Jovius and Herculius

Bibliographic Data

ID11734328
AuthorsHarold Mattingly (0000-0002-1175-3919, Mortimer Surgery, corresponding author)
Year1952
Volume45
Issue2
Pages131-134
Publication date1952-04-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueHarvard Theological Review (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0017-8160 • E-ISSN: 1475-4517
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0017816000020770
OpenAlexW2135370204
LanguageEN
Citations received5

Diocletian, as we all know, included religion in his schemes for the regeneration of the Roman State and put forward a new formulation of paganism, by which he placed himself under the special protection of Jupiter, while his fellow Augustus, Maximian, stood under the protection of Hercules, and the Caesars, Galerius and Constantius Chlorus, appointed in A.D. 293, owned as patrons Mars and Sol respectively. Several aspects of the new religious policy have already been sufficiently emphasized. It was definitely conservative, in that Diocletian did not, like AureKan, claim for the Eastern Sun-God the ‘dominatus imperii Romani,’ but went back to the traditional chief god of Rome — Jupiter, ‘the Best and Greatest.’ It was in accordance with the spirit of an age, which was learning more and more to conceive of the divine powers as companions and preservers (‘conservatores’ and ‘comites’) of the rulers. It took account of the new configuration of the Empire under the Tetrarchy of Diocletian and his colleagues. The divine sphere was to be rounded off, to represent the earthly. And we may add, in all probability, that account was taken of the very Roman conception of the Genius, the spirit of life in the individual, and that Diocletian and Maximian, when they took the titles of Jovius and Herculius, meant to suggest that, though they were not actually identified with Jupiter and Hercules, they bore in themselves the spirit of the two gods. It is tempting to suppose that the ‘Iovi Augg.’ of the coins was intended to suggest just this. The idea would be helped out by the fact that the spirit of the individual woman was actually called ‘Juno.’ I want, in this little paper, to suggest yet another consideration, not quite so obvious and not quite so well observed, that may have entered into the calculations of Diocletian

Ancient history · Art · Art history · Christianity · Empire · Genius · Paganism · Roman Empire · State (computer science · Theology · Byzantine Studies and History · Classical Antiquity Studies · Classics · Historical and Religious Studies of Rome · History · Philosophy

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub