA SAYLOR RODGERS
APPENDIX
Emperor God(s)
Meaning
Work caelestis sacer praeclarus
P.L. 10 14.5 - -
1 1 6.4: - _ 3.2
9 - 6.2, 13.1 _
8 4.1 - -
7 11.5 1.1, 3.3, 14.1 -
6 17.1 - _ 7.5, 17.3
5 _ _ _-
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Latini 101
Divinus
Emperor God(s)
Meaning
Work divinus sacer praeclarus
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
102 BARBARA SAYLOR RODGERS
Divinitas
Emperor God(s)
Meaning
Work divinitas pronoun imperium
P.AL. 10 _ _ _ _
11 2.4, 14.3 - _ _
9 _ _ _ _
12 22.1, 25.4 - - _
4 - _ _ 7.3, 13.5, 27.5
3 - D _ 7.2, 15.2, 28.4,
32.1
2 - _ _ 29.2
Symm.
Orat. 1-4 _- -
Aus.
Gr. Act. - 10.45 -
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Latini 103
Maiestas
Meaning
Work maiestas pronoun imperium
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
104 BARBARA SA'Il OR Roix)(;u RS, Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Latini
Numen
Emperor God(s)
Meaning
Work numen pronoun imperium
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 17 May 2017 05:22:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms