Chapter II: The Alexandrian Divinities (3)

But a violent end was soon to be put even to the public exercise of the Alexandrian religion. The conversion of Constantine had left it unharmed, and we find Julian writing to the Alexandrians during his brief reign as if the supremacy of their religion in Egypt’s capital at any rate was assured[265]. But under Theodosius, an order was obtained from the Emperor for the demolition of the “heathen” temples at Alexandria, and Theophilus, “the perpetual enemy of peace and virtue[266],” who was bishop of the city at the time, was not the man to allow the decree to remain a dead letter. According to the ecclesiastical historians[267], he began operations on the temple of Dionysos, which he converted into a Christian church. In the course of doing so, he professed to have discovered certain emblems of virility which seem to have been used in the Mysteries to illustrate the legend of the Diaspasm or tearing in pieces of the god, and these he had paraded through the city as evidence of what the heathens, according to him, worshipped in secret. The same emblems were also used in the worship of Isis, where they probably were shown to initiates as explaining the loss of the generative power by Osiris after his death and passion[268]. Hence their profanation was in the highest degree offensive to the last adherents of the Alexandrian religion, who, few in number but formidable from their position and influence, threw themselves into the world-famed Serapeum and determined to resist the decree by force of arms. The Christian mob of Alexandria, hounded on by the bishop and his monks, assaulted the temple which the philosopher Olympius and his followers had converted into a temporary fortress, and many attacks were repulsed with loss of life to the besiegers. At length, a truce having been negotiated until the Emperor could be communicated with, a fresh decree was obtained in which the defenders of the temple were promised a pardon for their share in the riot, if the Serapeum were quietly given up to the authorities. This offer was accepted, and Theophilus had the pleasure of seeing Bryaxis’ colossal statue of Serapis demolished under his own eyes without the event being followed by the predicted earthquake and other catastrophes which we are told the Christians as well as the heathens confidently expected. The magnificent Serapeum with all its wealth of statues and works of art was destroyed, and a church dedicated to the Emperor Arcadius was afterwards erected on its site.

Thus in the year 391, the chief seat and place of origin of the Alexandrian religion was laid waste, and the religion itself perished after a successful reign of seven centuries. Ecclesiastical writers say that this was followed by the conversion of several of the “Hellenists” or adherents of the worship of Serapis and Isis to Christianity[269], and there seems every likelihood that the story is founded on fact. Is this the reason why we find so many of the external usages of Isis-worship preserved in or revived by the Catholic Church? Macaulay, in speaking of the contest between Catholicism and Protestantism at the Reformation compares it to the fight between Hamlet and Laertes where the combatants change weapons. The comparative study of religions shows that the phenomenon is more widespread than he thought, and that when one religion finally supplants another, it generally takes over from its predecessor such of its usages as seem harmless or praiseworthy. The traditional policy of the Catholic Church in this respect was declared by Saint Gregory the Great, when he told the apostle to the Saxon heathens that such of their religious and traditional observances as could by any means be harmonized with orthodox Christianity were not to be interfered with[270], and this was probably the policy pursued with regard to the converts from the worship of Serapis. Gibbon[271] has painted for us in a celebrated passage the astonishment which “a Tertullian or a Lactantius” would have felt could he have been raised from the dead to witness the festival of some popular saint or martyr in a Christian church at the end of the fifth century. The incense, the flowers, the lights, and the adoration of the relics of the saint would all, we are told, have moved his indignation as the appanage of heathenism. Yet none of these things would have been found in a temple like that of Delphi, where probably no more than one worshipper or sacred embassy penetrated at a time, and where nothing like congregational worship was known. It was, however, the mode of worship to which the Hellenistic world had become daily accustomed during the seven centuries that the Alexandrian religion had endured, and it is not to be wondered at that the converts brought it with them into their new faith. The worship of the Virgin as the Theotokos or Mother of God which was introduced into the Catholic Church about the time of the destruction of the Serapeum, enabled the devotees of Isis to continue unchecked their worship of the mother goddess by merely changing the name of the object of their adoration, and Prof. Drexler gives a long list of the statues of Isis which thereafter were used, sometimes with unaltered attributes, as those of the Virgin Mary[272]. The general use of images, the suspension in the churches of _ex voto_ representations of different parts of the human body in gratitude for miraculous cures of maladies[273], and the ceremonial burning of candles, may also be traced to the same source; while the institution of monachism which had taken a great hold on Christian Egypt, is now generally attributed to St Pachomius, who had actually been in his youth a recluse of Serapis[274]. Prof. Bury, who thinks the action of the earlier faith upon the later in this respect undeniable, would also attribute the tonsure of the Catholic priesthood to a reminiscence of the shaven crowns of the initiates of Isis, to which we may perhaps add the covering of women’s heads in churches[275].

These instances are for the most part fairly well known, and some have been made use of in controversy between Protestants and Catholics; but it is probable that there were also many resemblances between the external usages of the two faiths which would, when they flourished side by side, strike even the superficial observer, but the traces of which are now well nigh lost[276]. “Those who worship Serapis are Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are vowed to Serapis,” wrote the Emperor Hadrian[277] from Alexandria on his visit there in A.D. 124, and this would possibly explain the respectful and almost mournful tone in which, as Renan noted, the Christian Sibyl announces to Serapis and Isis the end of their reign[278]. It is not impossible that the resemblance which thus deceived the Emperor was connected with the celebration of the Eucharist among certain sects of Christians[279]. The Adoration of the Sacred Water as the emblem of Osiris, which we have seen represented on the Herculaneum fresco, has many points in common with the exhibition of the Sacrament of the Mass to the people, and it is possible that the words of consecration were not altogether different in the two cases. “Thou art wine, yet thou art not wine, but the members of Osiris,” says a magic papyrus in the British Museum in the midst of an address to “Asklepios of Memphis,” the god Esculapius being one of the gods with whom Serapis in his day of power was most often confounded[280]. So, too, M. Revillout has published an _amatorium_ or love-charm in which the magician says, “May this wine become the blood of Osiris[281].” It is true he sees in it a blasphemous adaptation of the Christian rite; but this is very unlikely. It has been shown elsewhere[282] that many—perhaps all—of the words used in the ceremonial magic of the period are taken from the rituals of religions dying or extinct, and the papyrus, which dates somewhere about the IVth century A.D., may possibly have here preserved for us a fragment of the ritual in use in the Alexandrian temples. “Give him, O Osiris, the cooling water” is the epitaph often written by the worshippers of Isis on the tombs of the dead[283], and it may seem that we have here a hint of mystic communion with the deity brought about by the drinking of his emblem.

The resemblances between the Alexandrian and the Christian religion thus sketched, refer, however, merely to matters which are either external or superficial, or which, like the worship of the Virgin, the use of images and relics, and the institution of monachism, could be abandoned, as was the case at the German Reformation, without necessarily drawing with them the repudiation of the cardinal tenets of Christianity. That the Christian Church owed at her inception any of her more fundamental doctrines to the Alexandrian religion is not only without proof, but is in the highest degree unlikely. The Apostles and missionaries of the Apostolic Age, living as they did in daily expectation of the return of their Risen Lord, had no need to go to an alien faith for the assertion of His divinity, of the truth of His resurrection, or of His power of salvation; nor do the Fathers of the Ante-Nicene Church speak of Serapis and Isis as entitled to any peculiar reverence or as differing in any respect from the other gods of the heathen. Whether the tenets of the Alexandrian religion may not have had some influence on the discussions which raged round the definition of the Divine nature and attributes at the earlier Ecumenical and other Councils of the Church is another matter. The conception of the Supreme Being as a triune god was a very old one in Egypt, and reappeared, as we have seen, unchanged in the worship of Serapis, Isis, and Horus. “Thus from one god I became three gods,” says Osiris in his description of his self-creation in a papyrus dated twelve years after the death of Alexander[284]; and the dividing-line between the three persons of the Alexandrian triad is so often overstepped that it is plain that their more cultured worshippers at one time considered them as but varying forms of one godhead[285]. Hence, the Trinitarian formulas set out in the Creeds of Nicaea and of St Athanasius would be less of a novelty to those familiar with the Alexandrian religion than to those brought up in the uncompromising monotheism of the Jews. Too little is known of the steps by which the full assertion of the doctrine of the Trinity was reached for any discussion of the matter to be here profitable[286]. The deepest influence that the Alexandrian religion exercised upon the Church was probably not direct, but through those scattered and heretical sects which, although finally condemned and anathematized by her, yet ever acted as feeders by whom she obtained converts from among the heathen. To these we may now turn our attention.

Footnote 103:

Bouché-Leclercq, _Histoire des Lagides_, Paris, 1903, etc. t. I. p.
121. Dr Mahaffy, _Empire of the Ptolemies_, 1895, p. 11, thinks
differently, but the importance of the city to the present day is
against him.

Footnote 104:

Bouché-Leclercq, _op. cit._ t. I. p. 104. Cf. Mahaffy, _E.P._ p. 4.

Footnote 105:

Droysen, _Hist. de l’Hellénisme_, t. II. p. 96; Bouché-Leclercq, _op.
cit._ t. I. pp. 13, 14; Mahaffy, _E.P._ p. 25.

Footnote 106:

As Demetrius the City-Taker, found to his cost. Cf. Mahaffy, _E.P._ p.
57.

Footnote 107:

Droysen, _op. cit._ I. p. 14; Bouché-Leclercq, _op. cit._ I. p. 15.

Footnote 108:

Droysen, _op. cit._ II. p. 103.

Footnote 109:

Bouché-Leclercq, _Hist. des Lag._ I. pp. 24, 25.

Footnote 110:

_Ibid._ I. p. 26.

Footnote 111:

Droysen, _op. cit._ I. pp. 346, 699, 670. Cf. D. G. Hogarth, _Philip
and Alexander_, p. 144.

Footnote 112:

As when they seized the throne of Egypt at the close of the XXth
Dynasty. So in Nubia in the time of the Ptolemies, the king was a mere
puppet in the hands of the priests, who used to send him word when
they thought that he had reigned long enough. For the story of
Ergamenes (Ark-amen), who put an end to their rule, see Diodorus
Siculus, III. 6. 3, or Budge, _History of Egypt_, 1899, vol. VIII. pp.
166 _sqq._

Footnote 113:

See Breasted, _History of Egypt_, New York, 1909, _passim_; cf. Budge,
_op. cit._

Footnote 114:

Wiedemann, _The Ancient Egyptian Doctrine of the Immortality of the
Soul_, 1895, p. viii; Maspero, _Ét. Égyptol._ I. pp. 123, 167; _ibid._
II. p. 196, n. 1.

Footnote 115:

Budge, _Gods of the Egyptians_, 1904, I. pp. 148, 149; Erman,
_Handbook of Egyptian Religion_, 1906, p. 81.

Footnote 116:

Erman, _op. cit._ p. 188. The fusion of Osiris with Ptah and Seker was
a good deal older than the Saites. Cf. Wiedemann, _Religion of the
Ancient Egyptians_, 1897, pp. 134, 135; Budge, _Osiris and the
Egyptian Resurrection_, New York, 1911, I. p. 45.

Footnote 117:

Budge, _Gods of the Egyptians_, II. p. 196.

Footnote 118:

Budge, _G.E._ II. pp. 118, 156, 264. So Naville, _Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology_, 1914, pp. 7, 8. M. Maspero thinks Apuat was originally
god of Siut and only a temple-companion of Osiris at Abydos, _Rev.
Critique_, 1904, pt. 2, pp. 194, 195.

Footnote 119:

Steindorff, _Religion of the Ancient Egyptians_, New York, 1905, p.
53; Erman, _H.E.R._ pp. 56, 57; Naville, _The Old Egyptian Faith_,
1906, pp. 146, 147.

Footnote 120:

Amélineau, _Essai sur le Gnosticisme Égyptien_, Paris, 1887, p. 144;
Budge, “Papyrus of Nesi-Amsu,” in _Archaeologia_, 1890, pt 2, p. 404;
Maspero, _The Dawn of Civilization_, 1894, pp. 172-174; Erman,
_H.E.R._ p. 32; Budge, _G.E._ II. p. 150. Manifest allusions to the
legend are to be found in the Pyramid Texts. Cf. Maspero, _Les
Inscriptions des Pyramides de Saqqarah_, Paris, 1894, pp. 105 _sqq._

Footnote 121:

This idea is treated at length in “The Legend of Osiris” in the
_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology_, 1911, pp.
139-154. See also “The Greek Worship of Serapis and Isis,” _P.S.B.A._
1914, pp. 79 _sqq._

Footnote 122:

See “The Titles of the Thinite Kings” in _P.S.B.A._ 1908, pp. 86-94,
121-128, 163-177.

Footnote 123:

In Plutarch’s time the Ethiopians had a queen called Candace as in
Acts viii. 27. Cf. Strabo, Bk XVII. c. 1, § 54. One wonders whether
Plutarch in speaking of Aso did not confuse this title with an epithet
of Thueris, the hippopotamus-goddess and wife of Set, who is called in
a late magical text “Thueris, the great of sorcery, cat of Ethiopia.”
See Griffith and Thompson, _Stories of the High Priests of Memphis_,
Oxford, 1900, p. 91.

Footnote 124:

This is most clearly shown by M. Victor Loret in _L’Égypte au Temps du
Totémisme_, Paris, 1906, _passim_. Cf. the same author’s articles in
_Rev. Égyptol._ 1902 and 1904.

Footnote 125:

See Chapter IV, _infra_.

Footnote 126:

See “The Greek Worship of Serapis and Isis,” _P.S.B.A._ 1914, pp.
94-98, for this culture god of the Eastern Mediterranean. The original
home of the myth was, possibly, Babylonia. Cf. “Legend of Osiris” in
_P.S.B.A._ 1911, quoted above.

Footnote 127:

See the story of Ra and Isis, Budge, _G.E._ pp. 360 _sqq._

Footnote 128:

By far the best and most consistent account of the Eleusinian
Mysteries is that given by M. Paul Foucart in his three memoirs,
_Recherches sur l’origine et la nature des Mystères d’Éleusis_, _Les
Grands Mystères d’Éleusis_, and _Le Culte de Dionysos en Attique_. All
these appeared in the _Mémoires_ of the Académie des Inscriptions, tt.
XXXV. (1895), XXXVII. (1900), and XXXVIII. (1904) respectively.

Footnote 129:

Foucart, _Les Grands Mystères_, p. 113.

Footnote 130:

Iacchos was identified with Dionysos at least as early as the time of
Sophocles. Cf. _Antigone_, ll. 1130 _sqq._, and Dyer, _The Gods in
Greece_, 1891, p. 133. Very likely, as M. Foucart suggests, he was
originally the personification of the cry repeated by the procession
of the initiated. See _Grds. Myst._ p. 122.

Footnote 131:

It had an opening in the roof for this purpose. Foucart, _Grds. Myst._
p. 137.

Footnote 132:

So Clement of Alexandria, _Protrepticus_, c. II. The scene of the Rape
is laid in many different places. The Homeric _Hymn to Demeter_ calls
it “the Mysian plain,” meaning probably Mysia in Asia Minor. A
scholiast on Hesiod puts it in Sicily, Bacchylides in Crete, Orpheus
in “the parts about Ocean,” Phanodemus in Attica, Demades in “woodland
glades.” See Abel, _Orphica_, Fragm. 212, p. 239. Cf. Maury,
_Religions de la Grèce Antique_, t. I. p. 479.

Footnote 133:

Homeric _Hymn to Demeter_.

Footnote 134:

Foucart, _Myst. d’Él._ p. 49; _id._ _Grds. Myst._ pp. 68, 69.

Footnote 135:

M. Foucart, _Culte de Dion._ pp. 55-60, will not allow that Iacchos
was ever identified with Dionysos and believes him to have been only
the genius that led the procession. Dyer, on the other hand (_op.
cit._ p. 128), makes Iacchos the young or second Dionysos born of
Semele. But Aristophanes, _Frogs_, l. 321, and Strabo, Bk X. c. 10 (p.
402 Didot), both give him a higher position in the Mysteries than M.
Foucart would assign to him, and the older opinion that he was the
child whose birth was there shown seems to hold good. Cf. Maury, _Rel.
de G. A._ t. II. p. 341, and Arrian, _Anabasis_, Bk II. c. 16, § 3 (p.
50, Didot). So Stephani, _Compte Rendu de la Commission Imperiale
Archéologique_, 1859 (St Petersburg), p. 37, where monumental evidence
is given in its support. Cf. Daremberg and Saglio, _Dict. des
Antiquités_, _s.v._ Eleusinia (by F. Lenormant); Clem. Alex.
_Protrept._ c. II.; Libanius, ὑπὲρ Ἀριστοφάνους, vol. I. pp. 447, 448
(Reiske).

Footnote 136:

Foucart, _Myst. d’Él._ p. 66.

Footnote 137:

Hippolytus, _Philosophumena_, Bk V. c. 1, p. 171, Cruice. The whole
drama is described by Foucart, _Myst. d’Él._ pp. 43-74 q.v.

Footnote 138:

Livy, XXXI. 14. Cf. Foucart, _Grds. Myst._ p. 94. They betrayed
themselves by asking questions which showed they had not been
initiated. Hence the ἱερά or sacred objects could hardly have been
statues, as some have thought.

Footnote 139:

Foucart, _Culte de Dion._ p. 68; Stephen of Byzantium in Hesychius,
_Etymologium Magnum_, _s.v._ Ἄγραι. Cf. Maury, _Rel. de la Grèce Ant._
II. p. 324. All that Stephen says is that here was acted a pantomime
(μίμημα) of the things that happened to Dionysos.

Footnote 140:

All these ceremonies of the Anthesteria are reconstructed and
described by M. Foucart, _Culte de Dion._ pp. 107-163. That the
tearing in pieces of Dionysos and the consequent origin of man was
taught in the Little Mysteries seems to follow from Pindar’s words
(_Threnoi_ Frag. X. 7, p. 102, Cod. Bö.) that those who have been
initiated have seen “the God-given beginning of life.” Transmigration
seems to have been also taught in them (see Plutarch, _Consolatory
Letter_, § X.). There were therefore three degrees of initiation at
Eleusis: (1) The Little Mysteries showing the history of Dionysos, (2)
The Great Mysteries with the Rape of Persephone and the Wanderings of
Demeter, and (3) The Epopsy (open to initiates of the second year
only), showing the marriage of Zeus and Demeter and the birth of the
new Dionysos.

Footnote 141:

Frazer, _The Golden Bough_ (third edition), Part IV, c. 5; Part V,
vol. i, pp. 12, 263.

Footnote 142:

The end of the Athenian monarchy and flight of the Pisistratids took
place about 500 B.C. (see Chapter IV, _infra_). The Eleusinia were
probably reformed not long before.

Footnote 143:

Herodotus, Bk II. c. 49; Diod. Sic. Bk I. c. 96, § 4 _sqq._ It may, on
the other hand, have been introduced from Asia Minor or the
Mediterranean Islands, where it was certainly prevalent at a very
early date. See articles in _P.S.B.A._ for 1911 and 1914 above quoted.

Footnote 144:

Plutarch, _de Is. et Os._ c. XXVIII; Tacitus, _Hist._ IV. cap. 83, 84.
Plutarch calls Timotheos the “exegete,” _i.e._ the interpreter or
dragoman; so that his being a Eumolpid would seem to rest on the
testimony of Tacitus only; but there were “exegetes” attached to the
Eumolpids at Eleusis, see Foucart, _Grds. Myst._ pp. 79 _sqq._
Bouché-Leclercq, _Hist. des Lagides_, I. p. 118, thinks the names
Timotheos and Manetho only cover the fact that the new religion was
compounded from the Eleusinian and the Osirian cult.

Footnote 145:

Bouché-Leclercq (_Hist. des Lagides_, I. p. 129, n. 2) thinks the
tradition that the Museum was founded by Ptolemy II Philadelphus
erroneous. The date of Demetrius of Phalerum’s leaving Athens to take
charge of it marks it as the foundation of Ptolemy Soter. Cf. Mahaffy,
_Empire of Ptolemies_, pp. 91, 92.

Footnote 146:

See Mahaffy, _op. cit._ p. 98.

Footnote 147:

Dyer, _Gods in Greece_, pp. 178, 179, and pp. 73, 74. An inscription
making the identification has been found at Smyrna. See O. Rayet in
the _Rev. Archéologique_ for 1877, pp. 175-178, where its date is put
at the middle of the third century B.C., and the vases of Gerhard
there quoted. Cf. Maury, _Rel. de la Grèce_, II. p. 362; F. Lenormant
in Daremberg and Saglio’s _Dict. des Antiquités_, _s.v._ Eleusinia, p.
549, and authorities there quoted.

Footnote 148:

Damascius, _Vit. Isidor_, § 106. For definition of term, see _ibid._
§§ 3, 5.

Footnote 149:

Foucart, _Myst. d’Él._ p. 34. He suggests that the real names were
“ineffable,” _i.e._ only revealed to initiates. Xenocrates, whose date
may be put at 396-314 B.C., seems to have known of a supernal and
infernal Zeus (Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk V. c. 11), and a fragment
attributed to Euripides identifies Zeus with Hades (_id._ _loc.
cit._).

Footnote 150:

Plutarch, _de Is. et Os._ c. XXVIII.; Clem. Alex. _Protrept._ c. II.

Footnote 151:

This was noticed by Clement of Alexandria, who (_Strom._ Bk V. c. 14)
says that Homer and Orpheus both “show forth” the Christian doctrine
in this respect. The verse he quotes from Orpheus makes Dionysos both
the father and son of Zeus. Cf. Abel’s _Orphica_, Frag. 237.

Footnote 152:

As in the Orphic verse: “Zeus is a male, Zeus is an immortal virgin,”
Abel, _Orphica_, Fr. 46. Hatch, _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 140, points out
that Xenocrates and the Stoics both made the same assertion. Cf.
authorities quoted by him and Euripides, _Bacchae_, ll. 330-350. A
statue from Smyrna showing a markedly effeminate type of Dionysos is
to be seen at the Ashmolean Museum.

Footnote 153:

Macrobius, _Saturnalia_, lib. I. c. 18, for authorities; also Pindar,
_Threnoi_, X. 8, p. 116 (Bergk); Plutarch, _On the E at Delphi_, c.
IX.

Footnote 154:

Lafaye, _Culte des Divinités d’Alexandrie_, Paris, 1884, pp. 6-12, and
authorities there quoted. Cf. Foucart, _Culte de Dion._ pp. 66, 67.

Footnote 155:

So Plutarch and Tacitus where before quoted. The conflicting
traditions on the subject have been reconciled by Krall, _Tacitus und
der Orient_, Th. I. Bd iv. 83, 84. Cf. Bouché-Leclercq, _Hist. de la
Divination_, t. III. p. 378, n. 1; _id._ _Hist. de Lagides_, t. I. p.
118; Lafaye, _Culte_, etc. pp. 16, 17. There is little doubt that the
statue of Bryaxis represented Asklepios as Bouché-Leclercq (_Rev.
Hist. Rel._ 1902, pp. 26, 27) surmises. Isidore Lévy sums up the whole
question in the _Revue_ last quoted, 1911, pp. 146, 147, and 1913, pp.
308 _sqq._ So Ad. Reinach, _Rev. cit._ pt 2, p. 69. The statue is
described by Rufinus Aquilensis, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk II. c. 23. Cf.
Dionysius, _Periegetes_, ll. 254, 256 (Didot, _Geogr. Gr. mi._ t. II.
p. 116); Amelung, _Rev. Archéol._, 1903, pt 2, pp. 187-204.

Footnote 156:

Probably it had some reference to his character as god of vegetation,
as shown by his epithet of “Frugifer.” The explanation of Macrobius,
_Saturnalia_, I. c. 20, which refers it to the sun, is absurd. Perhaps
it may be connected with his epithet of πολυδέγμων “receiver of many.”
So Æl. Aristides speaks of him as the receiver of souls. See p. 60
_infra_.

Footnote 157:

See last note. The eagle was adopted as a kind of family crest by the
Ptolemies and appears on all their coins. See examples in Mahaffy,
_Emp. of the Ptolemies_, _passim_. What is probably a reproduction of
Bryaxis’ statue is now at Naples and is described by Lafaye, _op.
cit._ p. 274.

Footnote 158:

See Lafaye, pp. 259, 260. Except in amulets, representations of
Harpocrates are not very common. Cf. _P.S.B.A._ 1914, p. 92.

Footnote 159:

Maury in _Revue des Deux Mondes_, Sept. 1855, p. 1073; Mariette, _Le
Sérapeum de Memphis_, ed. Maspero, Paris, 1882, I. pp. 114, 115, 124.

Footnote 160:

Bouché-Leclercq, _Hist. des Lagides_, I. pp. 232, 233. Cf. Mahaffy,
_Empire of Ptolemies_, pp. 204 _sqq._ The Egyptianizing tendencies of
the later Ptolemies shown by the decrees of the priests on the Rosetta
and Canopus Stones were first pointed out by Revillout in the _Revue
Archéologique_, 1877, pp. 331 _sqq._ A new decree of the same kind
under Epiphanes has been published by M. Daressy, _Recueil de Travaux_
etc., 1911, pp. 1 _sqq._

Footnote 161:

Macrobius, _Saturn._ Bk I. c. 7.

Footnote 162:

Foucart, _Les Associations Religieuses_, p. 207, Inscr. 24; _C.I.G._
No. 120. The tablet is now in the British Museum.

Footnote 163:

Lafaye, _Culte_, etc. p. 35; Pausanias, Bk I. c. 18, 4.

Footnote 164:

Lafaye, _op. cit._ pp. 35-388; _id._ _Dictionnaire des Antiquités_ of
Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._ Isis; Drexler in Roscher’s _Lexikon der
Mythologie_, _s.v._ Isis, esp. p. 379.

Footnote 165:

Lafaye, _op. cit._ p. 40; _C.I.L._ I. 577.

Footnote 166:

Lafaye, see last note.

Footnote 167:

Lafaye, _op. cit._ pp. 44 _sqq._

Footnote 168:

Lafaye, _op. cit._ pp. 44-47. For the story of Marcus Volusius see
Appian, _de Bello Civili_, Bk IV. c. 6, § 47.

Footnote 169:

Tibullus, _Elegiacs_, I. iii. 23; _ibid._ I. vii. 27; Ovid, _Am._ II.
xiii. 7; _id._ _op. cit._ II. xiv. The story of the expulsion is told
by Josephus, _Antiquities_, XVIII. c. 3. Cf. Lafaye, _op. cit._ chap.
III _passim_.

Footnote 170:

_Comicor. Graecor. Fragmenta_ of Didot, pp. 517 and 629, and Lafaye,
_op. cit._ p. 31.

Footnote 171:

Lafaye, _op. et loc. cit._ and especially p. 62.

Footnote 172:

So Parisotti, _Ricerche sul culto de Iside e Serapide_, Roma, 1888, p.
52 _sqq._; and Dill, _Nero to Marcus_, pp. 564, 565: “The history of
the Isiac cult at Rome from Sulla to Nero is really the history of a
great popular religious movement....”

Footnote 173:

See Chapter I, _supra_, pp. 12, 14. Cf. Droysen, _op. cit._ II. p.
471.

Footnote 174:

Macrobius, _Saturn._ Bk I. c. 20. Bouché-Leclercq (_R.H.R._ 1902, t.
XLVI. p. 19, n. 1) says these lines are a forgery of late date. Krall,
_Tacitus_, etc. Th. I, Bk iv., is of the contrary opinion. Nicocreon
of Cyprus was certainly a contemporary of Ptolemy Soter, and helped
him against Perdiccas.

Footnote 175:

Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk V. c. 14. So Ælius Aristides, _in Serapidem_,
p. 91 (Dindorf), says that Serapis “is present in all things and fills
the universe.”

Footnote 176:

Lafaye, _Culte_, etc., pp. 306, 307, 324, 325, for examples. Cf.
Inscription from Kios in Bithynia given by Robiou in _Mélanges Graux_,
Paris, 1884, pp. 601, 602; Parisotti, _op. cit._ p. 55.

Footnote 177:

Theocritus, _Idyll_, XV.; Damascius, _Vit. Isidor._ 106; Socrates,
_Hist. Eccl._ Bk III. c. 23. In _Le Culte d’Adonis-Thammuz_, Paris,
1901 (pp. 51-54, 69, 109), M. Ch. Vellay has shown the fusion in early
Christian times of the legends of Adonis, Atys and Osiris.

Footnote 178:

Frazer, _Golden Bough_, Part IV, p. 357 and n. 1; cf. Stephen of
Byzantium, _s.v._ Ἀμαθοῦς; Döllinger, _Jud. und Heid._ I. p. 145;
Decharme in Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._ Cybele for authorities.

Footnote 179:

Julian, _ad Reg. Sol._ Orat. IV. cc. 135, 136; Eusebius, _Praep. Ev._
Bk III. c. 15; Kenyon, _Greek Papyri in British Museum_, 1893, p. 65;
Wessely, _Griechische Zauberpapyri von Paris_, etc., Wien, 1888, pp.
61 _sqq._; Leemans, _Papyri Graeci Mus. Ant. Pub. Lugduni-Batavi_,
Leyden, 1885, II. pp. 26, 27; Parthey, _Zwei griech. Zauberpapyri_,
Berlin, 1866, p. 127.

Footnote 180:

Apuleius, _Metamorphoses_, Bk XI. c. 5.

Footnote 181:

So Ramsay, _Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia_, Oxford, 1895, I. p. 92,
says that “the essential idea” of the mysteries was that all the gods
there worshipped were but different forms of the one. In the “Greek
Worship of Serapis and Isis,” I have endeavoured to show how this idea
was elaborated in the cult of the Alexandrian divinities.

Footnote 182:

Homer, _Iliad_, XXI. 462 (translation by Lang, Leaf and Myers).

Footnote 183:

Cf. Penelope’s speech on the jealousy of the gods, _Odyssey_, XXIII.
208.

Footnote 184:

Sayce, _Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia_ (Gifford Lectures),
Edin. 1902, p. 201; Naville, _The Old Egyptian Faith_, pp. 308, 309;
Maspero, _Ét. Égyptol_. I. p. 163 and II. p. 277.

Footnote 185:

Apuleius, _Met._ Bk XI. c. 15.

Footnote 186:

_Ibid._ c. 25.

Footnote 187:

Aristides, _in Serapid._ p. 89.

Footnote 188:

_Ibid._ _loc. cit._

Footnote 189:

_Ibid._ p. 90.

Footnote 190:

_Ibid._ p. 97.

Footnote 191:

_Ibid._ _loc. cit._

Footnote 192:

_Ibid._ p. 100.

Footnote 193:

_Odyssey_, XI. 491 _sqq._ (Butcher and Lang’s translation).

Footnote 194:

Pindar, _Threnoi_, Frag. X. p. 102, Cod. Bö.

Footnote 195:

Sophocles, _Triptolemus_ (Plutarch, _de Audiendis Poetis_, 21 F),
Frag. 348 of Didot.

Footnote 196:

Homeric _Hymn to Demeter_, ll. 480 _sqq._ So an inscription on the
statue of a hierophant quoted by M. Foucart, _Myst. d’El._ p. 55, says
that death to the initiated is not an evil but a good.

Footnote 197:

Apuleius, _Met._ Bk XI. c. 6.

Footnote 198:

Aristides, _in Serapid._ p. 93.

Footnote 199:

_Ibid._ p. 95.

Footnote 200:

_Ibid._ p. 96.

Footnote 201:

Maspero says (“Les Hypogées Royaux de Thebes,” _Ét. Égyptol._ II. p.
178) that “if ever there were in Pharaonic Egypt mysteries and
initiates, as there were in Greece and Greek Egypt,” it was in the
time of decay evidenced by the rare books preserved in the tombs of
the kings of the XXth and later Dynasties. Later, _ibid._ p. 180, he
says that they must have been confined to a very small class. Cf.
_ibid._ p. 278.

Footnote 202:

_E.g._ the mystic marriage of Zeus or Dionysos with Demeter, which
according to Hippolytus, _Philosophumena_, Bk V. c. 1, § 8, p. 171,
Cruice, and Clement of Alexandria, _Protrept._ c. II., formed the
crowning scene of the Eleusinian Mysteries. At Dendera, the
corresponding union of Osiris and Isis, from which, according to M.
Foucart, the Eleusinian legend was derived, was depicted in the most
realistic way on the temple walls. See Mariette, _Dendérah_, Paris,
1875, t. IV. pl. 65 _sqq._, or Budge, _G.E._ pp. 132-137.

Footnote 203:

Apuleius, _Met._ Bk XI. c. 21, _queis tamen tuto possint magna
religionis committi silentia, numen deae soleat elicere_.

Footnote 204:

_Ibid._ cc. 22, 23.

Footnote 205:

_Op. cit._ end of c. 23.

Footnote 206:

Perhaps this is the meaning of the formula said by Clement of
Alexandria, _Protrept._ c. II., to be repeated by the initiates at
Eleusis: “I have fasted ... I have drunk of the cyceon ... I have
entered into the chest (παστός).”

Footnote 207:

Apuleius, _Met._ c. 24.

Footnote 208:

See last note.

Footnote 209:

Ra was always the material sun; while Horus was probably in ancient
times the god of the sky: Maspero, _Ét. Égyptol._ t. II. p. 229. With
the Middle Empire the emblem of Ra began to be added to that of Horus
as the “crest” of the Pharaoh’s cognizance, showing that the king was
himself regarded as the representative of a composite divinity,
Horus-Ra. Cf. “Titles of Thinite Kings,” _P.S.B.A._ 1908, p. 89.

Footnote 210:

Proclus, _in Timaeum Platonia_, I. 30 D. (Schneidewin).

Footnote 211:

Minucius Felix, _Octavius_, c. XXI.; Arnobius, _adv. Gentes_, Bk I. c.
36; Athenagoras, _Presbeia_, c. XXII. Cf. also Griffith and Thompson,
_Stories of High Priests of Memphis_, pp. 107, 121; Maspero, _Ét.
Égyptol._ II. p. 246, and especially p. 361; _P.S.B.A._ 1914, pp. 92,
93.

Footnote 212:

Apuleius, _Met._ Bk XI. c. 27.

Footnote 213:

_Op. cit._ c. 28.

Footnote 214:

Ælius Aristides (_in Serapid._ p. 88) refuses to discuss this; but
Athenagoras (see note 5 p. 63, _supra_) says that when the members of
the body of Osiris were found, they were presented to Isis with the
remark that they were the fruits of the vine Dionysus and that Semele
was the vine itself. But see p. 65, _infra_. Plutarch, _de Is. et Os._
c. LXXIX. says that “the priests of these days,” meaning, as is
evident from the context, the priests of the Alexandrian divinities,
“try to conceal” the fact that Osiris rules over the dead. The old
religion of Egypt never did; but perhaps this, too, was part of the
secret teaching of the Alexandrian Mysteries.

Footnote 215:

Maspero, _Ét. Égyptol._ II. pp. 254-255, 361, 446; _P.S.B.A._ 1914, p.
92.

Footnote 216:

Apuleius, _Met._ c. 27.

Footnote 217:

“Osiris-Bacchus” in _Ägypt. Zeitschr._ 1878, p. 106.

Footnote 218:

Unless we suppose that the statue was one of those used in the
mysteries, see note 3 p. 64, _supra_. Plutarch, however, in his
address to Klea makes no secret of the identification. See _de Is. et
Os._ c. XXXV.

Footnote 219:

Plato, _Phaedr._ in Abel’s _Orphica_, Fragm. 228. Olympiodorus says
that the verse comes from Orpheus.

Footnote 220:

Dyer, _Gods in Greece_, p. 209. He thinks the crowd sometimes numbered
30,000, relying upon the story in Herodotus, Bk VIII. c. 65, of the
Spartan who before the battle of Marathon heard the Iacchos-song sung
“as if by 30,000 persons.” Cf. Foucart, _Les Gds. Myst._ p. 136.

Footnote 221:

Moret, _Le Culte Divin Journalier en Égypte_, Paris, 1902, p. 9.

Footnote 222:

Apuleius, _Met._ c. 20. Lafaye, _Culte_, etc. p. 136, gives the
“trousseau” of a statue of Isis found in Spain including earrings,
necklaces, etc.

Footnote 223:

See the scene in the Herculaneum fresco described on p. 68, _infra_.

Footnote 224:

Martial, Bk X. Epig. 48. Apuleius, _Met._ c. 17, describes the
ceremonies which included a solemn dismissal of the people, and the
kissing by them of the feet of a silver statue of the goddess.

Footnote 225:

Apuleius, _Met._ c. 19.

Footnote 226:

Lafaye, _Culte_, etc. pp. 118, 119, and Plate facing p. 192. Cf. Ovid,
Propertius and Tibullus, where quoted by Lafaye, _op. cit._ p. 120.

Footnote 227:

Ovid, _Pontic. Epist._ Bk I. Ep. 1, v. 51.

Footnote 228:

The Baron von Bissing thinks this is a copy of the Serapeum of
Alexandria. See _Transactions_ of the Third International Congress of
Religions, Oxford, 1908, I. pp. 225 _sqq._

Footnote 229:

Is this the _bacchos_ or short rod carried by the faithful in the
Iacchos-procession at Eleusis? See Scholiast in _Knights_ of
Aristophanes, l. 408 (p. 48 of Didot).

Footnote 230:

Hippolytus puts it quite plainly: “Now Osiris is water.” See
_Philosophumena_, Bk V. c. 7, p. 149, Cruice. Cf. Lafaye, _Culte_,
etc. p. 115. So Origen, _c. Cels._ Bk V. c. 38, says that the fables
of Osiris and Isis lead men to worship cold water and the moon.

Footnote 231:

von Bissing in the paper quoted in note 1 p. 68, _supra_, suggests
that this is the dance of the god Bes.

Footnote 232:

Minucius Felix, _Octavius_, c. 21.

Footnote 233:

The swallow refers to the story that Isis changed herself into a
swallow who flitted round the pillar containing the coffin of Osiris.
Plutarch, _de Is. et Os._ c. XVI.

Footnote 234:

Evidently a confusion between Horus and Osiris which would have been
impossible had not the Isiacists looked upon Horus as Osiris re-born.
Cf. Lactantius, _Institutes_, Bk I. c. 21, where the same confusion
occurs; _P.S.B.A._ 1914, p. 93.

Footnote 235:

The “dog-headed” Anubis.

Footnote 236:

Juvenal, _Satir._ VI. l. 533; _ibid._ VIII. l. 30.

Footnote 237:

Lafaye, _Culte_, etc. p. 128.

Footnote 238:

Lafaye, _Culte_, etc. p. 120.

Footnote 239:

Apuleius, _Met._ cc. 9, 10, 11.

Footnote 240:

Is this the “golden bough” of initiation? Cf. Baillet,
“Osiris-Bacchus,” cited p. 65, _supra_.

Footnote 241:

Probably the _pudendum_ of Osiris. See Hippolytus, _Philosophumena_,
Bk V. c. 7, p. 149, Cruice; Socrates, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk V. c. 16; Clem.
Alex. _Protrept._ c. II., says the Corybantes did the same thing with
that of Bacchus.

Footnote 242:

Lafaye in Daremberg and Saglio’s _Dict. des Antiq._ _s.v._ Isis.

Footnote 243:

See note 3 p. 68, _supra_. Cf. Leemans, _Papyri Gr._ pp. 26, 27.

Footnote 244:

Maspero, _Ét. Égyptol._ II. p. 345, says this Nu was “neither the
primordial water, nor the sky, but a very ancient god, common to all
humanity,” whom he compares to the Thian of the Chinese, the Dyaus of
the pre-Vedic, and the Uranos-Oceanos of the pre-Hellenic peoples. “At
the beginning,” he continues, “he is himself the Celestial Ocean.”

Footnote 245:

Apuleius, _Met._ Bk XI. c. 16.

Footnote 246:

The bearers of the sacred Pastos (box or coffin?). He says elsewhere
that this particular college dated from “the days of Sulla,” _i.e._
87-84 B.C.

Footnote 247:

The reading has been contested, but is well established. Cf. the
concluding words of the Mass: “Ite, missa est.”

Footnote 248:

“_Una quae es omnia_,” _C.I.N._ 3580. The stone was found at Capua.

Footnote 249:

Apuleius, _Met._ Bk XI. c. 5.

Footnote 250:

Plutarch, _Aristides_, c. V.

Footnote 251:

Apuleius, _Met._ cc. 21, 28, 30.

Footnote 252:

See p. 48, _supra_. Oracles given in dreams were, however, an old
institution in Egypt. See the dream of Thothmes IV concerning the
Sphinx, Breasted, _History of Egypt_, p. 325, and _Ancient Records_,
Chicago 1906, vol. II. No. 815.

Footnote 253:

Tacitus, _Hist._ Bk IV. cc. 81, 82.

Footnote 254:

Asklepios or Esculapius was one of the gods absorbed by Serapis. It is
most probable that the great statue by Bryaxis in the Alexandrian
Serapeum was originally an Asklepios. See Bouché-Leclercq, _Rev. de
l’Hist. des Rel._ 1902, pp. 26, 27, 28. There seems also to have been
a chapel to him in the Greek Serapeum at Memphis. See Brunet de
Presle, “Le Sérapéum de Memphis,” Paris, 1865, pp. 261-263. Cf.
Forshall, _Greek Papyri in the British Museum_, 1839, p. 33, and note
1 p. 80, _infra_.

Footnote 255:

Josephus, _Antiquities_, Bk XVIII. cc. 3, 4.

Footnote 256:

Lovatelli, _Il Culto d’Iside in Roma_, Roma, 1891, p. 174; Ovid,
_Pontic. Epist._ Bk I. Ep. I.

Footnote 257:

As M. Lafaye (_Culte_, etc. p. 132) points out, the hierophant in
Apuleius calls the other priests “his company,” _suus numerus_ (_Met._
c. 21).

Footnote 258:

For all these, see Lafaye, _op. cit._ chap. VII: _Le Sacerdoce_.

Footnote 259:

Lafaye, _op. cit._ p. 150.

Footnote 260:

These fragments are scattered among the different European museums.
Some are in the Vatican Library and were published by Mgr. Angelo Mai
in 1833 (Brunet de Presle, “Les Papyri Grecs du Louvre,” _Mém. de
l’Acad. des Inscript._ XVIII. pt 2 (1865), p. 16), others in the
Leyden Museum (Leemans, _Papyri Graeci_, I. pp. 6 _sqq._), others in
the Louvre (Brunet de Presle, _op. cit._ p. 22), and the largest
number in the British Museum (Kenyon, _Greek Papyri_, p. 1). The whole
story, so far as it has been ascertained, is told by Brunet de Presle,
_op. cit._ pp. 261-263, and by Sir Frederic Kenyon, _op. cit._ pp.
1-5, and the questions arising out of it are admirably summed up by M.
Bouché-Leclercq in his article, “Les Reclus du Sérapéum de Memphis” in
_Mélanges Perrot_, Paris, 1903, p. 17.

Footnote 261:

Matth. xxiii. 11. Cf. the Pope’s title of “Servant of the Servants of
God” (_Servus servorum Dei_).

Footnote 262:

Julian in his letters (_Ep._ 52) speaks of Alexandria even in his time
as being given up to the worship of Serapis. It is probable that in
this, as in other matters, the philosophic Emperor believed what he
wished to believe. Yet his contemporary, Ammianus Marcellinus, _Hist._
Bk XXII. c. 16, § 20, speaks of the elements of the sacred rites being
still preserved there in secret books, by which he seems to be
referring to the worship of the Alexandrian divinities.

Footnote 263:

See Renan, _Hibbert Lectures_, 1884, p. 197, for authorities.

Footnote 264:

Orelli, _Inscript. Latin. select._ pp. 406-412. All these have now
been transferred to the _Corp. Inscr. Latin._ _q.v._

Footnote 265:

See note 2 p. 82, _supra_.

Footnote 266:

Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_ (Bury’s edition), III. p. 200.

Footnote 267:

Theodoret, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk V. c. 23; Socrates, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk V. c.
16 Sozomen, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk VII. c. 15.

Footnote 268:

See note 1 p. 73, _supra_.

Footnote 269:

Socrates, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 17.

Footnote 270:

Renan, _Marc Aurèle_, Paris, 1882, p. 630, for authority. Cf. Gibbon,
_Decline and Fall_ (Bury’s edn.), IV. pp. 78, 79.

Footnote 271:

Gibbon, _op. cit._ III.

Footnote 272:

Drexler in _Roscher’s Lexikon_, _s.v._ Isis. Cf. Maury, _Rel. de la
Grèce_, t. II. p. 222.

Footnote 273:

Amm. Marcell. _op. cit._ Bk XXII. c. 13. According to Deubner, _De
incubatione_, Leipzig, 1900, c. IV. Cyril of Alexandria had to
establish the worship of two medical saints in the Egyptian hamlet of
Menuthis near Canopus to induce the people to forget the miraculous
cures formerly wrought there in the sanctuary of Isis.

Footnote 274:

Bury in Gibbon, _op. cit._ vol. IV. Appendix 3, p. 527.

Footnote 275:

Cf. Apuleius’ description of the veiling of the women’s heads in the
Isis procession, p. 72, _supra_.

Footnote 276:

A writer in Maspero’s _Recueil de Travaux_ for 1912, p. 75, mentions
that the Isiac _sistrum_ or rattle is still used by the Christians of
Abyssinia.

Footnote 277:

Vopiscus, _Saturninus_ (_Hist. August. Scriptor._ VI. t. II. pp.
718-730). The authenticity of the letter has been defended by
Lightfoot, _Apostolic Fathers_, 1891, I. p. 481. The date is fairly
well fixed by the death of Antinous in 122 A.D., and Hadrian’s visit
to Syria a few years later. Ramsay (_Church in Roman Empire_, 1903, p.
336) makes it 134 A.D.

Footnote 278:

Renan, _Marc Aur._ p. 433.

Footnote 279:

In the Catholic Church at this period the Eucharist was celebrated, if
we may judge from the _First Apology_ of Justin Martyr (c. LVI), in a
very simple manner, but apparently in the presence of all the
faithful. In that part of the Apostolical Constitutions (Bk VIII. c.
66), which is probably later in date than Justin, the catechumens,
heterodox, and unbelievers are directed to be excluded before
consecration (see Hatch, _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 301). It does not
follow that the ceremonial was as simple with the Gnostics. Marcus is
said by Irenaeus (Bk I. c. 6, pp. 116, 117, Harvey) to have made the
mixture of wine and water in the cup to appear purple and to overflow
into a larger vessel; while similar prodigies attend the celebration
in the _Pistis Sophia_ and the _Bruce Papyrus_, for which see Chap. X,
_infra_. As such thaumaturgy was intended to astonish the onlookers,
it is probable that the elements were displayed before the whole
congregation. That the later form of the ritual of the Christian
sacraments was taken from the Gnostics, see Hatch, _Hibbert Lectures_,
pp. 295-305, and 307-309, and de Faye, _Introduction à l’Ét. du
Gnosticisme_, Paris, 1903, pp. 106, 107.

Footnote 280:

Kenyon, _Greek Papyri_, p. 105. Sir Frederick Kenyon questions the
_theocrasia_ of Serapis and Esculapius, but see Bouché-Leclercq, _Rev.
Hist. Rel._ 1902, p. 30.

Footnote 281:

Revillout, _Rev. Égyptol._ 1880, p. 172.

Footnote 282:

“The Names of Demons in the Magic Papyri,” _P.S.B.A._ 1901, pp. 41
_sqq._

Footnote 283:

Lafaye, _Culte_, etc. p. 96, and inscriptions there quoted.

Footnote 284:

Budge, “Papyrus of Nesi-Amsu,” p. 442.

Footnote 285:

See “The Greek Worship of Serapis and Isis,” _P.S.B.A._ 1914, pp. 93,
94.

Footnote 286:

That the Trinitarian doctrine of the Creed of Nicaea evolved gradually
will now, I suppose, be admitted by all. Mr Conybeare, _Apology of
Apollonius_, 1894, p. 14, probably goes too far when he says that “the
doctrine of the Trinity in Unity” is not met with till the end of the
third century. So Guignebert, _L’Évolution des Dogmes_, Paris, 1910,
pp. 293, 294, tells us how in his opinion the dogma followed “at some
distance” the assertion of the Divinity of Christ. Harnack, _Expansion
of Christianity_, Eng. ed. 1904, II. pp. 257, 258, seems to attribute
the first formulation of the dogma to Tertullian who, according to
him, owed something to the Gnostics. It is at any rate plain that
neither Hermas, nor the Apologists, nor Irenaeus, nor Clement of
Alexandria, nor Origen were in accord with later orthodoxy on the
point. Monsignor Duchesne, _Early History of the Christian Church_,
Eng. ed. 1909, p. 20, puts the matter very frankly when he suggests
that the average Christian troubled himself very little about it.
“This is the Christian doctrine of the Trinity,” he says after
defining it, “not certainly as it was formulated later in opposition
to transient heresies, but as it appeared to the general conscience of
the early Christians.... The generality of Christians in the first
century even in apostolic days stood here almost exactly at the same
point as present-day Christians. Theologians knew, or at any rate
said, far more about it.”