University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The Mercury-Augustus identification.

(USC Thesis Other)

The Mercury-Augustus identification.

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE MERCURY-AUGUSTUS IDENTIFICATION by Claudia Wallack Samuels A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Classics) March 1984 Copyright Claudia Wallack Samuels 1984 UMI Number: DP22293 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI DP22293 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 -1346 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089 This dissertation, written by . C l a u d 'W g'l 1 g e .k , S # sm-ue Is .................. under the direction of h.s.r. Dissertation Committee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of re quirements fo r the degree of D O C T O R O F P H IL O S O P H Y DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Chairperson For Sandy I I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would gratefully like to acknowledge the following individuals whose efforts enabled me to carry out my J research. First, I would like to thank Ms. Diana i Lisignoli, Supervisor of Interlibrary Loans, and her efficient staff for procuring even the most obscure , articles and microfilms necessary for this study. I am ' especially indebted to Ms. Kathleen Flynn, Manager of the ; Humanities Word Processing Center, and her helpful staff | for initiating me into the world of computers and, thus, : enabling me to prepare my own manuscript. In addition, I j would like to express my appreciation to my brother Gordon j R. Wallack, Esq. who lent me the full use of his office I computers and photo-copying machinery. i ! Additionally, I would like to express my appreciation j to my family for their encouragement, and to my husband i Sandor E. Samuels, Esq. who patiently and tirelessly read j the manuscript, lent technical assistance to the i assembling of the plates, and gave unreserved support to ! this endeavor. I would especially like to thank for their scholarly suggestions and advice my friends, Professors William Levitan and Jeffrey Henderson, and my Committee members, Professors Lawrence D. Green and Richard S. Caldwell. Finally, my greatest debt of gratitude goes to i Professor Jane M. Cody, under whose vigilant direction I this dissertation has come to fruition. TABLE OF CONTENTS [INTRODUCTION iCHAPTER 1 : Page ... 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 The Association of Mercury with Symbols of Fertility and Felicity.................. ....11 A. The Association of the Scorpion with Mercury B. The Association with Mercury of the Cock .....24 C. The Association with Mercury of the Ram D. The Association with Mercury of the Tortoise Mercury-Augustus as a Successor to the the Hellenistic Hermes-Ruler Tradition, Artistic Representations of Mercury- Augustus as a Successor to the Hermes-Ruler Tradition................... CONCLUSION. APPENDIXES, Hellenistic Hermes-Ruler Depictions, 48 83 ,86 Roman Imperial Mercury-Ruler Depictions.....................................92 Mercury-Augustus Depictions................95 ....................................... 105 108 DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FIGURES.................................. 127 I ! PLATES................................................... 165 i I i ANCIENT REFERENCES..............................................196 I i MODERN REFERENCES...............................................200 IV INTRODUCTION sive mutata iuvenem figure ales in terris imitaris almae filius Maiae patiens vocari Caesaris ultor. i i Horace. Carmina 1.2.41-44 i i } I The focus of this study is Horace's Carmina 1.2.41- j 44. Mercury is called upon to come down to earth, i suffering to be called the avenger of Caesar, having i ; changed his form to that of a young man. When reading { this passage in the context of the Ode in its entirety, • two important questions come to mind: First, whether there is any precedent for Augustus to be identified as Mercury; and second, what does Mercury represent by the first century B.C. which would cause Augustus as princeps | to be identified with him. i 1 The Mercury of Augustan Rome evolved from several elements. The Classical Greek ideas of Hermes as messenger-herald of the gods, as psychopompus and guide and protector of men, as patron of oratory and literature, | as bringer of peace, and as patron of thieves, commerce, J and profit are all well-attested in Greek literature as I | well as in Latin literature.1 At Rome, Mercury’s association with commerce was a : natural outgrowth of his function as harbinger of : prosperity and felicity. This idea is obvious, : universally accepted, and in no need of explanation or j | reiteration in this study. i B. Combet-Farnoux has made the most recent large- ! scale investigation of Mercury's mercantile functions at i ; Rome in Mercure romain: le culte public de Mercure et la | fonction mercantile J. Rome de la rfepubliaue archaiaue S ! 1’epoaue augustSenne, Palais Farnese: Ecole francaise de Rome, 1980. The work is divided into three main sections, ! each of which contains several chapters. The first | section, pp. 1-51, discusses the annalistic tradition and I ' the problems of the origin of the cult of Mercury at Rome. | , The second section, pp. 52-249, discusses ancient and modern interpretations of the origin of the name Mercurius. The third section, pp. 250-470, discusses the evolution of the religion of Mercury, focusing on his | mercantile relationship and the sanctification of profit I and on the assimilation of Mercury into Roman tradition. } Chapter five of section three, pp. 433-448, is I j concerned with Mercury and the imperial cult. In this i | part, Combet-Farnoux lists the artistic evidence | connecting Mercury and Augustus, and he considers the ! question of the role of Egyptian Thoth and the concept of basilehs sotfer as they bear on Mercury and Augustus. The ! question of why Mercury is chosen to come to earth in the i i ! form of Octavian in Horace's Carmina 1.2 is briefly | I discussed as well. The mercantile principle of Mercury I ! vis-5-vis Augustus is focused upon in this section, the i rest of which deals with the Lares Compitales and the Mercuriales Augustales. i This chapter well documents earlier secondary literature bearing on the Augustus-Mercury identification J and, at length, concentrates on Mercury and his connection I with commerce. However* lacking in this study is a i j discussion of the Eastern ideas of fertility which are I attributed to Mercury by the first century B.C. as well as any analysis or mention of the Hellenistic Hermes-ruler i cult which provides a model for the Mercury-Augustus identification. ■ One of the least explored aspects of the Roman Mercury is that which is ascribed to him principally from I j ancient Middle Eastern sources. During the Hellenistic period, the power of Republican Rome spread eastward, and Roman religious ideas became syncretized with those of I - i j Oriental origin. Specifically, beliefs about potency and | t _ j I fertility became associated with Mercury. Such an ; | association is altogether logical and appropriate, since I j ! potency and fertility easily lead to the notions of ! I prosperity and felicity. i Certain animals which are identified with fertility in various Eastern cultures become attached to the god both conceptually and artistically. The animals which are associated with Mercury are the scorpion, the cock, the ram. and the tortoise. The scorpion hails from Phoenician sources via Carthage, and the cock comes to be identified with Mercury probably from Persia. The ram and the j ! tortoise are attributed to Greek Hermes since Classical | times, the ram as a symbol of the patron of the flock and I the tortoise as an attribute of the inventor of the lyre. f i | In the ancient Middle East, both of these latter two : animals are considered to be symbols of fertility and j potency. By the first century B.C., the ram and the ; tortoise are joined by the cock and the scorpion in ! j Mercury's animal entourage. In this relationship, the i animals are connected with each other by virtue of their fertile power. One of the most important influences for our study on the Mercury-Augustus identification lies in the precedent set by the Hellenistic Greek idea of the Hermes-ruler | i cult. E. Goodenough, in "The Political Philosophy of j j Hellenistic Kingship," Yale Classical Studies. 1 (1928), j j 55-102, offers a background study of the Hellenistic ruler ! cult which provides a coherent analysis of the phenomenon i of the ruler cult, though the Hermes-ruler identification is not discussed. | C. Habicht, in Gottmenschentum und griechische ! Stgdte, Munich: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1970. offers a detailed study of the Hellenistic ruler cult. i i dynast by dynast and city by city. The work is divided ! into two parts, the first of which is subdivided into | seven sections. Part one is called (translated into | English) The Personal Cults, and it is made up of the following sections: The Oldest Cults, pp. 3-10; The Cults of the Macedonian Kings, pp. 11-36; The Cults of Cassander and Lysimachos, pp. 37-41; The Cults of the Antigonids, pp. 42-81; The Cults of the Seleucids, pp. 82-108; The Cults of the Ptolemies, pp. 109-123; and The Cults of the t - - j Attalids, pp. 124-126. Part two of the work is called The | State Cult, pp.129-242. A discussion of the Hermes-ruler i I identification is missing from this work. J. Chittenden, in "Hermes-Mercury. Dynasts, and i Emperors,” Numismatic Chronicle. Ser. 6, 5 (1945), 40-57, | I draws parallels between Roman emperors and Hellenistic i I j rulers in their efforts to identify themselves with j Hermes-Mercury. Her article contains a list of I Hellenistic rulers depicted artistically as Hermes and a i | similar list of Roman emperors as Mercury, though her explanations for the Hermes/Mercury-ruler cult are not < comprehensive or detailed in their scope. I I The Hellenistic ruler came to be identified with I j Hermes for several reasons. From the earliest periods of ! Greek civilization. Hermes is worshipped as a god of peace i : ' and reason. His principal attribute, the caduceus, is J always a symbol of power. The Hellenistic kings were depicted as gods in order to strengthen their authority over their subjects. Choosing to be depicted as Hermes served to endow them with his power and to associate their reigns with felicity and prosperity. I In the Ptolemaic kingdom of Egypt, the association of Hermes with the monarch was a readily accepted phenomenon. Since early pharaonic times, the Egyptian king had been I j closely identified with the god Thoth. Thoth was ! considered to be the embodiment of 16eos. the founder of i culture, and the creator and personification of divine law. Moreover. Thoth had been identified as the Egyptian Hermes since at least the fifth century B.C. because of their similarities of function. When Octavian. after Actium. assumed virtually sole control of Rome, it became his task and desire to solidify ‘ i j his position. In order to achieve this goal. he. or those j | I ! around him who sought either to bolster his sovereignty or | perhaps to flatter him in order to gain favor, looked to the examples of his Hellenistic predecessors for established modes of projecting divine authority. There are several studies of the ruler cult at Rome i i which provide background for our study. J. Fears, in { Princeps j. Diis Electus; The Divine Election of the t I 6 I Emperor as a Political Concept at Rome* Rome: The American Academy in Rome* 1977. divides his work into five i | sections: 1) The Oriental and Hellenic Background, pp. 19-84; 2) Divine Election in the Roman Republic, pp. 85- ! 120; 3) Monarchy by Divine Election in Roman Imperial i l i Literature, pp. 121-188; 4) The Development of a Jovian Theology of Power: the Role of Divine Election in i Official Imperial Ideology from Augustus to Hadrian* pp. 189-252; and 5) From Princeos Providentia Deorum to ! Dominus Gratia Dei: the Role of Divine Election in Official Imperial Ideology from Antoninus Pius to Constantine, pp. 253-end. Most noticeably absent from | this list is a section on the Hellenistic background, j which might have been inserted at the end of section one. I i No mention is made of the Hermes-Hellenistic ruler cult in I I this work, nor is there any reference at all to a Mercury- ruler cult at Rome. i t j A. AlfSldi, in "Insignien iand Tracht der romischen • Kaiser," Mitteiluneen des deutschen archSologischen i Instituts, (rbmische Abteilung), 50 (1935), 3-158, i discusses the external trappings of the emperor. The i article is divided into two sections (translated into i i i English): 1) The republican-juridical form of the principate and its monarchical reorganization mirrored in i the dress and attributes of the emperor; and 2) The ethical-religious element in the imperial garb and symbols of power and the insignia of Hellenistic origin. On page 106, AlfSldi merely mentions in passing the fact that Augustus appears in the likeness of Mercury, citing articles by other scholars to provide the explanation which this article lacks. L. Taylor, in The Divinity of the Roman Emperor, j Middletown, Connecticut: American Philological Association, 1931. also presents a study of the cult of the emperor at Rome. Her book is divided into ten j sections plus three appendixes: 1) The Divinity of Kings | in the Hellenistic East, pp. 1-34; 2) The Divinity of Man | and King in Republican Rome. pp. 35-57; 3) Julius Caesar’s J Attempt to Found a Divine Monarchy, pp. 58-77; 4) Divus Julius Enshrined in State Cult, pp. 78-99; 5) The Strife to Secure Caesar’s Power; pp. 100-141; 6) Augustus, Son of the Deified Julius, pp. 142-180; 7) The Formation of a State Cult, pp. 181-204; 8) The Institution of the State Cult in Provinces and Municipalities, pp. 205-223; 9) The Deification of Augustus, pp. 224-238; 10) The Development of Augustus’ Divinity, pp. 239-246; Appendixes: 1) The ; Worship of the Persian King, pp. 247-255; 2) Alexander and , the Proskvnesis, pp. 256-266; and 3) Inscriptions i Recording Divine Honors, pp. 267-283. Taylor makes no f ! mention of the Hermes-Hellenistic ruler cult in chapter I j one or in any other place in her book. Moreover, in j chapter six, she dismisses Horace’s use of Mercury in Carmina 1.2 as insignificant. 8 I Though these works as a group investigate some i [ aspects of the ruler cult at Rome, they contain little or i j no discussion connecting the ruler cult with Hermes- i Mercury. It is the purpose of this paper to complement these studies by providing an investigation of this connection.2 This study will first explore the ancient Middle t Eastern ideas of potency and fertility as they apply to certain animals who are associated with Mercury by the first century B.C. Secondly, an inquiry will be made into i | the conceptual background of the Hellenistic Hermes-ruler I j cult as a tradition into which Augustus' rule seems to ! _ • | fit. Thirdly, there will be a discussion of the artistic | manifestations of the traditional Hermes/Mercury-ruler cult, culminating with an analysis of the representations of Mercury-Augustus. 9 NOTES i 1 See Appendix A for instances in Augustan ! literature of Mercury as messenger of Jupiter and the f gods; see Appendix B for instances in Augustan literature i of Mercury as psychoporapus, guide, and protector of men; I see Appendix C for instances in Augustan literature of I Mercury as patron of oratory; see Appendix D for instances j in Augustan literature of Mercury as pacifer: see Appendix j E for instances in Augustan literature of Mercury as I patron of thieves, commerce, and profit. Two inciteful I studies on aspects of the Greek Hermes are K. Ker§nyi, . Hermes der Seelenfflhrer (Albae Vigiliae: Zflrich, 1944); | and N. Brown, Hermes the Thief (Madison, Wisconsin: j University of Wisconsin Press, 1947). 1 2 General articles on Mercury: G. Dumezil, Archaic I Roman Religion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, * 1970), pp. 439-440; B. Combet-Farnoux, "Mercurio," j Enclclopedia dell1 arte antica, classica e orientale, Vol. 4 (Rome: Giovanni Treccani, 1960), pp. 1031-1035; K. Latte, RSmische Religionsgeschichte (Munich: C. H. | Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1960), pp. 162-163; F. | Altheim, Griechische GStter im alten RSm (Giessen: A. i TSpelmann, 1930), pp. 39-93 = Religionsgeschichtliche ; Versuche und Vorarbeiten, 22 (1930), 39-93; A. Legrand, "Mercurius," in Dictionnaire des antiauitfes grecaues et l romaines, ed. M. Saglio, M. Pottier, and G. Lafaye (Paris: | Librairie Hachette et Cie, Vol. 3, Part 2, 1918), pp. 1802-1823; W. EnBlin, "Mercurius," in Paulvs Real- j EncyclopSdie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. ed. G. : Wissowa and W. Krall (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche i Verlagsbuchhandlung, Vol. 15, 1932), pp. 975-1017; G. i Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der RSmer. 2nd ed. (Munich: i C. H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1912), pp. 304-306; ! H. Steuding, "Mercurius," in Ausfflhrliches Lexicon der griechischen und rSmischen Mvthologie. ed. W. Roscher i (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, Vol. 2, Part 2, 1894-1897), cols. | 2802-2831; L. Preller, RSmische Mvthologie (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1865), pp* 596-600. CHAPTER 1 The Association of Mercury with Symbols of Fertility and Felicity The concept of Mercury as a god of fertility receives little attention in Classical literature. However* this i facet of the god’s personality is readily observable in artistic depictions of the god from Hellenistic times into | the Roman Imperial period. This artistic association of t | Mercury with animals considered to be phallic reveals that i ! Mercury himself, by necessity, embodies notions of sexual ! 1 potency and fertility. Throughout Classical literature. Greek Hermes/Roman Mercury is depicted as a young male, doing the bidding of ! I j other gods, but not as a very masculine or powerful | figure. He does, however, come equipped with certain I ! j objects which in and of themselves have strong phallic j connotations. Certainly, the caduceus carries this force, j as a magical and potent rod without which the god is i rarely depicted. Also very important to the god's apparatus are wings, which appear on his sandals or feet, I on his petasus or hair, on the caduceus, or on any I combination of the three. Wings and the idea of flight is ; i a universal symbol for male sexuality, and thus, the wings I 11 as accoutrements of Mercury show him to be especially endowed with sexual potency. | However* in addition to these sexual objects with which Mercury is equipped by the Hellenistic period* the | god is pictured artistically with a group of phallic animal attributes as well. The animals which most often appear in Mercury’s company* either individually, in various groups, or en masse* are the scorpion* the cock, the ram, and the tortoise.1 The scorpion and the cock enter into the Classical world too late to have become part of the mythological corpus (See Appendix F). Rather, ! they are absorbed into Roman culture from Eastern * ; influences during the Hellenistic period as a result of i | the general propensity of the times toward syncretism. The ram and the tortoise, on the other hand, inherit their i i association with Mercury from Greek Hermes, although by i I Roman times their significance expands greatly to include a more active role in Mercury’s cult (See Appendix B). i I j Each of these four animals has an individual i significance apart from its relationship with Mercury. I i Each as well has a phallic identification which seems to I be the one significant factor which binds them all i i I together as a coherent group; and when taken as a group < : i depicted with Mercury, this phallic identification serves j to overdetermine the potency of the god already sexually charged with phallic attributes. 12 The universal function of the phallic object on the ■ most fundamental level is to encourage potency and | fertility! while at the same time to avert the influences | of evil which are impotence and sterility. For this | reasont the phallic object often becomes an amulet for use I as protection for the wearer or for his house or upon a 1 religious monument against the Evil Eyei and thus is a token which brings good luck. i J In discussing the four animal attributes of Mercury! i it is helpful to view them each as a part of a broad group | of creatures whose common characteristic is that they are I considered phallic and! as such! are capable of averting ; evil influences by means of their natural weapons. 1 The theme of noxious animals averting evil is at least as old as the Mesopotamian civilizations. E. Van ! Buren discusses an ancient Assyrian cylinder-seal of blue paste (Fig. 1) on which there is a depiction of incantation ceremonies calculated to drive away evil | spirits from a sick man: In the lowest of five registers! demons of the Lomastu monster are being attacked by [apotropaic and therefore] beneficent symbolic creatures! a tortoise! two scorpions! a serpent and a cock I (1936-1937» p. 27). One of the most common of all apotropaic designs is i that of the "much-suffering eye." The name of this motif I j comes from the Testament of Solomon 18.39. At one point in the story! the king has before him the thirty-six 13 r stoicheia or decans of the zodiac, each of whom is made to | tell his name and the nature of his hurtful work, and also i the means by which he may be driven away or defeated. The i i thirty-fifth decan says: i ’ Eycj Hat, *P u£ $$rive(b§ H aXoduau. Baaxadvu) u d vx a av^pcauov. ! x a x a p y e t ye o itoAuxa-&n£ otpSctAyos eYxa Pa T T ° V EV°S * i | The document is dated somewhere between the first and fourth century A.D.» but it embodies much older materials. j j One of the prominent motifs in the work is the conception ! of Christ as conqueror of demons. It also represents, i j insofar as it is Jewish, pre-Talmudic and Palestinian i | demonology and is infused with a profusion of both | j Christian and pagan ideas. It is a combination of folk- j tales and magic and ! is a product of those three pseudo-sciences which I have brought more disappointed hopes and abject j terrors to mankind than any others: astrology, I demonology, and magic" (C. McCown, 1922, p. 1). In discussing the "much-suffering eye," C. Bonner i i observes: i 1 A fairly typical example of this "much-suffering ! eye" might show it wounded from above by a spear, 1 a trident, or by one or more daggers; while from i the sides and below a dog or lion tears at it, i cranes and ibises peck at it, scorpions, snakes i creep up to bite and sting it. In some examples j there are no weapons, the eye being surrounded on all sides by ferocious and noxious creatures, but among these there are many differences - owls, lizards, tortoises, crabs are sometimes added to the animals previously mentioned, or substituted for them, and there are occasional examples of elephants, swans, bees, thunderbolts among the forces assailing the hateful eye. . . . The only common characteristic [of the animals] is that 14 each creature is capable of doing harm with its , natural weapons* and while some of them are i associated with certain gods or serve as signs of the zodiac* they are used in this design merely as i dangerous or potentially dangerous to an eye ! (1950, pp. 97-98). i The Ifmuch-suffering eye,” then, becomes a technical name for the Evil Eye which is being attacked by creatures j which would do it harm, thereby rendering the Eye i impotent. j P. Baur describes one example of such a figure of the "much-suffering" Evil Eye. It is depicted on a large tomb t I upon which are paintings, discovered at Palmyra and dated f I I to the first half of the first century A.D. (Fig. 2): i A dagger and an arrow pierce the eye. Around it are two birds, two scorpions, a crab, a cock, and a serpent. These are prophylactic images destined ; to destroy the Evil Eye (1951, pp. 774-775). I : i Both C. Bonner (1950, p. 99) and W. Deonna (1959, p. ; 43) discuss a funerary stele found on the ancient site of | Auzia in Algeria (Fig. 3). The monument is dated by D. t Detlefsen (1863, p. 293) as having been erected in the second or third century A.D. Represented on the stele is a beneficiarus named Geminius Saturninus and his wife j 4 standing next to each other, and their son and daughter j standing in front of them on a level slightly below their ! i parents. A small oblong space beneath the feet of the I I adults and between the two children is filled with the familiar apotropaic design. The Evil Eye is surrounded and reduced to powerlessness, to the right by a cock 15 [ • __ facing it. and on the left, by a scorpion about to sting it with its barbed tail. A snail and a lizard or serpent, each about to attack, surround the Eye as well. In referring to this particular instance of the apotropaic motif. W. Deonna. discussing the cock, the scorpion, and the serpent calls them "tous animaux mercuriensl t (1959, p. 43) .2 Another interesting amulet against the Evil Eye is that of the Mano Pantea (Fig. 9). This is the hand in the attitude of sacerdotal benediction, having the two first fingers and thumb extended and the fourth and fifth fingers folded down. The hand in this position "was an amulet against the evil eye long before the Christian era" (F. Elworthy, 1895, p. 293). A most fascinating type of Mano Pantea is discussed at length by Elworthy. It is not merely a life-size model of the hand in the position of sacerdotal benediction, but it always has other attributes placed upon it, these also being apotropaic amulets by i themselves. All the known hands of this class (less than j twenty, from Elworthy’s discussion) appear to be Roman and j i of the period before Constantine (F. Elworthy, 1895, p. 320). These hands were. . . intended to be placed some where in the house, and not in the temple. Further, all have a number of objects upon them, each in itself a well-known amulet specially used against the evil eye, and fashioned in a very lasting material. All these devices would be use less and meaningless upon a mere ex-voto, which in 16 | old days, as now, we know to have been some single i object - an arm, a leg, a breast, or an ear - I representing in itself more or less accurately the | benefit received or member healed. . . . It is stoutly maintained that all these hands were not votive, but prophylactic, pure and simple (F. Elworthy, 1895, pp. 306-307). Figures 10 A and B are from a bronze.Mano Pantea in I the British Museum, belonging to the collection of Rev. ! . Payne Knight. Depicted on this hand is a large serpent j j with its head rising above the bent fourth "or medical j | finger" (F. Elworthy, 1895, p. 319), a frog which is a 1 "well-known aphrodisiac, . . . placed by design in close j relation to the middle finger, the ancient digitus ! infamis" (F. Elworthy, 1895, p. 319), the ram’s head which i is an ancient phallic symbol (Wieseler, 1864, p. 124), the ! crocodile, which "was believed to conceive by the ear and ! to bring forth by the mouth" (F. Elworthy, 1895, p. 322). j the tortoise whose flesh was used for neutralizing poisons ■ and whose shell was used in different ways as to be i | aphrodisiac as well as antaphrodisiac (Pliny, Naturalis i , Historia 32.14) and other vegetative objects denoting i fertility, such as the fig-tree, the pine-cone and the cornucopiae. The mother suckling her child is the epitome \ j of female fertility, and the winged caduceus, Mercury’s ! j phallic attribute, is also present. • » i ! 0. Jahn maintains that it is not mere coincidence | that the same animals appear again and again among i protectives against the Evil Eye, especially with the j well-known signs of the phallus and the vulva: 17 1 Ganz gewiB ist es kein Zufall, daB wir hier j denselben Thieren begegnen, welche auch bei dem Abwehren des bCsen Blicks eine so bedeutende Rolle spielten, um so weniger als auBer anderen Attributen, welche uns auch dort begegneten. hier wiederum die wohlbekannten Zeichen des Phallus und der Muschel vorkommen (1855» p. 106). Thus, clearly, we see all four Mercurial animals used i ; extensively with other apotropaic creatures, appearing on ! amulets and monuments for the purpose of immobilizing the i j influence of evil. i I j A. The Association of the Scorpion with Mercury | The role of the scorpion was extremely limited in the | Classical world. A few scattered representations of the I j scorpion have been found on various islands in Greece j dating from the pre-Hellenic and Archaic periods; however, i i it is virtually non-existent in Classical Greek mythology.3 in Italy, the scorpion is found frequently in I astrological documents, on amulets, or in prophylactic { scenes on monuments, but no earlier than in the Graeco- J ! I i Roman period, at which time it again reflects Oriental ! , i | thought. It is during this period that the scorpion ! becomes identified with Mercury (W. Deonna, 1959, p. 26). - 1 l ; Of all the animals associated with Roman Mercury, it I ■ is the scorpion which most vividly serves to underscore ! the amalgamation of cross-cultural beliefs which are I vested in the god. The scorpion seems to have been incorporated into Mercury's menagerie during the time of I Roman contact with Carthage (W. Deonna» 1959» p. 38). The Phoenicians who colonized Carthage must have ' brought with them all the religious and cultural practices I 1 of the mother-city. Unfortunately, little is known about I } the Phoenician religion (H. Katzenstein. 1972. p. 479)* I ! but it can be assumed that, by virtue of its geography, i j Phoenicia was much affected by the other peoples with whom i it had come into contact. I j Lying between Egypt, Asia Minor and Mesopotamia, and opening Asia to the Mediterranean world, [Phoenicia] was a confluence of cultures and of necessity deeply involved [with] its neighbors (H. Katzenstein, 1972, p. 472). i I Though Phoenicia left little archaeological evidence ! bearing on the question of religion, her Mesopotamian ! neighbor left a great deal more, particularly in regard to I the scorpion. | Representations of scorpions are found on | Mesopotamian cylinder-seals and painted pottery throughout the Babylonian, Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian and Seleucid periods (E. Van Buren; 1936-1937, p. 34). "In very remote i ages [in Mesopotamia] the scorpion. . . seems to have been ! j a symbol of fertility" (E. Van Buren. 1936-1937, p. 34). ! i i ; On Mesopotamian seal-impressions of Tell Halaf (Figs. 11- ! | I I 15) and of Tell Asmar (Fig. 16), the scorpion j i , ! symbolized the goddess who presided over the act which consummated the marriage. . . . Because it was Ishara who blessed the sacred marriage ! her intervention was sought in human marriage and in the mating of the flocks and herds, and her power was believed to extend even to the i fructifying of the crop and the produce of the | fields" (E. Van Buren, 1937-1939, p. 16). | The culture of ancient Egypt also must have lent a ! vast store of religious beliefs to the Phoenicians. As in I ! Mesopotamia, the scorpion was represented as a religious > symbol in the art of ancient Egypt. From predynastic and i early dynastic Egypt, there are extant vases and figurines of diverse materials on which the scorpion is depicted. ; According to W. Deonna (1959, p. 32), the scorpion I played a magical, religious, and talismanic role in Egypt I | and was identified with the goddess Selket. This goddess j protected against attack, was the patroness of life, I child-birth, infants, and death; and her attribute is the i ' scorpion which she wears on her head. Selket is an aspect of the goddess Isis who is identified with the scorpion as [ well. By the Graeco-Roman period, the scorpion is also associated with Serapis and Hermes-Serapis (W. Deonna, 1959, p. 34), with Anubis and Anubis syncretized with ! ! Hermes as Hermanubis (Figs. 17 and 18) as well as with I I various other deities (W. Deonna, 1959, p. 35). i | Areas in North Africa which had been originally ! colonized by Phoenicia were influenced by the zodiacal sign of Scorpio, and the people of these regions i worshipped it, according to the Augustan astronomer Manilius in Astronomica 4.778-782: 20 | inferius victae sidus Carthaginis arces et Libyam Aegyptique latus donataque rura Cyrenes lacrimis I radicis Scorpios acris eligit, Italiaeque taraen respectat ad undas Sardiniaraque tenet fusasque per aequora terras. | He further asserts that the sign of Scorpio is prolific like the creature its name designates (2.236-237): "fecundum est proprie Cancri genus, acer et ictu Scorpios. et partu complentes aequora Pisces." For this reason. Scorpio is allotted dominion over the human groin (2.462): "Libra regit clunes. et Scorpios inguine gaudet." Moreover, the scorpion is an attribute of the personified province of Africa (W. Deonna. 1959. p. 36). Throughout the ancient Middle East and Africa, the | image of the scorpion was held to be apotropaic (W. i Deonna, 1959. p. 17). As a poisonous, harmful animal, the I scorpion had a dual role: to keep away other harmful j animals and to avert the influence of the Evil Eye.4 t I | Thus, since the scorpion both symbolized fertility and I \ kept away evil, it was also thought to assure prosperity ! ! and felicity. Logically, then, the scorpion was I i considered a lucky token. For this reason, from a very | early age, the scorpion appeared on stamp seals and pottery and, in later times, was often present in artistic j settings far removed from fertility (such as in scenes of i J animal contests), for the purpose of indicating a desire | for good luck (E. Van Buren, 1937-1939. p. 16). I The attribution of the scorpion with Roman Mercury i was a product of the contact between Rome and the Punic t • civilization (W. Deonna. 1959. p. 38). Mercury was held | in great honor in this region. In fact, he not only f j represented the Graeco-Roman god, but he also "masked" an j indigenous deity. | Mercure doit cette importance, qui l'Sgale aux | grandes divinit§s puniques, au fait qu’il ne reprfesente pas seulement de dieu grfeco-romain, mais qu’il recouvre une des divinitfes indigenes (W. Deonna, 1959. p. 39).5 At Cirta, there was a temple dedicated in the year 164 ) i j A.D. to two Mercurii. one, the Graeco-Roman Mercury, the I j other, an indigenous god with the same name (G. Charles- i Picard, 1954, p. 129). I Since the fourth century B.C., even before the institution of the Roman god into North Africa, the Greek i Hermes had been popular in association with the cult of Tanit, the Punic goddess of grain (G. Charles-Picard, | 1954, p. 77).6 However, it was the caduceus that the | Greek god held, rather than Hermes himself, which came to i J represent the fertility of the region (W. Deonna, 1959. p. | 40).7 Throughout the Hellenistic period, the | representation of his caduceus alone served not only to I j represent the god himself but also to evoke the cult of j fertility with which he had become associated in North I ! Africa (Figs, 21-26).8 After the fall of Carthage, the cult of Tanit was I 1 adopted by the Romans, and the goddess was renamed Caelestis (G. Charles-Picard, 1968, p. 154). Graeco-Roman anthropomorphism replaced Punic symbolism at this time, and the ancient symbolic caduceus gave way to the Roman J I god Mercury whose principal attribute was the caduceus. ! In comparing two stelai of the second century B.C. from La Ghorfa (Figs. 27 and 28), an anthropomorphic Mercury is ! I seen holding a cornucopiae in each hand, surrounded by ] i clusters of grapes, pomegranates, and other symbols of j fertility, and occupying the central position in the I | uppermost register of the stele, a place usually reserved i for the goddess Tanit-Caelestis. , As we have seen, since the fourth century B.C., the time of the greatest influence of Greek culture on | Carthage, the caduceus stood to represent the Greek god, I i Hermes, on stelae dedicated to the Punic goddess of i ! fertility, Tanit. By the Roman period, the symbolic caduceus gave way to the anthropomorphic figure of the god I I j with whom the caduceus was associated at that time, the | Roman Mercury. Because the caduceus had been held in j close association with the fertility of the land, the i i Roman god of the caduceus inherited this association as well (J. Toutain, 1905-1907, pp. 306-307). The | assimilation of this Carthaginian symbolism with the Roman I I I god of commerce was perhaps facilitated by the 23 I considerable role that Carthage came to play in the ' commercial export of grain to Rome. i Thus, it seems that Roman Mercury represents an amalgamation of ancient Middle Eastern symbols of fertility and prosperity with-a Graeco-Punic conflation of Greek Hermes and the Carthaginian goddess of grain* Tanit* resulting in the subsequent identification of the caduceus with fertility. The Carthaginians took their inherited Oriental symbol of fertility, the scorpion, and bestowed it upon the Roman Mercury* a god whose principal attribute was already the caduceus and who, b,y virtue of his role as patron of commerce* suited well as a harbinger of I fertility and prosperity. This association was logical since commerce results from the fertility and fecundity of the land and brings in its wake prosperity and felicity.9 B. The Association of the Cock with Mercury i i Like the scorpion in Carthage, the cock was also * J identified with Mercury in his association with the I ; fertility of the region. W. Deonna discusses certain i ; monuments found in North Africa on which Mercury is , accompanied by cocks. On one such monument, .the god appears with a. large cock which holds an ear of corn in I | its beak. On other monuments, cocks stand confronted or i , in groups along with corn-ears or cornuacopiae (1959, p. 43). In fact. the cock, as a representation of fertility in Carthage, is sometimes associated with the caduceus. also a symbol of fertility in that area.10 Moreover. E. Vassel mentions the appearance of the cock in connection with the caduceus on two Carthaginian stelae (1921. pp. 48-50). On each stele, the cock appears on one register of the acroterium. and a lone caduceus appears on another register. A third register contains the inscription to the god to whom the stele is dedicated. One stele is for Astarte (Fig. 37). a Punic goddess of fertility, and the other is for Melkart. the consort of Tanit who is an aspect of Astarte. The association of the cock with fertility seems a logical consequence of the animal's phallic aspect. C. Waldstein mentions this trait of the cock in his description of a silver patera of Hellenistic or Roman date (Fig. 38): Both cock and tortoise are frequently represented as attributes of Hermes, the tortoise a reminiscence of his invention of the lyre, the cock a symbol of the god of generation (1882. p. 102). The cock, as the most common male domestic fowl in the ancient world, is associated with male sexuality and i potency. P. Slater discusses the Freudian psychoanalytic | association of birds with sexuality, a connection which ; I seems applicable to ancient psychology: < In psychoanalytic thinking, flight is seen as having phallic connotations# and the bird is a i penis symbol - partly because the slang word for copulate in German is vOceln, but more importantly, because of the functional : association between flight and erection (1968, p. | 324). The question of whence the cock was imported to the I : Classical world and what its significance was is discussed < | by C. Bonner: It is well known that the domestic fowl was I introduced into Greece at too late a period to i enter into the myths of the gods, and this is true I of Egypt also, though the bird seems to have been I known there at least as early as 1500 B.C., and i perhaps even earlier. We should look towards some region where the cock had been longer known and was held in higher regard. Persia, because of its i greater nearness to India, the home of the i domestic fowl, would seem to be the most likely j source for any treatment of the cock as a sacred : bird or a bird endowed with any special powers; I and the religious books of Persia clearly show { that it was there regarded as an ally of the powers of light and goodness, and an enemy to evil and demonic beings (1950, p. 125). The association of the cock with light against evil and darkness seems to be aetiological, since cocks i naturally crow when darkness recedes, and the light of day ; dawns with the sun’s rising. "His crow is said to be the praise offered to the sun-god, when Chanticleer proclaims i 1 the approach of day" (F. Elworthy, 1895, p. 354). Bonner's theory of the cock’s having come to Greece | from PersiaH coincides with the Greeks’ own ideas about I the cock. In Aristophanes’ Aves. Peisthetairos discusses i the cock, saying that, having formerly been the sovereign of the Persians, he still shows his stature in that 26 whenever this bird sings in the'morning, all 'businessmen get up and go to work (lines 483-485 and 488-491 ): aUTt,XO 6 UyUV IpCUT ETCt,6£L£ii) TOV aXSHTpUOV^ (I)S ETUpaVVEt 483 4PXe te HepctSv itpSrov hccvtujv AapeiTou H al MEyagaCou, (uctte xaXELTat, UspcrLHOS opvos aico iris oipX^S e t * e h e u v h s . 485 • • • • ovjto) 6 ’^ lctxu° s te xaL y syas Kv to t e H at noXtfs, u o t ’ ETL 488 nat, v t v uito ttis pwyns Tns t o t ’ EHEUvris, oicoTav yovov o p d pto v a a n , avaunSSauv itavTes jeh* spyov xa Xxfis XEpayris axuXofiE^at, * " 4 c h u t e s SaXavfis aXcpcTayouSot, TOpvEUToXupaaTCt,6oicriyou. 491 As an ally of good and an enemy of evil, the cock is a natural candidate to be included upon an apotropaic amulet. It occurs as a prophylactic device on E. Van Buren's Assyrian blue paste cylinder-seal from Mesopotamial2 along with two scorpions, a serpent, and a tortoise. These animals, are all driving away evil spirits from a sick man. F. Elworthy (1895, p. 130, Fig. 14) has a line- drawing of an apotropaic amulet struck in silver in the Graeco-Roman period, the center of which is the Evil Eye j (Fig. 3). The Eye is surrounded by other objects whose j purpose is to avert the Eye*s influence. Along with a j I cock, there are also a dog, a lion, a winged phallus, a scorpion, a thunderbolt, a crocodile, a swan, and a { I serpent. ; ! P. Baur (1951, pp. 774-775) discusses a tomb painting j of a Palmyran temple^ on which there is depicted a similar representation of the "much-suffering" Evil Eye (Fig. 2). Around this Eye is also a cock, as well as a serpent, two birds, and two scorpions. 27 j The^cock"as~a—prophylactic “image is again associated j with the Evil Eye on a funerary monument of Auzia from the t second or third century A.D.14. Again the cock is J accompanied by fellow apotropaic creatures: a scorpion, a I snail, and a serpent or lizard (Fig. 3). j In his description of the Mano Pantea. the protective i I hands of the Roman period before Constantinel5, f. ! Elworthy mentions certain specimens which differ from the i I one pictured in Figures 10 A and B. On these other specimens, in the niche containing the mother suckling her baby, there is portrayed a cock hovering nearby as well. As a watchful guardian, who will drive away the fiercest beast, even a lion, the cock is a singularly appropriate symbol for the protection of an infant, and hence possibly he is placed. . . upon [certain specimens of] the Mano Pantea [guarding]. . . the woman and child" (F. Elworthy, 1895, pp. 353-354). The cock seems to be identified with Mercury from an entirely different sphere as well. In this instance, however, it is the fighting-cock which becomes an ! attribute of Mercury, who has inherited from Greek Hermes I j Enagonios the function of Patron of the Contest (See i i Appendix G). ! ; i I Cock-fighting was a popular sport throughout the j Greek period and into Roman times. Pindar makes reference | i | I to cock-fighting in Olympian 12.20: i i I j > f e v S o y c t x c t s 5 t ’ a X e ^ T u ip a u y y o v a ) i t a p * s o r t a . 28 | Discussing the image of Athena made by Pheidias on \ the acropolis of the Eleans* Pausanias mentions the cock l i which is pictured on the goddess’ helmet (6.26.3): i i ! elvao^yev^6n $eo6dou <paaov aurnv, itEitodnTao 5e ccAextpuujv gul.tG xpaveo, oto o3too itpoxeopoTonra exoucxuv es yctxas ou aAsxxpudvEs. Pliny gives a very clear description of the fighting- cock in Natural is Historia 10.24.47-48: imperitant suo generi, et regnum in quacumque sunt 47 domo exercent. dimicatione paritur hoc inter ipsos, velut ideo tela agnata cruribus suis intellegentium* nec finis saepe nisi commorientibus. quod si palma contigit. statim in j victoria canunt seque ipsi principes testantur; victus occultatur silens aegreque servitium patitur. et plebs tamen aeque superba graditur I ardua cervice. cristis celsa* caelumque sola volucrum aspicit crebra* in sublime caudam quoque falcatam erigens. itaque terrori sunt etiam ; leonibus ferarura generosissimis. iam ex his 48 quidam ad bella tantum eat proelia adsidua 1 nascunter - quibus etiam patrias nobilitarunt» Rhodum aut Tanagram; secundus est honos habitus ! Melicis et Chalcidicis» - ut plane dignae aliti tantum honoris perhibeat Romana purpura. i | Aelian, writing at the end of the second century A.D. i | similarly describes the victorious and vanquished fighting i ! cocks (De Natura Animalium 4.29): J i ^ j ' yc&XJ] aAEXT^ucav xoTo Tp itpos aAAov f|TTTi§sos a'yaivda | j oux a v Scteue- to y a p too tppdvnya ciut£ xacTdoTaATao, xao ' j xaTaSdexao y e uno ttIs aofioos. xpaTifaas 6e yaOpos goto, i ! xa'u u«j<auxeveE, xao xudpouydvai Iooxe. , I « ■ T. Schreiber has a line-drawing of a scene from a , Graeco-Roman mosaic of the first century A.D. from Pompeii i which vividly describes the aftermath of a cock-fight ! (Fig. 39): j~ In the mosaic the cdc'k-fi'ght~i'3~overir—and— the------------ ' victor is raising himself to give a last blow to j the bleeding and fainting vanquished. The fortunes of the cocks are mirrored in the : behaviour of their masters. The one hastens to I crown the conqueror. the other turns away from the j sight lost in grief. The two little slave-boys ■ follow the example of their betters - one bears a i huge palm-branch, the other sobs bitterly (1895, • M PI. 79, Fig. 1). I The Greek Hermes was identified with the Contest from i , > very early times.Pindar calls upon Hermes who keeps j the games at least three times in his Carmina: j Olympian 6.79: I 'E pyS v eOaeSeajs, os a y S - | v as exEL UoCptfv t* cteSXcov. . . I Pvthian 2.10: | IvayuSvtcs 'E p p a s j I Isthmian 1.61: I j otyoSvcos *Epyas t | Pausanias, too, refers to Hermes Enagonios in I Periegeta 5.14.9: ttis eoofiou 5e xns es to axdSudv e ta u v e x Y d ta x a SaiyoV 5uo* tov pev aurcSv ’ EpyoO xaXoOauv ’ Evayofvdou, tov 6e j i Ix e p o v KaupoO. j ! j Hermes’ connection with the Contest continues into ( I the Roman period when Mercury also is identified with the I Games. According to 0. Keller, Hermes is called the god j of Competition, Enagonios, as a consequence of his being the Patron of the Marketplace and of the Entertainment of the people. It is from his function as Enagonios that the cock, actually the fighting-cock, becomes a standing j attribute of Mercury* like the winged hat. winged sandals j and purse. Thus he appears most of the time on monuments i j of the Roman Imperial period. Aber auch dem Schutzgott von Handel und Verkehr* dem Hermes* war er ein natflrliches Attribut: war doch dieser populSre Gott auch Herr des Marktes und der Volksbelustigungen> also namentlich auch der WettkSmpfe, als Enagonios . . . . Von dieser Basis aus ist der Hahn* eigentlich somit der Kampfhahn, ein stehendes j Attribut des Mercur. . . geworden wie Flflgelhut und -schuhe und Geldbeutel. So erscheint er ganz gewdhnlich auf DenkmSlern der rSmischen Kaiserzeit (0. Keller, 1909. Vol. 2, p. 137). The fact that the temple of Mercury, which was | erected in 495 B.C. facing the Aventine, was placed near ! ! the Circus Maximus behind one of the metae was quite deliberate, according to F. Altheim. Indeed, the i ! juxtaposing of the temple of Mercury and the Circus I Maximus by the Romans served to illustrate the traditional i ! relationship between the Patron of Contests and the contest-place: DaB darin jedoch mehr zu suchen ist, daB der Ortliche Zusammenhang des Tempels mit den I ZielsSulen des Circus kein zufSlliger war, j sondern auf eine innere Beziehung beider j zueinander hinweist, darf man daraus entnehmen, I daB auch an den carceres des Circus diese j Beziehung ihren sichtbaren Ausdruck gefunden hatte ' .... Aber auch so muBen wir schlieBen, daB fflr ] rOmisches Empfinden ein Zusammenhang zwischen Gott und Wettspielen bestanden und daB dieser ' Zusammenhang bereits in der Lokalisierung des j Tempels seinen Ausdruck gefunden hat (F. Altheim, ! 1930, pp. 83-84). The god's special relationship to the Competition is | extended to include patronage over the palaestra and i I 31 j gymnasium. Here, often in his honor, an altar was ! dedicated or an image, particularly in the form of a herm, i j was set up: "Hier wird ihm darum ein Altar Oder auch sein ! Bild aufgestellt, dieses z.T. gerade in der Hermenform” (F. Altheim, 1930, p. 84).17 Pausanias, in 8.39.6, has an ! apt description of one of these herms: ev 6e yupvacruy to ayaA pa toO *EppaO apitexdpevii) p ev J e o lm ev tp a 'r u o v , HaxaAtfyEU 6e oum e S uo'Sas, aAAa IS to I TETpctyajvov a x fip a . Thus, Mercury’s identification with the cock seems to have come from several different sources. In Carthage, l the cock is associated with the fertility of the region I I and, as such, is depicted on monuments with Mercury or with the god’s caduceus, or with other symbols of i fertility. However, in the fifth century B.C., the cock I j was thought to be an importation from Persia, where the i cock was a harbinger of daylight and an averter of evil I j and darkness. From this function, the cock derives a reputation as an alarm-clock, as it were, crowing to rouse men up for the business day. ! However, it is as an averter of evil that the cock \ has its greatest significance in Graeco-Roman art. j ! I Because of its phallic association and its Persian j j 1 prophylactic qualities, it appears often in the company of j t other apotropaic creatures on amulets, paintings, and j monuments. j Moreover, the cock becomes identified with Mercury I i via an entirely different means. As the fighting-cock, j the fowl brings together the idea of Mercury of the j j Contest with the animal most ready to fight. | Through an examination of the traits of the cock, it i | is clear that its phallic nature and its use of the ! natural weapons which mark it as a contentious animal suit ! | it weli as an apotropaic creature.^ C. The Association of the Ram with Mercury Just as the cock is frequently depicted on prophylactic amulets as a phallic and, therefore, apotropaic symbol, so is the ram an equally important attribute denoting fertility for Mercury. ! Certainly, the Greek Hermes was identified as a protector of flocks from earliest times. Our first i I definite literary statement concerning this relationship l is in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes, where Zeus endows Hermes with powers over herds and flocks (lines 567-571): | x a u x ’ f x e M a u a S o s u u e x a i a y p a d X o u s I X u x a s B o O s , ! | l t c h o u s t* a y c p o i c o X e u e x a u r i y i , d v o u £ x a X a e p y o u s j I v* • ! j K c ‘ l * " x a p o m o C c n , X e o u c r u x a u d p y u o S o u a i , a i S c a a i . i x a i , x u c r u x p t L y n X o t a u v , o c r a x p d t p e u e u p e t a s i t a a t , 6 * T t p o g a x o L a u v d v a a a e u v x i 56t y o v * E p y T i v . i j j I According to J. Chittenden, j | i Kriophoros was a usual epithet [of Hermes] and was officially attached to him in more than one ) locality. Artistic representations of him in this guise are usual from early times onward (1947, p. 92). Pausanias mentions the statue of Hermes Kriophoros which the Greek sculptor Kalamis created in the first half of the fifth century B.C. for Tanagra (Perieeeta 9.22.1): I s xov5 *Epyou xa le p a t o t xe Kpuotpopou h o i ov Upoyaxov x a A o u a t, tov) yev e's xnv eituxAncFLV A eyo u atv uis o ’ Epyns cr<pi>ai/V aTcoxpe^ab voaov AouycoSn xepu xo xeuxos xpoov irepueveyxtev, Kao eitu xoux^j K aAayts eitouncrev ayaAya ’ Epyou (pepovxa xpubv enu xSv uywv. F. Wieseler* in describing a silver-plated relief of the third century A.D. (Fig. 70), explains the significance of the billy-goat which stands on the right of Mercury. He maintains that the billy-goat is an ancient symbol of the phallic, procreative side of Hermes, and its relationship to Hermes is, in effect, interchangeable with that of the ram and buck: Dieses Thier ist ein altes Symbol des phallischen zeugungslustigen Hermes und ein Attribut des Opferherolds, des Gottes der Trift und der Heerden, der selbst Hirt ist. Dem Ziegenbock geht in alien diesen Beziehungen parallel der Schafbock, Widder .... Hie und da findet man Bock oder Ziege und Widder bei Hermes oder Mercurius vereint (F. Wieseler, 1864, p. 124). In his description of a silver repousfee patera of the Hellenistic or Roman period on which Mercury is depicted with several of his attributes (Fig. 38), C. Waldstein, echoing Wiesler, maintains: The cock [is] a symbol of the god of generation. The buck to his left is a symbol of the same side of the nature of Hermes the protector and multiplier of herds, and is frequently represented ! on the one side of Hermes with the cock on the | other on small bronzes (1882. p. 102). i F. Elworthy (1895, p. 131) has an illustration of a Graeco-Roman gem on which are depicted several creatures i which are capable of harming the Evil Eye with their natural weapons (Fig. 8). Around the Eye are a scorpion* a dog, a lion, a thunderbolt (not an animal but capable of inflicting harm and often seen in prophylactic company, i according to C. Bonner 1950, p. 98), an owl, a serpent, j and a stag (an animal which is synonomous with the buck). The primary significance of the ram (buck/stag/billy- ‘ goat) vis-A-vis Mercury has its origins in the association of the Archaic Greek Hermes with the protection of herds and flocks, and later, in the fifth century B.C., with the i ; sculpting of a Hermes Kriophoros. By the Hellenistic or j l i certainly by the Roman period, however, the presence of ! ; I I the ram in Mercury’s entourage takes on more connotations. » Protection of the flock leads to multiplication of the flock, and necessarily requires fertility. As an ancient I symbol of male fertility and, as a creature easily able to ! i ' - ; induce harm, the ram (and its interchangeable substitutes) ! i is a likely candidate to serve as an apotropaic amulet.19 I i i i i 35 t D. The Association of the Tortoise with Mercury The tortoise in association with Mercury is depicted more often in Roman than in Greek art (A. Legrand, 1918* p. 1819). although its connection with Mercury hails from Greek sources* via Hermes. It is in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes (4.24 ff.) where the episode is told of the invention of the lyre from a tortoise shell. The infant god Hermes* having spied a tortoise as it was eating* seized it, stabbed out its flesh, and stretched a cow hide over the shell; then he put in the bridge* the two arms and the seven chords of sheep-gut. Then he began to play and sing. This invention of the lyre with its subsequent music and poetry points to one of the underlying facets of the god’s personality, that is, his skill in the art of persuasion. In his function as the divine herald, Hermes as well as his human counterparts must deliver their messages to people who might not be pleased to hear what they have to say, or might not even believe the truth of the words. The messenger might have to plead the case of those who sent him, or perhaps even defend himself from threats of death. The combination of the invention of the lyre with skill in oratory in one personality seems to be an easy one for a god, who, by Roman times, is considered the | patron of literature. "Merouriales viri" is what Horace i j calls the poets among whom he numbers himself (Carmina 2.17.29-30). Another explanation for the identification of the tortoise with Mercury is given in Servius' commentary on Aeneid 1.505» specifically with reference to the word testudine and its meaning camera incurva. Servius tells | an aetiological myth about a girl named Chelone who arrogantly refuses to join in the nuptials of Jupiter and Juno. Disturbed by this lack of respect, Mercury turns the girl into a tortoise who must carry her house on her . back; "unde incurvatis aedificiis hoc nomen inpositum est" I (Servius Grammaticus. Aeneid 1.505). i i [ The tortoise, like the cock and the scorpion, plays 1 ! I i little part in Classical Greek mythology, aside from its j j having given its life in order for Hermes to have invented J the lyre. This act seems to be virtually the sole role j which the tortoise plays in Greek and Roman literature I l (See Appendix H). However, on certain Graeco-Roman and j ; ! ; Roman antiquities, the tortoise finds itself in company i i with other creatures, not as a mere symbolic device to i ! evoke the mythological invention of the lyre, but as part ! I j of a group of animals whose function it is to avert the | influence of the Evil Eye. j ! 1 I The apotropaic and magical properties of the tortoise l seem certainly to have come from the Orient, according to 37 I — ------------------------ - ! 0. Keller (1909, Vol. 2, p. 252): "Nach spezifisch i * [ griechischem und rSmischem Glauben war Qbrigens die j Schildkrbte nicht dSmonisch, wenigstens nicht in der klassischen Zeit, um so sicherer aber im Orient." As J early as the Mesopotamian civilization the tortoise was | considered a creature which was potent against evil i i influences. "The tortoise was...a creature which had I i j mystic meaning" (E. Van Buren, 1936-1937, p. 27).^0 ! F. Elworthy illustrates an example of a Mano Pantea amulet, a life-size hand of the Roman period before i I Constantine, on which are depicted many creatures as well j as vegetative objects of prophylactic value.21 Included j among these is the tortoise (Figs. 10 A and B). 0. Keller I j (1909, Vol. 2, p. 251) says that in less than twenty examples of the Mano Pantea, the tortoise appears on twelve, the toad and frog appear ten times and the salamander or lizard nine times. Further, he compares the | tortoise to other poisonous or potentially poisonous \ ; I animals like the scorpion, toad, and salamander, which are j ! useful to defend against the Evil Eye, and he concludes, i I with 0. Jahn, that wherever tortoises appear alone or | ! I I I united with the toad or the frog on gems, they are ; j interpreted as prophylactic: ". . . auch wo sie allein ' | i 1 oder vereinigt mit KrSte oder Frosch auf Gemmen erscheint, ! I ! | ist sie sicher prophylaktisch aufzufassen" (0. Keller, j ! 1909, Vol. 2, p. 251). F. Elworthy, in agreement, says: "The meaning of the tortoise as an amulet cannot be j j doubted" (1895, p. 324). ] I F. Elworthy presents an illustration (1895, p. 130, Fig. 17) of a Graeco-Roman gem (Fig. 7) which is one of I j many examples of the "much-suffering eye" motif discussed supra, pages 3-5. It is the central Evil Eye, surrounded by a tortoise, a lizard, a scorpion, a frog, a bee, a serpent, a crab, and another bee. All of these noxious creatures are able, with their natural weapons, to harm the Eye. I j On the silver repousSe patera of the Hellenistic or ! Roman period which C. Waldstein discusses (Fig. 38), is j pictured a tortoise to the left of Mercury and in the i ; company of other apotropaic symbols. Both Waldstein ; (1882, p. 102) and F. Wieseler (1864, p. 124) maintain i I ! that the buck which is pictured with the god is a phallic ! , f ! | symbol. Similarly, as discussed supra, page 15, Waldstein ! states that the cock on Mercury’s right represents "the i i god of generation." Certainly the tortoise here appearing in such company must symbolize more than just the invention of the lyre. The tortoise seems to have evolved as a prophylactic ; animal for several reasons. First, it was considered to ; be phallic in nature (R. Knight, 1876, p. 29). G. Scott i : explains: j The tortoise, possessing, like the serpent, the j I 39 i power of retaining life in its limbs after j mutilation or decapitation* became a symbol of ! androgynity as well as of immortality. Its protruding head, probably because of a resemblance to the glans penis, was looked upon [in the ancient world] as a phallic symbol (1966, p. 45). Pliny, in Naturalis Historia 32.14.34, expounds a different theory: "squamae e summa parte derasae et in potu datae venerem cohibent. eo magis hoc mirum, quoniam totius tegimenti farina accendere traditur libidinem." Moreover, the flesh of the tortoise’s body is highly J salutary for repelling the malpractices of magic and for j i counteracting the poisons of all serpents, spiders, frogs, ! * and like creatures: "Terrestrium carnes suffitionibus ! ! propriae magicisque artibus refutandis. . . produntur. . . J et contra serpentium omnium et araneorum ac similium et i ! ranarum venena auxiliatur" (Pliny, Naturalis Historia 32.14.33). According to L. Stephani (in Comptes rendus de 1*Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 1865, p. 200, quoted by 0. Keller, 1909, Vol. 2, p. 252), the | j ' i I tortoise is a particularly suitable defense against the j I • Evil Eye because its eyes are so extraordinarily gleaming: ! ; I ' "Stephani glaubt, daB sich die SchildkrCte besonders | t deswegen zur Abwehr des Malocchio eignete, weil ihre Augen 1 i i so aufierordentlich glSnzen." i ! ! I Aelian, in JDe Natura Animalium 4.28, also notes the i j remarkable traits of the eyes of the tortoise: I ! 40 ; X e A u J v n s S c tA a x x L c is a i c o T v n ^ e t a a n x e tp a A ri 3 A e t i e l K a Y j n a x o a iU E L t t i v x £ Cp<* i t p o c r a y o v x a s * n 6 e 6 ’ a v mcjl Sc x k o l , ' EL i t E p a L x e p u ^ i t p o c a y a y o L s T r iv x £ S p a * n o t. e i i l y c t K p b v I E K A a y i t o v T a s e x £L' v x o u s o tp & a A y o tfs * o il y a p x o l K o p c tL | A e u k o x o x o l ' x e k o l H E p L t p a v s 'a x a x d L e l o l , x a l E C c t L p E d s L o a L ; KpUOLW KOL OPPOLS eVXL^EVXaL. I The tortoise, like the ram, has very ancient associations with Mercury. Though most obviously the ! connection of the tortoise with Mercury lies in the , Homeric Hymn to Hermes, the company with which the | tortoise and the god are often depicted in the Hellenistic ! and Roman periods must also be considered. Because the tortoise is often found together with the scorpion, the ' cock, or the ram in association with Mercury, the tortoise ! must share some common trait with them. Since very ancient times in the Middle East, the tortoise was considered an apotropaic creature. By the Graeco-Roman period, the tortoise appears on gems displaying the "much-suffering eye" which is surrounded by j creatures which could be harmful to it. As an animal ! i whose shell is aphrodisiacal, whose flesh counteracts the i j I j I : poisons of noxious creatures, and whose eyes have special i ! i traits, among which is a sparkling gleam particularly | potent against the Evil Eye, the tortoise is appropriately i o o ^ , utilized as an apotropaic animal.“ j ; It seems that Mercury is surrounded on all sides with phallic, apotropaic attributes. The caduceus which he ! carries and the wings which he wears in Classical 1 41 • literature denote that the god, though physically no great | | specimen of masculine power or character, nevertheless, is i endowed with objects which embody sexual potency. By the early Hellenistic period, we observe that the caduceus alone has enough significance that it not only represents and evokes the god on Carthaginian stelae, but it also stands in close association with the Punic deities of fertility. Later, in Roman times, we see the caduceus again on the Mano Pantea amulet, wherein, endowed with wings, it is yet charged with phallic power and is comfortably suited to the apotropaic company with which it is surrounded. i i In observing gems and amulets of the Hellenistic period and later on which Mercury is depicted, the god is very often accompanied by the prophylactic creatures, the scorpion, the cock, the ram, and the tortoise (See | Appendix I). As demonstrated, these animals each appear i in various apotropaic motifs, either shown as physically i l about to harm the "much-suffering eye," or on amulets | i whose function it was to avert evil influences in general. I ! The scorpion came to the Hellenistic world from the Phoenicians who brought it to Carthage whence it was transferred to Rome and then identified with Mercury. The scorpion was an apotropaic symbol from very ancient times in the Middle East as was the cock. The cock, however, hailed from Persia where it, too, was identified with good 42 | influences while at the same time was thought to drive | away evil. I | The ram and the tortoise* on the other hand* are identified with Mercury as an inheritance from Greek Hermes. The ram is associated with the Greek god, mainly from the Homeric Hymn to Hermes where the god is assigned ! the protection of the flock and from the statue of the fifth century B.C. Hermes Kriophoros. Likewise, the tortoise is an attribute of Hermes, probably also as a result of the Homeric Hymn in which the god creates the lyre from a tortoise shell. It seems, however, that the significance of the | identification of Hermes with the ram and the tortoise, by i * J Hellenistic times, becomes broadened because of the wider I connotations of the ram and the tortoise with sexual ( j potency and fertility. The ram and its interchangeable i ! counterparts, the billy-goat, the buck, and the stag are | always considered symbols of masculine power and sexuality in the ancient world, and the tortoise has a reputation in i the ancient world as a great aphrodisiac and phallic 1 symbol. Depicting the ram and the tortoise, as early | Mercurial attributes, with the later additions of the i | scorpion and the cock emphasizes the phallic connotations I | of each individual animal and of the group as a whole. Mercury, thus, becomes an amalgamation of the phallic attributes associated with a variety of implements and animals during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. The god, already equipped since Classical Greek times with profoundly sexual implements, is bestowed with an overabundance of sexual animals which remain in his entourage throughout the Roman period. Mercury seems to have been a recipient of the religious syncretism prevalent during those cosmopolitan times, wherein a deity in one culture was endowed with a piling up of features or traits from beliefs or religions in other cultures in which there were gods with similar functions or notions which were compatible. Whatever the origins of Mercury’s animal attributes, the creatures do accompany the god in artistic representations throughout the Hellenistic, Graeco-Roman, and Roman periods and serve to identify Mercury quite strongly with the ideas of potency and fertility. The primary function of all phallic objects is to foster fertility and to keep away evil influences in order for success and good fortune to result. Thus, Mercury, depicted with all his phallic attributes, is a potent deity whose image Gan be used effectively on an amulet as a lucky token. 44 1 NOTES j 1 This idea is briefly and rather uncritically ; expressed in M. BSnabou, JL§. Resistance africaine £ 2 x 3 j romanisation d’Auguste 5 Diocletian. (Paris: Francois j Maspero, 1976)» pp. 342-343. ! 2 gee Figures 4-8 for Graeco-Roman examples of this I motif portrayed as apotropaic amulets. I 3 The scorpion appears only in Greek mythology of late Hellenistic date, in the myth of Orion. The constellation of Orion is pursued eternally by the constellation of the Scorpion, both having been placed in the sky by Artemis in retribution for a seduction of one of her priestesses, of which crime Apollo had accused Orion. We see again evidence of a relationship between Artemis, the virgin goddess, with the scorpion, the | phallic apotropaic symbol, on the Orthonobazos Relief of ; Dura-Europos from the second century A.D. CP. Baur, 1951, j pp. 771-775). j ^ As an apotropaic device with which to frighten the 1 enemy, the scorpion is depicted on a shield which hangs J from a trophy on the Gemma Augustea of Vienna (Figs. 19 A i i and B). See also F. Bastet, "Der Scorpion auf der Gemma j | Augustea," in Studies in Classical Art and Archeology, ed. i i G. Kopcke and M. Moore, (Locust Valley, New York: J. J. j Augustin, 1979), pp. 217-223; and S. Eitrem, "Der Skorpion | in Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte," Svmbolae Osloenses, Fasc. 7 (1928), 53-82. The scorpion as a 1 shield device is also found on a mosaic of Praeneste from | the Roman period, though the model for this is probably Hellenistic (P. Baur, 1951, p. 774). i ! 5 see a brief discussion of the two Mercurii in M. I | B&nabou, L^a Resistance africaine ji la. romanization ! d»Auguste A Diocletian, (Paris: Francois Maspero, 1976), pp. 341-342. | i 6 xhe personnage holding a purse who flanks the | ‘ throne of Tanit on a certain sanctuary in Salammbo is ; | probably Hermes. The position of the god, sometimes i subordinate to the goddess, sometimes adored by her, j explains that the caduceus, more often than not, flanks j the principal symbol, but that it also holds a place of 45 I honor. Another principal symbol of Tanit is that of the j open hand. This sign of benediction generally occupies I the top of a stele and is surrounded by floral ! decorations* by confronted doves* or by two caducei (G. | Charles-Picard, 1954, pp. 77-78). See Figure 20. 7 w. Deonna (1959* p. 40), using Van Buren's article i as evidence, asserts that the prototype of the caduceus can be found in the entwined-snake motif prevalent in ! Sumerian art. According to E. Van Buren (1935-1936* p. ! 54), the intertwined snakes are represented as mating; and | whenever this symbol is represented, it always retains its value as an omen of fertility. i 8 The caduceus is shown on Carthaginian stelai with various symbols of Tanit as well as with other j representations of fertility* such as palm-fronds. 1 9 See Figures 29-35 for Mercury with (purse and) j caduceus depicted with scorpion and other animals. ' 10 See Figure 36 for an example of this motif on a ! Roman gem of the first century B.C. | 11 This theory is shared by P. Baur (1951* p. 773): I "The cock originally comes from Persia." J. Chittenden, I on the other hand, theorizes that the origin of the cock | lies in the Minoan civilization (1947, p. 96 ff.). She maintains that the cock was identified with the Greek god Hermes since Minoan times. "The epiphany of the Minoan deity was often in the shape of a bird. As with so many Greek gods, the j bird survived as a creature sacred to Hermes. The j cock seems to be his favourite fowl" (p. 100-101). Chittenden's theory coincides with the depiction of the cock contained in a legend related by Pausanias. In discussing a statue in Perieaeta 5.25.9, Pausanias tells a story describing the shield which is held by a certain figure: I " o to u 6e o aA£j(Tpu<i5v ecttov ^eitu^nyoi xTi a o n i S i , ’ ifioyeveiJs ecftuv o ontoyovos M dvw xui 6e ‘ iSopsve'C ydvos aito 'HAdou to u naxpos IlactcpdriS, ' HAdou 6e UEpdv tpaotv sSvac xov opvcQo na t ayydAAeuv ctvtdvctu ydAAovxas xoO riAdou." ) 12 See discussion of this seal supra, p. 3. i 13 See discussion of this temple supra, p. 5. 46 j See discussion of this monument supra. pp. 5-6. ! 15 See discussion of the Mano Pantea supra, pp. 6-7. ( j 1^ Hermes shared in his function as Keeper of the I Contest and Bringer of Victory with Herakles Kallinikos. I Pausanias in Perieseta 8.32.3 referes to this pair of I patrons: ' • \ \ \ i ” HpawAdous 6e m o pvo s waV 'EpyoO itpos x5j axc'Sdw vaos y e v | ouwdxu ?tv, lidvos 6e ccpuap &anids eA edicexo/’ k 1^ In Roman times, the Mercury of the Contest has evolved into the image of the herm placed in the palaestra or gymnasium, rather as an ornamental relic of an ancient tradition. See Figures 39-44 for gems depicting herms alone; see Figures 45-52 for gems depicting herms in the palaestra; and see Figures 53-55 for gems depicting herms present at cock-fights. 16 See Figures 29, 31-34, 36-38, and 53-70 for gems and other antiquities depicting Mercury and the cock. ! 19 See Figures 29-33, 38, 56-62, 64, and 70-85 for ' gems and other anitiquities on which Mercury is depicted | with ram/goat etc. j j 20 see discussion of the blue-paste cylinder-seal j from Mesopotamia supra, p. 3. | 21 See discussion of the Mano Pantea supra, pp. 5-7. ' 22 See Figures 29, 33-35, 38, 57, 60, 84, and 86 for ! gems on which are depicted Mercury and the tortoise. i t 47 | CHAPTER 2 I Mercury-Augustus as a Successor to the Hellenistic Hermes- ! Ruler Tradition i t I J I I In considering the treatment of Augustus by Horace* ! the question of major importance is why Mercury is chosen i to be identified with Augustus in Horace's Carmina 1.2.41- 52.1 The answer is rather a complex one, but also a logical one* given the cross-cultural currents which ran j rampant from the conquered hellenized territories in the i East* especially Egypt* to the cosmopolitan citizens of t Rome. In the Hellenistic kingdoms, the monarchs were j considered by their subjects to be gods. They bore i | epithets reminding the people of this fact* such as thebs | and epjphanfes. In the Ptolemaic kingdom of Egypt* ' * i something more complex occurred than in the other i I I ! monarchies. The rich ancient pharaonic religion coalesced 1 ■ ! | with the equally potent Greek traditions of the Ptolemies. : 1 j ( In ancient Egypt* the pharaoh had always been considered a j I j ! god. By the Ptolemaic period, one of the gods who was ; j 1 j most identified with the monarch was the Egyptian god j ! Thoth. ! I Thoth was considered L6gos, the Reason which is the I i source of order in the world. He was worshipped as the i founder of culture and the giver of civilization. Since Thoth was the creator and embodiment of divine law, he meshed well with the philosophy of Hellenistic kingship, i ^ which had as its primary tenet, the embodiment of divine i law in the person of the king (E. Goodenough, 1928, p. i 21). Because the laws of the god Thoth were immutable, j the Hellenistic kings identified with him. | By his actions, we see that Augustus clearly must have placed himself in the tradition of the Hellenistic ; monarchs.2 He certainly recognized that all meaningful | power was held in his hands alone, yet he declined to be , called king or to be worshipped as a god, considering the fate of his now dead adoptive father, Julius Caesar. He was careful not to appear as the sole repository of authority over Rome, while at the same time he was artfully consolidating his power. He called himself the : "restorer” of the republic, with all of its ancient traditions and government, though he was in reality ! beginning a monarchical dynasty. Because the people saw I him as one who restored the republic, they looked upon him , i • • i as a culture hero, as a second Romulus or Camillus. | Moreover, he was commonly called pater or pater patriae, ! as these two ancient heroes were also called. This epithet is the closest Roman equivalent to the Greek 49 sotfer, which connotes savior of lives, rescuer of the l , state, protector from anarchy, and expiator of sins. Octavian clearly wanted to cloak himself and his reign with the mantle of divinity, as evident in the name Augustus which he very likely chose for himself. Further, though he could not be deified during his lifetime in the manner of his Hellenistic precursors, he certainly considered himself to be Rome’s benefactor and thus i | entitled to apotheosis upon his death for his good deeds I j on behalf of the state. More importantly, however, during i his life, Octavian subtly suggested that his authority be imbued with the immutability of divine law. Thus, adapting to his own needs the practice of the Hellenistic i kings, he associated himself with the Roman equivalent of the Egyptian Thoth, who was Mercury. j The Egyptian Thoth had been identified with Greek i j Hermes since the fifth century B.C. By the Hellenistic | period, Ptolemaic Thoth was virtually interchangeable with i Hermes. At Rome, the Greek Hermes was closely identified | ' I | with the Roman Mercury who was considered to be the . raessenger-herald of the gods, the patron of oratory, and the bringer of peace. Thus, in Roman Egypt, the 1 Hellenistic Thoth-Hermes conflation evolved into a Thoth- Mercury identification.3 Since Thoth-Mercury was i considered a savior god and a culture hero at this period, an identification of Octavian as savior and culture hero 50 i 1 with the god Mereury seems to be a logical and clever tour | ! dg. force on the part of Horace. I | In considering Horace’s Carmina 1.2, the question most bothersome to scholars is why Mercury is chosen over Apollo* Venus* and Mars to be the alter ego of Augustus. Some scholars argue that any of these three gods should have been more likely to represent the young ruler in consolidating his power and establishing a firm hold on a ! new government ostensibly based on traditional values. Apollo had already been identified as Octavian's patron at I Actium* the battle which finally ceded absolute power over Rome to the victor. Venus had already been claimed by the Julian clan as the goddess through whom they traced their descent. Moreover, she had been the patron of Julius Caesar in the battle of Pharsalus in 46 B.C. Mars, as the father of Romulus, was also considered the father of the Romans, and to him, as avenger, Octavian dedicated a temple in the name of Mars Ultor.^ i j The best reason given for Horace to have rejected these three deities is given by E. Bickerman, whose | i I argument is that these gods were all identified with civil | j wars: "Horace excluait les trois aaenants cSlestes des j ' trois guerres civiles jig son temps: Pharsale, Philippes, i Actium” (1961, p. 13). While Octavian was engaged in war, J his veneration of the gods of war was appropriate. However, having emerged as victor, his task was to restore a civilized social order and a productive peace. For this J purpose. Mercury was a most suitable patron. i The Roman world of which Augustus found himself in control after Actium was in much the same condition politically and socially as had been the nascent Hellenistic world in 323 B.C. After the death of Alexander, there was a breakdown of traditional values and mores resulting from the disintegration of political control, leading to a general cynicism toward belief in the Olympian pantheon. The gods seemed very far away, inaccessible, and uncaring. What was important to the populace were tangible acts, which meant personal safety ! j from the vicissitudes of war and from political I i instability. Those who could accomplish these acts were i j looked upon as supermen, as heroes, as beings who were something more than human, such as Alexander. Athenaeus of Naucratis, epitomizing these feelings, quotes a popular song in which the Athenians invoked Demetrius' protection against Aetolia (Deipnosoohistae 6.253 E): aXXou y e v n y ax p a v yap ctitexouatv : T ) oum Ixouauv Srra j r} oum edoLv y ou upoaexouauv n y tv ou6e e v , | ae 6e itapdv-9’ o p S y ev , ou £dXovov ou6e Xii&uvov, aXX* aXriduvov. euxo yea^ a a o u . In the early Hellenistic period, popular philosophy turned toward a more rationalistic bent. Culture heroes such as Heracles or Dionysus were accorded more reverence, 52 as men who became gods through their deeds in service to mankind. The reasoning was that if Heracles could became j a god because of his benefactions, so could other men. i Determined efforts were made by the philosophers of the j time to explain the gods in acceptable and understandable ' terms. One school of thought is epitomized in a story ! quoted by Diodorus Siculus (6.1.2 and 6.2). The i philosopher Euhemerus of Messene, writing under Cassander between 311 and 298 B.C., told in his Sacred History of a visit to an island called Panchea in the Indian Ocean, where the Olympian gods, who had originally been men reigning there as kings, were now worshipped as gods.5 With anarchy and civil war rampant after 323 B.C. there was a public craving for someone to come along and take control. The rulers who succeeded Alexander all I looked for support to traditional religion in order to 1 legitimize their respective rules. All three of the new dynasties adopted patron deities from the Olympian pantheon: The Antigonids in Macedonia claimed descent from ; Herakles, and placed his club as an emblem on j their coins. . . . The Seleucids found a special | protector in Apollo. Seleucus was reputedly j Apollo’s son. . . . The Ptolemies were especially devoted to the cult of Dionysus, perhaps as early ' I as Ptolemy I (F. Walbank, 1981, pp. 210-211). ; ' The Ptolemies were looked upon by their Egyptian | subjects as gods in the same way the Egyptian pharaohs had I been worshipped for nearly three millenia. And, of 53 course, each Ptolemy used his divine status to legitimize his rule. Each Egyptian king was considered to be ! | possessed of a divine spark, to be an aspect of Osiris on I I ! earth* to be one with Osiris upon death in life in the i underworld. I I This ancient Egyptian idea of godhead vested in the ' monarch meshed very well with and bolstered the j Hellenistic Greek ideas of the possibility of apotheosis as a result of benefaction and salvation. The king was | seen to be a savior of his people, as a tangible j benefactor of mankind, and as an actual epiphany of a god. i i In fact, throughout the Hellenistic period, the monarchs who ruled Alexander's divided kingdom took on epithets which marked them as "saviors" or "benefactors" to their subjects, Ptolemies I and IX Soter; Ptolemies III and VIII Euergetes; Antiochus I and Seleucus | III Soter. Antiochus II, who married Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II, actually bore the epithet Theos. His third son, Antiochus IV was called Epiphanes. Antiochus VI, son of Alexander Balas and Cleopatra Thea who was the daughter of Ptolemy VI, used the epithet Epiphanes Dionysus. i Ptolemy V also was sirnamed Epiphanes, and Ptolemy XII was f i called Theos. ; ! . i The notions of benefaction and salvation and the ! i : ! phenomenon of king-worship gradually took hold in the i j Roman world as the Hellenistic Greek cities began to look 54 upon the goddess Roma and even upon individual Romans as saviors. A temple to Roma was established at Smyrna in | 195 B.C.6 in gratitude for salvation, i.e. protection I against Antiochus III. In 197 B.C., Smyrna had not wanted ! to allow Antiochus to reassert his power over that city when he demanded the allegiance of the cities of Asia Minor. i Most cities prudently submitted, but Smyrna and Lampascus refused. . . . Antiochus invested the cities, and they in turn appealed to Rome.7 Lampascus based her appeal on kinship. . . . The Smyrnaeans had no such connection with Rome and so invented one, the deification of the city of Rome - deot'PoSun <R. Mellor, 1975, p. 15). The goddess Roma, a personification of Rome and the i { Romans, took the place of the Hellenistic god-kings in [ Greek minds. "The Hellenistic ruler cult was based on precisely the same political motivation which inspired the i deification of Roma" (R. Mellor, 1975, p. 20).® Even Roman men were actually worshipped as saviors in the Greek cities in Sicily as early as 212 B.C., when I Marcellus overthrew the Carthaginian government, and the i I Syracusans welcomed him as a savior (L. Taylor, 1931, p. 35). Most notably, Flamininus was hailed as a savior at Chalcis, as a benefactor who liberated Greece from Philip V in 196 B.C.* Flamininus was quite content with the adulation of the Greek cities. He himself suggested : divine descent when he spoke of himself as a son of 55 Aeneas.10 Moreover, he was the first Roman to enjoy the special privilege of the Eastern monarch. His portrait was placed on a gold coin issued by a Greek city, probably Chalcis (Fig. 87). Other great Roman generals were also honored in the East as saviors. Sulla was honored with his portait oh the reverse of certain gold coins, and Pompey was worshipped as a savior by many Greek cities which he liberated from Mithradates. The city of Cilicia actually renamed itself Pompeiopolis in his honor, put his portrait on the obverse of their city coins, and worshipped him as the founder of their city (L. Taylor, 1931, p. 39). The whole system was simply a continuation of the type of cult that had been offered to the Hellenistic rulers, and the Romans permitted it and sometimes even fostered it, merely as a practical and political expedient. In time the Roman governors became used to the honors, and it was almost a matter of course that the representatives of Rome should have monuments and festivals associated with their names. The senate even provided definitely that permission be given to collect money for a temple and a monument for the proconsul, and to gather another sum for the performance of regular festivals for the men thus proclaimed as saviours and benefactors of the Greek world (L. Taylor, 1931, p. 38). By the first century B.C., Roman governors were worshipped as a matter of course, though we have the example of Cicero, who did his best to prevent it in his own case.11 The most blatant instance of a living Roman being worshipped as a manifest god is Julius Caesar.12 56 After the battle of Actium in 31 B.C., Octavian found himself in the position of conquering general. With | Antony defeated and the last of the Ptolemies now dead, 1 Octavian was in sole control of an Egypt upon which "Greek influence. . . was never more than a veneer" (J. Milne, i 1949, p. 308). In order to establish his control in i ! Egypt, Octavian had to allow himself to be worshipped as a i i divine pharaoh, as the rulers of Egypt had been worshipped for millenia (Fig. 88), though this idea was an anathema i to the rest of the Roman world. Sensitive to Roman J reaction, Octavian was careful to decline to be worshipped i as a god in Rome, although he did allow the establishment of a temple to himself with the goddess Roma in i | Pergamum.13 "This dedication was in 29 B.C., and a i similar dedication is found at Nicomedia in Bithynia" (M. Adams, 1939, p. 162 ajd Suetonius, Augustus 52.20). This i dual worship graphically reinforced the idea that the i j safety and well-being of the state was intimately and J fatally bound to the safety and well-being of the emperor. | The Romans in 31 B.C. craved a savior from the travails of civil war and political instability as much as I did the Greek world after the death of Alexander. As in i | fourth century Greece, the people of Rome were j i disillusioned by the old Olympian deities, and belief in them was reduced to formal but empty rituals and poetic j conceits. For the eastern freedmen and their children who ' i 57 constituted a large segment of the population, the growth of the mystery religions which gave a sense of union between man and god in this life and the next was giving encouragement to the idea that all men were at least potentially divine (L. Taylor, 1931, p. 51). For the educated man in the first century B.C., current philosophies tended to enforce the growing scepticism toward traditional religion, in the same way as their counterparts had in the early Hellenistic period in Greece. The position of the gods was lowered and that of j j man exalted. Emphasis was placed on the divine potential | in men. The Epicureans believed that the calm experienced i j by ataraxla was equivalent to the utter peace of the gods. j The Stoics taught that a man of true virtue could actually I ! achieve immortality because of his deeds on earth. The idea that men could be deified upon their death after living a glorious life was not wholly foreign to the Romans. Scipio Africanus, in Cicero's Somnium Scipionis 3.13, is described as living among the blessed in his afterlife, immortal for his deeds on earth: Sed quo sis, Africane, alacrior ad tutandam rem publicam, sic habeto: omnibus qui patriam. conservaverint, adiuverint, auxerint, certum esse in caelo ac definitum locum, ubi beati aevo sempiterno fruantur; nihil est enim illi principi deo qui omnem mundum regit, quod quidem in terris fiat, acceptius quam concilia coetusque hominum iure sociati, quae civitates appellantur; harum rectores et conservatores hinc profecti hue revertuntur. 58 j Cicero, in Pro Sestio 67.143, again speaks of the i ! deification of glorious ancestors whom he considers gods: Iraitemur nostros Brutos, Camillos, Ahalas, Decios, Curios, Fabricios, Maximos, Scipiones, Lentulos, Aemilios, innumerabiles alios, qui hanc rem • publicam stabiliverunt; quos equidem in deorum i immortalium. coetu ac numero repono. ! In describing Pompey, Cicero even speaks of a living I person whose deeds are so beneficent that he must be sent I j from heaven (De Imperio Cn. Pompei 14.41): "Itaque omnes J nunc in iis locis Cn. Pompeium sicut aliquem non ex hac 1 urbe missum, sed de caelo delapsum intuentur.11 In fact, the Lares which the Romans worshipped as household gods, were actually the spirits of their divine ancestors. The idea of ancestor glorification lends j itself to this conclusion since we know that at family 1 funerals the Romans would march out the ancient familial j | masks of their dead ancestors. The gradual transition I j from the depiction of gods on Republican coins to the ; depiction of the moneyers’ ancestors is perhaps another | i indication of ancestor veneration and deification after i death.14 At any rate, the notion that the glorious Roman j j ! ancestors would be living afterlives of blessed i immortality is-only a small jump away from the idea of i i | divine status being bestowed upon one as a reward for ' living a meritorious and beneficial life. ! < | Octavian himself looked forward to his own apotheosis after death. In fact, he even expected it because of his 59 benefactions to Rome and to mankind, according to Dio Cassius who quotes him (Historia Romana 53.9.5-6): ccSavaTOL y ev yap ouK^av fiuvnSeunyev y e v e a ^ a u , in 6e 6rt toO xaXtus Cncrau x a i em toO 7<aAS3s TeA.EUrrlcfat, nau toO ro rp d u o v^ xu va KTtiSyeda. atp* o5usp naL eyai xb y £v y6ri eyajv t o 6e e^euv e A tc ^ w v , airoSCSwyt uyCv «ab xa oicAa x a \ xa £^vn xas t e TtpocroSous Mat. xous vo yo u s. In life, however, occupying the position of savior, Octavian did not refer to himself using such Hellenistic | epithets as the6s. epiphanes, or sotfer, or any overt Roman | equivalent suggesting divine status, such as divus. Though powerful enough to proclaim himself divine in the manner of the Hellenistic monarchs, he could not overtly do so and still be consistent in his claim to. be restoring the republic, saving it from Oriental domination. He did, however, want to set himself above ordinary men in regard to his title without offending Roman sensibilities. He i wanted strongly to identify with Romulus as a second founder of Rome, but he hesitated to use that name lest the Romans be enraged that he named himself after a king. Nevertheless, Octavian, living on the Palatine near the : traditional site of Romulus’ hut, finally took the name ; Augustus.15 | i The adjective seems to have been newly coined for the i man, taken from the verb augere, meaning increase, and j ■ I from the word augurium, referring to the famous augury of i I Romulus which favored him as founder of Rome. The omen of i Romulus would also have called to mind the similar omen of f ! Octavian which occurred in 43 B.C. on the occasion of his ! j first c o n s u l s h i p . 1 6 Moreover, the connection with the j word aueurium would tend to recollect the famous line of Ennius which juxtaposes aueurio with aueusto, in describing Romulus, and would further identify the new ! Augustus with Romulus.17 f j Augustus distinguished himself by yet another i i appellation, that of pater patriae or parens patriae. The i j origin of the term parens patriae seems to stem from the ) j ritual bestowing of the corona civica. One whose life was saved in battle was to give to his savior as a reward the corona civica which took the form of the oak wreath.18 The saved man also accepted the duty of honoring the other I like his father.19 The savior is considered to be in the position of the pater familias, and likewise, the one who is saved is in the position of the household which is governed by a feeling of pietas toward the father. From I this narrow usage, the awarding of the corona civica came J to be broadened to honor citizens who rescued the state | from peril. I ! The first documented example of a Roman receiving the I ! corona civica seems to be in the case of Cicero (S. I ; Weinstock, 1971, p. 165). According to Cicero, it was L. i Gellius Poplicola (cos. 72) who first suggested that t Cicero ought to be awarded the civic crown for having 61 i quashed the Catilinarian conspirators.20 Along with the i bestowal of the corona civica* the senators proclaimed Cicero parens patriae or pater patriae, for having saved Rome and its citizens from ruin.21 In Livy. Romulus is several times called parens.22 Camillus. who saved Rome from the Gauls in 390 B.C.. is also called parens patriae by Livy.23 Plutarch, in his J lives of Sulla,24 and Camillus,25 listing the titles given to Roman heroes, calls them saviors and fathers, a I grouping of two words by which he seems to be rendering j into Greek the pater or parens from his Latin sources (L. | Taylor, 1931, p. 48). Cicero even uses pater several times as a synonym for deus, as an appellation for a man who is considered the savior of the country.26 Thus, the I pater or parens patriae becomes a Latin equivalent, I ; acceptable to Romans via its traditional usage, to the Hellenistic Greek notion of soter. Clearly, by the time Octavian had been awarded the civic crown for restoring the republic,27 the corona j civica and the terras parens patriae and pater patriae had : taken on secondary meanings approaching the bestowal of i ! divine status. Thus, the conferring upon Octavian of the corona civica and the appellation pater or pater patriae, which had been applied to him in common parlance at this i time, evoked for him among the Roman populace the notions i : of guardian, master, king, and even god.28 i The divine aspect of Octavian the r u l e r 2 9 was further i j nurtured by Horace in Carmina 1.2. Horace anticipates the i solution to Rome’s domestic troubles by summoning Octavian to lead the Romans as an incarnate Mercury.30 Yet. the selection of Mercury over the other* more powerful Olympian gods appears to be an unexpected choice for Octavian's alter ego. I Some scholars maintain that Horace was influenced in his choice of Mercury by the identification of Mercury with the Egyptian god Thoth. Certainly Horace was familiar with the Egyptian ideas which had spread to Rome i | as the result of Octavian’s struggle with Egypt. Most modern editors agree that the poem was composed after Actium. though they disagree as to the precise date between 29 and 27 B.C. S. Commager maintains that* although most editors suggest the end of 28 B.C.* ! a date better according with the feeling of the j Ode would be just before or just after Octavian’s return to Rome in July of 29 B.C. for the first i time since Actium (1959, p. 52). j ! - : I This would have been a most opportune time for Horace to | have incorporated Egyptian ideas into a poem extolling ! i Octavian. | K. Scott is the best representative of the group of 1 i * i ! scholars who believe that Horace was utilizing these ideas j I in Carmina 1.2: J Horaz selbst hat sicher viel von Agypten gehCrt. zumal in den Jahren, die vor 28 v. Chr. lagen, in ! dem er diese Ode schrieb. Der kampf mit Antonius war gegen Jfgypten gerichtet» ein Kampf des Westens gegen den Osten. Augustus hatte bei seiner siegreichen Heimkehr die SchStze des Nillandes nach Italien gebracht. Tausende von rSmischen Soldaten waren in Jfgypten gewesen und mit dem Geist des Orients in Berflhrung gekommen. Die I groBe Getreidezufuhr von Jfgypten und der i allgemeine Handel muBte viele Jfgypter nach ! Italien» viele R3mer nach Alexandria bringen. Jfgyptische Kulte und Vorstellungen fanden in Italien Eingang und viele AnhSnger in Ost und West j (1928, p. 30). The Greek god Hermes had been identified with Egyptian Thoth by the Greeks having contact with Egypt since at least the time of Herodotus.31 "By ptolemaic times the identification became common property"32 (H. Versnel, 1974, p. 149). In fact, in Egypt, Mercury, or rather the god Thoth whom the Greeks identified with their Hermes, was not only a god but also a great king, that is, a god incarnate, according to G. Pasquali: i Solo in Egitto Mercurio o meglio il dio Thot che i Greci identificarono con il loro Hermes, fu non solo un dio ma anche un gran re, cioA un dio incarnato, mentre il concetto dell* incarnazione 3, chi ben guardi, del tutto estraneo alia religione romana (1966, pp. 182-183). The idea of Thoth as a king or the representative of I - the king is extremely ancient in Egypt; in fact, it is I communicated on the tomb of the Egyptian pharaoh Seti I, I j who ruled ca. 1312-1299 B.C. in the Nineteenth Dynasty.33 j R. Reitzenstein maintains that the identification of the ! Egyptian king with Hermes must have enjoyed a strong | revival during the Hellenistic period.34 Certainly the 64 j Ptolemies were themselves regarded as earthly images of I Hermes. He further asserts that the Hellenistic Egyptian I | kings wanted to be identified with Hermes so that their ' own laws would be considered as strong as those of Thoth: i Sie mufi* wie Philon von Byblos zeigt, in j hellenistischer Zeifc stark wieder aufgelebt sein. Die PtolemSer haben tatsSchlich als irdische Abbilder des Kdnigs Hermes gelten wollen, vielleicht, weil man zu aller Zeit dem I Sgyptischen KCnige nachrflhmte, dafi sein Gebote unverbrGchlich seien wie des Thot (1904* pp. 175- 176). K. Scott maintains that the Egyptian idea of Hermes was synonymous with the concept of basilebs sotfer as well as with the patronage over commerce* trade* and general I prosperity. As the people of Augustus1 time recognized* I ! flourishing trade and prosperity go hand in hand with i j peace and civilization: 1st es nicht mSglich, dafi die Sgyptische Vorstellung des Hermes gleichzeitig die eines Basilefts Sot6r war* eines Gottes der Zivilisation* der auf die Erde gekommen war* und auch die eines Gottes des Handels* Verkehrs und des allgemeinen Wohlstandes? Ich glaube sicher* dafi dies der Fall war; denn wie das Volk zu Augustus' Zeiten erkannte. gingen mit dem Frieden und der Zivilisation blGhender Verkehr und Wohlstand Hand in Hand35 (1928, p. 30). The reason for the close identification of the ancient Egyptian god Thoth and the Greek god Hermes can be i discerned from a consideration of the functions of each god.36 in the most general terms, the trait d'union between the two gods is that each creates order out of chaos. 65 ! Plutarch, in JDg. Iside et Osiride» expresses this | idea allegorically. The very myth itself is a prime specimen of the conflation between Egyptian and Greek mythologies. We can see this even at first glance in Plutarch's use of the name Hermes for Thoth and the Greek name Typhon for the Egyptian Set. In Plutarch's story. Hermes, who represents the element of reason in the myth, I I cuts out the sinews of Typhon who is a personification of t ( the destructive force in the universe, and uses them as ! chords for his lyre,37 whence are derived the harmonies of i j world-order.38 t ! This story brings together the most important i elements of the Thoth-Hermes personality: the aspect of reason as the force which civilizes. In addition, it is the god's capacity for l6gos from which stem his duties as patron of the art of oratory, messenger-herald of the J gods, and hence, recipient of the epithet pacifer.39 in order to use this power of reason, the god is said to have invented sounds, letters, words, and grammar. In Plutarch's myth, the god harnesses untamed forces I (sounds) and creates music. However, music cannot exist without numbers and mathematics, so he invents these j disciplines as well. Further, arising from these | disciplines are the science of astronomy and the invention i of the calendar. Thus, we see that the Hellenistic Thoth- ■ Hermes is also a bringer of civilization. Combining his 66 j characteristics of lftcios and civilizer. the god's most ! important role is that of the founder of social order. i i.e. the function of law-giver. A monarch wishing to | endow his rule with divine authority would logically ! associate himself with the god imbued with these » i I attributes. ! Diodorus Siculus, writing ca. 60-30 B.C.. has the , most complete descripion of the attributes of "Hermes" who is here a complete conflation of the Greek Hermes and the Egyptian Thoth (Bibliotheca 1.15.9 - 1.16.2): xLyaa^ao 6 ’ u it’ auxotj yaAoaxa xavxcuv xov 'EpyFiv, 6uaq>dp^) tpuaeu xexopnynydvov xpos exdvooav xSv fiuvaydviov uxpeAnaau xov xouvov fidov. | 1 6 . * Yxo yap xouxou xpcSxov yev xnv xe xouvnv j fiuaAexxov fiuap'dpujQnvac xau xoAAa x£3v avwviSyajv x u x e u v xp o a n yo p d as , xnv xe eupeaov xSv ypayydxwv y e v e a § a t xau | xa xepu xas xSv ■SeSv xuyas x a t §uadas S o a x a x ^ v a o ' xepu xe xns xffiv aoxpwv xd£eu)S xau xepo xns xaiv qjSoyywv a pyo vd as xau qnJcrews xoOxov xpBxov yev ea ^ a u x a p a x n p n x n v , i x a t xaA adaxpas eupexnv u xa p ^ a o , x a ' u xns eupuSydas x a \ 1 xns xepu xo crajya xpexodans nActaeus e xtye A n ^ fiva i.. Aupav ! xe veupdvnv xoorjaau xpdyopfiov, yuyncrayevov xas xax* j evuauxov tSpas* x p e ts yap auxov u xo a x n a a a d a t tpSoyyous, i o |u v xao gapuv xao yecrov, o§uv yev axo xou d e p o u s , Bapuv 6e axo xoO xei-ySSvos, Vsaov fie axo xoO eap o s. x o l xous "EAAnvas fiofia^at, xouxov xa xepy xnv e p y n v e d a v , uxep 2>v 'EpyTVv auxov (LvoyaaSau. xa-SoAou fie xous x-ep.u xov ’'Ooupcv xouxov e xo vx a s u ep o ypayyaxea a x a vx * auxi£ xpoaavaxouvoua§au xaL yaA uaxa xp'fa^au xt| xouxou ouygouAdju xau xfis eAadas fie Tb cpuxov auxov e u p e tv , aAA’ oux ’ AdnvSv, uaxep "EAAnvds ipaao. 1 The conflation between Thoth and Hermes-Mercury is further supported by A. Burton: i There is no ancient evidence that Thoth had | any connections with music in Egypt. He was. ! however, concerned with calculations. But although the Greeks were fully aware of the close connection between mathematics and music, it is 67 j probable that the association of Thoth with the j latter arose directly from his identification with Hermes. The lyre was in any case unknown in Egypt until it was imported from Asia during the New Kingdom. . . . There is no evidence that the Egyptians believed in exercising the body as well ! as the mind» as did the Greeks; and presumably there was no equivalent of the Greek palaestra. . . . Diodorus’ account of Hermes is obviously a conflation of Greek and Egyptian elements; while his association with wrestling and music must j come from the Greek tradition, the rest of his | attributes as Diodorus describes them may equally well come from the Egyptian Thoth (1972. ad Diodorus Siculus 1.16.1, pp. 77-79). The confusion concerning the respective attributes of Egyptian Thoth and Greek Hermes developed to such an extent that eventually some ancient writers even went so j far as to use the two names interchangeably to refer to I i the same god.^O As previously noted (supra p. 17). in the I ! fifth century B.C., Herodotus calls a temple of Thoth, a i temple of Hermes. By the time of Strabo, 64/63 B.C.-A.D. 21. the invention of astronomy which had earlier been attributd to Thoth, is now attributed to Hermes.2*1 i i j Plutarch, writing between A.D. 46 and .ca. 120, calls Hermes the god who invented writing in Egypt.2*2 Quintilian, educated at Rome in the second half of the I ! first century A.D., attributes the discovery of letters to ; Mercury, clearly interchanging the Roman god with his i | Graeco-Egyptian equivalent, Thoth-Hermes.2*^ And Aelian, A.D. 170-235, following Plutarch, takes the idea one step i . : ! further, saying that the Egyptians themselves call the god who gave them laws Hermes.44 i By probably the second century A.D., Hyginus shows j the complete transference of the invention of letters from ; having derived from the Egyptians to having derived from the Greeks. The inventor is no longer the Egyptian Thoth t : or the Greek Hermes, but is now the Roman Mercury.45 i | A further reason for Horace to have settled upon Mercury as Octavian*s divine aspect is bound up in Mercury's traditional role as pacifer. As messenger and herald of the gods, Mercury is often called upon to act as a mediator and conciliator of conflict.^6 I With the sacrosanctity of the herald, Mercury is always essentially a civilian and necessarily noncombatant; he is the god of commerce and ! communication, eloquence, mediation and j conciliation, of truces and the termination of j war. His caduceus is a symbol of the resolution ! of conflict, and ambassadors charged with ending | a war were named caduceatores from this distinctive badge of office. . . . Jupiter's 1 expiating agent is present in the function of | mediator-herald, and his mien is conciliatory ! (H. Womble, 1970, pp. 17-18). j j Though Mercury is summoned to earth in the poem with ; I ' ' ; the words patiens vocari Caesaris ultor (lines 43-44), the j clear implication of the function of Mercury in the Ode is j i not vengeance but, rather, the abandonment of vengeance. j The repetition of ultorem (line 18), ultor (line 44), and | i inultos (line 51) indicates that vengeance for Rome's ; ! i scelus is one of the main themes of the Ode. The scelus of Julius Caesar's assassination is an epitome of the more general crime of the fratricide of the civil wars, according to S. Commager. ! 69 1 The opening words of the poem iam satis (line 1) and ! the repetition of nimium (lines 17 and 37) combine with tandem venias (line 30) to connote the feeling that the vengeance has become excessive and that a savior is necessary to expiate the crimes, as S. Commager explains (1959): Jove's disapproval (line 19) of Tiber's excessive ! zeal seems to confirm Horace's hope that the ! Father has sufficiently punished his people (p. 39) .... In dispatching his peace-loving son, Jove declares his will: iam satis (p. 51). . . . [Thus,] the phrase Caesaris ultor (line 44) is by I its context rendered almost ironic (p. 47). . . . | For avenger to become expiator only one course is possible: Roman swords must turn against foreign enemies. The Caesaris ultor must transmute the type of Tiber's revenge, iactat ultorem (line 18), into punishment of the [inultos1 Medes (p. 51). The son of gentle Maia is to come down to earth, stop the | crimes of fratricide, and, by turning war toward the I ! Parthians who have as yet not received their punishment, I he is to foster internal peace among Romans. Almae filius Maiae, Horace's periphrasis for Mercury, clearly indicates the poet's intention to emphasize the I peaceful nature of the god and of Octavian in the poem, i j according to S. Commager. The epithet alma is used to j invoke Venus in Lucretius' Dg, Rerum Natura 1.2. She is ! also described by Lucretius as giver of peace to i | humanity.47 j As an intermediary between gods and men. . . j Mercury, like the Muses (in Horace's Carmina 3.4.41-42), is the vehicle of lene consilium . . . , though as the embodiment rather than the donor of it. Nor was his character inappropriate j to such a role. As patron of the peaceful arts of j commerce and poetry his statue won admission to the temple of C o n c o r d i a .48 next to that of the goddess herself (S. Commager* 1959* p. 49).**9 In his role as pacifer, it is Mercury's function as patron of oratory, as "the vehicle of lene consilium." which is his most important attribute. According to H. Versnel (1974, p. 150), the function of the Greek Hermes as locos, interpreter and "word" of the gods is for the j first time mentioned by Plato in the Cratvlus.50 For the j Greeks, logos was both speech and reason. Subsequently, in Roman times, this idea was mentioned often by the l Stoics.51 According to E. Bickerman, Horace chose Mercury as "interpres divom love missus ab ipso" (Virgil, Aeneid 4.356) because political life at Rome was dominated by : lfigos: Mercure fetait le Verbe, Logos. Parlant de 1'incarnation de Mercure dans Auguste, Horace pense au dieu d'Eloquence, d'argumentation, de persuasion (p. 16). . . . Au regne de force brute va succdder 1'empire e raison, de persuasion du Logos (1961, p. 18). Thus, we see that Horace, in choosing Mercury as the ; god incarnated in Octavian, is calling upon not only j Classical tradition but also upon religious ideas from the1 i i East. Although Octavian allowed himself to be worshipped in the East as a god, allowed a statue of himself to be set 71 up alongside the statue of Roma* and allowed himself to be called Augustus* he declined any traditionally Hellenistic epithets specifically denoting divinity and refused to be | worshipped as a god in Rome. He did* however* accept the j i closest Roman equivalent for the Hellenistic Greek soter. i | the epithet pater patriae, a title which Cicero had | equated with the appellation deus. A natural consequence of Octavian’s following in the Hellenistic monarchical tradition is Horace’s taking the mimicry* as it were* one step further. Horace cleverly identifies Octavian in Carmina 1.2 with Mercury, the Roman equivalent of one of the gods with whom the Hellenistic J kings identified, Hermes. The most pronounced identification between Hermes and i the Hellenistic monarchs took place in Ptolemaic Egypt. Thoth had been identified with the Egyptian pharaohs since at least the fourteenth century B.C. By the fifth century t I B.C., Herodotus illustrated the beginnings of a conflation ; between the Greek Hermes and the Egyptian Thoth. By the j Ptolemaic period, Hermes and Thoth were considered to be j virtually the same god. This conflation developed in the I Roman period into a Thoth-Mercury identification. i Armed with these Eastern ideas and steeped as well in his own Classical Roman conception of Mercury as . raessenger-herald of the gods* patron of oratory* and j pacifer* Horace utilizes these two concurrent traditions i i 72 concerning Mercury. Each tradition evokes aspects of Mercury which would be welcome characteristics attributed to a ruler. 73 NOTES j 1 Horace, Carmina 1.2.41-52: i "sive mutata iuvenem figura ales in terris imitaris almae filius Maiae patiens vocari Caesaris ultor: ! serus in caelum redeas diuque j laetus intersis populo Quirini. I neve te nostris vitiis iniquum i ocior aura j tollat; hie magnos potius triumphos, hie ames dici pater atque pinceps* neu sinas Medos equitare inultos te duce. Caesar." i • 2 We will see more evidence of this in Chapter 3. 3 See Appendix J for a list of Egyptian equivalents of Roman deities as recounted by Ovid. 4 Augustus. Res Gestae 21.1: "In privato solo | Martis Ultoris templum. . . feci." 5 Diodorus Siculus. Bibliotheca 6.1.2: '’exdpous 6e X e yo u a tv enuyedous y e v ea §a u d e o d s , 5e xas e l s avdpcoitous euepyEcrdas aSctvaxou TeTeuxoTcis T L y fi^ t e ^ x o l 6o'£ns, oCov 'H p a xX d a , A l o v u o o v , ’ A pLaxaC ov, xctL xous i aXXous xous xodxoLS 0'Uodous•,, i i and 6.2.1: t t [ " I l e p L S v ( 3 e 2 v ) e v t o i l s c j u y y p a t p a L S a u x o O X e y s L x a V o j A u d f i a i p o s o a o c p u x a T O S x a v 3 x a , o t l a v A p a u c o L y E y o v a a c v o l S e o l , o u a x u v a s o L a v S p w i i o L i s v o u d s o v x e s 6 l * s u e p y e a d c t v i a S a v a T o u s T t p o a r i y d p e u o v . " 6 Tacitus. Annales 4.56.1: "At Zmyrnaei. . . . seque primos templum urbis Romae stauisse. M. Porcio consule." | 7 Livy. Ab Urbe Condita 33.38.1-5: i i 74 "Eodem anno Antiochus rex, cum hibernasset Ephesi, omnes Asiae civitates in antiquam imperii formulam redigere est conatus. * . . Zmyrna et Lampsacus libertatem usurpabant, periculumque erat net si concessum iis foret quod intenderentt Zmyrnam in Aeolide Ioniaquet Lampsacum in Hellesponto aliae urbes sequerentur. Igitur et ipse ab Epheso ad Zmyrnam obsidendam misit et quae Abydi copiae erant praesidio tantum modico relicto duci ad Lampsacum oppugnandam iussit." ^ See R. Mello’rt S e’a * F m h n The Worship of the Goddess Roma in the Greek World* (GCttingen: VandenhSck & Ruprechtt 1975). Part II of the monograph examines in detail similaritie’s between the cult of Roma and the ruler-cults. 9 Plutarch, Titus 16.7 (378 C): "IIlcttuv 6e * PujyatTuyv oeBouev x a v y e y a X e u x x o x a x a v o p x o o s t p u X a a a e t v * y e X x e x e x o O p a u Z r i v a y ^ y a v ' P t o y a v t e T i ^ x o v a y a * P u j y a £ t o v t e I I l o t c v * u r l t e I l a o d v , 3 T o r e a f f i x e p . " 10 Plutarch, Titus 12.11 (376 B): 1 1 ctvaxL^eLS y ap eds AeXtpous acitySas apyupas x a t xov e a u x o t d u p e d v , ex^ypacj»e Z r y v o s t u x p a o i c v a u a u y e y a d o x e s d x i t o a d v a y a u x o t p o u , d a i Z x a p x a s T u v S a p d S a u B a a u X e u s , A d v e a S a s T d x o s u y y c v d n t e p x a x o v u i t a a E 6 E p o v , ' E X X c t v o j v x e d ^ a s n a t a i - v e X e u d e p d a v . " 11 Cicero, Ad Quintum Fratrem 1.1.26: nQuamquam has querelas hominum nostrorum illo consilio oppressimus (quod in Asia nescio quonam modo, Romae quidem non mediocri cum admiratione laudatur), quod, cum ad templum monumentumque nostrum civitates pecunias decrevissent, cumque id et pro meis magnis meritis et pro tuis maximis beneficiis summa sua voluntate fecissent, nominatimque lex exciperet ut ad templum et monumentum capere liceret, cumque id quod dabatur non esset inheriturum sed in ornamentis templi futurum, ut non mihi potius quam populo Romano ac dis immortalibus datum videretur, tamen id in quo I t i 75 erat dignitas, erat lex* erat eorum qui faciebant j voluntas accipiendum non putavi cum aliis de cau3is turn etiam ut animo aequiore ferrent ii | quibus nec deberetur nec liceret." 12 Inscription from Ephesus: "at it-oAsts at, ev xnt 'Aatat, xat ot {SnpotTj / Hat xa edvn Tduov ’TouAtov Pa'tofu ut] / ov Katcrapa, t'ov apyuEpsa xa't auxo / xpaxopa xat x& Seuxepov uira / tov, tov axo "Apsajs ■ xat *Aq>po6e(\r] / xns §eov exttpavfi xat xotvov toO / av$puittvou Btou aa)Tf^pa.l , (W. Dittenberger» 1917* no. 760). I Suetonius* Augustus 52: "Templa, quamvis sciret etiam proconsulibus decerni solere* in nulla tamen i provincia nisi communi suo Romaeque nomine recepit;" and j Tacitus, Annales 4.37: "Cum divus Augustus sibi atque j urbi Romae templum apud Pergamum sisti non prohibuisset." 14 See Figure 101 for an example of this practice. The moneyer Cn. Cornelius Blasio in .ca. 112-111 B.C. depicts a portrait of his venerated ancestor Scipio Africanus the Elder. 15 Dio Cassius* Historia Romana 53.16.5-8: I 1 e v t e to) naAaxt^j o Katcrap u x e t x a t E x s t to a x p a x n y to v l » e^XE , x a t T tv a x a t itpos xriv t o O 'PajydAou x p o E V o tx n a tv ! (pnunv n ^ o t x t a auxoO axo xou xavxos opous eAoBe* x a t 6 t a | t o u t o xav aAAo-5d xou o auxoxpdxwp x aT aX u p , xnv t o O xaAaxtou EXtxXnatv r i xaxayajyri auxot) taxE^. exel 6e xat, Ttj Epyu avra eueteXeoev, ouxtii'Sn xat, to toO Auyodcrxou ovoya xat irapa xfls SouAfis xat napa xo0 Sifpou £itd§Exo. BouXttQevtoiv yap a<pa>v tStais itais auxov xpoCTEtXEtv, xa't Tffiv ysv^To tuv Se^to xat sariyouydvuiv xa't atpouydvarv, o Katoap EitE^uyEt ysv tox^P^S * PojyvAos ovoyao’ -&Tivat, ataSoyEvos 6e oxt uxoxxsuExat ex xodxou xfls BacrtAstas i ExtduyEtv, oux^x’ auxou avxExotdaaxo, aXXa Auyouoxos a>S I xat xAstov Tt^n xaxa avSpwxous wv EXExAif&n* xdvxa yap xa i Evxtyoxaxa xat xa tEpcSxaxa auyauaxa xpoaayopEUExat. " I I 16 Suetonius, Augustus 95: "Primo autem consulatu ei j augurium capienti duodecim se voltures ut Romulo ostenderunt." I J 1 7 Suetonius, Augustus 7: "Postea C. Caesaris et deinde Augusti cognomen assumpsit, alterum testamento maioris avunculi, i alterum Munati Planci sententia, cum, quibusdam 76 censentibus Roraulum appellari oportere quasi et ipsum conditorem urbis, praevaluisset ut Augustus potius vocaretur. non tantum novo sed etiam amplior cognomine* quod loca quoque religiosa et in quibus augurato quid consecratur, augusta dicantur, ab auctu. vel ab avium gestu gustuve, sicut etiam Ennius docet scribens: 'Augusto augurio postquam incluta condita Roma est.'" 13 Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae 5.6.11: "Civica corona appellatur, quam civis civi* a quo in proelio servatus est, testem vitae salutisque perceptae dat. ea fit e fronde quernea." 19 Polybius* Historiae 6.39.7: " o^Betcie 6e toOtov xoe Ttap* oXov tov Beov o oco^ees is itarepa, xaY itavxa See toiJtuj tcoeeev auxov is t2 yoveC. " 20 Cicero. In Pisonem 6: "mihi. . . L. Gellius. . . civicam coronam deberi a re publica dixit." 21 Cicero. In Pisonem 6: "me Q. Catulus. . . frequentissimo senatu parentem patriae nominavit;" and Pro Sestio 67.121: "me. . .. quem Q. Catulus, quern multi alii saepe in senatu patrem patriae nominarent." 22 Livy. Ab Urbe Condita 1.16.3: "Deinde a paucis initio facto, deum deo natum. regem parentemque urbis Romanae salvere universi Romulum iubent;" and 1.16.6: "'Romulus’ inquit, 'Quirites, parens urbis huius, prima hodierna luce caelo repente delapsus se mihi obvium dedit t If • • • • 23 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 5.49.7: "Dictator reciperata ex hostibus patria triumphans in urbem redit, interque iocos militares quos inconditos iaciunt. Romulus ac parens patriae conditorque alter urbis haud vanis laudibus appellabatur." 21* Plutarch, Sulla 34: "oe y a p evSo^cJtcctoe hoe SuvcctcStcitoe x3v uoXetSv eaxEtpavajpEvou napEi^itovxo s ■ auixnpct xou, Ttaxfpa tov ZuXXav axoxaXoO vTES ." 25 Plutarch. Camillus 10: "itpoaflyov ou uaESss tov SESdaxaXov yu yvo v xoe 6e6e;i£vov itpoitnXaxE£ovT£s, tov 6'e KayuXXov aajxflpa xou itaxfpa hoe ■Seov dvawaXotJvxES." yy 26 Cicero, De. .Re. Publica 1.41 .64: "Non eros nec dominos appellabant eos, quibus iuste paruerunt, denique ne reges quidem. sed patriae custodes, sed patres, sed deos; nec sine causa; quid enim adiungunt?" and Pro Sestio 59.144: "video P. Lentulum, cuius ego patrem deum ac parentem statuo fortunae." I 27 Augustus, Res Gestae 34.1-2: "In consulatu sexto et septimo, postquam bella civilia exstinxeram, per consensum universorum potitus rerum omnium, rem publicam ex mea potestate in senatus populique Romani arbitrium transtuli. Quo pro merito meo senatus consulto Augustus appellatus sum et laureis postes aedium mearum vestiti publice coronaque civica super j ianuam meam fixa est." ; 28 xhe title pater patriae was not officially given to Augustus by the Senate until 2 B.C., but according to ! Ovid in Fasti 2.127, this was only the ratification of a ! title which had been long given him by popular usage: "Sancte Pater Patriae, tibi plebs, tibi curia nomen / Hoc dedit, hoc dedimus nos tibi nomen eques." Moreover, we see the usage of the appellation not only here in Horace's Carmina 1.2.50: "hie ames dici pater atque princeps," but also in his Carmina 3.24.27: "si quaeret Pater Urbium / subscribi statuis, indomitam ! audeat / refrenare licentiam." I ' 29 see Figures 89-91 for instances of Augustus J identified with Mercury; and see also Chapter 3. 30 See Appendix K for a discussion by scholars on J whether or not Octavian is actually an epiphany of Mercury j in this Ode. 31 in describing a certain temple of the god Thoth in I Egypt, Herodotus says (2.138): I i n <p£peu 6* es 'Epyeco i p d v . lf j 32 See Appendix L for a discussion by scholars who , disagree with the idea that the Mercury of Horace was I influenced by the Egyptian Thoth. 78 33 Inscribed on the grave stele of Seti I, as translated into German by H. BrGgsch (1891, pp. 451-452): "Du sei an meiner Stelle mein Stellvertreter. Warum^sonst heifiest zu Thot, der Stellvertrete des Lichtgottes Ra?" 34 See Figure 92 and Chapter 3 for instances of Hellenistic rulers identified with Hermes. 35 See also S. Commager, "Horace, Carmina, 1,2,” American Journal of Philology, 53 (1959), 53-54 for a similar view. 36 See general works on Thoth: C. Bleeker, Hathor and Thoth: Two Kev Figures of the Ancient Egyptian Religion, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973); S. Morenz, Egyptian Religion, trans. A. Keep, (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1973 from the 1960 German edition); A. Rusch, "Thoth," in Paulvs Real-Encvclopgdie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. ed. G. Wissowa, W. Kroll, and K. Mittelhaus, (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Vol. 6, 1937), pp. 351-388; G. Roeder, "Thoth," in AusfOhrliches Lexicon der griechischen und rSmischen Mvthologie. ed. W. Roscher, (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, Vol. 5, 1916-1924), pp. 825-863; P. Boylan, Thoth the Hermes of Egypt, (London: Oxford University Press, 1922). 37 Plutarch’s version of the creation of the lyre from the sinews of Typhon is reminiscent of the invention of the lyre from a tortoise shell with which the Greek Hermes and, subsequently, the Roman Mercury are credited. 38 Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride 55 (373 C): Hctu tov 'Epyriv yudoAoyoQouv i^eXdvxa toO Tuqitovos xa veupa xop6aCS xPnaaaSau, 6t , < 5acrxovTes is to itav o Ao'yos S^uapvooausvos odjKpaivov e£ otauijqjtJvaiv yEpffiv ercoifriCTE, xai rnv tpSapTLHnv oux oitwAeaev ctAA’ dveirnpuae SvJvayuv." 39 See Appendix M for an instance in Augustan literature of Mercury as bringer of civilization; see Appendix C for instances in Augustan literature of Mercury as patron of oratory; see Appendix A for instances in Augustan literature of Mercury as messenger-herald of the gods; see Appendix D for instances in Augustan literature of Mercury as pacifer. Plato appears to be the only ancient writer who carefully maintains the separate identity of Egyptian Thoth._„_He relates that-it-was—Thoth-of— Egypt-who-~invented- 79 j numbers, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, draughts and | dice, vowels and grammar, in Phaedru3 59 (274 C-D): ! , v - | " EJ2KPATHZ. Hxouaa T o tv u v itspt N au xp dT tv t p s A ty d itro u E x s t tiaAatuv T tv a SeSv , ou xcTt to opvsov to ts p o v , o 6^ xaA o u atv £ 0 tv * auT^j 6s ovopa t S S a tp o v t s J v a t 0 e u9 . t o u t o v 6 e itptuTov ap td p o v te Mat A oytapov e u p Et v Mat yEwpETpdav^ Ma't^ a c T p o v o p ta v , E T t 6 e UETTEtas t e Mat x u g E ta s , x a t 6p x a t ypappaTa. " ! and in Philebus 18 (B-D): I ; " IS2KPATHI. ’ E itstfip qjwvpv aitstpov xaTEuopoEV e u t e T ts $ e^ s e tT E xa't d E to s avSpwitos. i s Xoyos ev AtydnTw 0 etJ-& 1 Ttva t o u t o v ysvECrthxt Xdyujv, os TcpShros ta ipiovpsvTa ev t S aitEtpaj xaTEvdpaEV oux ev ovto aXXa u X E tu , xa't itdAtv ETSpa (ptuvns psy o u , <p3oyyou 6 e pETSxovTa x t v o s , d p t& p o v 6d T ty a x a t Todxtiiv e£vat* T p tro v 6 e e £5 os ypappaTwv StsaTpaaTO Ta vuv Asydpsva acpuiva pptv* to p e t o to u to St^ p E t Ta t e acpSoyya x a t aocova p s y p t e v o s E xaaT o u , x a t Ta <pu)vp£VTa xa’t Ta pdaa xaTa Toy auTov T p o ito v, ecus aptO pov auTSiy AaBwv s v t t e Exaary x a t C dpnaat ^cnrotXEEov j ExcuydpaoE • xa^opSv 6 e i s oudEts ppEBv o u 6 ’ 'ey Ey o uto I xad a u ro o v e u uavTwy auTffiy p a S o t, t o Oto u to v Ssapou a3 1 X oytoapE vos i s o v t o l y a x a t TtavTa TauTa f y hojs ito to u v T a p ta v etc* a u T o tS i s oScav ypappaTtxriv t e x 'upv ETEtp^Ey^aTO TtpOOEtlCliJy . " 41 Strabo. Geoaraphia 17.1.46 (C 816): j. "A syovTatSE x a 't aaT p o vd p o t x a 't <ptAdao<pot p a X ta T a o t j EvraOSa t s p s t s * xouxuiv 5* s a x t x a 't to xds ppEpas- UH xaT a asAilvpv a y s t v , aXXa xaTa p A to v , t o Cs x p ta x o v S p p d p o ts : SajSsxa ppcr'tv ETraydvxwv ndvxs ppdpas M ax’ e y ta u T o v Ix a a T o v * e t s 5 e xpv ExicXppajatv xoO oXou s v ta u x o O , ETttTpdxoVT°S j p o p to u T tv o s xns p p d p a s, Tispdoddv Ttya a u v x tS d a a tv e ? ! oXuv npspSiy xc^t oXajv Evtauxwv xoaodxaiv, oaa popta xa J EtttTpdxouxa auvEX-&o'yTa icotEt ppspav. d v ax tS d a at 6 e t 2 *Epp?j naaay xpv xotadxpv pdXtOTa ooqitay." ^2 Plutarch. Quaestiones Convivales 9.3.2 (738 E) ^ "K a t o E p p s ta s , ’ 'E ppTis,* £(pn, ’ XsyETat Qeuiv eu AtyditTai ! ypap p aT a epojtos E u p sty* 6 to x a t to t Sv ypappaTcuv A ty u itT to t itpCjToy Z B ty ypatpouoty, i s ’ Eppfi x p o a n x o u a a y , oux .op-9a)S xaTa yE ttiv sppy So^ay dyadfiaj x a \ dtp-9dyyy Ttposdpday e v y p a p p a o tv ditoSdvTEs. . . ^ 43 Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 3.7.8: . . ' inventa, ut artium in Minerva, Mercurio litterarum, ) medicinae Apolline. . . ,n I 44 Aelian. Varia Historia 14.34: "AuyuuTUod tpaou Ttap’ 'EpyoO Ta voyuya £xyououj-&rjvau 45 Hyginus, Fabulae 277: "Parcae, Clotho Lachesis Atropos, invenerunt litteras Graecas septem: A B H T I Y.; : alii dicunt Mercurium ex gruum volatu. quae cum volant ! Iittera3 exprimunt." i See Figure 93 for an instance of the herald j identified with Mercury on an Augustan coin. 47 LucretiuSf De Rerum Natura 1.38-40: "hunc tu» diva# tuo recubantem corpore sancto / circumfusa superi suavis ex ore loquellas / funde petens placidam Romani3» incluta, pacem." 48 puny, Naturali3 Historia 34.19.80: "Naucydes Mercurio et discobolo et immolante arietem censetur, . . . qui sunt in Concordiae templo Romae." I 49 See L. MacKay, "Horace, Augustus, and Ode 1.2," American Journal of Philology. 83 (1962), 168-177 for a similar view. 50 Plato, Cratvlus 407 E - 408 B: "EPM. *AAAa uounow xauxa, eti ye ev epoyevos ce uep'L ’Epyou, eueufin ye xa'u ou <pncruv KpaTuAos ’Epyoyevn e£vau. ueupdSye^a o5v x&v 'Epyfiv axeijjaaSau rd xa'u voeu to ovoya, C v a x a u e u S G y e v e u t u o d e A e y e o . M . ’ A A A a y ) i v x o D x d y e e o o x e u e p o A o y o v to e £ v a o o ' E p y n s , x a t .‘to e p y n v e a e S v a t , x a u to a y y e ^ A o v x a u to x A o u o x o v tc x a t , to a u a m A o v e v A o y o o s * c x t > to a y o p a a T o x d v , u e p ' L A o y o u S d v a y d v cctov u a c r a outti n u p a y y a T e d a * o u e p j o S v x a l ^ e v ^toos u poo%ev e A e y o y e v , to e o p e o v A d y o u y^peCa e a T O , to 6 e , o S o v x a t ' O y n p o s u o A A a y o D A e y e , e y n a a x o 1 ( p n c o v , toOto 6 e y r r x a v , f o a a § a d e a T o v . e 5 a y i p o T e p a j v o o i v % T o d x t o v tov to A d y e o v T e x a u tov A d y o v y y c r d y e v o v - to 6 e A d y e o v 6 y e c r r o v e o p e o v - toDtov tov ^ e o v ^ A a u e p e o ! e u L T C t T x e u n y C v 6 v o y o S d T r i s * A a v S p c o u o o , o s to e C p e o v 1 e y n c a T O , d o x a d w s a v xoAooto uuo u y S v E o p e y n s * v t S v 6 e f i y e C s , A s o o d y e d a , x a A A u i u d S o v T e s to o v o y a ’ E p y f l v x a A o t y e v * x a u n y e ^ ' I p o s < & i t o toO e o p e o v e a o x e v x e x A y y e v n , otl a y y e A o s ? i v . n 51 Ji.jg;. Cornutus, Theologiae Graecae Compendium 16: " T u y x a v e u 5e o * E p y n s , o A d y o s 5 v , o v a u e o T e o A a v u p o s n y S t s e £ o u p a v a O o u d e o d . " 81 and Varro. a£. Augustine, Dj Civitate Dei 7.14; "Mercurius si sermonis etiam deorum potestatem gerit, ipsi quoque regi deorum dominatur. . . sermo ipse dicitur esse Mercurius.1 1 82 CHAPTER 3 Artistic Representations of Mercury-Augustus as a Successor to the Hellenistic Hermes-Ruler Tradition We observe in the previous chapter that Augustus associated himself with Mercury as the Hellenistic kings identified themselves as Hermes. The following discussion serves as a tangible complement to the conceptual, intellectual evidence. The artistic identification of Augustus with Mercury also has its roots in the Hellenistic period. There are several extant examples of Hellenistic monarchs identifying themselves as Hermes, and this trend continues among the imoeratores of the Roman Republic, culminating (though not ending) in the Augustan portraiture. In the imitation and veneration of Alexander, the Diodochi copied certain characteristics of Alexander which had been ascribed to him by the sculptor Lysippos.l These characteristics of the Lysippan Alexander became a sort of iconographical canon for the successor kings and can be observed on extant portraits of the Hellenistic kings as Hermes. The Hellenistic kings commonly had themselves depicted with the heavenward gaze of the inspired ruler. In extant statues of the monarchs, we note a specific graceful turn of the neck which accompanies the inspired expression of the face. Another trait taken from Lysippan portraiture of Alexander and imitated by the successor kings is luxuriant hair which is abundant* rather long* and which i grows down the nape of the neck. The diadem, also first j popularized by Alexander* is tied around the head of the monarchs as a specific indication of royalty. Though individual personal features of the faces are somewhat idealized, the realism is prominent enough to identify the ; individuals. t j The stance of the body is commonly taken from the i I fifth century B.C. statues of Polykleitos which serve as i prototypes for the ruler1s body apart from the head.2 The characteristic pose is with the right leg straight* bearing the body’s weight, and with the left leg slightly bent* forcing a thrusting out of the right hip. ! Among the Roman Republican imperatores who are depicted as Mercury, the Hellenistic inspired-ruler look is retained, and the Polykleitan stance is still prevalent. However* another set of iconographical tbpoi I comes into play at this time. This is the set of physiognomic features which come to be associated with the ideals of Roman gravitas and concern for the res publica. Examples of these traits which would mark an individual as t ' a concerned citizen are signs of aging* such as wrinkles and sunken cheeks. Thus* at this period* we see a 84 blending of the Hellenistic-ruler ideals with those of j Roman Republican civismus.3 | In Augustus-Mercury portraiture, much of the i ; Hellenistic iconography continues uninterrupted. The gaze I of the inspired ruler remains as a characteristic common j to many likenesses of the princeps. As among the I portraits of Hellenistic rulers and among imperatorial statues, portrait heads of Augustus as Mercury are set on top of bodies formed on the Polykleitan model of the fifth century B.C. However, in contrast to the grave characteristics typical of Roman veristic stereotypes common to portraits of the imperatores. Augustan portraiture utilizes the softer, more idealized features of the Hellenistic tradition, j In addition to these Hermes/Mercury-ruler portraits i which are greatly influenced by the Hellenistic tradition, there is another style of Mercury-Augustus portraiture which may be characterized as almost purely Italic. An i | example of this trend in portraiture is the Mercury- i j Augustus on the Bologna altar. Though the altar is j certainly of Augustan date, the portrait iconography 1 displays no classicizing or hellenizing traits. The portrait head has Augustan features with no idealization. i Moreover, the body is dressed in a tunic, which is most uncharacteristic for a god in either the Classical, i , Hellenistic, or Roman Augustan style. This Italic 85 j iconography displays a profusion of Mercurial attributes ! in contrast to the sparing use of attributes characteristic of the Hellenistic style. The money-bag appears in the hand of only the Italic Mercury. Such a i ! depiction of Augustus-Mercury is logically found on an I I i altar from a city quite remote from Rome and which was i ! probably unaffected by the ideas of the mainstream j hellenizing artistic trends. A. Hellenistic Hermes-Ruler Depictions There is extant a handful of Hellenistic coins and i ( sculptures which display the ruler in the guise of Hermes. ! The earliest coin is a silver tetradrachm of the Seleucid king Antiochus II Theos, who ruled from 266 to 246 B.C. I (Fig. 94). On the obverse is the head of Antiochus II Theos, profile right, diademed, and with a wing of Hermes in the hair. j This type of representation is typical for Hellenistic I monarchs in several respects: the inspired expression, I the arrangement and length of the hair, and the diadem, I j all of which derive from the prototype of Alexander’s j portraiture (Plutarch, Alexander 4.1-2): J T n v u e v o t > v t 6 s a v x o u a w y a x o s o u A u e r u t i t s u o l j i d X c a x a x w v d v S p u d v x a r v e y t p c t o v o u c r u v ^ u < p ’ o 5 y o v o u K a o a u x o s y £ o o u ! i t X d x x e a ^ a o . K a o yap ( h} y a X o c r x a tioXXoo t£5v S o a S c J x ^ , u a x e p o v i t a i x S v q r o X u i v a i t e y o y o t v x o , x t f v t ’ d v d x a a o v x o O j auxeuos eos eutijvuyov nauxji KexXoyevou xao rn v uypdTriTa | ; 86 ! t Sv ouycxxujv Stctxetnprixev axpuguis o te xv l' t t is . S The heavenward gaze becomes an especially common trait in representations of Alexander. When Plutarch says that the Diadochi imitated I Alexander's look and poise of the head» this j tradition may be explained on the same supposition, i namely, that the representations of the Diadochi I were made under the influence of Lysippos' new, I heavenward-gazing type" (H. L'Orange, 1947. pp. 19- ! 21) . I The heavenward gaze is a feature of the type of the f inspired ruler in ancient art. The inspired ruler is a political motif which makes the ruler privy to a divine plan and guaranteed the success of all his undertakings. . . . He wins every battle, triumphs over every foe. and ensures the good fortune and prosperity of his dominion and subjects. He is the saviour. . . of humanity" (H. L'Orange, 1947, p. 12). I ; The relative length of Antiochus' hair is also typical ! of the successors of Alexander. Although often the Hellenistic ruler would be depicted with a purely divine coiffure, .i.e. a huge wreath of locks and hair flowing ! down over the nape of the neck in a most luxuriant way. !more often the length of the ruler's hair is longer than i j that of ordinary men, though not necessarily shoulder- !length, as we see here on the coin of Antiochus. i ! A wreath of hair showing above the diadem is also a |characteristic of Alexander-like glorification. The diadem itself, a band worn by Persian kings around the i | tiara, was adapted by Alexander into a white band with 87 decorated edges, and was then used by him and his successors as an emblem of royal power (L. Moritz, 1972, | p. 333). t j In Figure 95, we have a bronze statuette of a I Hellenistic ruler as Hermes found in Pompeii. The figure | is diademed, and its posture is Polykleitan. We also note ! the inspired expression of the face and turn of the neck, typical features of the Lysippan Alexander. The ribbon of a lost petasus is apparent under the figure’s chin to the i ! right ear, and the sandals are equipped with wings. The | caduceus which he held in his left hand is now lost. The I I classicizing body has a portrait head set on top of it in i j typical Hellenistic fashion. | M. Bieber argues compellingly for an identification of I ' the statuette as a portrait of the Syrian king, Alexander 1 Balas,4 who ruled 152-144 B.C.: i t | The ugly features - the bulging lower part of the forehead, the small, deeply sunken eyes, the vulture-like nose with its subtle curve and slightly pendent tip, the short upper-lip, and the flat chin - seem to agree with the portraits on the coins of Alexander Balas (1961, p. 84). ‘ i 1 Another coin displaying a Hermes-Hellenistic ruler ! j identification is a bronze which is of disputed date. I. i i Svoronos (1904, Taf. 31.34-36) and K. Scott (1928, p. 30) are of the opinion that the coin is of Ptolemy III Euergetes who ruled 246-221 B.C. (Fig. 96). However, J. i Chittenden (1945, p. 47) and G. Hill (1965, p. 123) I 88 attribute the coin tentatively to Ptolemy VI who reigned ca. 180/79-169/8 B.C. Whichever Ptolemy minted this coin of the city Phoenicia-Marathos, the ruler on the obverse is certainly depicted as Hermes. The ruler faces right* wearing a laurel wreath, and has a caduceus over his shoulder. The wearing of the laurel wreath seems to be a departure from the traditional diadem of cloth which the Hellenistic kings usually have around their heads. | Nevertheless, the facial expression is the wide-eyed J gaze of the inspired-ruler type as seen on the coin of Antiochus II. The portrait also features the hair growing i down on the nape of the neck. I Ptolemy III Euergetes is also depicted as Hermes on a j glass—paste gem in St. Petersberg (Fig. 97). On this gem* * Ptolemy wears the winged petasus of Hermes as well as the royal diadem, the ends of which are visible from under the i 1 petasus. The right-facing profile displays the heavenward-gazing look typical of the Hellenistic ruler. The hair above the forehead protrudes out from under the petasus, and the hair in back of the head curls luxuriously down the nape of the neck in the manner of Alexander and his successors. Ptolemy III Euergetes is also portrayed as Hermes in two extant sculptures* each of which was apparently produced in great numbers in Egypt (L. Voit, 1982, p. 89 495). One of these sculptures is a small bronze statuette | in Bonn (Fig. 98). t The figure stands nude with a chlamys around his chest. There is a wing of Hermes protruding from the left side of his head. (The one on the right is missing.) On the crown of his head there rises a lotus-leaf. In his heavenward gaze and long hair we see the traditional look of the Hellenistic monarch. Moreover, the curve of the neck and face turned slightly to its left, away from the axis of the body, are also characteristics of the Hellenistic ruler, based on the Alexandran prototype. The stance of the statue derives I | ultimately from the classical style of the sculptor Polykleitos. as typically seen in Hellenistic-ruler statuary. I The syncretism of the Egyptian lotus-blossom with these Hellenistic characteristics serves neatly to epitomize the coalescing of Hellenistic Greek ideas with ! ! those traditional to Egypt. | Ptolemy III Euergetes again appears in a statuette as ! Hermes, but this time it is in a group scene in which Ptolemy is successfully wrestling to the ground his , ■ barbarian victim (Figs. 99 A and B). We note the wings of ! 1 j Hermes on either side of his head, and again the lotus- i blossom rises from the front of his head. 90 I As on the Bonn statue, we observe the graceful turn of I j the figure’s head away from the axis of his body, and we | note the strength and movement of his stance. As in j depictions of Alexander, his gaze and deep-breathing mouth ; indicate blazing emotion. H. L’Orange describes the i | Alexander head in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek in Copenhagen in a way which is befitting our victorious Ptolemy III (1947, p. 14): I And still the balance of the features, the "angelic” beauty of the lineaments, is not j disturbed. The movement does not, seemingly, j stir any dim chaos of human instincts, but j travels through higher regions of the soul, i In the midst of the passionate activity I there is, as it were, a listening hush, as I though the person represented were possessed j by an inspiring idea. ■ Again, we have in a statue of Ptolemy III Euergetes a graphic mingling of Greek religion with Egyptian. The j Hellenistic ruler-type characteristics merge with the I Egyptian lotus-blossom which characterizes the king as i I i t AouToSdins, according to L. Voit (1982, ad. Taf. 17 and 18). In this wrestling group we have an identification of i I ! | Ptolemy III Euergetes as Hermes of the palaestra.5 j I ! j On a small bronze coin, Prusias II of Bithynia who J ruled 180(?) B.C. to 149 B.C. is depicted in the guise of i j Hermes. On the obverse of the coin, Prusias II faces | right, wearing a petasus. On the reverse is a caduceus (Fig. 100). Although the coin is quite worn, it is still J possible to discern the inspired ruler gaze and the long 91 I hair showing on the neck under the back of the petasus. I B. Roman Iraperatorial Mercury-Ruler Depictions i A Roman denarius of Cn. Cornelius Blasio (Fig. 101.) » which M. Crawford dates to 112 or 111 B.C. (1974. p. 68 | ff.), provides a pivotal element for our sequence. | According to H. L’Orange (1947, p. 49). the portrait of i j Scipio Africanus Maior on this coin is based on a monument j of Hellenistic type, dating from the second century B.C. I The coin does display Hellenistic features, most I I notably, the heavenward gaze common on coins and monuments : of the inspired Hellenistic monarch. The philhellenism which pervaded the life and politics of Scipio seems to be epitomized in this coin. However, we do observe on this I coin the more veristic traits common in Roman Republican portraiture in the prominent adam’s apple and in the | I furrow on the side of his mouth. j ' I ! Moreover, we see in the denarius a Roman trend which j ' 1 ; is derived from the Hellenistic practice. The caduceus j i alone, without any other attribute of Hermes, such as j i ! j wings or chlarays, serves to evoke an identification with j l the god. "The type of portrait and divine attribute converge towards the same idea: contact with heaven, j divine luck and saving power" (H. L’Orange, 1947, p. 49).6 92 ! In the same genre as the Scipio Africanus denarius is i i a glass-paste gem in the British Museum, tentatively identified by M. Vollenweider as Cicero’s son-in-law Dolabella (Text. 1974. p. 171)7 and dated to the middle of the first century B.C. (Fig. 106). Whomever the gem portrays, however, the likeness is certainly a portrayal of an individual as Mercury in the iraperatorial tradition. Depicted on the gem is a young man as Mercury with a caduceus at his back. The prominent cheek-bone and firm mouth and chin mark the young man with Roman Republican eravitas. The animated hair which radiates from the crown in a scattered whorl is an idiosyncratic feature of the man's portrait. However, it also curls around the forehead and down the nape of the neck toward the chlamys in the manner of the Hellenistic-ruler type. Moreover. i j his wide-eyed gaze shows this portrait to be set firmly in the Hellenistic-ruler tradition. Similar to the glass-paste gem of Dolabella(?) is a gem in the Metropolitan Museum which is usually identified j as a portrait of Marcus Iunius Brutus (Fig. 107) and is i dated to ca. 44-35 B.C. Like the DolabellaC?) gem, the Brutus gem depicts a veristic portrait rather than a i somewhat idealized likeness. We see this in the profusion , of deep furrows of the forehead, in the prominent adam's ! apple and cheek-bone, and in the long neck. Yet, the thrown-back head and wide-eyed upward gaze show that it 93 ! follows the Hellenistic tradition. There are no wings in j 1 the hair or chlamys at the neck. The prominent caduceus j is accompanied by a tortoise above it, which together I i evoke a Hermes-Mercury identification with Brutus. Another example of an imperator with Mercurial attributes is a portrait-gem which M. Vollenweider (Text, 1974, p. 145-146) tentatively identifies as CassiusS (Fig. 108). It is a left-facing profile of a middle-aged Roman. Before his neck is a money-bag. Behind his neck are the thunderbolt of Zeus and a star. Below his neck is a winged caduceus. In this gem we observe the veristic i ' traits of the concerned Roman, a finely wrinkled ! forehead and a closed, firm mouth. These iconographic characteristics are tempered with those of the I Hellenistic-ruler style, i.j,.» the typical inspired gaze ! and the hair combed in long, curved tufts which lie I loosely in tiers around the crown, and which curl luxuriantly around the neck. Like the Brutus gem, this | i gem of Cassius expresses the epitome of the imperatorial I 1 4. i ' i style. I I Ajax, a high-priest of Cilicia-Olba and governor of j i i Lalassis and Cennatis, A.D. 10/11-14/15, also represents j i j himself as Hermes on a bronze coin (Fig. 109). We observe ; i i j the portrait characteristics of the close-fitting cap and j i i ! earring, mingled with the Hellenistic chlamys at the neck I i aljong with the caduceus upright in front. 94 j This coin minted in a Greek city under Roman i domination displays both Hellenistic Greek characteristics as well as the more idiosyncratic portrait-style of the ! j Roman Republic as we have seen on the Scipio denarius and i | on the Brutus gem. Thus* though chronologically the coin I is of the Augustan period* in style it is better classified among the coins of the imperatores. i l I C. Mercury-Augustus Depictions In the Augustan art of Rome, there are extant several i objects on which Augustus is identified as Hermes-Mercury j in the tradition of his Hellenistic predecessors. S However, there is a new trend which takes shape in the Augustan period, that is, a reversion to a more classicizing style, a reinterpretation of works from the j fifth century B.C. The most important trend for this study is the | t practice of placing Roman portrait heads upon idealized I j j classicizing bodies. In addition, the portrait head is i : I also slightly idealized, conforming with the Hellenistic I i ruler-portrait, which is a softened though realistic | 1 ! j depiction, and which contrasts with the strong verism ! i i { ! characteristic of Roman Republican portraiture. i ; We observe this slightly idealized but realistic | portrayal of Augustus as Mercury on the Marlborough Gera i j (Fig. 110). A. FurtwSngler (1900. Vol. 1. p. 184. Taf. | i 38, Fig. 30), K. Lehmann-Hartleben (1927, p. 174, Fig. 3), I i | 0. Brendel ( 1980, p. 30), J. Boardman (1968, ad. no. 19), and R. Smith (1982, p. 199) all agree that this Mercury is also a portrait of Augustus. The protruding forehead, the large eye, and the sharply marked curves of both the eyebrow and mouth all point to Augustan traits. J However, according to A. FurtwSngler (1900, Vol.1, p. 184, Taf. 38, Fig. 30), the head seems simultaneously I to be an excellent reproduction of that of the Doryphoros | of Polykleitos (Fig. 111). The sculpting of the hair in ! long, flat strokes and the arrangement around the forehead and neck are similar to the technique utilized by | Polykleitos. ! Thus, on the Marlborough Gem, we have a successful blending of realism and idealization which is typical of Augustan portraiture. In Figure 112, we have a bronze coin of Augustus as Mercury of Spanish mint. The iconography of the coin ( reflects the Hellenistic-ruler style of softened realism ! I in portraiture. The hair rendered in long strokes, i j curling at the forehead and down the nape of the neck and 1 | the wide-open eye gazing slightly upward are all typically ; Augustan. The caduceus -behind the head is common among : the imperatorial Mercury-types as seen on the Scipio Africanus denarius (Fig. 101), the Dolabella(?) gem (Fig. 106)* the Brutus gem (Fig. 107). and the Cassius gem (Fig. 108). Thus* we see in a bronze coin of Spanish mint, though somewhat crudely rendered, a portrait of Augustus- Mercury blending the Hellenistic-ruler iconography with that of the Roman imperatorial tradition, culminating in its own distinctive style. A highly classicizing portrait of Augustus as Mercury is the ,tOctavianusl, by Kleomenes. the son of Kleomenes of Athens, in the Louvre (Fig. 113) which M. Bieber (1977, p. 188) dates to the year 30 B.C. According to 0. Brendel (1980, p. 36). the model of this figure is the Hermes Ludovisi (Fig. 114), a sculpture created ca. 460 B.C. "The change is confined to the face, otherwise the statue is a replica of the classical one" (0. Brendel, 1980, p. 37). M. Bieber (1977, p. 40-41) points out that the head on the statue by Kleomenes coincides with that depicted on certain coins of Augustus (Fig. 115) "minted between 36 and 29 B.C." (1977, p. 188). The head, like that on the Marlborough Gem, does not display the veristic style of the Scipio denarius and of the Brutus gem, but rather features the somewhat idealized, more classicizing style. Portrait traits of Augustus observable on the statue are a slightly furrowed brow, lean cheeks, and a large mouth. All this, however, is not rendered in the soft, plastic* Hellenistic manner* but rather in a graphic Classical style, which became more and more prevalent in the period of the emperor Augustus (M. Bieber. 1977, p. 188).9 Thus, in this statue of Mercury-Augustus by Kleomenes, we see a good example of the Hellenistic practice of setting a portrait head of softened classicizing style upon a body of a statue type from the Classical period.10 In the Farnesina stucco relief (Fig. 116 A), we again have an example of an Augustus-Mercury with a portrait head and a classicizing body. E. Brown (1963* p. 58* n. 1) dates the relief to the lustrum of 25-20 B.C., though E. Wadsworth (1924, p. 23) dates it to the period of Julius Caesar, and 0. Brendel (1980, p. 29) maintains that chronologically it corresponds with the final stage of the Pompeian style. E. Wadsworth (1924, p. 26) only goes so far as to state that the features of the head correspond with those of the Julian family, and R. Smith (1982, p. 199) is vehemently opposed to the view that the Mercury on the Farnesina stucco is Augustus, though his reasoning is illogical: "Rather the figure is just a plain Hermes with its head influenced by Augustus* portraits." The focal points of the Farnesina ceiling relief for j our study are two cornices which are supported by Hermes figures (Fig. 116 B). (The upper portion of the right- hand one is not extant.) The figures are assumed to be 98 j mirror-images of one another. Each figure holds forward a I i prominent winged caduceus, and each wears a heavy chlamys I j wrapped around the neck and hanging down the back, j The head displays the curving Augustan locks parted j above the right temple (Fig. 116 C). The forehead seems i ! to protrude just barely* and the temples are hollow. The nose is somewhat long* and the cheek is lean, i 0. Brendel especially relates the Farnesina Mercury- Augustus to the statue by Kleomenes,11 since both are extremely classicizing though also display portrait features on the head12. ! The final example of a Mercury-Augustus is one dated to the Augustan period by K. Scott (1935* p. 226). It is | a relief found on an altar in Bologna (Fig. 117), I illustrating the goddess Minerva or Roma leading the god Mercury. K. Scott (1935* p. 229) is fairly certain that the Mercury on the altar is also a portrait of Augustus, i i and K. Lehmann-Hartleben (1927, p. 173) is quite certain of it. As on the foregoing depictions of Augustus-Mercury, j the head is sculpted with recognizable portrait features. 1 As in the other likenesses, the brow here slightly bulges, and the nose is somewhat long. The energetic chin and distinctive mouth are also clearly those of Augustus. 1 However, in contrast, this Mercury's body is not portrayed in the classicizing style of the Hellenistic ! ruler. Rather, the figure is clothed instead of nude and. ) i j moreover, is dressed in a Roman tunic. Also in contrast to the classicizing practice of keeping attributes to a minimum, this representation of the god not only holds a winged caduceus, but also strides toward the goddess in shoes fitted with wings and holds a purse in his right i hand as well. I I | The money-bag which does not appear on classicizing or | Hellenistic Greek types, along with the tunic, the un- i idealized body, and the proliferation of attributes show this Mercury to be an Italic figure. The message is obvious and was probably clearly understood. The new ruler was expected to be a god of fortune bringing prosperity in the same way as Mercurius Augustus found on numerous votive inscriptions. The added portrait of the sovereign turns into an allusion of hope (0. ' Brendel, 1980, p. 36). t i I Enumerating the artistic depictions of Hermes/Mercury-rulers who precede Augustus, we can trace i the tradition out of which the Mercury-Augustus portraits I I evolve. The most important influence on the * ! ; i Hermes/Mercury-ruler type is the canon of characteristics ! j imputed to Alexander the Great in his portraits sculpted by Lysippos. In the statuary of the Hermes/Mercury-ruler, we see the standing posture made famous by the sculptor Polykleitos. The iconographic styles of both Lysippos and Polykleitos are carried out through all the chronological 100 | periods* from the death of Alexander through Augustan i I i times. i I The portrait heads, however, undergo stages of i I development from the somewhat idealized yet realistic features observed in the portraiture of the Hellenistic Greek rulers. The Roman imperatores retain the basic i J Lysippan iconography in their portraiture. However, they i I add to it certain marks of aging and stress derived from i I their Roman iconographical tradition in order to project i | the message that the portrait is one of a concerned, hard- I I working citizen of the res publica. In Augustan portraiture, the heads display a classicizing trend. The veristic iconography of the imperatorial style is softened and idealized as among the I I portraits of the Hellenistic Hermes-rulers. Moreover, the heads also show characteristics common to portraiture of the fifth century B.C. Thus, we see that the Hellenistic ruler as Hermes j takes artistic as well as conceptual form. Its use in art ! ; seems to have been fairly common; and certainly its significance was well-recognized enough that the Roman imperatores also utilized the allusion to Mercury to their i i own interest. For Augustus, then, it was a natural j ; progression to follow a tradition established by the I I | Hellenistic kings, and which was readily accepted by his i Roman Republican precursors and fellow imperatores. 101 } NOTES 1 Essential bibliography on the portraits of ! Alexander: N. Yalouris, M. Andronikos» and K. j Rhomiopolou, The Search for Alexander. An Exhibition : (Washington, D. C.: National Gallery of Art, 1981); W. | Radt, "Der •Alexanderkopf‘ in Istanbul," Archgologische | Anzejger, (1981), 583-596; G. Schwarz, "Triptolemos- Alexander," in Forschungen und Funde: Festschrift Bernard | Neutsch (Innsbruck: A M 0 E, 1980), pp. 449-455; H. I Niemeyer, "Alexander in Sevilla," Archgologische Anzeiger. j (1978), 106-115; K. Fittschen, Katalog der antiken • Skulpturen in Schloss Erbach (ZQrich: Gesellschaft fflr das | Schweizerische Landesmuseura, 1977), pp. 21 ff. = I Archgologische Forschungen, 3 (1977), 21 ff.; E. i Schwarzenberg, "The Portraiture of Alexander," Alexandre i le Grand (Geneva: Fondation Hardt, 1976) = Etretiens | Fondation Hardt, 22 (1976), 223 ff.; V. von Graeve, "Ein attisches Alexanderbildnis und seine Wirkung," Mitteilungen des deutsches archgologischen Instituts, (athenische Abteilung), 89 (1974), 231-239; R. Corchia, "Una testa di efebo del Museo Provinciale S. Castromediano di Lecce," Annali della facoltS di lettere di Lecce. 6 | (1971-1973), 133 ff.; J. Siebert, Alexander der Grofie ! (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972) = J Ertrgge der Forschung. 10 (1972); E. Berger, "Ein neue ! I Portrgt Alexanders des GroBen," Antike Kunst, 14 (1971), : 139 ff.; T. HSlscher, Ideal und Wirklichkeit in den i Bildnissen Alexanders des GroBen (Heidelberg: C. Winter, j 1971); E. Schwarzenberg, "Der lysippische Alexander," ! Bonner Jahrbucher des rheinischen Landesmuseums in Bonn. 167 (1967), 58-118; M. Bieber, Alexander the Great in Greek and Roman Art (Chicago: Argonaut Press, 1964), ■ especially pis. 8-9 for the Azara Herm; E. Harrison, "New 1 Sculpture from the Athenian Agora," Hesperia, 29 (1960), 382-389; G. Kleiner, "Das Bildnis Alexanders des GroBen," Jahrbuch des deutsches archgologischen Instituts, 65/66 (1950/1951), 206-230. ! 2 Essential bibliography on the Polykleitan style: | j D. Arnold, Die Polvkleitnachfolge: Untersuchungen zur I Kunst von Argos und Sikvon zwischen Polvkleit und Lvsipp | (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969) = Jahrbuch des deutschen ! archgologischen Instituts, Erganzungheft 25 (1969), j especially pp. 93-96. 102 I 3 For a discussion of Roman Republican portrait | iconography, see separate introductions to Roman ! Portraits: Aspects of Self and Society, by Frel, pp. ! 11-14, and by S. Nodelman, pp. 15-18. Los Angeles: Regents j of the University of California, Loyola Marymount University, and the J. Paul Getty Museum, 1980. 21 T. Schreiber, "Studien Qber das Bildnis Alexanders I des GroBen,” Abhandluneen der kCniglichen s3chsischen I Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften. 21 (1903), 272 ff. identifies the statue as Antiochus II Theos, 261-246 B.C. 5 L. Voit (1982, p. 144) is of the opinion that this wrestling group and the former statuette of Ptolemy III Euergetes as Hermes were so common that possibly Horace was familiar with them and used this identification in his poem. j 6 At this point, it is interesting to note that the i bust of Mercury with caduceus over the shoulder appears on several silver mintages during the last century of the • Republic. Since the moneyers could not put their own j portraits or the likenesses of any living Roman on a coin j of Roman mint, they used gods and symbols to project I messages. An example of this practice can be observed on a denarius of C. Mamilius Limetanus. On the obverse is Mercury facing right, wearing a winged petasus, and having the caduceus projecting from his right shoulder (Fig. 102). The reverse type of this coin, Ulysses and his dog Argus, taken with the obverse of Mercury refer to the • moneyerfs claim of descent from Telegonus, the son of i Ulysses and Circe and founder of Tusculura, and hence, from Hermes. The family of the Mamilii were from Tusculum (see Ovid, Metamorphoses 13.146). Generally, however, a likeness of Mercury probably I represents a hope or an exclamation of felicitas (See ! Figures 103-105). i j 7 Though perhaps not with compelling arguments. i I 8 M. Vollenweider points out that the symbol of the [ money-bag is characteristic of the Cassius family, citing ] Sydenham, no. 917, a denarius of Q. Cassius Longinus, ca. j 57 B.C. (Text, 1974, p. 145, n. 49). 9 M. Bieber is of the opinion that Kleomenes sculpted this Hermes-Mercury for Augustus ”in accordance with a ! passage in Horace, Carmen 1.2.44” (1977, p. 188). 0. J Brendel implies this as well (1980, p. 40). i ------ --------- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — --------------------------------- . i 1° The oratorical gesture identifies the Roman Mercury j here as L6cios. M. Brendel sees in this depiction of i Mercury a reference to the Egyptian Thoth-Hermes to whose descent Horace related the name of the new Caesar. Again image and poem meet. No other known monument approximated in the same ! manner Horace's conception of Mercurius- i Augustus. . . . Here finally Hermes becomes BasileQs Sot§r as he had been for the Pharoahs and the Greek Ptolemies (1980* pp. 36-37). As he relates the oratorical gesture of the Kleomenes Mercury-Augustus with the idea of the Egyptian j Thoth-Hermes* 0. Brendel also sees Egyptian influences in t the Farnesina composition. He points to the non-Greek beard of the ornamental sphinx which crouches atop the : epistyle as well as to its headdress in the shape of the trifoliate tiger-lily as Egyptianizing elements. Adding these features to the use of gods as telamons* Brendel concludes that even though they are Egyptianizing elements of the kind that occur also in the third style in Pompeii. . . . nevertheless we should remember that. . . the | redeeming god from heaven, he whom Horace , expected in the figure of Mercurius-Augustus, j probably had been an idea which had originated I in Egyptian religious thought. Once more is the { reference to form confirmed by content. It is not by accident that we encounter the son of Maia with the features of the new ruler of the world in these surroundings (1980, p. 35-36). 12 Moreover, Brendel further maintains that, as with the Kleomenes Mercury-Augustus, the image can be directly interpreted by the poem. ' It is not the deified human being that is the j subject here, for the god has assumed the features of the emperor. The god descends into the world i that is in need of order; he allows himself to be I called by human names, Caesaris ultor. Pater and Princeps, or finally Dux and Caesar. In the i picture the portrait is decisive; in the poem, the | name (1980, p. 32). i 104 CONCLUSION I » I 1 i I In this study, the attempt has been made to answer I the two questions posed in the introduction: what precedent is there for Augustus to be identified with Mercury; and what does Mercury represent by the first century B.C. that would cause Augustus to be identified I with him. i , We have considered artistic depictions of Mercury, j concluding that he is often shown with one or more of I certain animals, including the ram, the tortoise, the cock, and the scorpion. In the ancient Middle East, each of these animals connotes ideas of fertility and sexual | potency. Mercury himself evokes these same ideas with his characteristic attributes of the caduceus and wings, which i are often utilized profusely in representations of the god I of the Graeco-Roman period. As often occurs during this time, Mercury becomes a victim of syncretism. Thus, he is depicted on various gems with one or more of these i ' animals, in a piling up of attributes connoting similar ideas. By the first century B.C., we can assume that any likeness of Mercury, or even the caduceus by itself, whether accompanied by these animal attributes or standing alone, would evoke ideas of felicity. i i 105 j When we observe representations of Mercury having portrait characteristics of Augustus, we must be aware of the traditional background of the Hermes-ruler cult of the Hellenistic world. The successors of Alexander are not uncommonly portrayed as Hermes on coins and statuary, as we have seen. i For the Ptolemies, identifying the king as a god was j an easy task, since the pharaoh had been considered divine j since the beginning of Egyptian civilization. One of the l gods with whom the pharaohs had identified was Thoth who was considered logos incarnate, creator of civilization, and bringer of peace. Because the functions of Thoth | resembled those of the Greek Hermes, the two gods were i | equated with one another by the Classical Greek period and j j became subsequently conflated. By the first century B.C., J Thoth-Hermes evolves into Thoth-Mercury along with the i rise of Roman influence upon Egypt. Horace, in Carmina 1.2, patently identifies Mercury ] i with Augustus; in fact, he conflates the two into one i 1 i , being, a Mercury-Augustus. This metaphor is not a mere i whim on the part of the poet. Octavian's defeat of Antony ( j at Actium in 31 B.C., the end of the Ptolemaic kingdom, I j and the annexation of Egypt as a province were relatively j ' fresh events in the mind of the poet when Horace composed | the Ode. Horace takes advantage of the Egyptian religious j j ideas which were current in the early 20’s B.C. as a I 106 result of Octavian's victory in Egypt, and in particular. ■ of the Mereury-Thoth identification. Moreover, he also | calls into play the cult of the Hermes-ruler. prominent in Ptolemiaic Egypt as well as in other Hellenistic kingdoms. An association of Mercury with Augustus serves to imbue the rule of the princeps with notions of fertility, l i potency, and hence, felicity. The god's identification i ; with the ruler cult, stemming from Hellenistic practice and evolving through Roman imperatorial usage, lends the authority of tradition to the concept of Augustus-Mercury. 107 APPENDIX A Instances in Augustan literature of Mercury as messenger of Jupiter and the gods. Horacef Carmina 1.10.4-5: i j te canam. magni Iovis et deorura | nuntium. . . . I Vergil, Aeneid 1.297: I Haec ait et Maia genitum demittit ab alto, .... Aeneid 4.222-226: tam sic Mercurium adloquitur ac talia mandat: •vade age, nate, voca Zephyros et labere pennis I Dardaniumque ducem, Tyria Karthagine qui nunc | exspectat fatisque datas non respicit urbes, ! adloquere et celeris defer mea dicta per auras. Aeneid 4.268-270: ipse deum tibi me claro demittit Olympo regnator, caelum et terras qui numine torquet, ipse haec ferre iubet celeris mandata per auras. Aeneid 4.356-358: nunc etiam interpres divum love missus ab ipso (testor utrumque caput) celeris mandata per auras detulit. . Aeneid 4.377-378: | nunc et love missus ab ipso j interpres divum fert horrida iussa per auras. ! Ovid, Metamorphoses 2.740-744: I quae tenuit laevum, venientem prima notavit i Mercurium nomenque dei scitarier ausa est et causam adventus; cui sic respondit: ‘Atlantis 108 Pleionesque nepos ego sum, qui iussa per auras verba patris porto, pater est mihi Jupiter ipse Metamorphoses 2.833-837: Has ubi verborum poenas mentisque profanae cepit Atlantiades. dictas a Pall&de terras linquit et ingreditur iactatis aethera pennis sevocat hunc genitor nec causam fassus amoris ’Fide minister’ ait ’iussorum, nate* meorum. . Heroides 16.67-72: Obstipui, gelidusque comas erexerat horror, cum mihi ’Pone metum’ nuntius ales ait: 'Arbiter es formae: certamina siste dearum, vincere quae forma digna sit una duas!’ Neve recusarem, verbis Iovis imperat et se protinus aetheria tollit in astra via. APPENDIX B Instances in Augustan literature of Mercury as psychopompus, guide, and protector. Horace. Carmina 1.10.13-20 quin et Atridas duce te superbos Ilio dives Priamus relicto Thessalosque ignes et iniqua Troiae castra fefellit. tu pias laetis animas reponis sedibus virgaque levem coerces aurea turbam. . . . Carmina 1.24.13-18 quid si Threicio blandius Orpheo auditam moderere arboribus fidem. num vanae redeat sanguis imagini, qua in virga semel horrida. non lenis precibus fata recludere. nigro compulerit Mercurius gregi? Carmina 2.7.13-17 sed me per hostis Mercurius celer denso paventem sustulit aere; te rursus in bellum resorbens unda fretis tulit aestuosis. Vergil, Aeneid 4.242-244 turn virgam capit: hac animas ille evocat Oreo pallentis. alias sub Tartara tristia mittit, dat somnos adimitque, et lumina morte resignat. Ovid, Metamorphoses 11.307-308 non fert ille moras virgaque movente soporem virginis os tangit. 11 Fasti 4.539-540 Tartars iussus adit sumptis Caducifer alis, Speque redit citius, visaque certa refert. Fasti 5.399-401 Pleiade nate. mone, virga venerande potenti: Saepe tibi Stygii regia visa Iovis. Venit adoratus Caducifer. 111 APPENDIX C Instances in Augustan literature of Mercury as patron of oratory. Horace, Carmina 1.10.1-3: Mercuri, facunde nepos Atlantis, qui feros cultus hominum recentum voce formasti catus. . . . Carmina 1.30.5-8: fervidus tecum puer et solutis Gratiae zonis properentque Nyraphae et parum comis sine te Iuventas | Mercuriusque. i | Ovid, Metamorphoses 1.682-685: t Sedit Atlantiades et euntem multa loquendo ! detinuit sermone diem iunctisque canendo ! vincere harundinibus servantia lumina temptat. Ille tamen pugnat molles evincere somnos. . . . i Metamorphoses 1.713-716: i Talia dicturus vidit Cyllenius oranes 1 subcubuisse oculos adopertaque lumina somno; ! supprimit extemplo vocem firmatque soporem languida permulcens medicata lumina virga. I ! 112 APPENDIX D Instances in Augustan literature of Mercury as pacifer. Vergil* Aeneid 1.300-304: volat ille per aera magnum remigio alarum ac Libyae citus astitit oris, et iam iussa facit. ponuntque ferocia Poeni corda volente deo; in primis regina quietum accipit in Teucros animum mentemque benignam. Ovid. Metamorphoses 14.291-294: Pacifer huic dederat florem Cyllenius album: moly vocant superi: nigra radice tenetur. tutus eo monitisque simul caelestibus intrat ille domum Circes. . . . 113 APPENDIX E Instances in Augustan literature of Mercury as patron of commerce* profit* and thieves: Horace, Carmina 1.10.7-12 callidum*.quidquid placuit* iocoso condere furto. te, boves olim nisi reddidisses per dolum amotas, puerum minaci voce dum terret* viduus pharetra risit Apollo. Sermones 2.3.24-26 hortos egregiasque domos mercarier unus cum lucro noram; unde frequentia Mercuriale imposuere mihi cognomen compita. Sermones 2.3.66-68 accipe quod numquam reddas mihi, si tibi dicam, tune insanus eris si acceperis? an magis excors reiecta praeda quam praesens Mercurius fert? Sermones 2.6.4-7 . . . nil amplius oro, Maia nate, nisi ut propria haec mihi munera faxis. si neque maiorem feci ratione mala rem nec sum facturus vitio culpave minorem. . . Sermones 2.6.13-15 si quod adest gratum iuvat, hac prece te oro: pingue pecus domino facias et cetera praeter ingenium* utque soles custos mihi maximus adsis. Ovid, Metamorphoses 11.311-315 ut sua maturus conplevit terapora venter, alipedis de stirpe dei, versuta propago, 114 nascitur Autolycus, furtura ingeniosus ad omne, Candida de nigris et de candentibus atra qui facere adsuerat, patriae non degener artis. I Fasti 5.621-638 Hue venit incinctus tunicam mercator. . . et peragit solita fallere voce preces. Ablue praeteriti periuria temporis, inquit. ablue praeteritae perfida verba die. Sive ego te feci testera, falsove citavi non audituri numina magna Iovis; sive deura prudens alium divamve fefelli, abstulerint celeres improba verba Noti: et pateant veniente die periuria nobis, nec curent superi. si qua locutus oro. Da modo lucra mihi, da facto gaudia lucro, et face, ut emptori verba dedisse iuvet. Talia Mercurius poscentes ridet ab alto, se memor Ortygias surripuisse boves. i i ♦ I 621 626 638 115 I APPENDIX F j According to F. Wieseler (1864, p. 121, note 9)» the : earliest author in which the cock is brought together in a I I relationship with Mercury is Plutarch in Quaestiones I I Convivales 3.6 (654E-655A): "Aveu 5'e toutojv, x d v ’ exel Adyov aito S euitvou jiev n x o v x a y E y a v w y E v a v , &v outoj x d x p , orxs<pavov x o y d ? o v x a xau v u p u X E X P tp E V o v, aitoaxpaipE vxa x a i a.UYxaXu^cryEVOv x ad su d E U V , n yd p a s 6e xcti. 6 t a uectou x2v itpa^Eojv e x x?is ^uvaLxtovdxuSoc; x n v y u v a c x a yE xaxE yiiE O ^ac xpds xu x o o o u xo v fi upon, fidxnv a X E x xp u d vo s a w n X E X E a S a t; xnv y ap EcritEpav, 3 E x a d p E , xDv itdvwv avdxaucrov v ayo axE O V , xov 6 * op $p o v a p y n v* xau xn v y^:v o Auauos^ eitpaxoitEu Aodvucros iiE x a x n s ^TEpcJjuxopns x a l B a X E u a s , o 5e upos Tnv sp yavn v ’ A Snvav xat, xo v ayo p aC o v 'E p v n v E x a v d a x n a u v . 6uo xnv jiev 5>6oL xaxEXOuPi* x a l XopEdat, xac u y d v a to s . x S y o d x * E u X a x d v c t o xe xcxl n x n s o s - & p o o s a u A S v * x o v 6e x x d x o u ^ a o a x n p t u v x a u x p u a y o u x p o o ' v t u v x a l xeAwvoxSv E H o p d p o a u o L X E x p a y u u v x a u x n p u y y a x a x a X o u y E v a j v s i t u S d x a s n S E p a x s d a s x u v f f i v B a a o X d a j v n a p x o v x u v . Also according to F. Wieseler* the second earliest author in which the cock and Hermes are beheld together is in Lucian, Gallus 2: E y c l i 6e ' E p y o u x a p s S p o s ujv X a X o a x d x o u x a \ , A o y u a i x d x o u 3e33v a x d v x w v x a u x a a A A o t o y o d d a u x o s u y o v x a l a u v x p o c p o s o u x a ^ e T C “ S E y E X X o v E x y a ^ n o E a d a o x n v a v § p w x d v n v < p a i v n v . 116 APPENDIX G References in Augustan literature to Mercury as the god of the palaestra: Horace. Carmina 1.10.3-4: . . . catus et decorae more palaestrae Ovid. Fasti 5.613: . . . nitida quoque laete palaestra 117 APPENDIX H References in Augustan literature to Mercury tortoise: and the Horace, EDodes 13-8-10: . . . nunc et Achaemenio perfundi nardo iuvat et fide Cyllenea levare diris pectora sollicitudinibus Carmina 1.10.6: . . . curvaeque lyrae parentem Carmina 1.21.9-12: vos Tempe totidem tollite laudibus natalemque, mares, Delon Apollinis, insignemque pharetra fraternaque umerum lyra. Carmina 3.11.1-4: Mercuri, - nam te docilis magistro movit Amphion lapidis canendo, - tuque testudo resonare septem callida nervis Ovid, Ars Amatoriae 3.147: hanc placet ornari testudine Cyllenea Fasti 5.103-106: at tu materno donasti nomine mensem, inventor curvae, furibus apte, fidis. Nec pietas haec prima tua est: septena putaris, Pleiadum numerum, fila dedisse lyrae. Fasti 5.613: laete lyrae pulsu 118 APPENDIX I Mercury’s animal entourage and his association with Thoth and the ibis of Egypt is cleverly depicted by Martianus Capella (ca. A.D. 410 to 439)in De Nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii 2.174-178. (See Chapter 2 for a discussion of this connection.) The ibis, which is the animal form of the Egyptian god Thoth, is bedecked with Mercurial attributes, illustrating the complete conflation of Thoth with Mercury evident by this late date. The ibis appears wearing a petasus and holding a caduceus. Under its right foot is a tortoise and a threatening scorpion, and on the left of the ibis is a goat. The goat is goading a rooster into a contest: [174] venit etiam quaedam decens ac pudicissima puellarum, quae praesul domus custosque Cylleniae, verum Themis, aut Astraea, aut Erigone dicebatur; spicas manu caelatumque ex hebeno pinacem argumentis talibus afferebat: [175] erat in medio avis Aegyptia, quae ibis memoratur ab incolis. [176] sed cum petaso vertex atque os pulcherriraum videbatur, quod quidem serpentis gemini lambebat implexio; subter quaedam praenitens virga, cuius caput auratum, media glauca, piceus finis exstabat. sub dextra testudo minitansque nepa, a laeva caprea. [177] sed dilophon alitem, quae sit oscinum [im]mitior, in certaminis temptamenta pulsabat. [178] ipsa vero ibis praenotatum gerit nomen mensis cuiusdam Memphitici. 119 APPENDIX J Ovid. Metamorphoses 5.319-331: bella canit superum faisoque in honore Gigantas ponit et extenuat magnorum facta deorum. emissumque ima de sede Typhoea terrae caelitibus fecisse metum cunctosque dedisse terga fugae. donee fessos Aegyptia tellus ceperit et septem discretus in ostia Nilus. hue quoque terrigenam venisse Typhoea narrat et se mentitis superos celasse figuris •dux'que 'gregis* dixit 'fit Iuppiter, unde recurvis nunc quoque formatus Libys est cum cornibus Ammon; Delius in corvo est, proles Semeleia capro, fele soror Phoebi, nivea Saturnia vacca. pisce Venus latuit, Cyllenius ibidis alis.’ 120 APPENDIX K The question of whether or not Horace in Carmina 1.2 is representing Octavian as an actual epiphany has given rise to much scholarly discussion. The following is a chronological list and brief quotation of each scholar who holds the view that Octavian here is» indeed, an epiphany of Mercury: K. Scott. "Mercur-Augustus und Horaz C. 1.2,” Hermes. 63 (1928), 16: Auf die Frage der Interpretation dieser Verse, nach denen der Dichter in Augustus zweifellos eine VerkSrperung des Mercur sieht. K. Barwick, "Horaz Carm. 1.2 und Vergil." Philologus. 90 (1935), 265: SchlieBlich wird es ihm (Str. 11-13) zur GewiBheit, dafi Juppiter den Merkur mit der Aufgabe betraut hat. der bereits, um sie zu erfOllen. mutata fieura, als C§sar» auf der Erde weilt. T. Zielinski, "Le Messianisme d’Horace," L*Antiauitfe Classiaue, 8 (1939), 175: J’ai dgjS prononc§ la parole d§cisive: il s'agit d'une incarnation. Le dieu Mercure s’est incarn§ dans la personne du jeune CSsar. E. Bickerman, "Filius Maiae, (Horace, Odes 1,2,43)," La parola del passato. 16 (1961), 16: 121 Mais la vie politique, le Forum et l’Agora Staient dominSs par le Verbe. . . ^. Pour cette raison* le porte-parole du dieu supreme, ’interpres divom love missus ab ipso* (Virg. A. IV 356), Mercure §tait le Verbe, Logos. Parlant de 1’incarnation de Mercure dans Auguste, Horace pense au dieu d'eloquence, d*argumentation, de persuasion. C. Gallavotti, "II secondo carme di Orazio," La parola del passato, 4 (1949), 222-228: Per Orazio, Ottaviano h giA dio: A stato Mercurio stesso ad assumere il suo aspetto sulla terra, accettando di diventare il vendicatore di Cesare e di purificare il popolo dallo spargimento del sangue fraterno, per ristabilire la ruinante potenza dell* impero. . . ............................ L» expiator sceleris era giA tra il popolo romano, era Mercurio-Cesare, pronto ad involarsi di nuovo in cielo, e che per il bene di tutti doveva essere invece pregato di restare a lungo sulla terra. D. Pietrusinski, "Identifications fipiphaniques de la DivinitA avec Octavien chez Virgile et Horace," Eos, 65 (1977) 111: Mercure s'incarne dans le corps d'Octavien et s'identifie avec lui. La divinitA de ce dernier n'est pas fondle sur ses mferites et ses faits, mais sur les tiches A accomplir. Two scholars vehemently disagree with the idea that Horace means in the Ode to represent Octavian as an incarnate Mercury. J. Elmore sees Mercury rather as a deug praesens in "Horace and Octavian-(Car. 1.2)," Classical Philology, 26 (1931), 261-262: That Horace intended nothing of the kind is indicated in the ode itself. Thus in the use of 122 imitaris, verse 42 (to impersonate, assume the character of, as in Sat, ii.3.186), he revealed what he conceived to be the relation between Mercury and his human counterpart. This seems definitely to exclude the idea of incarnation .... In carrying out the scheme of divine intervention, it is to be noticed that Horace employs the idea of the deus praesens - the god who comes to earth, preserves his own personality, though perhaps in human form, and returns again to heaven, just as Mercury is to come and return. This was an old and familiar idea. Cicero, who refers to it more than once, (Verr. IV. 107; £.]). ii.4.6; iii.2), makes effective use of it in describing the rescue of the city from the intrigues of Catiline (Cat, ii.19.29; iii.18). H. Womble maintains that the incarnation of Octavian would have been offensive to Octavian in "Horace, * Carmina,* I.2," American Journal of Philology, 91 (1970), 23 and note 56: The present study suggests that Mercury has not been transformed into any contemporary human being, Augustus included. . . . And there is every reason to assume that stanza 12, where everything is explicit in its allusion to Mercury, would be offensive. Apart from the cloying sycophancy which the most generous allowance for fancy cannot explain away, the last entreaty (neve Jbe. . . ocior aura tollat) would make Augustus appear ludicrous. Mercury is of course a winged god (ales, line 42); his aviational prowess engaged the imagination of Vergil also (cf. the description of his swooping about in Aen., IV.245- 58). But the conceit of Augustus’ soaring off on the breeze seems frivolous to the point of impertinence. And the verb tollat might even awaken the memory of Cicero’s widely quoted quip about the young Octavian, laudandus, ornandus, tollendus (Veil. Pat., II,62,6; Cic. ad Fam. , XI,20,1). 123 APPENDIX L E. Bickerman disagrees that the Mercury of Horace was the Egyptian Thoth (1961» p. 11). He maintains that the gods of Egypt were killed at the battle of Actium. citing Vergil. Aeneid 8.698: "omnigenumque deum monstra et latrator Anubis. . ." In further support of his argument. Bickerman points to the fact that Octavian in 28 B.C. banned the establishment of temples to the Egyptian gods within the pomerium. Moreover, citing Cicero, De Natura Deorum 3.22.56, Bickerman asserts further that the Romans distinguished between the son of Maia and the Mercury of the Egyptians: Mercurius. . . tertius love tertio natus et Maia . . . quintus. . . qui. . . dicitur. . . Aegyptiis leges et litteras tradidisse. Hunc Aegyptii Theuth appellant. T. Gesztelyi aligns himself firmly with Bickerman and for the same reasons in "Mercury and Augustus: Horace, Odes 1.2," Acta Classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debreceniensis. 9 (1973) 78: While in the poetry of Virgil one can identify certain oriental ideas, Horace can be justly called by Wilamowitz "the most Greek of Roman poets." There is little likelihood therefore of his using oriental, or just Egyptian elements in an Ode otherwise dominated by the images of the Greco-Roman mythology: in the period of the decisive events at Actium there cannot hae been a more abhorred enemy of official Rome than Egypt and the Orient in general led by Antony against Rome (c£. for Verg,, Aen. VIII 685-). Octavian 124 expressed his dislike of the oriental deities even in official form by prohibiting their cult in Rome after his return from Egypt. How could "the most Greek" Horace have thought of identifying Octavian with Mercurius-Thoth just then? Some scholars think that Horace’s personal motives were the basis of his choice* namely, that he regarded Mercury as his patron. (See Carm. 2.7.13; 2.17.27; Sat. 2.6.5; etc.) "He probably expected the same good will from Octavian," maintains T. Gesztelyi (1973, p. 78), a strong supporter of this view. We can assert that Ode 1.2 can be fully interpreted also without referring to oriental elements. The identification of Mercury and Octavian does not reflect official ideology, but shows the personal feelings of the poet Mercurialis (p. 80). K. Scott (1928, p. 33), noting that the only certain pieces of ancient evidence linking Augustus with Mercury are the inscription of Cos and Horace’s Carmina 1.2, feels bound to agree with R. Heinze’s explanation of the identification, unless an influence from the Hellenistic Egyptian religion of Hermes is responsible, Horace himself invented the identification: Von einer Gleichsetzung des Augustus mit Merkur weiB die zeitgenSssische Literatur nichts, und Spuren, die man auf Inschriften zu finden glaubte, haben sich als trdgerisch erwiesen; neben der MCglichkeit, daB der Sgyptisch-hellenistische Hermesglaube die rBmische Augustusverehrung beeinfluBt habe, muB die andere offen blieben, daB H., dessen eigentdmlich nahes VerhSltnis zu Merkur uns bekannt ist, auf eigene Hand diese Gleichsetzung vollzogen hat (R. Heinze, 1917. p. 41 ad Carm. 1.2.41-52). 125 APPENDIX M An instance in Augustan literature of Mercury as bringer of civilization. Horace, Carmina 1.10.2-3: qui ferus cultus hominum recentem voce formasti catus. . . . 126 DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FIGURES Figure 1 Assyrian Glass-Paste Cylinder Seal Mus§e du Louvre. Paris: Inv. AO 6604 Ca. eighth - seventh century B.C. Five registers: A. Two persons in long dress, conversing with hands raised; another person with arms at his chest, regarding a man in short dress who holds a goat drawn to him; the goat turning his head toward a group formed by a lion, who ^ attacks another quadriped, and by a bull. B. Sacred plant which is approached on each side by four personnages in long dress, all raising their right hands except the first in line from the left, who wears a shawl which covers only one leg and whose two arms are drawn to his chest. C. Four deities with heads of animals approaching a pallet upon which lies a sick man; at the foot of the bed stands a fifth god upon an object which is in the form of a fish; in the field, a crescent, a star, a sphere, and another indistinct symbol. D. Five personnages, the last in short dress, raising his hand toward a god seated before the sacred plant; behind him, two other personnages; in the field, a crescent. E. A divinity in short dress in the infernal barque; and a winged(?) personnage and another personnage in the middle of creatures: a tortoise, two scorpions, a serpent, and a cock. Photograph: L. Delaporte (1920, pi. 93, Fig. 7). References: E. Van Buren (1936-1937, p. 27); and E. Pottier (1924, no. 122 and pi. 27). gi. K m r . , e 2 Palmyran Tomb Painting First half of first century A.D. The Evil Eye being pierced by an arrow and a dagger; around the eye, two birds, two scorpions, a crab, a cock, and a serpent. 127 Photograph: J. Chabot (1922, pi. 16, Fig. 3). Reference: P. Baur (1951, pp. 774-775). Figure 3 Roman Funerary Stele of Auzia (Algeria) Second or third century A.D. The deceased man and his wife standing next to each other, their son and daughter standing in front of them; the daughter holding a grape-cluster and a dove, the son holding a hare; in the oblong space between the feet of the children, the Evil Eye, reduced to powerlessness by a cock to the right, a snail below, and a scorpion and a lizard to the left. Photograph: D. Detlefsen (1863, pi. 8). References: W. Deonna (1959, p. 43); and C. Bonner (1950, p. 99). Figure 4 Graeco-Roman Silver Amulet Ca. third - first century B.C. Struck silver apotropaic medal having in the center, the Eye surrounded by a crocodile, a swan, a serpent, a cock, a dog, a lion, a winged phallus, a scorpion, and a thunderbolt. Line-drawing: F. Elworthy (1895, p. 130, Fig. 14). Reference: 0. Jahn (1855, no. 2). Figure 5 Graeco-Roman Silver Amulet Ca. third - first century B.C. Silver apotropaic medal, eyelet for suspension; in the center, the Eye surrounded by a crocodile or lizard, a thunderbolt, an elephant, a scorpion, a phallus, a lion, a dog, and a swan. Line-drawing: F. Elworthy (1895, p. 130, Fig. 15). Reference: 0. Jahn (1855, no. 3). 128 Figure 6 Graeco-Roman Silver Amulet Ca. third - first century B.C. Silver apotropaic medal* having in the center the Eye surrounded by a thunderbolt, a lizard, a phallus, a scorpion, a star, an elephant, a swan, a fish, and a serpent. Line-drawing: F. Elworthy (1895, p. 130, Fig. 16). Reference: 0. Jahn (1855, no. 4). Fi,g,ur? 7 A. Graeco-Roman Engraved Gem Archaeological Museum, Florence Ca. third - first century B.C. In center, the Eye surrounded by a lizard, a scorpion, a frog, a bee, a serpent, a crab, another bee, and a tortoise. B. Graeco-Roman Glass-Paste Gem Staatliche Museum, Berlin Ca. third - first century B.C. Depicted upon this gem is the group identical' to that on the above gem, 7A. Line-drawing (the same drawing for both gems): F. Elworthy (1895, p. 130, Fig. 17). Reference: 0. Jahn (1855, nos. 5 and 6). Figure 8 Graeco-Roman Sard Gem Ca. third - first century B.C. In center, the Eye surrounded by an owl, a serpent, a stag, a scorpion, a dog, a lion, and a thunderbolt. Line-drawing: F. Elworthy (1895, p. 131, Fig. 19). Figure 9 Roman Mano Pantea from Pompeii Museo Nationale, Naples: 5505/1737 First century A.D. 129 A hand in the attitude of sacerdotal benediction: the first two fingers and thumb extended, the fourth and fifth fingers folded down. Line-drawing: F. Elworthy (1895. p. 293, Fig. 136). Figure 10 Roman Bronze Mano Pantea British Museum, London: Collection of Rev. Payne Knight Imperial period before Constantine Li fe-size A. Front of hand: On the ball of the hand, a ram's head; in the palm, a ritual table to the left of which is a vase; below the table, a niche containing a reclining mother suckling her child. B. Back of hand: A large serpent with head rising above bent fourth finger, a frog between the index and third fingers, a crocodile between the thumb and index finger, a pine-cone on the tip of the thumb, a tortoise, a winged caduceus, a fig-tree, a cornucopiae, and a set of scales, as well as other objects denoting fertility. Line-drawings: F. Elworthy (1895, p. 318, Figs. 156 and 157). Figure 11 Mesopotamian Seal-Impression of Ur U.13884; SIS 4; Burnt stratum Jemdet Nasr Period Ca. 3000 B.C. Scale 1:1 A squatting nude female figure with widespread legs and arms and apparently dishevelled hair, flanked by a scorpion on either side. Line-drawing: L. Legrain (1936, pi. 47, Fig. 268). Figure 12 Mesopotamian Seal-Impression of Ur U.14152; U.14185; U.14654; U.18414; SIS 4 Jemdet Nasr Period Ca. 3000 B.C. Scale 1:1 130 A squatting nude female figure with widespread legs and arras and apparently dishevelled hair* flanked by a scorpion on each side; the stings of the scorpions turned against the woman's body; in field right, a star flower. Line-drawing: L. Legrain (1936, pi. 47, Fig. 269). Figure 13 Mesopotamian Seal-Impression of Ur U.18413; Pit W; SIS 4-5 Jemdet Nasr Period Ca. 3000 B.C. Scale 1:1 A squatting nude female figure with widespread legs and arms and apparently dishevelled hair, flanked on one side by a lizard and on the other by a scorpion. Line-drawing: L. Legrain (1936, pi. 47, Fig. 270). Figure 14 Mesopotamian Seal-Impression of Ur U.14009; SIS 4(?) Jemdet Nasr Period Ca. 3000 B.C. Scale 1:1 Marital scene: two figures involved in sexual intercourse, the one on the right, with raised left hand; to right, a scorpion. Line-drawing: L. Legrain (1936, pi. 49, Fig. 366). Figure 15 Mesopotamian Seal-Impression of Ur University Museum, Philadelphia U.14597; Pit D; SIS 4 Jemdet Nasr Period Ca. 3000 B.C. Scale 1:1 Marital scene: A woman bending over two pots which she apparently tries to lift from the ground; a second woman holding the first down by her tresses while a nude ithyphallic male, who has the head of animal, holds the 131 first woman from behind by the shoulders; both women wearing long hair and woolen skirts; behind the male» a child seated on low stool, holding up a round object; in upper left field, a second marital couple; also in field, a scorpion, a spouted jar. round pieces of bread, a crescent, and a curious checker-board of nine squares inscribed in a circle. Line-drawing: L. Legrain (1936, pi. 49. Fig. 368). Figure 16 Mesopotamian Seal-Impression of Tell Asmar Oriental Institute, Chicago: As. 32.934 Early dynastic layer Third millenium B.C. Marital scene: Two figures lying on a couch, at the head of which, a large jar from which project drinking-tubes in preparation for the feast which, according to the texts, followed the divine nuptials; at the foot of the couch, an officiating priest; below the couch, a scorpion. Photograph: H. Frankfort (1932/33, p. 48, Fig. 42). Reference: E. Van Buren (1937-1939. pp. 14-16. and Fig. 16). Figure 17 Roman Jasper Gem Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Kassel First century A.D. 1.17 x 0.94 x 0.27 cm. Jackal-headed Anubis standing facing, head to right, wearing short Roman tunic and chlamys draped across chest and right arm; holding a palm-frond in left hand; at the feet of the god right, a scorpion. Photograph: P. Zazoff, V. Scherf, and P. Gercke (1970, no. 144). Figure 18 Roman Heliotrope Gem Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Kassel Second century A.D. 1.45 x 1.13 x 0.22 cm. 132 Jackal-headed Anubis or Herraanubis standing facing, head to right, wearing short Roman tunic; draped over right arm, chlamys; holding in right hand, caduceus and in left, a palm-frond. Photograph: P. Zazoff, V. Scherf, and P. Gercke (1970, no. 143). Figure 19 The Gemma Augustea Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna Julio-Claudian Period 7.6 x 9.2 in. A. Close-up of the shield decorated with scorpion device. B. The upper register: Augustus, in the guise of Jupiter, sitting on a throne with Roma, being crowned by Oikumene; behind throne, Tellus and Oceanus; floating in the sky before Augustus, Capricorn; to left, Tiberius descending from chariot to do homage to the emperor. The lower register: Roman soldiers, in the presence of captives, erecting a trophy upon which hangs a shield decorated with a scorpion. Photographs: F. Bastet (1979, pi. 16 and pi. 15, no. 5). References: D. Strong (1961, p. 92, no. 45); and A. FurtwSngler (1900, pi. 16). Figure 20 Carthaginian Stele Mus§e Alaoui, Tunis: Cb-684 End of third - beginning of second century B.C. 0.49 x 0.19 m. Dedicated to'Bafal Hammon and Tanit. At middle of stele, the sign of Tanit with a rosette sculpted within the triangle, flanking which are two caducei; in register above, two lines of inscription within a cartouche, above which is a line of chevrons; in uppermost register, two confronted doves between which is an open hand. Photograph: G. Charles-Picard (1954-1955, pi. 83, Cb- 684) . 133 Figure 21 Carthaginian Stele Mus6e Alaoui* Tunis: Cb-585 Fourth century B.C. 0.49 x 0.10 in. Dedicated to Ba’al Hammon and Tanit. In middle register, the sign of Tanit with the triangle bisected and with each arm adorned with a beribboned caduceus; above the circle representing the head (here conflated with the solar disc), an inverted crescent; below the sign, a beribboned caduceus between four Greek letters. Photograph: G. Charles-Picard (1954-1955, pi. 71, Cb- 585). Figure 22 Carthaginian Stele Mus6e Alaoui, Tunis: Cb-227 (Inv. 393) End of fourth century B.C. 0.35 x 0.16 m. Dedicated to Ba*al Hammon and Tanit. At middle of stele, the sign of Tanit between two palms; in upper register, a caduceus mounted on a triangular stand. Photograph: G. Charles-Picard (1954-1955, pi. 35, Cb- 227). Figure 23 Carthaginian Stele Mus6e Alaoui, Tunis: Cb-643 Beginning of third century B.C. 0.32 x 0.13 m. Dedicated to Ba’al Hammon and Tanit. At bottom of stele, a caduceus, above which are four lines of inscription; in uppermost register, the sign of Tanit set upon a table with outward-curving legs; to far left, half a palmette with four stalks. Photograph: G. Charles-Picard (1954-1955. pi. 77, no. Cb- 643). 134 Figure 24 Carthaginian Stele Mus§e Alaoui, Tunis: Cb-660 Third century B.C. 0.30 x 0.13 m. Dedicated to Ba’al Hammon and Tanit. At bottom of stele, an open hand flanked on either side by a caduceus; in middle register, four lines of inscription; in uppermost register, the sign of Tanit set upon a table with outward- curving legs. Photograph: G. Charles-Picard (1954-1955, pi. 79, no. Cb- 660) . Figure 25 Carthaginian Stele Musfee Alaoui, Tunis: Cb-836 CC. 1240-D. 1271) Third - second century B.C. 0.32 x 0.22 m. Dedicated to Ba'al Hammon and Tanit. At bottom of stele, the sign of Tanit flanked on the left by an open hand, on the right by a caduceus; in middle register, two lines of inscription within a cartouche, the base of which consists of triglyphs and metopes, the upper border of which consists of a wave pattern; above the cartouche, a solar disc surmounted by an inverted crescent. Photograph: G. Charles-Picard (1954-1955, pi. 93, no. Cb- 836). Figure 26 Carthaginian Stele of Ain Barchouch Mus§e Alaoui, Tunis: Cb-934 (C.784) First century B.C. 0.96 x 0.25 m. Anepigraphic. At middle of stele, the sign of Tanit between two caducei; above, (rather indistinct) a lunar crescent with ends turned up and a rosette. The motif depicted here resembles those on ex-votos dedicated to Tanit-Caelestis. Photograph: G. Charles-Picard (1954-1955, pi. 97, no. Cb- 135 934). Figure 27 Carthaginian Stele of La Ghorfa Mus§e Alaoui, Tunis: Cb-972 (C. 752) End of second century B.C. 1.49 x 0.51 m. At base of stele, a sacrificial bull on whose back stand two squat figures with upraised arms which support the platform below the niche of the temple; flanking each side of the temple, a Corinthian column of archaic type; sheltered in the niche, a togate worshipper; ceiling above niche coffered, having a central ornamental rosette with crescents above and below it; in pediment, head of the goddess Tanit-Caelestis; in center of acroterium, the Genius of Caelestis surrounded by foliage, holding two cornuacopiae from which escape a grape-cluster and a pomegranate; on either side of the head of the Genius, a human head and a head of Hathor; above the Genius, a head within a garland, representing the goddess Caelestis; to left, Dionysus holding a thyrsus and a cantharus; to the right, Venus holding a garland. Photograph: G. Charles-Picard (1954-1955, pi. 105, no. Cb-972). Figure 28 Carthaginian Stele of La Ghorfa Mus§e Alaoui, Tunis: Cb-970 (C. 750) End of second century B.C. 1.87 x 0.40 m. At base of stele, within a niche flanked on either side by a palm tree, a god kneeling on a platform and brandishing serpents; at middle of stele, within a niche flanked on either side by Corinthian columns of archaic type, a togate worshipper; in pediment, a cock (G. Charles-Picard calls the bird a dove in describing this stele, but it clearly looks like the cock on other Carthaginian stelai, Figure 37); above the pediment, the central figure of Mercury, wearing a petasus and with wings on ankles, brandishing two cornuacopiae from which escape a grape- cluster and a pomegranate; above Mercury, the lunar crescent with points turned upward and a rosette; to left, Dionysus; to right, Venus holding an apple. 136 Mercury, here* appears in the position usually reserved for the Genius of Caelestis. Photograph: G. Charles-Picard (1954-1955. pi. 105. no. Cb-97 0). Figure 29 Italic Glass-Paste Gera Staatliche MOnzsammlung, Munich Third - first century B.C. 1.2 x 0.89 x 0.30 cm. Mercury, nude, standing front, head to left, holding in right hand, a purse; holding in left hand, a caduceus; perched on extended right arm, a cock; at feet right, a billy-goat and a scorpion; above them, a tortoise. Photograph: E. Schmidt (1968, no. 1201). Figure 30 Roman Carnelian Gem Staatliche MOnzsammlung, Munich: A. 2046 Augustan period 1.65 x 1.40 x 0.38 cm. Scale 3:1 On a grassy cliff, a young god standing facing (Mercury?), with chlamys hanging down his back, holding in right hand, a downward-pointing torch; holding in left hand, a ram's head; behind the cliff, a goat; in the upper field, a scorpion. (Feet of god and body of goat not extant.) Photograph: E. Brandt, A. Krug, W. Gercke, and E. Schmidt (1972, no. 2296). Figure 31 Roman Glass-Paste Gem Staatliche MOnzsammlung, Munich Early imperial period 1.44 x 1.14 x 0.34 cm. Mercury, nude, seated left on a pile of rocks; wearing winged petasus and with chlamys draped around left arm; holding in left hand, a caduceus; holding in right hand, a purse; perched on extended right arm, a cock; to right, a scorpion; to left, an indistinct animal. 137 Photograph: E. Brandt. A. Krug, W. Gercke, and E. Schmidt (1972, no. 3096). Figure 32 Roman Glass-Paste Gem Staatliche MOnzsammlung, Munich Early imperial period 0.98 x 0.94 x 0.46 cm. Mercury (head missing), nude, standing facing, holding in left hand, a caduceus and a corner of chlamys; holding in right hand, a purse; perched on extended right arm, a cock; at feet left, a billy-goat; in the field right, a scorpion and an elephant skin(?). Photograph: E. Brandt, A. Krug, W. Gercke, and E. Schmidt (1972, no. 3094). Figure 33 Roman Jasper Intaglio Cabinet des MSdailles, Paris: no. 1604 bis. = M 2754 Imperial period 1.4 x 1.6 cm. Mercury, nude, standing facing, head left, holding in left arm which is draped with a chlamys, a caduceus; holding in right hand, a purse; perched on extended right arm, a cock; at feet left, a ram; in the field right, a tortoise and a lobster (or scorpion). Photograph: G. Richter, (1968, Vol. 2, no. 112). Figure 34 Roman Glass-Paste Gem ArchSologischen Institut der Georg-August-UniversitSt GSttingen: Inv. G 292 First century A.D. 1.40 x 1.10 x 0.34 cm. Mercury, nude, standing facing, head right, wearing petasus, holding in right arm which is draped with a chlamys. a caduceus; holding in left hand, a purse; perched on outstretched left arm, a cock; in field left, a tortoise above a scorpion. 138 Photograph: P. Zazoff, V. Scherf, and P. Gercke (1970, no. 177). Figure 35 Roman Glass-Paste Gera ArchSologischen Institut der Georg-August-UniversitSt GSttingen: Inv. G 296 First - second century A.D. 1.2 x 0.98 x 0.20 cm. Mercury, nude, facing, head right, wearing petasus; holding in right hand, caduceus; standing upon two clasped hands (a symbol of Concordia); at his feet, a tortoise and a scorpion. Photograph: P. Zazoff, V. Scherf, and P. Gercke (1970, no. 179). Figure 36 Roman Carnelian Intaglio Staatliche MOnzsammlung, Munich: A. 2006 First century B.C. 1 .52 x 1 .04 x 0.3.4 Scale 3:1 Cock in profile striding right; above his tail, a bust of Mercury right, with caduceus over shoulder. Photograph: E. Brandt, A. Krug, W. Gercke, and E. Schmidt (1972, no. 2205). Figure 37 Carthaginian Stele Fourth - third century B.C. 0.25 x 0.17m. Dedicated to Tanit. At bottom of stele, the sign of Tanit, flanked to the left, by an open hand and to the right, by a caduceus; at middle register, three lines of inscription; in uppermost register, a cock in profile left. Photograph: J. Euting (1883, p. 158, no. 280). References: E. Vassel (1921, p. 48); and Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (1890, p. 283, pi. 139 38, no. 1948). Figure 38 Roman or Hellenistic Greek Silver Repous§e Plate Cabinet des MSdailles, Paris Mercury, nude, standing facing, head left, holding in left hand, caduceus, and having chlamys draped over right shoulder; holding in right hand, a purse; perched on a pillar to the left, a cock behind which is a tree; to the. right, a pillar upon which is a tortoise and in front of which is a buck. Photograph: A. Legrand (1918, p. 1819, Fig. 4961). Reference: C. Waldstein (1882, pp. 96-106). Figure 39 Italic Glass-Paste Gem Staatliche MOnzsammlung, Munich Third - first century B.C. 1.27 x 1.03 x 0.40 cm. Bearded herm in profile. Photograph: E. Schmidt (1968, no. 1228). Figure 40 Hellenistic Glass-Paste Gem Kestner-Museum, Hanover: Inv. K 515 Second - first century B.C. 1 .37 x 1 .08 x 0.51 cm. Herm of a beardless god facing, set upon a stand, clad in chlamys which covers its left hand; in the lowered‘right hand, a staff or club; slanted before the herm, the palm- frond of victory. Photograph: M. SchlOter, G. Platz-Horster, and P. Zazoff (1975, no. 180). Figure 41 Hellenistic Carnelian Gem Staatliche MOnzsammlung, Munich: acc. 93606 140 First century B.C. 1.68 x 0.81 x 0.35 cm. Scale 3:1 Ithyphallic herm in profile on base. Photograph: E. Brandt (1968» no. 627). Figure 42 Roman Carnelian Gera Staatliche MOnzsammlung, Munich: A. 2009 First century B.C. 1,29 x 1.09 x 0.21 cm. Diademed, bearded herm in profile on two-stepped base; behind herm, caduceus and palm-frond of victory in saltire. Photograph: E. Brandt, A. Krug, W. Gercke, and E. Schmidt (1972, no. 2206). Figure 43 Roman White Stone Gem Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna: Inv. IX B 632 Early first century A.D. 1.17 x 0.96 x 0.24 cm. Herm, the shaft with two arm-stumps, in three-quarter view, the bearded head right; to left, a large palm-frond of victory; to right, a jug (probably a victory-prize). Photograph: E. Zwierlein-Diehl (1973, no. 426). Figure 44 Roman Glass-Paste Gem Kestner-Museum, Hanover: Inv. K 1694 First century A.D. 1.33 x 1.04 x 0.35 cm. Bearded herm in three-quarter view on stand, having a large palm-frond of victory over his left shoulder. Photograph: M. SchlClter, G. Platz-Horster, and P. Zazoff (1975, no. 1023). 141 Figure 45 Roman Carnelian Gem Staatliche MOnzsammlung, Munich: A. 2097 First century B.C. - first century A.D. 0.78 x 0.62 x 0.26 cm. Scale 4:1 Two wrestling boys, the one on the left kneeling, having seized the head of the other, holding it down in a head- lock; the boy on the right, also on his knees, grasping the one on the left by his thigh; to the left, a herm with the palm-frond of victory; to the right, a bearded pedagogue, clad about the lower body, holding out a staff. Photograph: E. Brandt, A Krug, W. Gercke, and E. Schmidt (1972, no. 2396). Roman Carnelian Gem Kestner-Museum, Hanover: Inv. 1322 End first century B.C. - beginning first century A.D. 0.56 x 0.88 (with bezel) x 0.20 cm. Two wrestling boys, both kneeling on the ground, the one on the left holding the other around the neck with both hands and pressing down his head in a head-lock; behind the boy on the left, a bearded herm in profile with a long palm-frond of victory; behind the boy on the right, a bearded pedagogue clad in a mantle. Photograph: M. SchlOter, G. Platz-Horster, and P. Zazoff (1975, no. 1008). Figure 47 Roman Glass-Paste Gem Kestner-Museum, Hanover: Inv. K 862 End first century B.C. - first half of first century A.D. 0.98 x 1.09 x 0.18 cm. Two wrestling boys kneeling on the ground, the one on the right holding the other in a head-lock; behind the one on the right, a herm with the palm-frond of victory; behind the one on the left, a farmer wearing a short tunic and a flat hat, supporting himself with a stick, looking on. Photograph: M. SchlQter, G. Platz-Horster, and P. Zazoff (1975, no. 1010). 142 Figure 48 Roman Glass-Paste Gem Kunsthistorische Museum. Vienna: Inv. XI B 350 First century A.D. 1.12 x 0.87 x 0.27 cm. Scale 4:1 A nude athlete standing right, cleaning himself with a strigil; behind him, a herm; before him, a victory jug. Photograph: E. Zwierlein-Diehl (1973, no. 771 A). Figure 49 Roman Carnelian Gera Kestner-Museum, Hanover: Inv. K 865 First century A.D. 1.01 x 1.26 x 0.27 cm. Two boys in profile kneeling on the ground; the closer one with left foot forward; the farther one with left hand on the left shoulder of his friend; behind them, a pedagogue holding a stick; before them, a herm and a palm-frond of victory. Photograph: M. Schlflter, G. Platz-Horster, and P. Zazoff (1975, no. 1013). Figure 50 Roman Carnelian Gem Kestner-Museum, Hanover: Inv. K 864 First century A.D. 0.56 x 0.73 x 0.20 cm. Two boys in profile wrestling; the one on the right standing stooped behind the other who is kneeling on his right knee and has the left leg stretched out in front; before them, a herm with a palm-frond of victory. Photograph: M. Schlflter, G. Platz-Horster, and P. Zazoff (1975, no. 1012). Figure 51 Roman Carnelian Gem Kestner-Museum, Hanover: Inv. K 863 First century A.D. 143 0.90 x 0.91 x 0.18 cm. Two boys wrestling; the one on the right holding the other in a head-lock; to the right, a palm-frond of victory. Photograph: M. SchlOter, G. Platz-Horster, and P. Zazoff (1975, no. 1011). Figure 52 Roman Carnelian Gem Kestner-Museum, Hanover: Inv. K 860 First century A.D. 0.96 x 1.09 x 0.28 cm. Two wrestling boys, the one on the left holding the other, who is kneeling on the ground, in a head-lock; behind the one on the right, a bearded pedagogue clad in a mantle and holding a stick; behind the victor, a bearded herm near a tree. Photograph: M. SchlOter, G. Platz-Horster, and P. Zazoff (1975, no. 1009). Figure 53 Roman Carnelian Gem Kestner-Museum, Hanover: Inv. K 1159 First century B.C. 1 .05 x 1 .31 x 0.24 cm. Two cocks opposing each other in a contest, the victor standing proudly, the vanquished with deeply-lowered head; behind them, a herm with a beribboned palm-frond over his right shoulder. Photograph: M. SchlOter, G. Platz-Horster, and P. Zazoff (1975, no. 695). Figure 54 Graeco-Roman Mosaic of Pompeii Museo Nazionale, Naples: no. 9982 First century A.D. In the mosaic, the cock-fight is over, and the victor is raising himself to give a last blow to the bleeding and fainting vanquished. The fortunes of the cocks are 144 mirrored in the behavior of their masters. The one hastens to crown the conqueror, the other turns away from the sight, lost in grief. The two little slave boys follow the example of their masters - one bears a huge palm-branch, the other sobs bitterly. The background is a temple wall, in front of which stands a herm. Photograph: T. Schreiber and W. Anderson (1895. pi. 79, Fig. 1). Reference: E. Saglio (1877, pp. 180-181 and Fig. 213). Figure 55 Roman Relief from a Cinerary Urn Lateran Museum, Rome Imperial period To the right, a victorious cock accompanied by his master, who is a little boy, offers his laurel-wreath to a herm; on the table before the herm, two wreaths and five palm- fronds, trophies of former victories; on the left, the defeated cock being carried off, apparently dead, by its weeping owner. Line-drawing: T. Schreiber and W. Anderson (1895, pi. 79, no. 4). Reference: E. Saglio (1877, pp. 180-181 and Fig. 214). Figure 56 Italic Glass-Paste Gem Staatliche Mflnzsammlung, Munich Third - first century B.C. 1.36 x 1.00 x 0.30 cm. Mercury, nude, standing facing, head left, holding in right hand, a purse; holding in left hand, a caduceus; at his feet, a cock and a ram. Photograph: E. Schmidt (1968, no. 1200). Figure 57 Italic Glass-Paste Gem Staatlich MOnzsammlung, Munich: A. 633 Third - first century B.C. 1.43 x 1.15 x 0.33 cm. 1 45 Mercury, nude, standing facing, head left, holding in right hand, a purse; holding in left hand, a caduceus; perched on outstretched right arm. a cock; below, a billy- goat and a scorpion; above them, a tortoise. Photograph: E. Schmidt (1968, no. 1202). Figure 58 Italic Glass-Paste Gem Staatliche Mflnzsammlung, Munich Third - first century B.C. 1.31 x 0.96 x 0.25 cm. Mercury, nude, standing facing, head left, holding in right hand, a purse; holding in left hand, a caduceus; at his feet, a cock and a ram. Photograph: E. Schmidt (1968, no. 1199). Figure 59 Italic Glass-Paste Gem Staatliche Mflnzsammlung, Munich Third - first century B.C. 1.46 x 1.20 x 0.24 cm. Mercury, nude, standing facing, head left, holding in right hand, a purse; holding in left hand, a caduceus; at his feet, a cock and a ram. Photograph: E. Schmidt (1968, no. 1198). Figure 60 Roman Nicolo Intaglio Cabinet des MSdailles, Paris Imperial period 1.50 x 1.00 cm. Mercury, nude, standing facing, head left, holding in right hand, a purse; holding in left hand, a caduceus; wearing winged petasus and winged shoes; having chlamys draped from left arm; in the field, a cock and a tortoise; at his feet, another animal (ram or goat ?). Photograph: G. Richter (1968, Vol. 2, no. 113). 146 Figure 61 Roman Glass-Paste Gem Staatliche Mflnzsammlung, Munich Early imperial period 1.27 x 0.98 x 0.40 cm. Mercury* nude* standing facing, head left, holding in right hand, a purse; holding in left hand, a caduceus; before him, a cock, a ram, and a goat who attempts to climb a tree after a hare. Photograph: E. Brandt, A. Krug, W. Gercke, and E. Schmidt (1972, no. 3091). Fi&u.re 62 Roman Carnelian Intaglio Corpus Christi College, Cambridge Imperial period Mercury, nude, seated on ram walking right; holding in right hand, a caduceus; holding in left hand, a purse; in field before ram, a diminutive cock. Photograph: G. Richter (1968, no. 117). Figure 63 Roman Carnelian Gem Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Kassel First century A.D. 1.02 x 0.82 x 0.28 cm. Mercury, with chlamys spread across lap, riding chariot drawn by two cocks. Photograph: P. Zazoff, V. Scherf, and P. Gercke (1970, no. 68). Figure 64 Roman Glass-Paste Gem ArchSologischen Institut der Georg-August-Universit§t GSttingen: Inv. G 291 b First century A.D. 1.38 x 1.02 x 0.38 cm. 147 Mercury* nude, seated right on a pile of rocks, wearing petasus, holding in right hand, a caduceus; holding in outstretched left hand, a purse; on left forearm perches a cock; at his feet right, the upper parts of a billy-goat. Photograph: P. Zazoff, V. Scherf, and P. Gercke (1970, no. 171). Figure 65 Roman Glass-Paste Gem ArchUologischen Institut der Georg-August-Universitat GSttingen: Inv. G 298 First century A.D. 1*22 x 1.05 x 0.22 cm. Mercury, nude, wearing petasus and winged shoes, hastening right, holding in right hand, a caduceus; holding in outstretched left hand, a purse; before him, a cock. Photograph: P. Zazoff, V. Scherf, and P. Gercke (1970, no. 181). Eigure 66 Roman Glass-Paste Gem ' ArchSologischen Institut der Georg-August-Universitat GSttingen: Inv. G 294 First - second century A.D. 1.30 x 1.10 x 0.28 cm. Mercury, nude, standing facing, head right, holding in right hand, a caduceus, and having chlamys draped around right arm; holding in outstretched left hand, a purse; at his feet right, a cock. Photograph: P. Zazoff, V. Scherf, and P. Gercke (1970, no. 180). Figure 67 Roman Amethyst Gem Kestner-Museum, Hannover: Inv. K 190 Second century A.D. 1.25 x 1.03 x 0.44 cm. Mercury, nude, seated left on a pile of rocks against which he places his right foot; supporting his body-weight 148 with his backward-stretched left hand; holding in his forward-stretched right hand a lowered winged caduceus; at his feet left* a cock. Photograph: M. SchlGter, G. Platz-Horster» and P. Zazoff (1975, no. 1444). Figure 68 Roman Carnelian Gem Kestner-Museum, Hannover: Inv. K 189 Second century A.D. 1.33 x 1.06 x 0.46 cm. Mercury* nude, seated right on a pile of rocks, his left foot placed higher up than his right; supporting his body- weight with his backward-stretched right hand; resting his left hand, which holds a downward-pointing staff, on his left knee; before him, a cock. Photograph: M. SchlOter, G. Platz-Horster, and P. Zazoff (1975, no. 1443). Figure 69 Roman Amethyst Gem ArchSologischen Institut der Georg-August-UniversitSt GSttingen: Inv. G 144 Second century A.D. 1.23 x 1.05 x 0.48 cm. Mercury, nude, seated right on pile of rocks, his left foot placed higher up than his right; supporting his body- weight with his backward-stretched right hand; resting his left hand, which holds a downward-pointing caduceus, on his left knee; before him, a cock. Photograph: P. Zazoff, V. Scherf, and P. Gercke (1970, no. 176). .ElEMEfi 70 Roman Silver-Plated Relief of Neuwied Third century A.D. 1/8" thick In main register, Mercury, nude, standing facing, head with wings in hair to left, holding in right hand, a 149 purse; holding in left arm, around which a chlamys is draped, a caduceus; to left, a billy-goat; to right, a cock standing on a vase; in upper register, Mars, holding in right hand an inverted spear and in left hand, a shield; and Fortuna, steering rudder with right hand, holding cornucopiae in left hand. Line-drawing: F. Wieseler (1864, pp. 103-132 and pi. 3). Ei&ur-S 71 Etruscan Carnelian Scarab Ashmolean Museum, Oxford: 1892.1493 Fourth century B.C. 1.60 x 1.10 cm. Hermes, nude, standing facing, head right, holding caduceus in left hand, caressing with right hand a ram standing at his feet; in field right, a tall flower. Photograph: G. Richter (1968, Vol. 1, no. 746). Reference: A. FurtwSngler (1900, pi. 20, no. 17). Figure 72 Italic Glass-Paste Gem Staatliche MQnzsammlung, Munich: A. 921 Third - first century B.C. 1 .27 x 1 .01 x 0.29 cm. Mercury with chlamys draped around back and holding spear, riding ram to left; before him, a flaming altar adorned with fruit; behind altar, a tree. Photograph: E. Schmidt (1968, no. 1207). Figure 73 Italic Glass-Paste Gem Staatliche MQnzsammlung, Munich Third - first century B.C. 1.23 x 1.02 x 0.19 cm. Mercury with chlamys draped around back and holding spear, riding horse to left; before him, a flaming altar adorned with fruit; behind altar, a tree. Photograph: E. Schmidt (1968, no. 1208). 150 Figure 74 Italic Glass-Paste Gem Staatliche Mflnzsammlung» Munich: A. 641 Third - first century B.C. Mercury* nude, standing in three-quarter view, wearing winged petasus; holding in his lowered hand a small staff and in his outstretched hand a dish on which is a ram's head; before him, a caduceus standing upright. Photograph: E. Schmidt (1968, no. 1195). Figure 75 Italic Glass-Paste Gem Staatliche Mflnzsammlung, Munich Third - first century B.C. 1.14 x 0.80 x 0.36 cm. Mercury, nude, standing to right, wearing chlamys over shoulders, holding in right hand, a caduceus; holding in left hand, a ram's head. Photograph: E. Schmidt (1968, no. 1197). Figure 76 Roman Carnelian Gem Antiquarium, Berlin Republican period 1.00 x 0.80 cm. Bust of Mercury left, wearing winged petasus; chlamys around throat; caduceus standing out from back of neck; below, cornucopiae and the protome of a ram looking back toward the god. Photograph: M. Vollenweider (1972, pi. 148, no. 16). Figure 77 Roman Glass-Paste Gem Staatliche Mflnzsammlung, Munich: A. 545 Early imperial period 2.03 x 1.42 x 0.37 cm. Mercury, nude* standing with crossed legs; chlamys hanging down his back; before him, a column on which he lays a 151 dish containing a ram’s head(?) which he touches with the caduceus. Photograph: E. Brandt, A. Krug, W. Gercke, and E. Schmidt (1972, no. 3092). Figure 78 Roman Glass-Paste Gem Staatliche MGnzsammlung, Munich: A. 634 Early imperial period 1.32 x 1.00 x 0.44 cm. Mercury, nude, riding ram to left; holding in left hand, a caduceus; holding in outstretched right hand, a purse. (Head partly missing.) Details unclear. Photograph: E. Brandt, A. Krug, W. Gercke, and E. Schmidt (1972, no. 3098). Figure 79 Roman Glass-Paste Gem Staatliche MGnzsammlung, Munich: A. 638 Early imperial period 1.22 x 0.88 x 0.22 cm. Mercury, nude, riding ram to left; holding in left hand, a caduceus; holding in outstretched right hand, a purse. Photograph: E. Brandt, W. Gercke, and E. Schmidt (1972, no. 3099). Figure 80 Roman Glass-Paste Gem Staatliche MGnzsammlung, Munich: A. 639 Early imperial period 1.17 x 0.93 x 0.49 cm. Mercury, nude, riding ram to left; holding in left hand, a caduceus; holding in right hand, a purse. Photograph: E. Brandt, W. Gercke, and E. Schmidt (1972, no. 3100). 152 Figure 81 Roman Glass-Paste Gem Kestner-Museum, Hanover: Inv. K 194 First century A.D. 1.20 x 1.07 x 0.22 cm. Mercury, nude, wearing winged petasus, riding on ram to left; holding in right hand, a large caduceus; holding in outstretched left hand, a purse. Photograph: M. SchlGter. G. Platz-Horster, and P. Zazoff (1975, no. 793). Figure 82 Roman Glass-Paste Gem Kestner-Museum, Hanover: Inv. K 196 First century A.D. 1.02 x 1.31 x 0.22 cm. Mercury, nude, wearing winged petasus and chlamys fluttering behind; standing in a wagon (only the wagon wheel depicted) drawn by four rams; holding the reins, caduceus, and purse(?). Details unclear. Photograph: M. SchlDter, G. Platz-Horster, and P. Zazoff (1975, no. 794). Figure 83 Roman Carnelian Intaglio Mediaeval Department, British Museum, London (cannot be found) Imperial period Hermes, nude, standing right, head facing; holding in right hand, a downward-pointing caduceus; holding in left hand, a dish on which is a ram's head. Apparently a copy of a Greek statue of the second half of the fifth century B.C. Photograph: G. Richter (1968, Vol. 2, no. 668). Reference: A. FurtwSngler (1900, pi. 49, Fig. 6). Figure 84 Roman Carnelian Gem 153 Staatliche Mflnzsammlung. Munich Second century A.D. 1.31 x 1.12 x 0.33 cm. Mercury, nude, standing facing, head right, holding in right hand, a caduceus; holding in outstretched left hand, a purse; at his feet, a ram and a tortoise. Photograph: E. Brandt, A. Krug, W. Gercke, and E. Schmidt (1972, no. 2521). Figure 85 Roman Nicolo Gem (Fragmentary) Kestner-Museum, Hanover: Inv. K 186 Second century A.D. 1.40 x 0.75 x 0.24 cm. Mercury, nude, standing facing, holding in outstretched left hand, a purse; at feet right, the upper part of a ram. (Arm with chlamys and caduceus not extant.) Photograph: M. Schlflter, G. Platz-Horster, and P. Zazoff (1975, no. 1438). Figure 86 Roman Carnelian Gem Kestner-Museum, Hanover: Inv. 1972, 34 f. First century A.D. Mercury, nude, seated right on pile of rocks; holding in right arm, which is draped with chlamys, a caduceus; holding in outstretched left hand, a purse; in hair, a wing or a ribbon-end; below his right foot, a tortoise; before and behind him, an eight-pointed star. Photograph: M. Schlflter, G. Platz-Horster, and P. Zazoff (1975, no. 792). Figure 87 Gold Stater of T. Quinctius Flamininus Struck in Greece, perhaps Chalcis Ca. 196 - 194 B.C. Found in Sicily Perhaps the seventh specimen known 154 Obverse: Bare head of Flamininus, right, having the dishevelled hair and upward gaze typical of the successors of Alexander the Great. Reverse: Winged Nike standing facing, a type derived from the gold staters of Alexander the Great. Photograph: J. Tompkins (1983, p. 218, no. 109). Reference: M. Crawford (1974, p. 244, no. 548). Figure 88 Egyptian Temple Painting of Augustus as Pharaoh Philae, Temple K Ca. late first century B.C. Augustus as pharaoh standing right, being anointed by two sets of hands. Photograph: L. Taylor (1931, p. 144, Fig. 22). Figure 89 Roman Glass-Paste Gem Kestner-Museum, Hanover: Inv. K 1270 Ca. 40 B.C. 1.29 x 1.12 x 0.24 cm. Youthful head of a man (Octavian?) in profile left between two cornuacopiae which are placed over a winged foot of Mercury standing upon a dolphin and a caduceus. Photograph: M. SchlQter, G. Platz-Horster, and P. Zazoff (1975, no. 603). Figure 90 Silver Denarius of Octavian Struck in Bithynia(?) - Nicomedia or NicaeaX?) Ca. 35 - 27 B.C. Obverse: Bare head of Octavian, right. Reverse: Mercury seated right on pile of rocks spread with chlamys; hanging on neck, petasus(?); on feet, talaria; holding on lap, lyre with four strings. Photographs: (Obverse) A. Banti and L. Simonetti (1974, Vol. 5, p. 67, no. 406). (Reverse) M. Vollenweider (1972, pi. 160, 155 Fig. 6). Reference: H. Mattingly and E. Sydenham (1923, Vol. 1, p. 98, no. 597 and pi. 14, Fig. 15). Figure 91 Bronze As of Augustus Struck in Byzacene - Leptis Minor Ca. 8 B.C. Obverse: Bare head of Augustus, left. Reverse: Bust of Mercury, left, wearing paludamentum and winged petasus; behind shoulder, winged caduceus. Line-drawings: A. Banti and L. Simonetti (1975, Vol. 7, p. 299, no. 1647). Hellenistic Carnelian Gem Staatliche Mflnzsammlung, Munich: A. 1519 Second - first century B.C. 1.80 x 1.71 x 0.20 cm. Scale 2:1 Echeloned double-portrait of a Ptolemaic ruling couple(?)» both with headdress and diadem; female headdress, portrayed in the foreground, depicted with six-rayed star; behind the pair, a six-rayed star, a cornucopiae, a crescent, and a caduceus standing out from their backs. Photograph: E. Brandt (1968, no. 377). Figure 93 Gold Aureus of Augustus Struck by M. Sanquinius 17 B.C. Obverse: Young, idealized head of Julius Caesar, right, with comet on head. Reverse: A herald, a priest of the college of the Salii or Fetiales, wearing a helmet with two plumes, holding a round shield and a caduceus, announcing the imminent opening of the Ludi Saeculares. Photograph: A. Banti and L. Simonetti (1972, Vol. 1, no. 20) . 156 Figure 94 Silver Tetradrachm of Antiochus II Theos 266 - 246 B.C. Obverse: Diademed head of Antiochus II as Hermes, right, having wing in hair. Reverse: Apollo seated left on omphalos; in exergue, horse feeding left. Photograph: P. Gardiner and R. Poole (1878, p. 14, no. 5- 7 and pi. 5, Fig. 2). Reference: G. MacDonald (1903, p. 102). Figure 95 Hellenistic Bronze Statuette of Alexander Balas, from Pompeii Museo Nationale, Naples 152 - 144 B.C. Portrait-statue of Alexander Balas with diadem in his hair, represented as Hermes; wings attached to his sandals; the ribbon for the lost petasus preserved from his chin to the right ear. (The caduceus which he originally held in his right hand is not extant.) Photographs: M. Bieber (1961, p. 84 and Figs. 299-300). References: J. Chittenden (1945, p. 46 and pi. 9, Fig. 9, as Antiochus II Theos); and T. Shreiber (1903, p. 272 ff., as Antiochos II Theos). Figure 96 Hellenistic Bronze Coin of Ptolemy III Euergetes(?) Struck in Phoenicia-Marathos 246 - 221 B.C. Obverse: Bust of Ptolemy III Euergetes(?), right, as Hermes, laureate and draped with chlamys, having caduceus over shoulder. Reverse: Marathos, beardless, standing left, with drapery about the middle of body and over left arm; holding in right hand, aphlaston. Photograph: I. Svoronos (1904, Vol. 2, no. 1085 and pi. 31, Fig. 36. References: G. Hill and H. Grueber (1965, p. 123, no. 20 and pi. 5, Figs. 9 and 10, as Ptolemy VI); J. Chittenden (1945, p. 47, as Ptolemy VI); and 157 K. Scott (1928, p. 30). Figure 97 Hellenistic Glass-Paste Gem of Ptolemy III Eurgetes Ermitage, St* Petersberg 246 - 221 B.C. Head of Ptolemy III Euergetes, right, as Hermes, wearing winged petasus, under which the ends of the royal diadem are visible. Photograph: A. FurtwSngler (1900, Vol. 1, p. 158 and pi. 32, Fig. 24). References: J. Chittenden (1945, pp. 46-47); and K. Scott (1928, p. 30). Figure 98 Hellenistic Bronze Statuette of Ptolemy III Euergetes, from Egypt Akademischen Kunstmuseum, Bonn: Inv. C 301 246 - 221 B.C. Ht.: 22 cm. Ptolemy III Euergetes, as Hermes, clad only in chlamys draped around chest and shoulders, having two small wings in his hair (the one on the right, only partially extant); at crown of head, a lotus-blossom. Photograph: K. Vierneisel and P. Zanker (1979, p. 74, pi. 81). Reference: L. Voit (1982, pp. 494-495 and pis. 19 and 20) . Figure 99 Hellenistic Wrestling Group, Including Ptolemy III Euergetes as Hermes of the Palaestra Antikenmuseum, Istanbul: Inv. 50 Third century B.C. Ht. without stand: 25 cm. Ptolemy III Euergetes as Hermes of the Palaestra, effortlessly wrestling to the ground a barbarian opponent; having wings of Hermes on either side of the head; with lotus-blossom rising from the front of his head. 158 Photographs: L. Voit (1982, p. 495 and pis. 17 and 18 A). Figure 100 Hellenistic Bronze Coin of Prusias II of Bithynia 180(?) - 149 B.C. Obverse: Head of Prusias II, as Hermes, right, wearing petasus. Reverse: Caduceus. Photograph: W. Wroth and S. Poole (1964, p. 211, no. 19 and pi. 38,. Fig. 7). Reference: J. Chittenden (1945, p. 47 and pi. 9, Fig. 10) . Figure 101 Silver Denarius of Cn. Cornelius Blasio American Numismatic Society, New York Ca. 112 - 111 B.C. Helmeted head of Scipio Africanus Maior, right, with Hellenistic heavenward gaze, and displaying Republican veristic traits of prominent adam’s apple and deep furrow at side of mouth; behind, caduceus. Photograph: M. Vollenweider (1972, pi. 40, Fig. 6). References: M. Crawford (1974, p. 68 ff. and no. 296/1A); and H. L’Orange (1947, p. 49). Figure 102 Silver Denarius of C. Mamilius Limetanus C.F British Museum, London 82 B.C. Obverse: Bust of Mercury, right, wearing winged petasus and chlamys; over shoulder, caduceus. Reverse: Ulysses striding right, holding staff, with dog Argus. Photographs: (Obverse) M. Vollenweider (1972, pi. 35, Fig. 8). (Reverse) M. Crawford (1974, no. 362/1 and pi. 47, Fig. 10). 159 Figure 103 Silver Denarius of M. Pupius Piso 61 B.C. Obverse: Terminal bust of Mercury, right, wearing winged diadem. Reverse: Knife and patera. Photograph: M. Crawford (1974, no. 4l8/2b and pi. 51, Fig. 7). Figure 104 Silver Sestertius of C. Vibius C.f.C.n. Pansa Caetronianus 48 B.C. Obverse: Laureate bust of Mercury, right, wearing chlamys and winged diadem. Reverse: Tortoise; to right, caduceus. Photograph: M. Crawford (1974, no. 449/5 and pi. 53, Fig. 14) . Figure 105 Silver Sestertius of P. Sepullius Macer 44 B.C. Obverse: Bust of Mercury, right, wearing chlamys and winged petasus. Reverse: Caduceus. Photograph: M. Crawford (1974, no. 480/27 and pi. 57, Fig. 19). Figure 106 Roman Glass-Paste Portrait-Gem of Dolabeila(?) British Museum, London Middle of first century B.C. 3.00 x 2.70 cm. Portrait of a young man as Mercury, with soft features, prominent cheek-bones, and wild, animated hair which radiates from the crown in a scattered whorl, and curls toward the forehead up to the chlamys; at shoulder, a winged caduceus. 160 Photograph: M. Vollenweider (1974. Text. p. 171 and pi. 127, Fig. 4). Figure 107 Roman Nicolo Portrait-Gem of Marcus Iunius Brutus Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York Ca. 44 - 35 B.C. 1.30 x 1.10 cm. Head of a Roman, probably of Marcus Iunius Brutus, as Mercury, having winged caduceus and tortoise at back of neck; displaying the veristic features of the furrowed brow, prominent cheek-bones, and sunken cheeks; and also exhibiting the Hellenistic wide-eyed upward gaze. Photograph: M. Vollenweider (1974, pi. 93, Fig. 2). Figure 108 Roman Carnelian Portrait-Gem of Cassius{?) Staatliche MQnzsammlung, Munich: Arndt Collection, no. 2224 End of 40*s B.C. 1.20 x 1.00 x 3.00 cm. Head of Roman in middle years, as Mercury; before his throat, the purse; below, winged caduceus; behind neck, the thunderbolt and the star, probably the symbol of the "imperator;» displaying the veristic features of a finely wrinkled forehead and closed, firm mouth; and also exhibiting the Hellenistic features of the inspired gaze and long, curved rendering of the hair. Photograph: M. Vollenweider (1974, pi. 101, Fig. 1). Figure 109 Late Hellenistic Bronze Coin of Ajax, High-Priest of Olba and Governor of Lalassis and Cennatis Struck in Cilicia - Olba 10/11 - 14/15 A.D. Obverse: Head of Ajax as Hermes, right, in close-fitting cap; wearing earring and having chlamys draped around shoulders; before him, caduceus. Reverse: Triskeles, left. 161 Photograph: G. Hill and B. Head (1964. p. 119* no. 2 and pi. 21, Fig. 8). Reference: J. Chittenden (1945* p. 47). Figure 110 Roman Agate Intaglio of Mercury-Augustus (Fragmentary) The Marlborough Gem Ionides Collection, London Augustan period 4.5 cm. Idealized portrait-head of Augustus as Mercury, left; before him, caduceus; displaying Augustan traits of the protruding forehead, the large eye, and the sharply marked curves of both the eyebrow and mouth; exhibiting the Hellenistic features of idealized softness, and the rendering of the hair in long, flat strokes in the Polykleitan style. Photograph: J. Boardman (1968, no. 19). References: R. Smith (1982, p. 199); 0. Brendel (1980, p. 30); M. Vollenweider (1972, p. 53 f. and pi. 53, Fig. 1); J. Chittenden (1945, p. 40); K. Lehmann-Hartleben (1927, p. 173-174 and Fig. 3); and A. FurtwSngler (1900, Vol. 1, p. 184 and pi. 38, Fig. 30). Figure 111 The Doryphoros by Polykleitos Museo Nazionale, Naples Roman copy of the Polykleitan statue of ca. 450 - 440 B.C. Idealized statue of a young man in posture which serves as a prototype for a divine or heroic stance from the time of Polykleitos (middle of the fifth century B.C.), onwards; the right leg straight, bearing most of the body’s weight; the left leg slightly bent, forcing a thrusting out of the right hip. The rendering of the hair in long, flat strokes and its arrangement around the forehead and neck also serve as a prototype coiffure for later sculptures. Photograph: G. Richter (1965, p. 111 and Fig. 153). Figure 112 Bronze As of Augustus 162 Struck in Spain British Museum* London Ca. 25 - 23 B.C. Bare head of Augustus as Mercury* left; behind, winged caduceus; displaying the Hellenistic style of softened realism in the hair rendered in long strokes, curling at the forehead and down the nape of the neck, and in the wide-open eye gazing slightly upward. Photograph: M. Grant (1946, pi. 4, Fig. 18). Figure 113 "Octavianus” by Kleomenes of Athens Mus§e du Louvre, Paris: No. 1207 Augustan period Idealized portrait-statue of Augustus as Mercury Logios, bearing the Augustan traits of a slightly furrowed brow, lean cheeks, and a large mouth; body-style displaying the classicizing iconography of the intricately draped chlamys and Polykleitan stance. The oratorical gesture of the right hand identifies the figure as Mercury Logios. Photograph: M. Bieber (1977, pi. 14, Fig. 74). References: 0. Brendel (1980, pp. 36-40); I. Ryberg (1955, p. 38); K. Scott (1928, p. 34); J. Six (1916, pp. 257-264); and J. Bernoulli (1882, pp. 227-233). Figure 114 The Ludovisi Hermes Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome Ca. 460 B.C. Classical Greek statue of Hermes Logios» wearing winged petasus and having chlamys draped intricately over left arm; right hand uplifted in an oratorical gesture; stance Polykleitan. Photograph: M. Bieber (1961, Fig. 738). References: 0. Brendel (1980, pp. 36-37); and J. Bernoulli, (1882, p. 229). 163 Figure 115 Silver Denarius of Augustus Ca. 36 - 29 B.C. Bare head of Augustus left, of idealized style, displaying luxuriously rendered hair, and slightly upward gaze. Photograph: M. Bieber (1977. pi. 14, Fig. 77). Figure 116 Mercury-Augustus on a Stucco Ceiling from the Villa Farnesina, Rome Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome Mid - late first century B.C. A Mercury-Augustus figure with a portrait-head of Augustus and a classicizing body; figure wearing heavy chlamys wrapped around neck and hanging down back, and bearing a large caduceus; head displaying typical Augustan hairstyle, the curving locks parted just above the right temple; the forehead just barely protruding, the temples hollow, the nose somewhat long and lean. Photographs: (116 A) 0. Brendel (1935, pp. 231-259 and Fig. 1). (116 B) E. Wadsworth (1924, pp. 9-102 and pi. 3). (116 C) 0. Brendel (1980, pp. 27-47 and Fig. 2) . References: E. Brown (1963, p. 58, n. 1); R. Smith (1982, p. 199); E. Brown (1963, p. 58, n. 1); and I. Ryberg (1955, p. 39). Figure 117 Mercury-Augustus on the Bologna Altar Museo Civico, Bologna Augustan period Mercury-Augustus with purse in right hand and caduceus in left, wearing short tunic, following a goddess with helmet and shield (Athena-Roma), who hastens forward with right arm outstretched and head turned backwards. Photograph: K. Scott (1935, pp. 225-230 and Fig. 1). References: I. Ryberg (1955, p. 39); and K. Lehmann- Hartleben (1927, p. 173). 164 PLATE 1 165 PLATE 2 ' , D M . SAC K CEMklVS-SATVRNNVS fr PR. AEF • ST IP -XVlill -V IX ■ p j V IV O S M O N V M E N T V M SIBI ETAVFlDfAE DONATAE V x o k ET CEMINIS-PRIMVLOCEPION ET SABASTENAE ET SABASTEPlV FILLS m ' A y - # - *4 166 PLATE 3 167 PLATE 5 18 19 A 169 PLATE 6 1 9 B 170 v - ■ *1 ^ 5 «.•?<'* W w » i. PLATE 8 3 X T T X T r,T X K m » ^ rin rT rt-r i I wcr.4rg ^ i ) lips PLATE 9 PLATE 10 priy^9. m M PLATE 11 PLATE. 12 PLATE 13 PLATE 14 PLATE 15 PLATE 1.6 66 180 PLATE 17 71 181 PLATE 18 PLATE 19 PLATE 20 18 4 PLATE 21 94 ( O b v .) 93 (obv.) 94 (Rev.) 185 PLATE 22 98 96 (Rev.) 186 PLATE 23 99 A 187 99 B PLATE 24 100 (Obv.) (lev.) 188 PLATE 25 107 105 (Obv.) (Rev.) la W 106 108 189 PLATE 26 110 190 PLATE 2.7 111 191 PLATE 28 116 A 192 * i a \ 4 ■*i4£AU irSu-^iaal 5 i s ^ ' PLATE 30 116 C 194 PLATE 31 117 n i n i 195 ANCIENT REFERENCES Academia Inscriptionum et Litterarum Humaniorum. Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. Vol. 1, Part 2. Paris: C. Klincksieck, Bibliopolam, 1890. Aelian. De Natura Animalium. Ed. A. Scholfield. Vol. 1. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1958. Aelian. Varia Historia. Ed. M. Dilts. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1974. Aristophanes. Comoediae. Ed. F. Hall and W. Geldart. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1906. Athenaeus. Deipnosophlstae. Ed. C. Gulick. Vol. 3. London: William Heinemann, 1959. Augustine. De Civitate Dei. Ed. W. Green. Vol. 2. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1963. Augustus. Res Gestae. Ed. P. Brunt and J. Moore. London: Oxford University Press, 1970. Aulus Gellius. Noctes Atticae. Ed. J. Rolfe. Vol. 1. London: William Heinemann, 1927. Chabot, J. Chojx d* inscriptiones de Palmvre. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1922. I Cicero. Ac£ Quintum Fratrem. Ed. D. Shackleton Bailey. ' Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1980. ! Cicero. De Imperio Cn. Pompei. Ed. C. Mueller. Part 2, Vol. 2. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1896. Cicero. De Natura Deorum. Ed. A. Stickney and G. Schoemann. Boston: Ginn and Co., 1881. Cicero. I)£ Rg Publica. Ed. C. Mueller. Part 4, Vol. 2. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1898. Cicero. In L. Pisonem. Ed. A. Clark. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1909. Cicero. Pro Sestio. Ed. R. Gardner. Cambridge. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1958. Cicero. Somnium Scipionis. Ed. A. Ronconi. Florence: Felice le Monnier. 1961. I j Cornutus. Theologiae Graecae Compendium. Ed. C. Lang. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. 1881. Dio Cassius. Historia Romana. Ed. E. Cary. Vol. 6. j Cambridge. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. I 1917. i I Diodorus Siculus. Bibliotheca. Ed. C. Oldfather. Vols. 1 ! and 3. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1933 and 1939. Dittenberger. W. Svlloge Inscriptionum Graecorum. 3rd ed. Vol. 2. Leipzig: S. Hirzelius, 1917. Euting, J. Sammlung der carthagischen Inschriften. Strassburg: Karl J, Trubner, 1883. Herodotus. Historiae. Ed. C. Hude. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1927. | Homer. Opera. Ed. T. Allen. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, i 1946. I j Horace. Opera. Ed. H. Garrod. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, j 1912. i j Hyginus. Fabulae. Ed. H. Rose. Leiden: A. W. Sythoff, I 1933* ; Livy, jyi Urbe Condita. Ed. R. Conway and C. Walters. 2 Vols. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1914. I I ! Lucian. Gallus. Ed. A. Harmon. Vol. 2. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1968. ! Lucretius. De Rerum Natura. Ed. W. Leonard and S. Smith. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, ; 1968. | Manilius. Astronomica. Ed. G. Goold. Cambridge, 1 Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1977. i Martianus Capella. D& Nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii. Ed. i A. Dick. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1925. Ovid. Ars Amatoriae. Ed. E. Kenney. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1965. Ovid. Epistulae Heroidum. Ed. H. Doerrie. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971. ! Ovid. Fasti. Ed. G. Hallam. London: Macmillan and Co., l 1936. j Ovid. Metamorphoses. Ed. W. Anderson. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1977. i j Ovid. Metamorphoses. Book 11. Ed. G. Murphy. London: The Oxford University Press, 1972. Pausanias. Periegeta. Ed. W. Jones. Vols. 2-4. London: William Heinemann, 1926-1935. Pindar. Carmina. Ed. C. Bowra. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1947. Plato. Cratylus. Ed. H. Fowler. Vol. 6. London: William Heinemann, 1926. Plato. Phaedrus. Ed. H. Fowler. London: William Heinemann, 1914. Plato. Philebus. Ed. W. Lamb. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1925. Pliny. Naturalis Historia. Ed. H. Rackham. Vol. 3. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1940. Pliny. Naturalis Historia. Ed. W. James. Vol. 8. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1963. Pliny. Naturalis Historia. Ed. H. Rackham. Vol. 9. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1 952. Plutarch. Alexander. Ed. R. Flaciere and E. Chambry. Vol. 9. Paris: Societe d’edition "les belles lettres,” 1975. Plutarch. Camillus. Ed. B. Perrin. London: William Heinemann, 1914. 198 Plutarch. De Iside et Osiride. Ed. F. Babitt. Vol. 5. Cambridge. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1936. Plutarch. Quaestiones Convivales. Ed. E. Minar. F. Sandbach. and W. Helmbold. Vol. 9. Cambridge. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1961. I Plutarch. Quaestiones Convivales. Ed. P. Clement and H. 1 Hoffleit. Vol. 8. Cambridge. Massachusetts: Harvard j University Press. 1969. i Plutarch. Sulla. Ed. B. Perrin. London: William Heinemann, i 1916. I Plutarch. Titus. Ed. K. Ziegler. Vol. 2, Fasc. 2. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1935. Polybius. Historiae. Ed. W. Paton. Vol. 3. London: William j Heinemann, 1923. J Quintilian. Institutio Oratoria. Ed. H. Butler. Vol. 4. | London: William Heinemann, 1920.. Servius Grammaticus. In. Vergilii Carmina Commentarii. Ed. j G. Thilo. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. 1881. ' Strabo. Geographia. Ed. H. Jones. Vol. 8. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1935. i , Suetonius. Augustus. Ed. M. Adams. London: Macmillan and ! Co., Ltd., 1939. i i Tacitus. Annales. Ed. E. Koestermann. Vol. 1. Leipzig: B. | G. Teubner, 1960. I j Testament of Solomon. Ed. C. McCown. New York: G. E. Stechert & Co., 1922. I Vergil. Opera. Ed. R. Mynors. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, j 1972. 199 MODERN REFERENCES i I Alfgldi, A. "Insignien und Tracht der rSmischen Kaiser.” Mjtteilungen des deutschen archaologischen Instituts. (ramische Abteilung), 50 (1935), 3-158. Altheim, F. Griechische Ggtter im alten R8m. Giessen: A. TBpelmann, 1930 = Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche u.nd Vorarbeiten. 22 (1930), 39-93. Arnold, D. Die Polykleifcnachfolge: Untersuchungen zur Kups.t ^on Argos und Sikyon zwischen Polvkleit und Lysjpp. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969 = Jahrbuoh .dgs deutsches archSologischen Insbituts, ErgSnzungheft 25, (1969). ; Banti, A. and L. Simonetti. Corpus Nummorum Romanorum. i Vols. 1, 4, 5, and 7. Florence: Piazza Statione 1, I 1972-1975. i 1 Barwick, K. "Horaz Carm. 1.2 und Vergil." Philologus. 90 ; (1935), 257-276. . Bastet, F. "Der Skorpion auf der Gemma augustea.” In Studies in Classical Art and Archaeology. Ed. G. Kopcke and M. Moore. Locust Valley, New York: J. J. Augustin, 1979, pp. 217-223. ! Baur, P. "The Cock and Scorpion in the Orthonabazos Relief j at Dura-Europos." In Studies Presented to David Moore ; Robinson. Ed. G. Mylonas. Vol. 1. St. Louis: ' Washington University, 1951, pp. 771-775. BSnabou, M. L& Resistance africaine 5 la romanisation d»Auguste A Diocletian. Paris: Francoise Maspero, 1976. I Berger, E. "Ein neues PortrSt Alexanders des GroBen." | Antike Kunst, 14 (1971), 139 ff. : Bernoulli, J. Romische Ikonographie. Vol. 1. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1969. (Reprint of 1882 edition of Stuttgart: W. Spemann.) 200 Bickerman, E. "Filius Maiae (Horace, Odes 1,2,43)." La parola del passato, 16 (1961), 5-19. Bieber, M. Alexander the Great in Greek and Roman Art. Chicago: Argonaut Press, 1964. Bieber, M. Ancient Copies. New York: New York University Press, 1977. Bieber, M. Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age. 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961. Bleeker, C. Hathor and Thoth: Two Kev Figures of the Ancient Egyptian Religion. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973. Boardman, J. Engraved Gems: The Ionides Collection. London: Thames and Hudson, 1968. Bonner, C. Studies in Magical Amulets Chiefly Graeco- Egyptian. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1950. i Boylan, P. Thoth the Hermes of Egypt. London: Oxford University Press, 1922. Brandt, E., ed. Antike Gemmen in deutschen Sammlungen. Vol. 1, Part 1* Munich: Prestel Verlag, 1968. Brandt, E., A. Krug, W. Gercke, and E. Schmidt, eds. Antike Gemmen in deutschen Sammlungen. Vol. 1, Part 3. Munich: Prestel Verlag, 1972. Brandt, E. and E. Schmidt, eds. Antike Gemmen in deutschen Sammlungen. Vol. 1, Part 2. Munich: Prestel Verlag, 1970. Brendel, 0. "Novus Mercurius." Mitteilungen des deutschen archaologischen Instituts, (rSmische Abteilung), 50 (1935), 231-259. Brendel, 0. "Novus Mercurius." In The Visible Idea. Ed. M. Brendel. Washington, D.C.: Decatur House Press, 1980, (English translation of article cited above.) Brown, E. Numeriani Vergiliani: Studies in "Eclogues" and "Georgies." Bruxelles-Berchem: Latomus-Revue d1etudes latines, 1963 = Latomus, 63 (1963). Brown, N. Hermes the Thief. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1947. 201 BrQgsch, H. Religion und Mvthologie der alten ffgypter. Leipzig: T. G. Hinrichs1sche Buchhandlung, 1891. Burton. A. Diodorus Siculus Book X: A Commentary. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972. Charles-Picard, G. Catalogue du MusSe Alaoui. Nouv. Ser. Vols. 1 and 2. Tunis: Imprimerie "La Rapide," 1954- 1955. Charles-Picard, G. Les Religions de 11Africue antique. Paris: Labrairie Plon, 1954. Charles-Picard, G. and C. Picard. The Life and Death of Carthage. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1968. Chittenden, J. "Hermes-Mercury, Dynasts and Emperors." Numismatic Chronicle, Ser. 6, 5 (1945), 40-57. Chittenden, J. "The Master of Animals." Hesperia. 16 (1947), 89-114. Combet-Farnoux, B. Mercure romain: le culte public de Mercure et la fonction mercantile A Rome de la reoubliaue archaiaue A 1'epoaue augustfeene. Palais Farnese: Ecole francaise de Romel1980. Combet-Farnoux, B. "Mercurio." Enciclopedia dell* arte antica, classica .e orientale. Vol. 4. Rome: Giovanni Treccani, 1960, pp. 1031-1035. Commager, S. "Horace, Carmina 1,2." American Journal of Philology, 80 (1959), 37-55. Corchia, R. "Una testa di efebo del Museo Provinciale S. Castromediano di Lecce." Annali della facoltA di lettere di Lecce, 6 (1971-1973), 133 ff. Crawford, M. Roman Republican Coinage. Vols. 1 and 2. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1974. Delaporte, L. Catalogue des cvlindres, cachets et Pierres gravAes de stvle oriental. Vol. 2. Paris: Librairie Hachette, 1920. Deonna, W. "Mercure et le scorpion," Latomus. 37 (1959), 5-51. Detlefsen, D. "Sur un monument mithraique de l’Afrique." Revue Archfeologiaue, Ser. 2, 7 (1863), 293-298. 202 Dumfezil, G. Archaic Roman Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press* 1970. Eitrem, S. "Der Skorpion in Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte.11 Svmbolae Osloenses, Fasc. 7 (1928), 53-82. Elmore, J. "Horace and Octavian (Car. 1.2)." Classical Philology, 26 (1931), 258-263. Elworthy, F. The Evil Eve: The Origins and Practices of Superstition. London: Collier-Macmillan Limited, 1970. (Reprint of the 1895 edition of London: John Murray). Enfilin, W. "Mercurius." In Paulvs Real-Encvclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Ed. G. Wissowa and W. Krall. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Vol. 15, 1932, pp. 975-1017. Fears, J. Princeps a Diis Electus: The Divine Election of the Emperor as a. Political Concept at Rome. Rome: The American Academy in Rome, 1977 = Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome. 26 (1977). Fittschen, K. Katalog der antiken SkulPturen in Schloss Erbach. Zflrich: Gesellschaft fflr das Schweizerische Landesmuseum, 1977 = ArchSologische Forschuneen, 3 (1977), 21 ff. Frankfort, H, "The Religion of Eshnunna in the Third Millenium B.C." Oriental Institute Communications, No. 17. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932/33. Frel, J. and S. Nodelman. Roman Portraits: Aspects of Self and Society. Los Angeles: Regents of the University of California, Loyola Marymount University and the J. Paul Getty Museum, 1980. FurtwSngler, A. Die antiken Gemmen. Leipzig and Berlin: Giesecke and Devrient, 1900. Gallavotti, C. "II secondo carme di Orazio." .La parola del passato, 4 (1949), 217-229. Gardiner, P. and R. Poole. A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. Vol. 4 (The Seleucid Kings of Syria). London: Longmans and Co., 1878. 203 Gesztelyi. T. "Mercury and Augustus: Horace. Odes 1.2." Acta Classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debreceniensls. 9 (1973). 77-81. Goodenough, E. "The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship." Yale Classical Studies. 1 (1928). 55-102. Grant, M. From Imperium to Auctoritas. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1969. (Reprint of the 1946 edition.) Habicht, C. Gottmenschentum und griechische StSdte. Munich: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. 1970. Harrison. E. "New Sculpture from the Athenian Agora." Hesperia, 29 (1960), 382-389. Hill, G. and H. Grueber. A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. Vol. 21 (Phoenicia), Bologna: Arnaldo Forni, 1965. Hill, G. and B. Head. A Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum. Vol. 13 (Lycaonia, Isauria, and Cilicia). Bologna: Arnaldo Forni, 1964. H51scher,T. Ideal und Wirklichkeit in den Bildnissen Alexanders des Grofien. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1971. Jahn, 0. ffber den Aberglauben des bSsen Blicks be! den Alten. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1855 = Berichte Ober die Verhandlungen der k5njglich sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Philologisch- historische Classe 7 (1855). Katzenstein, H. "Phoenicia, Phoenicians." Encyclopaedia Judaica. Vol. 13. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Jerusalem Ltd., 1972, pp. 471-480. Keller, 0. Die antike Tierwelt. Vols. 1 and 2. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1909. KerSnyi, K. Hermes der SeelenfOhrer. Zflrich: Albae Vigiliae, 1944. Kiessling, A. and R. Heinze. Ausgabe von Horaz' Oden Epoden. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1917. Kleiner, G. "Das Bildnis Alexanders des GroBen." Jahrbuch des deutsches arch§ologischen Instituts, 65/66 (1950/1951), 206-230. 204 Knight, P. The Symbolical Language of Ancient Art and Mythology. New York: J. W. Bouton, 1876. Latte* K. Rgmische Religionsgeschichte. Munich: C. H. Beck*sche Verlagsbuchhandlung* 1960. Legrain* L. U£ Excavations: Archaic Seal Impressions. Vol. 3. Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1936. Legrand, A. "Mercurius.” In Dictionnaire des antiauitfes grecoues et romaines. Ed. M. Saglio, M. Pottier, and G. Lafaye. Paris: Librairie Hachette et Cie, Vol. 3* Part 2, 1918, pp. 1802-1823. Lehmann-Hartleben, K. "Ein Altar in Bologna." Mitteilungen des deutschen archSologischen Instituts, CrSmische Abteilung). 42 (1927), 163-176. L’Orange, H. Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture. Oslo: H. Aschehoug and Co. (W. Nygaard), 1947. MacKay, L. "Horace, Augustus, and Ode 1.2." American Journal of Philology, 83 (1962) 168-177. Mattingly, H. and E. Sydenham. Roman Imperial Coinage. Vols. 1-5, Part 1. London: Spink and Son Ltd., 1923- 1949. Mellor, R. Q s a * P a l y n : The Worship of the Goddess Roma in the Greek World. GSttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Milne, J. "Egypt under the Greeks and Romans." In The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Ed. N. Hammond and H. Scullard. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1961, pp. 307- 308. Morenz, S. Egyptian Religion. Trans. A. Keep. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1973. (Translated from the 1960 German edition). Moritz, L. "Diadem." In The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Ed. N. Hammond and H. Scullard. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1972, pp. 333-334. Niemeyer, H. "Alexander in Sevilla." ArchSologische Anzeiger, (1978), 106-115. Pasquali, G. Orazio lirico studi. Florence: Felice le Monnier, 1966. 205 Pietrusinski» D. "Identifications fipiphaniques de la DivinitS avec Octavien Auguste chez Virgile et Horace." E^s, 65 (1977), 103-116. Pottier, E. Catalogue des Antiauitfes Assvriennes. Paris: Mus€es Nationaux Palais du Louvre, 1924. Preller, L. RSmische Mvthologie. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1865. Radt, W. "Der *Alexanderkopf’ in Istanbul." Archaologische Anzeiger. (1981), 583-596. Reitzenstein, R. Poimandres. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1904. Richter, G. Engraved Gems of the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans. 2 Vols. London: Phaidon Press Ltd., 1968. Richter, G. A Handbook of Greek Art. Phaidon Press: London, 1965. Roeder, G. "Thoth." In AusfPhrliches Lexicon der griechischen und rSmischen Mvthologie. Ed. W. Roscher. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, Vol. 5, 1916-1924, pp. 825-863. Rusch, A. "Thoth." In Paulvs Real-Encvclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Ed. G. Wissowa, W. Kroll, and K. Mittelhaus. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Vol. 6, 1937, pp. 351-388. Ryberg, I. "Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art." Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, 27 (1955), p. 38 ff. Saglio, E. "Alektyonon Agones." In Dictionnaire des antiouitfes erecaues et romaines. Ed. M. Saglio and M. Pottier. Paris: Librairie Hachette et Cie, Vol. 1, Part 1, 1977, pp. 180-181. » SchlOter, M., G. Platz-Horster, and P. Zazoff, eds. Antike Gemmen in deutschen Sammlungen. Vol. 4. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag GMBH, 1975. Schmidt, E., ed. Antike Gemmen in deutschen Sammlungen, Vol. 1, Part 2. Munich: Prestel Verlag, 1968. Schreiber, T. "Studien flber das Bildnis Alexanders des GroBen." Abhandlungen der kSniglichen s8chsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 21 (1903), 272 ff. 206 Schreiber, T. and W. Anderson, eds. Atlas of Classical Antiquities. London & New York: Macmillan and Co., 1895. Schwarz, G. "TriPtolemos-Alexander.11 Forschungen und Funde. Festschrift Bernard Neutsch. Innsbruck: A M O E, 1980 = BetrSge zur Kulture-Wissenschaft, 21 (1980), 449-455. Schwarzenberg, E. "Der lysippische Alexander." Bonner Jahrbucher des rheinischen Landesmuseums in Bonn, 167 (1967), 58-118. Schwarzenberg, E. "The Portraiture of Alexander." Alexandre le Grand. Geneva: Fondation Hardt, 1976 = Etretiens Fondation Hardt, 22 (1976), p. 223 ff. Scott, G. Phallic Worship. London: Panther Books, 1970. (Reprint of the 1966 edition of Great Britain: Luxor Press Limited.) Scott, K. "Mercur-Augustus und Horaz C . 1.2." Hermes. 63 (1928), 15-33. Scott, K. "Mercury on the Bologna Altar." Mitteiluneen des deutschen archSoloeischen Instituts, (rSmische Abteilung), 50 (1935), 225-230. Siebert, J. Alexander der Grofie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972 = ErtrSge der Forschung, 10, (1972). Six, J. "Octavien-Mercure." Revue Archfeologiaue. Ser. 5, 4 (1916), 257-264. Slater, P. The Glorv of Hera. Boston: Beacon Press, 1968. Smith, R. Review of Brendel, 0. The Visible Idea: Interpretations of Classical Art. ed. M. Brendel. Journal of Roman Studies, 72 (1982), 198-199. Steuding, H. "Mercurius." In AusfOhrliches Lexicon der griechischen und rSmischen Mvthologie. Ed. W. Roscher. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, Vol. 2, Part 2, 1894-1897. Strong, D. Roman Imperial Sculpture. London: Alec Tiranti, 1961. 207 Sutherland. C. Roman Imperial Coinage. Vol. 6. London: Spink and Son, 1967. Svoronos, I. Tot. N o u iVu a t a KoaTouc libz. . Athens: P. D. Sakellariou, Vols. 2-4, 1904. Taylor, L. The Divinity of the Roman Emperor. Middletown, Connecticut: American Philological Association, 1931. Tompkins, J. gen. ed. Wealth of the Ancient World. Fort Worth: Kimbell Art Museum, 1983. Toutain, J. Les Cultes palens dans 1»empire romain. Vol. 1. Rome: "L’Erma" di Bretschneider, 1967. (Reprint of the 1905-1907 Paris edition.) Van Buren, E. "Entwined Serpents." Archiv fflr Orientforschung, 10 (1935-1936), 52-65. Van Buren, E. "Mesopotamian Fauna in Light of the Monuments." Archiv fflr Orientforschung, 11 (1936- 1937), 1-37. Van Buren, E. "The Scorpion in Mesopotamian Art and Religion." Archiv fOr Orientforschung, 12 (1937- 1939). 1-28. Vassel, E. "Les Animaux exceptionnels des stfeles de Carthage." Revue de l'histoire des religions, 84 (1921), 36-80. Versnel, H. "Mercurius amongst the Magni Dei." Mnemosyne, 27, Fasc. 2 (1974), 144-151. Veirneisel, K. and P. Zanker. Die Bildnisse des Augustus. Munich: Glyptothek Mflnchen, 1979. Voit, L. "Horaz-Merkur-Augustus (zu Hor. C , 11.17, 1.10, 1.2)." Gymnasium, 89 (1982), 479-496. Vollenweider, M. Die Portr3tgemmen der rSmischen Reoublik. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1972. von Graeve, V. "Ein attisches Alexanderbildnis und seine Wirkung." Mitteilungen des deutschen arch3ologischen Instituts, (athenische Abteilung). 89 (1974), 231- 239. Wadsworth, E. "Stucco Reliefs of the First and Second Centuries still Extant in Rome." Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, 4 (1924), 9-102. 208 Walbank, F. The Hellenistic World. Fontana: Harvester Press, 1981. Waldstein, C. "A Hermes in Ephesian Silver Work on a Patera from Bernay in France.” The Journal £f Hellenic Studies. 3 (1882), 96-106. Webb, P. Roman Imperial Coinage. Vol. 5, Part 2. London: Spink and Son, 1933. Weinstock, S. Divus Julius. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1971. Wieseler, F. "Silberrelief von Neuweid." Jahrbucher des vereins von Alterthumsfreunden im Rheinlande, 37 (1864), 103-132. Wissowa, G. Religion und Kultus der RSmer. 2nd ed. Munich: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1912. Womble, H. "Horace, Carmina, 1.2." American Journal of Philology, 91 (1970), 1-30. Wroth, W. and S. Poole. A Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum, Vol. 23 (Pontus, Paphlagonia, Bithynia, and the Kingdom of Bosporus). Bologna: Arnaldo Forni, 1964. Yalouris, N., M. Andronikos, and K. Rhomiopolou. The Search for Alexander. An Exhibition. Washington, D. C.: National Gallery of Art, 1981. Zazoff, P., V. Scherf, and P. Gercke, eds. Antike Gemmen in deutschen Sammlungen. Vol. 3. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag GMBH, 1970. Zielinski, T. "Le Messianisme d'Horace," L* Antiauit£ Classioue, 8 (1939), 171-180. Zwierlein-Diehl, E. Die antiken Gemmen des kunsthistorischen Museums in Wien. Vol. 1 and Vol. 2, Part 1. Munich: Prestel Verlag, 1973.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Feigned chaos: A study of the relationship between music and language in Romantic poetry

PDF

The liberal muse: Juvenal's sexual persona and the purpose of satire

PDF

Diana on Roman coins

PDF

The legislation of Lucius Appuleius Saturninus and Gaius Servilius Glaucia

PDF

She's nothing: Gender and representation in Catullus and elegy

PDF

Sophocles' "Elektra" and "Philoktetes": Knowledge, plot, and self-reference

PDF

Religion and politics in Aristophanes' "Clouds"

PDF

Thebais rescriptrix: Rewriting and closure in Statius' "Thebaid" 12

PDF

Women and the unspeakable: Rape in Ovid's "Metamorphoses"

PDF

The satiric voice: Program, form and meaning in Persius and Juvenal

PDF

Countercultural responses to the crisis of masculinity in late republican Rome

PDF

Paiderastia in Sophocles' "Philoctetes"

PDF

Ovid's musomachy

PDF

Antigone: A study in critical method

PDF

The act and the word: A study of abstraction versus the concrete in the work of Albert Camus

PDF

Powerlessness and violence: Contemporary trends of the French Caribbean novel

PDF

Paolo da Perugia and his influence on the beginnings of Italian humanism as seen through his commentary on Horace's 'Ars poetica'.

PDF

New American fiction and the aesthetics of Camus and Robbe-Grillet

PDF

Pasternak's Verlaine: The translations as transcripts of influence

PDF

Queer pasts now: Historical fiction in lesbian, bisexual, and gay film

Asset Metadata

Creator Samuels, Claudia Wallack (author)

Core Title The Mercury-Augustus identification.

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Classical Studies,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-684956

Unique identifier UC11342951

Identifier DP22293.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-684956 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP22293.pdf

Dmrecord 684956

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Samuels, Claudia Wallack

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA