sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aeclanum, Aeternitas, Allifae, Anna Perenna, Antoniou, Ateste

Divine Emperors and : Emperor Worship in the Italian Peninsula (Excluding )

Alex Andrew Antoniou BA (Hons), LLB (Hons)

The University of Adelaide Department of Classics, Archaeology and School of Humanities, Faculty of Arts

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy (Research) May 2018

CONTENTS

CONTENTS

Contents i

Abstract ii

Thesis Declaration iii

Acknowledgements iv

Notes v

Abbreviations v

Epigraphic Abbreviations vi

List of Maps and Plates xii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 2: Approaches and Methodology 16

Chapter 3: The Evidence for Emperor Worship in Italy 40

Chapter 4: Municipal Institutions of Emperor Worship 68

Chapter 5: Collegial Institutions Incorporating Emperor Worship 102

Conclusions 117

Plates 119

Appendix 1: Catalogue of Evidence for Emperor Worship in Italy 125

Appendix 2: Catalogue of ‘Augustan’ and Deities 202

Epigraphic Concordance 213

Bibliography 233

i ALEX A. ANTONIOU

ABSTRACT

This thesis investigates the evidence for worship of the Roman emperors (living and deified), their divine predecessors and the living or deified household of the emperors, in the Italian peninsula, excluding the city of Rome itself. A wide range of evidence is covered – literary, archaeological, epigraphic, numismatic and artistic – across a wide chronological timeframe – from the later years of the first-century BCE, into the fourth-century CE. Such a wide scope is considered in order to build as accurate a picture of emperor worship in Italy as is possible, given the limitations of the evidence, and in order to appreciate some of the continuities or disparities of that evidence. Evidence of worship that is regarded as municipal (worship that was intended for the benefit of an entire Italian city) and collegial (where members of a circumscribed group came together in worship) will be considered.

This study focuses on reasserting the religious identity of under the through analysis of their engagement with emperor worship. While the institutions of emperor worship have often been viewed in an imperialist light, this thesis offers a new perspective by highlighting how Italians used the institutions of emperor worship to form and negotiate their identity under the emperors and the principate.

The institutions of emperor worship can be viewed as potent religious gifts. These religious gifts were exchanged with the emperors and their households on the ‘real’ level – directly to the emperors themselves – and also on the ‘divine’ level – to the emperors and their households as important new gods within the Graeco-Roman pantheon. Thus, it will be demonstrated that emperor worship was used as a powerful tool, on both the municipal and collegial levels, in the formation and negotiation of the identity of Italians under the principate.

ii

ALEX A. ANTONIOU

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deep gratitude to Drs. Margaret O’Hea and Jacqueline Clarke, my research supervisors, for their patience, guidance and encouragement throughout my candidature. Your comments and support will be remembered, thank you.

I would also like to thank Professor Han Baltussen for his enduring support and mentoring throughout my at the University of Adelaide, and especially during my M.Phil candidature. Thank you for going above and beyond the call of duty at all .

I must also thank Dr Nick Galatis for his generosity in sponsoring my Galatis Travel Scholarship to Greece and Italy. This generous scholarship allowed me to conduct research for this thesis at the Australian Archaeological Institute at Athens, the British School at Rome, and the British School at Athens. I must also thank the staff, residents and librarians of those institutes for their help, support and encouragement.

Parts of this research were presented at Departmental Seminars at the University of Adelaide, and at the Australasian Society for Classical Studies 2017 Conference in Wellington, New Zealand. I would like to thank all of the participants of those events for their invaluable feedback, and particularly Dr. Gwynaeth McIntyre, for her assistance and kind words. Parts of this thesis were also greatly improved by comments given by an anonymous reviewer. I also owe enduring thanks to the entire Inter-Library Loans Team at the Barr Smith Library. Without your help this thesis would never have been written.

I owe everlasting thanks to my mother, Judith Antoniou, and Pat, Kent and Sarah Patrick for their love, kind assistance and support throughout. I must also thank Emily Chambers for her support and for sharing a good laugh while we struggled through ancient languages.

Finally, I want and need to thank Alex Patrick, for everything.

iv NOTES

NOTES 1. Transcription of epigraphic texts follows standard conventions.1 2. Most inscriptions were sourced through the EDCS Database (Epigraphik-Datenbank Clauss-Slaby: http://www.manfredclauss.de/gb/index.html), although the content of inscriptions was checked by reference to original cataloguing and was corrected where necessary. 3. References follow the Chicago Manual of Style, 17th Edition. In the body of the text and in the appendices, short titles have been used with full citations in the bibliography. 4. When referencing sites in Italy, the first mention of a site in a paragraph contains, in parentheses, the number of the Augustan region where the site is located. For example, Ostia (It. 1) = Ostia in Augustan Regio I.

ABBREVIATIONS The names of ancient authors and works are abbreviated according to the standard practice used in Simon Hornblower, Spawforth and Esther Eidinow (editors). The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

AA = Archäologischer Anzeiger. AJA = American Journal of Archaeology. AJPh = The American Journal of Philology. ANRW = Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt. Arctos = Arctos: Acta Philologica Fennica. BAR = British Archaeological Reports. BM Coins, Rom. Emp.= British Museum Catalogue of Coins of the , 1923–. CAH = The Cambridge Ancient History CJ = The Classical Journal. CPh = Classical Philology. CQ = The Classical Quarterly. CR = Classical Review. CronErcol = Cronache Ercolanesi. Hesperia = Hesperia. The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

1 See Cooley, Manual of , 350-55.

v ALEX A. ANTONIOU Historia = Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. HThR = The Harvard Theological Review. JHS = Journal of Hellenic Studies. JRA = Journal of Roman Archaeology. JRS = Journal of Roman Studies. MAAR = Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. MEFRA = Mélanges de l’Ecole Française de Rome – Antiquité. PBSR = Papers of the British School at Rome. PhQ = Philological Quarterly. PP = Le Parola del Passato. RendLinc = Atti dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei: Rendiconti. RE = Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. RIC = Mattingly, Harold, Edward A. Sydenham and C.H.V. Sutherland. The Roman Imperial Coinage. London. 1923–. TAPhA = Transactions of the American Philological Association. ZPE = Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik.

EPIGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS AcquiTermeDiocleziano = Zanda, E. Museo Archeologico di Acqui Terme. La Città, Alessandria, 2002. AE = L’Année Épigraphique. Paris 1888–. Aesernia = Buonocore, Marco. Molise: Repertorio delle Iscrizioni Latine. Le Iscrizioni Aesernia. Campobasso: Palladino, 2003. AlbaPomp = Mennella, G. and S. Barbieri. “La Documentazione Epigrafica della Città e Del Territorio.” In Archeologia della Città Dalla Fondazione alla Tarda Antichità, edited by F. Filippi, 569-609. Alba, 1997. AnalEpi = Solin, Heikki. Analecta Epigraphica, 1970-1997. : Institutum Romanum Finlandie, 1998. Arctos = Arctos. Acta Philologica Fennica. BCAR = Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale in Roma, 1872–. Bergemann = Bergemann, Johannes. Römische Reiterstatuen: Ehrendenkmäler im Öffentlichen Bereich. : Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1990. BonaDea = Brouwer, Hendrik H. . The Sources and a Description of the Cult. Leiden: Brill, 1989.

vi EPIGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS Bovino = Cassano, Selene Maria. Bovino: Studi per la Storia della Città Antica: La Collezione Museale. Bovino: La Colomba, 1994. Campedelli = Campedelli, . L’Amministrazione Municipale delle Strade Romane in Italia. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 2014. Casinum -02 = Solin, Heikki. “ Storia Costituzionale e Amministrative della Casinum Romana.” In Le Epigrafi della Valle di Comino. Atti del Nono Convegno Epigrafico Cominese. Alvito, Istituto Comprensivo “Mario Equicola” 13 Ottobre 2012, edited by Heikki Solin, 105-17: , 2013. CCCA = Vermaseren, Maarten Jozef. Corpus Cultus Cybelae Attidisque. Brill: Leiden, 1987-1977. CCID = Hörig, Monika and E. Schwertheim. Corpus Cultus Iovis Dolicheni. Leiden: Brill, 1987. CIG = Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. Berlin, 1828-1877. CIL = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Berlin, 1863–. CIMRM = Vermaseren, Maarten Jozef. Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae. 1956-1960. Chiron = Chiron. Mitteilungen der Kommission für Alte Geschichte und Epigraphik des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Conze = Conze, Alexander. Königliche Museum zu Berlin. Beschreibung der Antiken Skulpturen mit Ausschluss der Pergamenischen Fundstücke. Berlin: W. Spemann, 1891. CSL = Centro Studi Lunensi. Quaderni. EaNovara = Biancolini, Daniela, Luisella Pejrani Baricco and Giuseppina Spagnolo Garzoli. Epigrafi a Novara: il Lapidario della Canonica di Santa Maria. Torino: Celid, 1999. EAOR = Epigrafia Anfiteatrale dell’Occidente Romano. EE = Ephemeris Epigraphica. Engfer = Engfer, Katrin. Die Private Munifizenz der Römischen Oberschicht in Mittel – und Süditalien: Eine Untersuchung Lateinischer Inschriften unter dem Aspekt der Fürsorge. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2017. Epigraphica = Epigraphica. Rivista Italiana di Epigrafia. 1939–. ELarino = Stelluti, Napoleone. Epigrafi di Larino e Della Bassa Frentania: II Repertorio. Campobasso: Editrice Lampo, 1997. ELOstia = Cébeillac-Gervasoni, Mireille, Maria Letizia Caldelli and Fausto Zevi. Epigrafia Latina. Ostia: Cento Iscrizioni in Contesto. Roma: Quasar, 2010.

vii ALEX A. ANTONIOU EQNoricum = Wedenig, Reinhold. Epigraphische Quellen zur Städtischen Administration in Noricum (Aus Forschung und Kunst). Klagenfurt: Verlag des Geschichtsvereines für Kärnten, 1997. ETrentine = Chistè, P. Epigrafi Trentine Dell’Età Romana, 1971. Euergetismo = Cancrini, Federica, Christiane Delplace and Silvia Maria Marengo. L’Evergetismo Nella Regio V (). Tivoli: Tipigraf, 2001. Firenze = Capecchi, Gabriella. Alle Origini di Firenze: Dalla Preistoria alla Città Romana. Firenze: Edizioni Polistampa Firenze, 1996. GeA = Heindenreich, Christophe Schmidt. Le Glaive et l’Autel. Camps et Piété Militaires sous le Haut-Empire Romain. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2013. GladPar = Tumolesi, Patrizia Sabbatini. Gladiatorum Paria: Annunci di Spettacoli Gladiatorii a Pompei. Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1980. Grabalt = Dexheimer, Dagmar. Oberitalische Grabaltäre: Ein Beitrag zur Sepulkralkunst der Römischen Kaiserzeit. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1998. GraffPomp = Hunink, Vincent. Glücklich ist dieser Ort! 1000 Graffiti aus Pompeji. Lateinisch/Deutsch. Stuttgart: Reclam, 2011. Horster = Horster, Marietta. Bauinschriften Römischer Kaiser. Untersuchungen zu Inschriftenpraxis und Bautätigkeit in Städten des Westlichen Romanum in der Zeit des Prinzipats. Historia Einzelschr. 157. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2001. IAugPraetoria = Cavallaro, Antonina Maria and Gerold Walser. Iscrizioni di Augusta Praetoria. Aosta: Musumeci, 1988. IBR = Vollmer, F. Inscriptiones Baivariae Romanae, Sive Inscriptiones Provinciae Raetiae Adiectis Noricis Italicisve. München, 1915. IDRE = Petolescu, Constantin C. Inscriptiones Daciae Romanae Extra Fines Daciae. Bukarest, 1996 IEAquil = Lettich. Giovanni. Itinerari Epigrafici Aquileiesi: Guida alle Epigrafi Esposte nel Museo Archeologico Nazionale di . : Editreg, 2003. IETraiana = Silvestrini, Marina. Un Itinerario Epigrafico Lungo la Via Traiana. Aecae, Herdonia, Canusium. Bari: Edipuglia, 1999. IFF = Granino Cecere, Maria Grazia. Il Flaminato Femminile Imperiale nell’Italia Romana. Roma: Editore Quasar, 2014. IG = Inscriptiones Graecae. IGI-Napoli = Miranda, Elena. Iscrizioni Greche d’Italia. Napoli: Casa Editrice Quasar, 1990. IGUR = Moretti, L. Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae, Rome, 1968-1990. viii EPIGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS IGLTreviso = Luciani, Franco. Iscrizioni Greche e Latine dei Musei Civici di Treviso. Treviso: di Treviso, 2012. ILLConcordia = Broilo, Fulviomario. Iscrizioni Lapidarie Latine del Museo Nazionale Concordiese di Portogruaro (1 A.C. = III D.C.). Vol. 1. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider, 1980. ILS = Dessau, Herman. Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. Berlin, 1892-1916. ILVercel = Roda, Servio. Iscrizioni Latine di Vercelli. : Vincenzo Bona, 1985. IMinerva = Buonopane, Alfredo. “Le Iscrizioni dal Tempio di nel Pagus degli Arusnates.” In La Valpolicella in Età Romana: Atti del II Convegno di Studi, edited by Alfredo Buonopane and Andrea Brugnoli, 82-102. : Università degli Studi di Verona, 2003. InscrIt = Inscriptiones Italiae. Roma: La Libreria dello Stato: 1931-. InscrAqu = Brusin, Johannes Baptista. Inscriptiones Aquileiae. Udine: Arti Grafiche Friulane, 1991-1993. IRComo = Sartori, . Le Iscrizioni Romane. Guida All’Esposizione. Como: Comune di Como, 1994. IRConcor = Lettich, Giovanni. Iscrizioni Romane di Iulia . Trieste: Centro Studi Storico-Religiosi Friuli-Venezia Giulia, 1994. IulCarnicum-02 = Mainardis, Fulvia. Iulium Carnicum. Storia ed Epigrafia. Trieste: Editreg, 2008. Legio-XV-Apo = Mosser, Martin. Sie Steindenkmäler der Legio XV Apollinaris. Wein: Forschungsgesellschaft Wiener Stadtarchäologie, 2003. Liburnia = Zović, Valentina and Anamarija Kurilić. “The Structure of Votive Inscriptions from Roman Liburnia.” Arheološki Vestnik. 66 (2015): 399-453. Louvre = Ducroux, Serge. Catalogue Analytique des Inscriptions Latines sur Pierre Conservées au Musée du Louvre. Paris: Musée du Louvre, 1975. Lunensia = Angeli Bertinelli, M. Gabriella. Lunensia Antiqua. Rome: Bretschneider Giorgio, 2012. Maffeiano = Modonesi, Denise. Museo Maffeiano: Iscrizioni e Rilievi Sacri Latini. Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 1995. MEFR = Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’École Française de Rome. MilliariRegioni = Donati, A. “I Milliari Delle regioni IV e V dell’Italia.” Epigraphica 36 (1974): 155-222. MGR = Miscellanea Greca a Romana.

ix ALEX A. ANTONIOU MLNovara = Oreste, Scarzello. Il Museo Lapidario della Canonica e gli Antichi Monumenti Epigrafici di Novara. Novara: Cattaneo per la Società Storica Novarese, 1931. MNR = Museo Nazionale Romano. NSA = Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Olympia = Hittenberger, W. and K. Purgold. Die Inschriften von Olympia. Berlin: Verlag von A. Asher & Co, 1896. OpPomp = Opuscula Pompeiana. Ordona-01 = Van Wonterghem, F. “Les Inscriptions Découvertes Pendant les Quatre Premières Campagnes de Fouilles à Ordona (1962-1966).” In Ordona II, edited by Jozef Mertens, 127-154. Rome: Academia Belgica, 1967. Ostia = van der Meer, Bourke. Ostia Speaks: Inscriptions, Buildings and Spaces in Rome’s Main Port. Leeven Walpole: Peeters Publishers, 2012. = Melo, Mário and Giuseppe Voza. Le Iscrizioni Latine di Paestum. Neapel: Universita Degli Studi di Napoli, 1968. Pais = Pais, Ettore. Corporis Inscriptionum Latinarum Supplementa Italica. Rome: 1884. Piemonte = Mercando, Liliana and Gianfranco Paci. Stele Romane in Piemonte. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider, 1998. Picus = Picus. Studi e Ricerche Sulle nell’Antichità. Pisaurum = Cresci Marrone, Giovannella and Giovanni Mennella. Pisaurum. 1. Le Iscrizioni della . Pisa: Giardini, 1984. PompIn = Hüttemann, Arno. Pompejanische Inschriften: Lateinisch/Deutsch. Stuttgart: Reclams Universal-Bibliothek, 2010. PortaNola = De Caro, Stefano. “Scavi nell’area Fuori Porta Nola a Pompei.” Cronache Pompeiane. 5 (1979): 61-101. Questori = Petraccia Lucernoni, Maria Federica. I Questori Municipali dell’Italia Antica. Roma: Istituto Italiano per la Storia Antica, 1988. RAComo = Rivista Archeologica dell’Antica Provincia e Diocesi di Como. RAL = Rendiconti Della Classe si Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche dell’Academia dei Lincei. Rev. Arch. = Revue Archéologique. RICIS = Bricault, Laurent. Recueil des Inscriptions Concernant les Cultes Isiaques. Paris: De Boccard, 2005. RHP = Lörincz, Barnabás. Die Römischen Hilfstruppen in Pannonien Während der Prinzipatszeit. I: Die Inschriften. Wien: Wiener Stadtarchäologie, 2001. RMD = Roxan, Margaret M. Roman Military Diplomas. London, 1978–. x EPIGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS RPAA = Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia di Archeologia. SdOstia = Scavi di Ostia, 1954–. SEG = Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, 1923–. SIPSurrentum = Magelhaes, Marici M. Storia, Istituzioni e Prosopografia di Surrentum Romana. La Collezione Epigrafica del Museo Correale di Terranova. Neapol: Longobardi, 2003. SIRIS = Vidman, Ladislav. Sylloge Inscriptionum Religionis Isiacae et Sarapiacae. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969. Spigolature = Buonocore, Marco. Spigolature Epigrafiche. SupIt = Supplementa Italica. Tergeste = Vidulli Torlo, Marzia. Il Lapidario Tergestino al Castello di San Giusto. Trieste: Civici Musei Storia ed Arte, 2001. TermeDiocleziano = Friggeri, Rosanna, Maria Grazia Granino Cecere and Gian Luca Gregori. Terme di Diocleziano: La Collezione Epigrafica. Milano: Electa, 2012. Terventum = Fratianni, Gerardo. Terventum: Carta Archeologica della Media Valle del Trigno. Galatina: Mario Congedo Editore, 2010. Tyche = Tyche. Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte, Papyrologie und Epigraphik. = Capini, S. Molise. Repertorio delle Iscrizioni Latine. Venafrum. Campbasso: Palladino: 1999. Zevi 2008 = Zevi, Fausto. “Le Basi Iscritte del Sacello degli Augustali.” In Museo Archeologico dei Campi Flegrei: Catalogo Generale Cuma, vol. 1, edited by F. Zevi and P. Miniero, 212-234. Napoli: Electa Napoli, 2008. ZPE = Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik.

xi ALEX A. ANTONIOU

LIST OF MAPS AND PLATES Both maps were created using geographical data from “Antiquity à-la-Carte Application,” and the contours of the Augustan regions are after Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, Map 1. Each site number corresponds to the site numbers in Appendix 1 (Catalogue).

MAPS Map 1: Full Map of all Catalogued Sites and Augustan Regions. Map 2: Map of Municipal Temples.

PLATES Plate 1: Antinous as , potentially from Lanuvium (It. 1). Palazzo Massimo alle Terme. Photo: Author. Plate 2: Abellinum Altar (It. 1, Cat. 1A). Photo: Grella, Consalvo. “L’Ara di Abellinum nel Museo Archeologico di .” Napoli Nobilissima 22 (1983): 139-42, 140, fig. 3. Plate 3: Altar (It. 1, Cat. 23B). Photo: von Hesberg, H. “Archäologische Denkmäler zum Römischen Kaiserkult.” ANRW II.16.2 (1978): 911-95, 922, no. 7. Plate 4: Reconstruction of the Temple of the Deified at Ostia (It. 1, Cat. 22F(2)). Drawing: Laird, Margaret L. Civic Monuments and the Augustales in . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, 91, fig. 36. Plate 5: Plan of the Templum Augusti of the Augustales at Misenum (It. 1, Cat. 19A). Plan: Laird, Margaret L. Civic Monuments and the Augustales in Roman Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, 145, fig. 55. Plate 6: Frescoes of the Collegio of the Augustales at (It. 1, Cat. 15A). Photos: Author. Plate 7: Plan of the Collegio of the Augustales at Herculaneum (It. 1, Cat. 15A). Plan: Laird, Margaret L. Civic Monuments and the Augustales in Roman Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, 110, fig. 40. Plate 8: Plan of the Barracks of the Vigiles at Ostia (It. 1, Cat. 22F(1)). Drawing: Laird, Margaret L. Civic Monuments and the Augustales in Roman Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, 90, fig. 35. Plate 9: The Augusteum of the Barracks of the Vigiles at Ostia (It. 1, Cat. 22F(1)). Photo: Author. Plate 10: The from the Augusteum of the Barracks of the Vigiles at Ostia (It. 1, Cat. 22F(1)). Photos: Becatti, Giovanni. Scavi di Ostia IV. Mosaici e Pavimenti Marmorei. Tavole. Italy: Instituto Poligrafico Dello Stato, 1961, 76, tav. C. xii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 THEMES

Under the Roman empire, the (that is the Italian peninsula, excluding Rome itself), faded into the background.2 Forgotten were the wars of conquest of the Italian peninsula, the Punic Wars, and ’s assault upon Italy. Forgotten were the days of the

Social Wars and of the rebellion of Spartacus, and even the assassination of Julius .

Although had established an enduring concept of tota Italia, Italy’s history became obscured when he became pater patriae, , and princeps. Whilst emperors would continue to focus on the city of Rome for many centuries, their attention otherwise would be directed far away from Italy, looking to the far-reaching political and military conflicts of the vast Roman empire and her limites. Thus, our ancient testimony for the imperial period is attuned to the conflicts and tensions within Rome herself, or the wider empire. The history of Italy and her peoples, sequestered deep within the heart of the empire, has often been missed and overlooked. Yet Italy remained fertile, and supported a flourishing population.

The communities, colleges and individuals of Italy – while no longer commanding the primary attention of emperors and ancient historians – were still interacting with this new concept of empire and its leaders: Augustus and his successors.

This interaction – between communities and colleges and the Roman state and her divinities during the early to middle empire – is the major concern of this thesis. This thesis reasserts the identity of Italians and their agency in creating their own identity in this new political system. In their creation of identity, religion (as a socio-political construct) played a key role. Principally, the religious negotiations concerned with the institutions of emperor worship (that is, the worship of the emperor, his deified predecessors, and his household) are of fundamental importance in this interaction. These institutions have often been viewed

2 Millar, “Italy and the Roman Empire,”; Lomas, Roman Italy, 111.

1 ALEX A. ANTONIOU in an imperialist light with focus on how the emperors fostered loyalty to themselves by promoting cults of their own worship. This thesis offers a new perspective and examines how the institutions of emperor worship were fundamental in the formation of Italian identity under the emperors.

This thesis will analyse the archaeological, epigraphic, literary, numismatic and artistic evidence of the institutions of emperor worship from across the Italian peninsula, excluding the city of Rome. To that end, references herein to Italy and the Italian peninsula should be assumed to exclude the city of Rome, unless otherwise stated. The bulk of this evidence spans the period from c.31 BCE (the Battle of Actium) through to the early third century, with some evidence for emperor worship in Italy even into the fourth century.

In order to do this, it is important to clarify the cultural and religious authority and autonomy of Italian cities and define the regulation of Italy under Augustus’ new forms of administrative organisation.

1.2 IMPERIAL ITALY

It is all too in the study of Italy, that ‘Italy’ is merely used as a synonym for

‘Rome’,3 and thus many studies of ‘Italy’ predominantly focus upon Rome itself. This is not surprising. From the Italian Social War to the ascendancy of Augustus,4 huge leaps were made towards cultural and political homogeneity between Italy and Rome.5 This homogeneity was boosted by Octavian’s attempts to establish an ideological re-identification of a united Italy,6 a united tota Italia, with whose support Octavian was given the authority and the power to defeat Antony at Actium (R.G. 25.2).7 Rome and Italy were united to crush

3 Observed by Keay and Terrenato, “Preface,” x. 4 Lomas, “Roman Imperialism,” 75-77; Lomas, Roman Italy, 8; Crawford, “Italy and Rome”. 5 Häussler, “Writing Latin,” 73; Cooley, “Beyond Rome and ,” 228; Galinsky, Augustan Culture, 313; Salmon, Making of Roman Italy, 143-44; Laurence, “Territory, Ethnonyms and Geography,” 96; Keaveney, Rome and Unification of Italy, 191. 6 Lomas, Roman Italy, 5, 114; Ando, “Vergil’s Italy,” 135. 7 See also R.G. 10.2; Cass. Dio 5.6.6; Dyson, Community and Society, 95; Haeussler, Becoming Roman?, 182.

2 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION and vanquish their common enemies. While Augustus’ tota Italia was perhaps only an

‘imagined community’,8 the symbolic and cultural homogeneity created was palpable. At the ‘same time as Augustus was trumpeting the political unanimity of Italy, greater cultural homogeneity began to emerge in the Italian peninsula too’.9 This homogeneity continued to grow in the principate, and it has been convincingly argued that in the eyes of the Julio-

Claudian emperors, Italy was merely an extension of Rome.10 Although this homogeneity often had palpable political outcomes for the people of Italy,11 the homogeneity was predominantly symbolic and cultural.

In matters of religion, the Italian peninsula was not under the control and authority of Rome, despite the testimony of . Tacitus informs us that ‘all sacred rites in the towns of Italy as well as temples and images of deities were under the jurisdiction and authority of Rome’ (Ann. 3.71).12 However, a closer reading of this passage demonstrates that Rome had only slight ‘control’ over Italy’s religious institutions. Tacitus’ claim that the pontifices had jurisdiction and authority over Italian religion was a sleight-of-hand, designed so that the pontifices of Rome could justify their actions in this particular case: to place an offering in a temple in Antium (It. 1), so that they might fulfil a vow, and thus fulfil proper

Roman sacral law. Their ‘control’ over Italian religion was in fact limited, and was only extended so that Roman sacral law could be fulfilled.

As Rüpke argues, Roman religious policy was undeniably focused principally on

Rome herself.13 This is how we must consider other instances of Roman intervention in matters of Italian religion. There are instances of Roman pontifices giving religious guidance to Italians in respect of their dead,14 the senate recognising and expiating many Italian

8 Laurence, “Territory, Ethnonyms and Geography,” 109. 9 Cooley, “Beyond Rome and Latium,” 228. 10 Patterson, “Emperor and Cities of Italy”, 97. 11 See Suet. Aug. 46; Patterson, 96. 12 Transl. Moore (Loeb), with revisions; ‘cunctasque caerimonias Italicis in oppidis templaque et numinum effigies iuris atque imperii Romani esse’. 13 Rüpke, “Roman Religion and the Religion of Empire,” 28. 14 Beard, North and Price, Religions of Rome, 1:322.

3 ALEX A. ANTONIOU prodigia,15 and a requiring all Italian communities to erect statues of divus

Iulius.16 Such measures were isolated, piecemeal, and the result of the agenda of the Roman state. They were not part of wholescale Roman control over Italian religion. Thus, when considering emperor worship in the Italian peninsula, we must make a distinction between

Rome and Italy. To consider emperor worship in Rome and in Italy together would be to create a religious fiction, a sense of unanimity contradictory to the evidence. Italy’s religious institutions were not under the direct and constant purview of the city of Rome.17 As Rives emphasises, ‘each city had a system of annual festivals and sacrifices, comparable to that in

Rome but directed towards its own selection of deities’.18 As will be shown,19 even Roman colonies in Roman Italy were not directed by the Roman state to worship the emperors.

Italian communities and colleges had freedom with their religious endeavours to assert their own religious identity.

Though Italy formed the ‘core of the empire’,20 and shared symbolic unanimity with the city of Rome, her cities retained their own local and political identity. Making the distinction between those communities and colleges of the Italian peninsula and the city of

Rome is vital for the rehabilitation of the ‘history’ of Italy and Italians. As Lomas emphasises, the scholarship must continue to pursue an understanding of the social, economic and religious history of Italy (not just of Rome), even under the empire.21

Seeing Italy and Rome as distinct but interrelated bodies allows us to appreciate the complexities of the relationships that existed between Rome and her Italian neighbours. It permits us to discern that the communities and colleges of Italy must have attempted to define their own identity under the Roman empire and its new leaders, and enables us to

15 Orlin, Foreign Cults in Rome, 114-16; Rasmussen, “Ritual and Identity,” 39-40. 16 ILS 73, 73a; AE 1982, 149; Beard, North and Price, Religions of Rome, 1:322. 17 Cf. Raggi, “‘Religion’ in Municipal Laws?,” 337. 18 Rives, “Women and ,” 137. 19 See 4.3. 20 Beard, North and Price, Religions of Rome, 1:321. See also, Lomas, Roman Italy, 1. 21 Lomas, 111.

4 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION appreciate that there would have been struggles, tensions and benefits in the creation of that identity and their negotiation of that identity with the imperial power. It also allows us to appreciate that Italy was not a homogeneous whole, but rather was partitioned by regional variations.22 There were significant regional and inter-city distinctions across the Italian peninsula,23 conditioned in part by the significant variations in terrain across the peninsula, which persisted into the principate.24 Thus, this thesis will not privilege any particular sites in Italy as typical of the entire peninsula, especially not the unique situations of Pompeii or

Ostia.25

This thesis will also utilise the Augustan division of Italy into its eleven regiones

(Map 1). These regions were initially created by the emperor Augustus for administrative reasons (Pliny, NH. 3.46), each with its own ethnonym and number.26 The old province of

Cisalpine had already been subsumed into Italia by 42 BCE (Cass. Dio 48.12.5), and under Augustus, was distributed across four Augustan regions, regiones VIII-XI.27 It has been argued persuasively that the Augustan regions were initially imposed upon Italy and were not based on accurately traced geographical and ethnic areas that had previously existed in the peninsula.28 For Lomas, these ‘artificial’ regions were simply a ‘symbolic ordering of space and an attempt to cut across and break up ethnic and local loyalties’.29

Such ethnic dissection is particularly clear with the territory of the Samnites which had been divided between regiones I, II and IV.30 Thus, the regiones were not necessarily reflective of the realities of Italian ethnic and cultural divisions. However, for the purposes of this

22 Cf. Terrenato, “Introduction,” 5; Keaveney, Rome and Unification of Italy, 190; Purcell, “Rome and Italy,” 430. 23 Glinister, “Reconsidering ‘Religious ’,” 24-25; Curti, “Toynbee’s Legacy,” 18; Terrenato, “Introduction,” 1, 5; Benelli, “Romanization of Italy,” 14. 24 Lomas, “Introduction,” 4. 25 Lomas, 4. 26 Syme, “Transpadana Italia,” 29; Lomas, Roman Italy, 114; Laurence, “Territory, Ethnonyms and Geography,” 96; Dyson, Community and Society, 97. 27 Laurence, 107; Millar, Emperor in the Roman World, 402. 28 Laurence, 97; Lomas, Roman Italy, 114; Nicolet, Space, Geography, and Politics, 175-76. 29 Lomas, 114. 30 Nicolet, Space, Geography, and Politics, 175; Laurence, “Territory, Ethnonyms and Geography,” 101.

5 ALEX A. ANTONIOU thesis, separating Italy into its regiones is beneficial because it facilitates our understanding of some of the regional variations across Italy. The use of the Augustan regiones will continue to be used when this thesis refers to material from the third and fourth centuries, even though Italy’s special status was lost under and became merely another tax- paying part of the empire, administered as a diocese with six provinces.31

1.3 BACKGROUND TO ITALY AND EMPEROR WORSHIP

Italy provides a fertile ground for a more nuanced appreciation of the institutions of emperor worship. Although Gradel suggests that focusing a study upon the Italian peninsula alone might seem ‘artificial’,32 this narrow focus is desirable.

Examining emperor worship in the Italian peninsula allows for emperor worship to be studied in isolation from the processes of acculturation, especially in distinction from

Romanisation. This thesis advocates the need for a paradigm shift when considering the institutions of emperor worship in the western empire. It is hard to escape the fact that these institutions in the western provinces often arose soon after the military conquest of those regions, when the process of Romanisation – the dissemination, transmission and adoption of Roman ideas by provincials33 – had begun. Thus, it is unavoidable that the institutions of emperor worship in the Roman west have been manacled to the concept of Romanisation and acculturation theory. This has resulted in the overwhelming assumption amongst scholars that the institutions of emperor worship were part of the emperors’ imperialist tendencies, that the emperors tried to foster loyalty with provincials by promoting cults of their own worship.34 The result of this assumption is that the institutions of emperor worship

31 Dyson, Community and Society, 230; Williams, Diocletian and the Roman Recovery, 105-6, 222; Corbier, “Les Circonscriptions Judiciaires de l’Italie.” 32 Gradel, Emperor Worship, 13. 33 See very generally, Woolf, “Beyond Romans,” 339; Webster, “Creolizing Roman Provinces,” 210-11; Scott, “Local Responses to Roman Imperialism,” 557. 34 Fishwick, Imperial Cult. 1.1:130, 137, 165; Fishwick, “Provincial Worship,” 1209, 1251; Krascheninnikoff, “Kaisercultus Im Römischen Westen,” 169; Kreitzer, “Apotheosis of the ,” 216; Rives, “Imperial Cult in Roman North ,” 427. Cf. Lozano, “Creation of Imperial Gods,” 476, 483, 512-13.

6 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION tend to be regarded as hollow and sycophantic, mere manifestations of political loyalty,35 with little meaning or importance for the people who directly engaged with them. While some scholars have tried to distance themselves from that perspective, it is hard to do so within the confines of the overarching paradigm of emperor worship as Romanisation.

Studying Roman Italy as distinct from Rome herself offers the liberty to move beyond such preconceptions, and provides the freedom to reassert the importance of the institutions of emperor worship to Italians themselves.

The level of pre-Roman urbanisation in Italy,36 and the long history of Roman control over the Italian peninsula, suggest that the processes of Romanisation, and of cultural change more generally, had already occurred in Italy over the course of the three centuries prior to the ascendancy of Augustus.37 Emperor worship, by very definition, only arose after the ascendency of Augustus.38 Therefore, the processes of Romanisation and the initiation of emperor worship can be decoupled from this study of Italy.39 What happened in Italy during the rule of Augustus, and under his successors, was not acculturation – this had begun many centuries beforehand – but rather a process of negotiation, where Italian communities and individuals interacted with the new realities of the Roman state. These communities and individuals sought to define their place, position and identity in this new Roman state.

Lomas’ comments are instructive. She stresses that:

…vital to our understanding is the relationship between Italy and the emperor. Inevitably,

the mere fact of a single governing figure, who was an individualized embodiment of

power and control in a way that the senate was not, must have changed the perceptions of

the people of Italy.40

35 Latte, Römische Religionsgeschichte, 312-36; Nock, Conversion, 229; Liebeschuetz, Continuity and Change, 78; Syme, Roman Revolution, 256; Colognesi, Law and Power, 258; Clarke, Roman Mind, 85. 36 Lomas, “Roman Imperialism,” 76; Millar, “Italy and the Roman Emperor,” 295. 37 Wallace-Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural Revolution, 450; Crawford, “Italy and Rome”. 38 Excludes worship of divus Iulius, see 3.1. 39 Cf. Lozano, “Creation of Imperial Gods,” 478, 512-13. 40 Lomas, Roman Italy, 112.

7 ALEX A. ANTONIOU The ascendancy of Augustus necessitated a process of redefinition and reconceptualisation;

Italians were attempting to negotiate their status with the new Roman power. This process was also ongoing and recurring. As we will see, as new emperors and new dynasties came to rule the empire, the communities and peoples of Italy sought to redefine their relationship to the centre.

This redefinition was particularly important for the communities of Italy, arguably more so than for any other part of the empire. Given that Italy was not administered as a provincia, and her towns and cities remained ‘a collection of self-governing communities’41 lacking the authority of a provincial governor, they could not negotiate through a subsidiary . Without the intermediary of a provincial government, the communities and individuals of the Italian peninsula were in direct contact with Rome and the central imperial government, and often the principes themselves. The distinction between Italy and the provinciae becomes blurred during the second century, with the creation of new administrative offices for Italy such as the iuridici, consular legati and curatores rei publicae.42 However, Italians were always granted the ‘privilege of retaining the core of their cultural and social structure, their autonomy and their prerogatives’,43 and must still have needed to confirm and negotiate their status with the imperial centre.

Religion was fundamental in the constant redefinition of Italian identities and positions under Augustus and his successors. Emperor worship was one of the key pillars in this negotiation between Italians and the centre. Essential to our appreciation of the role of religion in Italy is Stek’s conception of how religion was actively used to form identity. He contends that individuals and communities ‘actively made use of the powerful resource of cults and cult places to construct, adapt and enhance their status and self-identification’.44

41 Beard, North and Price, Religions of Rome, 1:321. See also Dyson, Community and Society, 1-2, 96. 42 Patterson, “Emperor and Cities of Italy,” 101; Eck, “Kaiserliches Handeln in Italenischen Städten,” 336-37, 339, 350. Cf. Dyson, Community and Society, 224-25. 43 Terrenato, “Introduction,” 5. 44 Stek, “‘Religious Romanization’,” 24 (emphasis in original).

8 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Although Stek refers primarily to religion in Italy during the Republican period, there is no reason to believe that this active use of religion to define identity did not persist into the empire. In fact, now that one man controlled the Roman state, and had created his

Romana, we might expect religious processes to have had a renewed vigour, as Italian peoples and communities needed to define and adapt their status and identity in relation to this new political system. Religion could be used as a powerful tool to find identity and self- definition within a changing world.

It must be acknowledged that this study of Italy is, by necessity, a study of urban

Italy – of its major urban centres and its public religions. The countryside will not be considered in this work. This does not hamper our study of emperor worship. The institutions of emperor worship, as catalogued in Appendix 1, are those institutions that emerged in the public sphere (municipal and collegial institutions) in Italy’s cities. As a first-century snapshot of the number and vitality of these urban centres, mentions more than 400 urban centres in his Historia Naturalis.45 Given the nature of the evidence, worship contained only within the home or within familial groupings will largely be ignored.46

1.4 FRAMEWORK AND SIGNIFICANCE

To describe how emperor worship was used as a tool for creating and defining the identity of Italian communities, the framework of gift-exchange will be applied in this thesis. Price effectively used this theory to consider the institutions of emperor worship in Minor.

In this thesis, Price’s theory will be adopted and elaborated on.47 Such a perspective allows us to reassert the importance of emperor worship to Italians, and gain a rich and nuanced understanding of the institutions of emperor worship at the heart of the empire.

45 Zissos, ed., Companion to Flavian Age, app. 2, 566. 46 Cf. Gradel, Emperor Worship; Santero, “The ‘Cultores Augusti’.” 47 See 2.3.

9 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Gift-exchange theory will be used as a way of recovering the importance of the institutions of emperor worship, and of rehabilitating the history and identity of Italians under the Roman empire. In this thesis it will be argued that the institutions of emperor worship were important, not simply to the imperial power as manifestations of loyalty, but to Italians themselves, in their search for identity, and in their constant negotiation of status under the empire.

Scholarship treating the institutions of emperor worship is vast. No study of this length can hope to encompass the entirety of this literature. While some scholars have rehabilitated the importance of the institutions of emperor worship from a local perspective in isolated geographical territories,48 there has not been any study which has systematically and comprehensively considered the evidence of the institutions of emperor worship within

Italy, or the role and importance of emperor worship for Italians. The significance of providing a comprehensive catalogue of Italian evidence of emperor worship, and of asserting the agency of Italians in using emperor worship, will be demonstrated in the following brief literature review.

1.6 LITERATURE REVIEW

Lily Ross Taylor’s 192049 and 193150 studies were ground-breaking. The 1920 article remains one of the few pieces of scholarship that focuses solely on Italian evidence of emperor worship. Moreover, many of her conclusions have been ubiquitous throughout scholarship of the 20th century.

Taylor made two major conclusions concerning emperor worship in Italy. The first related to the origins of emperor worship in Italy. Regarding emperor worship as an un-

Roman and un-Italian concept, she concluded that the presence of emperor worship in

48 Principally in Asia Minor by Price, Rituals and Power. 49 Taylor, “Worship of Augustus.” 50 Taylor, Divinity.

10 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION coastal Italian cities was the result of contact with Eastern and Hellenistic ideas and traditions.51 Secondly, she tried to comprehend the epigraphic and archaeological evidence of emperor worship in Italy in light of the testimony of (51.20.6-8), which she interpreted as evidence that there was no worship of the living emperor in Italy and in Rome.

This passage and her interpretation will be subject to lengthy scrutiny,52 but Taylor essentially argued that all of the institutions of emperor worship across Italy were not dedicated to the living emperor, but to the of the living princeps.53 This interpretation remained the prevailing approach to understanding emperor worship in the Italian peninsula for most of the 20th century.

Ittai Gradel, both in his 1992 article,54 and 2002 monograph,55 is one of the few other scholars to consider emperor worship in the Italian peninsula alone. Although Gradel sets out to provide a comprehensive examination of emperor worship in Italy, his work does not cover the field. Gradel focuses on comprehending emperor worship only when it applies directly to the emperors (living or dead). However, emperor worship should be understood more widely to include the worship of the emperor’s family.56 Moreover, while Gradel claims to focus on Italy ‘in isolation’,57 he is mostly focused on Rome itself, and uses the communities within the wider Italian peninsula to test his theories. Although his theories of the emperor’s divinity are now fundamental,58 his intention was never to reassert the importance of emperor worship to Italians, nor to comprehend how and why Italians adopted these institutions. He summarily notes that the ‘initiative behind the municipal cults in Italy was clearly local, since no central regulation of these cults is detectable’.59

51 Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 116, 118; Taylor, Divinity, 214, 216. 52 See 2.2. 53 Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 128; Taylor, Divinity, 166-69, 190-91, 194-95, 202-7, 213. 54 Gradel, “Mamia’s Dedication.” 55 Gradel, Emperor Worship. 56 See 1.7. 57 Gradel, 13. 58 See 2.1.1. 59 Gradel, “Mamia’s Dedication,” 47.

11 ALEX A. ANTONIOU This thesis will address the gaps left by Gradel’s study by providing a comprehensive catalogue of all Italian evidence of the institutions of emperor worship (including worship of the emperor’s family),60 and will analyse these institutions in an Italian-focused, rather than Roman-focused, light. A vital aspect of Gradel’s work was his persuasive re-evaluation of Taylor’s genius theory; he established that the worship of the living Roman emperor should not be understood merely as worship of the emperor’s genius.61

While Taylor and Gradel are two of the most prominent voices in our understanding of emperor worship in Italy,62 Duncan Fishwick, in his ‘monumental series of tomes’,63 evaluates evidence from across the Roman west, and thus occasionally considers Italian evidence. Fishwick views evidence of emperor worship in the Roman West as the result of imperial assertion; believing that they were tools with which Rome fostered loyalty with provincials to assist in their Romanisation.64 This approach is of limited value, and does not accurately appreciate the subtleties of the evidence. Moreover, while Fishwick attempts to provide a coherent narrative of emperor worship across the entire western empire, he does this by ‘filling in’ many gaps in that coherent narrative with evidence from across the western empire.65 This forces him to make grand assumptions about the homogeneity of the empire and of emperor worship that are not supported by the evidence.66 Although Fishwick can be a useful resource, especially for his relentless unpicking of the primary evidence, the imposition of his methodological framework is often hard to unpack from his presentation of the primary evidence.

60 App. 1, Catalogue. 61 Gradel, Emperor Worship, 77-78, app. 2; Gradel, “Mamia’s Dedication,” 45-46; Price, “Review: Veneratio Augusti,” 300. See 2.1.1. 62 Cf. Gasperini and Paci, eds, Nuove Richerche sul Culto Imperiale in Italia. Although useful, no holistic appreciation of the evidence is undertaken. 63 Gradel, “Review: Imperial Cult in the Latin West,” 261. 64 Fishwick, Imperial Cult, 1.1, 3.1-3; Fishwick, “Provincial Ruler Worship.” 65 Esp. Fishwick, “Liturgy and Ceremonial.” 66 Gradel, Emperor Worship, 13.

12 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Margaret Laird’s 2015 monograph, which reassesses the place of the *Augustales, is essential to any work on emperor worship in the Italian peninsula.67 She not only vastly improves our understanding of the *Augustales, and their relationship with emperor worship, but she highlights the fundamental importance of appreciating in detail the function and character of collegial organisations in the Italian peninsula. Overwhelmingly, the focus of studies on emperor worship has been restricted to the municipal level; initiatives adopted for the benefit of entire municipiae or coloniae.68 This thesis will not simply examine municipal institutions of emperor worship, but will also consider Italian collegial institutions that engaged with emperor worship, which have yet to be systematically considered.

1.7 IMPERIAL CULT, OR EMPEROR WORSHIP?

Within this thesis, the terminology of the ‘institutions of emperor worship’ will be used. The more pervasive terminology of ‘imperial cult’ has become so generalised that its use has become divorced from a critical appreciation of the actual institutions of worship to which it purportedly refers. This use of this ‘superficial’ term69 has conflated the significant varieties and aspects of the worship.70 As Beard, North and Price submit, there was ‘no such thing as “the imperial cult”’.71 The use of the modern terminology of ‘imperial cult’ is no longer useful for conveniently drawing together disparate forms of worship,72 because it has caused the homogenisation of a range of distinct and disparate practices.73

In contrast, the phrase ‘institutions of emperor worship’74 comes with less scholarly baggage. This thesis reacts against the established paradigm that sees emperor worship as a

67 Laird, Civic Monuments. For the *Augustales, see 3.2. 68 E.g. Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti. 69 Scheid, “Hierarchy and Structure,” 173. 70 Woolf, “Found in Translation,” 241; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 4, 7; Woolf, “Divinity and Power,” 248; Van Andringa, “Rhetoric and Divine Honours,” 11; Lozano, “Creation of Imperial Gods,” 495. 71 Beard, North and Price, Religions of Rome, 1:318 (emphasis in original). Cf. Brodd, “Religion, Roman Religion, Emperor Worship,” 46. 72 Cf. Woolf, “Found in Translation,” 241; Woolf, “Divinity and Power,” 248. 73 Turcan, “Le Culte Impérial au III° Siècle,” 997. 74 Used by Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves; Hopkins, Death and Renewal; Gradel, Emperor Worship; Gradel, “Mamia’s Dedication.” Cf. Brodd, “Religion, Roman Religion, Emperor Worship,” 46.

13 ALEX A. ANTONIOU political tool for promoting loyalty and Romanisation in Roman subjects. Although this imperialist focus might have a role to play in our overall comprehension of emperor worship across the empire, this focus has also come to the scholarship on emperor worship in the western provinces. As Santero emphasises, a shift in the way we frame our discourse around the rites of emperor worship will allow us to conceive of emperor worship in a new way.75 Thus, the terminology of the ‘imperial cult’ will not be used in this thesis, except where scholars who use this definition are considered.

Regrettably, ‘emperor worship’ over-privileges the rites associated with the living emperor, to the detriment of the imperial divi, and implies that the worship of the family of the emperor should be suppressed.76 The phrase ‘institutions of emperor worship’ will be used throughout this thesis, with the caveat that the intention is for all of these forms of worship to be implied when the term is used. The worship of the emperor’s family and his divine predecessors will be covered.

1.8 STRUCTURE

This thesis is divided into four parts. Chapter 2 discusses several important preliminary questions. How might Italians have perceived the divinity of the emperor? How can we reconcile the evidence of emperor worship with previous interpretations of Cassius Dio?

What is gift-exchange theory, and why should it be applied within this thesis? Building on these preliminary chapters, Chapter 3 explores the evidence of emperor worship in Italy, and provides a discussion of how municipal and collegial evidence of emperor worship was catalogued in Appendix 1. Using this collated evidence, Chapters 4 and 5 apply gift- exchange theory to the evidence of municipal and collegial worship in Italy, to reveal that

75 Santero, “The ‘Cultores Augusti’,” 120-21. 76 McIntyre, A Family of Gods, 3, 5.

14 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION emperor worship was a powerful and prominent way that Italians understood their emperors, and their world, in the early to middle Roman empire.

15 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

CHAPTER 2: APPROACHES AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 THE DIVINITY OF THE ROMAN EMPEROR

It is essential to understand how Italians might have conceived of the divinity of the emperor and his household. Christianising views of emperor worship have, until recently, dominated scholarship on emperor worship. Those perspectives advocated that ‘imperial cult’ (to use the predominant terminology of the time) was not a ‘real’ religion, but rather a political tool, one that was created and utilised by Augustus and his successors to gain the loyalty of the empire by exploiting the religious fervour of their subjects.77 Scholars were determined to make the distinction between ‘real’ religions and emperor worship. For instance, Syme asserted that the ‘rulers of Rome claimed the homage due to the gods and masqueraded, for domination over a servile world, in the guise of divinity’,78 and Nilsson maintained that imperial cult was one of the ‘religious constructions of politicians…[as] it lacked all genuine religious content’.79 Scholars doubted that educated Romans could have believed in emperor worship. Nock famously claimed that ruler-worship was ‘an expression of homage and loyalty… [with only] moments of intense emotion’.80 As a merely political manifestation, rituals and of emperor worship were seen as hollow and empty, and its worshippers merely ‘cheer-leaders’ for the emperor.81 Surely, the Roman educated élite could only have believed in emperor worship to the extent that ‘the same educated class would have today’.82

These perspectives have now been repudiated. As is now well recognised, to expect an ‘emotional’ connection in dedications of emperor worship, or indeed in much of Roman

77 Naylor, “Roman Imperial Cult and Revelation,” 210; Charlesworth, “Some Observations on Ruler-Cult,” 27; Latte, Römische Religionsgechichte, 312-36; Liebeschuetz, Continuity and Change, 78. 78 Syme, Roman Revolution, 256. 79 Nilsson, Greek Piety, 178. 80 Nock, “Deification and : I,” 121. 81 Raven, Rome in Africa, 149. 82 Scott, “Humor at the Expense of the Ruler Cult,” 328.

16 CHAPTER 2: APPROACHES AND METHODOLOGY , is misguided.83 Rather, the institutions of emperor worship, and belief in the divinity of the Roman emperor must be taken seriously.84 Christianising perspectives that expect ‘politics’ and ‘religion’ to be kept separate grossly misconstrue the central tenets of

Roman society.85 Politics and religion were inextricably linked in the Roman consciousness.86 Although most scholars now value emperor worship in its own right, a precise definition of the emperor’s divinity has continued to prompt debate. Before we can begin to find a useful definition to use in this thesis, it is essential to recognise the various ways in which the emperor was worshipped, because not all concern his divine status. The emperor’s divine status was reflected through his worship as deus praesens (a living god), and as a divus (a deified god).87 Worship was also directed towards the emperor’s genius and numen, and dedications were also made pro salute imperatoris (for the safety of the emperor).

2.1.1 The Emperor as Deus Praesens and Divus

There is an immense volume of scholarship targeting the question of how the deified and living emperors were seen as divinities in the Roman world. Scholars are right to emphasise that, in many ways, the emperor’s status between the divine and human realms was ambiguous and unable to be easily categorised.88 Gradel approaches the idea of ‘divinity’ in the Roman consciousness as based on relative status. He argues that the only difference between men and gods was a ‘distinction in status between the respective beings, rather than a distinction between their respective natures, or “species”’.89 Given that the emperor held a

83 Price, “Gods and Emperors,” 91-92; Fishwick, Imperial Cult, 1.1:43. Cf. Nock, “Religious Developments,” 481; Bowersock, “Greek Intellectuals,” 180. 84 Most notably argued by Price, Rituals and Power. 85 Price, esp. 243. 86 Beard, “Religion,” 731-33; 755; Friesen, “Response to Karl Galinsky,” 23-24. 87 Concerning the distinction between divus and deus see Price, “Consecration of Roman Emperors,” 79; Wardle, “Deus or Divus.” 88 Van Andringa, “Rhetoric and Divine Honours,” 11; Feeney, Literature and Religion at Rome, 110; Arnason, “The Roman Phenomenon,” 382; Gordon, “Roman Imperial Cult and Question of Power,” 43; Whitmarsh, Battling the Gods, 196. 89 Gradel, Emperor Worship, 26 (emphasis in original).

17 ALEX A. ANTONIOU position of supreme power within the Roman hierarchy, he was closer in status to the gods than most mortal men. This power elevated him above his peers, and placed him closer in status to divine beings. Man and god were not different species. This conception of the relative divinity of the emperors explains how, before the emperors, a handful of late

Republican generals could be perceived as divine.90 Their power and status was immense, relative to their peers and those of lower social strata. They were in closer proximity to the gods, and thus warranted worship.

Not all have been convinced by Gradel’s theory of relative divinity. Levene advocates instead for an absolute theory of the divinity of Roman gods. He argues that the

‘[g]ods were conceived as having a nature which was fundamentally distinct from humans’.91 He contends that gods and men were of different kinds; not of the same species.

When explaining the divinity of traditional Graeco-Roman deities, Levene reads the evidence to demonstrate that these gods could be conceived as of a different ‘kind’ from mortals.92 He then proposes that men could not become gods, and thus that emperor worship was a ‘problem’ category.93 Levene considers emperor worship to have been transgressive, as the Romans had ‘no clear definitions which will allow us to determine which figures fall inside and which outside the proper boundaries of “divinity”’.94 He then surmises that the transgressive nature of the emperors as divinities was simply ‘overlooked’.95 There is a fundamental contradiction in this logic. Levene submits that there were clear demarcations between the different species of ‘men’ and ‘gods’. However he then declares the precise boundaries between these categories to be ‘fuzzy’ to justify the transgressive divinity of the

90 Beard, “Religion,” 750-1. 91 Levene, “Defining the Divine in Rome,” 72. 92 Levene. 93 Levene, 76. 94 Levene, 74. 95 Levene, 41, 72-75.

18 CHAPTER 2: APPROACHES AND METHODOLOGY emperors.96 Further, Levene provides no compelling reasons how, or why, the transgressive divinity of the emperors was ‘overlooked’.97

Koortbojian also advocates an absolute theory of divinity, arguing that status cannot be the sole criterion for divinity.98 Koortbojian proposes that the Romans had a

‘functionalist’ concept of divinity.99 For Koortbojian, ‘[w]hat mattered to the Romans was that the chief gods of the Roman state, those they traditionally invoked in time of need, were propitius; that is, Roman tradition vouchsafed that the gods delivered beneficia to those who paid them cult’.100 Koortbojian’s insistence that the propitious nature of Roman divinities was their sole distinction from mortals is convincing. He is right to criticise Gradel’s claim that the divi were fundamentally ‘impotent’ gods,101 worshipped only because of the power they held while alive.102 There are significant flaws in Gradel’s proposition that:

It was never obvious what power, if any, an emperor possessed once he had left this

world…there was never really any attempt to assign any areas of control to Divi. Nor would

that have been an easy exercise: sky and earth were full of gods, specifically attending to

all imaginable areas of human activity; all seats were taken already, so to speak.103

Gradel’s assertion that the Roman pantheon was ‘full’ contradicts some of the primary tenets of Roman polytheism. Roman polytheism was open, capable of incorporating a vast array of gods, each with their own unique and multifaceted capabilities and powers, even if those powers overlapped, or replicated the powers of existing members of the pantheon.

As Koortbojian observes, the fact that the living and deified emperors were worshipped must mean that the Romans considered them to be propitious. This propitiousness was not akin to the worship of traditional Graeco-Roman deities, such as

Mars or , who had clearly defined areas of religious responsibility. Rather, the

96 Levene, 73. 97 Levene, 41. 98 Koortbojian, Divinization of Caesar and Augustus, 11, 23. 99 Koortbojian, 11, 23. 100 Koortbojian, 11. 101 Gradel, Emperor Worship, 91, 97, 199, 334-35. 102 Koortbojian, Divinization of Caesar and Augustus, 129-30. 103 Gradel, Emperor Worship, 334.

19 ALEX A. ANTONIOU emperors were considered to be propitious gods because they were responsible – alongside

(but junior to) Iuppiter Optimus Maximus – for ensuring the safety, security and prosperity of the Roman empire. These divinities (living or deified) were responsible for ensuring the , and the safety of the individuals and cities within that vast terrain.104 As living divinities, especially given that each emperor was , they were also responsible for ensuring the pax deorum – that other gods continued to protect Rome and her interests.105

While Koortbojian is right to emphasise that our conception of the divinity of the

Roman emperors must encompass their propitiousness, we need not also subscribe to his theory of divinity being ‘absolute’ in the Roman world. It is possible to accommodate the requirement for the gods to be propitious within a model of relative divinity. That divinity is a relative category, often based on the distribution of power, is the preferred perspective within the scholarship.106 The emperor was divine, not only because his power and position exalted him far above that of his peers, but also because he was propitious. Ando, for instance, maintains that the emperor’s divinity was dependent on the power of the principes,107 and that ‘[i]n light of the terrifying difference in power between gods and mortals, mortals had no choice but to consult the gods’.108 All gods, by of their power, were capable of being propitious, in different ways. The way in which Beard and Woolf conceive of this relative divinity as a continuum or a spectrum is particularly apt. Beard advocates that ‘[t]here was no simple polarity, but a continuous spectrum, between the human and the divine’.109 Woolf argues for a ‘continuum stretching from men to the greatest

104 Ando, Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty, 389-92. 105 Price, “Gods and Emperors,” 94; Santangelo, “Pax Deorum and Pontiffs,” 161, 164-67; Kahlos, “Emperors and the Divine,” 3; Lozano, “Creation of Imperial Gods,” 485, 493, 502-3. 106 Scheid, Religion et Piété à Rome, 69; Arnason, “The Roman Phenomenon,” 378; Hernández, “El Culto Imperial,” 202; Scheid, “Les Espaces Cultuels,” 430; Price, “Gods and Emperors,” 94; Scheid, “Roman Animal Sacrifice,” 87-90; Kahlos, “Emperors and the Divine,” 4. 107 Ando, Matter of the Gods, 5, 119; Ando, “Religion, Law and Knowledge,” 4-5; Ando, “A Religion for the Empire,” 239. 108 Ando, Matter of the Gods, xvii. 109 Beard, “Religion,” 750.

20 CHAPTER 2: APPROACHES AND METHODOLOGY creator deities’.110 In this system, the ‘[e]mperors were the lowest of gods, and the greatest of men’.111 Thus, it is best to think of the divinity of the emperor as relative. Relative to mortal men, the emperors (both living and deified) possessed extraordinary power which propelled them further along the continuum of divinity. The power of the emperors was even relative to other deities of the Graeco-Roman pantheon, as can be seen by the hierarchy of prayers in the records of the Arval Brethren.112

2.1.2 Emperor’s Genius and Numen

The genius and numen of the living emperors were also worshipped in Italy. Both of these terms have attracted significant scholarly attention as they are frustratingly difficult to comprehend.

1) Numen

There is an abundance of literature that attempts to identify an exact definition of the concept of the numen.113 It is not the purpose of this thesis to engage in a deep discussion of its meaning or its usage. With that in mind, the simplest consensus on the term is that the numen is the ‘divine power’ of a god,114 their ‘quintessential property’,115 which became synonymous with divinity itself.116 Thus, one can speak of the numen of Augustus both as the quintessential divine power of Augustus as a god, and also of the numen Augusti as a god even of itself.117

110 Woolf, “Divinity and Power,” 248. 111 Woolf, 248. 112 Scheid, “Roman Animal Sacrifice,” 87-90; Scheid, “Les Espaces Cultuels,” 426, 428; Van Andringa, “Rhetoric and Divine Honours,” 15. 113 See e.g., Dumézil, La Religion Romaine Archaïque, 36-48; Warde Fowler, of the Republic, 34-35; Fishwick, “Genius and Numen,” 379-87; Scheid, “Cults, Myths, and Politics,” 134; Rose, “Numen Inest.” 114 Beard, North and Price, Religions of Rome, 1:354; 115 Fishwick, “Genius and Numen,” 383. 116 Fishwick, 383; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 234-35, 244, 248. 117 Cf. Gradel, 245.

21 ALEX A. ANTONIOU 2) Genius

Various scholars have different ways of translating the concept of the genius. Fishwick defines the term as a ‘comes, guiding star, or spiritual companion’ of a man or a thing,118

Pollini considers it to be a ‘life-giving spirit’,119 whereas Gradel contemplates that ‘“life force” seems to [him] the best translation’.120 Each of these definitions shares an understanding of the genius as intrinsic and integral to individuals (and emperors), although fundamentally distinct from them, which deserves worship.121 The genius did not just belong to men. Buildings, towns or groups of people could also possess a genius.122 Thus, across

Italy, there are frequent attestations to the genius in these various contexts; such as the genius of the Augustales,123 or the genii of coloniae or municipiae.124 The worship of the genius

Augusti has been most commonly likened to the worship of the genius of the paterfamilias of a household.125 However, Gradel emphasises that worship of a man’s genius did not necessarily make the man divine. He argues that ‘since all living men (and gods, for that matter) possessed a Genius…its cultivation did therefore not impute divinity, or rather divine status, to its “owner”’.126 Gradel is correct to emphasise that just because Augustus had a genius it did not make him divine. However, Gradel has also provided a ‘highly provocative’127 and ‘controversial’128 interpretation of the worship of the genius Augusti in

Italy.129 Gradel submits that the genius was not worshipped as frequently as Taylor had contended because free, élite Italians would have avoided it as worship of the genius was subordinate and emasculating; intended only for slaves, freedmen and clients to worship

118 Fishwick, “Genius and Numen,” 382. 119 Pollini, “Studies in Augustan ‘Historical’ Reliefs,” 259. 120 Gradel, Emperor Worship, 37. 121 Gradel, 37; Fishwick, “Genius and Numen,” 382. 122 Fishwick, 382. 123 AE 1975, 211 (Misenum, It. 1). 124 AE 2000, 344 (Misenum, It. 1); CIL 10.1574 (Puteoli, It. 1). 125 Scheid, “Cults, Myths, and Politics,” 134; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 81; Fraschetti, Roma e il Principe, 331-60. 126 Gradel, Emperor Worship, 7. 127 Wardle, “Divinity of the Roman Emperor Once More,” 126. 128 Hekster, “Review: Emperor Worship,” 426. 129 Gradel, Emperor Worship; Gradel, “Mamia’s Dedication.”

22 CHAPTER 2: APPROACHES AND METHODOLOGY someone in socially dominant role.130 As Gradel emphasises, and the data in the catalogue

(Appendix 1) confirms, there was little worship of the genius Augusti in Italy.

2.1.3 Worship Pro Salute Imperatoris?

Dedications made pro salute imperatoris, literally translated as ‘for the safety of the ’, have an uncomfortable place as part of the institutions of emperor worship.

These kinds of dedications appear to have been immensely popular across Italy, and follow standardised formulae; they are dedicated to the (safety) – and occasionally the reditus

(return) – of the living emperor, the domus divina or the domus Augusta. Fishwick and

Hernández both consider that pro salute imperatoris dedications do not belong alongside other dedications of emperor worship.131 Fishwick argues that these dedications were often prayers to other divinities for the safety of the emperor.132 Although this is accurate, pro salute dedications seem nevertheless to have been a crucial part of the festivals devoted to emperor worship,133 and often seem to have been made by priests devoted to emperor worship.134 Therefore, they are fundamental to expressions of emperor worship in Italy.

Hernández posits ‘que la fórmula pro salute, aunque forma parte de lo que ha definido como

“religión imperial”, no es una manifestación de adoración sino de lealtad al dirigente político’.135 However, Várhelyi suggests that the use of these dedications was not merely political, and went far deeper than praying for the well-being of the emperor. Rather, these dedications called for the well-being of the entire Roman state.136 Thus, while they sit uncomfortably within the institutions of emperor worship, they are of fundamental importance within this thesis.

130 Gradel, Emperor Worship, 37, 41-44; Gradel, “Mamia’s Dedication,” 47-48. 131 Hernández, “El Culto Imperial,” 195-96; Fishwick, Imperial Cult, 3.3:360. 132 Fishwick, 3.3:360. 133 See 3.3.1. 134 CIL 4.1180 (Pompeii, It. 1); CIL 11.1331 (, It. 7); AE 1980, 457, AE 1980, 458 (Rusellae, It. 7); IFF 49 (Brixia, It. 10). 135 Hernández, “El Culto Imperial,” 196. 136 Várhelyi, Religion of Senators, 186, 201.

23 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

2.2 CASSIUS DIO ON EMPEROR WORSHIP

Cassius Dio, in describing the institution of cults to Augustus, Dea Roma, and divus Iulius in Ephesus and Nicaea,137 provides a frustratingly brief aside concerning the worship of living emperors in Rome and Italy generally (51.20.6-8). As the passage is one of the very few literary treatments of emperor worship in Italy (excluding Rome), it has attracted considerable attention. Dio comments on Octavian’s actions whilst he remained in the East, after the conquest of Egypt in the late first century BCE:

Καῖσαρ δὲ ἐν τούτῳ τά τε ἄλλα ἐχρηµάτιζε, καὶ τεµένη τῇ τε Ῥώµῃ καὶ τῷ πατρὶ τῷ

Καίσαρι, ἥρωα αὐτὸν Ἰούλιον ὀνοµάσας, ἔν τε Ἐφέσῳ καὶ ἐν Νικαίᾳ γενέσθαι ἐφῆκεν:

αὗται γὰρ τότε αἱ πόλεις ἔν τε τῇ Ἀσίᾳ καὶ ἐν τῇ Βιθυνίᾳ προετετίµηντο. καὶ τούτους µὲν

τοῖς Ῥωµαίοις τοῖς παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐποικοῦσι τιµᾶν προσέταξε: τοῖς δὲ δὴ ξένοις, Ἕλληνάς

σφας ἐπικαλέσας, ἑαυτῷ τινα, τοῖς µὲν Ἀσιανοῖς ἐν Περγάµῳ τοῖς δὲ Βιθυνοῖς ἐν

Νικοµηδείᾳ, τεµενίσαι ἐπέτρεψε. καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐκεῖθεν ἀρξάµενον καὶ ἐπ᾽ ἄλλων

αὐτοκρατόρων οὐ µόνον ἐν τοῖς Ἑλληνικοῖς ἔθνεσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ὅσα τῶν

Ῥωµαίων ἀκούει, ἐγένετο. ἐν γάρ τοι τῷ ἄστει αὐτῷ τῇ τε ἄλλῃ Ἰταλίᾳ οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις τῶν

καὶ ἐφ᾽ ὁποσονοῦν λόγου τινὸς ἀξίων ἐτόλµησε τοῦτο ποιῆσαι: µεταλλάξασι µέντοι

κἀνταῦθα τοῖς ὀρθῶς αὐταρχήσασιν ἄλλαι τε ἰσόθεοι τιµαὶ δίδονται καὶ δὴ καὶ ἡρῷα

ποιεῖται.

(51.20.6-8)

Caesar [Augustus], meanwhile, besides attending to the general business, gave permission

for the dedication of sacred precincts in Ephesus and in Nicaea to Rome and to Caesar, his

father, whom he named the hero Julius. These cities had at that time attained chief place in

Asia and in respectively. He commanded that the Romans resident in these cities

should pay honour to these two divinities; but he permitted the aliens, whom he styled

Hellenes, to consecrate precincts to himself, the Asians to have theirs in Pergamum and

the Bithynians theirs in Nicomedia. This practice, beginning under him, has been continued

under other emperors, not only in the case of the Hellenic nations but also in that of all the

137 For cults of divus Iulius and Dea Roma: Madsen, “Cult of Ivlivs and Roma.”

24 CHAPTER 2: APPROACHES AND METHODOLOGY

others, in so far as they are subject to the Romans. For in the capital itself and in Italy

generally no emperor, however worthy of renown he has been, has dared to do this; still,

even there various divine honours are bestowed after their death upon such emperors as

have ruled uprightly, and, in fact, shrines are built to them.138

Our concern is primarily with the following; ‘[f]or in the capital itself and in Italy generally no emperor, however worthy of renown he has been, has dared to do this’ (51.20.8). The most common and widely accepted interpretation of this sentence is that Dio was asserting that ‘there was no worship of the living emperor in Italy and Rome’,139 an interpretation that scholars have argued ‘almost to the point of a mantra’.140

However, evidence from the archaeological and epigraphic record proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that the living emperor was worshipped during his lifetime in many cities within the Italian peninsula. It is clear from even a cursory glance at the evidence catalogued in Appendix 1 that there is tension between the dominant interpretation of Dio and the evidence. Scholars have long recognised this contradiction, and have had varying strategies for reconciling it.

A handful of scholars have declared that Dio was in error. Mommsen was the most notable proponent of this argument as he claimed that ‘was Dio über das Verhalten der italischen Städte in dieser Beziehung sagt, ist für Augustus geradezu falsch’.141 More recently, Hänlein-Schäfer142 and Lange143 have both been proponents of similar views; that

Dio was wrong, either through mistake or intentional re-writing of history. Lange, for instance, asserts that Dio’s anecdote was a pure fabrication by the historian and that Dio consciously exploited the figure of Augustus to ‘rewrite the past’.144

138 Transl. Cary (Loeb). 139 Lange, “Emperor Worship and Dio Cassius,” 11, as an exemplification of the opinions of the scholarship. 140 Gradel, Emperor Worship, 110. 141 Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht II.2, 757, n.1. 142 Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 15. 143 Lange, “Emperor Worship and Dio Cassius.” 144 Lange, 12.

25 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Others, who prefer not to disagree with Dio, have gone to Herculean efforts to reconcile the contradiction between Dio and the evidence. Taylor’s interpretation of this passage, almost one-hundred years ago, continues to influence the way Dio’s passage is interpreted by scholars, and how evidence of emperor worship in Italy has been viewed.145

Taylor argued that the institutions of emperor worship across Italy were not dedicated to the emperors themselves, but rather to the genius of the living princeps.146 For Taylor, the attested temples and priesthoods to the living emperor in Italy were not devoted to that living emperor, but rather to that emperor’s genius.

Taylor’s thesis was epoch changing and many have adhered to it.147 Principally,

Taylor’s theory of the worship of the genius of Augustus – instead of the worship of

Augustus directly – has influenced scholars to think of the worship of the genius as a ‘safe’ alternative. Such is the opinion of Latte, for example, who suspects that ‘In Italien griff

[Augustus] auf die altrömische Vorstellung vom Genius des Hausherrn zurück, um den unmittelbaren Kult zu vermeiden’.148 It was less risky for Augustus and his successors to promote the cults of their genii amongst skeptical Italians and Romans. Thus, Augustus’ self-interested promotion of the genius has become common parlance for scholars in the field. However, as Gradel has reasoned, the weakness of Taylor’s approach was that it presupposed that the term genius was suppressed in every attestation of worship to the living emperor, and thus should be read into the interpretation.149 There are no convincing reasons to presume that the suppression of the genius would have taken place, or would have even been necessary.150

145 Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,”; Taylor, Divinity. 146 Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 128; Taylor, Divinity, 166-69, 191, 194-95, 202-7, 213. 147 E.g. Pollini, “Studies in Augustan ‘Historical’ Reliefs,”; Reinhold, The of Augustus, 184; Latte, Römische Religionsgechichte, 306; Stambaugh, “Functions of Roman Temples,” 585. 148 Latte, 306. 149 Gradel, Emperor Worship, 77-78; Gradel, “Mamia’s Dedication,” 45-6. 150 Gradel, Emperor Worship, 77-78, app. 2; Price, “Review: Veneratio Augusti,” 300.

26 CHAPTER 2: APPROACHES AND METHODOLOGY Gradel provides his own interpretation, proposing that Dio explained to his provincial audience that the emperors did not establish a cult of themselves at a quasi- provincial level; cult which would have satisfied the worship for all of Italy.151 Gradel posits this on the basis that Dio, in the same passage, referred to provincial cults of Augustus in

Pergamum and Nicomedia that were to service the Roman provinces of Asia and Bithynia respectively.152 For Gradel, Dio made a direct contrast between these provincial cults and potential cults in Italy and Rome.153 To accept Gradel’s approach, we must embrace the assumption that Dio considered Italy to be a provincia, like Asia or Bithynia, in the absence of any formal designation of provincial status. Gradel explains away this assumption by claiming that Cassius Dio was simply being anachronistic when referring to the early imperial period of Italy, because for Dio (in the mid-second and early-third century CE),

Italy was treated much like a province itself.154 While the distinction between Italy and the provinciae certainly became blurred during the second century,155 it is debatable whether

Dio would have appreciated these subtle distortions. It was not until the reign of Diocletian that Italy was administered in a diocese with six provinces.156

While often not explicitly acknowledged,157 these scholars evaluate Dio’s trustworthiness as an historian. The tendency of the past few decades has been to devalue the usefulness of Cassius Dio as an historian, particularly in his description of early

Augustan cults. For instance, while Madsen only briefly discusses the passage in regard to the Italian evidence, he convincingly identifies a deficiency in the evidence of sanctuaries to

Roma and Iulius in Nicaea and Ephesus. Madsen maintains that the existence of these sanctuaries were of ‘Dio’s own creation, and [were]… the result of his bias against emperor

151 Gradel, “Mamia’s Dedication,” 47; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 76-77. Concisely outlined in Wardle, “Divinity of the Roman Emperor Once More,” 128. 152 Gradel, “Mamia’s Dedication,” 47; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 76-77. 153 Gradel, “Mamia’s Dedication,” 47; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 76-77. 154 Gradel, “Mamia’s Dedication,” 47. 155 Patterson, “Emperor and Cities of Italy,” 101; Dyson, Community and Society, 224-25. 156 Dyson, 230; Arce, “La Transformación Administrativa de Italia: Diocleciano.” 157 Except by Lange, “Emperor Worship and Dio Cassius.”

27 ALEX A. ANTONIOU worship in general’.158 Madsen argues that this bias was the direct consequence of Dio’s personal experience of emperors of Dio’s own day – the actions of and

Elagabalus.159 Thus, we should expect to find in Dio’s treatment of these two emperors a pointed bias against emperor worship.

Yet Dio’s disparagement of does not focus upon Elagabalus’ engagement with emperor worship. There is no mention from Dio that Elagabalus tried to exult himself as a god. Dio was not perturbed by Elagabalus’ dubiously close connection with the Syrian deity, but recognised that Elagabalus was the highest priest of the sun god; not seeking to be or emulate the deity. Rather, Dio resented that Elagabalus tried to install this foreign god in the pantheon of Rome, exalting him above (80.11).160 As Turcan considered,

Elagabalus, in the literary record, ‘n’a pas tellement cherché à se faire adorer comme dieu, mais à faire adorer son dieu’.161

Something more akin to a bias against emperor worship is evident in Dio’s invective against Commodus.162 In his criticism of Commodus, Dio highlighted how Commodus exploited the institutions of emperor worship to the detriment of his public image, and to the disgrace of Rome.163 This is most prominent in Dio’s vilification of Commodus’ self- aggrandising connection with . Dio chose to highlight Commodus’ connection with both the name and the deeds of Hercules (73.15-16), and the way in which he used this connection to bestow a kind of ‘divinity’ upon himself; οὗτος οὖν ὁ χρυσοῦς, οὗτος ὁ

Ἡρακλῆς, οὗτος ὁ θεός ῾καὶ γὰρ καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἤκουεν᾽ (73.16.1: ‘[n]ow this “Golden One,” this

“Hercules”, this “god” (for [Commodus] was even given this name, too)’).164 Dio’s focus was upon that emperor’s flagrant disregard of the proper decorum for emperors, and his

158 Madsen, “Cult of Ivlivs and Roma,” 286. See also, Madsen, “Joining the Empire.” 159 Cf. Bowersock, “Greek Intellectuals,” 205. 160 Osgood, “Secret History of Elagabalus,” 185-86. 161 Turcan, “Le Culte Impérial au III° Siècle,” 1068. 162 Madsen, Eager to be Roman, 51. 163 Madsen, 51. 164 Transl. Cary (Loeb).

28 CHAPTER 2: APPROACHES AND METHODOLOGY temerity in seeking to his own divinity. Rather than seeing Dio’s attitudes toward emperor worship as a general ‘bias’,165 it seems that Dio took particular issue with emperors who had the temerity to seek their own self-deification. Dio’s invectives against and also take issue with those emperors pursuing their own living deification.

In his vilification of Caligula, Dio deliberately emphasised the extent to which

Caligula went to aggrandise his own position, by giving himself all the trappings of divinity.166 Dio emphasised that Caligula ‘longed to appropriate’ (ἰδιώσασθαι ἐπεθύµησε) for his own worship the ‘great and exceedingly beautiful temple’ (µέγαν καὶ ὑπερκαλλῆ) that the Milesians were building to (59.28). Furthermore, in Rome, Caligula modelled himself on Jupiter to the extent that the title of Ζεὺς appeared as a synonym for

Caligula in written documents, he constructed temples so that ‘he himself might dwell with

Jupiter’ (ὡς ἔλεγε, τῷ Διὶ συνοικοίη), and he gave himself priests and orchestrated sacrifices to himself (59.28). Sardonically, Dio also remarked that upon his death, Caligula ‘learned by actual experience that he was not a god’ (59.30: αὐτοῖς ὡς οὐκ ἦν θεὸς ἔµαθεν).167 It was

Caligula’s blatant agenda of self-deification which commanded Dio’s ire. Hints of this same ire can be detected in Dio’s treatment of Domitian. Dio highlighted that Domitian ‘even insisted upon being regarded as a god (θεὸς) and took vast pride in being called “master”

(δεσπότης) and “god” (θεὸς)’ (67.4.7).168

The debate that Dio puts into the mouths of Maecenas and Agrippa again demonstrates that Dio was not comprehensively biased against emperor worship. Dio makes

Maecenas and Agrippa present arguments to Augustus about the best ways to govern. It was primarily in his speeches, not his narrative, where Dio added his own ahistorical creativity, and attempted to advance third century CE agendas.169 As Swan indicates, ‘[f]ar more than

165 Cf. Madsen, “Cult of Ivlivs and Roma,” 286. 166 Simpson, “Caligula’s Cult,” 69-70; Sørensen, “Cassius Dio and the Foreigners,” 88-9. 167 Transl. Cary (Loeb). 168 Cf. Schulz, “Historiography and Panegyric,” 287-9 for Dio’s construction of Domitian as a god of the underworld. 169 Reinhold and Swan, “Cassius Dio’s Assessment of Augustus,” 170.

29 ALEX A. ANTONIOU the narrative, which is anchored in his sources, Dio’s speeches are free creations, the subgenre of historiography that offered him the greatest evidential and literary latitude’.170

More so than Dio’s other speeches, Maecenas’ speech in particular should be ‘seen as an attempt to advance [Dio’s] own ideological view’.171 While Rich suggests we ought not to understand the Agrippa-Maecenas debate as merely a ‘detached political pamphlet putting forward Dio’s views about how the empire should be run in his own day’,172 even he cannot deny that Dio did, to some extent, use this speech to discuss issues of his own time.173 As

Dio used this speech to construct ‘the past to instruct the present’,174 it provides insight into

Dio’s agenda, and the lessons he wished to convey to his discerning audience.

µὴ µέντοι µηδὲ ναόν ποτε περιίδῃς σαυτῷ γενόµενον…καὶ ἐς εὔκλειαν οὐδὲν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν

προσγίγνεται. ἀρετὴ µὲν γὰρ ἰσοθέους πολλοὺς ποιεῖ, χειροτονητὸς δ᾽ οὐδεὶς πώποτε θεὸς

ἐγένετο, ὥστε σοὶ µὲν ἀγαθῷ τε ὄντι καὶ καλῶς ἄρχοντι πᾶσα µὲν γῆ τεµένισµα ἔσται,

πᾶσαι δὲ πόλεις ναοί, πάντες δὲ ἄνθρωποι ἀγάλµατα ῾ἐν γὰρ ταῖς γνώµαις αὐτῶν ἀεὶ µετ᾽

εὐδοξίας ἐνιδρυθήσᾐ, τοὺς δ᾽ ἄλλως πως τὰ κράτη διέποντας οὐ µόνον οὐ σεµνύνει τὰ

τοιαῦτα, κἂν ἐν ἁπάσαις ταῖς πόλεσιν ἐξαιρεθῇ, ἀλλὰ καὶ προσδιαβάλλει, τρόπαιά τέ τινα

τῆς κακίας αὐτῶν καὶ µνηµεῖα τῆς ἀδικίας γιγνόµενα: ὅσῳ γὰρ ἂν ἐπὶ πλεῖον ἀνταρκέσῃ,

τοσούτῳ µᾶλλον καὶ ἡ κακοδοξία αὐτῶν διαµένει.

(52.35.4-6).

Neither should you ever permit the raising of a temple to you…from temples comes no

enhancement of one's glory. For it is virtue that raises many men to the level of gods, and

no man ever became a god by popular vote. Hence, if you are upright as a man and

honourable as a ruler, the whole earth will be your hallowed precinct, all cities your

temples, and all men your statues, since within their thoughts you will ever be enshrined

and glorified. As for those, on the contrary, who administer their realms in any other way,

such honours not only do not lend holiness to them, even though shrines are set apart for

them in all their cities, but even bring a greater reproach upon then, becoming, as it were,

170 Swan, Augustan Succession, 26. 171 Madsen, Eager to be Roman, 51. See also, Reinhold and Swan, “Cassius Dio’s Assessment of Augustus,” 170. 172 Rich, Cassius Dio, 14. 173 Rich, 14-15. 174 Swan, Augustan Succession, 28.

30 CHAPTER 2: APPROACHES AND METHODOLOGY

trophies of their baseness and memorials of their injustice; for the longer these temples

last, the longer abides the memory of their infamy.175

Through the figure of Maecenas, Dio made a deliberate distinction between the proper way to achieve divinity, and the contemptible ways in which divinity might be sought. Dio, through Maecenas, stressed that ἀρετὴ (excellence, virtue), ἀγαθῷ (being good, capable) and the ability to καλῶς ἄρχοντι (be honourable as a ruler) can raise a man to the level of the gods. In contrast, those who seek deification and worship are merely rewarded with ‘trophies of their baseness and memorials of their injustice’ (52.35.4-6). Dio/Maecenas did not want

Augustus to actively permit any temples to be raised to him.

Dio was not comprehensively biased against emperor worship, but rather vilified those emperors who actively sought to promote their own deification or their association with divinity. There was a clear distinction for Dio between the appropriate restraint of good emperors in not seeking worship, and those emperors who desperately sought their own deification. Commodus, Caligula and Domitian were bad emperors, in Dio’s estimation,176 because they actively sought deification. Madsen surmises that, ‘Dio depicted emperors who desired divine status while still alive as examples of men who lack respect for the gods’.177

In contrast, Augustus was Dio’s model emperor, his ‘quintessential monarch’,178 and the

‘paradigm of the good ruler’,179 because he did not actively seek to install his own cult, or promote his own deification.180 Dio was not ‘biased’ against emperor worship. Rather we should draw a subtle distinction; Dio was deeply suspicious and critical of those emperors who actively promoted their own cults and asserted their own divinity. Just as Seneca the

Younger could simultaneously question the worth of ’ divinity and laud the divinity

175 Transl. Cary (Loeb). 176 Schulz, “Historiography and Panegyric,” 276. 177 Madsen, Eager to be Roman, 124. 178 Reinhold and Swan, “Cassius Dio’s Assessment of Augustus,” 166. Cf. Aalders, “Cassius Dio and the Greek World,” 299. 179 Reinhold and Swan, 156. 180 Madsen, “Cult of Ivlivs and Roma,” 297.

31 ALEX A. ANTONIOU of Augustus,181 equally Dio could appreciate living emperor worship, but vilify and degrade those emperors who were too actively engaged with their own worship.

The most pervasive interpretation of Dio (51.20.6-8) is that he asserted that ‘there was no worship of the living emperor in Italy and Rome’.182 To disregard his testimony, or to try and reconcile it with the evidence, devalues Dio’s usefulness as a source. However, there is a much simpler way to understand Dio and the evidence, without questioning Dio’s credibility. It is much more appropriate to argue that there is no inconsistency between Dio’s words and the evidence of worship of the living emperor in the Italian peninsula. The basic assumption made about this passage must be challenged. Dio was not saying that there was no worship of the living emperor. Rather he was commenting that good emperors, such as

Augustus, never sanctioned the construction of temples to themselves in Rome or Italy generally, nor did they ever establish temples to themselves. There are two main points to unpick; that Dio focused on the emperors themselves permitting the construction of temples, and that good emperors would not allow them to be built.

Let us return to the pertinent sentence: ἐν γάρ τοι τῷ ἄστει αὐτῷ τῇ τε ἄλλῃ Ἰταλίᾳ

οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις τῶν καὶ ἐφ᾽ ὁποσονοῦν λόγου τινὸς ἀξίων ἐτόλµησε τοῦτο ποιῆσαι.

Beginning with ἐτόλµησε τοῦτο, we must define its antecedent; what it was that the emperors did not dare to do. Ἐτόλµησε τοῦτο refers back to Dio’s earlier comment, when speaking of

Augustus’ actions in Asia and Bithynia, that Augustus permitted the Asians and Bithynians to consecrate temples to himself (ἑαυτῷ τινα…τεµενίσαι ἐπέτρεψε). Thus, if we replace

τοῦτο with the antecedent phrase to which it refers, our translation reads, ‘for in the capital itself and in Italy generally no emperor, however worthy of renown he has been, has dared to permit sanctuaries to be consecrated to himself’. Although Dio’s focus was on others

181 Price, Rituals and Power, 115; Feeney, Literature and Religion at Rome, 110; Cole, “Elite Scepticism in the Apocolocyntosis,” 175-76. 182 Lange, “Emperor Worship and Dio Cassius,” 11.

32 CHAPTER 2: APPROACHES AND METHODOLOGY consecrating temples to the emperor, it is likely that Dio, obliquely, also meant that emperors did not construct temples to themselves.

While Cary’s translation, quoted in full above, gives a good sense of the overall passage, his translation of the phrase τῶν καὶ ἐφ᾽ ὁποσονοῦν λόγου τινὸς ἀξίων as ‘however worthy of renown he has been’, is perhaps better translated as ‘of those worthy of any renown’.183 This renders the translation of the entire sentence as: ‘for in the capital itself and in Italy generally no emperor, of those worthy of any renown, has dared to do this’. This shifts the meaning significantly. No longer is Dio saying that no emperors, regardless of their worth, permitted the construction of temples to themselves. Rather, Dio did not rule out the practice as being evident among worthless emperors. Dio chose the verb ἐτολµησε to heighten the contrast between emperors who promoted their own divinity and those emperors who did not openly pursue this agenda. Cary’s translation of this verb as ‘dared’184 appropriately emphasises the daring nature of such an endeavour. It was daring for emperors to permit temples to be built for themselves, and only unworthy emperors did so.185

Moreover, the entire construction of this sentence builds up to this verb, which is emphasised in its ultimate position within the sentence. Ultimately, the sentence we are left with, in translation, has an exceptionally different meaning to the one with which we started. ‘For in the capital itself and in Italy generally no emperor, of those worthy of any renown, has dared to permit sanctuaries to be consecrated to himself’.

Thus, Dio’s focus was not on the actions of the Italians who built temples to Augustus and subsequent emperors. Their actions are irrelevant. Rather, Dio’s focus was on Augustus

– his actions and worthiness. Dio, like so many other ancient historians, focused only on understanding the attitudes of the emperors towards emperor worship.186 It is quite within

183 Cf. Sørensen “Cassius Dio and the Foreigners,” 77. 184 Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon. Eighth Edition, 1562-63, definition of τολµάω. 185 Lewis and Short liken this verb to the Latin audere, Latin Dictionary, 201-2, definition of audio. 186 E.g. Charlesworth, “‘Deus Noster Caesar’,” 113-15; Charlesworth, “Observations on Ruler-Cult,”; Charlesworth, “Refusal of Divine Honours,”; Bickerman, “Diva Augusta Marciana,” 375; Paci, “Tiberio e il Culto Imperiale,”; Wardle, “ on Augustus,”; Beaujeu, “Le Paganisme Romain,” 10-13.

33 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Dio’s character to have focused on Augustus’ personal involvement in the initiation of emperor worship. Dio, in highlighting the virtue of his model-emperor, emphasised that

Augustus would not be involved in the consecration of temples to himself.

Under this interpretation, it is possible that bad emperors (such as Commodus,

Domitian and Caligula) did permit the construction of temples to themselves. As we have seen, Dio criticised each of these emperors for acclaiming themselves as gods, or associating themselves to an unreasonable degree with Graeco-Roman deities, such as Jupiter or

Hercules. Dio emphasised that Caligula built temples to himself in Rome. While there is uncertainty surrounding the exact meaning of Dio’s words,187 Caligula was directly involved in the construction of two temples in Rome, on the Capitoline and Palatine Hills (59.28).

Caligula first built a domus on the Capitoline so that he might ‘dwell with Jupiter’ (ὡς ἔλεγε,

τῷ Διὶ συνοικοίη), and then built a second temple on the Palatine (59.28).188 It is possible that this latter temple was devoted to Caligula’s numen, rather than to Caligula himself,189 however this interpretation relies solely on Suetonius, who recounts that Caligula erected a templum etiam numini suo proprium…instituit (Cal. 21). While Suetonius made a distinction between the dedication of this temple to Caligula’s numen rather than to himself,

Dio seems to have ignored this. For Dio, Caligula, an emperor without renown, permitted and instigated the construction of temples to himself in Rome.

One potential problem with this new interpretation of Dio is that evidence from

Neapolis (It. 1) suggests that Augustus did sanction the creation of cults to himself. Bolstered by recent excavations undertaken at Piazza Nicola Amore in modern , there is plentiful literary, epigraphic and archaeological evidence to show that Neapolitans extensively engaged with the institutions of emperor worship. They dedicated and hosted sacred quinquennial or quadrennial games, the Ἰταλικὰ ‘Ρωµαῖα Σεβαστὰ ἰσολύµπια

187 Simpson, “Cult of the Emperor Gaius,” 508-9. 188 See Simpson, “Caligula’s Cult,” 70-71. 189 Simpson, 70-71.

34 CHAPTER 2: APPROACHES AND METHODOLOGY devoted to imperial worship (Cat. 20B), in conjunction with a Καισαρ[εῖον] (Cat. 20A), under the purview of a priest, an ἱερεὺς Σεβαστοῦ Καίσαρος (Cat. 20C). Cassius Dio,

Suetonius and all provide evidence that Augustus attended these games himself.190 This has been interpreted as causing tension with Dio (51.20.6-8), as Augustus’ presence at the games implies that he permitted the formation of the games. There have been two solutions posited to reconcile this tension. The first is to suggest that the religious dimension of the games was only dedicated to Augustus posthumously.191 The second is that the games were dedicated to Augustus while he was alive, but because Neapolis was so fundamentally Greek in heritage, Dio must not have considered the city to have been part of

Italy.192 Again, such attempts at reconciliation are unnecessary. The literary attestations to

Augustus’ presence at the games merely suggest that he attended the games. There is no indication that Augustus was ever asked for his permission to establish these games,193 or that the senate was asked to ratify the establishment of sacred games.194 It would have been improper for Augustus to have asked Neapolis to desist in celebrating games and festivals to him subsequent to their initiation. Moreover, Dio (51.20.6-8) focused solely on the erection of temples; living emperors allowing temples to be built to themselves, rather than cults, festivals or games. While there was a Kaisareion at Neapolis, and it was used in conjunction with the games, there is no indication that Augustus was ever given a chance to comment on the initiation of this temple to himself. Thus, Augustus being worshipped from the initiation of the games poses no conflict with Dio’s evidence.195

This is confirmed by recent epigraphic evidence discovered in the excavations of

Piazza Nicola Amore in Naples. Miranda de Martino proposes that the recently uncovered

190 Cass. Dio 55.10.9, 56.29.2; Suet. Aug. 98.5; Vell. Pat. 2.123.1. 191 Geer, “Greek Games at Naples,” 216. 192 Taylor, Cults of Ostia, 36; Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 117-18, 133; Taylor, Divinity, 214-15. Cf. Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 15; Geer, “Greek Games at Naples,” 216. 193 Cf. Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 117; Arnold, “Agonistic Festivals,” 246. 194 Cf. Swan, Augustan Succession, 101-2. 195 See Geer, “Greek Games at Naples,” 216, for contention around date of games’ dedication. Miranda de Martino, “Augusto e i Sebastá,” 28, provides the best solution; the decision to create religious festival with games was made in 2 BCE, and games first celebrated in 2 CE.

35 ALEX A. ANTONIOU inscription attesting the ἱερεὺς Σεβαστοῦ Καίσαρος,196 demonstrates that the worship undertaken was clearly of the living Augustus, rather than divus Augustus. She convincingly argues that as theos (the Greek equivalent for divus) is not mentioned, Augustus was alive when he was worshipped.197

With this new interpretation, we are no longer bound to think of Cassius Dio as being in tension with the evidence of emperor worship in Italy. While Dio is not always our most accurate source, at least with this interpretation of the passage we no longer have to presume that Dio was mistaken, or was a bad historian, imputing third century biases into his narrative of emperor worship in Italy and in Rome.

This new interpretation has significant consequences for our understanding of the institutions of emperor worship in Italy. If Dio was being clear that no good emperors had dared to permit temples to be built to themselves in Italy, then it is likely that Italians never asked Augustus, or successive emperors, for official permission to construct their municipal or collegial temples. This allows us the freedom to examine why Italians engaged in the institutions of emperor worship without the emperor’s involvement or endorsement. The most common paradigm governing our understanding of emperor worship is that it was part of Augustus’ imperialist mission; Augustus used the imposition of emperor worship as a tool to bring about the Romanisation of his subjects.198 However, if the emperor was not involved in the initiation or imposition of cults of himself in Italy, then we are at liberty to reject this paradigm.

2.3 GIFT-EXCHANGE

This thesis is not the first to reject the paradigm of emperor worship being a tool of

Romanisation. The greatest exploration of the use of alternative paradigms was that of Price

196 IGI-Napoli 02, 115. 197 Miranda de Martino, “Augusto e i Sebastá,” 28; Miranda de Martino, “Neapolis e gli Imperatori,” 206. 198 See e.g., Kreitzer, “Apotheosis of the Roman Emperor,” 216; Fishwick, “Provincial Ruler Worship,” 1209, 1251; Fishwick, Imperial Cult, 1.1:92-3, 148-49, 165; Fishwick, Imperial Cult, 3.3; Krascheninnikoff, “Kaisercultus Im Römischen Westen,” 169.

36 CHAPTER 2: APPROACHES AND METHODOLOGY in his seminal 1984 study of imperial cult in Roman Asia Minor.199 There, Price adapted the sociological concept of ‘gift-exchange’ from Bourdieu.200 This thesis will adapt Price’s sociological concept to argue that the institutions of emperor worship were crucially important gifts within a greater system of negotiation between communities within the Italian peninsula and the imperial power, on the level of the divine. The establishment or maintenance of the institutions of emperor worship were important ways in which Italian communities and colleges engaged with the imperial power.

Price’s formulation of the idea of gift-exchange201 was remarkably simple at its core.

Emperor worship can be conceptualised as a gift, an element within an exchange between two parties. This exchange may be subject to pressures and constraints from one party (most often the stronger one, i.e. the imperial power), but must have had some objective significance to both parties.202 Gift-exchange theory is a useful tool because it is relatively easy to conceptualise. Gift-giving is a fundamental part of most of our lives. While easy to conceptualise, this methodology does not imply an overly simplistic description of the evidence. Rather, the conceptualisation of emperor worship as a series of gifts, within the greater negotiations and exchanges between the imperial power and individual communities,203 is absolutely vital as it allows for the agency of those communities to be reaffirmed. It demands that attention be paid to the local communities who were giving the gifts, and de-emphasises (but does not ignore) the role of the emperors themselves in that negotiation. While speaking mostly of provincial cults of emperor worship, Price recognised the potential for the gift-exchange model to rehabilitate the agency of communities in the

Roman west.204 While there were no provincial cults of emperor worship in Roman Italy,

199 Price, Rituals and Power. 200 Bourdieu, Theory of Practice, esp. 4-6, 171-72. 201 Price ignores sociological conflict between Bourdieu, Lévi-Strauss and Mauss regarding gift-exchange, see esp. Bourdieu, Theory of Practice, 4-6. 202 Price, Rituals and Power, 65-77. 203 Galinsky, “Uniter or Divider?,” 4. 204 Price, Rituals and Power, 74-75.

37 ALEX A. ANTONIOU the framework of gift-exchange is absolutely vital to understand how and why local communities in Italy adopted emperor worship.

To add a level of complexity to the model of gift-exchange, it must not be forgotten that these gifts and negotiations were special because they were not simply a negotiation between the emperor and his petitioners and suppliants.205 Rather, these negotiations were undertaken simultaneously on the human and divine levels. These gifts of emperor worship were given to the emperor, but also invoked his divinity, the divinity of his predecessors, or both. Helpfully, in the realm of human interactions with the divine, some scholars conceive of those interactions as being a complex system of negotiation between gods and men. The comments of Gradel exemplify this attitude; ‘[s]acrifices constituted a concrete system of gift exchange essential to the functioning of human society’.206 The notion of do ut des (I give that you might give) underpinned Roman religion and this system of reciprocal exchange governed the relationship between the Romans and their gods,207 and is in stark contrast to modern Judaeo-Christian religious conceptions of the relationship between man and god.208

The utility of gift-exchange theory to describe emperor worship has not been universally accepted. Whitmarsh, while generally receptive to the theory, warns us that the gift-exchange approach – as a reaction against the ‘top-down, Rome-centred perspective assumed by earlier scholarship’209 – often has the effect of over-simplifying the analysis.

Acknowledging his reservations, chapters 4 and 5 establish more than simply where the initiative for the construction of temples came from, and appreciate the complex series of negotiations between all parties involved.210 Gradel also dismisses approaches such as gift-

205 Cf. Woolf, “Monumental Writing,” 29. 206 Gradel, Emperor Worship, 244. 207 Bodel, “‘Sacred Dedications’,”; Rüpke, Religion of the Romans, 149-150; Brodd, “Religion, Roman Religion, Emperor Worship,” 40-41. 208 Bodel, “‘Sacred Dedications’,”; esp. 18-19. Cf. Luke 6.29: ‘if a man takes away your cloak, give him your tunic as well’. 209 Whitmarsh, “Thinking Local,” 6. 210 Whitmarsh, 6-7; Whitmarsh, “Mnemology of Empire and Resistance,” 54.

38 CHAPTER 2: APPROACHES AND METHODOLOGY exchange, arguing that they are ‘too often used as a convenient and reductionist way to dismiss the meaning and significance of such honours’.211 Gradel believes that gift-exchange limits the importance of temples and other worship because communities would have only informed the emperor of the initiation of temples or festivals.212 While Gradel is right to emphasise that we should not focus simply on the first initiation of emperor worship, gift- exchange does not limit our understanding of the longevity of cults. The gift-exchange envisaged was not just with the physical emperor in Rome. The negotiation also occurred on the level of the divine. For worshippers, the emperor and his divine family and predecessors need not have been physically present for the gift-exchange to have been successful. The gift of emperor worship was made repeatedly, every time that the worship was invoked in prayers, , festivals and sacrifices to the imperials as divinities.

211 Gradel, Emperor Worship, 99. 212 Gradel, 99.

39 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

CHAPTER 3: THE EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY

This chapter explores the evidence that will be covered by this thesis, and discusses the process by which evidence of municipal or collegial engagement with the institutions of emperor worship has been identified and catalogued.213 Broadly, the institutions of emperor worship considered include the worship of the living emperor, the worship of the living emperor’s genius and his numen, the worship of the household of the emperors, the worship of deified imperials (both divi and divae), and dedications made pro salute imperatoris.

Although canonical lists of the ‘official’ Roman divi and divae can be ascertained from the Arval Acta,214 or from literary sources that outline imperial deifications,215

McIntyre warns against accepting these canonical lists, reminding us that while these lists reflect ‘official’ deifications from Rome, local experiences were often vastly different.216

This can be seen in Italy, where there was only a loose adherence to the ‘official’ list of imperials who underwent apotheosis. The temple devoted to diva Augusta (Livia) and the living at Tarracina (It. 1, Cat. 28A(2)) is one such example. Given that Livia was not deified until 42 CE,217 after the lifetime of Tiberius, the community of Tarracina must have considered her a diva far before her official senatorial consecration.218 Italians also deviated from the norm at Gabii (It. 1, Cat. 14A), with the worship of the memoria of the domus of Domitia Augusta, and at Pompeii (It. 1) and (It. 2) with priesthoods devoted to Agrippina Minor.219 In this light, the collegial worship of Antinous – ’s favourite – at Lanuvium (It. 1, Cat. 16C) and Neapolis (It. 1, Cat. 20D) should also be considered. Although Antinous was not a member of the imperial family, and was never

213 App. 1, Catalogue. 214 Henzen, Acta Fratrum Arvalum Quae Supersunt. 215 Scheid, “Hierarchy and Structure,” 171; Price, “Consecration of Roman Emperors,” 57. 216 McIntyre, A Family of Gods, 132. 217 Suet. Claud. 11. 218 Mommsen, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, 10:626. 219 CIL 10.961; AE 1997, 397; Small, “Macellum at Pompeii,” 130; Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 422. Cf. Hemelrijk, “Priestesses: Titles and Function,” 153.

40 CHAPTER 3: THE EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY officially deified by the senate, after his pseudo-deification in the Nile,220 Antinous was worshipped by Italians like a blood member of the imperial family. Thus, the possibilities for worship of imperials in Italy was not restricted merely to the official lists of divi and divae of Rome.

Evidence of the worship of in Italy will not be considered in this thesis, given that the worship of divus Iulius was dissimilar to cult forms otherwise characteristic of emperor worship, except at Herculaneum (It. 1, Cat 15A), where the worship of divus

Iulius was part of the overall collegial worship adopted there. The worship of ‘Augustan’ virtues (otherwise known as blessings or ),221 and the worship of ‘Augustan’ deities will also not be considered in this thesis. Through the appellation of augusti/augusta, these virtues and deities may have become august or imperial, or somehow equated with the emperor, or alternatively these epithets denoted that these virtues and deities belonged to the emperor.222 Although Clark has recently questioned ‘just how definitive [Augustan] appropriation could ever be’,223 there was a diverse range of these ‘Augustan’ virtues and deities worshipped in Italy, with Augusta, Augusta and Mercurius

Augustus amongst the best attested.224

By excluding these types of worship, the intention is not to devalue the importance of these dedications – as Fishwick has done, by insisting that the decision to add the

‘Augustan’ epithet was simply ‘a mechanical process, a conventional gesture’,225 and an

‘empty practice’.226 Rather, they are being excluded because the decision to attach the

‘Augustan’ epithet to a virtue or a deity was a deliberate decision made by Italians because

220 Cass. Dio 59.11, 69.11. 221 Cooley, “Beyond Rome and Latium,” 247; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 7. 222 Clark, Divine Qualities, 264; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 7, 103-6; Mayer i Olivé, “El Culto Imperial,” 229; Green, “Notes on the Augustan Deities,”; Buonocore, “Le Iscrizioni ad Augusto,” 45. Cf. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer. 223 Clark, Divine Qualities, 264. 224 App. 2. 225 Fishwick, “Augustan Gods,” 448. 226 Fishwick, 454. See also Fishwick, “Augustan Blessings and Virtues,” 457, 460, 473; Charlesworth, “Virtues of a Roman Emperor.”

41 ALEX A. ANTONIOU they wanted to ‘draw out resonance from both the local roots of the god and from imperial or ‘august’ associations’.227 The decision to worship these deities and virtues ‘in their own right’228 should not be subsumed into the larger discussion of emperor worship within this thesis. It deserves its own treatment, because there seem to have been different motivations for Italians to worship them.229 It is worth exploring, for instance, why there is an overwhelming concentration of evidence for ‘Augustan’ deities at Aquileia (It. 10), despite the city providing only a meagre handful of dedications and priesthoods to the institutions of emperor worship.

There are two caveats to these exclusions. The worship of the Augusti will be discussed in this thesis,230 given that the Lares were not merely a deity to whom the

‘Augustan’ epithet was attached. Rather, as the Lares Augusti were tutelary deities specifically belonging to the imperial household – just as every other household in Rome had their own Lares231 – the worship of the Lares Augusti was a fundamental element of emperor worship. The worship of Roma in combination with imperials (i.e. Augustus or the

Augusti) will also be included because this worship was not intended to be of an ‘Augustan’ deity, of Roma Augusti. Rather, Roma was worshipped alongside the imperial deity.

3.1 THE *AUGUSTALES

Before delving into a detailed critique of the evidence of emperor worship, it is vital to consider the institution of the *Augustales. Duthoy’s shorthand of *Augustales (with the asterisk),232 will be used when referring to the organisation collectively, and Augustales

(without the asterisk) to refer to individuals or groups who specifically labelled themselves

Augustales, such as at Herculaneum (It. 1) or Misenum (It. 1).

227 Clark, “Magistri and Ministri,” 360. 228 Gradel, Emperor Worship, 7. 229 Gregori, “Il Culto delle Divinità Auguste,”; Panciera, “Umano, Sovrumano o Divino?,”. 230 See 5.2.5. 231 Orr, “Roman Domestic Religion,” 1564; Muccigrosso, “Religion and Politics,” 184. 232 Duthoy, “Les *Augustales,” 1254. Cf. Mouritsen, “Honores Libertini,” 237.

42 CHAPTER 3: THE EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY Scholars, most notably amongst them Duthoy, Fishwick and Ostrow, have long considered that the main function and raison d’être of the *Augustales was the worship of the Roman emperor;233 all *Augustales were public priests devoted to emperor worship.

Moreover, given that there are more than 2,900 extant inscriptions that attest to the presence of *Augustales across Roman Italy and the Latin West,234 scholars have hypothesised that temples of emperor worship must also have existed in each of those cities.235 Yet, the

*Augustales have been linked to municipal emperor worship on the basis of little hard evidence. There are three main arguments against the standard claim that the *Augustales were public priests devoted to emperor worship, and each of these arguments will be considered in turn.

1) Dedications of the *Augustales

Mouritsen, as the first to deny the religious raison d’être of the *Augustales, contended that the *Augustales made comparatively few religious dedications, and instead made a significant number of dedications to their patrons or euergetistic individuals within their local communities.236 Mouritsen added that where the *Augustales did make religious dedications, those dedications were made as much to other deities of the Graeco-Roman pantheon as to the emperors.237

Van Haeperen has recently re-examined the dedications made by *Augustales. She argued, from a consideration of Augustan and Tiberian inscriptions from Italy, that;

La majorité de ces dédicaces à l’empereur correspondent à de simples homages,

manifestations de loyauté – on ne peut dans ce cas-là évoquer un lien avec ce qu’on a

coutume d’appeler «culte impérial»…Force est de constater que ces témoignages ne

233 Duthoy, “Les *Augustales,”; Duthoy, “Notes Onomastiques sur Les *Augustales,”; Duthoy, “Repartition Geographique et Chronologique,”; Fishwick, “Augustales and Imperial Cult,”; Ostrow, “‘Augustales’ along the Bay of Naples,”; Ostrow, “Augustales in the Augustan Scheme,”; Silvestrini, “Una Nuova Iscrizione per i Lari Augusti,” 151-53. 234 Laird, Civic Monuments, 9. Cf. Duthoy, “Les *Augustales,” 1258; D’Arms, Commerce and Social Standing, 127; Duthoy, “Notes Onomastiques sur Les *Augustales,” 89. 235 Agnoli, “Palestrina: Il Cosiddetto Macellum,” 161-63; Duthoy, “Repartition Geographique et Chronologique,” 148-74. 236 Mouritsen, “Honores Libertini,” 241. 237 Mouritsen, 241.

43 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

suffisent pas, à eux seuls du moins, à faire des augustales des prêtres ou des responsables

du «culte impérial» ou d’une partie de celui-ci dans leur cité.238

She asserts that the function of the *Augustales was instead to organise and finance municipal games, although their funds were eventually put to other local civic and euergetistic uses.239 Van Haeperen’s explanation for the role of the *Augustales as organisers of municipal games is an attractive one, though not without complications.240 Nevertheless, her analysis points again to a vital deficiency in our evidence regarding the *Augustales.

While Van Haeperen only considered Augustan and Tiberian inscriptions,241 an analysis of dedications beyond the Tiberian period reveals that Van Haeperen’s arguments are still valid. It has been claimed that evidence of dedications devoted to emperor worship made by the *Augustales has not survived, and thus, despite our inability to confirm it, we ought nevertheless to think of the *Augustales as public priests devoted to emperor worship.242

This argument from silence is perilous.

When considering the dedications made by *Augustales (either as a collective or individuals), there is no preponderance of evidence suggesting that they worshipped the emperor and his family more than any other deity,243 or even that they were responsible for any religious functions within their cities.244 Even when *Augustales did make dedications to emperor worship, there is no evidence that those dedications were made as part of the duties of those *Augustales. Notwithstanding the peculiar engagement with emperor worship that we can see from the Augustales at Misenum (It. 1) and Herculaneum (It. 1),245 the remaining evidence only shows that some individuals who were *Augustales sometimes also made dedications to emperor worship.

238 Van Haeperen, “Origine et Fonctions Des Augustales,” 137-38. 239 Van Haeperen, esp. 138. 240 See 3.1. 3) Titulature. 241 Van Haeperen, 129, 151-55. 242 Fishwick, “Augustales and Imperial Cult,” 611. 243 Laird, Civic Monuments, 198. Cf. Bruun, “True Patriots?,” 82; Etienne, “Édifice des Augustales d’Herculanum,” 349. 244 Cf. McIntyre, A Family of Gods, 128. 245 See 3.3.2.

44 CHAPTER 3: THE EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY The *Augustales were not responsible for religious functions within their cities.246

Rather, they engaged with emperor worship and the worship of Graeco-Roman deities to the same extent as all other prominent individuals, such as duoviri or quattoviri.247 They were not responsible for religious activities within their cities, but as key figures within Roman communities they often made religious dedications. Thus, in every way *Augustales can be seen to have been ‘functioning as magistrates very much engaged in and responsive to the workings and tastes of their towns’,248 not as public priests.

2) Worship around the Bay of Naples

Evidence from around the Bay of Naples is used to substantiate the link between the

*Augustales and emperor worship. Principally, the temples of emperor worship at

Herculaneum (It. 1, Cat. 15A) and Misenum (It. 1, Cat. 19A), both of which belonged to

Augustales, have been used to affirm the role of the *Augustales as public priests devoted to emperor worship. These lone examples have been used as exemplars to justify the argument that all *Augustales across the Roman empire were priests devoted to emperor worship.

Moreover, the architectural form of the temple of the Augustales of Misenum has been employed as an exemplar for all Augustea of the *Augustales,249 and was most notably invoked to suggest there were temples of the *Augustales devoted to emperor worship at

Otricoli (It. 6, Cat. *20A), Rusellae (It. 7, Cat. 106A),250 and Feroniae (It. 7, Cat.

*25A). Mouritsen, in repudiating the connection between the *Augustales and emperor worship, proffers only that ‘[t]he strongest evidence for a distinct role in the cult of the emperor comes from the area around the Bay of Naples, primarily Misenum, Herculaneum and ’.251

246 Cf. McIntyre, A Family of Gods, 128. 247 Laird, Civic Mounuments, 7; Beard, North and Price, Religions of Rome, 1:358; Mouritsen, “Honores Libertini,” 241; Laird, “Seviri Augustales at Ostia,” 235-40; Bruun, “True Patriots?,” 82-89. 248 Laird, “Seviri Augustales at Ostia,” 235. 249 Etienne, “Édifice Des Augustales d’Herculanum,” 347, 349. 250 Not for the *Augustales, but still a municipal temple. 251 Mouritsen, “Honores Libertini,” 241.

45 ALEX A. ANTONIOU However, Laird’s recent analysis definitively shows that Misenum and Herculaneum cannot be used as a justification that all *Augustales were public priests devoted to emperor worship. While the Augustales at Misenum and Herculaneum did connect with emperor worship, they simply incorporated emperor worship into their own collegial identity. Their worship was private, intended only for initiated Augustales, and not the public at large.252

The engagement of the Augustales of Liternum (It. 1) with the cult of the domus divinae should be interpreted in the same way.253 They did not serve the public at large, and worshipped the domus divinae only for their own collegiate reasons. Thus, the evidence from these sites cannot be representative of all *Augustales, or all Augustea across the empire.

3) Titulature

Finally, scholars have been reluctant to relinquish the idea that the *Augustales were public priests devoted to emperor worship because the very title, Augustalis, points to a cultic function.254 While we commonly refer to this institution as the *Augustales, after Duthoy posited the use of an asterisk (*) as a simplified way of talking of this institution,255 this title conflates the significant variety of the titles used. There are at least 40 variants to the title

*Augustales.256 These titles include; seviri Augustales, seviri, magistri Augustales, Octoviri

Augustales, sevir Augustalis Martinus and sevir Claudialis.257 While many of these contain the common terminology of ‘Augustales’, it is arbitrary to label all of these disparate groups

*Augustales.258 Thus, if we are to impute the function of these organisations merely based on titles alone, we need to be specific, and not extrapolate on the basis of a general title.

252 Laird, Civic Monuments. Cf. Rives, “Civic and Religious Life,” 132-33. 253 AE 2001, 853, AE 2001, 854; Mouritsen, “Honores Libertini”, 241; Vandevoorde, “Respectability on Display,” 141. 254 Beard, Pompeii, 301; Fishwick, “Augustales and Imperial Cult,” 609-10; Duthoy, “Les *Augustales,” 1293. Cf. Laird, “Seviri Augustales at Ostia,” 241-44. 255 Duthoy, “Les *Augustales,” 1254. 256 Vandevoorde, “Of Mice and Men,” 2; Duthoy, “Les *Augustales,” 1254; Mouritsen, “Honores Libertini,” 237. 257 Fishwick, “Augustales and Imperial Cult,” 609-10; Duthoy, “Les *Augustales,” 1300. 258 Mouritsen, “Honores Libertini,” 237-38.

46 CHAPTER 3: THE EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY Yet it has never been convincingly demonstrated that Augustalis, as a title, attributes cult activity or worship of Augustus. Laird, Duthoy and Fishwick have given persuasive reasons why we can no longer rely on the evidence of the scholiasts Porphyrion (ad Hor.

Serm. 2.3.281) and Pseudo Acron (ad Hor. Serm. 2.3.281) when considering the titulature of the *Augustales.259 Furthermore, Gradel evaluates that ‘their title [*Augustales] may be no more than exactly that, and it does not necessarily entail a formalized participation in the imperial cult any more than membership of the ordo equester meant riding a horse’.260 In support, Laird points to the titulature of the tribunus militum a populo in Italy to insist that municipal titulature could be purely honorific, with little relevance to the literal terms of the title.261

Van Haeperen has recently suggested that the title might have been derived from the institution of the Augustales, as she proffers that the raison d’être of the *Augustales was to organise these games.262 However, this falls foul of our first issue; not all the

*Augustales were titled as Augustales. It is inappropriate, for instance, to suggest that the seviri Claudialii gained their titulature from the institution of the ludi Augustales. Instead, the titulature of these corporations is likely to be honorific,263 a demonstration of respect given to the emperor who played a role in the creation or sanction of that corporate body.264

This has the advantage of appreciating that Augustalis was not the only title employed, making room for the input of emperors other than Augustus, such as the seviri Claudialii or the seviri Augustalis et Tiberialis.

Ultimately, we should no longer make an automatic connection between the

*Augustales and the public institutions of emperor worship. We ought not start from the

259 Laird, “Seviri Augustales at Ostia,” 241-44; Duthoy, “Les *Augustales,” 1293; Fishwick, “Augustales and Imperial Cult,” 610. Cf. Silvestrini, “Una Nuove Iscrizione per i Lari Augusti,” 152. 260 Gradel, “Review: Die Munizipale Mittelschicht im Kaiserzeitlichen,” 260. 261 Laird, “Seviri Augustales at Ostia,” 243. Following Nicolet, “Tribuni Militum a Populo.” Generally, see Castrén, Ordo Populusque Pompeianus, 98-99. 262 Van Haeperen, “Origine et Fonctions Des Augustales,” 146. 263 Gradel, Emperor Worship, 229. Cf. Beard, North and Price, Religions of Rome, 2:208. 264 Beard, North and Price, 1:358; Lomas, Roman Italy, 115. Cf. Dyson, Community and Society, 101.

47 ALEX A. ANTONIOU assumption that the *Augustales were public priests administering emperor worship because we have little positive evidence demonstrating this. We can argue that some *Augustales occasionally engaged with the institutions of emperor worship, but they often did so privately, either in the confines of their own collegial setting or as individuals, dedicating and invoking the gods in the course of their daily lives as civic leaders in their cities. This thesis will not consider the evidence of the *Augustales, except where there is positive evidence (such as at Misenum (It. 1) and Herculaneum (It. 1)) that *Augustales did engage with emperor worship to some extent, if only for the benefit of their own college.

3.2 INSTITUTIONS OF EMPEROR WORSHIP

Evidence of municipal and collegial engagement with the institutions of emperor worship is the fundamental focus of this thesis. While chapters 4 and 5 will consider methodological frameworks to help us understand this municipal and collegial evidence, it is essential first to consider issues with the identification and interpretation of the institutions of emperor worship on both a municipal and collegial level.

It is vital to recognise the distinction between municipal worship of the emperor, and the worship undertaken by collegiate bodies. Within the scope of strict conventional, formal and legalistic Roman definitions, scholars have defined ‘public’ and ‘private’ religious activities.265 The distinction usually made is that ‘private’ religious rites were familial – rites within family houses or tombs – whereas ‘public’ rites were those where a collection of people not bound by familial ties came together to engage in worship. It is beneficial to divide ‘public’ worship into two smaller categories, to distinguish those rites performed for the benefit of the entire city or community on behalf of the entire people of a city (municipal worship), from those performed for clearly defined public groups of people (groups of

265 Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 12; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 9-10. Cf. Rüpke, “Roman Religion – Religions of Rome”, 4.

48 CHAPTER 3: THE EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY corporate organisation, such as collegia or select groups of Augustales).266 The reasons governing the adoption of emperor worship on both these levels are distinct and thus these levels must be considered separately. ‘Municipal’ worship is taken to mean worship for the entire urban community, regardless of the status of that community as a municipia, colonia or other urban centre.

3.2.1 Municipal Institutions of Emperor Worship

Most of our evidence is of municipal institutions of emperor worship. The most striking expressions of emperor worship were municipal temples. While temples, as the ‘seats of worship’ where ‘gods were naturally approached most readily’,267 were often important expressions of worship in the Graeco-Roman world, they were not themselves ‘absolute starting points’.268 Temples may have helped to ‘facilitate the worship of an emperor’,269 but were not an unconditional requirement. Instead, Fishwick has proposed that rituals of emperor worship were capable of being performed in a variety of ad hoc spaces, such as theatres, curiae or public squares.270 Furthermore, Price has insisted that festivals were the backbone of emperor worship in communities across the empire, as it ‘was at festivals and in their ritual that the vague and elusive ideas concerning the emperor…were focussed in action and made powerful’.271 Although festivals, games, and processions leave few detectable traces, there is sufficient epigraphic evidence to demonstrate that these were vital parts of municipal emperor worship across Roman Italy.

While the most well-known of these games and festivals in Italy, the Ἰταλικὰ

‘Ρωµαῖα Σεβαστὰ ἰσολύµπια from Neapolis (It. 1, Cat. 20B), did include sacrifices at a

Kaisareion (Cat. 20A) under the auspices of a priest (Cat. 20C), most public celebrations

266 Hemelrijk, 12; Gradel, 9-10; Laird, Civic Monuments, 85-86. 267 Bodel, “‘Sacred Dedications’,” 30. 268 Rüpke, “Dedications Accompanied by Inscriptions,” 34. 269 Laird, Civic Monuments, 86. 270 Fishwick, “Liturgy and Ceremonial,” 522-25. 271 Price, Rituals and Power, 102.

49 ALEX A. ANTONIOU did not require a temple, needing only a municipal altar with an attendant priest. The best example of this is at Clodii (It. 7), where banquets, games and sacrifices were undertaken at the ara of the numen Augusti on imperial anniversaries and birthdays.272

Dipinti from Pompeii (It. 1),273 and a handful of inscriptions from Gabii (It. 1),274 Venafrum

(It. 1),275 and Tuficum (It. 6),276 also demonstrate that games, often gladiatorial combats, were frequently dedicated to the numen of Augustus, or given pro salute imperatoris. It was not simply at festivals specifically devoted to emperor worship that sacrifices for the emperor or for his safety were made.277 For instance, at Forum Clodii on the birthday of

Livia, wine and cakes were given by the women of the city at the festival of Bona Dea,278 and at Ostia the taurobolium (the sacrifice of bulls to Magna Mater) was continually conducted pro salute imperatoris.279 Games and festivals remained significant in the rituals of emperor worship throughout the first three centuries CE. A rescript of Constantine from

Hispellum (It. 6)280 attests that in the early third century CE, Volsinii (It. 7) exhibited sacred stage plays and gladiatorial combats, and that Hispellum was given permission to hold their own spectacula and plays for the worship of Constantine and his family.281

The content of the sacrifices made in rituals of emperor worship differed greatly.282

The municipal altar of Abellinum (It. 1, Cat. 1A, Plate 2) depicts a priest in the presence of imperial statues in a ritual of emperor worship, making a at an altar.283 In contrast,

272 CIL 11.3303 (Forum Clodii, It. 7); Rives, “Women and Animal Sacrifice,” 139. 273 CIL 4.3882, 4.1180, 4.1196, 4.7989a, 4.9964, 4.9969 (Pompeii, It. 1); Fishwick, Imperial Cult, 3.1:234; Wallace, Wall Inscriptions from Pompeii and Herculaneum, 20, 22-23. 274 CIL 14.2804; Gaspar, “Sacerdotes Piae,” 83; Hemelrijk, “Priestesses: Benefactions and Public Honour,” 98, n.38. 275 CIL 10.4893. 276 CIL 11.5716. 277 Lomas, Roman Italy, 191. 278 CIL 11.3303; Lomas, 191. 279 CIL 14.40, 14.42, 14.43, 14.4303; Beard, North and Price, Religions of Rome, 1:280. 280 CIL 11.5265; Curran, “Constantine and the Ancient Cults of Rome,” 76; Salzman, “‘Superstitio’ in the ‘Codex Theodosianus,” 178, 186 n.41; Barnes, Constantine and , 377, n.17; Potter, Constantine the Emperor, 281-82; Van Dam, Roman Revolution of Constantine, 363-64. 281 Fishwick, “Liturgy and Ceremonial,” 576; Salzman, “‘Superstitio’ in the ‘Codex Theodosianus’,” 178. 282 Fishwick, 509; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 78, 250; Scheid, “Les Espaces Cultuels,” 431; Scheid, “Hierarchy and Structure,” 171-73; Hemelrijk, “Local Empresses,” 327. 283 Gradel, Emperor Worship, 93; Wardle, “Divinity of Roman Emperor Once More,” 129; Grella, “L’Ara di Abellinum,” 140-42.

50 CHAPTER 3: THE EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY on the altar of Pompeii (It. 1, Cat. 23B), a bull is depicted as being sacrificed to the living emperor.284 Epigraphic evidence from Forum Clodii (It. 7) and (It. 1) further attests that a wide range of sacrifices were possible in rituals devoted to emperor worship; the sacrifice of bulls, bull calves, wine and incense on different imperial anniversaries are all attested.285

While festivals were fundamental to municipal emperor worship in Italy, our evidence predominantly consists of attestations of the municipal priesthoods – who would have directed worship and undertaken sacrifices in these festivals – and the municipal temples erected as monumental foci for worship. These attestations mostly come from epigraphic evidence, which poses evidentiary problems. Not only does it obscure the festivals and processions fundamental to municipal emperor worship in Italy, but it also has significant ramifications for how we identify and interpret evidence of municipal cult spaces and municipal priesthoods.

Identification and Interpretation of Municipal Cult Spaces

A cautious approach must be taken in the identification and interpretation of the evidence for municipal cult spaces devoted to the institutions of emperor worship, as catalogued in

Appendix 1. Following the example of Gradel, such caution is well advised.286

Some evidence is simply too uncertain. This is particularly the case at Acerrae (It.

1). Epigraphic evidence demonstrates that there was a cult building at Acerrae (Cat. *1A),287 and it is possible that some sort of emperor worship was undertaken there.288 However, lacunae in the text obfuscate vital sections. Thus, assertions of the temple’s dedication, as a temple of Caius and Lucius Caesar,289 a cult building to the Lares Augusti,290 or a temple to

284 Gradel, 97. Cf. Hano, “Les Autels des Lares Augusti,” 2350-51, 2374-75. 285 CIL 11.3303 (Forum Clodii, It. 7); CIL 10.3682 (Cumae, It. 1); Rives, “Women and Animal Sacrifice,” 139; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 97, 241. 286 Gradel, 108. 287 CIL 10.3757. 288 Koortbojian, Divinization of Caesar and Augustus, 269, n.15. 289 Gradel, Emperor Worship, 268; Taylor, Divinity, 219. 290 Koortbojian, Divinization of Caesar and Augustus, 269; Lomas, “Urban Renewal and Euergetism,” 32; Lomas, “Roman Imperialism,” 70.

51 ALEX A. ANTONIOU the Lares Augusti in which Caius and Lucius Caesar were offered imagines Caesareum,291 are simply educated guesses. Another example of this uncertainty concerns worship at

Puteoli (It. 1, Cat. *12A). While the (now lost) inscription, CIL 10.1613, as catalogued, would strongly support the existence of a temple to Augustus at Puteoli,292 Hänlein-Schäfer and Castagnoli have persuasively shown that this reading should be abandoned due to it being an invention or misreading.293

Archaeological evidence is often used to identify sites of emperor worship, despite there being a lack of evidence for it. Ciotti, for example, argues that one of the twin temples excavated south of Carsulae’s forum (It. 6, Cat. *18A) was dedicated to Roma and Augustus, or and ,294 but he suggests that a dedication to ,295 or in fact any other combination of gods, could also be possible. Similarly ambitious interpretations of archaeological evidence have also seen the presence of ‘imperial cult’ temples at Pagus Stellatinus (It. 7, Cat. *27A), Tibur (It. 4. Cat. *17A), and Pisaurum (It.

6, Cat. *21A).

Ambitious restorations of the missing text in inscriptions – the practice of determining ‘history from square brackets’296 – is prevalent. Bodel argues that this is the

‘most pernicious of epigraphic dangers for the historian, that of building argument from speculation disguised as fact’.297 Through critical analysis of restored inscriptions, the accuracy of restored inscriptions has been questioned here, in this thesis, especially where readings of inscriptions are wholly reliant upon the restoration. This has led to the rejection of some attestations of emperor worship, such as with a temple of emperor worship asserted at Venafrum (It. 1, Cat. *13A). This temple’s existence was claimed on the basis of an

291 See editors’ comments, AE 2002, 360. 292 D’Arms, Romans on Bay of Naples, 82; Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 199; Lomas, Roman Italy, 179. 293 Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 279-80; Castagnoli, “Topografia dei Campi Flegrei,” 55-57. 294 Ciotti, “Carsulae,” 26. Cf. Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 268. 295 Ciotti, 26. 296 Badian, “History from ‘Square Brackets’.” 297 Bodel, “Epigraphy and the Ancient Historian,” 52.

52 CHAPTER 3: THE EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY epigraphic restoration; that Marcius Ambitio erected an [ae]dem August(i). However, this restoration was asserted on the basis that, as Ambitio is otherwise attested as a ,298 he could only have dedicated an institution devoted to emperor worship. However, there is no evidence that flamines were more likely to dedicate aedes than other individuals, and little evidence to suggest that he must have been a flamen Augusti rather than a flamen to another deity.299 Thus, it is equally possible that this inscription could be restored as [statuam equest]rem August(i), or similar. Bold restorations of inscriptions have also seen the assertion of temples devoted to emperor worship at (It. 11, Cat. *36A), and

Ateste (It. 10, Cat. *40A).

In the identification of institutions of emperor worship, we must also recognise the distinction between the intention to honour the emperor, and to worship him and his household. Gradel has uncovered a significant tendency for scholars to ‘indiscriminately’ label a range of practices as ‘imperial cult’, based on little positive evidence of worship.300

The simple erection of statues of emperors and their families, and the mere inscription of imperial names on stone have commonly been overzealously labelled as expressions of emperor worship.301 This tendency has been aptly but sarcastically described by Curchin as

‘cultomania’.302 Scholars see emperor worship everywhere. Revell argues that distinguishing the cultic and honorific context of a sculpture is ‘overly rigid’ as statues could invoke the thought and memory of emperor worship, which imbued imperial statues with ‘divine mystique’.303 Her reservation is acknowledged. Through statues, the emperor’s presence

(divine or otherwise) could be felt throughout Italy. However, when we are identifying clear

298 CIL 9.2661, 10.4897b, 10.5016, EAOR-08, 35b. 299 See 3.3.1. 300 Gradel, Emperor Worship, 108. 301 Burrell, “False Fronts,” 439, 444, 451; Curchin, “Cult and Celt,” 145. Cf. Mayer i Olivé, “El Culto Imperial,” 230. 302 Curchin, “Review: Culto Imperial,” 336. 303 Revell, Roman Imperialism and Local Identities, 84.

53 ALEX A. ANTONIOU manifestations of emperor worship, we must toe the fine line between worship and honour.304

We must be wary of interpretations that suggest that worship of the emperor was always intended at sites where a collection of imperial statues have been found.305 Thus the assertion of emperor worship at sites such as Lanuvium (It. 1, Cat. *8A), Ostia (It. 1, Cat.

*10A, B), Otricoli (It. 6, Cat. *20A), (It. 7, Cat. *25A), and Veleia (It. 8,

Cat. *28A) should be set aside. In each of these sites, collections of imperial statues have been found in the exedrae or porticos of civic structures such as basilicae. Drawing on the testimony of (De Architectura, 5.1.6), scholars have insisted that worship was undertaken in these civic structures. However, there is a difference between the pronai aedis

Augusti – a proper sanctuary devoted to emperor worship, built into the side wall of the basilica at Fanum Fortunae (It. 6, Cat. 77A),306 as described by Vitruvius – and exedrae or porticos in basilicae which contained imperial statues. There is a distinction between honour and worship.

At Ostia (It. 1) too, the presence of emperor worship has been overemphasized.

While the temple of Roma and Augustus was certainly a site of municipal emperor worship

(Cat. 22A), Rieger interprets the ‘Temple Rond’, constructed in the Severan period, as a building erected for the imperial cult, which contained the worship of (at least) Alexander

Severus, Gordian III and Sabina Tranquillina (Cat. *10B). Rieger bases this on the idea that the choice to build a round temple was reminiscent of the Roman Pantheon,307 and given that (after Coarelli) the latter may have been originally intended to include the worship of

Augustus,308 she extrapolates that emperor worship must also have been intended in Ostia’s round temple. However, the presence of imperial sculptures within this round building

304 de Maria, “L’Augusteum di Fano,” 133. 305 Burrell, “False Fronts,” 439. 306 Price, “Review: Veneratio Augusti,” 301. 307 Rieger, “Les Sanctuaires Publics,” 254-59; Rieger, Heiligtümer in Ostia, 173-214. See also, Briggs, “The ‘Pantheon’ of Ostia.” 308 Coarelli, “Il Pantheon, L’Apoteosi,” 42, 44. From Cass. Dio 53.27.2.

54 CHAPTER 3: THE EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY cannot be enough to propose that emperor worship took place there.309 It is difficult to believe that Ostians of the third century would have drawn on the model of the Pantheon to build their own temple of emperor worship, or even suppose that they would have known of

Agrippa’s unfulfilled intention to house emperor worship within the Pantheon. Furthermore, building a monumental temple to emperor worship in the third century is uncharacteristic of the general trends that existed in Italy at the time. As will be discussed in chapter 4,310 municipal temples were mostly built during the Julio- and Flavian eras, and other municipal devotions to emperor worship disappeared not long after the death and deification of , although there are anomalies.311 Thus, the dedication of a grand temple to emperors of the mid-third century is based on little positive evidence and is out of character for the period.

The desire amongst scholars to see emperor worship everywhere is even more pronounced at Pompeii (It. 1). While the Augusteum of Pompeii (Cat. 23A) was clearly dedicated to the institutions of emperor worship, many interpretations have viewed the entire forum as devoted to the worship of the emperor.312 In the characteristically sarcastic words of Beard, with these interpretations:

…the Forum of Pompeii in 79 CE could only be described as a monument to dynastic and

political loyalty, on a scale that would impress the most hard-line, one-party regimes of the

modern world. Happily there is hardly a shred of evidence for any of it.313

Small insists that the macellum of Pompeii (Cat. *11A) was ‘designed to be of major importance in the ceremonial life of the city’,314 as it apparently contained a shrine dedicated to emperor worship.315 However, Gradel persuasively demonstrates that the identification of

309 See Heinzelmann, “Review: Heiligtümer in Ostia”. 310 See 4.3. 311 Esp. at Hispellum (It. 6, Cat. 80A). 312 See e.g. Small, “Macellum at Pompeii,”; Zanker, Power of Images, 308; Zanker, Pompeji; Mau, Pompeii. 313 Beard, Pompeii, 301. Cf. Dobbins, “, Decoration, and Urban Design,” 688. 314 Small, “Macellum at Pompeii,” 136. 315 Small, 118-36; Dobbins, “Imperial Cult Building,” 103; Lomas, “Urban Renewal and Euergetism,” 35; Zanker, Power of Images, 308; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 107.

55 ALEX A. ANTONIOU emperor worship within the macellum is a fallacy, at least on the basis of surviving fragmentary evidence.316

While a building on the east side of Pompeii’s forum (Cat. *11B) has been identified as a building devoted simply to the imperial cult,317 as a ‘Shrine of the Public Lares’,318 or a temple of the Lares Augusti,319 there is no convincing evidence to support these identifications. Even though Dobbins maintains that the building’s structural features it

‘a special status’,320 there is no reliable evidence to suggest a cultic function in relation to the worship of the Roman emperor. While the building contained niches, there is no evidence that those niches supported cultic statues,321 and they may have held papyri instead.322

The ‘Eumachia Building’ was also not a cult site for the worship of the emperor (Cat.

*11C). While Eumachia did dedicate her building to Concordia and Augusti,323 there is no evidence that the building was dedicated to the worship of the emperor,324 nor contained

‘additional shrines to the imperial cult’.325 Richardson Jr’s interpretation is the best, as he argues that its ‘chief purpose was a public porticus’.326

Identification and Interpretation of Municipal Priesthoods

A cautious attitude towards the identification and interpretation of municipal institutions of emperor worship also extends to appreciating the epigraphic evidence of priesthoods devoted to municipal emperor worship.

316 Gradel, 107. See Cat. *11A especially. 317 Dobbins, “Imperial Cult Building,” 99-113; Zanker, Power of Images, 308; Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 130; Dobbins, “Chronology, Decoration, and Urban Design,” 630, 632, 685-88; Zanker, Pompeji, 28; Zanker, Pompei, 103. 318 Mau, “Der Städtische Larentempel,” 285-301; Mau, Pompeii, 102-5. 319 Lomas, “Urban Renewal and Euergetism,” 35. 320 Dobbins, “Imperial Cult Building,” 99. See also, Dobbins, “Chronology, Decoration and Urban Design,” 658-88. 321 Gradel, Emperor Worship, 106-14. 322 Richardson Jr., “Concordia and Concordia Augusta,” 273-75; Beard, Pompeii, 301; Richardson Jr., Pompeii, 14. 323 CIL 10.810; Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 29. 324 Zanker, Power of Images, 308. 325 Lomas, “Urban Renewal and Euergetism,” 35. 326 Richardson Jr., “Concordia and Concordia Augusta,” 269.

56 CHAPTER 3: THE EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY Priesthoods in Roman Italy devoted to emperor worship are most commonly sacerdotes and flamines/flaminicae327 dedicated to a specific living or deified imperial figure,328 i.e. flamines to divus Traianus,329 or Neronis Augusti.330 However, many were devoted simply to an Augustus/Augusta. Given that these titles were adopted by most emperors and empresses, it is impossible without other qualifying evidence to be precise as to which imperial these priesthoods were devoted. While this makes interpretation difficult, communities may have exploited these generic titles deliberately, and used this ambiguity to their advantage.331 Moreover, many scholars assume that all attestations of sacerdotes or flamines/flaminicae from across Roman Italy were priesthoods devoted to emperor worship.332 Although most priests devoted to emperor worship were flamines/flaminicae or sacerdotes, this does not impute that all were priests devoted to emperor worship. A range of other deities in Roman Italy were also worshipped by flamines/flaminicae or sacerdotes, such as the flaminica of in (It. 5).333

Finally, epigraphic attestations of priesthoods frequently exclude details such as the city in which the priesthood was performed. Although mobility between urban centres is not unusual in the imperial period,334 it seems safe to assume that, in most cases, the communities where the inscriptions were found were the cities in which municipal priesthoods were performed. In situations when this is not the case, it is explicitly recorded on inscriptions. An inscription found at Pollentia (It. 9)335 neatly illustrates this. This inscription records the career of a woman of senatorial rank who performed the duties of

327 Although a ἱερεὺς Σεβαστοῦ Καίσαρος is attested at Neapolis (It. 1, IGI-Napoli 02, 115), ἱερεὺς is Greek substitution for flamen, see Vanggaard, The Flamen, 22. 328 Cf pontifex of Flavia at Hispellum (It. 6, CIL 11.5283). 329 E.g. CIL 10.5067 (Atina, It. 1); CIL 10.4873 (Venafrum, It. 1); CIL 9.2649 (Aesernia, It. 4); CIL 9.2600 (Terventum, It. 4); CIL 5.7375 (Dertona, It. 9); CIL 5.7458 (Vardagate, It. 9); CIL 5.4368 (Brixia, It. 10); CIL 5.5312 (Comum, It. 11); CIL 5.6797 (Eporedia, It. 11); CIL 5.5126 (Mediolanum, It. 11); CIL 5.6513, 5.6514, 5.6520 (Novaria, It. 11). 330 CIL 4.1185, 4.3884, 4.7992, 4.7995, 4.7996 (Pompeii, It. 1). 331 Cf. Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 74. 332 E.g. Hemelrijk, 50, although she acknowledges it is an overestimation. 333 CIL 11.5711, 11.5712 (Tuficum, It. 6). Cf. Hemelrijk, 50. 334 See generally on mobility, Morley, “Cities in Context,” 49-50; Tacoma, Moving Romans; Lo Cascio and Tacoma, Impact of Mobility and Migration. 335 CIL 5.7617.

57 ALEX A. ANTONIOU three separate priesthoods. The inscription explicitly states that she performed these priesthoods in three separate cities. She was sacerdos of diva Plotina in Pollentia, sacerdos of diva Faustina Minor336 in Augusta Taurinorum (It. 11) and sacerdos of diva Faustina

Maior337 in Concordia (It. 10).338 Thus, it has been assumed that in most cases the duties of the priesthoods were undertaken in the city in which their public memorial was found, except when explicitly stated otherwise.

While caution has been applied in the identification and interpretation of evidence of municipal institutions of emperor worship, this rigorous analysis ultimately means that the conclusions reached in chapter 4 will be firmer and more definitive.

3.2.2 Collegial Institutions that Engaged with Emperor Worship

Few scholars focus on the evidence of collegial institutions in Italy that engaged with emperor worship. The worship of the Lares Augusti is likely to have been collegial rather than municipal, given that evidence shows that funding for the worship was provided by priests themselves, rather than by drawing on civic funds.339 Similarly, scholars have not questioned the idea that most Italian colleges of cultores that engaged with emperor worship did so exclusively for their own benefit.340 However, identifying whether worship was municipal or intended only for colleges is not always clear. This is especially the case with a handful of temples. Did these cultic sites belong to collegial organisations for the private use of the college alone, or were they used by the entire community to express their worship?

336 Faustina Minor. Hemelrijk, “Priestesses: Titles and Fuction,” 153. 337 Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 412; Hemelrijk, “Priestesses: Titles and Function,” 153. 338 See also, CIL 11.407 (Forum Sempronii (It. 6), Ariminum (It. 8)); CIL 5.5126 (Bergomum (It. 11), Mediolanum (It. 11)). 339 Zaccaria, “Quanti e Quali Augustei Nella Regio X?,” 223. Cf. Palmer, “‘Private’ Religion and Compita at Ostia,” 383. 340 Gradel, Emperor Worship, 218.

58 CHAPTER 3: THE EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY Architectural Identifiers

The greatest indicator as to whether a temple was intended for municipal or collegial worship is its architecture. As Laird argues, many temples devoted to emperor worship were constructed in ways which restricted the audience and participants involved in the worship, effectively excluding ‘outsiders’ from participating in that worship. The Augusteum in the castrum vigilum of Ostia (It. 1, Cat. 22F(1), Plates 8 & 9) is a good example of this. Taylor maintained that this Augusteum ‘seems to have been a private sanctuary of the vigiles, not accessible to the inhabitants of the city’,341 and based much of her reasoning on the architectural idiosyncrasies of the site.342 Laird reinforces Taylor’s argument by contending that the architecture of the complex was deliberately designed to control visual and physical access into the Augusteum.343 She emphasises that while the dedications and statues in the courtyard might have been seen by passers-by, the Augusteum itself was ‘sequestered deep in the back of the courtyard’,344 and was hidden by a screen of pilasters.345 The site was structured around the private and internal religious and ceremonial needs of the vigiles themselves, rather than the public at large. As Rainbird emphasises, the peristyle and its

Augusteum were the primary focus for drills and ceremonies for the vigiles themselves.346

Architectural features can also help us to classify the temple to the deified Pertinax of the fabri tignarii (the builder’s guild) at Ostia (It. 1, Cat. 22F(2)) as a ‘collegial temple’

(Plate 4).347 The size and grandeur of this temple need not force us to identify it as a municipal temple. As Bollman reminds us, scholae for collegia could take whatever form the college desired, and temple precincts were not uncommon.348 The temple of the deified

Pertinax shares many architectural similarities with other Ostian scholae, such as the schola

341 Taylor, Cults of Ostia, 48. 342 Cf. Rainbird, “Fire Stations,” 153, 156 for a better conception of the layout of the castrum. 343 Laird, Civic Monuments, 89; Laird, “‘Sede degli Augustali’,” 66-67. 344 Laird, Civic Monuments, 89. 345 Laird, 89; Laird, “‘Sede degli Augustali’,” 66-67. 346 Rainbird, “Fire Stations,” 165. 347 Laird, Civic Monuments, 89. 348 Bollman, “Les Collèges Religieux,” 174.

59 ALEX A. ANTONIOU of the fabri navales (naval manufacturers),349 which were clearly intended for private use only. Moreover, as at the castrum vigilum, physical and visual access to the site was restricted. The altar for this temple was hidden and obscured from passers-by on the decumanus maximus, which created architectural privacy for the worship undertaken there.350 Furthermore, the decision not to construct a simple , but rather a grand, monumental space, can be seen as part of the competitive nature between the fabri tignarii and other Ostian collegia. As Bollman argues, the fabri tignarii built this grand precinct to compete with the temples and scholae of other Ostian collegia.351 This competitive spirit saw the fabri tignarii build a temple which emulated and rivalled Ostia’s public, monumental architecture, while retaining features which visually and physically restricted the audience of the rites undertaken there.

Architectural features can also be used to identify the Collegio degli Augustali at

Herculaneum (It. 1, Cat. 15A, Plate 7) as a site employed exclusively for worship by the

Augustales of Herculaneum and not the public at large. This Collegio shares more similarities with other collegial scholae than with public temples dedicated to emperor worship.352 Moreover, the diminutive size of the space and the relative privacy of the interior spaces of this hall are powerful indications that the space was to be used only for the

Augustales themselves.353 This privacy is evident from several factors. Firstly, while the

Collegio was adjacent to the forum, it was screened by a colonnaded street.354 Secondly,

Laird argues that the sculptures and frescoes of the innermost sanctum were not able to be seen from outside and by passers-by on the decumanus maximus, and could only be appreciated by members inside the hall itself.355 Thus, the innermost sanctum was designed

349 Bollman, 175-76. 350 Laird, Civic Monuments, 89. 351 Bollman, “Les Collèges Religieux,” 173, 175. 352 Laird, Civic Monuments, 91. 353 Laird, 91. 354 Laird, 91. 355 Laird, 91.

60 CHAPTER 3: THE EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY specifically to exclude the general public. What emerges from Laird’s analysis of the

Collegio of Herculaneum is that the worship that took place within this building was structurally and contextually intended for a restricted audience. Thus, similarities in architecture in many of these sacred spaces demonstrate persuasively that the worship undertaken in those spaces was for the benefit of a prescribed community alone, and not for the public at large.

Representational Identifiers

Artistic and sculptural features are also an indicator that a site was intended only for the use of a circumscribed community. The surviving artistic evidence from the Collegio of the Augustales in Herculaneum (It. 1, Plate 6) further strengthens the identification of the

Collegio as a private sanctuary. The frescoes of the Collegio demonstrate that this sanctuary was designed as a response to the specific intra-organizational agenda of Herculaneum’s

Augustales alone.

The common interpretation of these frescoes is that they contained a theological message about emperor worship that was relevant to the public at large.356 Based on the assumption that the Augustales of Herculaneum commissioned these artworks for a public temple devoted wholeheartedly to emperor worship, scholars have assumed that these frescoes must have been instructive theological images from which we can recreate the

‘myth’ of emperor worship. The depiction of Hercules – as an apotheosised demi-god – has been seen as a surrogate for emperors undergoing apotheosis.357 Moorman saw in the figure of Hercules the emperor ,358 whereas Peters saw Vespasian,359 Tucks saw Titus,360 and

Fears saw both Titus and Vespasian.361 Pollini is right to have reservations that imperial

356 Fears, “Herculanensium Augustalium Aedes,” 167; Moorman, “Sulle Pitture della Herculanensium Augustalium Aedes,” 176; Wallace-Hadrill, “Monumental Centre of Herculaneum,” 178. 357 Beard and Henderson, “Emperor’s New Body,” 195. 358 Moorman, “Sulle Pitture della Herculanensium Augustalium Aedes,” 176-77. 359 Peters, La Casa di Marcus Fronto, 338, n.39. 360 Tuck, “Imperial Image-Making,” 121. 361 Fears, “Herculanensium Augustalium Aedes,” 167-68.

61 ALEX A. ANTONIOU portraits can be identified in the panels.362 Instead of interpreting these depictions of

Hercules in their natural context, scholars have desperately searched for a meaning which does not exist. Not only does the search for a theology in the worship of the emperor presuppose an overly Christianising perspective on an institution that required no sacred text, tenets or even a ‘myth’, but it stretches the evidence to try to understand this fresco and its apparent relevance to the public at large. While the frescoes might contain a ‘layer of imperial cult meaning’,363 the simpler interpretation is that the figure and mythos of Hercules had a personal resonance for the Augustales of Herculaneum alone.364 The Augustales adopted the mythical founder of Herculaneum because his stories paralleled their own struggles. The Augustales, principally made up of ex-freedmen or other social climbers, had used ‘[l]abor and diligence’365 – analogously to Hercules – to rise to social and political prominence.366

Similarly, the sculptural assemblage of the templum Augusti at Misenum (It. 1, Cat.

18B) allows us to identify that this temple belonged to the Augustales of Misenum alone, and was not intended for the use of the public at large. Although ‘imperial statues figured prominently in the new precinct’,367 emperor worship was not the only focus of the worship undertaken within this site.368 The central dedication in this templum was to the genius

Augustalium369 – the tutelary deity of the organisation of the Augustales. It would be strange to find a dedication to the genius of the Augustales in such a central and prominent position in a temple of public worship. Moreover, as will be seen,370 the devotion of the Augustales to the Flavians reflects the personal desire of the Augustales to worship this dynasty.371 This

362 Pollini in Fears, 169, n.6. 363 Laird, Civic Monuments, 132. 364 Laird, 132. 365 Laird, 134. 366 Laird, 132-34. 367 Laird, 148. 368 Laird, 148-49. 369 AE 1975, 211. 370 See 5.3.2. 371 Laird, Civic Monuments, 162.

62 CHAPTER 3: THE EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY temple was a private sanctuary where the Augustales could ‘express and define [their] collective identity’.372 It was a ‘precinct that served the intra-organizational needs of a circumscribed community’, and that community alone.373

Other Identification?

While architectural and artistic features are useful tools, is it possible to show that a sacred space was used by a college alone when there are no architectural or artistic remains of the site? This is the case with the templum and tetrastylum both dedicated to Antinous in

Lanuvium (It. 1, Cat. 16C). While epigraphic evidence attests to the existence of these sacred spaces,374 and a relationship between these spaces and the collegium of the cultores

Dianae et Antinoi, is it possible to argue that these spaces belonged to the collegium for its own use? The wording of the inscription simply demonstrates that the collegium met within the temple of Antinous. While Bendlin375 and Chiarucci376 have emphasised the municipal nature of the temple, Gordon377 and Ebel378 have argued that the collegium itself owned the temple of Antinous, and thus that it was intended for the use of the cultores alone.

The senate and people of Lanuvium may have wanted to build a municipal cult to

Antinous.379 However, Hadrian was extensively interested in Lanuvium for its existing religious heritage; he consecrated a statue of Sospita for the famous local cult,380 and probably restored a collapsed aedes.381 It seems unlikely that this thriving municipium needed to exploit these cultores ‘to further its own political capital vis-à-vis the imperial

372 Laird, 77. 373 Laird, 92. 374 CIL 14.2112; Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 183; Fishwick, “Liturgy and Ceremonial,” 510; Garofalo, Lanuvio, 1-2:344; Borbonus, Columbarium Tombs, 13, 223, n.43. 375 Bendlin, “Collegium of and Antinous,” 278. 376 Chiarucci, Lanuvium, 81-82. 377 Gordon, Cults of Lanuvium, 44-46, with reservations. 378 Ebel, Die Attraktivität Früher Christlicher Gemeinden, 36-38. 379 Boatwright, “Hadrian and Italian Cities,” 256-57. 380 CIL 14.2088. 381 EE-09, 610; Boatwright, “Hadrian and Italian Cities,” 256.

63 ALEX A. ANTONIOU centre in nearby Rome’,382 given that Hadrian was already interested in their famous sanctuary of Juno Sospita.

The cultores of this collegium had stronger motivations to dedicate a temple to

Antinous. It is likely that this collegium was originally dedicated to the worship of Diana, but that worship of Antinous was added upon his death,383 at which time the collegium constructed the templum and its associated tetrastylum. Diana was a natural choice for a collegium mostly made up of freedmen and slaves.384 Her identification with, and granting of asylum to, those of servile origin allows us to see Diana ‘as the goddess who crosses, and ultimately reintegrates, the realms of the outside and the inside, both spatially and socially: hence her potential attraction not only to the freeborn… but also to social climbers’.385

Antinous’ equation with deities such as Belenus and Silvanus has also been emphasised,386 and it is possible that there was at least one artistic representation within the temple at

Lanuvium which directly identified Antinous as Silvanus (Plate 1).387 The identification of

Antinous as Silvanus is the epitome of a divinity who ‘permeated boundaries…which might have endeared him to the slaves and freedmen…and also to the social climbers of servile origin, who in their world attempted to cross social boundaries’.388 It is most likely that the collegium of the cultores Dianae et Antinoi of Lanuvium built and dedicated the templum of

Antinous and its associated tetrastylum themselves, making the spaces private for the use of the collegium alone.

3.3 FINAL NOTE ON THE EVIDENCE

In concluding this discussion of the evidence and identification of emperor worship in Italy, it must be emphasised that every effort has been made within this thesis to account for the

382 Bendlin, “Collegium of Diana and Antinous,” 278. 383 Bendlin, 271. 384 Bendlin, 278. 385 Bendlin, 281. 386 Bendlin, 283; Boatwright, “Hadrian and Italian Cities,” 253, 256. 387 Bendlin, 283; Boatwright, 253, 256; Ebel, Die Attraktivität Früher Christlicher Gemeinden, 37. 388 Bendlin, 283.

64 CHAPTER 3: THE EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY vagaries of the survival and publication of evidence, and to balance the conclusions of this thesis against recognised trends such as the epigraphic habit and epigraphic density.

The lack of preservation of inscriptions is a significant impediment to the understanding of emperor worship in Italy. As Hemelrijk emphasises, the destruction or re- appropriation of inscriptions ‘makes it hard to estimate to what extent the surviving inscriptions may be regarded as representative of inscriptions in Roman antiquity’.389 These limitations are exacerbated by the shortcomings of the recording and publication of inscriptions. The number of inscriptions that have gone unpublished cannot be determined with any clarity, especially as Hemelrijk casts doubt on Patterson’s ‘pessimistic’ estimate390 that ‘of every 1,000 inscriptions discovered, less than a hundred have ever been published’.391 Moreover, as publication has been haphazard across Italy, there may be distortions in the analysis. As Hemelrijk emphasises, there are significant regional differences in the rate and volume of publication of inscriptions.392 Given these limitations,

Appendix 1 can only be a comprehensive catalogue of published inscriptions.

The way in which inscriptions have been traditionally published also frustrates any study which relies on them, because those publications ignore the context of those monuments.393 As Hemelrijk394 and Laird395 have recently emphasised, the ability to contextualise an inscription is a vital weapon in the historian’s arsenal. This lack of context is especially regrettable when considering the institutions of emperor worship. With the loss of the original context of inscriptions, religious functions often cannot be established.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of inscriptions considered within this thesis cannot be appreciated within their original contexts.

389 Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 33. 390 Hemelrijk, 3, n.6. 391 Patterson, Landscapes and Cities, 120. 392 Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 3. 393 Eck, “Mommsen e Il Metodo Epigrafico,” 108-9; Laird, Civic Monuments, 13-14; Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 34. 394 Hemelrijk, 34. 395 Laird, Civic Monuments, 13.

65 ALEX A. ANTONIOU These inscriptions must also be judged against the concept of the so-called

‘epigraphic habit’ – a term coined by MacMullen.396 MacMullen noted that the volume of

Latin inscriptions in the western half of the empire increased significantly after the beginning of the principate, reached its peak under Septimius Severus, and sharply fell away in the third century.397 Most scholars now see that this trend was not the result of ‘a sense of audience’ and ‘Romanization’ as MacMullen originally posited,398 and various alternative reasons have been explored.399 Some have also called for recognition of multiple epigraphic habits across the empire,400 or of an ‘epigraphic culture’.401 Regardless of our acceptance of the term, and the reasons for the existence of these trends, the evidence continues to support the curve that MacMullen originally identified. Every attempt has been made to interpret the frequency of inscriptional evidence against fluctuations in the epigraphic habit.402 Moreover, this thesis appreciates that individuals created inscriptions for a range of reasons, such as perpetuating their memory for posterity,403 as a part of a relationship of patronage with social superiors,404 or as an acknowledgement of a relationship between a worshipper and a god.405

We must not lose sight of the personal or individual reasons behind making a dedication.406

In much the same way as the general trends of the ‘epigraphic habit’ have been appreciated, the geographical spread of inscriptions across Italy are appreciated within the framework of ‘epigraphic density’.407 Epigraphic density, as a system of measuring the

396 MacMullen, “Epigraphic Habit in Roman Empire.” 397 MacMullen, 244. 398 MacMullen, 246. 399 See, e.g. Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 30; Laird, Civic Monuments, 11; Bodel, “Epigraphy and the Ancient Historian,” 6-8; Mann, “Epigraphic Consciousness,”; Hope, “Constructing Roman Identity,” 119; Meyer, “Explaining the Epigraphic Habit,”; Cooley, Manual of Latin Epigraphy, 52, 252; Woolf, “Monumental Writing,” 32-39. 400 Mouritsen, “Freedmen and Decurions,” 62-63; Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 30-1; Bodel, “Epigraphy and the Ancient Historian,” 6. 401 Gordon et. al., “Roman Inscriptions 1986-90,” 154-55. 402 Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 30. 403 Woolf, “Monumental Writing,” 29; Laird, Civic Monuments, 13. 404 Barrett, “ of Remembrance,” 245; Häussler, “Writing Latin,” 61. 405 Beard, “Writing and Ritual,” 139, 141; Beard, “Writing and Religion,” 37-38, 48; Woolf, “Monumental Writing,” 29. 406 Woolf, “Monumental Writing,” 24-25, 29; Laird, Civic Monuments, 12; Bendlin, “Peripheral Centres – Central Peripheries,” 56. 407 Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 30.

66 CHAPTER 3: THE EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY diversity of the number of surviving inscriptions per 1000 square kilometres, is vital in understanding the proportion of surviving attestations of emperor worship against the regional diversity of surviving inscriptions holistically. While the corpus with which Harris worked was limited and is out of date, which he himself acknowledged in 1989,408 his tabulations of epigraphic density are still an acceptable baseline for comparison.409

Ultimately, while the study of emperor worship in Italy is plagued by a plethora of evidentiary issues, we have enough firm evidence to undertake a meaningful exploration of that evidence. Italians from across the peninsula engaged with municipal and collegial institutions of emperor worship. In the following two chapters, frameworks for appreciating and understanding that evidence will be explored.

408 Harris, Ancient Literacy, 266. 409 Harris, 266.

67 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

CHAPTER 4: MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS OF EMPEROR WORSHIP

These instances…reveal that the initiative behind the establishment of municipal cults and

other honours to the emperor came from below; the emperor was never asked to specify

which form of worship or other honours he would prefer, not in any other way given a say

in the matter beyond refusal or acceptance.410

As Gradel has persuasively argued, the evidence for municipal emperor worship in the

Italian peninsula does not betray signs of wholescale control or enforcement from above.411

Except for several special instances at Nola (It. 1) and (It. 1),412 the emperors did not themselves install emperor worship in the Italian peninsula. If we take this as our starting position, we are already given freedom from the paradigm which sees emperor worship in the western empire as having been imperially asserted upon subject communities as an aid for their Romanisation. Emperor worship was not imposed upon Italian communities.

However, merely acknowledging that the initiative for these cults came from Italian communities themselves is not enough. This thesis delves deeper into the evidence to identify whether new methodological frameworks can be used to understand and describe the evidence of municipal emperor worship in the Italian peninsula.

4.1 UNDERSTANDING OUR EVIDENCE

While there are 156 sites in which emperor worship has been catalogued, there are only 28 municipal temples and one municipal lucus ()413 in Italy devoted to emperor worship. This is immediately at odds with the persistent assumption that municipal temples devoted to emperor worship were ubiquitous and omnipresent in every community in Roman

Italy.414 The scholarship advocates for a universality of municipal emperor worship that does

410 Gradel, Emperor Worship, 99. 411 See also, Gradel, “Mamia’s Dedication,” 47. 412 See 4.3.3. 413 Perusia (It. 7, Cat. 104A). For Roman luci see Reeder, Study in Augustan Villa and Garden, 92-94. 414 See e.g. Ryberg, Rites of State Religion, 94; Leach, “Flavian Pompeii,” 330.

68 CHAPTER 4: MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS OF EMPEROR WORSHIP not match the surviving evidence. Is this a result of a deficiency in the surviving evidence, or are our expectations overblown? It is impossible to reach any firm conclusions about this archaeological silence, as our evidence has been affected by the survival and publication of evidence,415 and by the cautious approach taken when identifying these temples.416

However, the expectation to see evidence of a temple devoted to municipal emperor worship in every Italian community is unreasonable. This expectation is borne from a tendency to over-privilege evidence from Ostia (It. 1) and Pompeii (It. 1). While both of these well preserved and excavated cities did have temples devoted to emperor worship, both cities are atypical, and thus there is little value in using Pompeii and Ostia as general exemplars for Roman Italy.417 Not only is the expectation to see emperor worship as ubiquitous unreasonable, but it also has the effect of undervaluing the evidence that we do have. If municipal institutions of emperor worship are presumed to be everywhere, the significance of the erection and dedication of temples is minimised. The surviving temples are merely seen as inconsequential examples out of a missing multitude. It is proposed instead that only a handful of Italian communities engaged with emperor worship by dedicating and constructing temples devoted to this worship. These temples were used by these communities as ‘powerful resource[s]’ to structure their world and adapt to new pressures.418 The construction of temples devoted to emperor worship should not be considered the norm, but rather as unique expressions of religiosity from a handful of communities. We should not expect them to have been ubiquitous.

Furthermore, as argued at 3.3.1, the rites associated with municipal emperor worship did not require a temple. There is evidence for municipal priesthoods, devoted to either the living or deified emperors, in 93 cities across Roman Italy. It is likely that these priests

415 See 3.4. 416 See 3.3.1. 417 Lomas, “Introduction,” 4; Patterson, Landscapes and Cities, 119; Bruun, “Antonine Plague in Rome and Ostia,” 433. Cf. Wallace-Hadrill, “Public Honour and Private Shame,” 39. 418 Stek, “‘Religious Romanization”,” 24. Stek’s comments are instructive beyond the Republic.

69 ALEX A. ANTONIOU simply sacrificed at municipal altars and presided over games and festivals as expressions of their devotion to emperor worship. Even when considering these other forms of engagement with municipal emperor worship however, the same kinds of assumptions about ubiquity appear once more. Keppie, for example, maintains that eventually, ‘[a]ll towns, whatever their status, joined in the worship of the emperor’.419

It is ultimately impossible to determine the extent to which every community in

Roman Italy engaged with emperor worship through priesthoods and public festivals.

However, risking an argument from silence, it is unlikely that every community engaged with emperor worship. Whilst some of these cities extensively engaged with emperor worship, the vast majority only attest to sporadic worship of the emperor. As an example, evidence suggests that Camunni (It. 10, Cat. 133) only worshipped the living Augustus with municipal priesthoods, even though the community and its citizens retained the fiscal means to devote priesthoods to later emperors had they so chosen. Thus, they made a deliberate choice to only worship the living Augustus. These kinds of sporadic engagements indicate that communities worshipped only those imperial deities that they chose. It would be unreasonable to expect epigraphic evidence attesting that every imperial deity was worshipped in every city. From our surviving evidence, Ostia (It. 1) worshipped the greatest number of imperial deities, but even there, glaring omissions exist of deities that were not worshipped.420

Ultimately, the dedication of municipal temples and municipal priesthoods was a deliberate choice of Italian communities. They were not ubiquitous, nor can imperial involvement be proffered to explain their presence. We should not underestimate the choices made by Italian communities, and their agency in adopting emperor worship. While our overall picture is blurred by the survival, publication and identification of evidence, our

419 Keppie, Colonisation and Veteran Settlement, 114, n.68 (emphasis added). 420 No attested worship of Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, , , and . Most imperial women were not worshipped, except for diva Livia (CIL 14.399, 14.5346) and diva Faustina (AE 1988, 188). Cf. Meiggs, Ostia, 178.

70 CHAPTER 4: MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS OF EMPEROR WORSHIP remaining evidence is important. Given this importance, a framework to assist in understanding that evidence is necessary.

4.2 THE INITIATION OF EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY

A handful of scholars have attempted to provide a framework for understanding the initiation of municipal emperor worship in Italy. Conceiving of emperor worship as an un-Roman and un-Italian concept, Taylor argued that the Italian adoption of emperor worship was the direct result of contact with Eastern and Hellenistic ideas and traditions.421 She saw the presence of emperor worship in coastal Italian cities as evidence of this assertion. This conceptualisation of cult as ‘Greek’ or ‘Hellenistic’ rather than ‘Roman’ has recently been considered problematic, as it fails to acknowledge that cults were never static. Instead, cults were constantly evolving in a dialogue between cultures.422 It is fruitless to try and define

‘Greek’ as opposed to ‘Roman’ cults given the dynamic and complex nature of culture and religion in Roman Italy.423 Gasperini, nevertheless, has recently revived this idea. In advocating that Etruria (Regio VII) was the first region to have adopted emperor worship in

Italy, he argues that they emulated Greek and Eastern cities.424

Not only did Taylor and Gasperini find Greek origins for the birth of emperor worship, but both also used the geographical spread of temples devoted to municipal emperor worship to understand the initiation of emperor worship in Italy. While Taylor correctly identified Augustan temples in several coastal cities, she could not explain the

Augustan temples that were not located near the coast. The geographical distribution of temples devoted to emperor worship (Map 2) indicates only that wealthier cities were more likely to dedicate temples, and that regiones closer to Rome (I and II) had more temples

421 Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 116, 118; Taylor, Cults of Ostia, 46; Taylor, Divinity, 214, 216. 422 See Clark, Divine Qualities, 31. 423 Price, Rituals and Power, 54-57; Lomas, “Greeks in West,” 348, 351, 354, 362. 424 Gasperini, “L’Augusteo di «Forvm Clodii»,” 117.

71 ALEX A. ANTONIOU devoted to emperor worship. These are precisely the regions where we should expect to find more evidence.425

Keppie provides another framework for understanding the adoption of municipal emperor worship in Italy. He proposes that the coloniae of Italy were the first to adopt the institutions of emperor worship; ‘[i]n the worship of Augustus in his lifetime and after his death, it is no surprise to find the colonies playing a leading part’.426 As Beard, North and

Price surmise, ‘[a]fter the army, it was Roman coloniae that mirrored the religious institutions of Rome itself most closely’.427 Though the expectation seems sound, it is not supported by the evidence. There are more temples dedicated during the Augustan period in cities that were not coloniae, than those dedicated in coloniae. While coloniae were not responsible for the adoption of emperor worship across Italy, it is possible that the presence of veterans loyal to Augustus in some coloniae aided in the adoption of the institutions of emperor worship there, such as at Pisa (It. 7).428 Although the presence of veterans within a colonia might be a factor to consider, coloniae were not responsible for instigating the institutions of emperor worship within Roman Italy.

Finally, Gradel suggests that the adoption of the institutions of emperor worship was the automatic and mechanical response of all Italian communities. He believes in the fundamental uniformity of emperor worship across Italy, and its ubiquity – in every community, emperor worship was adopted in the same homogeneous way.429 Thus, he considers that Italians engaged with those institutions merely to prevent the power of the princeps altering or disrupting their lives, or upsetting the balance of power within their local communities. Gradel argues that the ‘world of these domi nobiles and their place in it,

425 When measured against epigraphic habit and density. Harris, Ancient Literacy, 265-66; Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 30; Woolf, “Monumental Writing,” 36-37; Bodel, “Epigraphy and Ancient Historian,” 8. 426 Keppie, Colonisation and Veteran Settlement, 114. 427 Beard, North and Price, Religions of Rome, 1:328. Cf. Stek, “‘Religious Romanization’,” 16; Glinister, “Colonies and Religious Dynamism.” 428 Arnaldi, “Culto Imperiale Nell’Etruria,” 73. 429 Gradel, Emperor Worship, 99.

72 CHAPTER 4: MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS OF EMPEROR WORSHIP remained unchallenged: their pantheon had merely received another member’.430 Gradel presumes that Italian élites simply tried to maintain the status quo under the new world of the principate, and automatically engaged with emperor worship. The evidence does not support this presumption. Rather interrogation of the evidence demonstrates that not all communities chose to engage with municipal institutions of emperor worship. Those communities that did worship did so differently, at different times, and for different reasons.

In contrast to these attempts to explain the adoption of emperor worship in Italy, the framework of gift-exchange theory is essential to understanding the institutions of emperor worship within the Italian peninsula. The gift of emperor worship allowed communities in

Italy to engage in divine negotiations. In purely conceptual terms, this is hard to envisage.

To that end, the following will examine several prominent examples of the institutions of emperor worship as gifts, which will be followed by a discussion of the range of possible motivations for the giving of these gifts.

4.2.1 Emperor Worship as a Gift

Too often in the study of emperor worship, the focus has been on the centre of imperial power, the emperors and Rome. Instead, we should also envisage emperor worship from the perspective of Italian communities and individuals. As already argued,431 Italian communities had the freedom to make their own religious decisions, without the input or control of Rome. Thus, the dedication of temples should be viewed as the cities of Italy expressing their independent agency. They had the power, right, and desire to dedicate temples to emperor worship – to give them as gifts to the imperial powers (human and divine).

Scholarly reluctance to acknowledge the agency of Italian communities, especially when considering the adoption of temples devoted to emperor worship, is seen most clearly

430 Gradel, 102. 431 See 1.2.

73 ALEX A. ANTONIOU at Ostia (It. 1). A municipal temple – an aedes devoted to the worship of Roma and

Augustus432 – is well evidenced in Ostia (Cat. 22A). While Meiggs points to difficulties in dating anything in Ostia specifically to the Julio-Claudian period,433 recent work prefers to date the temple’s construction to the latter years of Augustus’ reign.434

This Augustan aedes in Ostia, dedicated to Roma and Augustus, should be seen as a gift, given by Ostia to the imperial power. This is in stark contrast with the traditional interpretation of this temple as a Roman imposition, an expression of an Augustan or Julio-

Claudian building regime in Ostia.435 The implicit assumption underlying most treatments of this Ostian aedes is that this institution of emperor worship was imposed upon Ostia. The building of the temple was the first use of marble in public construction in Ostia, and thus, for some scholars, was the first building in Ostia to conform to a ‘Roman’ model.436

Moreover, the construction of the temple has been seen as actively competing with the

Capitolium for predominance over the forum.437 These approaches imply that the erection of this temple was the result of the imposition of ‘Romanness’ upon the ‘native’ forum of

Ostia – an imposition which was led by Augustan or Julio-Claudian policy. These approaches seem dangerously similar to the outdated ideals of Romanisation, laden with all its archaic implications of ‘Roman’ versus ‘native’.438 As has been resoundingly argued,

Romanisation, with these emotive overtones, should be avoided.439 It makes Ostia

432 CIL 14.73, 14.353. Better to restore Aug as Aug(usti) rather than Aug(ustorum), see Meyer, “Augusti,” 398- 99. Cf. dedicatory inscriptions at Tarracina (It. 1, Cat. 28A(1)), Superaequum (It. 4, Cat. 63A), Ulubrae (It. 1, Cat. 31A), and Pola (It. 10, Cat. 138A). For the Pola dedication and its relationship to the date of the Ostia temple, see Geremia Nucci, Tempio di Roma e di Augusto, 246; Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 152; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 82-83. 433 Meiggs, Ostia, 41. 434 Geremia Nucci, Tempio di Roma e di Augusto, 251-54; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 82-83; Fishwick, Imperial Cult, 3.1:72, n.117. Cf. for Tiberian date, Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 19, 27, 32; Mellor, “Goddess Roma,” 1002; Meiggs, Ostia, 132, 178, 353; Fishwick, Imperial Cult, 1.1:141, 167; Fishwick, Imperial Cult, 3.1:71-73; Spurza, “Emperors at Ostia and ,” 124; Bloch, “Monument of Lares Augusti,” 212; Sanchez, “Les Institutions de la Colonia Ostiensis,” 147. 435 See, e.g., Meiggs, Ostia, 45, 75, 353; Mellor, “Goddess Roma,” 1002. 436 Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 32, 131; Zanker, Power of Images, 310. 437 Meiggs, Ostia, 45, 75, 353; Mellor, “Goddess Roma,” 1002; Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 32, 131; Zanker, Power of Images, 310. 438 See e.g. Terrenato, “Introduction,” 1; Curti, “Toynbee’s Legacy,”; Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 18-19. 439 See e.g. Keay, “Romanization and the Hispaniae,” 113; Vallat, “Romanization of Italy,” 102.

74 CHAPTER 4: MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS OF EMPEROR WORSHIP completely subservient to the power and influence of Rome without her citizens and leaders being capable of making their own decisions. Scholars have been reluctant to concede that

Ostia was capable of having her own identity.440 While Ostia was vital to the continued survival of Rome, she had autonomy of her own. She had her own magistrates, her own priesthoods, and her own civic agenda.

How then does the gift-exchange model improve our understanding of this temple?

If we conceptualise the construction of the temple within an Ostian-focused framework, we can see that the temple functioned instead as a gift. The erection of a temple, explicitly honouring Roma and Augustus, would have been a powerful gift to the imperial power. The decision to build this temple in marble, and in imitation of Roman style – modelled on the

Augustan temple of divus Iulius in Rome441 – appears a potent ideological commitment from the citizens of Ostia. The choice to place this new, grand marble structure within the Ostian forum also demonstrates the supreme importance of the worship to the Ostian community.

Ostia deliberately and cleverly drew upon Roman, and more specifically Augustan, ideas in their gift of the temple of Roma and Augustus.

The reluctance to see Italian communities as having had agency when constructing temples devoted to emperor worship is present elsewhere, notably at Comum (It. 11, Cat.

147A), concerning the construction of a temple dedicated Aeternitatis Romae et

Augustorum.442 Although we know who was responsible for this work – Lucius Caecilius

Secundus and his son Caecilius Secundus ()443 – scholars focus on how this temple can be seen in reference to imperial endeavours. The agency of the Caecilii is obscured.

440 See e.g. Bruun, “Civic Rituals in Imperial Ostia,” 138; Meiggs, Ostia, 13. 441 Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 32, 64. 442 AE 1983, 443a, AE 1983, 443b; Alföldy, “Ein Tempel des Herrscherkultes in Comum.” 443 Gibson and Morello, Letters of Pliny the Younger, 108-9; Lomas, “Roman Imperialism,” 74; Shelton, Women of Pliny’s Letters, 189; Birley, Onomasticon to the Younger Pliny, 1; Eck, “Die Inschrift: Fragment Einer Kultur,” 454.

75 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Alföldy asserted that the dedication of this temple to Roma must have been part-and-parcel of Hadrian’s construction of the temple of Roma aeterna and in

Rome.444 Yet Comum’s temple was undoubtedly constructed under Vespasian (begun in 69

CE),445 rather than during the later reign of Hadrian. Given that the dedication of Aeternitatis

Romae is the only one of its kind in Roman Italy,446 Alföldy attempted to explain this deviation from the norm by reference to imperial standards and innovations. Alföldy looked to Hadrian’s emphasis on Roma Aeterna, and his construction of the temple to Roma Aeterna and Venus at Rome,447 as a reference for the adoption of Roma Aeterna elsewhere in Italy.

Instead of looking to Rome for an explanation, the importance of this temple to the

Caecilii and Comum should not be forgotten. The decision to forgo standard conventions is a deviation that demonstrates that this temple was intended to make an important statement.

Not only would this temple have served the worship of multiple Augusti – a subtle nod to prevailing Flavian conceptions that dynasty rested in the hands of the entire family448 – but also to Roma as an eternal deity.449 Thus, instead of seeing the temple at Comum as an extension of imperial whim, we should instead envisage the temple as a gift – one without parallel.

The establishment of municipal festivals and priesthoods can also be considered as gifts. This can be most readily seen in the decision of cities to dedicate the gift of emperor worship to imperials who otherwise received little worship. Consider, for example, the worship of diva Drusilla. Priesthoods devoted to her can only be detected at Pinna Vestina

(It. 4),450 Forum Vibii Caburrum (It. 9),451 and Brixia (It. 10).452 Barrett asserts that diva

444 Alföldy, “Ein Tempel des Herrscherkultes in Comum,” 373. 445 Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 117-18. Cf. Mellor, “Goddess Roma,” 1003. 446 Alföldy, “Ein Tempel des Herrscherkultes in Comum,” 373. 447 See especially Mols, “Roma Aeterna in Hadrian’s Politics.” 448 Nicols, “Emperor Vespasian,” 61; Tuck, “Imperial Image-Making,” 117, 119-21; Wood, “Who Was Diva Domitilla?,” 135-6; Wardle, “Suetonius on Vespasian’s Rise to Power,” 101-2. 449 For Aeterna: Beaujeu, La Religion Romaine, 146-50. 450 AE 1992, 336; Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 427. 451 CIL 5.7345; Tomasi, “Aebutia, Asprilla o Attia?,” esp. 155-56. 452 IFF 49; Gregori, “Un’Eccezionale Dedica.”

76 CHAPTER 4: MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS OF EMPEROR WORSHIP Drusilla was only worshipped because Caligula demanded that she must be worshipped.453

While ancient authors scoffed at Caligula’s attitudes towards his dead sister, and rebuked their tawdry relationship,454 we should be hesitant in presupposing that all Italians had this attitude. Sensitive to the needs and wants of the imperial power and the current princeps – who especially mourned his sister’s death – these communities could have given him the gift of her worship of their own volition.455 This is especially obvious at Brixia, where the sacerdos divae Drusillae made a dedication for the safety, return and victory of Caligula456 in Brixia’s Capitolium, and thus in the context of the worship of Jupiter.457 Given that

Caligula wanted to associate himself with Jupiter,458 we can see the subtlety of the gift of worship of diva Drusilla to Caligula.

When considering municipal institutions of emperor worship, we should move away from Roman-centred perspectives. These views not only devalue the institutions of emperor worship, but they also deny the agency of Italian communities – negating their role in defining their own divine relationships. Conceptualising these institutions as gifts reasserts

Italian voices, and reemphasises the importance of these institutions. It remains to be seen what possible motivations Italian communities had in giving these gifts.

4.2.2 Motivations

Conceptualising the institutions of emperor worship as gifts allows us to appreciate the diverse motivations behind giving the gift of emperor worship to the divine imperial power.

Consider gift giving in an everyday scenario. In the giving and exchanging of gifts between friends, families or colleagues, one can easily imagine the multifarious motivations for giving these gifts; in thanks, in expectation of future rewards, to apologise, or out of a sense

453 Barrett, Caligula, 120. 454 E.g. Suet. Cal. 24. 455 Barrett, Caligula, 118-20; Gregori, “Un’Eccezionale Dedica,” 303-4. 456 IFF 49. 457 Gregori, “Un’Eccezionale Dedica.” 458 Gregori, 305. Relationship with Jupiter, see Suet. Cal. 22.

77 ALEX A. ANTONIOU of obligation (consider Christmas or birthday presents). Moreover, even if everyone were to give the same (or similar) gifts, the motivations for giving these gifts are likely to be different. We can conceptualise the giving of emperor worship in similar terms. While many communities gave the gift of the institutions of emperor worship, they each had unique motives for doing so. The following will consider just four major reasons why Italian cities gave the gift of municipal emperor worship.

1) The Emperors as Propitious Gods

As we have seen, imperials were envisaged as gods because they were propitious divinities; they were responsible for ensuring the security, safety and prosperity of the empire, maintaining the pax Romana, and securing the pax deorum.459 It is not surprising, therefore, that the most significant concentrations of engagement with municipal emperor worship in

Italy surround the worship of Augustus, and the Flavian dynasty. Augustus and the Flavians were deities whose principal power was in the restoration of the pax Romana, and the protection of Italian communities. In order to ensure that these deities continued to protect

Italians and the Roman peace, Italians engaged in divine negotiations with them, appointing priests and temples to their worship to invoke the propitiousness of these new gods.

More Italian communities worshipped Augustus than any other imperial. Even considering that the Augustan period saw the birth of emperor worship, the concentration around the worship of Augustus (both as deus praesens, and as divus) is significant.

Moreover, more temples were dedicated during the lifetime of Augustus, or immediately following his death, than at any other time. Furthermore, as Lomas and Patterson confirm,

Italian cities in the Augustan period more frequently constructed municipal temples devoted to emperor worship than any other type of monumental construction.460

It is easy to see how Augustus, more than any other Roman emperor, would have been seen as a propitious deity while alive. Augustus was uniquely capable of, and

459 See 2.1.1. 460 Lomas, “Urban Renewal and Euergetism,” 32; Lomas, “Roman Imperialism,” 70.

78 CHAPTER 4: MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS OF EMPEROR WORSHIP responsible for, restoring social, military and economic order to the Italian peninsula which had primarily borne the brunt of many of the conflicts of the late Republic; the Social War, the rebellion of Spartacus, the civil strife erupting from the First , and the civil wars that concluded the Second Triumvirate. Augustus was responsible for finally easing generations of tension within Italy, and asserting the pax Romana.461 While recent studies have quibbled that the pax Romana was not accurate – given that fighting continued unabated on the borders of the empire – the term still had a powerful resonance for Italians.462

Amongst the interior territories, ‘what was celebrated as peace was the end of civil war and the restoration of order in Italy’.463 Augustus was solely responsible for bringing peace and stability to Italy. Italians may well have wanted to ensure that he would continue to maintain that peace by invoking the divine gift of emperor worship. As a god, Italians are likely to have hoped that Augustus would continue to protect and maintain the peace which Italians had finally been given.

Augustus lost none of his propitiousness after his death. For some communities, the shift to worshipping divus Augustus happened intuitively, such as at Pompeii (It. 1), where

Marcus Holconius Celer shifted from worshipping the living Augustus464 to divus

Augustus.465 While there are far fewer attested Italian temples devoted to divi than were dedicated to the living Augustus, it is not fair to claim that ‘the municipal cults in Italy mostly, if not exclusively, concentrated on the living emperor rather than the Divi, the dead ones’.466 The evidence demonstrates that in almost every region of Italy, divus Augustus was worshipped.467 Furthermore, there are a handful of Italian communities where divus

461 Dyson, Community and Society, 96, 118. 462 Launaro, “Economic Impact of Flavian Rule,” 195; Cornell, “End of Roman Imperial Expansion,” 150, 167; Woolf, “Roman Peace,” 186; Rich, “Augustus, War and Peace,” 331-32. 463 Cornell, 150. 464 CIL 10.840, 10.944. 465 CIL 10.945, 10.946; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 87; Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 121, 130; Biundo, “Classe Dirigente a Pompei,” 52-3; Castrén, Ordo Populusque Pompeianus, 68. 466 Gradel, 91. 467 Regiones VI, VII, and VIII are the only exceptions.

79 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Augustus was the only imperial deity ever worshipped; most clearly seen at (It. 1),468

Nola (It. 1),469 Puteoli (It 1),470 Aufinum (It. 4),471 and Alba Pompeia (It. 9).472 At Praeneste

(It. 1) too, all of its attested flamines, excluding one, were devoted to the worship of divus

Augustus.473 For these communities, the gift of emperor worship was focused upon Augustus as divus.

That Augustus was widely regarded as a potent divus is reflected in Seneca’s

Apocolocyntosis. While Seneca’s opinions are unlikely to mirror the attitudes of Italians, it is striking that this philosopher regarded divus Augustus as a god worth venerating, even if

Claudius’ deification was abhorrent.474 Unfortunately, there is little evidence of the opinions and attitudes of Italian individuals and communities after Augustus’ death, given that the historical record is unconcerned with the emotional and psychological impact of Augustus’ passing on the citizens of Italy. There were no precedents for the ‘transfer’ of the supreme power, and it is possible that Italians feared the return to civil unrest after the death of

Rome’s pater patriae. Augustus’ death must have been daunting for those Italians who had, by 14 CE, not lived in a world outside of Rome’s principate. Moreover, judging from the concern of the extant historians, Tiberius’ suitability as princeps was not assured as he appeared to lack the skills to lead the principate.475

Ultimately, the exchange of the gift of worship with Augustus, both as a living god and as a divus, must have been rewarding for the communities of Italy. Augustus’ assumption of supreme power, after decades of civil unrest on Italian soil, and his ability to

468 CIL 10.4641. 469 CIL 10.1262. 470 CIL 10.1806, 6.32929; D’Arms, “Puteoli in the Second Century,” 122. 471 CIL 9.3384, 9.3385. 472 CIL 5.7605. 473 CIL 14.2922, 14.2972, 14.2989, 14.3014, 14.2964, 14.2995; AE 1998, 286. Cf. Houston, “Nonius Flaccus,” 238; Gradel, Emperor Worship, app. 3, 376; Ensslin, “Praefectus Iure Dicundo,” 1320; Krumme, “Isis in Praeneste,” 161, n.38; Boatwright, Hadrian and Cities, 61. 474 Altman, “Ruler Cult in Seneca,” 200; Cole, “Elite Scepticism in the Apocolocyntosis,” 176. 475 Especially prominent in Suet. Tib.

80 CHAPTER 4: MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS OF EMPEROR WORSHIP continually ensure the safety of his empire must have been powerful indicators of his propitiousness.

The desire to worship subsequent Julio-Claudians waned with only glimpses of the worship of Tiberius,476 Claudius,477 diva Drusilla (sister of Caligula),478 Nero,479

Agrippina,480 and diva Poppaea.481 The worship of Nero is only attested from Pompeii (It.

1),482 however it is unclear how much evidence of his worship was destroyed or erased after

Nero’s ‘“unofficial” damnatio’,483 and how far the Flavian ‘“repudiation” of Nero’484 affected the survival of moments concerning his worship. It is also unclear whether

Caligula’s ‘unofficial, de facto damnatio’ led to the erasure of traces of his worship from

Roman Italy.485

With the accession of Vespasian, the institutions of emperor worship returned to the foreground. The worship of Vespasian and Titus, both as living gods and as divi, is prevalent in the epigraphic record. While it is possible that no priesthoods were devoted to Domitian during his lifetime, the lack of recorded priesthoods may simply be the result of his .486 Judging from the fact that the temple to divus Vespasian at Cumae (It. 1, Cat.

10A) was most likely erected during the reign of Domitian (c.95 CE),487 our lack of evidence of worship of Domitian is most likely the result of his posthumously tarnished image.

Therefore, it is probable that all of the Flavians were worshipped in Italy.

476 CIL 9.652 (Venusia It. 2); CIL 10.688 (Surrentum, It. 1); Burnett, Amandry and Ripollès, Roman Provincial Coinage, nos. 610-12 (Paestum, It. 3); at Forum Clodii (It. 7, Cat. 98A). 477 CIL 9.1123 (Aeclanum, It. 2); AE 1975, 251 (Paestum, It. 3); AE 1975, 353 (Firmum Picenum, It. 5); CIL 11.6010 (Sestinum, It. 6); CIL 11.417 (Ariminum, It. 8); CIL 5.875 (Aquileia, It. 10); CIL 5.534, 5.535; InscrIt- 10-04, 34 (Tergeste, It. 10); CIL 5.5126 (Bergomum, It. 11); CIL 5.6431 (Ticinum, It. 11). 478 AE 1992, 336 (Pinna Vestina, It. 4); CIL 5.7345 (Forum Vibii Caburrum, It. 9); IFF 49 (Brixia, It. 10). 479 CIL 4.1185, 4.7992, 4.3884, 4.7995, 4.7996 (Pompeii, It. 1). 480 CIL 10.961 (Pompeii, It. 1); AE 1997, 397 (Aeclanum, It. 2); Small, “Macellum at Pompeii,” 130; Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 422. Cf. Hemelrijk, “Priestesses: Titles and Function,” 153. 481 AE 2009, 284 (Pinna Vestina, It. 4). 482 Cf. Ensslin, “Praefectus Iure Dicundo,” 1320. 483 Zissos, “Flavian Legacy,” 487. 484 Zissos, “Introduction,” 7. 485 Varner, Mutilation and Transformation, 6-7; Suet. Claud. 11.3; Cass. Dio 60.4.5-6. 486 Tuck, “Imperial Image-Making,” 111; Zissos, “Flavian Legacy,” 487. 487 Cass. Dio 67.14.1; Fears, “Cumae in the Roman Imperial Age,” 7.

81 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Vespasian and Titus can be seen as propitious gods, worthy of receiving the worship of Italian communities. The reasons for this are most evocatively seen in the picture Tacitus paints of this period:

Opus adgredior opimum casibus, atrox proeliis, discors seditionibus, ipsa etiam pace

saevum. Quattuor principes ferro interempti: trina bella civilia…Iam vero Italia novis

cladibus vel post longam saeculorum seriem repetitis adflicta. Haustae aut obrutae urbes,

fecundissima Campanie ora; et urbs incendiis vastata, consumptis antiquissimis delubris,

ipso Capitolio civium manibus incenso…nec enim umquam actrocioribus populi Romani

cladibus magisve iustis indiciis adprobatum est non esse curae deis securitatem nostrum,

esse ultionem.

(Tac. Hist. 1.2-3)

Tacitus draws attention to the civil wars of 69 CE, the catastrophic eruption of Vesuvius, the destructive conflagration at Rome in 80 CE, and even the destruction of the Capitolium itself.488 The collapse of the Julio-Claudian dynasty ushered in the first major period of civil war in Italy since the late Republic. As Nicols emphasises, there had been ‘90 years of virtual peace from the battle of Actium until the Year of the Four Emperors’.489 At least one generation of Italians had never faced war in their homeland, and the psychological impact of the resurgence of war should not be forgotten. Nicols downplays the impact of the civil wars of 69 CE, pointing out that apart from the devastating destruction of Cremona (It. 10), the majority of cities in Roman Italy were not affected or even threatened.490 However, this ignores the fear and anxiety that might have been provoked by civil war in their own territory. The pax Romana that had existed since the ascendancy of Augustus had been resoundingly shattered by wide-scale violence within Italy itself.491 Thus, the fact that

Vespasian and his dynasty were able to consolidate power, and bring peace and prosperity492

488 Murison, “Emperor Titus,” 87. 489 Nicols, “Emperor Vespasian,” 62. 490 Nicols, 62, 71-72. See also, Dyson, Community and Society, 118. 491 Cornell, “End of Roman Imperial Expansion,” 150, 167; Woolf, “Roman Peace,” 189. 492 Nicols, “Emperor Vespasian,” 61.

82 CHAPTER 4: MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS OF EMPEROR WORSHIP to Roman Italy must have been a welcome relief for the peoples of Italy.493 Vespasian was able to prove himself a propitious god. The catastrophic disaster of Vesuvius allowed Titus to demonstrate his own power. As Suetonius surmises, after Vesuvius, Titus ‘showed not merely the concern of an emperor, but even a father’s surpassing love, now offering consolation in edicts, and now lending aid so far as his means allowed’ (Suet. Tit. 8.3).494

Vespasian and Titus deliberately promoted their image as propitious gods. As Tuck emphasises, Vespasian and Titus presented themselves as ‘uniquely endowed with the capacity to restore order and prosperity, to guarantee territorial integrity, to stabilize the political, social and moral orders’.495 To highlight these themes, the Flavians emphasised the coming of peace (pacis eventus), and their roles as restorers (restitutores) on coinage,496 re- constructed the greatest symbol of Roman integrity, the Capitolium,497 and reasserted the cult of pax (peace),498 which, as Woolf emphasises, achieved ‘its most massive monumental expression in the Temple and Forum of Pax built by Vespasian’.499 Vespasian and his dynasty focused on reassuring Italians of their ability to restore Roman order and peace.

Vespasian saved Italians from the insecurities of leadership and the vicissitudes of war after

69 CE. He, and his dynasty, saved Rome and Italy from a multitude of disasters.

The gift of emperor worship was likely used in this period to invoke the propitiousness of these new deities. Consider the institutions of emperor worship at Comum

(It. 11). While Comum engaged with emperor worship during the Julio-Claudian period, with two municipal priesthoods to divus Augustus,500 these institutions blossomed under the

493 See Pliny, HN. 2.19. 494 Transl. Rolfe (Loeb); ‘ac talibus non modo principis sollicitudinem sed et parentis affectum unicum praestitit, nunc consolando per edicta, nunc opitulando quatenus suppeteret facultas.’ See Murison, “Emperor Titus,” 87. 495 Tuck, “Imperial Image-Making,” 117. 496 Tuck, 117-18; Hurlet, “Sources and Evidence,” 27. See Carradice and Buttrey, Roman Imperial Coinage, nos. 1374-75. 497 Tuck, 117; Hurlet, 27. 498 Tuck, 117. 499 Woolf, “Roman Peace,” 177. 500 CIL 5.5266, 5.5267. Cf. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 1:539.

83 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Flavians. Along with priesthoods to divus Titus,501 Comum’s temple to Aeternitatis Romae et Augustorum (Cat. 147A) was a monumental expression of the worship of both Titus and

Vespasian, and construction started in the year Vespasian came to power, 69 CE, and finished in 77/78 CE.502 Not only was Comum’s concentration of worship greatest in the

Flavian period, but aside from a few attestations of priesthoods to divus Nerva503 and divus

Trajan,504 emperor worship disappeared. The gift of emperor worship was mostly invoked to connect with propitious Flavian deities.

The worship of Augustus and the Flavians has left a significant mark on the epigraphic record; one that likely reflects the actual vitality of these institutions during these periods.505 Invoking the propitiousness of these deities must have been an important motivation for the communities of Italy to give these gifts of emperor worship.

2) Negotiations to Define Status and Identity

That religion could be used as a tool for the creation of communal identity is well recognised.

As Stek confirms, ‘ancient peoples could actively use and manipulate sacred sites…to create, transform, and enhance social structures and developments’.506 Furthermore, while individuals were often directly responsible for erecting temples, as Wallace-Hadrill emphasises, ‘major public buildings are likely to represent a communal expression of communal identity’.507 Buildings devoted to emperor worship represented a shared cultural identity within cities of Italy, a cultural identity negotiated with Rome and her newest gods

– the principes and their families. Giving the gift of emperor worship was also motivated by

Italian communities seeking to define their status and identity with the princeps and the

501 AE 1947, 46 (Capiate, It. 11); CIL 5.5239, 5.5667 (Cantu, It. 11). 502 Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 117-18. Cf. Mellor, “Goddess Roma,” 1003. 503 AE 1947, 46. 504 CIL 5.5312. 505 Unlikely to reflect the epigraphic habit. 506 Stek, “‘Religious Romanization’,” 2. 507 Wallace-Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural Revolution, 103-4.

84 CHAPTER 4: MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS OF EMPEROR WORSHIP imperial power generally. These gifts were powerful ways for communities to negotiate their status and identity with these new divine powers, under the aegis of the principate.

When we conceive of the gift of emperor worship being capable of negotiating the status and identity of Italian communities, it is not surprising that the worship of Augustus and Vespasian features so heavily in the evidence. As Lomas put it, Augustus, as a ‘single governing figure…was an individualized embodiment of power and control in a way that the senate was not, [which] must have changed the perceptions of the people of Italy’.508 It was this shift in perception that motivated Italian communities to interact and negotiate with the new Roman state and its leader, in order to define their place, position and identity in the new Roman state. Further, the empire Vespasian inherited was in many ways parallel to the birth of Augustus’ principate. Augustus and Vespasian had both ‘saved’ Italy from civil war, had established peace, and founded new dynasties.509 Thus, as they had done with Augustus, many communities would have sought to renegotiate their status and their identity under

Vespasian’s new dynasty and his new power structures.

Some communities adopted the institutions of emperor worship to develop their

‘Roman’ identity under the principate. It is undeniable that Augustus and Vespasian were figures who could provide a ‘more coherent sense of Romanitas’ across Italy.510 Yet we cannot assume that Italian communities always sought a ‘Roman’ identity when adopting the institutions of emperor worship. For instance, it is questionable whether coloniae that had a long history of contact with the Roman state would have adopted the institutions of emperor worship to further engage with Romanitas. Consider Ostia (It. 1). Roman tradition places the foundation of the colonia of Ostia in the Roman monarchy, under Ancus

Marcius.511 Thus, it is difficult to picture their Augustan temple to Roma and Augustus (Cat.

22A) as a symbol of ‘Roman’ identity.

508 Lomas, Roman Italy, 112. 509 Tuck, “Imperial Image-Making,” 109, 117; Hurlet, “Sources and Evidence,” 27, 30-31. 510 Lomas, “Roman Imperialism,” 76. 511 Liv. 1.33.9; 5.3.5; Florus 1.4; 1.5; Bruun, “Civic Rituals in Imperial Ostia,” 125.

85 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Furthermore, Romanitas is unlikely to have been a motivation for the people of

Neapolis (It. 1). As Miletti emphasises, our ancient sources underline the ‘persistent Greek identity of the city’.512 The city was not merely identified as Greek, but there was an active desire from Neapolitans to pursue a Greek identity. As Lomas emphasises, ‘Greek elements in civic life were consciously and deliberately cultivated by the elite [of Neapolis]’.513 Even in their adoption of emperor worship – sacred games dedicated to the worship of Augustus

(Cat. 20B) – the Neapolitans deliberately emulated Greek-style games.514 They engaged with emperor worship, but consciously used Greek models to do so. Thus, in adopting emperor worship, the Neapolitans cannot have wanted to pursue Romanitas. Not all Italian communities wanted to create a ‘Roman’ identity.

3) Gratitude

It is easy to conceive that the gift of emperor worship might have been offered in thanks to the imperial power, as a recognition of the emperor’s presence within an urban centre or as an acknowledgement of an imperial benefaction. This is a phenomenon well attested in other parts of the empire, where the emperor’s presence and patronage of a city gave rise to that emperor being directly worshipped by that community, such as Hadrian’s patronage of

Athens,515 or Augustus’ presence at Tarraco in Spain.516

In Italy, this is seen most clearly at Cumae (It. 1) with their dedication of a temple to divus Vespasian (Cat. 10A). Instead of acting as a prominent symbol designed to renegotiate their relationship with the imperial power, the temple devoted to divus Vespasian was a gift given as thanks to the emperor Domitian. The construction date of this temple has been persuasively attributed to the late Flavian era – a period of prosperity within Cumae –

512 Miletti, “Image of Classical Athens,” 31; Strabo 5.4.7; . Arch. 3; Suet. Ner. 20.2; Tac. Ann. 15.33. See also, Lomas, “Cultural Memory and Civic Identity.” 513 Lomas, “Urban Elites and Cultural Definition,” 108. 514 Cass. Dio 55.10.9-10; Lomas, “Cultural Memory and Civic Identity,” 76-78; Lomas, “Urban Elites and Cultural Definition,” 108, 114-16; Newby, Greek Athletics in Roman World, 31. See 4.3.2 Gifts Given in Thanks. 515 See e.g. Evans, “Embedding Rome in Athens,” 89-90, n.27; Benjamin, “Altars of Hadrian in Athens,”; Spawforth, Greece and the Augustan Cultural Revolution, 246-251. 516 E.g. Fishwick, “‘Temple of Augustus’ at Tarraco,”; Fishwick, “Altar of Augustus at Tarraco,” 172.

86 CHAPTER 4: MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS OF EMPEROR WORSHIP contemporaneous with the construction of a monumental arch and the wholescale reconstruction of the Capitolium.517 Cumae owed this major economic boom to Domitian’s construction of the Via Domitiana in 95 CE (Cass. Dio. 67.14.1), as this new major Roman road now took travellers directly through Cumae.518 The gift of economic prosperity from

Domitian might have warranted the community of Cumae giving a gift back to Domitian, through the construction of a temple devoted to his deified father Vespasian.

A similar situation can be seen in the adoption of emperor worship at Neapolis (It.

1). The dedication of Neapolis’ package of worship (sacred games, a temple and a priesthood, Cat. 20 A,B,C) can be viewed as a gift given in thanks to Augustus. To understand the gift in this way, we must start with the testimony of Cassius Dio:

…αὐτῷ δὲ δὴ τῷ Αὐγούστῳ ἀγών τε ἱερὸς ἐν Νέᾳπόλει τῇ Καµπανίδι, λόγῳ µὲν ὅτι

κακωθεῖσαν αὐτὴν καὶ ὑπὸ σεισµοῦ καὶ ὑπὸ πυρὸς ἀνέλαβεν, τὸ δ᾽ ἀληθὲς ἐπειδὴ τὰ τῶν

Ἑλλήνων µόνοι τῶν προσχώρων τρόπον τινὰ ἐζήλουν, ἐψηφίσθη.

(55.10.9-10).

Thus, according to Dio, while the Neapolitans claimed that they were establishing the sacred games ‘on the grounds that’ (λόγῳ) Augustus had provided generosity after a natural disaster struck Neapolis, he supposed that their true purpose (τὸ δ᾽ἀληθὲς) was instead to ‘copy the things of the Greeks’ (τὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων… ἐζήλουν). There are two problems to unpack here: the nature of the ‘thing(s)’ of the Greeks that the Neapolitans sought to copy, and whether the two reasons that Dio gives are mutually exclusive.

It seems apparent that the ‘Greek thing(s)’ to which Dio refers were the format, scale and type of the games themselves. The Neapolitans set up games intended to imitate the great Panhellenic festivals, such as the Olympic, Nemean or Pythian games,519 and devoted them to a specific deity, Augustus, in the same way that the Olympic were devoted to Zeus.

Taylor and Mellor believe that the institution of emperor worship was itself a ‘Greek’

517 Fears, “Cumae in the Roman Imperial Age,” 6-8. 518 Fears, 7. 519 Arnold, “Agonistic Festivals,” 247; Fishwick, “Liturgy and Ceremonial,” 510.

87 ALEX A. ANTONIOU phenomenon, and thus, that the ‘things’ of the Greeks which were copied were actually the institutions of emperor worship themselves.520 Not only is this not apparent on Dio’s words, but the idea that it can be established whether emperor worship is uniquely ‘Greek’ ignores the complex and dynamic nature of the relationship between Roman and Hellenistic culture.521 The Greek ‘things’ were the format of the sacred games itself.

While Dio implies that there may have been an ulterior motive for the establishment of these games, the games and worship were ostensibly instituted as a gift in thanks for

Augustus’ initial gift of generosity – in helping the Neapolitans rebuild after a natural disaster.522 Even if we are to believe Dio that there was an ulterior motive for the establishment of these games – emulating the Greeks – this does not lessen the impact or importance of the gift. Gifts might be given for a range of reasons, and may often include self-interested motives. The impact of this gift of worship is even more striking given that

Augustus himself patronised those games.523

There is some evidence that the physical presence of an emperor motivated Italian communities to give the gift of emperor worship, however it was not an automatic response to an emperor’s visit. Consider the worship of Hadrian. A restoration of the text of the

Ostienses,524 and scattered epigraphic evidence from Italy,525 confirm that Hadrian took a circuitous tour through most of Roman Italy in 127 CE. Although Hadrian visited much of

Italy, his worship is under-represented. There is only one attestation of a priesthood of the living Hadrian,526 and only a handful to him as a divus.527 Boatwright posits that Hadrian’s

520 Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 133; Mellor, “Goddess Roma,” 984. 521 E.g. Lomas, “Greeks in West,” 348, 351, 354, 362; Price, Rituals and Power, 53, 173; Mitchell, Land, Men, and Gods, 103. 522 Patterson, “Emperor and Cities of Italy,” 91. 523 Cass. Dio 55.10.9, 56.29.2; Suet. Aug 98.5; Vell. Pat. 2.123.1. 524 Fasti Ostienses 26: V von. Mart. Augustus profe[ct]us ad Italiam circum[padanam]. Restoration: Syme, “Journeys of Hadrian,” 162; Syme, “Princesses and Others in Tacitus,” 135, followed by Boatwright, “Hadrian and Italian Cities,” 251; Birley, “Hadrian’s Travels,” 431. Cf. Vidman, Fasti Ostienses, 21. 525 Boatwright, 235. 526 CIL 5.545 (Tergeste, It. 10). 527 CIL 14.353, 14.390, 14.391, 14.4642 (Ostia, It. 1); CIL 9.1160 (Aeclanum, It. 2); CIL 10.416 (Volcei, It. 3); CIL 9.2853 (Histonium, It. 4); CIL 11.1192 (Veleia, It. 8); CIL 5.8660; Pais 1227 (Concordia, It. 10); CIL 5.6513, 5.6514 (Novaria, It. 11).

88 CHAPTER 4: MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS OF EMPEROR WORSHIP visit to Aeclanum (It. 2) precipitated the adoption of municipal emperor worship there, with a priesthood devoted specifically to divus Hadrian upon his death.528 As Boatwright argues, the ‘mutual cooperation of Hadrian and Aeclanum, [was] perhaps gratefully acknowledged in the city by its establishment of a flaminate of Hadrian’.529 However, although Aeclanum gave the gift of emperor worship to Hadrian in thanks for his patronage, the majority of the evidence shows that an emperor’s visit to a city did not always result in the adoption of the institutions of emperor worship within that community.

4) Gifts Given in Expectation of a Gift in Return

Given that the municipal institutions of emperor worship function as a gift, this gift was often given in anticipation of rewards. Such rewards might be tangible, such as patronage and generosity from imperials, or intangible, such as the secured prosperity and safety of a community. The evidence also demonstrates that these gifts occasionally failed to secure a successful relationship with the imperial power. Sometimes, the anticipated gifts never materialised.

Such is the case at Ulubrae (It. 1). Ulubrae was famously known in the early empire as poor and dilapidated.530 If we accept this classification, it is remarkable that Ulubrae decided to build an expensive temple to Roma and Augustus during the Julio-Claudian period (Cat. 31A). No archaeological evidence for Ulubrae has been found, and thus there is no evidence to quantify the size or lavishness of this temple. Regardless, the temple is still likely to have been of significant expense, and it is striking that Ulubrae did not erect a much cheaper municipal altar531 for municipal festivals. For this poor town to erect an expensive structure to Roma and Augustus must have been calculated to make an important impression.

Although Ulubrae likely anticipated gifts in return for this public temple – such as financial

528 CIL 9.1160. 529 Boatwright, “Hadrian and Italian Cities,” 240. 530 Hor. Ep. 1.11; Juv. 10. 101-102; Cic. Fam. 7.18; Porphyrio, scholiast on , Epistles 1.11.30; Hänlein- Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 141; Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, Ulubrae. 531 Mellor, “Goddess Roma,” 1002.

89 ALEX A. ANTONIOU generosity, or the bestowal of divine prosperity – the negotiation with the imperial power must have failed. Ulubrae continued to exist modestly, with little prosperity, and thus, a failure to garner gifts from the imperial power can be posited.

Yet the community of Ulubrae still anticipated some kind of restitution. In 132 CE, the ordo of Ulubrae again attempted to establish a relationship with the imperial power, and used public funds to restore this same temple, which had suffered the ravages of time

(vetustate d[ilapsam]).532 Although Thomas and Witschel have cast doubt on the extent that we can trust ‘rebuilding’ inscriptions as an accurate reflection of the state of the temple before restoration,533 there must have been an outlay of public funds for this restoration. This is again significant for a modest town. Restorations of religious buildings could often be

‘employed to reactivate names and ceremonies’,534 so the intention of the ordo of Ulubrae was likely to reactivate emperor worship – to reactivate their gift. Given that this temple was restored during the reign of Hadrian, it is possible that Ulubrae was trying to announce its presence and its need to an emperor whose patronage and travels around the empire were so extensive.535 Unfortunately for Ulubrae, their second attempt was equally unsuccessful; given their continued state of hardship, the anticipated rewards clearly never materialised.

Gabii (It. 1) suffered a similar literary reputation in the late Republic and early empire for being decayed and desolate.536 However, by the Augustan period the testimony of these literary sources had become ‘proverbial and in time inaccurate’,537 as is confirmed by recent archaeological excavations. Gabii’s city centre had shrunk in size and importance during the

Republican period, but the Imperial period ushered in a reinvigoration of the city’s public architecture through contributions by private patrons and emperors.538 These included

532 CIL 10.6485. 533 Thomas and Witschel, “Constructing Reconstruction.” 534 Thomas and Witschel, 172. 535 Cass. Dio 69.5.2-3, 69.9.1; Fasti Ostienses 26. See generally, Boatwright, “Hadrian and Italian Cities,”; Fraser, Hadrian as Builder and Benefactor; Syme, “Journeys of Hadrian,” 162. 536 Horace. Ep. 1.11.7; 4.1.34; 7.392; Juv. 3.192, 6.56, 7.4, 10.100; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.53. 537 Fears, “Cumae in the Roman Imperial Age,” 3. See also Enciclopedia Dell’Arte Antica, Gabii. 538 Mogetta and Becker, “Archaeological Research at Gabii,” 186.

90 CHAPTER 4: MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS OF EMPEROR WORSHIP extensions to the great temple of Juno Gabina in the Augustan period,539 and the construction of a and aqueduct with Hadrian’s patronage.540 Hadrian’s personal interest in Gabii was likely aroused by its temple of Juno,541 as this princeps was fascinated with sites of religious antiquity.542

Thus, while Gabii had shrunk from the greatness it once held during the middle-

Republican era, the city was still capable of garnering the patronage and attention of the imperial power. However, it seems that Gabii did not attempt to use the institutions of emperor worship to negotiate a relationship with the imperial household. The only municipal worship attested in Gabii was from the second century CE, with a temple dedicated to the memory of the domus of Domitia Augusta, the wife of Domitian.543 Thus, the institutions of emperor worship were not invoked to bolster the resources of Gabii.

4.2.3 Emperors Instituting Emperor Worship

There are two major exceptions to the overall claim that Italian communities adopted emperor worship. In Bovillae (It. 1) and Nola (It. 1), Tiberius was directly responsible for initiating emperor worship. However, even in these cases, it is inappropriate to consider that the imperial power imposed emperor worship upon unwilling communities.544 Gift- exchange is still a useful tool, even when considering that the gift-exchange functioned top- down. The dedication of these temples does not challenge our interpretation of Cassius Dio

(51.20.6-8),545 as Tiberius dedicated these temples to his deified father and not himself.

In Bovillae, a sanctuary to the gens Iulia with an effigy of divus Augustus was established by Tiberius in 14 CE (Cat. 6A, Tac. Ann. 2.41).546 At the colonia of Nola, there

539 Becker, Mogetta and Terrenato, “Gabii Revealed,” 632. 540 CIL 14.2796-99; Becker, Mogetta and Terrenato, 632. 541 Patterson, “Emperor and Cities of Italy,” 93. 542 HA. Hadr. 22.10; Patterson, 93; Boatwright, “Hadrian and Italian Cities,” 254, 257, 269. 543 CIL 14.2795. 544 Cf. Gradel, Emperor Worship, 90. 545 See 2.2. 546 Cf. Mierow, “Tiberius Himself,” 294.

91 ALEX A. ANTONIOU were also two temples devoted to divus Augustus. One was dedicated to Augustus by

Tiberius on his travels through in 26 CE (Cat. 21A(1); Tac. Ann. 4.57; Suet. Tib.

40). The other was the building in which Augustus died (Cat. 21A(2)), which was subsequently consecrated (ἐτεµενίσθη: Cass. Dio 56.46).547 There is no reason to believe that the house in which Augustus died has been identified in the excavations at Somma

Vesuviana.548

While Tiberius installed these temples himself, it would be overly simplistic to claim that they were imperially imposed upon these Italian communities.549 These temples are unlikely to have been unwelcome impositions from Tiberius. Suetonius and Tacitus both consider the temple dedicated by Tiberius at Nola in the same breath as they refer to

Tiberius’ consecration of the temple to Jupiter at , during his travels through Campania in 26 CE (Suet. Tib. 40; Tac. Ann. 4.57). Given that it would be unlikely for scholars to see the temple of Jupiter being forcibly imposed upon the Capuans, it is hard to see why

Tiberius’ dedication of the temple of Augustus at Nola should be seen any differently. Both communities could also claim unique connections with Augustus’ death. Augustus died at

Nola550 and his body was carried to Bovillae, where it was officially taken into the responsibility of the Roman state.551 It is therefore understandable for both communities to want to commemorate that connection.

Moreover, Bovillae had long maintained a special religious connection with Rome and the gens Iulia.552 The dedication of this new temple was another gift between Bovillae and the gens Iulia, alongside an altar dedicated to the gens Iuliae,553 and the dedication of

547 Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 130; Swan, Augustan Succession, 355. Cf. Beloch, Kampanien, 400, 404-5. 548 Cf. Della Corte, “Somma Vesuviana,”; Perrotta et. al., “Emperor Augustus’ Villa,” 446; Aoyagi and Angelelli, “Villa di Augusto.” 549 Cf. Gradel, Emperor Worship, 90. 550 Cass. Dio 56.46. 551 Suet. Aug. 98. 552 CIL 14.2387; Suet. Aug. 100.2; Tac. Ann. 2.41, 15.23; . 1.30.2; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 3.29.7; Vir. Aen. 6.766; Piranomonte, “Religion and Magic at Rome,” 195; Feinberg, “Survival of Latin Identity,” 129-31. 553 CIL 14.2387.

92 CHAPTER 4: MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS OF EMPEROR WORSHIP ludicrum circense to the gens Iulia.554 As Feinberg emphasises, ‘Bovillae retained its identity only in connection with religious observances’.555 Thus, it is difficult to see Tiberius’ dedication of this cultic site at Bovillae as an imposition; rather it was an important gift, as part of Bovillae’s entire religious relationship with Rome and the gens Iulia, and ultimately, as a defining factor in Bovillae’s cultural and religious identity.

4.3 LONGEVITY OF INSTITUTIONS OF EMPEROR WORSHIP

Having considered how gift-exchange helps us to understand the initiation of emperor worship in Italy, it is now pertinent to examine how gift-exchange is a useful framework for understanding the longevity of emperor worship in Italy. Given limitations of the evidence, we only have scattered evidence that the institutions of emperor worship experienced a prolonged longevity. Some priesthoods to divi were worshipped for an extended period of time.556 The potency of the gift of worship of a long-dead and deified divus can be seen with

Marcus Iunius Faustus from Ostia (It. 1), whose priesthood to divus Titus was undertaken up to 92 years after Titus’ deification.557 At Aquinum (It. 1) too, a flamen of divus

Vespasian,558 previously thought to attest to the satirist performing the priesthood,559 has been shown to have been a later relation of Juvenal.560 Thus, this priesthood was performed around 100 years after the death and deification of Vespasian. Further, at

Praeneste (It. 1), the worship of Augustus as divus was maintained far beyond the first century CE. Titus Flavius Germanus held the priesthood of divus Augustus around the same time as he was curator of Commodus’ triumph in 180 CE,561 and Publius Acilius Paullus562

554 Tac. Ann. 15.23. 555 Feinberg, “Survival of Latin Identity,” 131. 556 Pace Gradel, Emperor Worship, 89. 557 CIL 14.4142. Longevity noted in Monti, “I Problem dell’Iscrizione ‘Giovenaliana’ di Aquino,” 105-7. 558 CIL 10.5382. 559 Cf. Mommsen, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, 10:531; Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 1:570. 560 Courtney, Satires of Juvenal, 3-4; Green, Classical Bearings, 247-48; Syme, “The Patria of Juvenal,” 1-2; Monti, “I Problem dell’Iscrizione ‘Giovenaliana’ di Aquino,” 79-90, 95-96, 105-7. 561 CIL 14.2922; Rüpke, Fasti Sacerdotum, 990; Kovács, Marcus ’ Rain Miracle, 252; Robinson, City Planning and Administration, 56; Migliorati, La Ricostruzione Storia dell’Impero Romano, 497-99. 562 CIL 14.2972.

93 ALEX A. ANTONIOU and Lucius Arellius Karus563 held the same priesthood, with a ante quem of 243 CE. The worship of this divine princeps never lost its potency for Praeneste.

Suggestions of longevity are also evident with the use of temples. Gasperini has posited that the aedicula devoted to emperor worship at Forum Clodii (It. 7, Cat. 98A) was used at least until 254 CE as suggested by a dedication in the temple dating to the rule of

Valerian.564 Epigraphic evidence also shows that the temple to divus Vespasian at Cumae

(It. 1, Cat. 10A) was still in use in 289 CE, 210 years after the deification of Vespasian and the year of the adventus Augustorum of and Diocletian.565 However, this inscription can only attest to the use of the temple by the local council in electing a priest of

Magna Mater, and does not necessarily demonstrate that this temple was still being used to worship divus Vespasian.566 Moreover, the temple of Roma and Augustus at Ostia (It. 1, Cat.

22A) was in use by Ostia’s decuriones around 138 CE,567 and multiple references to the continued position of flamines to Roma and Augustus568 suggest the continued use of the temple as a cultic space at least until the third century.569

At Neapolis (It. 1), their entire gift of emperor worship remained important for several centuries. The sacred games at Neapolis attracted the patronage of many emperors, including Augustus,570 Claudius,571 Nero,572 and Titus.573 As Newby remarks, these emperors ‘elevated the position of the festival by their own patronage’,574 raising it to be amongst the highest echelon of games in the Mediterranean, alongside the Olympian,

Theban, Nemean and Pythian.575 Assuming that worship continued to be a prominent part of

563 AE 1998, 286. 564 CIL 11.3310; Gasperini, “L’Augusteo di «Forvm Clodii»,” 109-10, 119. 565 Fears, “Cumae in the Roman Imperial Age,” 13. 566 Trombley, “Imperial Cult in Late Roman Religion,” 35. 567 CIL 14.353; Mellor, “Goddess Roma,” 1002-3. 568 AE 1955, 169, AE 1955, 168, AE 1988, 201, AE 1982, 132; CIL 14.4674, 14.400, 14.4622, 14.373; 14.4142. 569 CIL 14.373. 570 Cass. Dio 55.10.9, 56.29.2; Suet. Aug. 98.5; Vell. Pat. 2.123.1. 571 Cass. Dio 60.6.1; Suet. Claud. 11.2; Geer, “Greek Games at Naples,” 214. 572 Tac. Ann. 15.33; Suet. Ner. 21, 25. 573 CIL 10.1481; Cass. Dio 66.24; Geer, “Greek Games at Naples,” 215. 574 Newby, Greek Athletics in Roman World, 31. 575 IG IV 591, VII 49, XIV 746, XIV 747, XIV 1102, XIV 1114.

94 CHAPTER 4: MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS OF EMPEROR WORSHIP the Neapolitan games, then this institution of emperor worship lasted at least into the third or fourth centuries CE.576

In contrast, Comum (It. 11) deliberately abandoned its municipal institutions of emperor worship by the mid-second century CE. Although Comum attests to a few priesthoods of divus Nerva,577 and divus Trajan,578 emperor worship was predominantly concentrated on their gift of worship during the Flavian dynasty, with their temple

Aeternitatis Romae et Augustorum and priesthoods to Flavian deities. Afterwards, these institutions disappeared. This disappearance is not attributable to a lack of evidence, nor to

Comum experiencing economic distress, abandonment or destruction. Comum continued to be an important town of the region into the later Roman period, as evidenced by references to the city in Notitia Dignitatum (Occ. 42), and in (Variae. 2.35, 2.36, 11.14).

Rather, it would seem that they abandoned emperor worship because by the mid-second century CE, they felt that the gift-exchange was not fruitful and the relationship no longer rewarding.

Excessive longevity does not appear to be the norm. The evidence instead reveals that public municipal institutions of emperor worship waned during the Antonine period and then disappeared from most Italian urban communities. While it is not surprising that no new temples were being dedicated to emperor worship,579 municipal priesthoods dedicated to emperors and the imperial household of this period leave little impression on the epigraphic record.580 The last attested public priesthoods are devoted to the worship of Caracalla as

576 Arnold, “Agonistic Festivals,” 247; Geer, “Greek Games at Naples,” 214; Mirando de Martino, “Augusto e i Sebastá,” 28; Miranda de Martino, “Neapolis e gli Imperatori,” 213. 577 AE 1947, 46. 578 CIL 5.5312. 579 Patterson, Landscapes and Cities, 127, 129, 169-70; de Blois, “Emperorship in a Period of Crises,” 271. 580 Divus : AE 1988, 201 (Ostia, It. 1); Divus Marci: AE 1975, 256 (Paestum, It. 3); CIL 14.4671; AE 1982, 132 (Ostia, It. 1); Commodus: AE 1975, 257 (Paestum, It. 3); CIL 9.4686 (Reate, It. 4); Divus Pertinacis: AE 1988, 211; CIL 14.4648 (Ostia, It. 1); Divus Severus: CIL 5.7783 (Albingaunum, It. 9); AE 1988, 211; CIL 14.373 (Ostia, It. 1); Julia Domna: AE 1971, 79 (Formiae, It. 1).

95 ALEX A. ANTONIOU divus,581 and Julia Mamaea.582 While a temple and a sacerdos devoted to emperor worship have been asserted in Capua (It. 1, Cat. *3) in 387 CE,583 there is no evidence to prove that this sacerdos was a priest of emperor worship, nor that he was a provincial priest for all of

Campania.584 Rüpke’s suggestion that he was merely a flamen of Capua is preferable.585

Thus, there is an observable decline in municipal institutions of emperor worship in the last half of the second century and early third century CE.

In stark contrast, Trombley argued that municipal expressions of emperor worship were prevalent until 525/6 CE.586 However Trombley, believing in the homogeneity of emperor worship across the empire, made unfounded generalisations about this vitality in

Roman Italy. Turcan provided an alternative narrative for the disappearance of municipal institutions in Italy, submitting that emperor worship ended in Italy in the 270s CE.587 Turcan considered the *Augustales to be priests of municipal emperor worship, and observed that the institution of the *Augustales had ended by this time. Given that this thesis considers that the *Augustales were not municipal priests responsible for emperor worship,588 Turcan’s timeline must be set aside.

Excluding the *Augustales, Turcan noted that there was a tendency across the for the municipal institutions of emperor worship to decline after the

Severans, with the occurrence of flamines ending with Caracalla,589 in spite of the continued endurance of imperial apotheosis in Rome itself throughout the third century.590 The only exception to this was the popularity of cults of the Severans in Africa591 which, given

581 CIL 11.1230 (Placentia, It. 8). 582 AE 1967, 94 (Herdonia, It. 2). Cautious identification given its damnatio, see Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 416; editors’ comments, AE 1967, 94. 583 Trombley, “Imperial Cult in Late Roman Religion,” 37. 584 There should also be no comparison made between this sacerdos and the pontifiex of the Gens Flavia at Hispellum (It. 6). Cf. Trout, “Feriale Campanum and in the Theodosian Age,” 165, n.10. 585 Rüpke, Kalender und Öffentlichkeit, 530, n.23. 586 Trombley, “Imperial Cult in Late Roman Religion,” 38, 49. 587 Turcan, “Le Culte Impérial au III° Siècle,” 1055. 588 See 3.2. 589 Turcan, “Le Culte Impérial au III° Siècle,” 1008, 1055-56, 1081. 590 Turcan, 1007-8, 1081. Cf. de Blois, “Emperorship in a Period of Crises,” 272-77. 591 Turcan, 1008.

96 CHAPTER 4: MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS OF EMPEROR WORSHIP Septimius Severus’ provincial heritage, is not surprising. Thus, the downturn of the institutions of emperor worship in Italy follows a similar pattern to the rest of the western empire.

In the place of municipal institutions of emperor worship, Italians of this period seem to have shifted to other dedications invoking emperor worship; principally to the use of dedications to the numen and maiestas of the emperor and his household.592 There are only a few securely dated examples of dedications to the imperial numen in the first and second centuries CE.593 Thus the popularity of dedications to the numen and the maiestas were a new feature of this period. These dedications arose under Septimius Severus and

Caracalla,594 and were used frequently throughout the third and fourth centuries, with the final attestation late in the fourth century, to .595 Thus, municipal institutions of emperor worship were being replaced by other sorts of dedications in the last half of the second century and early third century CE.

This general trend towards the disappearance of the public institutions of emperor worship cannot be attributed to a lack of evidence. The trend of epigraphic habit means we should expect a greater monumentalisation of deeds inscribed in stone in precisely this period – the last half of the second century and the early third century.596 If priesthoods were being undertaken, we should expect to see them recorded. It is therefore logical to presume that the disappearance of priesthoods is not the result of lack of evidence; rather that fewer priesthoods were being undertaken.

Part of this downturn may have been the result of the Antonine plague of the late

160s CE. Although there are methodological difficulties in analysing data related to the

592 Turcan, 1016, 1018. 593 Aedicula at Forum Clodii (It. 7, Cat. 98A); Gladiatorial games at Pompeii (It. 1, CIL 4.3882); Fishwick, Imperial Cult, 3.1:234. 594 CIL 11.3785 (Veii, It. 7). 595 CIL 5.3114 (Vicetia, It. 10). 596 MacMullen, “Epigraphic Habit in Roman Empire,” esp. 244.

97 ALEX A. ANTONIOU plague,597 the tenuous consensus is that the plague may have had a serious impact on Rome and the Italian peninsula.598 However, we should be wary of overblown estimates that argue for cataclysmic repercussions in the wake of the plague. The downturn in the use of the municipal institutions of emperor worship does not seem to be confined simply to the reign of and its aftermath. The municipal institutions of emperor worship began to disappear earlier, under Hadrian and . Thus, while the plague may have exacerbated the decline, it was not the cause of the disappearance of the institutions of emperor worship. We also cannot blame the downturn of the institutions of emperor worship on the so-called ‘Third Century Crises’. Dyson convincingly argues that Italians survived these catastrophes with little disruption to their daily lives.599 They did not suffer in a period normally ‘characterized by internal chaos and external threat, the collapse of imperial authority, a rapid turnover in emperors, growing military and bureaucratic indiscipline’.600

Turcan blamed the disappearance of these institutions on a lack of passion in the worship of the emperor; it ‘frisait trop le rite de routine: le cœur n’y était plus’.601 Yet there were still a handful of communities in Roman Italy for whom priesthoods devoted to emperor worship were still important. The only attested priesthoods in Placentia (It. 8),

Herdonia (It. 2), and Formiae (It. 1) were priesthoods to divus Caracalla,602 Julia Domna,603 and Julia Mamaea,604 respectively. The best way to describe this downturn in the institutions of emperor worship is to consider why most communities no longer wanted to give the gift of emperor worship through temples and priesthoods.

597 Bruun, “Antonine Plague in Rome and Ostia,”; Greenberg, “Plagued by Doubt.” Cf. Duncan-Jones, “Impact of the Antonine Plague.” 598 Cf. Højte, Roman Imperial Statue Bases, 92; Niebuhr, Lectures on , 251; Lo Cascio, “La Dinamica della Popolazione in Italia,” 123-25. 599 Dyson, Community and Society, 226-27. 600 Dyson, 226. 601 Turcan, “Le Culte Impérial au III° Siècle,” 1015. 602 CIL 11.1230. 603 AE 1971, 79. 604 AE 1967, 94.

98 CHAPTER 4: MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS OF EMPEROR WORSHIP For many Italians, the institutions of emperor worship were no longer potent or relevant. The gift was perceived to have lost its value. No longer were the cost and effort required to initiate or maintain these public forms of worship seen as worthwhile. That is not to say that the gift-exchange model is faulty. Consider the worship of Septimius Severus. As identified above, the institutions of emperor worship were most vital during the Augustan and Flavian periods. After civil war and social distress, these emperors were able to restore peace. In that context, Italians used the institutions of emperor worship to define their place and affirm their relationship with these new dynasties. Yet, the period between Commodus’ murder in 192 CE, and Septimius Severus’ assumption (and consolidation) of power was another significant period of civil distress, military campaigning and political insecurity within Italy itself. Even though similar circumstances existed at this time, the institutions of emperor worship did not re-emerge revitalised. This does not mean that gift-exchange is not an appropriate theory. Rather, there was a shift in the type of dedications being favoured – dedications to the numen and maiestas – because municipal institutions had lost their potency.

There is one final, very late attestation of the use of municipal institutions of emperor worship in the fourth century which can still be seen as a gift. A copy of a Constantinian sacrum rescriptum,605 dating from 333-5 CE,606 records the dedication of a templum (Cat.

80A) devoted to the worship of the gens Flavia at Hispellum (It. 6). This temple would have annual spectacula, consisting of scaenicorum ludorum and gladiatorii muneris, administered by a pontifex gentis Flaviae.607 Even though Constantine banned blood sacrifices at this temple, commanding that aedis nostro nomini dedicate cuiusquam

605 CIL 11.5265. 606 Curran, “Constantine and the Ancient Cults of Rome”, 76; Salzman, “‘Superstitio’ in the ‘Codex Theodosianus’,” 178, 186, n.41; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 377, n.17; Van Dam, Roman Revolution of Constantine, 363-64. 607 CIL 11.5283.

99 ALEX A. ANTONIOU contagiose superstitionis fraudibus pollatur,608 this can still be considered as a site where municipal worship of the emperor and his family was undertaken, for the benefit of the entire community. Remarkably, this was the first time that Hispellum had engaged with the institutions of emperor worship.

The dedication of this priesthood and this temple to the gens Flavia was not without precedent. Following Aurelius , Constantine allowed a sacerdos to be created in North

Africa devoted to the gens Flavia, and permitted the erection of a fanum and basilica to the

Flavians in the city of Rome, at which the patres could worship (De Caes. 40.26-28).609

While Trombley considers this temple at Hispellum to have been yet another expression of emperor worship that had never disappeared from the Roman landscape,610 we should rather see this temple as a unique and striking gift. Following the precedent of Rome, and perhaps

North Africa, the city of Hispellum engaged with municipal emperor worship when no other

Italian city was engaging with the same institutions. The institutions of emperor worship, even in 333-5 CE, could still be used as a gift which permitted negotiation and communication with the imperial power. As can be seen from Constantine’s reply, such a gift was favourably received.611

4.4 CONCLUSION

The greatest advantage of the framework of gift-exchange is that it allows us to appreciate multifarious motivations for giving the gift of emperor worship. Aeclanum (It. 2) worshipped Hadrian because he engaged personally with that community. Pisa (It. 7) gave the gift of emperor worship because the worship of Augustus was highly valued by some of its Augustan veterans. Cumae (It. 1) devoted its temple of divus Vespasian in thanks for

608 CIL 11.5265; Van Dam, Roman Revolution of Constantine, 367; Potter, Constantine the Emperor, 28. Cf. Trombley, “Imperial Cult in Late Roman Religion,” 30. 609 Evidence for pontifici Flaviali: CIL 6.1690, 6.1691, 6.1694. 610 Trombley, “Imperial Cult in Late Roman Religion,” 29-30. 611 Cf. Potter, Constantine the Emperor, 282, who questions whether Constantine, or his praetorian , would have received the request.

100 CHAPTER 4: MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS OF EMPEROR WORSHIP Domitian’s construction of the via Domitiana. Neapolis (It. 1) devoted worship ostensibly because Augustus assisted them after a natural disaster. This framework also allows us to appreciate why communities such as Neapolis continued to give the gift of emperor worship for several centuries.

The framework of gift-exchange also enables us to recognise that the gift of emperor worship was not used in isolation. In conjunction with the institutions of emperor worship, some cities also bestowed other gifts on the imperial power. For instance, not only did the decurions of Pisa give the gift of emperor worship to the imperial power with an Augusteum during the lifetime of Augustus (Cat. 105A), but they also bestowed the title of noster patronus on Lucius Caesar, praised Gaius Caesar as the ‘sole defender of our colony’

(coloniae no[st]rae unicum praesidium) and upon their deaths, offered inferiae to their di manes with annual celebrations.612 Pisa negotiated their relationship with the imperial power on several different levels, and emperor worship was only one element of that negotiation.

The framework of gift-exchange allows us to go beyond the simplistic consideration that local initiative was the reason for municipal cults in Italy.613 The application of this methodology allows us to gain a deeper insight into the motivations and desires of Italian communities themselves. The gift of emperor worship was not simply a hollow, baseless and merely sycophantic expression of loyalty. These institutions were powerful, and were deliberately invoked to allow Italians to define their own status and identity, and to negotiate their relationship with the imperial power.

612 CIL 11.1421, 11.1420; Lott, Death and Dynasty, 8, 11, 13; McIntrye, A Family of Gods, 26-32. Offering inferiae to their diis manibus is not part of emperor worship. 613 Cf. Gradel, “Mamia’s Dedication,” 47.

101 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

CHAPTER 5: COLLEGIAL INSTITUTIONS INCORPORATING EMPEROR

WORSHIP

Scholarship on collegial institutions that engaged with emperor worship is slight, except for an overabundance of scholarship on the *Augustales. However, Laird’s recent study on the

Augustales at Misenum (It. 1) and Herculaneum (It. 1) promotes a wider focus on understanding the role and importance of emperor worship to collegial identities.614 She highlights the need for scholarly attention to the use of institutions of emperor worship by other collegial organisations within Italy. Responding to Laird, this chapter considers the role and function of emperor worship within collegial organisations across Italy. Appendix

1 includes a complete catalogue of all the evidence of Italian collegial engagement with emperor worship, which is the first systematic and comprehensive synthesis of this data to date.

5.1 UNDERSTANDING OUR EVIDENCE

There are few sites within Roman Italy where we can detect collegial engagement with the institutions of emperor worship. Given that our knowledge of collegial engagement with emperor worship is based solely on epigraphic and archaeological evidence, it is not surprising that most of the evidence is restricted to Regio I. There can be no geographical analysis of this evidence, as analysis would only trace fluctuations of epigraphic density, which favour Regio I.615 Outside Regio I, most of the evidence consists only of the name of the collegia that engaged with emperor worship. Fishwick remedies this lack of knowledge of Italian cultores through analysis of other collegial organisations from across the empire.616

However, there is no indication that all cultores were identical or even similar, and thus,

614 Laird, Civic Monuments. 615 Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 30; Harris, Ancient Literacy, 266. 616 Fishwick, “Liturgy and Ceremonial,” 538.

102 CHAPTER 5: COLLEGIAL INSTITUTIONS INCORPORATING EMPEROR WORSHIP filling gaps in our knowledge in this way will be avoided. Therefore, this chapter will only focus on those collegial institutions of whose engagement with emperor worship there is sufficient evidence.

5.2 GIFT-EXCHANGE: COLLEGIAL ENGAGEMENT WITH EMPEROR WORSHIP

Italian corporate associations engaged with the institutions of emperor worship to shape their identity through negotiations and gifts with the imperial power. Just as municipal institutions of emperor worship fit within a wider system of gift-exchange and negotiation, the institutions adopted by collegial organisations can also be viewed in this light. This appears to have been the result of emulation. Collegia mirrored municipal cultic activities.

Convincing theories of emulation between colleges and town councils have been advanced. Cooley argues that ‘[w]ays of governing, honouring and building that resulted in public inscribed monuments can be seen as originating from town councils imitating Rome’s senate, and then other social and political groups (such as Augustales, vici, and pagi) imitating the local council in their turn’.617 Patterson and Kloppenberg find this emulation in their hierarchical structures, and their systems of patronage, benefactions, and administrative organisation.618 For instance, the cultores Dianae et Antinoi of Lanuvium (It.

1) emulated civic structures by choosing Caesennius Rufus, the patron of Lanuvium, as their collegiate patron.619

This imitation has been viewed negatively. Gordon, for instance, insists that the composition of the seviri Augustales was the result of freedmen ‘aping their social superiors’.620 However, we should not unfairly dismiss the actions of these collegial groups.

Rather, we should highlight the positive ramifications of this emulation, and consider the

617 Cooley, Manual of Latin Epigraphy, 52. 618 Patterson, “Collegia and Transformation of Towns of Italy,” 234-35; Kloppenborg, “Collegia and Thiasoi,” 18, 26. 619 CIL 14.2112. 620 Gordon, “Emperors, Sacrificers and Benefactors,” 205.

103 ALEX A. ANTONIOU rich exchange of ideas between local councils and collegial associations. Not only did collegial organisations in Italy imitate practices of administration, benefaction and building from municipal models, but when they engaged with the institutions of emperor worship, many collegia emulated the religious practices of their municipal counterparts.

Many collegia, such as the fabri tignarii at Ostia (It. 1, Cat. 22F(2)), and the cultores at Lanuvium (It. 1, Cat. 16C), imitated monumental public religious architecture, but adapted it for the purposes of their private, collegial gatherings. Moreover, the content of collegiate worship emulated municipal rites. The sacrifice of bulls, the proper sacrifice for the living emperor,621 can be detected in collegiate contexts at Nola (It. 1), on an altar dedicated Augusto sacrum by the cultores d(omus) d(ivinae),622 and at Ostia (It. 1, Plate 10) in the mosaic of the vestibule of the private Augusteum in the castrum vigilum.623 Moreover, just as cities were motivated to give the gift of municipal emperor worship, so too did collegia, in emulation of their municipal counterparts. Thus, to understand why collegia engaged with emperor worship, gift-exchange continues to be of value.

The strongest argument against this concept of emulation is Santero’s theory that private or collegial institutions devoted to emperor worship emerged before municipal ones,624 thus making emulation of municipal worship impossible. However, Santero’s theory rests on his identification of an altar at Nola (It. 1)625 as the ‘oldest known evidence of a collegium in this class’.626 Santero argues that this altar is unequivocal evidence that collegial worship emerged before public worship. Most scholars date this altar to the lifetime of

Augustus, given that it was dedicated Augusto sacrum, rather than Augusto divo sacrum.627

621 Carcopino, “La Mosaïque de la Caserne des Vigiles,” 237. 622 CIL 10.1238; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 218; Gradel, “Mamia’s Dedication,” 46; Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 120, n.17; Boissier, “Colléges Funéraires Romains,” 83. 623 Taylor, Cults of Ostia, 49; Gradel, “Mamia’s Dedication,” 46; Meiggs, Ostia, 14, 306; Ryberg, Rites of State Religion, 96-97; Carcopino, “La Mosaïque de la Caserne des Vigiles,” 231-38. 624 Santero, “The ‘Cultores Augusti’,” 15. 625 CIL 10.1238; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 217-19; Gradel, “Mamia’s Dedication,” 46; Fishwick, “Augusto ut Deo,” 438. 626 Santero, “The ‘Cultores Augusti’,” 122. 627 Santero, 122; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 217; Gradel, “Mamia’s Dedication,” 46; Beurlier, Le Culte Rendu Aux Empereurs Romains, 257; Boissier, “Colléges Funéraires Romains,” 83.

104 CHAPTER 5: COLLEGIAL INSTITUTIONS INCORPORATING EMPEROR WORSHIP However, recent scholarship has persuasively argued that the dedicatory formula Augusto sacrum is inappropriate as dating evidence given that the term Augusto is abstract, evoking the ‘August’ powers of the current emperor, rather than Augustus as the first emperor.628

Thus, as there is no secure way of dating this inscription,629 it remains plausible that colleges engaged with the institutions of emperor worship in imitation of municipal ones. Gift- exchange can be used as a powerful way of describing collegial engagement with the institutions of emperor worship.

5.2.1 Fabri Tignarii of Ostia (It. 1)

The simplest application of the gift-exchange framework to colleges is to consider the fabrii tignarii’s dedication of a collegial temple to divus Pertinax in Ostia (Cat. 22F(2), Plate 4).630

It is possible that this temple was gifted as a result of Pertinax’s personal engagement with

Ostia, which may have brought financial reward or patronage to the fabri tignarii. However, our only evidence for Pertinax’s presence in Ostia is a single line from Cassius Dio: Pertinax

‘was at the coast [Ostia] investigating the corn supply’ (74.8.2).631 It is more plausible to envisage this as a gift of emperor worship to Septimius Severus. The dedication of this temple in 194 CE should be associated directly with Septimius Severus’ political and personal agenda to ‘pose as the avenger of the murdered Pertinax’.632 The dedication of a collegial temple to Pertinax, in the reign of the emperor who assured Pertinax’s deification,633 and styled himself as the avenger of Pertinax,634 must have been an evocative and symbolic gift to Septimius Severus.

628 Laird, Civic Monuments, 146, n.30; Camodeca, “Domiziano e il Collegio degli Augustali,” 185, n.37. 629 Cf. Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 285. 630 CIL 14.4365 + 14.4382; Zevi, “Il Tempio del Collegio dei Fabri Tignuarii,” 472. Cf. Stambaugh, “Functions of Roman Temples,” 591. See generally, DeLaine, “Builders of Roman Ostia,” 727-31. 631 Transl. Cary (Loeb). 632 Meiggs, Ostia, 595. 633 HA. Pert. 15; Cass. Dio 75.4-5; Hdn. 14; Zevi, “Il Tempio del Collegio dei Fabri Tignuarii,” 472-78; Varner, Mutilation and Transformation, 6. 634 Gonçalves, “Septímio Severo e a Consecratio de Pertinax,” 22, 23-28, 31. Alluded to in coinage, see BM Coins, Rom. Emp. 5. nos .479, 480.1, 480.2; RIC IV nos. 24A, 24B, 660B, 660C.

105 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

5.2.2 Augustales of Misenum (It. 1)

For many scholars, the *Augustales’ engagement with the institutions of emperor worship must have been the result of imperial imposition.635 However, once we decouple the

*Augustales from the institutions of emperor worship, and rank them alongside many other private collegia that occasionally worshipped the emperor,636 there is no reason to presuppose imperial involvement in their infrequent engagement with emperor worship. The engagement of the Augustales of Misenum (Cat. 19A) with the institutions of emperor worship is a good illustration of the suitability of the gift-exchange framework. The

Augustales of Misenum gave the gift of worship to Domitian in exchange for the gift

Domitian had given them.

When the Augustales occupied their sacred precinct in Misenum, during the reign of

Domitian, it was their intention to incorporate emperor worship into their religious identity.637 While the principal recipient of their worship was the genius Augustalium,638 statues of divus Vespasian and Titus were also dedicated as cult statues in the central cultic space (Room 2, Plate 5).639 These Augustales deliberately chose to worship Domitian’s family, Vespasian and Titus, alongside their own genius Augustalium. Two equestrian statues of Domitian, which were remodelled into likenesses of Nerva after Domitian’s damnatio memoriae, were also placed on pedestals which flanked the front stairs.640

Although they were not cult statues, they should still be considered fundamental to the

635 Zanker, Power of Images, 319; Keppie, Understanding Roman Inscriptions, 95; Ostrow, “Augustales in the Augustan Scheme,”; Ostrow, “‘Augustales’ along the Bay of Naples,” 67-68, 71, 85. Cf. Galinsky, Augustan Culture, 312; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 229. 636 See 3.2. 637 Laird, Civic Monuments, 139, 146; Camodeca, “Domiziano e il Collegio degli Augustali,” 185, n.37. Cf. Ostrow, “’Augustales’ along the Bay of Naples,” 75. 638 AE 1975, 211. 639 AE 1975, 212; Laird, Civic Monuments, 155; Pensabene, “Architectural Decoration of the Sacellum of the Augustales,” 64. 640 Laird, Civic Monuments, 147-53; Varner, Mutilation and Transformation, 120-1.

106 CHAPTER 5: COLLEGIAL INSTITUTIONS INCORPORATING EMPEROR WORSHIP overall Flavian dedication of the sacred space.641 Thus, from the outset, the Augustales wanted to worship and honour Domitian and his divine domus.

This gift of worship is unlikely to have been the result of the emperor’s presence in

Misenum, even though Misenum was the headquarters of the imperial fleet for the western

Mediterranean.642 Rather, the gift of worship allowed the Augustales of Misenum to negotiate and interpret their place within their world, under the auspices of the emperor,643 and was given in thanks for the generosity and benevolence of Domitian himself. The activity of the Augustales at Misenum can be linked directly to the building of the Via

Domitiana in 95 CE. The road connected Misenum, along with other Phlegrean cities, directly to Rome.644 The construction of this road must have provided an economic boost to

Misenum, and in turn to the freedmen traders amongst the Augustales of Misenum.

Domitian’s new road must have been seen as a gift, a benefaction allowing the Augustales, and their city, to thrive. Thus, the dedication of their private worship to the Flavian dynasty should be seen as a reciprocal gift.

5.2.3 Vigiles of Ostia (It. 1)

The framework of gift-exchange can also be used to describe the worship undertaken by the vigiles of Ostia. However, there are assumptions about the vigiles that must first be challenged. Gift-exchange cannot be an appropriate framework to describe the engagement of the vigiles with emperor worship if that worship was standardised – if across Italy and

Rome all vigiles worshipped the emperor in the same way. The nature of the gift-exchange framework is that it describes unique and non-standardised exchanges. Yet Sablayrolles,

Rainbird and Baillie Reynolds have been vocal advocates for the essential homogeneity of

641 Laird, 147-53, 155; Adamo-Muscettola, “Sculptures of the Sacellum,” 67; McCarty, “Religious Dedications,” 369. 642 Ostrow, “‘Augustales’ along the Bay of Naples,” 75; Starr, Roman Imperial Navy, 13-18. 643 Ostrow, “Augustales in the Augustan Scheme,” 378. 644 Adamo-Muscettola, “Sculptures of the Sacellum,” 70.

107 ALEX A. ANTONIOU the vigiles of Ostia and Rome. As Sablayrolles emphasises, the activity of the Ostian vigiles

‘ressemblait à celle qu’ils avaient dans la capitale: les traditions du corps étaient maintenues et le culte impérial était célébré avec le même éclat que dans les de l’Urbs, comme en témoginent l’Augusteum de la caserne d’Ostie et les nombreuses inscriptions de la cour attenante’.645 Rainbird, Sablayrolles and Baillie Reynolds all argue that Augustea were constructed in every castrum of the vigiles.646

Asserting that emperor worship was a feature of all castra of the vigiles is a bold generalisation. Rainbird, Sablayrolles and Baillie Reynolds all assume that because Ostia’s castrum vigilum contained an Augusteum, emperor worship must also have been predominant in all of the Roman castra, although this cannot be confirmed by archaeology.

Yet there is no evidence to suggest that worship at Ostia was standardised. It is more likely that the vigiles of each castra created their own unique religious and corporate identities.

Scholars also assume that all vigiles worshipped the emperor because emperor worship was ubiquitous for the and navy. If emperor worship was universal for the Roman army, then it must have been universal for the vigiles as well, who constituted a

‘proper military force’ by, at least, the reign of Hadrian.647 As Sablayrolles argues, ‘[o]n lit dans la place croissante de l’Augusteum, lieu sacré du culte impérial et du culte les enseignes, dans les termes de castra, dans l’organisation de principia la militarisation progressive d’un corps qui s’intégrait chaque jour un peu plus aux structures de l’armée romaine’.648

However, as we have just seen, the presumption that all vigiles worshipped the emperor remains unproven.

645 Sablayrolles, Libertinus Miles, 384. 646 Sablayrolles, 310-11, 390-1; Rainbird, “Fire Stations,” 165-67; Baillie Reynolds, Vigiles of Imperial Rome, 118. 647 Rankov, “Review: Libertinus Miles,” 358. Summarising Sablayrolles, Libertinus Miles. Cf. Busch, “‘Militia in Urbe’,” 328. 648 Sablayrolles, 313.

108 CHAPTER 5: COLLEGIAL INSTITUTIONS INCORPORATING EMPEROR WORSHIP Moreover, the assumption that emperor worship was ubiquitous for the entire Roman army and navy is also speculative. While there are few military contexts in Italy, 649 there is no indication from the naval fleets of Misenum (It. 1) and (It. 8),650 or from the legionary barracks of the Legio II Parthica at (It. 1)651 – a creation of

Septimius Severus652 – that emperor worship was a ubiquitous part of the worship performed by the military forces. In each site, emperor worship was only ever invoked by individuals acting of their own accord; military individuals making personal dedications that engaged with emperor worship.653 In Italy, worship of the emperor was not institutionalised for the army. Instead, there are only glimpses in Italy where military individuals made personal dedications that engaged with emperor worship.

As Fishwick emphasises, we must draw a clear distinction between ‘the practices of soldiers acting in a private capacity…and the corporate rites celebrated by troops at headquarters on various occasions throughout the liturgical year’.654 There is little evidence from anywhere in the empire that emperor worship formed a ubiquitous part of the corporate rites of soldiers, except to the extent that imagines of the emperors were significant for soldiers,655 and in both the army and navy the emperor’s ‘images and statues were added to the military standards in the camps’.656 While the Feriale Duranum, a papyrus which outlines the festivals undertaken by the 20th cohort of Palmyrenes at Dura Europus during the reign of Alexander Severus,657 seems to demonstrate that festivals devoted to the

649 Lomas, Roman Italy, 111; Millar, “Italy and Roman Empire,” 300-1. 650 Tac. Ann. 4.5; Suet. Aug. 49; Starr, Roman Imperial Navy, 324. 651 Busch, “‘Militia in Urbe’,” 318; Busch and Aglietti, “Castra Albana,” 255; Busch, “Von Der Kaiservilla zu den Castra,” 87-89; Lomas, Roman Italy, 111; Formato, “Legio II Parthica,” 175; Tortorici, Castra Albana, esp. 18-19; Busch “Kaiserzeitliche Wehrarchitecktur.” 652 Cass. Dio 55.24.4; Hdn. 3.13.4; Busch, “‘Militia in Urbe’,” 336. 653 AE 1913, 219, AE 1993, 422; CIL 14.2254, 14.2255, 14.2256, 14.2258 (Castra Albanum, It. 1). Given that it was a military site, it is not surprising that all dedications to emperor worship here were made by soldiers. CIL 11.9; AE 1979, 290 (Ravenna, It. 8); Zevi 2008, no. 13; CIL 14.3342a (Misenum, It. 1). Cf. Laird, Civic Monuments, 153. No Augusteum at Misenum (Cat. *9). 654 Fishwick, “Feriale Duranum,” 594. 655 See, e.g. Tac. Hist. 1.55, 3.13. 656 Galinsky, Augustan Culture, 328. See also, Webster, Roman Imperial Army, 227; MacMullen, “Legion as a Society,” 446; Speidel and Dimitrova-Milčeva, “Cult of the Genii in the Roman Army,” 1543; Baillie Reynolds, Vigiles of Imperial Rome, 117-19; Starr, Roman Imperial Navy, 86. 657 Fink, Hoey and Snyder, “Feriale Duranum.”

109 ALEX A. ANTONIOU institutions of emperor worship were common, there is ongoing debate about whether the

Feriale describes standardised rites.658 Yet, as MacMullen emphasised; ‘[i]f there were such a thing as a “state religion,” it could be imposed on no group more under the emperor’s thumb, no group better suited to be the agent of further propagation, than the army…however, there seems to be no evidence that the government saw the possibilities latent in the army for these uses’.659 Thus, given the paucity of actual evidence of standardisation, we should not automatically assume that emperor worship was prescribed for the entirety of the Roman army.

Rather, across the empire, dedications belonging to Fishwick’s first category – soldiers acting in a private capacity – are much more common.660 As MacMullen emphasised, individuals used dedications ‘in a personal way…they expressed their inclinations without regard to their predecessors or successors, certainly without regard to the men under them’.661 This level of engagement with emperor worship does not appear institutionalised. Numerous Roman soldiers and commanders personally made dedications to emperor worship. For many, worship of the emperor must have been important and desirable. Not only had the ‘army derived its legitimation from the emperor’,662 but securing the divine propitiousness of the emperor must have been an important way for the army to secure divine protection in an often dangerous career.

Thus, engagement with emperor worship was not institutionalised for the vigiles of

Ostia. We should not assume an automatic connection between the vigiles and emperor worship, based on similarity with the army. Emperor worship became part of the unique religious identity of the Ostian vigiles. Thus, like many other collegia, the vigiles of Ostia

658 MacMullen, Paganism, 110-11; Gilliam, “Roman Military Feriale,”; Fishwick, “Feriale Duranum,”; Fink, Hoey and Snyder, “Feriale Duranum,” 28; Fishwick, “Liturgy and Ceremonial,” 488-89; Webster, Roman Imperial Army, 277; Helgeland, “Roman Army Religion,” 1488, 1500; Birley, “Religion of the Roman Army,” 1515; Adams, “‘Romanitas’,” 186. 659 MacMullen, Paganism, 110. 660 Fishwick, “Domus Divina,” 432; Fishwick, “Feriale Duranum” 594. 661 MacMullen, Paganism, 111. 662 Helgeland, “Roman Army Religion,” 1471.

110 CHAPTER 5: COLLEGIAL INSTITUTIONS INCORPORATING EMPEROR WORSHIP engaged with emperor worship because they wanted to maintain a personal connection with the emperor. The vigiles’ engagement with emperor worship should ‘mettent en valeur le lien étroit et soigneusement entretenu entre les vigiles et la famille impériale’.663 For the vigiles of Ostia, emperor worship was something powerful and propitious.

Gift-exchange should be used to describe the engagement of the vigiles with emperor worship. The vigiles wanted to maintain a relationship with the imperial household who were directly responsible for the existence of the vigiles at Ostia. They owed their existence, financial security and safety to the power of the divine and living emperor(s). Like many other collegia, they imitated rituals and structures observed in municipal religion.

5.2.4 Cultores Dianae et Antinoi of Lanuvium (It. 1) and Phratry of Antinous at Neapolis

(It. 1)

The gift-exchange framework is also relevant in considering the worship of Antinous undertaken by the cultores Dianae et Antinoi of Lanuvium (Cat. 16C), and the phratry of

Antinous from Neapolis (Cat. 20D). The cultorum Dianae et Antinoi, attested by a leges collegii664 from 136 CE,665 built a templum and tetrastylum dedicated to Antinous for its own collegial use666 between 130-136 CE.667 While Mommsen argued that collegium was a burial society,668 and Hopkins preferred to emphasise its ‘convivial and sociable aspects’,669 most scholarly opinion now appropriately emphasises that worship of Antinous was central to their existence,670 amongst other social and funerary activities.671

663 Sablayrolles, Libertinus Miles, 390. 664 CIL 14.2112; Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 183; Fishwick, “Liturgy and Ceremonial,” 510; Garofalo, Lanuvio, 344. Cf. Borbonus, Columbarium Tombs, n.43. 665 Garofalo, Lanuvio, 344. 666 See 3.3.2. Other Identifiers. 667 Bendlin, “Collegium of Diana and Antinous,” 278. Cf. Chiarucci, Lanuvium, 81. 668 Mommsen, De Collegiis et Sodaliciis Romanorum, 98-106. 669 Hopkins, Death and Renewal, 213-14. Quote: Bendlin, “Collegium of Diana and Antinous,” 217. 670 Bendlin, 217; Ausbüttel, Untersuchungen zu den Vereinen, 27-28; Garofalo, Lanuvio, 353; Beaujeu, La Religion Romaine, 256-7; McIntrye, A Family of Gods, 42. 671 Bendlin, 252; Clark, “Magistri and Ministri,” 349-350; Kloppenborg, “Collegia and Thiasoi,” 18, 20, 22.

111 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Less is known of the phratry of Antinous at Neapolis.672 Ancient evidence for phratries associated them unequivocally with the ‘Greekness’ of Neapolis,673 but the exact duties and organisation of Neapolitan phratries is unclear. While archaically they were kinship groups, epigraphic evidence suggests that, certainly by the first and second centuries

CE, the phratries resembled Roman collegia. Specifically, they had meeting-houses, pursued an agenda of local euergetism, and focused on cultic activities.674 While the precise functions of Neapolitan phratries is far from certain, given that the phratries of Neapolis are likely to have been similar to Roman collegia, and collegia often worshipped salutary deities, we can suppose that the phratries also worshipped their own salutary deities. This phratry worshipped Antinous, just as the phratry Artemision worshipped Artemis.675

What is most striking about these attestations from Lanuvium and Neapolis is that these are the only two places in Roman Italy in which we can detect worship of Antinous.

Worship undertaken at Hadrian’s imperial villa at Tibur (It. 4) should not be considered because the Egyptianising temple, the Antinoeion,676 was intended only for the private worship of Hadrian and his entourage. Moreover, worship cannot be detected in those communities where sculptured portraits of Antinous have been discovered, as they are likely to be simply honorific.677

Until recently, the idea of locally initiated cults of Antinous would have been met with scepticism, given that the predominant paradigm was to see that Hadrian forced the worship of Antinous upon communities.678 Moreover, the belief that Romans and Italians

672 CIL 6.1851. 673 Varro, Ling. 5.85; Strabo, Geography 5.4.7. 674 Lomas, “Urban Elites and Cultural Definition,” 112, 119, n.36; Peterson, Cults of Campania, 168, 172. 675 For phratry Artemision (Ἀρτεµειςίων): Rev. Arch. (21) 1913, 476, no.134; Peterson, Cults of Campania, 179-81; Symonds, Sketches and Studies, 208. Cf. Boatwright, Hadrian and the City of Rome, 255. Unclear whether phratry worshipped Antinous alone, or with Eunostus: Beaujeu, La Religion Romaine, 255-56, n.1; Boatwright, “Hadrian and Italian Cities,” 267; Capasso, Napoli Greco-Romana, 7-9; Peterson, Cults of Campania, 173; Lomas, “Urban Elites and Cultural Definition,” 112. 676 Opper, Hadrian. Empire and Conflict, 178; Mari, “La Tomba-Tempio di Antinoo a Villa Adriana.” 677 Garofalo, Lanuvio, 353; Beaujeu, La Religion Romaine, 255; Bendlin, “Collegium of Diana and Antinous,” 223. Cf. Meiggs, Ostia, 378-79; Lambert, Beloved and God, 185, 187-89. 678 Meiggs, Ostia, 378; Price, Rituals and Power, 68; MacMullen, Paganism, 102-3; Toynbee, “Review: Die Bildnisse des Antinous.”

112 CHAPTER 5: COLLEGIAL INSTITUTIONS INCORPORATING EMPEROR WORSHIP were sceptical of Antinous as a divinity has persisted.679 Yet at Neapolis and Lanuvium, worship of Antinous was undertaken, and there is no indication that Hadrian forced that worship upon those communities. Instead, collegiate organisations in both locations attempted to make a personal connection with the imperial power, and particularly Hadrian.

Given Hadrian’s personal interest in the cult of Antinous, it is easy to view the gift of worship of Antinous as an intentional and deliberate gift to Hadrian. Further, given the scarcity of worship of Antinous in Italy generally, the worship of this divinity in Lanuvium and

Neapolis must have made an important statement to the imperial power.

There is evidence which suggests that Hadrian was deeply interested and personally involved in both Lanuvium and Neapolis. Lanuvium had a reputation as a centre of rustic

Italic religion,680 and Hadrian famously had a keen interest in religious sites of antiquity.681

Much of Hadrian’s interest in Lanuvium was because of its existing religious heritage, as evidenced by his consecration of a statue of Juno Sospita for its cult centre,682 and his

(possible) restoration of a collapsed aedes there.683 At Neapolis, Symonds asserts that ‘the

Neapolitans owed much to the patronage of Hadrian’.684 Moreover, there is evidence to suggest that the Neapolitans granted Hadrian the title of demarch,685 and Hadrian owned a building within the city.686 Boatwright suggests that worship of Antinous must have been the result of the municipal governments of both sites wanting to thank Hadrian for his benefactions.687 However, as we have already seen,688 worship of Antinous at Lanuvium appealed to the cultores’ own religious identity and agenda. Similar motivations might be

679 See Boatwright, Hadrian and the City of Rome, 253; Toynbee, “Review: Die Bildnisse des Antinous,”; MacMullen, Paganism, 102-3. 680 Cooley, “Politics and Religion in the Ager Laurens,” 184. 681 HA. Hadr. 22.10; Boatwright, “Hadrian and Italian Cities,” 254, 257, 269; Patterson, “Emperor and Cities of Italy,” 93. 682 CIL 14.2088; Boatwright, “Hadrian and Italian Cities,” 256; Garofalo, Lanuvio, 234. 683 EE-09, 610. Suggested by Boatwright, 256. 684 Symonds, Sketches and Studies, 208. 685 HA. Hadr. 19; Boatwright, Hadrian and Cities, 58, 68; D’Arms, Romans on Bay of Naples, 104; Lomas, Roman Italy, 117; Boatwright, “Hadrian and Italian Cities,” 267. 686 CIL 10.1496; Boatwright, “Hadrian and Italian Cities,” 267. 687 Boatwright, 256, 267. 688 See 3.3.2. Other Identifiers.

113 ALEX A. ANTONIOU conjectured for the phratry of Neapolis as well. Both also may have wanted to make powerful statements to Hadrian that the worship of his favourite was close to the heart of these collegiate organisations.

5.2.5 Worship of the Lares Augusti

It is difficult, based on the limited evidence, to establish whether the model of gift-exchange can describe collegial worship of the Lares Augusti in Italy. That worship of the Lares

Augusti occurred is clear, as we have explicit details that some organisations dedicated specific aedicula to the Lares Augusti,689 or organised themselves around shrines at the compita690 (crossroads), as the vicomagistri had been organised in Rome.691 Moreover, it is possible that the worship of the Lares Augusti can be visualised within the gift-exchange framework, given similarities between the worship of the Lares Augusti and other Italian cultores692 and collegia.693 Similarly to other collegial organisations that engaged in emperor worship, those who worshipped the Lares Augusti were often also cultores, such as at Alba

Fucens (It. 4), with the cultores Laru(m) Aug(ustorum),694 or collegia, such as the corpus traiectus Rusticeli (collegium of ferrymen) of Ostia (It. 1) who dedicated a shrine at the praedia Rusticeliana for the Lares and the imagines of the Augusti.695 Further similarities can be detected in the organisation of these groups, as organisations devoted to the Lares

Augusti were often composed of freedmen,696 and utilised the tiles of magistri697 and

689 CIL 14.26 (Ostia, It.1); AE 1906, 79 (Tusculum, It. 1). 690 CIL 11.4815, 11.4818, 11.4825 (Spoletium, It. 6); CIL 5.8315 (Aquileia, It. 10); Zaccaria, “Quanti e Quali Augustei Nella Regio X?,” 226. 691 Galinsky, Augustan Culture, 302; Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves, 211; Wallace-Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural Revolution, 278; Zanker, Power of Images, 319; Eder, “Augustus and the Power of Tradition,” 29. 692 Fishwick, “Liturgy and Ceremonial,” 537. 693 Beard, North and Price, Religions of Rome, 1:357. 694 CIL 9.3960. 695 CIL 14.4570; Laird, Civic Monuments, 88-89; Fishwick, “Liturgy and Ceremonial,” 537-38. 696 Alföldy, “Subject and Ruler,” 255; Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves, 211; Wallace-Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural Revolution, 278; Wallace-Hadrill, “Mutatas Formas,” 61; Cf. von Hesberg, “Archäologische Denkmäler zum Römischen Kaiserkult,” 917. 697 CIL 9.2835 (Histonium, It. 4); AE 1987, 453 (Verona, It. 10).

114 CHAPTER 5: COLLEGIAL INSTITUTIONS INCORPORATING EMPEROR WORSHIP ministri.698 Ultimately, however, there is not enough evidence to definitively say that the gift-exchange framework is useful here.

Most scholarly attention given to the worship of the Lares Augusti has been devoted to understanding the vicomagistri in Rome, and Augustus’ introduction of the worship of the Lares Augusti and the Genius Augusti into compital shrines across the vici of Rome.699

When scholars do broaden their attention beyond Rome, they focus on our understanding of the *Augustales, and their supposed connection with public emperor worship. Given that the vicomagistri of Rome and the *Augustales of Italy were both collegial organisations, composed mainly of freedmen, and supposedly devoted themselves to emperor worship, the predominant paradigm has been that these institutions should be linked. They were two sides of the same coin; Roman and Italian.700 For Arnaldi, it is clear; ‘almeno al tempo in cui questa carica venne istituita, i Lari Augusti fossero specificamente oggetto del culto degli

Augustali’.701 However, given that this thesis denies an automatic connection between the

*Augustales and emperor worship,702 it should not automatically be assumed that the

*Augustales were responsible for organising the worship of the Lares Augusti.703 The evidence from Italy demonstrates that some freedmen who performed the duties of an

*Augustalis sometimes also engaged in the worship of the Lares Augusti; either through a private dedication to them, or as a minister, cultor, or magister responsible for the worship.704 It need not be assumed that, just because an *Augustalis engaged with the worship of the Lares Augusti, the two roles must be connected.

698 CIL 10.205 (Grumentum, It. 3); CIL 10.137 (, It. 3); Alföldy, “Subject and Ruler,” 255. See generally, Clark, “Magistri and Ministri,” 351. 699 Galinsky, Augustan Culture, 301-2; Santero, “The ‘Cultores Augusti’,” 114; Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer, 348, 352; Eder, “Augustus and the Power of Tradition,” 29-31; Wallace-Hadrill, “Mutatas Formas,” 61. 700 Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves, 211; McIntyre, A Family of Gods, 117; Taylor, Divinity, 220; Taylor, “Augustales, Seviri Augustales, and Seviri,” 244; Zanker, Power of Images, 319; Arnaldi, “Culto Imperiale Nell’Etruria,” 65, 68-69, 71; Zaccaria, “Quanti e Quali Augustei Nella Regio X?,” 223-24. 701 Arnaldi, 68. 702 See 3.2. 703 Silvestrini, “Una Nuova Iscrizione per i Lari Augusti,” 153. 704 CIL 14.367 (Ostia, It. 1); CIL 9.423 (Venusia, It. 2); AE 1992, 302 (Vibinum, It. 2); InscrIt-03-01, 224 (Cosilinum, It. 3); CIL 10.205 (Grumentum, It. 3); CIL 9.2835 (Histonium, It. 4); CIL 14.3561 (Tibur, It. 4); CIL 11.4815, 11.4825 (Spoletium, It. 6).

115 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

5.3 CONCLUSION

Although evidence is limited, the framework of gift-exchange is a helpful tool for understanding emperor worship within collegial institutions across Italy. While detailed evidence of collegial engagement with emperor worship is restricted to Regio I, a convincing theory of emulation can be seen. In the content of rites, the architecture of worship and their purpose for adopting emperor worship, collegia can be seen to have imitated municipal institutions of emperor worship. Gift-exchange is a valuable tool, allowing us to see that those collegia that engaged with emperor worship gave it as a gift to the imperial power in order that they might negotiate their position with the divine household, or thank the emperor and his family for their generosity. For those collegia that chose to give the gift of emperor worship, it became an important and powerful feature of their collegiate identity.

116 CONCLUSIONS

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limitations and complications of the evidence, the study of emperor worship in the Italian peninsula has provided fertile ground for advancing our understanding of these institutions of worship generally. The religious and administrative autonomy of Italy, and the pre-Augustan Romanisation of the peninsula, has allowed for a more nuanced appreciation of emperor worship; one that is unshackled from acculturation theory.

Conceptualising emperor worship as a potent gift has allowed us to appreciate the importance of evidence of emperor worship from Italy (both municipal and collegial). Rather than seeing evidence of municipal emperor worship as examples of baseless manifestations of political loyalty, or simply remnants of ubiquitous elements belonging in every Italian city, gift-exchange theory allows us to view the dedications of temples, festivals, games and priesthoods as potent and rewarding for Italians themselves. Moreover, the theory permits recognition of the worship of the emperor within colleges not as mere sycophancy, but as fundamental and cherished parts of their identity. Visualising the institutions of emperor worship as gifts has also allowed us to search for convincing theories of the divinity of the emperor and for new interpretations of Cassius Dio (51.20.6-8).

Not only has this thesis enriched our understanding of the adoption and longevity of emperor worship in Italy, and expanded our horizons for understanding emperor worship in the Roman west, but it has also reasserted the identity of Italians under the empire. While

Italians outside the city of Rome became less important in the historical record after

Augustus became princeps, this thesis has shown that there were still complex and rewarding relationships between Italians and the centre. Religion was one of many ways in which

Italians could define their identity, and their place within the world. Conceptualising emperor worship as a series of gifts, in the context of greater negotiations and exchanges between the imperial power and individual communities, affirms the agency of Italian

117 ALEX A. ANTONIOU communities. This approach demands that attention be paid to the local communities who were giving the gifts, and de-emphasises, without obscuring, the role of the emperors.

It would be of significant value, in future studies, to take the evidence collated in

Appendices 1 and 2 (new comprehensive catalogues of the evidence) to explore alternative topics not covered here. For instance, how might the evidence of the worship of ‘Augustan’ virtues and deities in Roman Italy be contextualised and explained? Alternatively, how can emperor worship be contextualised within each of these Roman cities? What other deities were worshipped in these cities and what can this add to our picture of the overall religious identity of Italian Roman cities?

Emperors might have been the ‘lowest of gods, and the greatest of men’,705 but their worship was, for almost three centuries, a fundamental part of the religious identity of many

Italian communities, colleges and individuals. Although emperor worship is a field brimming with scholarship, it still remains a fruitful and rewarding area of inquiry in our understanding of Roman religion generally, and of the realities of the Roman empire.

705 Woolf, “Divinity and Power,” 248.

118 PLATES

PLATES

PLATE 1: Antinous as Silvanus, potentially from Lanuvium.

PLATE 2: Abellinum Altar (It. 1, Cat. 1A). PLATE 3: Pompeii Altar (It. 1, Cat. 23B).

119 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

PLATE 4: Reconstruction of the Temple of the Deified Pertinax at Ostia (It. 1, Cat. 22F(2)).

PLATE 5: Plan of the Templum Augusti of the Augustales at Misenum (It. 1, Cat. 19A).

120 PLATES

PLATE 6: Frescoes of the Collegio of the Augustales at Herculaneum (It. 1, Cat. 15A).

121 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

PLATE 7: Plan of the Collegio of the Augustales at Herculaneum (It. 1, Cat. 15A).

PLATE 8: Plan of the Barracks of the Vigiles at Ostia (It. 1, Cat. 22F(1)).

122 PLATES

PLATE 9: The Augusteum of the Barracks of the Vigiles at Ostia (It. 1, Cat. 22F(1)).

123 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

PLATE 10: The Mosaic from the Augusteum of the Barracks of the Vigiles at Ostia (It. 1, Cat. 22F(1)).

124 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY

APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN

ITALY The following Catalogue collates all of the evidence for emperor worship in Italy. The catalogue is separated by Augustan region and sorted into alphabetic order based on the Italian cities in which the evidence was found. Each site number corresponds with the same site numbers on Map 1. Within each city, further divisions are made between municipal temples, altars, collegial engagement, dedications to the numen of the emperor, pro salute imperatoris dedications, sacrum dedications, dedications to the Lares Augusti, and any other dedications. In italics are brief excerpts of the relevant data from the literary, numismatic or epigraphic evidence. For the full text, see the original publications. The second catalogue at the end of this Appendix outlines evidence that is not considered as emperor worship within this thesis. References to this second catalogue throughout the text are made by reference to the asterisk (*) before the catalogue number. CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE OF EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY

REGION I

1. ABELLINUM

A. MUNICIPAL ALTAR Discussion: Depicts priest performing libation before imperial statues. Currently in Museo Irpino, Italy. Plate 2. Date: Stylistically mid-first century CE. Literature: Gradel, Emperor Worship, 93; Koortbojian, Divinization of Caesar and Augustus, 217-21; Wardle, “Divinity of Roman Emperor Once More,” 129; Felletti Maj, La Tradizione Italica Nell’Arte Romana, 351-53; Grella, “L’Ara di Abellinum.”

2.

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 9.2347: [sa]cerd[oti] di/[v]arum Aug/[ust]arum.

3. AQUINUM

A. PRIESTHOODS

CIL 10.5393: flamini/ Romae et divi August(i) perpetuo ex auctor(itate)/ Ti(beri) Caesaris Augusti et permissu eius.

CIL 10.5413: sacerdoti divae/ Augustae.

CIL 10.5382: flamen/ divi Vespasiani. Discussion: This is not the satirist Juvenal.

125 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

Literature: Courtney, Satires of Juvenal, 3-4; Green, Classical Bearings, 247-48; Syme, “The Patria of Juvenal,” 1-2; Monti, “I Problem dell’Iscrizione ‘Giovenaliana’ di Aquino,” 79-90, 95-96, 105-7.

4. ARDEA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 10.6766: flam(en)/[Au]gustal(is).

5. ATINA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 10.5067: flam(ini) divi Traiani.

6. BOVILLAE

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE Sacrarium Genti Iuliae. Tac. Ann. 2.41: sacrarium genti Iuliae effigiesque divo Augusto apud Bovillas dicantur. Discussion: Contains effigy of divus Augustus. Date: Tiberian. Literature: Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 103; Lomas, “Roman Imperialism,” 70; Mierow, “Tiberius Himself,” 294.

7. CALES

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 10.4641: flamini divi Aug(usti).

B. LARES AUGUSTI CIL 10.4634: Lar(ibus) Aug(usti) sac(rum).

C. ALTAR

AE 1969/70, 110: sacratissimo die natali divi Augusti / prosperis felicibusque auspici(i)s dedicata / est per pontifices et augures pecunia. Literature: Johannowsky, Campania Settentrionale (1961-2000), 31.

8. CASINUM

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 10.5201: sacerdot(i)/ divarum. Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 431.

B. ALTAR AE 1946, 175: Divo Augusto / sacrum.

9. CASTRA ALBANUM

A. PRO SALUTE

126 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY

CIL 14.2256: pro salute et reditu et victo[ria]…totiusque domus divinae.

Date: 201-249 CE.

CIL 14.2254: pro sal(ute) d(omini) n(ostri) / et Geni / centuriae. Discussion: To Iuppiter Optimus Maximus, for the safety of our master. The ‘master’ is, potentially, not referring to an imperial. Date: 201-249 CE. CIL 14.2255: [Pro salute(?)] / Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) L(uci) Sept(imi) Sever(i) Pii Pert(inacis) Aug(usti) et Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) / M(arci) Aurel(i) Ant(onini) Pii Felic(is) Aug(usti) Parth(ici) max(imi) Britann(ici) / max(imi) p(atris) p(atriae) et Iuliae Aug(ustae) matr(is) Aug(usti) n(ostri) et senat(us) et pa/triae et castr(orum) Minerv(ae) Aug(ustae) sacr(ae). Discussion: For the safety of Septimius Severus, Caracalla, Iulia Augusta, the senate, the people and camps sacred to Minerva Augusta. Date: c.210 CE. AE 1993, 422: pro s[alute et reditu] / Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) [L(uci) Septim(i) Severi] / [[et M(arci) Aurel(i) ]]/[[ini et P(ubli) Septim(i) L(uci) fil(ii) Get]]/ae nobiliss[i]mi [Caesar(is)]. Discussion: For the safety and return of Septimius Severus, Caracalla and , or Elagabalus and Alexander Severus. Literature: Bruun, “Pericula Alexandrina.”

B. NUMEN CIL 14.2258: devo/ti numini maiestati/que eorum. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of and Marcia Otacilia Severa. Date: 244 CE. AE 1913, 219: devot(a) / [num]ini maiestatique / [eor]um. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Philip the Arab and Marcia Otacilia Severa (?) Date: 249 CE.

10. CUMAE

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE Templum to Divus Vespasian. CIL 10.3698: in templo divi Vespa/siani. Discussion: Used by decuriones in 289 CE. Temple probably identified on long side of forum.

127 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Date: Late first-century CE (c.95 CE). Literature: Fears, “Cumae in the Roman Imperial Age”, 6-7.

B. MUNICIPAL FESTIVALS CIL 10.3682: [n]atalis Caesaris immolatio Caesari…Drusi Caesaris natalis supplicatio Vestae…die Caesar togam virilem sumpsit supplication Spei et Iuve[ntuti]…natalis Ti(beri) Caesaris supplicatio Vestae….eo di[e Caesar Augustu]s appellatus est supplicatio Augusto….est supplicatio Imperio Caesaris Augusti custo[dis]…[eo die Caesar Aug(ustus) pont(ifex) ma]ximus creatus est supplicat(i)o Vestae… Discussion: Festivals outlined for major imperial anniversaries. Date: 4-14 CE. Literature: Lomas, Roman Italy, 191-92; Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 199; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 96; Fishwick, “Liturgy and Ceremonial,” 490, 509-10; Hemelrijk, “Local Empresses,” 327.

C. LARES AUGUSTI CIL 10.3691: Lares Augus(ti?) / Agrippa.

11. FABRATERIA VETUS

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 10.5656: sacerdoti divae/ Faustinae. Literature: Hemelrijk, “Priestesses: Benefactions and Public Honour,” 117; Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 433.

12. FIDENAE

A. NUMEN CIL 14.4057: Numini domus A[ug(ustae)]. Discussion: The senate of Fidenae dedicated a sanctuary of Bona Dea to numen of Domus Augusta. Literature: Brouwer, Bona Dea, nos. 51, 59-60. CIL 14.4058: devoti numini / maiestatiq(ue) eius. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of . Date: 253-268 CE.

13. FORMIAE

A. PRIESTHOOD

AE 1971, 79: sacerdoti Augustae. Discussion: Priesthood to Julia Domna.

128 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY Literature: Hemelrijk, “Priestesses: Benefactions and Public Honour,” 116; Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 419; Várhelyi, Religion of Senators, 114; Kettenhofen, Die Syrischen Augustae in Der Historischen Überlieferung, 104.

14. GABII

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE Aedes/Templum to the memory of the domus of Domitia Augusta. CIL 14.2795: In honorem memoriae domus Domitiae Augustae…aedem / fecerunt et exornaverunt statuis et reliquis…templum in honorem ac memoriam Domitiae Corbulonis fil(iae). Discussion: Dedicated by two of Domitia’s ex-slaves. Likely a municipal building. Multiple imperial statues of Julio-Claudians and Severans found in vicinity. Date: 140 CE. Literature: Laird, Civic Monuments, 85; Hamilton and Smith, “Gavin Hamilton’s Letters to Charles Townley,” 318-19; Jones, Emperor Domitian, 37-38; Levick, “Corbulo’s Daughter,” 187, 203, 205-6; McDermott and Orentzel, Roman Portraits. Flavian-Trajanic Period, 83-85; Varner, “Domitia Longina and the Politics of Portraiture,” 205-6.

B. PRO SALUTE CIL 14.2804: pro / salute principis Antonini Aug(usti) Pii / patris patriae liberorumque eius. Discussion: ludorum spectaculo given for the safety of Antoninus Pius. Date: 138-161 CE. Literature: Hemelrijk, “Priestesses: Benefactions and Public Honour,” 98, n.38; Gaspar, “Sacerdotes Piae,” 83.

15. HERCULANEUM

A. COLLEGIAL TEMPLE Collegio Degli Augustali Discussion: Dedication of sculptures of divus Augustus (CIL 10.1412) and divus Iulius (CIL 10.1411) by Augustales. The ‘dedicatory’ inscription from brothers A. Lucius Proculus and A. Lucius Iulianus (AE 1979, 169), not related to dedication of this building, but rather dedicated a statue or altar. Contains altar with frescoes of Hercules. Plates 5 & 6. Date: Terminus ante quem of 79 CE.

129 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Literature: Laird, Civic Monuments; Étienne, “Du Culte Impérial à Avenches,” 348-49; Guadagno, “Supplemento Epigrafico Ercolanese,” 133- 34; Wallace-Hadrill, “Monumental Centre of Herculaneum,” 135-41. CIL 10.1411: Divo Iulio / Augustales. CIL 10.1412: Divo Augusto / Augustales.

B. IMAGINES CAESARUM AE 2008, 357: dedicatione imaginum Caesarum [e]t aedis V[eneris].

C. SACRUM DEDICATIONS AE 1979, 169: Augusto sacr(um). Discussion: Not a ‘dedicatory’ inscription for the Collegio Degli Augustali. Literature: Laird, Civic Monuments, 77; Wallace-Hadrill, “Monumental Centre of Herculaneum,” 135-41.

D. GENIUS AUGUSTI AE 1951, 217: per Genius Imp(eratoris) Ves/pasiani Caes(aris) Aug(usti)…per / Iovem O(ptimum) M(aximum) et Genium [Imp(eratoris) Vespasiani] / Ca[es(aris) Aug(usti) liberorumque]. Discussion: Oath taken to the genius of Vespasian.

16. LANUVIUM

A. PRO SALUTE

CIL 14.2112: bonum fa]ust[um fe]lix salutareq(ue) sit Imp(eratori) Caesari Traiano Hadriano Aug(usto) toti{us}que / [do]mu [Aug(ustae)].

Discussion: For the good omens, happiness and safety of Hadrian.

Date: 133 CE.

B. SACRUM DEDICATION CIL 14.2095: [Di]vo Aug(usto) / [sacrum] Discussion: Rare dedication to a divinised emperor from a senator. Literature: Várhelyi, Religion of Senators, 113.

C. CULTORES AND COLLEGIAL TEMPLE Cultorum Dianae et Antinoi with collegial temple and tetrastylum. CIL 14.2112: [Lanuvi in] templo Antinoi…cultorum Dianae et Antinoi…sub tetra/[stylo A]ntinoi…collegium salutare Dianae/ [3] et Antinoi…// Date: Templum and tetrastylum constructed between 130 and 136 CE. Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 183; Fishwick, “Liturgy and Ceremonial,” 510; Ausbüttel, Untersuchungen zu den Vereinen, 27-28;

130 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY Bendlin, “Collegium of Diana and Antinous”; Garofalo, Lanuvio, 535; Mommsen, De Collegiis et Sodaliciis Romanorum, 98-106.

17. LITERNUM

A. COLLEGIAL ENGAGEMENT: AE 2001, 853: Augustales creati ii qui in cultu domus / divinae contulerunt Literature: Mouritsen, “Honores Libertini,” 241; Vandevoorde, “Respectability on Display,” 141. AE 2001, 854: Augustales creati / ii qui in cultu domus divinae contul(erunt) Literature: Mouritsen, “Honores Libertini,” 241; Vandevoorde, “Respectability on Display,” 141.

18. MINTURNAE

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 10.6018: sacerd(oti) August(arum). Literature: Gradel, Emperor Worship, app. 3; Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 431.

B. PRO SALUTE

AE 1982, 155: Pro salute Aug(usti) / [et re]ditu et vict(oria).

Discussion: For the safety, return and victory of Augustus.

C. NUMEN AE 1935, 22: devota numini / maiestatique eius. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Elagabalus (?) Date: 218-222 CE.

19. MISENUM

A. COLLEGIAL TEMPLE Templum Augusti of the Augustales. AE 1993, 468: Miseni in templo Aug(usti) quod est Augustalium. AE 1996, 424: Miseni in templo Aug(usti) quod est/ Augustalium. AE 2000, 344: Miseni in templo Aug(usti) quod est Augustalium. Discussion: During reign of Domitian, the Augustales dedicated cult statues of divus Vespasian, Titus, and Genius Augustalium, with equestrian statues of Domitian. In 160s CE, statues were dedicated Augusto sacrum to Apollo, Pater, Asclepius, Venus and Fortuna. At the same time, a tetrastyle pronaos was added, dedicated by Cassia Victoria the sacerdos Augustalium, in her own name and for her husband L. Laecanius Primitivus. See inscriptions below. Plate 5. Date: In use by Augustales from Domitian to Elagabalus.

131 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Literature: Laird, Civic Monuments; Zevi, “Le Basi Iscritte del Sacello degli Augustali,”; Pensabene “Architectural Decoration of Sacellum of Augustales,”; Adamo-Muscettola, “Sculptures of Sacellum,”; Camodeca, “Domiziano e il Collegio degli Augustali.” AE 1975, 211: Aug(usto) sacrum / Genio / Augustalium. Discussion: Base for statue of Genius Augustalium. Date Range: Late first-early-second century CE. AE 1975, 212: Divo Vespasiano. Discussion: Dedication of statue of divus Vespasian. Date: after 79 CE. AE 1993, 467: Aug(usto) sacrum Asclepius. Discussion: Base for statue of Asclepius. Date: 160s CE. AE 1993, 469: Aug(usto) sacrum Apollo. Discussion: Base for statue of Apollo. Date: 160s CE. AE 1993, 470: Aug(usto) sacrum Liber Pater. Discussion: Base for statue of Liber Pater. Date: 161 CE. AE 1993, 475: Aug(usto) sacrum Venus. Discussion: Base for statue of Venus. Date: 162 CE. AE 1993, 476: [Caesari(?) di]vi Vespasiani f(ilio) / [Domitia]no co(n)s(uli) VII / [3 de]dit p(ecunia) s(ua). Discussion: Dedication to Domitian prior to accession. Date: 80-81 CE. AE 2000, 345a: [Imp(eratori) Ca]esari / [divi Vesp]asiani [f(ilio)] / [Domitiano] Aug(usto) / Germ(anico) []nt(ifici) max(imo) / tr(ibunicia) pot(estate) XIIII [i]mp(eratori) X[X]II / [co(n)]s(uli) [X]V[I(?) c[ens(ori)] perp(etuo) [p(atri) p(atriae)]. Discussion: Dedication of bronze equestrian statue of Domitian. Date: 95 CE. AE 2000, 345c: [I]mp(eratori) Ne[r]v[ae] / Caesari [Aug(usto)] / [pont(ifici) max(imo) tr(ibunicia)] po[t(estate)] / [co(n)s(uli) III p(atri) p(atriae)] / [. Discussion: Dedication of bronze equestrian statue of Nerva.

132 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY Date: 96-97 CE. AE 2011, 244: [Imp(eratori) Caesari] / [divi Vespasiani f(ilio)] / [D]om[itiano Aug(usto)] / [Ge]rm(anico) …[Augustales s(ua) p(ecunia)]. Discussion: Dedication of statue of Domitian. Letters preserved in cement. Date: 95 CE. AE 2011, 246: [[Imp(eratori) Caes(ari)]]/ [[M(arco) [Aure]lio]] / [[Ant[onin]o]] …[[Augustales?]]. Discussion: Base honouring Elagabalus. Date: 218-222 CE. Zevi 2008, no 12: [[I--]]/ [[[--]]]/ [[[--]]]/ [[[--]]]…Augustalis… Discussion: Dedication, perhaps to Domitian. Date: Domitianic, or early second century. Zevi 2008, no 13: Aug(usto) sacrum Fortuna. Discussion: Base for statue of Fortuna. Date: 160s CE. AE 1993, 471: Imp(eratori) Nervae / Caesari Aug(usto) / pont(ifici) max(imo) tr(ibunicia) pot(estate) co(n)s(uli) III p(atri) p(atriae) / C(aius) Volusius Atimetus / Augustalis / nomine Augustal(ium). Discussion: Pedestal for statue of Nerva. Date: 97 CE. AE 1993, 474: Imp(eratori) Nervae / Caesari Aug(usto) / pont(ifici) max(imo) tr(ibunicia) pot(estate) / co(n)s(uli) III p(atri) p(atriae) / P(ublius) Herenn(ius) Callistus / Augustalis / nomine Augustalium / peunia sua // Imp(eratore) Nerva Caes(are) Aug(usto) II[I] / L(ucio) Vergin() Rufo III co(n)s(ulibus) / XIIII K(alendas) Octobr(es) / cuius dedicatione / Augustalib(us) epulum / et HS XII n(ummum) viritim dedit. Discussion: Pedestal for statue of Nerva. Date: 97 CE. Other Inscriptions: AE 1993, 479 (Pedestal for statue of curator perpetuus, 99 CE); AE 1993, 468 (Stipulations of a foundation granted by curator perpetuus, 102 CE); AE 1993, 478 (Commemoration of construction of dining room, late first century-early second century(?)); AE 1993, 477 (Building inscription of Cassia Victoria and Laecanius Primitivus of renovation of façade).

B. NUMEN CIL 10.3343: [nu]mini maiestatiq(ue) eius.

133 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Discussion: To the numen and maiestas of Constantine I (?). Date: 306-337 CE. Literature: Laird, Civic Monuments, 163.

C. RETURN AND VICTORY (POTENTIALLY PRO SALUTE) CIL 10.3342a: [pro] reditu et Vict[oria]….Aug(ustae) m(atris) c(astrorum) totiusq[ue domus divinae]…trierarc(hus)…[pra]ef(ectus) leg(ionis) III Gallic(ae) pra[ef(ectus)]… Discussion: For the return and victory of Septimius Severus and Julia Domna, or and Julia Mamaea. Literature: Laird, Civic Monuments, 163; Mommsen, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, 10: 322.

20. NEAPOLIS

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE Καισαρ[εῖον]. Olympia V (1896) 56. Discussion: Likely the temple identified in Piazza Nicola Amore, Naples. Date: Augustan. Literature: Miranda, “Nei Cataloghi Agonistici di Neapolis,” 417; Miranda de Martino, “Neapolis e gli Imperatori,” 203-4, 208.

B. MUNICIPAL GAMES Ἰταλικὰ ῾Ρωµαῖα Σεβαστὰ ἰσολύµπια. Olympia V (1896) 56; CIG III 5805; IG II2 3169-70; III 129; IV 591; VII 49; XIV 737, 746, 747, 754, 755, 1102, 1114; Cass. Dio 55.10.9; 56.29.2; Suet. Aug. 98.5; Vell. Pat. 2.123.1; Strabo 5.4.7.706 Discussion: Quinquennial or quadrennial sacred games. Originally devoted to worship of Augustus while alive. See 2.2. Date: Games created 2 BCE. Games first celebrated 2 CE. Celebrated at least until the third or fourth centuries CE. Literature: Arnold, “Agonistic Festivals,” 247; Geer, “Greek Games at Naples,”; Miranda de Martino, “Augusto e i Sebastà,”; Miranda de Martino, “Neapolis e gli Imperatori,”; Miranda, “Nei Cataloghi Agonistici di

706 Additional inscriptions yet to be published, see Miranda de Martino, “Augusto e i Sebastà,”; Miranda de Martino, “Neapolis e gli Imperatori,”; Miranda, “Nei Cataloghi Agonistici di Neapolis,”; Miranda de Martino, “Ritratti di Campioni dai Sebastà di Napoli.”

134 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY Neapolis,”; Miranda de Martino, “Ritratti di Campioni dai Sebastà di Napoli,”; Mellor, ΘΕΑ ΡΩΜΗ, 110.

C. PRIESTHOOD

IGI-Napoli 02, 115: ἱερεὺς Σεβαστοῦ Καίσαρος.

D. COLLEGIAL ENGAGEMENT Phratry of Antinous CIL 6.1851: fretriaco Neapoli Anti/noiton et Eunostidon. Discussion: Cultic function for worship of Antinous. Unclear whether phratry of the Eunostidae incorporated worship of Antinous, or whether phratry of Antinous was separate to phratry of Eunostidae. Date: Post 130 CE. Literature: Boatwright, Hadrian and the City of Rome, 255; Boatwright, “Hadrian and Italian Cities,” 267; Symonds, Sketches and Studies, 208-10; Beaujeu, La Religion Romaine, 255-56, n.1; Capasso, Napoli Greco-Romana, 7-9. Phratry of Theotadai IG XIV 723: [Θε]οις Σεβ(αστοῖος) και θεῖος φρητρἰοις Θεωτἀδαι. Discussion: Phratry of Theotadai (θεωταδαι) associate the worship of the gods of their phratry (θεῖος φρητρἰοις) with the [Θε]οις Σεβ(αστοῖος). Literature: Peterson, Cults of Campania, 169; Vaglieri, Sylloge Epigraphica Orbis Romani, 133, no. 1044.

21. NOLA

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLES

(1) Temple to (Divus) Augustus. Tac. Ann. 4.57: …Caesar in Campaniam specie dedicandi templa apud Capuam Iovi, apud Nolam Augusto… Suet. Tib. 40: Peragrata Campania, cum Capuae Capitolium, Nolae templum Augusti, quam causam profectionis praetenderat, dedicasset… Discussion: Dedicated by Tiberius. Date: 26 CE. Literature: Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 19, 130; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 90; Camodeca, “Nola,” 302.

(2) Building Consecrated to Divus Augustus. Cass. Dio 56.46.3: καί οἱ καὶ ἡ ἐν τῇ Νώλῃ οἰκία, ἐν ᾗ µετήλλαξεν, ἐτεµενίσθη.

135 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Discussion: Building where Augustus died was consecrated. This is not the same site that Tiberius dedicated in 26 CE (Cat. 21A(1)). Identification in excavations at Somma Vesuviana is spurious. Date: Tiberian. Literature: Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 130; Beloch, Kampanien, 400, 404-5; Della Corte, “Somma Vesuviana,”; Perrotta et. al., “Burial of Emperor Augustus’ Villa,” 446; Aoyagi and Angelelli, “Villa di Augusto a Somma Vesuviana.”

B. PRIESTHOOD CIL 10.1262: flamini divi Augusti.

C. NUMEN CIL 10.1245: d(evotus) n(umini) m(aiestati)q(ue) eius. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Constantine I. Date: 312-337 CE. CIL 10.1246: d(evotus) n(umini) m(aiestati)q(ue) / eius. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Constantius I. Date: 293-305 CE.

D. CULTORES CIL 10.1238: Augusto / sacrum…cultores d(omus) d(ivinae). Discussion: Should not be restored as d(onum) d(ederunt) or d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) but rather d(omus) d(ivinae). Date: No secure date (see 5.3). Literature: Gradel, Emperor Worship, 217-19; Gradel, “Mamia’s Dedication,” 46; Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 285; Santero, “The ‘Cultores Augusti’,” 15; Fishwick, “Augusto ut Deo,” 438; Camodeca, “Nola,” 302; Boissier, “Colléges Funéraires Romains,” 83.

22. OSTIA

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE Aedes to Roma and Augustus. CIL 14.73: aedis Romae et Aug(usti). CIL 14.353: In aede Romae et Augusti. Discussion: Temple formerly identified to Ceres, at S. end of forum, with cult statue of Roma. Not to be restored as Aug(ustorum). Date: Augustan.

136 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY Literature: Geremia Nucci, Tempio di Roma e di Augusto; Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 19, 27, 32; Mellor, “Goddess Roma,” 1002; Meiggs, Ostia, 132, 178, 353; Taylor, Cults of Ostia, 46; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 82-83; Fishwick, Imperial Cult, 1.1:141, 167; Sanchez, “Les Institutions de la Colonia Ostiensis,” 147; Rieger, Heiligtümer in Ostia, 186; Rieger, “Les Sanctuaires Publics,” 256; Calza et. al., Scavi di Ostia, tav. IX.

B. PRIESTHOODS Literature: Gradel, Emperor Worship, app. 3; Meiggs, Ostia, 512, 516-17; Mellor, “Goddess Roma,” 1002; Taylor, Cults of Ostia, 47; Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 423; Houston, “Nonius Flaccus,” 238.

AE 1955, 169: flamen Roma[e et Aug]usti. Literature: Matei-Popescu, Roman Army in Inferior, 128.

AE 1955, 168: flamini Romae et Augusti.

CIL 14.4674: f]l(amini) perpetuo Rom[ae et Aug(usti)].

CIL 14.400: flam(ini) Rom(ae) et Aug(usti).

CIL 14.4622: flam(ini) Romae et Aug(usti).

AE 1988, 201: fl(amen) Ro[mae et Aug(usti)].

CIL 14.373: flam(ini)/ Rom(ae) et Aug(usti).

AE 1982, 132: [flam(ini) Romae et A]ug(usti).

CIL 14.4142: flamini Romae / et Aug(ust).

CIL 14.444: fl]amini divoru[m].

CIL 14.399: flaminicae / divae Aug(ustae). Discussion: Plaria Vera, priesthood of Livia.

CIL 14.5346: flam[inica]e/ divae [Augusta]e. Discussion: Plaria Vera, priesthood of Livia. Same Plaria Vera as CIL 14.399.

CIL 11.1447A: fla(mini) divi/ Vespasiani.

Discussion: While findspot was Pisae (It. 7), refers to Ostian priesthood.

CIL 14.4641: flamini d[ivi] Vesp(asiani).

CIL 14.4142: flamini divi Titi.

CIL 14.298: f[l]am(ini) div[i] Vesp(asiani).

CIL 14.4664: flamini divi Vesp(asiani).

AE 1988, 182: flam(ini) d(esignato) divi/ Vesp(asiani).

AE 1987, 204: flam(inis) divi Vespasi/ani.

CIL 14.353: flam(ini) divi Hadri[ani].

137 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

CIL 14.4642: fl[am(ini) divi H]ad[ria]ni. Discussion: Same C. Domitius Fabius Hermogenus as CIL 14.353.

CIL 14.400: flamini divi Titi.

CIL 14.4622: flam(ini) divi Titi.

CIL 14.390: flamini divi Hadriani.

CIL 14.391: flamini divi Hadriani.

Discussion: Same man and from same monument as CIL 14.391.

AE 1988, 201: fl(amen) d(ivi) Anton(ini).

AE 1988, 184: fla[m(inis)] divi T(iti).

CIL 14.4671: flam(ini) divi Ma[rci].

CIL 14.373: flam(ini) / divi Severi.

AE 1988, 211: flam(ini) di(vi) Seve(ri) et di(vi)/ Pertin(acis).

CIL 14.4648: [fl]am(ini) divi Pertina[c(is)].

AE 1988, 188: flami/nica divae Faustinae.

AE 1982, 132: flam(ini) divi M[arci].

C. PRO SALUTE

CIL 14.4324: Saluti Caesaris August(i). Discussion: Dedication of a Statue of Salus for the safety of Caesar Augustus.

Date: Potentially an Augustan inscription, with second century restoration.

Literature: Várhelyi, Religion of Senators 112; Taylor, Cults of Ostia, 50-51; Meiggs, Ostia, 508.

CIL 14.4326: pro salute / Imp(eratoris) Nervae Traiani Caes(aris) / Aug(usti) Germanici Dacici. Discussion: Sacred to Silvanus, for the safety of Trajan.

Date: 102-117 CE.

CIL 14.6: pro salute / et reditu L(uci) Septimi / Severi Pertinacis / Aug(usti) [[[et D(ecimi) Clodi]]] Septi/[[[mi Albani Caesaris]]].

Discussion: Dedication of a sacred altar to Fortuna Domestica for the safety and return of Septimius Severus and Decimus Clodius Albinus. The inscription suggests partnership between two men is still in effect, thus dates before their conflict.

Date: 193-196 CE.

CIL 14.9: [pro salute] domus / [Aug(usti?)].

Discussion: Sacred to the Genius of the colony of Ostia, for the safety of the house of Augustus.

138 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY

CIL 14.20: Pro salute et / reditu Imp(eratoris) Anto/nini Aug(usti) Faustinae / Aug(ustae) liberorumque / eorum.

Discussion: Dedicated a sacred altar to Isis, the numen of Sarapis, Silvanus and the Lares for the safety and return of Marcus Aurelius and Faustina and their children.

Date: 161-180 CE.

Literature: Meiggs, Ostia, 369.

CIL 14.32: Pro salute / Aug(usti).

Discussion: For the safety of Augustus, presenting a statuette of to a guild.

Literature: Meiggs, Ostia, 380.

CIL 14.40: pro salute] / Im[p(eratoris) Caesaris] / M(arci) Aurel[i Antonini Aug(usti) et] / L(uci) A[[ureli [Commodi Caes(aris)]] et] / Faustina[e Aug(ustae) et cetero]/rum libe[rorum eorum // pr[o salute] / Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) [[L(uci) A[ureli]]] / [[C[ommodi]]] / [to]tiusq(ue) dom[us divinae // ]. Discussion: Side a) the sacrifices of the taurobolium made for the safety of Marcus Aurelius, Commodus and Faustina Augusta and their children. Side b) the sacrifices of the taurobolium made for the safety of Commodus and the whole divine house. Dates: 161-176 CE// 176-192 CE. CIL 14.42: pro salute et victoria] / Imp(eratoris) [[Caes(aris) C(ai) V[ibi Treboniani Galli Pii]]] / [[Fel(icis) Aug(usti) et [Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) C(ai) Vibi Afini Galli]]] / [[Veldum[niani Vol]usiani]] [Pii Fel(icis)] / [[Aug(usti)]] tot[iu]sq(ue) domus divin(ae). Discussion: The sacrifices of the taurobolium made for the safety and victory of and . Date: 251-253 CE. CIL 14.43: pro / salut(e) et redit(u) et victor(ia) Imp(eratoris). Discussion: The sacrifices of the taurobolium made for the safety, return and victory of an unidentified Imperator. CIL 14.109: Pro salute [3] / M(arci) Aur(eli) Commodi / Antonini Aug(usti) [3] / M(arcus) Aur(elius) Aug(usti). Discussion: For the safety of Commodus and Marcus Aurelius (?). Date: c.176-192 CE.

139 ALEX A. ANTONIOU CIL 14.4303: pro salu[te et] / [r]edit(u) et victo[ria] / [[6]] / Pii Felic(is) Aug(usti) et [[3]] / [[3]] Aug(usti) nostri tot[iusque] / domus divina. Discussion: The sacrifices of the taurobolium made for the safety and return of (?) and the whole divine house. CIL 14.4378: Pro salute Imp(eratoris) Com[m]odi Antonin[i Augusti]. Discussion: For the safety of Commodus. Date: 192 CE. CIL 14.4389: [Pro sa]lut et Vi[ctoria Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) M(arci) Aur]eli [Antonini Aug(usti)]. Discussion: For the safety and victory of Caracalla Date: 212-214 CE. CIMRM-01, 273: Pr(o) sal(ute) Augg(ustorum). Discussion: For the safety of two Augusti.

D. SACRUM DEDICATION CIL 14.4334: Au[gusto(?) 3] / [3] sacrum.

E. NUMEN

CIL 14.4316: Numini. Discussion: Potentially numen Augusti. Literature: Meiggs, Ostia, 380. CIL 14.4319: Numini / domus / Augusti. Discussion: To the domus Augusti, from two slaves and a freedman of the imperial house. Date: During the reign of Trajan, or afterwards. Literature: Meiggs, Ostia, 380. CIL 14.4320: Numini domus Aug(ustae). AE 1948, 28: Numini Dom(inae) / Aug(ustae) sacr(um).

F. COLLEGIAL TEMPLES (1) Augusteum in the Castrum Vigiles. CIL 14.4381: restitutori castrorum / Ostiensium. CIL 14.4387: restitutori / castrorum Ostiensium. Discussion: Augusteum at the western end of the peristyle (Plates 8 & 9). A mosaic in the vestibule represents soldiers (likely vigiles) sacrificing bulls to the living emperor (Plate 10). In the sacellum and courtyard were the altars and statue bases listed below. Date: Augusteum likely from the Hadrianic rebuilding of the castrum.

140 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY Literature: Taylor, Cults of Ostia, 48-49; Meiggs, Ostia, 306; Rainbird, “Fire Stations,” 148; von Hesberg, “Archäologische Denkmäler zum Römischen Kaiserkult,” 924-25; Baillie Reynolds, Vigiles of Imperial Rome, 117-19; Carcopino, “La Mosaïque de la Caserne des Vigiles.” CIL 14.4357: Imp(eratori) Caesari divi / Hadriani… Discussion: Statue base to Antoninus Pius. Date: 138 CE. CIL 14.4366: M(arco) Aurelio Caesari / Imp(eratoris) Caesaris T(iti) Aeli Hadriani / Antonini Augusti… Discussion: Statue base to Marcus Aurelius, before he was emperor. Date: 140 CE. CIL 14.4368: Imp(eratori) Caesari … M(arco) Aurelio Antonino Aug(usto)… Discussion: Altar to Marcus Aurelius, as emperor. Date: 162 CE. CIL 14.4376: Imp(eratori) Caesari …L(uci) Aurelio Vero Aug(usto)… Discussion: Altar to Lucius Verus. Date: 162 CE. CIL 14.4380: Imp(eratori) L(ucio) Septimio Se/vero Pertinaci / Caesari Aug(usto)… Discussion: Altar to Septimius Severus. Date: 195 CE. CIL 14.4356: L(ucio) Aelio Caesari / Imp(eratoris) Traiani Hadriani / Aug(usti) … Discussion: Statue base to Lucius Aelius Caesar. Date: 137 CE. CIL 14.4381: Imp(eratori) Caesari / L(ucio) Septimio Severo / Pio Pertinaci Aug(usto) … Discussion: Dedication in courtyard to Septimius Severus. CIL 14.4387: Imp(eratori) Caesari / M(arco) Aurelio Antonino / Pio Aug(usto)… Discussion: Dedication in courtyard to Septimius Severus and Caracalla. CIL 14.4388: Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) M(arco) A[ur]elio / Antonino Pio Aug(usto) … Discussion: Dedication in courtyard to Caracalla.

141 ALEX A. ANTONIOU CIL 14.4386: Iuliae / Aug(ustae) / matri Aug[[g(ustorum)]]«usti» / et astrorum /… Discussion: Dedication in courtyard to Julia Domna. CIL 14.4393: M(arco) [[Opellio]] / Antonino / [[Diadumeniano]] / nobilissimo Caes(ari) / principi iuventutis / Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) M(arci) [[Opelli]] Severi / [[Macrini]] Pii Felicis Aug(usti)… Discussion: Dedication in courtyard to Diadumenianus. CIL 14.4397: Domino n(ostro) invictissimo / et super omnes / fortissimo Imp(eratori) / Caes(ari) M(arco) Antonio / Gordiano / Pio Felici Invicto Aug(usto) … Discussion: Dedication in courtyard to Gordian III. CIL 14.4398: Furiae Sabiniae / Tranquillinae / sanctissimae Aug(ustae) / coniugi domini n(ostri) / Gordiani Aug(usti) / … Discussion: Dedication in courtyard to Furia Sabina. CIL 14.4396: An] [3] / [3 A]ug(usti) max[imi(?) principis(?) 3] / [3] Aug[ Discussion: Dedication in courtyard to unidentified imperial. (2) Temple of divus Pertinax of the fabri tignarii. CIL 14, 4365 + CIL 14.4382: Divo Pio [P]ertinaci Au[g(usto) patri] / colleg(ium) fabr(um) [[[tignu]ar(iorum) O[st(iensium)]]]. Discussion: Collegial temple to divus Pertinax. Date: 194 CE. Literature: Zevi, “Il Tempio del Collegio dei Fabri Tignuarii,” 472; Stambaugh, “Functions of Roman Temples,” 591. (3) Shrine of the Lares at the Praedia Rusticeliana of the collegium of ferrymen (corpus traiectus Rusticeli). CIL 14.4570: cultorib(us) Larum et imaginum / dominorum nostrorum / Invictissimorum Augustor(um) / praediorum Rusticelianorum. Discussion: Cult to the Lares and imperial imagines (likely Septimius Severus and Caracalla) on festival days, principally imperial birthdays. Members of the corpus traiectus Rusticeli dedicate statues and imagines, see inscriptions below. Date: 205 CE. Literature: Laird, Civic Monuments, 88-89; Fishwick, “Liturgy and Ceremonial,” 537-38.

142 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY CIL 14.4553: L(ucio) Aelio Aurelio Co[m]/modo Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) T(iti) Ae[li] / Hadriani Antonini Au[g(usti)] … fac(iundis) corpori traiect(us) Ru[stic(eli)]. CIL 14.4554: [im]ag(inem?)…[corp(ori) t]raiectus / [Rusti]celi. CIL 14.4555: [co]rp(ori) traie[ct(us) Rustic(eli)] / [imag(inem?). CIL 14.4556: [Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris)] / [M(arci) Au]reli Antonin[i] / [Au]gusti … [corp(ori) tr]aiect(us) Rustic(eli) / [imag(inem?)]. AE 1940, 62: statuam Verissimi Caesaris cum Victoria{m} acrolitha{m}/ imaginem argentam….imaginem Antonini Aug(usti)…imaginem Aeli Caesaris...imaginem Veerissimi Caesar(is)… imag(inem) arg(enteam) Antonini Augusti… imag(inem) arg(enteam) Verissimi Caes(aris)…statuam acrolitham L(uci) Aeli / Commodi…//…statua(m) aerea(m) Antonini/ Aug(usti)…imag(inem) arg(enteam) Antonini [Aug(usti)]/…

G. LARES AUGUSTI AE 1964, 151: Laribus Augustis s[ac(rum)]. Discussion: Bloch associated this with an aedicula dedicated to the Lares Augusti in Ostia’s forum, an opinion now repudiated. Literature: Bloch, “Monument of Lares Augusti,” 214; Beard, North and Price, Religions of Rome, 1:355; Schmölder, “Le Ravitaillement en Eau,” 104, n.47. AE 1964, 155: Laribus A[ugustis sacrum]. CIL 14.26: [aedic]ulam Larum Au[g(ustalium)]. CIL 14.367: immuni Larum Aug(usti). CIL 14.4570: see Cat. 22F(3).

23. POMPEII

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE Augusteum. Discussion: On E. side of forum. It should be considered an Augusteum, not the Temple of Vespasian, or Temple to the Genius Augusti. Inscription of Pompeian priestess Mamia (CIL 10.816) not associated with this building. Date: Augustan, based on construction style. Literature: Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 134; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 80-81; Gradel, “Mamia’s Dedication,” 43-49; Fishwick, “Liturgy and Ceremonial,” 511; Richardson Jr., Pompeii, 191, 194, 379; Dobbins, “Chronology, Decoration, and Urban Design,” 632, 662-63; Ball and

143 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Dobbins, “Current Thinking on the Pompeii Forum,” 486, n. 135; Laird, “Seviri Augustales at Ostia,” 71, n.61; Maiuri, Pompeii, 36; Mau, Pompeii, 106-8; Dobbins, “Imperial Cult Building,” 102; Zanker, Power of Images, 320.

B. MUNICIPAL ALTAR Discussion: In situ, in forecourt of Augusteum (Cat. 23A). Plate 3. Date: Stylistically Augustan. Literature: Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 133; von Hesberg, “Archäologische Denkmäler zum Römischen Kaiserkult,” 923, no. 7; Kockel, “Archäologische Funde und Forschungen in den Vesuvstädten,” 457; Ball and Dobbins, “Current Thinking on the Pompeii Forum,” 486, n.135; Ryberg, Rites of the State Religion, 83-84; Hano, “Les Autels des Lares Augusti,” 2350-51, 2374-75.

C. PRIESTHOODS

Literature: Gradel, Emperor Worship, app. 3; Lomas, Roman Italy, 211; Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 122; Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 422; Small, “Macellum at Pompeii,” 130; Wallace, Wall Inscriptions from Pompeii and Herculaneum, 23, 25-27, 30. CIL 10.837: Augusti sacerdoti. CIL 10.838: flamini Aug(usti). CIL 10.830: Augusti Caesaris sacerd(oti). CIL 10.947: flamini Caes[ris Aug(usti)]. CIL 10.840: Augusti sacerdoti. CIL 10.944: Aug[usti sacerdoti]. CIL 10.943: [Augus]ti [sacerd(oti?)]. CIL 4.3882: flaminis Augustalis. CIL 4.3884: flaminis Neronis Caesaris Aug(usti) fil(i). CIL 4.1180: flami[nis] Caesaris Augusti. CIL 4.1185: flaminis Neronis Aug(usti). CIL 4.7992: flaminis [Neronis] Caesaris. CIL 4.7996: flamini/ Neronis Ca[esaris]. CIL 4.7995: flaminis [[Neronis]] Caesaris Augusti f(ilii) perpetui. CIL 10.961: [sace]rdoti Iu[liae Au]g(ustae). Discussion: Priesthood to Agrippina Minor.

144 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 422; Hemelrijk, “Priestesses: Titles and Function,” 133; Small, “Macellum at Pompeii,” 130. CIL 10.945: sacerdoti divi Augusti. CIL 10.946: sacerdoti div[i Aug(usti?)]. Discussion: Same Marcus Holconius Celer as CIL 10.945, 10.840, 10.944.

D. PRO SALUTE

CIL 4.1180: Pro salute / [Imp(eratoris) Vespasiani] Caesaris Augu[sti] li[b]e[ro]rumqu[e]. Discussion: Altar dedicated for safety of Vespasian. Date: 69-79 CE. CIL 4.1196: Pro salute domus Aug(ustae). Discussion: For the safety of the house of Augustus. Date: pre-79 CE. CIL 4.7989a: Pro salute / Neronis Claudi Caesaris Aug(usti) Germanici. Discussion: For the safety of Nero. Date: 54-68 CE. CIL 4.7988b-c: Pro salute Neron]is. Discussion: For the safety of Nero. Date: 54-68 CE. CIL 4.9964: Pro [salute domu]s Au[gustae. Discussion: For the safety of the house of Augustus. Date: pre-79 CE CIL 4.9969: pro sal[ute Cae]sarum et Liviae Aug(ustae). Discussion: For the safety of Caesar and Livia Augusta. Date: pre-42 CE CIL 10.796: pro salute [C(ai) Ca]esaris Augusti / Germani[ci I]mp(eratoris). Discussion: To Iuppiter Optimus Maximus for the safety of Caligula. Date: 37-41 CE.

PORTANOLA P 73: Pro salute {Cae} Caesaris / Auigusti.

E. SACRUM DEDICATION CIL 10.862: Augusto s[acrum].

F. NUMEN

CIL 4.3882: Numini / Augusti. Discussion: Gladiatorial games dedicated to numen of Augustus. Date: 27 BCE-14 CE.

145 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Literature: Wallace, Wall Inscriptions from Pompeii and Herculaneum, 22- 23; Fishwick, 3.1:234.

G. LARES AUGUSTI CIL 4.8282: Lares Augustos.

24. PRAENESTE

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 14.2922: flam(ini) divi Aug(usti). Literature: Agnoli, “Palestrina: Il Cosiddetto Macellum,” 163-66.

CIL 14.2972: flamini divi Aug(usti). Literature: Kajava, “Religion in Rome and Italy,” 407.

AE 1998, 286: fl(amini) divi Aug(usti).

CIL 14.2995: [flamen] / divi Aug(usti) Neronis [Caesaris].

Discussion: Confusion about which Julio-Claudian this priesthood is devoted to. Either divus Augustus, Nero, Claudius, or Nero Julius Caesar, son of .

Literature: Gradel, Emperor Worship, app. 3; Houston, “Nonius Flaccus,” 238; Ensslin, “Praefectus Iure Dicundo,” 1320; Krumme, “Isis in Praeneste,” 161, n.38; Boatwright, “Hadrian and Italian Cities,” 120.

CIL 14.2989: flamin(i)/ divi Aug(usti).

CIL 14.3014: flamini divi Aug(usti).

CIL 14.2964: flamen/ II[vir]/ [divi Au]gusti.

B. PRO SALUTE CIL 14.2854: P]ro salut(e) / C(ai) Caesaris / Aug(usti) Germ(anici) / et reditu. Discussion: For the safety and return of Caligula. Date: 37-41 CE.

C. SACRUM DEDICATION

AGNOLI-01, P 243: Divo Aug(usto) sacrum. Literature: Notarian, “Civic Transformation in Early Imperial Latium,” 182.

25. PUTEOLI

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 10.1806: flam(ini) divi Aug(usti).

CIL 6.32929: flam(en) divi Aug(usti). Discussion: Although findspot was Rome, priesthood undertaken in Puteoli. Literature: D’Arms, “Puteoli in the Second Century,” 122.

B. SACRED GAMES

146 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY CIL 10.1574: [[Neroni]] Claudio / Caesari August(o) et / [[Agrippinae]] Augustae / I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(axiom) et Genio coloniae / ludos fecer(unt).

C. PRO SALUTE AE 1956, 144: [pro salute Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) M(arci) Aureli An]tonini [Pii F]elicis Aug(usti) e[t Iu]liae Aug(ustae) matri(s) Au[g(usti) et castr(orum)] / [et senatus et totius do]mus divin[ae. Discussion: To Venus Caelestis, for the safety of Caracalla, Julia Domna, the senate and the whole divine house. Date: 211-217 CE. CIL 10.1632: pr[o salute] / [I]mp(eratoris) Domitian[i divi f(ilii)] / [Caes(aris) Augusti] Germ(anici) et [Domitiae Aug(ustae)] / [Domitiani A]ug(usti) et Iulia[e Augustae] / [totiusque domus] divinae. Discussion: For the safety of Domitian, Domitia and the whole divine house. Date: 81-96 CE. CIL 10.1594: Voto suscepto pro salute / Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) M(arci) Aurelii Antonini / Aug(usti) Pii Felicis. Discussion: For the safety of Marcus Aurelius Date: 161-180 CE. CIL 10.1562: Pro salute / Imp(eratoris) Caesaris Titi Aelii / Hadriani Antonini Aug(usti) Pii p(atris) p(atriae) et / M(arci) Ali Aureli Caesaris. Discussion: For the safety of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. Date: 139-161 CE. CIL 10.1690: Pro felicitate dominorum / Augustorumque / nostrorum. Discussion: For the happiness of our masters, the Augusti. Date: 394-395 CE. CIL 10.1567: Pro salute et Victoria Augustorum. Discussion: For the safety and victory of the Augusti.

D. SACRUM DEDICATIONS CIL 10.1615: Aug(usto) sacr(um). CIL 10.1616: Aug(usto) sacr(um). CIL 10.1598: Aug(usto) sac(rum). CIL 10.8178: Aug(usti) sacr(um).

E. NUMEN

AE 1969/70, 107: d(evotus) N(umini) m(aiestati)q(ue) / eius. Discussion: Devoted to the numen and maiestas of Constantine I.

147 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Date: 306-337 CE. AE 1969/70, 108: devotus numini maiestati[q(ue)] / eius. Discussion: Devoted to numen and maiestas of Flavius Iulius , the only son of Constantine to suffer damnatio. Date: 334-335 CE.

F. LARES AUGUSTI CIL 10.1581: L]arib(us) Aug[ustis]… sacr[um]. CIL 10.1582: Lares Augustos.

G. GENIUS

CIL 10.1561: Genio Caesarum / Diognetus vilic(us) fec(it). Literature: Gradel, Emperor Worship, app. 2.

26.

A. GENIUS AE 1984, 186: [Aug(usti?)] n(ostri?) Geni[o] . Literature: Gradel, Emperor Worship, app. 2.

B. SACRUM DEDICATION AE 1922, 120: Caes(ari) Aug(usto) sac(rum).

27. SURRENTUM

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 10.688: flamini Romae Ti(beri) Ca[es(aris) Aug(usti)]. Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 346; Gradel, Emperor Worship, app. 3; Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 122.

28. TARRACINA

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLES (1) Temple to Roma and Augustus. CIL 10.6305: Romae et Augusto Caesari divi [f(ilio)]. Discussion: Constructed by Aulus Aemilius. Date: Augustan, given construction by Aulus Aemilius, see CIL 10.6305, 10.6343, 10.6306. Literature: Lomas, “Urban Renewal and Euergetism,” 7; Mellor, “Goddess Roma,” 984, 1002; Zanker, Power of Images, 310; Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 140; Coarelli, , 314-15; Lugli, Forma Italiae. Anxur- Tarracina, 77-83. (2) Sacred Space devoted to Living Tiberius and Deified Livia.

148 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY CIL 10.6309: [Ti(berio) C]aesari divi Aug(usti) f(ilio) Augusto divae Augus[tae]… Discussion: Pompeia Quinta left money in her will for its restoration (refici). Date: Tiberian. Literature: Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 140; Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 454.

B. SACRUM DEDICATION CIL 10.6304: [Conservatori dd(ominorum)] / nn(ostrorum) Augg(ustorum) sacr(um).

29. TREBULA SUFFENAS

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 14.3500: flamen Augusta[lis].

B. SACRUM DEDICATION AE 1990, 274: Di[v]o Aug(usto) / sacr(um) Date: First half of first century CE. Literature: Buonocore, “Le Iscrizioni ad Augusto,” 65.

C. COLLEGIAL ENGAGEMENT Organisation of freedmen, likely a collegium AE 1972, 154: [Cae]sarum imagines Caesarum et scholam... Discussion: Dedication of imagines Caesarum (those of Augustus and Tiberius, not Gaius and Lucius Caesar) from collected funds of the college, with the distribution of crustulum and mulsum to the populis (not whole population, but uninitiated college members).707 Date: Dedication made on 23rd or 24th of July, 14 CE. Literature: Fishwick, “Augustales and Imperial Cult,” 614.

D. LARES AUGUSTI AE 1990, 272: Laribus August[is].

30. TUSCULUM

A. NUMEN

CIL 14.2596: nu/mini praesenti. Discussion: To numen of Caracalla. Date: 216 CE.

707 For populis used in collegiate inscriptions, see Patterson, “Collegia and Transformation of the Towns of Italy,” 234.

149 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Literature: Várhelyi, Religion of Senators, 113; Fishwick, “Sanctissimum Numen: Emperor or God?,” 197-98; Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 1:110. AE 1900, 133: d(evotus) n(umini) m(aiestati)q(ue) eius. Discussion: Devoted to numen and maiestas of Maximian. Difficulties with restoring text, given successive erasures. Date: 286-308 CE. Literature: Ashby, Classical Topography of Roman Campagna,” 256-58.

B. LARES AUGUSTI AE 1906, 79: Aediculam Larum Augustorum. Literature: Lomas, “Roman Imperialism,” 70; Lomas, “Urban Renewal and Euergetism,” 32.

31. ULUBRAE

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE Aedes to Roma and Augustus. CIL 10.6485: Aedem Ro[mae et]/ Augu[st(i)]. Discussion: Ordo of Ulubrae restored aedes in 132 CE. Date: Julio-Claudian (?). Proposed on basis of vetustate d[ilapsam] of aedes in 132 CE. Thomas and Witschel maintain we must be cautious securely dating buildings based on these kinds of reconstruction inscriptions.708 Literature: Mellor, “Goddess Roma,” 1002.

B. PRO SALUTE

CIL 10.6482: pro salute Imp(eratoris) Caesaris / Nervae Traiani Aug(usti) Ger(manici) Dac(ici). Discussion: For the safety of Trajan. Potentially dedicated at Tarracina (It. 1), given connection with Jupiter Anxur of Tarracina. Date: 102-116 CE. Literature: Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 2.1:13; Harvey Jr., “Religion and Memory at Pisaurum,” 134. CIL 10.6483: Pro salute et red[itu] / Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) Traiani Hadri[ani]. Discussion: For the safety and return of Hadrian. Potentially dedicated at Tarracina (It. 1), given connection with Jupiter Anxur of Tarracina. Date: 117-138 CE.

708 Thomas and Witschel, “Constructing Reconstruction.”

150 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY Literature: Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 2.1:13; Harvey Jr., “Religion and Memory at Pisaurum,” 134.

32. VENAFRUM

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 10.4868: flamini /Augustali. Discussion: Priesthood to Tiberius. Literature: Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 122; Lomas, Roman Italy, 211.

CIL 10.4873: flamini divi Traiani.

B. PRO SALUTE + SACRED GAMES CIL 10.4893: voto suscepto pro / salute perpetua domus / August(ae) cum edidisset / munus gladiatorium... Discussion: Votive for the perpetual safety of the house of the Augusta dedicating gladiatorial games.

33. VICUS AUGUSTANUS LAURENTIUM

A. LARES AUGUSTI CIL 14.2041: [Lar]ibus Aug(usti) [s]acr(um).

151 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

REGION II

34. AECLANUM

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 9.1123: flam(ini) Claud(iali).

AE 1997, 397: flaminica Agrippinae Aug(ustae). Discussion: Priesthood to Agrippina Minor. Literature: Hemelrijk, “Priestesses: Titles and Function,” 153, 166; Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 422; Chelotti, “I Sacerdozi nella Regio Seconda Augustea,” 123.

CIL 9.1154: sacerd(oti) / Augustae. Literature: Hemelrijk, “Priestesses: Benefactions and Public Honour,” 112; Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 419; Chelotti, “I Sacerdozi nella Regio Seconda Augustea,” 122-23.

CIL 9.1163: flam(inicae)/ Faustinae Aug(ustae). Discussion: Priesthood to Faustina the Younger. Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 429; Boatwright, “Hadrian and Italian Cities,” 240.

AE 1997, 397: flamen divi Aug(usti). Literature: Hemelrijk, “Priestesses: Titles and Function,” 166; Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 422.

CIL 9.1153: flam(inicae)/div[ae] Iuliae Piae / [A]u[g(ustae). Discussion: Priesthood to Diva Iulia, daughter of Titus. Literature: Hemelrijk, “Priestesses: Benefactions and Public Honour,” 104; Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 418; Chelotti, “I Sacerdozi nella Regio Seconda Augustea,” 122-23; Mucznik, “Roman Priestesses: Metilia Acte,” 71; Hekster, “Honouring Ancestors,” 105.

CIL 9.1155: flam(inicae) divae/ Augustae. Discussion: Same woman as CIL 9.1154. Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 419; Chelotti, “I Sacerdozi nella Regio Seconda Augustea,” 122-23.

CIL 9.1160: flamini divi Hadrian.

B. NUMEN CIL 9.1115: d(evotus) n(umini) m(aiestati)q(ue) eius. Discussion: Devotion to numen and maiestas of Constantine I. Date: 317-324 CE.

152 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY Literature: Smith and Ward Perkins, The Last Statues of Antiquity, 346.

35. BENEVENTUM

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE Caesareum CIL 9.1556: Caesareum Imp(eratori) Caesari Augusto. Discussion: Dedicated by Publius Veidius Pollio, friend of Augustus (Cass. Dio 54.23; Seneca, De Ira 3.40; Seneca, De 1.18; Pliny, HN. 9.39; , De Pallio 5). Date: Terminus ante quem 15 BCE, given Publius Veidius Pollio’s death. Literature: Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 141-42; Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 119-20; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 82-83; Lomas, “Roman Imperialism,” 93.

B. NUMEN CIL 9.1566: Numini eius maiestatiq(ue) / devo[t(us)]. Discussion: Devotion to numen and maiestas of . Traditional restoration of divo Valeriano, corrupted. Domino nostro Valentiniano restoration preferred. Date: 364-375 CE.

36. HERDONIA

A. PRIESTHOOD

AE 1967, 94: sacerdoti / [[[Iuliae(?)]]]/ [[[Mamaeae(?)]]] Aug(ustae?) Discussion: Likely this priesthood is to Julia Mamaea. Literature: Hemelrijk, “Priestesses: Benefactions and Public Honour,” 116; Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 416.

B. STATUES OF DIVINISED EMPERORS. CIL 9.687: Divo / Aug(usto). AE 1967, 90: Divo / Severo / Aug(usto).

C. NUMEN CIL 9.692: d(evotus) n(umini) m(aiestati)que eius. Discussion: Devotion to numen and maiestas of Maximinus Daia. Date: 305-307 CE.

37. VENUSIA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 9.652: flam(ini) Ti(beri) Caesaris/ Aug(usti).

B. NUMEN

153 ALEX A. ANTONIOU AE 1995, 347: d(evotus) n(umini) m(aiestati)q(ue) e(ius)]. Discussion: Devotion to numen and maiestas of . Date: 309-312 CE. AE 1995, 348: numin]i maiesta[tiq(ue) eius devotus]. Discussion: Devotion to numen and maiestas of Constantine I. Date: 317-324 CE.

C. LARES AUGUSTI CIL 9.423: [L]arib(us) Aug(ustis).

38. VIBINUM

A. LARES AUGUSTI AE 1992, 302: [Laribus]/ Augusti{i}s/ sacrum. Discussion: Restoration of [Laribus] while likely, has been asserted on the incorrect basis that the *Augustales were responsible for the worship of the Lares Augusti. Literature: Gregori, “Il Culto delle Divinità Auguste”, 324; Silvestrini, “Una Nuova Iscrizione per i Lari Augusti,” 153-54.

154 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY

REGION III

39. ATINA

A. PRIESTHOOD

AE 1910, 191: sacerd(os) Iuliae/ Augustae. Discussion: Priesthood to Livia(?). Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 425.

B. GENIUS CIL 10.378: Genio / Aug(usto). Literature: Gregori, “Il Culto delle Divinità Auguste”, 327.

40. COSILINUM

A. LARES AUGUSTI

INSCRIT-03-01, 224: Laribus Augustis.

41. FORUM POPILII

A. PRIESTHOOD

AE 1910, 191: sacerd(os) Iuliae/ Augustae. Discussion: To Livia (?) Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 425.

42. GRUMENTUM

A. LARES AUGUSTI CIL 10.205: minist(er) Lar(um) Aug(ustorum).

43. PAESTUM

A. PRIESTHOOD

BURNETT, AMANDRY, RIPOLLÈS NS. 610-612: Flamen Tiberi Caesaris.

AE 1975, 257: flam(ini)/Imp(eratoris) []ni Caesa/[ris Aug(usti)].

Discussion: Priesthoods to Commodus. Literature: Demougin, “À Propos Des Élites Locales en Italie”, 368.

AE 1975, 251: [fla]men divi Cl[audi]. AE 1975, 256: [flam(ini) per]/petuo divi M(arci) Anton[ini].

44. PETELIA

A. LARES AUGUSTI EE-08-01, 259d: [La]rib(us?) Aug(ustis?).

45. POTENTIA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 10.131: flamen/ Romae et divi Augusti.

B. LARES AUGUSTI

155 ALEX A. ANTONIOU CIL 10.137: ministri Larum/ Augg(ustorum).

46. VIBO

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 10.51: sacerd(oti) Aug(ustae). Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 427; Gradel, Emperor Worship, app. 3.

47. VOLCEI

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE Caesareum. CIL 10.415: Caesareum / [vetustate] conlapsum… Discussion: Restoration/rebuilding of Caesareum by Octacilius Gallus, mid- second century CE (?). Date: Augustan. Literature: Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 143.

B. PRIESTHOOD AE 1910, 191: sacerd(os) Iuliae/ Augustae. Discussion: Priesthood likely to be Livia. Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 425.

CIL 10.413: flamini divi Vesp(asiani).

CIL 10.416: flam(ini) perpetuo/ divi Hadriani.

156 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY

REGION IV

48. AESERNIA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 9.2648: flamini Augustali.

AE 1975, 349: flam(ini) d(ivi) Aug(usti). Literature: Rüpke, Fasti Sacerdotum, 238; Jacques, Les Curateurs des Cités dans l’Occident Romain, 238.

CIL 9.2649: flamini divi Traiani.

49.

A. PRO SALUTE

AE 2013, 397: Pro salute(?)] / [I]mp(eratoris) Caes(aris) [M(arci)] / Aureli S[ev]/eri Alex[and]/ri Pii Fel[icis] / Aug(usti). Discussion: For the safety of Severus Alexander. Date: 222-235 CE.

B. LARES AUGUSTI CIL 9.3960: cultores/ Laru(m) Aug(ustorum).

50. AMITERNUM

A. LARES AUGUSTI AE 1992, 364: [Laribu]s(?) Aug[(ustis)]. Discussion: Restoration queried. Literature: Gregori, “Il Culto delle Divinità Auguste”, 320.

B. EX-VOTOS CIL 9.4334: [Iuliae Augustae] / [divi Augusti] // [T]i(berio) Caesari divi / [Au]gusti f(ilio) August[o] // [C(aius) Norban]us Flaccus / [dono dedicavit(?) e]x voto suscep[to]. Discussion: Dedication made by Flaccus, a senator. Literature: Várhelyi, Religion of Senators, 112. CIL 9.4334: [Iuliae Augustae] / [divi Augusti] // [T]i(berio) Caesari divi / [Au]gusti f(ilio) August[o] // [C(aius) Norban]us Flaccus / [dono dedicavit(?) e]x voto suscep[to]. Discussion: Dedication made by Flaccus, a senator. Literature: Várhelyi, Religion of Senators, 112.

51. AUFINUM

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 9.3384: flam(ini) divi/ Aug(usti).

157 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

CIL 9.3385: flamini divi Aug(usti).

52. AVEIA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 9.3613: [flam(ini)] Aug(ustali).

B. PRO SALUTE

CIL 9.3607: [P]ro salut[e] Ti(beri) Cae[saris]. Discussion: For the safety of Tiberius (?).

53. CORFINIUM

A. PRIESTHOOD

AE 1988, 422: [flaminica] / Iuliae Augustae. Discussion: Priesthood to Livia. Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 352.

AE 1961, 109: flamini divi / Augusti.

54. CURES SABINI

A. PRO SALUTE

CIL 9.4952: Pro salute Imperat(oris) / Hadriani Aug(usti). Discussion: For the safety of Hadrian. Date: 117-138 CE.

B. NUMEN CIL 9.4961: devoti nu[mini eius]. Discussion: Devotion to numen of Cornelia Salonina. Date: 253-268 CE. CIL 9.4962: d(evotus) n(umini) m(aiestati)q(ue) e(ius). Discussion: Devotion to numen and maiestas of . Date: 305-306 CE. CIL 9.4963: d(evotus) n(umini) m(aiestati)q(ue) e(ius). Discussion: Devotion to numen and maiestas of an unidentified imperator.

55. FURFO

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 9.3522: flam(en) Aug(ustalis).

56. FORUM NOVUM

A. NUMEN CIL 9.4780: n(umini) m(aiestati)q(ue) e(ius). Discussion: To the numen and maiestas of one of the Gordians (I, II, or III).

57. HISTONIUM

158 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 9.2853: [flamini di]vi Hadriani.

CIL 9.2855: flamini divi / Vespasiani.

B. PRO SALUTE + SACRED DEDICATION

CIL 9.2836: pr(o) s(alute) Impp(eratorum) / sacrum Discussion: To Iuppiter Optimus Maximus for the safety of two .

C. NUMEN AE 2004, 460: [Numini domus] Aug(ustae). Date: End of the second century CE, or the beginning of the third century CE.

D. LARES AUGUSTI CIL 9.2835: Larum August(orum) mag(ister).

58. LARINUM

A. PRIESTHOOD

AE 1997, 343: sacerdos divae / [Augustae].

AE 1991, 514A: sacerdoti divae Augustae. Discussion: Priesthood to Livia as diva. Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 421; Chelotti, “I Sacerdozi nella Regio Seconda Augustea,” 121.

CIL 9.731: f[lam(en) divi] Titi.

59. NURSIA

A. PRO SALUTE

CIL 9.4538: [pro sal(ute) Imp(eratoris) Antonini Aug(usti)] / et Faustinae [Aug(ustae). Discussion: To Jupiter Feretrius for the safety of Antoninus Pius and Faustina. Date: 138-140 CE.

60. PELTUINUM

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 9.3434: fl(amini)/ Aug(ustali).

CIL 9.3437: flaminali Aug(ustali). Literature: Segenni, “Aspetti e Problemi Della Prassi Amministrativa Nella Regio IV,” 229.

61. PINNA VESTINA

A. PRIESTHOOD

AE 1992, 336: sacerdoti diva[e]/ Drusillae.

159 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Discussion: Priesthood to Drusilla, Claudius’ sister, as diva.

Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 427.

AE 2009, 284: [Di]vae Poppaeae [Augustae]…[sacerd]os eius. Discussion: Priesthood to Poppaea, wife of Nero, as diva.

Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 412. AE 2009, 280: [flam]en divi. Discussion: Likely a priesthood to a divus.

62. REATE

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 9.4686: flamini Augustali. Discussion: Priesthood to Commodus. Literature: Rüpke, Fasti Sacerdotum, 1185; Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 122.

63. SUPERAEQUUM

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE Temple to Roma and Augustus. AE 1898, 79: [ad templum] / Romae et Augusti Ca[es(aris)]. Discussion: Quintus Octavius Sagitta rebuilt road leading to temple. Date: Augustan. Literature: Mellor, “Goddess Roma,” 1003; Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 145; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 82.

64. TEATRE MARRUCINORUM

A. PRO SALUTE CIL 9.3014: Pro salute / Imp(eratoris) Maxi[min]i Aug(usti) et / M[aximi] Caes(aris). Discussion: For the safety of Maximinus. Date: 235-238 CE.

65. TERVENTUM

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE Templum to divus Augustus. CIL 9.2595: tem[pli divi] / Augu[s]ti. Discussion: Although divus is restored, seems likely. Date: Post-Augustan. Literature: Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 145.

B. PRIESTHOOD

160 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY CIL 9.2600: flaminis / divi Vespasiani. CIL 9.2600: flamen divi Traiani. AE 2010, 381: flam[i]ni divi Nervae.

66. TIBUR

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 14.3590: flam(en) August(alis)…flam(en) Aug(ustalis).

B. PRO SALUTE CIL 14.3551: [Pro] salute / [domus?] Augustae. Discussion: To Hercules Victor, for the safety of the house of the Augusta. AE 1922, 78: Pro salute et reditu Caesaris A[ugusti]. Discussion: For the safety and return of Caesar Augustus.

C. SACRUM DEDICATION CIL 14.3576: [Di]vae Drusillae / sacrum. Discussion: Rare dedication to emperor worship from senator. Literature: Várhelyi, Religion of Senators, 133.

D. CULTORES AND LARES AUGUSTI CIL 14.3561: cur(atores)/ cultoribus domus divinae / et Fortunae Aug(ustae) Lares/ Augustos.

161 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

REGION V

67. ASCULUM PICENUM

A. LARES AUGUSTI CIL 9.5180: [L]aribus/ Augustis.

68. AUXIMUM

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 9.5841: flamina August(arum).

69. CASTRUM TRUENTINUM

A. CULTORES ILS 7215: cultoribus/ imaginum Caesaris.

70. FALERIO PICENUS

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 9.5441: flamini August[i].

CIL 9.5428: sacerdos divae Fau[sti]/nae.

Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 415; Hemelrijk, “Priestesses: Benefactions and Public Honour,” 112, 114; Várhelyi, Religion of Senators, 114.

71. FIRMUM PICENUM

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE Augusteum. AE 1975, 354: Augusteo dedicato. Discussion: Dedicated by Quintus Terentius Senecio Fannianus. Date: Julio-Claudian. Literature: Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 146; Keppie, Colonisation and Veteran Settlement, 133; Gasperini, “L’Augusteo di Firmo Piceno,” 82- 86; Marengo, “Aspetti del Culto Imperiale in Area Medioadriatica,” 151.

B. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 9.5375: [flamen di]vi Aug(usti).

AE 1975, 353: flamini divi Aug(usti) et divi / Iuli et divi Claudi.

CIL 9.5357: flamini divor(um) / omnium.

CIL 9.5362: flamini divor(um) / omnium.

CIL 9.5363: flamini divorum / omnium.

CIL 9.5365: flam(ini) divor(um) omn(ium). Literature: Gasperini, “L’Augusteo di Firmo Piceno,” 85-86.

72. INTERAMNIA PRAETUTTIORUM

162 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 9.5068: sacerdoti / Augustar(um). Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 416; Van Abbema, “Women in Flavian Rome”, 300.

AE 1998, 416: sacerdoti Aug(ustae).

Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 430; Cenerini, “Role of Women as

Municipal Matres”, 13.

73. SAN GINESIO

A. NUMEN AE 1975, 358: d(evotus) n(umini) m(aiestati)q(ue) eius. Discussion: Devotion to numen and maiestas of Constantius II. Date: 352-361 CE.

74. SEPTEMPEDA

A. NUMEN CIL 9.5579: d(evotus) n(umini) m(aiestatique) e(ius). Discussion: Devotion to numen and maiestas of Constantius I as Caesar. Date: 293-305 CE.

163 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

REGION VI

75. CAMERINUM

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 11.5635: flamini di/vor(um) Aug(ustorum).

76. CARSULAE

A. NUMEN CIL 11.4569: [Nu]mini e[ius. Discussion: To numen of Commodus (?) or Carinus (?). Date: 211-217 CE or 283-285 CE.

77. FANUM FORTUNAE

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE Aedis Augusti. Vitr. De Architectura. 5.1.6-7: Non minus summam dignitatem et venustatem possunt habere conparationes basilicarum, quo genere Coloniae Iuliae Fanestri conlocavi curavique faciendam…ideo quod mediae duae in ea parte non sunt positae, ne inpediant aspectus pronai aedis Augusti, quae est in medio latere parietis habsilicae conlocata spectans medium forum et aedem Iovis. Discussion: Not a spurious edition by a later editor of Vitruvius. Date: Augustan. Literature: Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 120; Lomas, “Roman Imperialism,” 93; Sontheimer, Vitruvius und seine Zeit, 100-4; Krohn, Vitruvii, v-vi; Price, Rituals and Power, 143, n.27; de Maria, “L’Augusteum di Fano.”

78. FORUM SEMPRONII

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 11.407: flaminicae / sacerd(oti) divae Plotin(ae). Discussion: This woman performed this priesthood here and in Ariminum (It. 8). The inscription was found in Ariminum. Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 418; Cenerini, “Role of Women as Municipal Matres,” 10-11.

B. NUMEN AE 2005, 478: Numini Augusto / sacrum. Literature: Marengo, “Aspetti del Culto Imperiale in Area Medioadriatica,” 151, 154.

79. GIANO DELL’UMBRIA

164 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY

A. PRO SALUTE AE 1927, 107: pro reditu C[[[aesaris n(ostri)]]] // Pro redit[u] / [[[Caes]ar[is n(ostri)]]]. Discussion: Both sides, for the return of our Caesar.

80. HISPELLUM

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE + MUNICIPAL GAMES Templum to the Gens Flavia. CIL 11.5265: in qua templum Flaviae gentis...sacerdos quem anniversaria vice Umbria de/disset spectaculum tam sc(a)enicorum ludorum/ quam gladiatorii muneris exhibere(t) manente…ae/dis nostro nomini dedicata con/tagios(a)e superstitionis fraudibus polluatur…. Discussion: Worship of Constantine and entire family (living and dead). No blood sacrifice allowed by Constantine. Authority to hold sacred games in Hispellum. Date: 333-335 CE. Literature: Curran, “Constantine and the Ancient Cults of Rome,” 76; Salzman, “‘Superstitio’ in the ‘Codex Theodosianus’.” 178, 186 n.41; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 377, n.17; Potter, Constantine the Emperor, 281- 82; Van Dam, Roman Revolution of Constantine, 363-64.

B. PRIESTHOOD CIL 11.5283: pont(ifici) gentis Flaviae.

81. INTERAMNA NAHARS

A. NUMEN CIL 11.4178: devoti Numini eius. Discussion: Devotion to numen of . Date: 271 CE.

82. PISAURUM

A. SIGNA OF THE DEIFIED AUGUSTI CIL 11.6306: Valvas signum deorum Augus[torum]. Discussion: seviri and seviri Augustales paid cost of signa Deorum Augustorum and gave a banquet. Literature: Fishwick, “Augustan Gods,” 452.

83. SASSINA

A. PRIESTHOODS

CIL 11.6505: flamini Traianal(i).

165 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

CIL 11.6503: flamini Flav[iali].

AE 1980, 417: [fla]/[m]en Augu[st(i)].

CIL 11.6520: sacerdoti / divae (ae).

84. SESTINUM

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 11.6010: fla/mini divi Claudi.

85. SPOLETIUM

A. LARES AUGUSTI CIL 11.4815: compit(alibus) Larum Aug(ustorum). CIL 11.4818: compital(i)/ Lar(um) Aug(ustorum). CIL 11.4825: [compit(ali)] / Lar(um) [Aug(ustorum).

86.

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 11.6172: sacerdoti / divae Augustae.

87. TUFICUM

A. GENIUS CIL 11.8049: [Geni]o Ti(beri) Caesar[is divi Aug(usti) f(ilii) Augusti].

B. PRO SALUTE CIL 11.5716: pro [salute] / [[[I]mp(eratoris) Comm[odi] An[tonin]i]] / Aug(usti). Discussion: For the safety of Commodus. Date: 172-192 CE.

88. URVINUM MATAURENSE

A. PRO SALUTE CIL 11.6107: pro salute{m} Imp(eratori!) / M(arco) [[Iulio Philippo Fe]]lici / Aug(usto) pont(ifici) max(imo) trib(unicia) pot(estate) III / co(n)s(uli) p(atri) p(atriae) et [[M(arco) Iulio Philip]]po / nobilissimo Caes(ari) principi / iuventutis et [[M(arciae) Otaciliae]] Se/[[ver(a)e Aug(ustae)]] matri castrorum. Discussion: Sacred to Victoria for the safety of Phillip the Arab, Phillip II, and Marcia Otacilia Severa. Date: 245-246 CE.

B. NUMEN CIL 11.6051: devoti numi/ni maiestatiq(ue) eius. Discussion: To Volusianus. Date: 252 CE. CIL 11.6107: maiestatique eorum devot[i num(ini)] / maiestatique eorum.

166 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY Discussion: Devotions to the numen and maiestas of unidentified imperators.

C. CULTORES CIL 11.6070: [cultor]ibus domus/ [Aug(ustae)]. CIL 11.6071: culto[res domus Aug(ustae)].

89. VETTONA

A. PRIESTHOODS

CIL 11.5175: flami/nis Aug(ustalis).

CIL 11.7978: f[l]amini Aug(ustali).

B. NUMEN

CIL 11.5168: d(evotus) n(umini) m(aiestatique) e(ius). Discussion: Devotion to numen and maiestas of Magnia Urbica.

167 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

REGION VII

90. AD VICESIMUM

A. NUMEN CIL 11.3878: nu[mi]/ni maiestati[que] / eius. Discussion: To numen and maiestas of Aurelian. Date: 270-275 CE. NSA-1953-20: dev/[ot]i Numini maiestatique / eius. Discussion: Devotion to numen and maiestas of Gordian III. Date: 239 CE.

B. LARES AUGUSTI + GENIUS AE 1994, 624: [Genio Imp(eratoris) Cae]saris divi f(ilii) A[ugusti patris patriae] / [et Laribus A]ugust[i]s. Discussion: To genius of Imperator Caesar and Lares Augusti.

91. CAREIAE

A. NUMEN CIL 11.3774: n(umini) m(aiestati)q(ue) e(orum)]. Discussion: To numen and maiestas of Elagabalus (?) or Severus Alexander (?) and Iulia Maesa. Uncertainty from damnatio.

92. CASTRUM NOVUM

A. NUMEN

CIL 11.3576: devota / Numini maiestatique eius. Discussion: Devotion to numen and maiestas of Gallienus. Date: 256-258 CE. CIL 11.3577: devota nu/mini eius. Discussion: Devotion to numen of Cornelia Salonina. Date: 253-268 CE. CIL 11.3578: devo/ta numini {a}eiu(s). Discussion: Devotion to numen of II (Caesar). Date: 253-258 CE.

93. CLUSIUM

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 11.2116: flamini Aug(usti).

B. PRO SALUTE ZPE-68-163: Pro salu[te] / [do]m(i)norum / [nostrorum(?). Discussion: For the safety of our masters.

168 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY

C. NUMEN CIL 11.2099: d(evotus) n(umini) m(aiestatique) e(ius). Discussion: Devotion to numen and maiestas of Ulpia Severina Augusta (wife of Aurelian). Date: 270-275 CE. CIL 11.2101: d(evotus) n(umini) m(aiestatique) e(ius). Discussion: Devotion to numen and maiestas of an unidentified emperor.

94. COSA

A. PRIESTHOOD

AE 2003, 635: [flam(en?) A]ug(usti?). Discussion: For confirmation of this Lucius Titinius Glaucus Lucretianus as flamen Augusti, see CIL 11.1331, 11.6955 (Luna, It. 7), and AE 1992, 577 (Luca, It. 7). Literature: Gregori, “L. Titinius Glaucus Lucretianus”.

B. NUMEN CIL 11.2634: devota / numini maies/tatique ipsius. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Gordian III. Date: 238-244 CE. AE 1973, 235: numini maiestati/qu[e]{i} {a}eius. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of . Date: 251 CE.

95. FALERII

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 11.3098: fla[m]ini Augu[stal]i.

B. GENIUS CIL 11.3076: Genio Augusti / et Ti(beri) Caesaris. Date: 4-14 CE.

C. NUMEN CIL 11.3089: devotissimo numini [maiestatiq(ue) eorum]. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Gallienus and wife Cornelia Salonia. Date: 264-268 CE. CIL 11.3090a: [devotissimo numini maiestatique e]orum. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Cornelia Salonina. Date: 264-268 CE.

169 ALEX A. ANTONIOU CIL 11.3091: de]votus / [numini] maiesta/[tique eiu]s. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Cornelia Salonina. Date: 253-268 CE. CIL 11.3092: devo/ti numini maiestati/que eius. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Cornelia Salonina. Date: 253-268 CE. AE 1982, 272: [[dev(otus) numini maies]]/[[tatiq(ue) eius. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Cornelia Salonina. Date: 253-268 CE.

96. FERENTIUM

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE Augusteum. CIL 11.7431: Augusteum cum statuis LVII circa / porticus. Discussion: Contained 57 statues. Is not merely a portico of a civic building, but an Augusteum with its own portico. Built by Sextus Hortensius Clarius. Date: 12-17 CE on Germanicus Caesar’s titulature. Literature: Étienne, “Du Culte Impérial à Avenches,” 11; Fishwick, “Liturgy and Ceremonial,” 147; Lomas, “Roman Imperialism,” 71; Lomas, “Urban Renewal and Euergetism,” 32.

B. NUMEN CIL 11.7421: devot(i) nu[mini] / [m]aie[stati]/[qu]e [eius]. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Constantine I.

Date: 312-324 CE.

97. FLORENTIA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 11.1605: flamin(icae) Au[g(ustae)].

B. NUMEN CIL 11.1594: d(evotus) n(umini) m(aiestatique) eius. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Diocletian. Date: 287 CE.

98. FORUM CLODII

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE AND MUNICIPAL ALTAR AND GAMES AND FESTIVALS Aedicula with Altar to Numen of Augustus. CIL 11.3303: aediculam et statuas…ad aram quae Numini Augusto dedic(ata) est…populus cenarent…ut natalibus Augusti et Ti(beri) Caesarum…vino Genii

170 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY eorum ad epulandum ara / Numinis Augustis…natali Augustae mulsum et crust(u)la… Discussion: Worship of numen of Augustus, along with worship of Augustus, Tiberius, Livia, Drusus, Gaius Caesar, Lucius Caesar, and Germanicus. Date: Augustan. Literature: Gradel, Emperor Worship, 240-50; Fishwick, “Liturgy and Ceremonial,” 510; Gasperini, “L’Augusteo di «Forvm Clodii».” CIL 11.7552a: [Aug]ustae Iuliae… // Ti(berio C[aesari]… CIL 11.7552b: [Druso Caesari] Ti(beri) Aug(usti)…

B. NUMEN CIL 11.3310: numini maiestatique eius. Discussion: To the numen and maiestas of Valerian. Found in Augusteum (Cat. 98A). Date: 254 CE. Literature: Gasperini, “L’Augusteo di «Forvm Clodii»,” 109, 110.

99. FREGENAE

A. LARES AUGUSTI CIL 11.7726: Laribus Au[g(ustis)].

100. LUCUS FERONIAE

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE Templum to Divus Augustus. AE 1983, 399b: [te]mplum divo Augusto… Discussion: Built and dedicated by Lucius Volusius Saturninus and son of same name, both of consular rank. No association with the so-called Augusteum adjoining the basilica. Date: 14-20 CE, based on divinisation of Augustus, and lives of Lucius Volusius Saturninus and son of same name (Pliny, HN. 7.12; 7.49; Tac. Ann. 3.30; 14.56; 13.30). Literature: Dyson, Community and Society, 105-6; Gasperini, “L’Augusteo di «Forvm Clodii»,”; Trimble, “The Aesthetics of Sameness,” 45-7; Jones, “Capena and the Ager Capenas,” 193-95; Torelli, Etruria, 32-34; Sgubini Moretti, “Statue e Ritratti Onorari da Lucus Feroniae.”

B. NUMEN AE 1988, 554: devota] / [num]ini m[aiestatique eius]. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Gallienus.

171 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Date: 265 CE.

101. LUCA

A. PRIESTHOOD

AE 1992, 577: [fl(amen) Romae] flam(en) Aug(usti). Discussion: Same Lucius Titinius Glaucus Lucretianus as CIL 11.1331, 11.6955 (Luna, It. 7) and AE 2003, 635 (Cosa, It. 7). Literature: Gregori, “L. Titinius Glaucus Lucretianus.”

102. LUNA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 11.1331: flam(en) Romae/ et Aug(usti)…flam(en) Romae et Aug(usti). Discussion: Same Lucius Titinius Glaucus Lucretianus as CIL 11.6955 (Luna, It. 7), AE 2003, 635 (Cosa, It. 7) and AE 1992, 577 (Luca, It. 7). Literature: Gregori, “L. Titinius Glaucus Lucretianus.”

CIL 11.6955: fl(amen) Romae fl(amen) Aug(usti). Discussion: Same Lucius Titinius Glaucus Lucretianus as CIL 11.1331 (Luna, It. 7), AE 2003, 635 (Cosa, It. 7) and AE 1992, 577 (Luca, It. 7). Literature: Gregori, “L. Titinius Glaucus Lucretianus.”

B. SACRUM DEDICATION CIL 11.1320: Tra(iano) A(ugusto) s(acrum).

C. PRO SALUTE CIL 11.1331: pro salute Imp(eratoris) Neronis. Discussion: To Diva Poppaea and Nero, for the safety of Nero. Date: 66-67 CE. AE 1985, 392: pro sal[ute] / Ti(beri) Claudi Cae[saris Augusti] / [Ger]manic[i. Discussion: Votive to Divus Augustus, for the safety of Claudius. Date: 41-54 CE. CIL 11.1322: pro salute Impp(eratorum) / L(uci) Septimi Severi / et M(arci) Aur(eli) Antonini / Augg(ustorum) [[[et P(ublio) Getae]]] / et Iul(iae) Aug(ustae). Discussion: To Iuppiter Optimus Maximus for the safety of the Imperators Septimius Severus, Caracalla and Geta, and Iulia Augusta. Date: 200 CE. CIL 11.1335: [Pro salut]e Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) M(arci) Aureli / [Antonin]i Pii Felicis August(i) / [et Iuliae] Augustae matri(s) Au/[gusti n(ostri) et ca]strorum totiusque / [domus Di]vinae.

172 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY Discussion: For the safety of Caracalla and Iulia Augusta and the whole divine house. Date: 211-217 CE.

D. NUMEN AE 1978, 326: Numini / [maiestatique e]orum. Discussion: To the numen and maiestas of an unidentified imperator. CIL 11.6956: d(evotus) n(umini) m(aiestatique) eorum // d(evoti) n(umini) m(aiestatique) / eius. Discussion: Inscription a): Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Carinus. Inscription c): Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Diocletian. Lunensia p157 potentially records same inscription, but adds devotus formula to Inscription d): [d(evotus) n(umini) m(aisteatique) e(ius)]]. Date: a) 282-3 CE; c) 285 CE. CIL 11.6957: d(evotus) N(umini) m(aiestatique) / eius // d(evotus) N(umini) m(aiestatique) eius// d(evoti) N(umini) m(aiestatique) / eorum. Discussion: Inscription a): Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Maxentius. Inscription c): Devotion to the numen and maiestas of . Inscription d): Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Magnia Urbica and Carinus (?). Date: a) 307 CE; c) 293-305 CE; d) 283-285 CE. CSL-1985/87-525: [d(evotus) n]umini m(aiestatique) [eius(?)]. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Trebonianus Gallus. Date: 251-3 CE. CSL-1985/87-532: [devotus nu]min[i maiesta]/[tique eius(?)]. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of an unidentified emperor. Lunensia p 152: devoti(!) num(ini) maiestati/[q(ue)] eius. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Volusianus. Date: 251 CE. AE 1978, 325: de/[voti numi]ni maiesta/[tique eo]rum. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of an unidentified emperor.

103. MUSARNA

A. NUMEN AE 1908, 207: devo(ti) nu[mini] / [et m]aie[stati] / e[ius]. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of a member of the Constantinian family, potentially Constantine I, but titulature is not specific.

173 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

104. PERUSIA

A. MUNICIPAL LUCUS Sacred lucus to Augustus. CIL 11.1922: Augusto / lucus / sacer. CIL 11.1923a: Augusto / sa[c]r(um) / Perusia resti[t]uta. CIL 11.1923b: August[o] / sacr(um) / Perusia restit[uta]/. CIL 11.1923c: Aug[us]to / sacr(um) / Perusia restituta. CIL 11.1923d: Augusto / sacr(um) / Perusia restituta. Date: Augustan. Literature: Gradel, Emperor Worship, 83-84; Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 120; Fishwick, “Augusteo ut Deo”, 438.

B. PRIESTHOOD CIL 11.1941: sacerdoti III lucorum.

C. LARES AUGUSTI CIL 11.7093: [Laribu]s Augus[tis]/ sacrum.

105. PISAE

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE Augusteum. CIL 11.1420: in foro in Augusteo… Discussion: Within the Augusteum the Pisan council awarded funerary honours to Lucius Caesar. Date: Before 2 CE, given date of Lucius Caesar’s death. Literature: Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 27, 148; Lott, Death and Dynasty, 176.

B. PRIESTHOOD CIL 11.1421: fla[me]n Augustalis…flamen August(alis).

C. NUMEN CIL 11.1429: [d]evotus nu/mini maies/tatiq(ue) eius. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of an unidentified emperor.

106. RUSELLAE

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE Sources: Apsidal rectangular hall with Julio-Claudian sculptures and inscriptions (see below). Discussion: Inscriptional evidence, with Julio-Claudian sculptures make this likely as an Augusteum. Not a temple of the *Augustales.

174 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY Date: Julio-Claudian. Literature: Laviosa, “Rusellae,” 594-99; Torelli, Etruria, 272-74; Gasperini, “L’Augusteo di «Forvm Clodii»,” 133-34; Arnaldi, “Culto Imperiale Nell’Etruria,” 36-38; Laird, “Seviri Augustales at Ostia,” 252; Dyson, Community and Society, 105; Højte, Roman Imperial Statue Bases, 122; Varner, Mutilation and Transformation, 28-29; Eck, “Kaiserliches Handeln in Italischen Städten,” 329.

B. PRIESTHOOD

AE 1980, 457: flamen Aug(ustalis).

Discussion: Same Aulus Vicirius Proculus as AE 1980, 458 (Rusellae, It. 7).

Literature: Lomas, Roman Italy, 192; Arnaldi, “Culto Imperiale Nell’Etruria,” 54-55.

AE 1980, 458: flamen [A]ugustalis.

Discussion: Same Aulus Vicirius Proculus as AE 1980, 457 (Rusellae, It. 7).

Literature: Lomas, Roman Italy, 192; Arnaldi, “Culto Imperiale Nell’Etruria,” 54-55.

C. PRO SALUTE AE 1980, 457: voto [s]uscepto / [p]ro salute et reditu et / Victoria Britanni/ca Ti(beri) Claudi Caesa/ris Aug(usti) Germanici /. Discussion: For the safety, return and victory over Britain, for Claudius. Date: 45 CE. Literature: Arnaldi, “Culto Imperiale Nell’Etruria,” 54-55. AE 1980, 458: ex voto suscepto / [p]ro salute Ti(beri) Claudi Caesaris / Aug(usti) f(ilii) Brit{t}annici. Discussion: For the safety of Britannicus. Date: 45 CE. Literature: Arnaldi, “Culto Imperiale Nell’Etruria,” 54-55.

107. SAENA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 11.1806: fla[m(inis) Aug(usti)].

108. TARQUINII

A. PRO SALUTE AE 2008, 524: [Pro sal(ute) Ti(beri) Caes]aris divi Augusti f(ilii) divi Iuli n(epotis) Augusti pont(ificis) / [maximi co(n)s(ulis) V] imp(eratoris) VIII tribunic(ia)

175 ALEX A. ANTONIOU potest(ate) XXXVI nepotumq(ue) / [[[C(ai) Caesaris G]ermanici f(ilii) Germanici q(uaestoris)]] et Ti(beri) Caesaris Drusi f(ilii). Discussion: For the safety of Tiberius, Caligula and Tiberius Gemellus. Date: 36 CE. Literature: Torelli, “Haruspices of the Emperor,” 146-49.

109. VEII

A. NUMEN CIL 11.3785: dev]ota num[ini] maiestati[que eorum]. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Septimius Severus and Caracalla. Date: 202-210 CE.

110. VOLSINII

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE Caesareum. CIL 11.7270: Caesareum fec(i)t… Discussion: Constructed by imperial freedman and procurator. Literature: Gradel, Emperor Worship, 83; Gradel, “Mamia’s Dedication,” 46.

B. CULTORES CIL 11.7290: cultor[res domus]/ Cae[saris].

C. LARES AUGUSTI CIL 11.2998: [Lar]ibus Augustiis sacrum.

176 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY

REGION VIII

111. ARIMINUM

A. PRIESTHOODS

CIL 11.385: flamini divi Nervae.

CIL 11.386: flamini divi Nervae.

CIL 11.407: flaminicae / sacerd(oti) divae Plotin(ae). Discussion: This woman performed this priesthood here and in Forum Sempronii (It. 6). Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 418; Cenerini, “Role of Women as Municipal Matres”, 10-11.

CIL 11.415: sacerdoti divae/ Aug(ustae) et / divae Ma[t]idiae / Aug(ustae).

CIL 11.417: flam(ini) divi Claud(i).

CIL 11.408: [sace]r(doti) divae Sabinae.

112. BONONIA

A. GENIUS AND SACRUM DEDICATION:

CIL 11.804: Apollini Genioque Augusti Caesaris sacrum. Literature: Gradel, Emperor Worship, app. 2.

113. FORUM LIVII

A. NUMEN CIL 11.599: devotus n[umini] / [maiest]atque [eius]. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of an unidentified emperor.

114. MUTINA

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE Caesareum. CIL 11.948: [Ca]esareum faciun[dum]. Discussion: Located at Mutina, not San Possidonio, Teverina, Volsinii, or Sacis ad Padum. Likely not to Julius Caesar, but Caesar Augustus. Date: Augustan. Literature: Fishwick, “Liturgy and Ceremonial,” 524; Gradel, “Mamia’s Dedication,” 46; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 83; Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 287, Étienne, “Du Culte Impérial à Avenches,” 11; Weinstock, Divus Julius, 407.

B. NUMEN CIL 11.6652: [num]mini(b)usque / [e]o[rum].

177 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Discussion: To the numen of Constantine I and I as Augusti, Flavius Iulius , Licinius II and Constantine II as Caesars. Date: 317-324 CE.

115. PARMA

A. NUMEN CIL 11.1062: [Nu]mini August[i]

116. PLACENTIA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 11.1230: flam(ini) / divi Magn(i) Anton(ini).

B. NUMEN CIL 11.1214: devotus / numini maiestatique / eius. Discussion: Aurelian. Date: 270-275 CE.

117. RAVENNA

A. PRO SALUTE CIL 11.2: Pro sal(ute) Augg(ustorum). Discussion: For the safety of the two Augusti.

B. NUMEN CIL 11.9: devotus / n(umini) m(aiestati)q(ue) e(ius). Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Constantine I, given that he asserted ancestry from (Claudius II). Date: 324-337 CE. Literature: Clauss, Kaiser und Gott. Herrscherkult im Römischen Reich, 196. AE 1979, 290: devotus numini / maiestatiq(ue) eius. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of an unidentified emperor, possibly Maximian in 236 CE, Philip the Arab in 245 CE, Claudius II in 269 CE or Maxentius in 308 CE. Located in territory of Ravenna, perhaps in Sacis ad Padum.

118. VELEIA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 11.1192: flam(ini) divi Hadriani / Augustae.

B. NUMEN CIL 11.1161: Numini / Aug(usti) s(acrum).

178 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY

REGION IX

119. ALBA POMPEIA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.7605: flamen divi Aug(usti).

120. ALBINGAUNUM

A. PRIESTHOODS

CIL 5.7783: flamen divi Severi.

CIL 5.7788: [flam]inicae divae Aug[ustae].

CIL 5.7788: [flam]inicae divae Aug[ustae].

AE 1975, 403: [fla]min[ica] d[ivae].

B. NUMEN CIL 5.7780: Numini ipsius / devota. Discussion: Devotion to the numen of Caracalla. Date: 213-214 CE.

121. AUGUSTA BAGIENNORUM

A. LARES AUGUSTI CIL 5.7689: [Larib]us(?) Augustis.

122. CARAMAGNA LIGURE

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.7629: flaminica p[erpetua] Iulia Augusta.

123. DERTONA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.7375: flam(ini) divi Traiani.

124. LIBARNA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.7425: flam(ini) Aug(usti).

CIL 5.7428: flam(en) A[ug(usti)].

125. FORUM VIBII CABURRUM

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.7345: [flam]inica divae Drusillae. Discussion: Priesthood to Drusilla, sister of Claudius, as diva. Literature: Tomasi, “Aebutia, Asprilla o Attia?,” 155-56.

126. POLLENTIA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.7617: sacerdoti / divae Plotinae.

179 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

Discussion: This priestess performed as sacerdos diva Plotina in Pollentia (It. 9), sacerdos diva Faustina in Augusta Taurinorum (It. 11) and sacerdos diva Faustina Major in Concordia (It. 10). Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 412; Hemelrijk, “Priestesses: Titles and Function,” 116, 153.

AE 1997, 562: flam[inicae]/ divae Pl[otinae] Augu[stae].

127. VARDAGATE

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.7458: flam(ini) perpet(uo)/ [divi Vesp]asiani divi Nervae / [item divi] Traiani.

180 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY

REGION X

128. AQUILEIA

A. MUNICIPAL ALTAR CIL 5.852: [I]mp(eratori) Caesari / divi f(ilio) Augusto…sacrum. Discussion: Dedicated sacrum to the living Augustus. This altar is not addressed to Augustus in his ‘meschliche Wesenheit’709 but sacred to the divinity of Augustus. Date: 14 CE (but before Augustus’ death), based on titulature. Literature: Gradel, Emperor Worship, 82-4; Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 119; Alföldy, Römische Statuen in , 87, no. 42; Fishwick, “Augusto Ut Deo”, 439.

B. PRIESTHOOD CIL 5.875: flamini divi Claudi.

INSCRAQU-01, 486A: flamini divi Vespasiani.

C. SACRUM DEDICATION

INSCRAQU-01, 408: Aug(usto?) sacr(um).

INSCRAQU-01, 396: Aug]usto / [sac]r(um).

D. NUMEN CIL 5.856: numini eius. Discussion: To the numen of Gallienus. Date: 254-268 CE. Literature: Alföldy, Römische Statuen in Venetia et Histria, 94-5, no. 74. CIL 5.857: numini eius. Discussion: To the numen of Cornelia Salonina. Date: 254-268 CE. Literature: Alföldy, Römische Statuen in Venetia et Histria, 95, no. 75. CIL 5.858: devo/[t]us numini ma[i]/[e]statique eorum. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Diocletian and Maximian. Potentially instead Valerian and Gallienus. Date: 288 CE. Literature: Alföldy, Römische Statuen in Venetia et Histria, 95, no. 76. CIL 5.8971: devoti numin(i) / maiestatiq(ue) eius. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Phillip II.

709 Fishwick, “Augusto ut Deo”, 439.

181 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Date: 244-246 CE. Literature: Alföldy, Römische Statuen in Venetia et Histria, 94, no. 73.

INSCRAQU-01, 454: dev]ot(us) Nu[mini

E. LARES AUGUSTI CIL 5.8234: [L]ar(ibus) Aug(ustis) sacr(um). CIL 5.8315: Compitum restitut(um) ex pe[cunia. Discussion: Inscription should be considered in relation to the Lares Augusti given reference to compitum. Literature: Zaccaria, “Quanti e Quali Augustei Nella Regio X?,” 226. Vienna, Kunsthistoriches Museum, inv. N.I.64: Marble relief, potentially depicting sacrifice to Lares Augusti. Literature: Scrinari, Museo Archeologico di Aquileia, 209; Zaccaria, “Quanti e Quali Augustei Nella Regio X?,” 226. Aquileia, National Archaeological Museum, inv. N.377: Marble relief, potentially depicting sacrifice to Lares Augusti. Literature: Scrinari, Museo Archeologico di Aquileia, 183; Zaccaria, “Quanti e Quali Augustei Nella Regio X?,” 226.

129. ARUSNATES

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.3936: flamini divi Aug(usti) et Roma.

130. ATESTE

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE AND MUNICIPAL ALTAR CIL 5.2480: [Aug]ustae aed[em]… aram… Discussion: Dedicated by a freedwoman. Date: Second-century (?). Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 437.

B. PRIESTHOOD CIL 5.2524: flamen/ Augustalis.

C. PRO SALUTE CIL 5.2475: pro / sal(ute) dominorum nn(ostrorum) Augg(ustorum) / Impp(eratorum). Discussion: To Iuppiter Optimus Maximus for the safety of our masters, the two Augusti our imperators.

D. GENIUS AUGUSTI AE 1916, 62: Genio Aug(usto) coll[egii]…

182 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY

131. ATRIA

A. PRO SALUTE

CIL 5.2313: Pro salute / Imp(eratoris) Caesa{e}ris / M(arci) Aureli Seve/ri Alexsandri(!) / Pii Felicis Aug(usti). Discussion: For the safety of Severus Alexander.

Date: 222-235 CE.

132. BRIXIA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.4386: flam(ini) divi Aug(usti).

CIL 5.4442: [s]acerdos / [divi Au]gusti.

AE 1991, 822: sacerd(oti) divae / Matidiae.

CIL 5.4368: flamini divi / Traiani.

CIL 5.4387: sacerd(oti) divae / Plotinae.

CIL 5.4458: sacerd(oti) div[a]i(!) August(ae).

CIL 5.4485: sacerd(oti) divae Plotinae.

AE 2001, 1069: sacerd(oti) divi Aug(usti).

IFF 49: sacer[d(os) divae(?) Dr]usillae. Discussion: Priesthood likely to Drusilla, sister of Claudius, as diva. Literature: Gregori, “Un’Eccezionale Dedica”.

B. PRO SALUTE

IFF 49: [Pro s]alute et reditu et victor(ia) / [C(ai) Caesa]ris Aug(usti). Discussion: For the safety, return and victory of Caligula. Date: 38-41 CE. Literature: Gregori, “Un’Eccezionale Dedica,” 303-5.

C. NUMEN AE 1987, 456: d(evoti) n(umini) m(aiestati)q(ue) eius. Discussion: Devotion to numen and maiestas of Constantine I as Caesar. Date: 293-305 CE.

133. CAMUNNI

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.4960: sacerd(os) Aug(usti).

CIL 5.4950: sac(erdos) Aug(usti).

CIL 5.4966: sacerdoti Caesaris.

CIL 5.4965: sacerdos [Aug(usti?)].

134. CONCORDIA

183 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.8660: fla[mini divi Ha]driani.

PAIS 1227: flamini divi / Hadriani.

CIL 5.7617: sacerdoti…divae Faustinae.

Discussion: This priestess performed as sacerdos diva Plotina in Pollentia (It. 9), sacerdos diva Faustina in Augusta Taurinorum (It. 11) and sacerdos diva Faustina Major in Concordia (It. 10).

Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 412; Hemelrijk, “Priestesses: Titles and Function,” 116, 153.

135. FORUM IULII

A. NUMEN CIL 5.1762: d(evotus) n(umini) m(aiestati)q(ue) [e(ius)]. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Gallienus. Date: 255-256 CE.

136. MIRAMARE

A. NUMEN CIL 5.8205: dev(otus) num(ini) mai(estatique) ei(us). Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Diocletian. Date: 285-286 CE.

137. PARENTIUM

A. PRO SALUTE

INSCRIT-10-02, 216: pro salute et / vic[t]oria ss(anctissimorum) dd(ominorum) nn(ostrorum) / Philippor[um Aug(ustorum)] / et Otaciliae Sever(ae) Aug(ustae). Discussion: To Mithras, for the safety and victory of our most sacred masters, Philip the Arab and Otacilia Severa.

Date: 244-249 CE.

B. NUMEN CIL 5.330: d(e)v(ota) nu(mini) mai(estati)/q(ue) {a}eius. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Licinius. Date: 309-310 CE.

INSCRIT-10-02, 216: d(evoti) N(umini) m(aiestati)q(ue) e(orum). Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Philip the Arab, and Otacilia Severa. Date: 244-249 CE.

138. PATAVIUM

184 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.2829: sacerdos / divae Domitillae.

B. NUMEN CIL 5.2817: numini eius dicatissimus. Discussion: To the numen of Diocletian. Date: 284-305 CE. Literature: Alföldy, Römische Statuen in Venetia et Histria, 121, no. 165. CIL 5.2818: n(umini) e(ius) s(emper) d(evotus). Discussion: To the numen of Maximian. Date: 286-305 CE. Literature: Alföldy, Römische Statuen in Venetia et Histria, 121, no. 166.

139. POLA

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE Temple to Roma and Augustus. CIL 5.18: Romae et Augusto Caesari divi f(ilio) patri patriae. Discussion: After WW2 bombing, heavily restored, but still stands in modern Pola’s forum. Date: Augustan, with 2 BCE terminus post quem, based on titulature. Literature: Gradel, Emperor Worship, 82; Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 118-19; Mellor, “Goddess Roma,” 1002; Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 152.

B. PRIESTHOOD CIL 5.47: flamen Augustor(um).

C. SACRUM DEDICATIONS AArchSlov-1984-312: A[ugu]/st(o) sacr/um. AE 1999, 689: [A]ugusto s[ac(rum)].

D. NUMEN CIL 5.31: d(evotus) n(umini) m(aiestatique) e(ius). Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Licinius. Date: 308-324 CE.

140. TERGESTE

A. PRIESTHOOD CIL 5.534: flamen divi Claud[i]. CIL 5.535: [fl]amen divi Claudi.

INSCRIT-10-04, 34: [flamen] divi Cla[udi].

185 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

CIL 5.520: sacerd(otis) divarum.

CIL 5.545: flam(ini) Hadr(ianali).

B. NUMEN CIL 5.529: d(evota) n(umini) p(otestatique?) e(ius). Discussion: Devotion to the numen and power of Constantine I. Date: 313-317 CE. Literature: Alföldy, Römische Statuen in Venetia et Histria, 83-4, no. 28. CIL 5.530: d(evotus) n(umini) m(aiestatique) eor(um). Discussion: Dedication to the numen and maiestas of Aemilian and Supera Augusta. Date: 253 CE. Literature: Alföldy, Römische Statuen in Venetia et Histria, 83, no. 27.

141. TOSCOLANO MADERNO

A. LARES AUGUSTI CIL 5.4865: Augustis Laribus. Discussion: Potentially located at Brixia (It. 10). Literature: Zaccaria, “Quanti e Quali Augustei Nella Regio X?,” 224.

142. TRIDENTUM

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.5036: flamini Rom(ae) et Aug(usti).

B. NUMEN AE 2000, 627: devotus num(i)/ni maiest[atiq(ue)] / eiu[s]. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of an unidentified emperor. Potentially, Maximian, Philip the Arab, Gallienus or Constantius II.

C. LARES AUGUSTI AE 1977, 274: Laribus/ Aug(ustis).

143. VERONA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.3341: flam(ini) Aug(usti). Literature: Alföldy, Römische Statuen in Venetia et Histria, 132; Syme, Roman Revolution, 363.

CIL 5.3376: [flam(en) R]om(ae) et Aug(usti). CIL 5.3420: flamin(i) Romae et Aug(usti). Literature: Alföldy, Römische Statuen in Venetia et Histria, 134. CIL 5.3427: flam(en) Romae [e]t Aug(usti).

186 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY

PAIS 624: flam(en) Rom(ae) / et Aug(usti). Literature: Alföldy, Römische Statuen in Venetia et Histria, 126.

AE 1991, 811: [[s[a]cer)doti) di[v]ae]] / [[Ploti[na]e Aug(ustae)]].

Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 422; Buonopane, “Il Materiale Epigrafico,” 272-83, no. 1.

B. SACRUM DEDICATIONS CIL 5.3305: A]ugustis sacr(um). CIL 5.3306: Augustis / [sac]rum.

C. PRO SALUTE CIL 5.3258: Laribu[s Augustis pro salute] / Imp(eratoris) Caesar[is divi Hadriani f(ilii) divi Traiani] / Parthici ne[p(otis) divi Nervae pron(epotis) Antonini Aug(usti) Pii]. Discussion: To the Lares Augusti for the safety of Antoninus Pius. Date: 138-161 CE.

D. LARES AUGUSTI AE 1987, 453: Larib(us) Aug(ustis)….[ma]gisterio. Discussion: Dedication by a specialist in dyeing fine fabrics, who celebrated his accession to a magisterial college. CIL 5.3258: Laribu[s Augustis pro salute]. CIL 5.3259: Laribus / A(u)gusto/rum do/minoru/m n/ostro/rum et Ca(e)/sarum.

144. VICETIA

A. NUMEN CIL 5.3114: [d(evotus) n(umini) m(aiestati)q(ue) ei]us. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Gratian. Date: 375-383 CE.

187 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

REGION XI

145. AUGUSTA TAURINORUM

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.6954: flaminic{i}a / Iulia August(a).

CIL 5.7617: sacerdoti…divae Faustinae / Taurinis.

Discussion: This priestess performed as sacerdos diva Plotina in Pollentia (It. 9), sacerdos diva Faustina in Augusta Taurinorum (It. 11) and sacerdos diva Faustina Major in Concordia (It. 10).

Literature: Hemelrijk, “Priestesses: Titles and Function,” 116, 153; Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 412.

CIL 5.7002: [fla]men d[ivi]…. Discussion: Most likely devoted to emperor worship, but which divus is obscured.

CIL 5.7007: flamini divi Aug(usti) perpetuo.

CIL 5.7021: flamini / divi Vespasiani.

CIL 5.6995: flam(ini) / divi Titi et Claud(iae)… Discussion: Priesthood possibly only to divus Titus, but to divus Claudius also possible. Literature: Haeussler, Becoming Roman? 256.

146. BERGOMUM

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.5126: flamini divi Claudii.

Discussion: Same man performed priesthood of flamini divi Traiani at Mediolanum (It. 11).

147. CANTU

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.5667: fl(amini) divi T(iti) Aug(usti). Discussion: This priest is Pliny the Younger.

148. COMUM

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE Templum dedicated Aeternitatis Romae et Augustorum. AE 1983, 443a; AE 1983, 443b: [Templum] / [Aeternitati Romae et Au]gustor[um] / [cum porticib(us) et orname]nt(is)… tem/[plum] Aeternitati Romae et Augu[st(orum)] / [c]um porticibus et ornamen/tis…

188 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY Discussion: Financed by Lucius Caecilius Secundus in the name of his daughter Caecilia. Completed and dedicated by Caecilius Secundus (Pliny the Younger). Alföldy showed that AE 1983, 443a and AE 1983, 443b are part of same dedicatory formula. Date: Construction c. 69 CE. Dedication 77/78 CE, based on lives of Lucius Caecilius Secundus and Caecilius Secundus. Literature: Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 105; Mellor, “Goddess Roma,” 1003; Lomas, “Roman Imperialism,” 74; Alföldy, “Ein Tempel des Herrscherkultes in Comum,”; Gibson and Morello, Letters of Pliny the Younger, 108-9; Eck, “Die Inschrift: Fragment Einer Kultur,” 454; Birley, Onomasticon to the Younger Pliny, 1; Shelton, Women of Pliny’s Letters, 189.

B. PRIESTHOOD CIL 5.5266: flam(ini) divi Aug(usti). CIL 5.5267: [f]lam(en) divi Aug(usti). Discussion: This is Lucius Calpurnius Fabatus, mentioned in Tacitus (Tac. Ann. 16.8) and grandfather of Pliny the Younger’s third wife, Calpurnia, to whom Pliny the Younger addresses nine letters (4.1; 5.11; 6.12; 6.30; 7.11; 7.16; 7.23; 8.10). Literature: McDermott, “Pliny the Younger and Inscriptions,” 84-85; Shelton, Women of Pliny’s Letters, 99, 188-90; Champlin, “Pliny’s Other Country,” 126. AE 1947, 46: flam(en) divi Titi item flam(en) / divi Nervae. Discussion: Findspot at Capiate (It. 11) but priesthood at Comum. CIL 5.5312: flam(en) divi Traiani. CIL 5.5239: flam(en) divi Titi Aug(usti) Vespasiani. Discussion: Found at Santa Maria Rezzonico, but Comum preferred. Literature: Courtney, Satires of Juvenal, 4.

C. NUMEN CIL 5.5260: devoti numini maiestatiq(ue) eius. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Severus Alexander. Date: 222 CE. CIL 5.5261: d(evotus) n(umini) m(aiestati)q(ue) eius. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of an unidentified emperor. ILS 524: devotiss(imi) numi[ni] / maiestatique eiu[s]. Discussion: Devotion to the numen and maiestas of Volusianus.

189 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Date: 252 CE.

149. EPOREDIA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.6797: [flamini di]vi August[i]/ [3 divi] Vespasian[i] / [3 di]vi Traiani.

150. ERBA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.5647: sacerdos / divae / Matidiae.

151. LAUS POMPEIA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.6360: flamini divi Vespasian(i).

B. CULTORES CIL 5.6349: c(ultor) d(omus) d(ivinae). Literature: Fishwick, “Augustales and Imperial Cult,” 612.

152. MEDIOLANUM

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.5511: sacerdoti Romae et Aug(usti).

CIL 5.5126: flamini divi Traiani.

Discussion: Same man performed priesthood of flamni divi Claudii at Bergomum (It. 11). Findspot Bergomum. CIL 5.5908: [flamini Divi?] Traiani. Discussion: Likely to be a flamen of emperor worship, even though restored. Literature: Gradel, Emperor Worship, app. 3; Houston, “Nonius Flaccus,” 238.

AE 1974, 348: flam(inicae) div(ae) F[austinae] / Pia[e] / [fl]am(inicae) diva[e Faustinae].

B. CULTORES Literature: Fishwick, “Augustales and Imperial Cult,” 612. CIL 5.5465: c(ultores) d(omus) d(ivinae). CIL 5.5844: c(ultores) d(omus) d(ivinae). CIL 5.8922: c(ultores) d(omus) d(ivinae). AE 1974, 345: c(ultori) d(omus) d(ivinae).

153. MODICIA

A. CULTORES CIL 5.5749: c(ultores) d(omus) d(ivinae). Literature: Fishwick, “Augustales and Imperial Cult,” 612.

190 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY

154. NOVARIA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.6513: flamen / divorum Vespasiani Traiani Hadriani.

CIL 5.6514: [fl]amini[cae] / [div]ae Iuliae No[var(iae)]. Discussion: Also flaminica of diva Sabina at Ticinum (It. 11).

CIL 5.6514: [fl]am(ini) / [divi] Had[riani] / flamini / div[or(um)] Vespas(iani) et [Traian(i)]. Discussion: Same man as CIL 5.6513.

CIL 5.6520: flam(ini) d(ivi) Traian(i).

B. CULTORES

PAIS 883: cultores domus di/vinae.

CIL 5.6518: c(ultores) d(omus) d(ivinae). Discussion: Potential restoration of s(enatus) c(onsulto) d(ono) d(ato) rather than c(ultores) d(omus) d(ivinae). Literature: Fishwick, “Augustales and Imperial Cult,” 612; Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 2.1:653.

155. TICINUM

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.6431: flamen Romae et divi Claudii.

CIL 5.6514: flaminic(ae) / [d]ivae Sabinae. Discussion: Also flaminica of diva Iulia at Novaria (It. 11). CIL 5.6435: flaminica [d]ivae Aug(ustae).

B. CULTORES

PAIS 870: cultori d(omus) d(ivinae).

156. VERCELLAE

A. PRIESTHOOD

ILVERCEL 93: sacerdoti diva[ae Augustae].

B. CULTORES CIL 5.6658: [cu]lt(ores) domus divin[ae]. CIL 5.6657: socii / cultores domus /divinae.

191 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

EVIDENCE NOT BEING INCLUDED Although the *Augustales are not considered en masse to have been public priests devoted to emperor worship in this thesis (see 3.2), this catalogue will not include all instances of dedications of the *Augustales in Italy, even though they are being excluded. The only references here to the excluded evidence of the *Augustales and emperor worship are those ‘temples’ considered to have been devoted to emperor worship by the *Augustales that are being refuted.

REGIO I

*1. ACERRAE

A. MUNICIPAL OR COLLEGIAL TEMPLE? CIL 10.3757: Templum hoc sacratum her[oibus est?]. Discussion: While this is a cult building, missing pieces of text make it too uncertain to claim emperor worship undertaken here. Various interpretations of temple as temple of Caius and Lucius Caesar, cult building to Lares Augusti, or temple to Lares Augusti in which Caius and Lucius Caesar were offered imagines Caesareum, are too uncertain. See 3.3.1. Literature: Gradel, Emperor Worship, 268; Lomas, “Urban Renewal and Euergetism,” 32; Lomas, “Roman Imperialism,” 70; Koortbojian, Divinization of Caesar and Augustus, 269, n. 15; Taylor, Divinity of Roman Emperor, 219.

*2. ANAGNIA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 10.5924: flamin(icae)… Discussion: This flaminica could serve any goddess, not necessarily emperor worship. Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 423.

*3. CAPREAE

A. TEMPLE?

IG XIV 897: [Αὐτοκράτορι Καίσαρι θεοῦ υἱῶ]ι Σεβαστῶι / [---Φού]λουιος Ἀπε[λλῆς] / [τὸν ναὸν ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἀγορα]νοµήσαντε[ς]. Discussion: While the restoration would suggest a temple devoted to Augustus, it is merely the result of a bold restoration, and there is no evidence to support its existence. Literature: Cooley, “Last Days of Augustus,”; Lombardi, “Le Iscrizioni Greche,” 302-3.

192 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY

*4. CAPUA

A. TEMPLE + PRIESTHOOD?

CIL 10.3792: Romano iun(iore) sacerdote… Discussion: No evidence that this sacerdos was a priest of emperor worship or that there was an associated temple for emperor worship. Merely a flamen of Capua. Date: 387 CE. Literature: Trout, “Feriale Campanum and Christianity in the Theodosian Age,” 165, no. 10; Trombley, “Imperial Cult in Late Roman Religion,”; Rüpke, Kalender und Öffentlichkeit, 530, n. 23.

*5. CUMAE

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE TO AUGUSTUS? CIL 10.3682, installed in temple to Augustus? Discussion: No evidence to support assertion that CIL 10.3682 was installed in a temple to Augustus. Literature: Gradel, Emperor Worship, 96; Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 117, 119; Taylor, Cults of Ostia, 46; Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 267; Bormann, “Inschriften aus Umbrien,” 117-19.

*6. HERCULANEUM

A. PRIESTHOOD

AE 2008, 358: flamoni[u]m…

Discussion: This flaminica could serve any goddess, not necessarily emperor worship, possibly not even a flaminica at all.

Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 436.

*7. VICUS AUGUSTANUS LAURENTIUM.

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 14.2048: flamin[ica]…

Discussion: This flaminica could serve any goddess, not necessarily emperor worship. Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 411.

*8. LANUVIUM

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE? Discussion: Identification of Augusteum on the basis of sculptures in excavations is spurious.

193 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Literature: Fenelli and Guaitoli, “Nuovi Dati Degli Scavi di ,” 189; Laird, “Seviri Augustales at Ostia,” 251.

*9. MISENUM

A. AUGUSTEUM FOR THE NAVY? Discussion: Identification of Augusteum in the naval barracks of Misenum asserted merely on basis of presumed ubiquity of emperor worship in the army and navy. Literature: Laird, Civic Monuments, 163; Borriello and D’, Forma Italiae. -Misenum, 26; Amalfitano, Camodeca and Medri, I Campi Flegrei, 242.

*10. OSTIA

A. PORTICO/ANNEX DEVOTED TO EMPEROR WORSHIP? Discussion: Identification of Julio-Claudian Augusteum in portico or annex of basilica on western side of Ostia’s forum on basis of sculptures and testimony of Vitruvius, is spurious. See 3.3.1. Literature: Rieger, Heiligtümer in Ostia, 173-214; Rieger, “Les Sanctuaires Publics,” 254-59.

B. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE DEVOTED TO EMPEROR WORSHIP (TEMPLE ROND)? Discussion: Identification of Severan round ‘temple’ (Temple Rond), with worship of (at least) Alexander Severus, Gordian III and Sabina Tranquillina, on basis of imperial sculptures and similarity to Pantheon, is spurious. See 3.3.1. Literature: Rieger, Heiligtümer in Ostia, 173-214; Rieger, “Les Sanctuaires Publics,” 254-59; Briggs, “The ‘Pantheon’ of Ostia.”

C. LARES AUGUSTI Aedicula to the Lares Augusti in forum? Discussion: While Bloch interpreted AE 1964, 151 in conjunction with the circular archaeological feature in Ostia’s forum as aedicula dedicated to Lares Augusti, this has since been repudiated. Literature: Bloch, “Monument of Lares Augusti,”; Beard, North and Price, Religions of Rome, 1:355; Schmölder, “Le Ravitaillement en Eau,” 104, n.47.

*11. POMPEII

A. MACELLUM OF POMPEII – EMPEROR WORSHIP? Discussion: Assertion that small shrine within the macellum was dedicated to emperor worship, on basis of marble arm holding a globe, a lump of

194 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY concrete resembling an altar, and that macellum resembles a small temple. No good evidence to support this. See 3.3.1. Literature: Lomas, “Urban Renewal and Euergetism,” 35; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 107; Dobbins, “Imperial Cult Building,” 103; Zanker, Power of Images, 308; Beard, Pompeii, 301; Small, “Macellum at Pompeii,” 118-36.

B. BUILDING ON EAST SIDE OF FORUM? Imperial Cult Building, or Shrine of Public Lares, or Temple of Lares Augusti? Discussion: While this building contained niches, no evidence that these niches supported statues, or even if they were cultic statues. Potentially a library instead. See 3.3.1. Literature: Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 130; Lomas, “Urban Renewal and Euergetism,” 35; Gradel, Emperor Worship, 106-14; Dobbins, “Imperial Cult Building,” 93-113; Zanker, Power of Images, 308; Dobbins, “Chronology, Decoration, and Urban Design,” 630, 632, 685-88; Zanker, Pompeji, 103; Mau, “Der Städtische Larentempel,” 285-301; Mau, Pompeii, 102-5; Richardson Jr, “Concordia and Concordia Augusta,” 273-75; Richardson Jr, Pompeii, 14.

C. EUMACHIA BUILDING – EMPEROR WORSHIP? Discussion: No cultic functions in relation to emperor worship. Although dedicated to Concordia Augusta and Pietas (CIL 10.810), no evidence it was dedicated to worship of emperor, or had shrines to the imperial cult. Only a public porticus. See 3.3.1. Literature: Lomas, “Urban Renewal and Euergetism,” 35; Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 29; Zanker, Power of Images, 308; Richardson Jr., “Concordia and Concordia Augusta,” 269.

*12. PUTEOLI

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE? CIL 10.1613: templum Augusto. Discussion: As catalogued would support existence of temple. This reading should be abandoned as an invention or misreading of original (now lost) inscription. See 3.3.1. Literature: Taylor, “Worship of Augustus,” 199; Lomas, Roman Italy, 179; Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 279-80; D’Arms, Romans on Bay of Naples, 82; Castagnoli, “Topografia dei Campi Flegrei,” 55-57.

195 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

*13. VENAFRUM

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE? AE 1999, 462: [ae]dem August(i)? Discussion: While inscription could be restored as [ae]dem August(i), more likely to be [statuam equest]rem August(i). See 3.3.1.

REGIO II

*14. TEANUM APULUM

A. PRIESTHOOD? AE 1976, 147: [3] flam[ini 3] / [3 Cae]s[a]ris Augus[ti 3]. Discussion: While it could be relevant priesthood, not certain. Literature: Chelotti, “I Sacerdozi nella Regio Seconda Augustea,” 121.

REGIO III

*15. PAESTUM

A. MUNICIPAL CAESAREUM? Discussion: Little evidence of a Caesareum near forum of Paestum. Literature: Pedley, Paestum, 123.

*16. VIBO VALENTIA

A. PRIESTHOOD? CIL 10.54: ] Quinta / [3]ae sacerdos per[petua(?)] / [3]nae exornatum pop[ulo dedit(?)] / [3 imp]ensa sua et aqua in id pe[rducta 3] / [3 decuri]onibus s(ingulis) HS VIII n(ummum) August[alibus. Discussion: While Mommsen and Hemelrijk restore sacerdos per[petua divus Faustin[ae], restoration seems to be posited only because of the supposed relationship between the *Augustales and emperor worship. Literature: Hemelrijk, “Priestesses: Benefactions and Public Honour,” 110, 115; Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 407.

REGIO IV

*17. TIBUR

A. MUNICIPAL AUGUSTEUM? Discussion: No evidence to support assertion of an Augusteum adjoining Temple of Hercules. Literature: Pacifici, “Notes on Some Recent Discoveries at Tivoli,” 185.

REGIO VI

*18. CARSULAE

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE?

196 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY Discussion: Assertion that the double cella temple, south of Carsulae forum, was dedicated to Roma and Augustus, or Vespasian and Titus. This is too bold, and lacks evidence. See 3.3.1. Literature: Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 268; Ciotti, “Carsulae.”

*19. GIANO DELL’UMBRIA

A. LARES AUGUSTI

AE 1927, 107: Laribus / pro reditu C[[[aesaris n(ostri)]]]… Discussion: Although inscription contains Laribus not an explicit reference to Lares Augusti.

*20. OTRICOLI

A. TEMPLE OF THE *AUGUSTALES? Discussion: While the ‘basilica’ of Otricoli has similarities to the Temple of Augustus at Misenum (Cat. 19A) and contained a collection of Julio- Claudian statues, there is no similarity to the testimony of Vitruvius’ aedis Augusti at Fanum Fortunae (Cat. 77A) and cult function within this basilica cannot be imputed. Literature: Dareggi, “Il Ciclo Statuario Della “Basilica,, Di Otricoli,”; Etienne, “Édifice Des Augustales d’Herculaneum,” 348.

*21. PISAURUM

A. MUNICIPAL AUGUSTEUM? Discussion: Only a circumstantial case for an Augusteum. Possibility ignored completely in Harvey Jr.’s account of religion at Pisaurum. Literature: Fishwick, “Liturgy and Ceremonial,” 524; Marrone and Mennella, Pisaurum, 185; Harvey Jr., “Religion and Memory at Pisaurum.”

B. PRIESTHOODS

CIL 11.6333: flaminicae…

CIL 11.6354: flaminicae… Discussion: These flaminicae could serve any goddesses, not necessarily emperor worship. Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 413, 416.

*22.

A. PRIESTHOODS

CIL 11.5752: flam(inicae)…

Discussion: This flaminica could serve any goddess, not necessarily emperor worship.

197 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 417.

B. LARES AUGUSTI

CIL 11.5739: Larib[us].

Discussion: Although inscription contains Larib[us] it is not an explicit reference to Lares Augusti. Literature: Marengo, “Aspetti del Culto Imperiale in Area Medioadriatica,” 154.

REGIO VII

*23. COSA

A. LARES AUGUSTI AE 1939, 142: [Imp(eratori) Caes(ari)….// mag(istri) Aug(ustales). Discussion: While this may depict a Lar, and it was dedicated by a mag(istri) Aug(ustales), does not necessarily mean it is an altar to the Lares Augusti. Literature: Arnaldi, “Culto Imperiale Nell’Etruria,” 66-68.

*24. FERENTIUM

A. LARES AUGUSTI CIL 11.7431: Augusteum cum statuis Lar(um?)… Discussion: The restoration of statuis Lar(um) is not convincing. See Cat. 96A.

*25. LUCUS FERONIAE

A. AUGUSTEUM OF THE *AUGUSTALES? Discussion: Collection of imperial statues, in portico/annex of basilica, is not enough to impute that this is an Augusteum, nor that it was a temple of the *Augustales. Not the templum of divus Augustus otherwise attested at Lucus Feroniae (Cat. 100A). Literature: Dyson, Community and Society, 105-6; Sgubini Moretti, “Statue e Ritratti Onorari da Lucus Feroniae,” 75-107; Torelli, Etruria, 32-34.

*26. LUNA

A. PRIESTHOODS

CIL 11.1349A: [flamen di]vi Clau[d]i…

Discussion: Restoration of flamen divi Claudi not certain. Literature: Houston, “Nonius Flaccus,” 238.

*27. PAGUS STELLATINUS

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE? CIL 11.3040: [p]agi St[ell]atini [a]edem…

198 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY Discussion: No evidence that this aedes was devoted to emperor worship. Literature: Fishwick, “Liturgy and Ceremonial,” 525; Gasperini, “L’Augusteo di «Forvm Clodii»,” 129; Højte, Roman Imperial Statue Bases, 121; Gasperini, “L’Iscrizione del Pago Stellatino,” 248-80.

REGIO VIII

*28. VELEIA

A. MUNICIPAL TEMPLE? Discussion: That the basilica in the forum was used to house a shrine of emperor worship is spurious. Literature: Laird, “Seviri Augustales at Ostia,” 251; Dyson, Community and Society, 158.

REGIO IX

*29. ALBINTIMILIUM

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.7811: flaminic(ae).

Discussion: This flaminica could serve any goddess, not necessarily emperor worship.

Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 429.

*30. DERTONA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.7373: flam(en)…

Discussion: This flamen could serve any god, not necessarily emperor worship.

Literature: Houston, “Nonius Flaccus,” 233.

*31. INDUSTRIA

A. PRIESTHOODS

CIL 5.7478: flamin(i) divi / Caesar(is) perpetuo…

Discussion: A priesthood of Julius Caesar, not Caesar Augustus. Literature: Houston, “Nonius Flaccus,” 238; Weinstock, Divus Julius, 407.

AE 1994, 638: [flamini divi]/ [Caesar(is) perpetuo]…

Discussion: A priesthood of Julius Caesar, not Caesar Augustus. Literature: Houston, “Nonius Flaccus,” 238; Weinstock, Divus Julius, 407.

REGIO X

*32. AQUILEIA

A. LARES AUGUSTI

199 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

CIL 5.791: Larib(us) sac(rum)…

Discussion: Although inscription contains Larib(us) sac(rum), not an explicit reference to Lares Augusti. Literature: Zaccaria, “Quanti e Quali Augustei Nella Regio X?,” 226.

*33. ARUSNATES

A. PRIESTHOODS

CIL 5.3916: flaminica…

CIL 5.3923: flamen…flaminica…

CIL 5.3930: flam(inica)… Discussion: These flaminicae, and flamen could serve any goddesses/gods, not necessarily emperor worship. Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 419, 422, 434.

*34. ATESTE

A. CAESAREUM? CIL 5.2533: Caesar[…]. Discussion: To imply Caesar must be restored as Caesareum is too bold. Literature: Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 287; Fishwick, “Liturgy and Ceremonial,” 524; Étienne, “Du Culte Impérial à Avenches,” 11; Keppie, Colonisation and Veteran Settlement, 114.

*35. PATAVIUM

A. LARES AUGUSTI

CIL 5.2795: Laribus…

Discussion: Although inscription contains Laribus not an explicit reference to Lares Augusti.

Literature: Zaccaria, “Quanti e Quali Augustei Nella Regio X?,” 225.

*36. VERONA

A. LARES AUGUSTI

CIL 5.3257: Laribus… Discussion: Although inscription contains Laribus not an explicit reference to Lares Augusti. Literature: Zaccaria, “Quanti e Quali Augustei Nella Regio X?,” 225.

CIL 5.3305: [A]ugustis sacr(um)… Discussion: Although inscription contains [A]ugustis sacr(um) this does not necessarily mean it was a reference to the Lares Augusti. Literature: Zaccaria, “Quanti e Quali Augustei Nella Regio X?,” 225.

200 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF EVIDENCE FOR EMPEROR WORSHIP IN ITALY

REGIO XI

*37. AUGUSTA PRAETORIA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.6840: flaminic(ae)…

Discussion: This flaminica could serve any goddess, not necessarily emperor worship.

Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 430.

*38. COLLEGNO

A. PRIESTHOOD

AE 1952, 150: flaminicae…

Discussion: This flaminica could serve any goddess, not necessarily emperor worship.

Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 424.

*39. LAUS POMPEIA

A. PRIESTHOOD

CIL 5.6365: flaminica…

Discussion: This flaminica could serve any goddess, not necessarily emperor worship. Literature: Hemelrijk, Hidden Lives, 419.

*40. MEDIOLANUM

A. TEMPLE TO DIVUS AUGUSTUS AD MINERVAM? AE 1990, 433: [temp]/[lu]m divi [Aug(usti) ad Minervam]. Discussion: Restoration of [temp]/[l]um divi [Augusti ad Minervam] not certain, and not widely recognised in scholarship. Literature: Redaelli, “I Veterani delle Milizie Urbane in Italia,” 158-59.

201 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

APPENDIX 2: CATALOGUE OF ‘AUGUSTAN’ VIRTUES AND DEITIES

NSCRIPTION

I

Aug(ustalis) Augustal(i)

Mercurio Augusto / sacrum / Augusto Mercurio Aug(ustali) Merc(uriali) Aug(ustalis)…mag(istro) Merc(urialis) mag(ister) sacr(um) / Mercurio Aug(usto) sacrum / mercurium Augustum / Mercurio Aug(usto) s(acrum?)] Augus[to Merc(urio) sacr(um)] A[ug(usto) Mercurio sacr(um) / / Aug(usto) Merc(urio) [A]ugustum / [M]ercuri[um] sacr(um) / Mercurio Aug(usto) sacr(um) / Mercurio Aug(usto) sacrum Aug(usto) / Heculi August(o) [Her]c(uli) Aug(usto) Herc(uli) Herc(ulaneo) et Aug(ustalis) Herc(ulaneus) Aug(ustalis) Hercul(aneus) mag(ister) Augustali / Herculano sacerdoti Apolli/nis / Herc(ulaneus) et Aug(ustalis) Herc(ulaneus) mag(ister) Aug(ustali) Herc(ulaneo) et Augustali Herculaneo et Augustali Herculaneo et Aug(ustali) Herc(ulaneo) e[t e[t Aug(ustalis)]…Herc(ulaneus) Herc(ulaneus) mag(ister) Aug(ustalis)] / Herculaneo Aug(ustali) Augustal(ium) [Herc(ulaneorum)] Augustalis Herculanius / Aug(ustali) Herc(ulaneo) Aug(ustali) Her(culaneo) Aug(ustali) [H]erc(ulaneo)

296

A

01,

-

13 726 419 199

QU VIDENCE A E 10.6461 10.8342 9.3307 5.798 5.8237 5.4161 5.2801 5.522 14.2426 14.4286 10.230 14.3540 14.4254 14.3684 14.3681 14.4255 14.3665 14.3658 14.3690 14.3652 14.3656 14.3657 14.3679 14.3675 14.3680 14.3691

1927, 1991, 1995, 1905,

NSCR CIL AE CIL CIL AE CIL CIL I CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL AE AE CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL

LACE

P (It. 3)

Setia (It. Setia 1) (It. 3) Viggiano (It. (It. Superaequum 4) 9) Statiellae (It. Aquae 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. Brixia 10) (It. Patavium 10) (It. (It. 10) Tergeste Bovillae 1) (It. 1) Ostia (It. 3) Grumentum (It. 4) Tibur (It. 4) Tibur (It. 4) Tibur (It. 4) Tibur (It. 4) Tibur (It. 4) Tibur (It. 4) Tibur (It. 4) Tibur (It. 4) Tibur (It. 4) Tibur (It. 4) Tibur (It. 4) Tibur (It. 4) Tibur (It. 4) Tibur (It. 4) Tibur (It. 4) Tibur (It. 4) Tibur (It.

EITY /D Mercury Hercules Augustus Augustus IRTUE V

202 APPENDIX 2: CATALOGUE OF ‘AUGUSTAN’ VIRTUES AND DEITIES

Test710

710 .

Aug(ustae) Herc(ulaneus) / Augustalis Herc(ulaneus) Aug(usto) Herculi / sacrum Aug(usto) Herculi / sacr(um) Aug(usto) Hercul[i] / Aug(usto) Herculi Fortunae August(ae) aedem [Aug(ustae)] Fortunae [mi]nistr(i) Aug(ustae) prim(i) Fortun(ae) minist(ri) Fortunae Augustae / min(istri)Aug(ustae) Fortunae Aug(ustae) ministr(i) Fortun(ae) sacr[um] / [Fo]rtunae [Aug(ustae)] Fortunae Augustae Fortunae Aug(ustae) / / sacrum Fortunae Aug(ustae) / sacr(um) Fortunae Aug(ustae) / sacr(um) Fortunae Aug(ustae) / Aug(ustae) Fort(unae) / Aug(ustae) sacrum Minervae [sa]crum / Aug(ustae) [Miner]vae Aug(ustae) Minerv(a)e Minervae / Aug(ustae) Minervae / Aug(ustae) Minervae / Aug(ustae) sacrum Minervae / Min[e]rvae [Au]g(ustae) / [Mi]nervae Aug(ustae) Aug(ustae) Minervae -

303

2013 -

01,

-

106

QU

A 669 14.3661 11.6308 5.9 10.820 10.828 10.824 10.825 10.826 10.827 14.2040 14.3581 9.6378 5.1867 5.1758 5.1810 14.44 14.3570 11.6335 11.1295 5.800 5.801 5.802 5.8238 5.3906

1926,

PIGRAPHICA AIS NSCR CIL CIL CIL AE P CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL E 408 CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL I CIL

1)

Tibur (It. 4) Tibur (It. Pisaurum 6) (It. Pola 10) (It. (It. 10) Tergeste (It.Mantua 10) 1) Pompeii (It. 1) Pompeii (It. 1) Pompeii (It. 1) Pompeii (It. Pompeii (It. 1) Pompeii (It. Vicus Augustanus 1) (It. Laurentium 4) Tibur (It. Planina 5) (It. (It. 7) Florentia 10) (It. Concordia IuliiForum 10) (It. (It. Glemona 10) 1) Ostia (It. 4) Tibur (It. Pisaurum 6) (It. (It. Travi 8) 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. (It. Arusnates 10)

Fortuna Augusta Augusta Minerva Minerva

710 This aedes of Fortuna Augusta has attracted much scholarly attention, see e.g. Beard, Pompeii, 282, 300; Lomas, “Roman Imperialism,” 70; Lomas, “Urban Renewal and Euergetism,”; Egelhaaf-Gaiser, “Roman Cult Sites,” 218-21.

203 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

sacrum

sacrum

sac(rum)

Tritae Tritae / Aug(ustae) / Aug(usto) [N]eptuno sac(rum) / Neptuno Aug(usto) / sacrum Neptun[o Aug(usto)] / Neptuno Aug(usto) / Neptuno Aug(usto) Eiae / Aug(ustae) / sac(rum) Ei(a)e Aug(ustae) Eiae / Aug(ustae) Eiae Aug(ustae) / Aug(ustae) Ikae Aug(ustae) Ikae / Flor(a)e Aug(ustae) Aug(ustae) Tutel(a)e Dianae Aug(ustae) sacrum / Dianae Augustae / AugustaDiana sacris Aug(ustae) Numini Dia/nae Dianae Aug(ustae) Dianae Aug(ustae) sac(rum) / Dian(ae) Aug(ustae) Dianae Aug(ustae) sacr(um) Dianae / Aug(ustae) / Dian(ae) Aug(ustae) Dia[nae] A[ug(ustae?)] / Dia[nae] A[ug(ustae?)] / sacrum Dianae / Aug(ustae) Dianae Aug(ustae) sac(rum) Dianae / Aug(ustae) Aug(ustae) Cael(estis) Dianae

-

665 660

327 174 178 179 180 181

1984 -

01, 01, 01, 01, 01, 01, 01, 01, - -

------

737 837 422 436 130 425 629 94 237

10 10 - - QU QU QU QU QU QU

T T

I A I A A A A A 1 5.4286 5.8 5.4982 14.2156 11.3859 5.7633 5.7645 5.771 5.772 5.8216 5.5765

1992, 1991, 1983, 1985, 1966, 1983, 2003, 1900, 1976,

PIGRAPHICA AIS NSCR NSCR NSCR NSCR NSCR NSCR NSCR NSCR I I AE E 69 CIL AE I P CIL AE AE AE AE CIL CIL CIL AE CIL AE CIL CIL CIL CIL I I I I I AE CIL

(It. 7) (It.

(It. 10)

Nesactium (It. Nesactium 10) 10) Aquileia (It. (It.Ateste 10) (It.Atria 10) Brixia 10) (It. Brixia 10) (It. Nesactium (It. Nesactium 10) Pola 10) (It. (It. Duecastelli 10) Pola 10) (It. Pola 10) (It. Pola 10) (It. Brixia 10) (It. (It. Aricia 1) Ad Vicesimum Cosa 7) (It. 9) (It. Pollentia 9) (It. Pollentia (It. Fossano 9) 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) (It. Concordia 11) Mediolanum (It.

Neptune Augustus Eia Augusta Ika Augusta Trita Trita Augusta Flora Augusta Diana Augusta Augusta

204 APPENDIX 2: CATALOGUE OF ‘AUGUSTAN’ VIRTUES AND DEITIES

A(ugusto) s(acrum) A(ugusto) [Aug(usto)] / sacrum / [Aug(usto)] Attini Aug(usto) / Attini sac(rum) Aug(usto) Cereris Aug(ustae) Aug[ustae] [Cere]ri(?) August[ae] Vestae / Silvani Aug(usti) S(ilvani) A(ugusti) Silvano Silvano Aug(usto) / sac(rum) Silvano Aug(usto) / sacr(um) Silvano Aug(usto) / sac(rum) Silvano Aug(usto) / sac(rum) Silvano Aug(usto) / sac(rum) Silvano Aug(usto) / sacr(um) Silvano Aug(usto) / sac(rum) Silvano Aug(usto) / sac(rum) Silvano Aug(usto) / sacr(um) Silvano Aug(usto) / s(acrum) A(ugusto) S(ilvano) s(acrum) A(ugusto) S(ilvano) S(ilvano) /Silvan(o) Aug(usto) Silvano Aug(usto) / Silvano Aug(usto) / Silvano Aug(usto) / Silvano Aug(usto) / Silvano Aug(usto) / Silvano Aug(usto) / sacr(um) Silvano Aug(usto) / sacr(um) Silvano Aug(usto) / / [sa]crum / [Sil]vano [A]ug(usto)

339 349

B

01, 01,

- -

232

QU QU A A 14.3534 14.409 5.1872 5.8655 14.309 11.6315 11.5954 11.363 11.555 5.818 5.821 5.822 5.823 5.824 5.825 5.827 5.828 5.831 5.832 5.819 5.820 5.826 5.829 5.830 5.8244 5.8245 5.4290

1990,

NSCR NSCR CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL AE CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL I I CIL

Tibur (It. 4) Tibur (It. 1) Ostia (It. 10) (It. Concordia 10) (It. Concordia 1) Ostia (It. (It. Superaequum 4) Pisaurum 6) (It. 6) (It. Mergens Pitinum 8) (It. Ariminum (It. 8) Caesena 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. Brixia 10) (It.

Silvanus Silvanus Augustus AugustaVesta Ceres Augusta Ceres Attis Augustus Attis

205 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

/ Augustis /

Silvan(o) Aug(usto) Silvan(o) s(acrum) A(ugusto?) S(ilvano?) / [Sil]vano Aug(usto) Silvano Aug(usto) / Silvano Aug(usto) / sacrum / Silvano Aug(usto) Silvano Aug(usto) Silvano Aug(usto) Silvano Aug(usto) / sa[cr(um)] / Si[lvano] Aug(usto) s(acrum) Aug(usto) S(ilvano) sacrum / Silvano Aug(usto) / sacrum Aug(usto) Max(imo) / Opt(imo) Iovi Aug(usto) Iovi Augustis / Lymphisq(ue) Nymphis Di{i}s / Parentibus Victoriae Augustae A[ug(ustae) Victor(iae) Victoriae Aug(ustae) / Victoriae Augustor(um) / / sacrum Victoriae Aug(ustae) sacr(um) / Aug(ustae) Vict(oriae) Victoriae August(ae) / sacr(um) Aug(ustae) Vict(oriae) / sacrum / [Vic]toria[e] Augustae / Victoriam Augustam Caesaris Victoriae [sacerdoti Au]g(usti)

98 421 157 225

2 5.5007 5.706 5.3299 5.3300 5.3301 5.424 5.485 5.2383 5.7146 5.4014 5.6955 5.3106 5.3290 10.3682 10.1237 14.68 14.5321 10.5822 10.2585 10.2 9.3336 9.5904

1940, 1990, 1982, 1990,

AIS CIL CIL P AE AE CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL AE CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL AE CIL

Brixia (It. Brixia 10) (It. 10) (It. Fons Timavi (It. Nesactium 10) Pola 10) (It. 10) Tridentum (It. (It. 10) Verona (It. 10) Verona (It. 10) Verona 10) Cepic (It. 10) Capodistria (It. (It. 8) Ferrara (It. Augusta Taurinorum 11) (It. Arilica 10) (It. Augusta Taurinorum 11) (It. Vicetia 10) (It. 10) Verona 1) Cumae (It. 1) (It. Minturnae Nola (It. 1) 1) Ostia (It. 1) Ostia (It. (It. 1) Ferentinum Tusculum 1) (It. 3) (It. Regium Iulium 4) (It.Aternum 4) (It.Iuvanum (It. Ancona 5)

Jupiter Jupiter Victoria Victoria Augusta Augusta Augustus Augustus Lymphae Lymphae Diis Parentibus Diis Parentibus

206 APPENDIX 2: CATALOGUE OF ‘AUGUSTAN’ VIRTUES AND DEITIES

cultor(es)

/ Aug(usto) /

[sacerdoti Au]g(usti) Victoriae Caesaris Victoriae [sacerdoti Au]g(usti) Victoriae August(ae) / Victoriae Augustor(um) / Aug(usti) / Victoria[e] [[s[acr(um]]… [Vi]ctoriae Au[g(ustae)] sacr(um) / Victoriae Augustae / Au[g(ustae)] Victor(iae) Victoriae Aug(ustorum) Aug(ustae) Vic(toriae) / Aug(ustae) Vict(oriae) Aug(ustae) Victor(iae) Victoriae Aug(ustae) sac(rum) Libertati Aug(ustae) / sacrum Augusto Vertumno / sacrum / Marti Aug(usto) / sacrum / Marti Aug(usto) sacrum / Marti Aug(usto) Marti sacrum / Marti Aug(usto) Marti Aug(usto) Marti Aug(usto) sa[c(rum)] /Mar[ti] Aug(usto) August(i) / sacerdoti Apollinis Aug[usto] Apollini divo Augustali / Herculano sacerdoti Apolli/nis Apollin[i] [A]ug(usto) / Apollini Aug(usto)

75

365

1

01

, 1

05, T 01, 243 -

- - A C,

403 577

- - 10 - QU T 12 08 A I - - 1953 1011 - T T 9.5904 11.3780 11.6710, 5.4986 5.4089 5.5070 5.5025 5.6959 5.6960 9.5892 14.4300 11.7413 11.1919 5.5081 5.3263 10.3716 9.783 14.4254 11.7271 I I 1990, 1995,

AIS UP UP NSCR NSCR CIL CIL CIL P I CIL I CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL AE CIL NSA CIL S CIL CIL CIL CIL AE CIL CIL CIL S CIL

(It. 1) (It.

Ancona (It. Ancona 5) 7) Veii (It. Bononia 8) (It. (It. 9) Germanorum Forum 10) Aquileia (It. Brixia 10) (It. Brixia 10) (It. (It. Bedriacum 10) 10) Anauni (It. 10) Tridentum (It. (It. Augusta Taurinorum 11) (It. Augusta Taurinorum 11) 10) Bellunum (It. (It. Ancona 5) 1) Ostia (It. 1) Ostia (It. 6) Attidium (It. (It. 7) Ferentium 7) Perusia (It. 10) (It.Sublavio (It. 10) Verona 10) Carnicum (It. Iulium Liternum (It. 2) Luceria 4) Tibur (It. (It. 8) Caesena (It. 10) Verona

Apollo Apollo Augusta Augustus Augustus Libertatis Libertatis Vertumnus Mars Augustus Mars

207 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

sacrum

[I]ustitiae Augustae[I]ustitiae Augu[stae] /Iust[itiae] / sacrum Iustitiae Augustae Nymphis Aug(ustae) [Nymph]is Aug[ustis] Nymphis Aug(ustis) Iunoni Augustae Aug(ustis) Iunonibus/ A[ug(ustis?)] Iunonib(us) sacrum / Aug(ustis) / Iunonib(us) / Iunonibus Aug(ustis) /sac(rum) Iunonibus Aug(utis) / Fatissacr(um) Aug(ustis) sacr(um) Fon(ti) Aug(usto) Fontib(us) Aug(ustis) / Augustae Fid(e)i / sac(rum) Fidei Aug(ustae) sacr(um) Augustae / Providentiae Augustae / Providentiae / Aug(usti) Securit(ati) Augustae cultorum Spei Spe[i] Augu[stae] / sacr(um) / Spei Aug(ustae) sacr(um) / Spei Aug(ustae) sac(rum) Spei / Aug(ustae) sac(rum) Spei / Aug(ustae) Spei Aug(ustae) Spei Aug(ustae) Spei Aug(ustae) sac(rum) Spei / Aug(ustae) Spei Aug/g(ustorum)

197 355 357

9 19 01, 01, 01,

- - - 216

190 432 339 107

QU QU QU A A A 410 9.4133 9.5890 9.5891 11.1050 5.3915 9.1098 5.3237 5.3238 5.3239 5.3240 5.8250 9.5845 9.5422 11.4171 5.1871 14.2899 10.6645 14.4330 5.834 5.707 ONCOR ONCOR

1951, 1975, 1981, 1926,

AIS IRENZE P NSCR NSCR NSCR CIL CIL AE CIL CIL CIL CIL AE CIL CIL CIL CIL I F CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL AE CIL I I IRC IRC P AE CIL

Aequiculi (It. 4) Aequiculi (It. (It. Ancona 5) 7) Tarquinii (It. (It. Ancona 5) (It.Parma 8) (It. Arusnates 10) (It. Aeclanum 2) Brixia 10) (It. (It. 10) Verona (It. 10) Verona (It. 10) Verona (It. 10) Verona 10) Aquileia (It. (It. 7) Florentia 10) Aquileia (It. 5) (It. Auximum 5) Picenus (It. Falerio (It. 6) Naharas Interamna 10) (It. Concordia (It. 1) Praeneste (It.Antium 1) 1) Ostia (It. (It. Heba 7) 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) (It. Concordia 10) (It. Concordia 10) (It. Concordia 10) (It. Fons Timavi 10) (It. Fons Timavi

Fontis Iustitia Iunones Iunones Augusta Augusta Augusta Augusta Augusta Nymphis Nymphis Securitas Augustus Providentia Augusta Fatis Fatis Augusta Augusta

208 APPENDIX 2: CATALOGUE OF ‘AUGUSTAN’ VIRTUES AND DEITIES

Aug(ustae)

s(acrum)

Spei Spei Aug(ustae) Spei Aug(ustae) sac(rum) Spei / Aug(ustae) Saluti Aug(ustae) Salutis Aug(ustae) flamini(cae) Salutis Aug(ustae) Salutis Aug(ustae) Augustae Saltui Perpetuae S(aluti) A(ugustaae) Aug(ustae) et Salutis sacerdoti Spei sacr(um) /Libero Aug(usto) sac(rum) / Genio Lib(eri) Aug(usti) sac(rum) Libero Aug(usto) L(ibero) A(ugusto) sac(rum) Viribus / Aug(ustis) Augustis Viribus / Nymphis et Isidi Aug(ustae) / sac[r(um)] / Isidi A[ug(ustae)] sacrum Apollini / Isidis Aug(ustae) sacr(um) / Isid(i) / Aug(ustae) sac(rum) Isi / Aug(ustae) / sacr(um) Isidi Aug(ustae) / sacr(um) / [I]sidi Aug(ustae) Isidi Aug(ustae) Isidi Aug(ustae) / sacerd(os) [Isid]is Isidi Aug(ustae) sac(rum) Isidi Aug(ustae) /

232 585 326 327

- -

04 04 02, 01, - - - -

201 137

10 10 10 10 - - - - T T T T 486 I I I I

5.708 5.428 9.5534 9.5530 11.4170 11.361 14.2804 10.6435 5.326 5.8248 11.1162 10.4717 11.1916 5.8215 5.8225 5.8226 5.8227 5.8224 5.2806 5.5079 5.517

1979, 1946,

NSCR NSCR NSCR NSCR CIL I I CIL CIL AE CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL I I CIL CIL SIRIS CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL AE CIL CIL CIL

(It. 5) (It.

Fons Timavi 10) (It. Fons Timavi (It. 10) Tergeste (It. 10) Tergeste 10) Piquentum (It. Urbs Salvia 5) (It. Urbs Salvia 5) (It. Urbs Salvia (It. 6) Nahars Interamna 8) (It. Ariminum 1) Gabii (It. 1) Privernum (It. 10) Parentium (It. 10) Parentium (It. Pola 10) (It. 10) Aquileia (It. (It. Veleia 8) 1) Pompeii (It. 1) (It. Popilii Forum 7) Perusia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. Patavium 10) (It. 10) (It.Sublavio (It. 10) Tergeste

Augustus Salutis Salutis Viribus Viribus Augusta Augusta Spes and and Spes Augustus Augustus Isis Augusta Nymphis Nymphis and Salus Augusta Liber Liber

209 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

Aug(ustae) Isidi Aug(ustae) sac(rum) Isidi Aug(ustae) / Aug(ustae)] Pi[etati sacrum / Paci August(i) sacrum Matri / Statae Augustae / Deae Bon(ae) sacrum / /Bonae Aug(ustae) Deae Cereri[a]e sacrum / Augustae Deae Bonae sac(rum) Cautopati Aug(usto) / A(ugusto?) A(poni) A(ugusto?) A(poni) A(ugusto?) A(poni) A(ugusto?) A(poni) A(ugusto?) A(poni) sac(rum) Aug(usto) / Beleno Apollini / Aug(usto) Beleno Apollini / Aug(usto) Beleno Apollini / Aug(usto) / Beleno Apollini / sacrum / Belino Aug(usto) sacr(um) / Beleno Aug(usto) sac(rum) Belino Aug(usto) / Belino Augus(to) / Aug(usto) Belen(o) / Beleno Aug(usto) / Beleno Aug(usto) Belino Aug(usto) / / Aug(usto) Belen(o) Aug(usto) /Deo Belen(o) sacr(um) Belino Aug(usto) / Belino Aug(usto) /

133 134 137 138 139 140 ------

01 01 01 01 01 01

------

151

QU QU QU QU QU QU A A A A A A 5.3229 14.3693 14.2898 11.3321 11.2996 5.756 5.761 5.765 5.2785 5.2786 5.2788 5.2789 5.2790 5.748 5.741 5.749 5.753 5.738 5.742 5.745 5.734 5.744 5.752

1966,

NSCR NSCR NSCR NSCR NSCR NSCR CIL AE CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL I I I I I I

10)

4) (It. 10) (It.

Verona (It. 10) Verona 10) (It.Neapolis Tibur (It. (It. 1) Praeneste 7) Sutrium (It. Pagliano 7) (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. Patavium (It. Patavium 10) (It. Patavium 10) (It. Patavium 10) (It. Patavium 10) (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. Aquileia 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It.

Aponus Belenus Belenus Augusta Augusta Augustus Augustus Augustus Augustus Bona Dea Bona Dea Cautopates Cautopates Stata Mater Stata Mater Pax Pax Augustus Pietas Augusta Pietas Apollo Apollo Belenus

210 APPENDIX 2: CATALOGUE OF ‘AUGUSTAN’ VIRTUES AND DEITIES

[A]ug(usto) / [sacr]um / [A]ug(usto) Aug(usto) Belino / Belino Aug(usto) / / Aug(usto) Belen(o) sacr(um) / Beleno Aug(usto) A(ugusto) B(eleno) D(eo) Belino Aug(usto) / Belino Aug(usto) sac(rum) [A]ug(usto) /[Beleno] sacr(um) Aug(usto) defen/sori Beleno Augus(to) Bel(eno) Belino / Aug(usto) B[e]l[e]no / Serapi Aug(usto) sac(rum) Aug(usto) Aesculapio / / [A]esc(u)lapio sac(rum) / Aescu/lapio Aug(usto) / sac(rum) [A]ug(usto) Aesculapio / sacr(um) / [A]scle[p]io Au[g(usto)] Asecula/pio Aug(usto) sacr(um) Aug(usto) Asclepio Salutari sacr(um) Aug(ustis) / /Hygiae Aesculap(io) et Aug(ustis) / /Hygiae Aesculap(i)o et sac(rum) /Saturno Aug(usto) sacrum / /Saturno Aug(usto) sacrum / /Saturno Augusto sacr(um) /Saturno Aug(usto) Saturno D(eo) Aug(usto) s(acrum) S(aturno?) Aug(usto) S(ancto?) D(eo?) Volcano Aug(usto)

140 142 145 146 147 148 149 151 91 ------

01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01

------

QU QU QU QU QU QU QU QU QU

A A A A A A A A A 715 5.1866 5.2144 5.2146 5.3294 5.726 5.728 5.729 5.6 5.2036 11.3710 5.731 5.730 5.8844 5.5024 5.3291 5.3292 5.5068 5.838

AIS NSCR NSCR NSCR NSCR NSCR NSCR NSCR NSCR NSCR I I I I I I I I CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL I CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL CIL P CIL

Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) (It. Concordia 10) (It. 10) Altinum (It. (It. 10) Verona 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. Pola 10) (It. 10) Bellunum (It. Pyrgi 7) (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. (It. Arusnates 10) 10) Tridentum (It. (It. 10) Verona (It. 10) Verona Cles 10) (It. Cles 10) (It. 10) Aquileia (It.

Vulcan Serapis Salutaris Salutaris Saturnus Augustus Augustus Augustus Augustus Augustus Asclepius Asclepius Asclepius and Asclepius Hygia Augusta

211 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

TEST

711

711

Augusta[e pietati] Augusta[e

Aug(usto) Volan(o) /Veneri Aug(ustae) Aug(ustae) Veneri / /sacr(um) Aug(ustaae) Vener(i) Aug(ustae) Veneri sacr(um) Augustae / Caelesti Veneri pietati. Concoridae Augustae / [Con]cordiae sacr(um) / Concordia Aug(ustae)

363

01,

-

1049

QU A

5.4294 5.835 5.836 9.2562 10.810 10.811 5.5058

2001,

NSCR CIL CIL CIL I AE CIL CIL CIL CIL

10) (It.

Brixia 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Aquileia (It. 10) Altinum (It. Undecimanorum Bovianum (It. 4) 1) Pompeii (It. 1) Pompeii (It. 10) Anauni (It.

Venus Augusta Augusta Caelestis Caelestis Concordia Venus Augusta

711 Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, 29; Zanker, Power of Images, 308; Lomas, “Urban Renewal and Euergetism,” 35; Richardson Jr., “Concordia and Concordia Augusta,” 269.

212 EPIGRAPHIC CONCORDANCE

EPIGRAPHIC CONCORDANCE

Main Identifier Other Catalogues Findspot AArchSlov- Pola (It. 10). 1984-312 AE 1898, 79. SupIt-05-S, 8 = Campedelli 92 = AE 1984, 282. Superaequum (It. 4). AE 1900, 94. InscrIt-09-01, 176. Pollentia (It. 9). AE 1900, 133. AE 1909, +138 Tusculum (It. 1). AE 1905, 199. EE-09, 903 = InscrIt-04-01, 214. Tibur (It. 4). AE 1906, 79 ILS 9388 = EE-09, 680 = TermeDiocleziano-01, p 260 = AE Tusculum (It. 1). 1907, +77. AE 1908, 207 Musarna (It. 7). AE 1910, 191 InscrIt-03-01, 113 = ILS 9390 = IFF 23 = Bergemann 37 = AE Forum Popilii (It. 2009, +256. 3). AE 1913, 219 NSA-1913-52 Castra Albanum (It. 1). AE 1916, 62. SupIt-15, 3 = AE 1997, +584. Ateste (It. 10). AE 1922, 78. InscrIt-04-01, 74 = BCAR-2012-90 = AE 1926, 126 = AE Tibur (It. 4). 2013, +201 AE 1922, 120. MEFR-1981-872 = AE 1981, +225 Sinuessa (It. 1). AE 1926, 106. InscrIt-10-04, 322 = InscrAqu-01, 217. Tergeste (It. 10). AE 1926, 107. Fons Timavi (It. 10). AE 1927, 13. NSA-1901-26 = AE 1901, 173. Viggiano (It. 3). AE 1927, 107 NSA-1926-57. Giano dell’Umbria (It. 6). AE 1935, 22 Bergemann 26 Minturnae (It. 1). AE 1939, 142. NSA-1938-6 = AE 1979, 232. Cosa (It. 7). AE 1940, 62 Epigraphica-1939, 28 Ostia (It. 1). AE 1940, 98. InscrIt-10-01, 650. Pola (It. 10). AE 1946, 137. SIRIS 630 = RICIS-02, 515/808 = RICIS-S-02, p 288 = Verona (It. 10). RICIS-03, 515/808. AE 1946, 175 NSA-1939-126 = Casinum-02, 17. Casinum (It. 1). AE 1947, 46. RAComo-1927-145 = AE 1962, +175. Capiate (It. 11). AE 1948, 28 CCCA-03, 387 = AE 1987, 202 Ostia (It. 1). AE 1951, 190. NSA-1948-266. Tarquinii (It. 7). AE 1951, 217. AE 1956, +265 Herculaneum (It. 1). AE 1952, 150. NSA-1950-197 = IFF 63 = AE 1988, 608. Collegno (It. 11). AE 1955, 168. NSA-1953-255 = SdOstia-11, 102a = ELOstia p.217 = Ostia (It. 1). Questori 3. AE 1955, 169. NSA-1953-256 = ELOstia p.218 = Questori 2 Ostia (It. 1). AE 1956, 144. AE 1985, 278 Puteoli (It. 1). AE 1961, 109. SupIt-03-Co, 8 = EAOR-03, 40 = AE 1994, +542 Corfinium (It. 4). AE 1964, 151 AE 1966, +65 Ostia (It. 1). AE 1964, 155. AE 1966, +65 Ostia (It. 1). AE 1966, 151. SIRIS 596a = RICIS-02, 514/201 = AE 1966, 151. Neapolis (It. 10). AE 1966, 130. Pola (It. 10). AE 1967, 90 IETraiana-B, 5 = Ordona-01, 6 Herdonia (It. 2). AE 1967, 94. IETraiana-B, 8 = Ordona-01, 3 = IFF 18. Herdonia (It. 2). AE 1969/70, RAL-1970-111 = Bergemann 40 Puteoli (It. 1). 107 AE 1969/70, RAL-1970-119 = Bergemann 41 = AE 1983, 194 Puteoli (It. 1). 108 AE 1969/70, Epigraphica-1972-137 Cales (It. 1). 110 AE 1971, 79. Epigraphica-1970-72 = IFF 7. Formiae (It. 1).

213 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

AE 1972, 154. SupIt-04-T, 43 = AE 1995, +423 Trebula Suffenas (It. 1). AE 1973, 235. Epigraphica-2002-132 = Horster p 316 = AE 1986, 236 = AE Cosa (It. 7). 2002, 465. AE 1974, 345. Mediolanum (It. 11) AE 1974, 348. IFF 68. Mediolanum (It. 11). AE 1975, 211 Misenum (It. 1). AE 1975, 212 Misenum (It. 1). AE 1975, 240. Paestum 12 Paestum (It. 3). AE 1975, 251. Paestum 86 Paestum (It. 3). AE 1975, 256. EAOR-03, 38 = Paestum 92 Paestum (It. 3). AE 1975, 257. Paestum 97 Paestum (It. 3). AE 1975, 349. Aesernia 24 = Bergemann 22 = AE 2008, +137 Aesernia (It. 4). AE 1975, 353. SupIt-23-F, 1 = AE 2005, 452 Firmum Picenum (It. 5). AE 1975, 354. Euergetismo-Cup, 5 = SupIt-23-f, 2 = AE 1978, 291. Firmum Picenum (It. 5). AE 1975, 358 MilliariRegioni 57 = AE 1978, 290 = AE 1980, 380. San Ginesio (It. 5). AE 1975, 403 SupIt-04-A, 7 = IFF 42 = AE 2012, +149. Albingaunum (It. 9). AE 1975, 432. InscrIt-10-05, 838. Brixia (It. 10). AE 1976, 147. Teanum Apulum (It. 2). AE 1976, 237. ILLConcordia-01, 1. Concordia (It. 10). AE 1977, 274. SupIt-06-T, 7 = ETrentine 22 = Arctos-15-101 = AnalEpi p Tridentum (It. 10). 113. AE 1978, 325. Lunensia p 298 = AE 2014, 443. Luna (It. 7). AE 1978, 326. Luna (It. 7). AE 1979, 169 Herculaneum (It. 1). AE 1979, 201. Urbs Salvia (It. 5). AE 1979, 290. SupIt-17-Fe, 2 = AE 1999, +699 = AE 2014, +472. Ravenna (It. 8). AE 1980, 417. Questori 325 Sassina (It. 6). AE 1980, 457. SupIt-16-R, 3 = AE 2001, +956 = AE 2003, +1014. Rusellae (It. 7). AE 1980, 458. SupIt-16-R, 4 = AE 2001, +956. Rusellae (It. 7). AE 1981, 339. Chiron-1981-142. Heba (It. 7). AE 1982, 132. NSA-1953-291 = AE 1991, 333. Ostia (It. 1). AE 1982, 149. Minturnae (It. 1). AE 1982, 155. Minturnae (It. 1). AE 1982, 157. Minturnae (It. 1). AE 1982, 272. SupIt-01-FN, 12. Falerii (It. 7). AE 1983, 399b. Lucus Feroniae (It. 7). AE 1983, 422. Duecastelli (It. 10). AE 1983, 425. Pola (It. 10). AE 1983, 443a. Pais 746 Comum (It. 11). AE 1983, 443b. Pais 745 = IRComo-Po, 6 = AE 2010, +57. Comum (It. 11). AE 1984, 186 AnalEpi p 215 = AE 2007, +267 Sinuessa (It. 1). AE 1985, 392. Luna (It. 7). AE 1985, 436. AE 1989, 322 = AE 1995, 557d. Pola (It. 10). AE 1987, 204. Ostia (It. 1). AE 1987, 453. Verona (It. 10). AE 1987, 546. SupIt-08-Br, 1 = AE 2003, +64. Brixia (It. 10). AE 1988, 182. Ostia (It. 1). AE 1988, 184. Ostia (It. 1). AE 1988, 188. SdOstia-12-B, 42 = IFF 11 Ostia (It. 1). AE 1988, 201. NSA-1953-288 Ostia (It. 1).

214 EPIGRAPHIC CONCORDANCE

AE 1988, 211. NSA-1953-295 Ostia (It. 1). AE 1988, 422. SupIt-03-Co, 10 = IFF 24 Corfinium (It. 4). AE 1988, 554. Lucus Feroniae (It. 7). AE 1990, 225. Iuvanum (It. 4). AE 1990, 232. SupIt-05-S, 4. Superaequum (It. 4). AE 1990, 272 SupIt-04-T, 1. Trebula Suffenas (It. 1). AE 1990, 274 SupIt-04-T, 9. Trebula Suffenas (It. 1). AE 1990, 403. SupIt-04-B, 5. Bellunum (It. 10). AE 1990, 421. SupIt-06-T, 8 = ETrentine 58. Tridentum (It. 10). AE 1990, 433. RMD-03, 182 Mediolanum (It. 11). AE 1991, 514a. ELarino 123a = IFF 20a Larinum (It. 4). AE 1991, 726. SupIt-25-AS, 3 = AcquiTermeDiocleziano-01, p 51 = AE Aquae Statiellae (It. 2001, +982. 9) AE 1991, 811. IFF 56a = AE 2001, 1060. Verona (It. 10). AE 1991, 822. SupIt-08-Br, 3a = IFF 50 Brixia (It. 10). AE 1991, 837. SupIt-08-Br, 23. Brixia (It. 10). AE 1992, 302 Bovino 196 = MEFR-1992-145 Vibinum (It. 2). AE 1992, 336. MGR-1992-177 = IFF 25 Pinna Vestina (It. 4). AE 1992, 364 SupIt-09-A, 6 Amiternum (It. 4). AE 1992, 577 AE 2000, +251 Luca (It. 7). AE 1992, 737. SupIt-15, 6. Ateste (It. 10). AE 1993, 422. AE 1995, 255 = AE 1996, +327 Castra Albanum (It. 1). AE 1993, 467 AE 1994, 426a = AE 2007, +359. Misenum (It. 1). AE 1993, 468 AE 1994, 426b = AE 2007, +359. Misenum (It. 1). AE 1993, 469. AE 2007, +359. Misenum (It. 1). AE 1993, 470. AE 1994, 426c = AE 2007, +359. Misenum (It. 1). AE 1993, 471. AE 2007, +359. Misenum (It. 1). AE 1993, 474. AE 1994, 426f = AE 2007, +359 = AE 2007, 414 = AE 2011, Misenum (It. 1). +29. AE 1993, 475. AE 2007, +359. Misenum (It. 1). AE 1993, 476 AE 2007, +359. Misenum (It. 1). AE 1993, 477. IFF p 165 = AE 2007, +359 = AE 2013, +107. Misenum (It. 1). AE 1993, 478. AE 2000, 98 = AE 2007, +359. Misenum (It. 1). AE 1993, 479 AE 2007, +359 = AE 2007, 415. Misenum (It. 1). AE 1994, 624 MEFR-1994-154 = AE 2003, 643 Ad Vicesimum (It. 7). AE 1994, 638. SupIt-12-In, 6. Industria (It. 9). AE 1995, 347 SupIt-20, 6 = AE 2006, 345 Venusia (It. 2). AE 1995, 348 SupIt-20, 7 = AE 2003, 364 Venusia (It. 2). AE 1995, 419. Tibur (It. 4). AE 1995, 577. IulCarnicum-02, 11. Iulium Carnicum (It. 10) AE 1996, 424 AE 1993, 472 = AE 1993, 473 = AE 1994, 426d-e = AE 2007, Misenum (It. 1). +359. AE 1997, 343. ELarino 114 = IFF 19 Larinum (It. 4). AE 1997, 397. Epigraphica-1997-354 = IFF 14 Aeclanum (It. 2). AE 1997, 562. InscrIt-09-01, 129 = IFF 46. Pollentia (It. 9). AE 1998, 286. Praeneste (It. 1). AE 1998, 416 IFF 31 = AE 2013, +194 Interamnia Praetuttiorum (It. 5). AE 1999, 462. Venafrum 18 = AE 2008, 412 Venafrum (It. 4). AE 1999, 689. AE 2001, +997. Pola (It. 10).

215 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

AE 2000, 344 JRS-2000-130 = AE 2003, +279 = AE 2004, +423 = AE 2007, Misenum (It. 1). +359. AE 2000, 345a. AE 2011, +243. Misenum (It. 1). AE 2000, 345c. Misenum (It. 1). AE 2000, 627. AE 2001, +1073. Tridentum (It. 10). AE 2001, 853. SupIt-25-L, 16 = AE 2007, +359. Liternum (It. 1). AE 2001, 854. SupIt-25-L, 17 = AE 2007, +359. Liternum (It. 1). AE 2001, 1049 AE 2010, 548. Altinum (It. 10). AE 2001, 1069 SupIt-25-B, 118 Brixia (It. 10). AE 2003, 629. Cosa (It. 7). AE 2003, 635. Cosa (It. 7). AE 2004, 460 EE-08-01, 112 = SupIt-22-A, 22 Histonium (It. 4). AE 2005, 478 Picus-2005-54 Forum Sempronii (It. 6). AE 2008, 357. RPAA-2008/09-49 = IFF 8b Herculaneum (It. 1). AE 2008, 358. IFF 8a = RPAA-2008/09-51. Herculaneum (It. 1). AE 2008, 524. Engfer-01, 385 = AE 2011, +89. Tarquinii (It. 7). AE 2009, 284. Spigolature-03, 5 = IFF 26 Pinna Vestina (It. 4). AE 2010, 381 Terventum p 242 = SupIt-27-T, 7 Terventum (It. 4) AE 2011, 244 Misenum (It. 1). AE 2011, 246 Misenum (It. 1). AE 2013, 397 Spigolature-07, 5 Alba Fucens (It. 4). Agnoli-01, p Praeneste (It. 1). 243 CIG III 5805 IG XIV 748 = IGI-Napoli-01, 52 Neapolis (It. 1). CIL 4.1180 GladPar 15 = Engfer-01, 88 = AE 1949, 9 Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 4.1185 GladPar 8 = AE 1991, +433 Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 4.1196 GladPar 36 Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 4.3882 GladPar 63 = ILS 5146 = AE 1888, 155 Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 4.3884. GladPar 5 = ILS 5145 = AE 1991, +433 Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 4.7988b-c GladPar 20a Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 4.7989a CIL 4.7989c = GladPar 18 Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 4.7992. GladPar 7 = AE 1991, +433 Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 4.7995. GladPar 6 = AE 1937, 126 = AE 1991, +433 Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 4.7996. Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 4.8282 GraffPomp 72 Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 4.9964 GladPar 37 Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 4.9969 GladPar 77 = AE 1992, 270 = AE 2006, 289 Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 5.6. InscrIt-10-01, 1. Pola (It. 10). CIL 5.8. InscrIt-10-01, 3 = ILS 4892. Pola (It. 10). CIL 5.9. InscrIt-10-01, 6. Pola (It. 10). CIL 5.17. InscrIt-10-01, 20 = EAOR-02, 77. Pola (It. 10). CIL 5.18. ILS 110 = InscrIt-10-01, 21 Pola (It. 10). CIL 5.31. InscrIt-10-01, 45. Pola (It. 10). CIL 5.47. InscrIt-10-01, 70 = ILS 5755. Pola (It. 10). CIL 5.326. InscrIt-10-02, 2. Parentium (It. 10). CIL 5.330. InscrIt-10-02, 7 = ILS 678. Parentium (It. 10). CIL 5.424. InscrIt-10-03, 196 = Liburnia 27. Cepic (It. 10). CIL 5.428. ILS 3824 = InscrIt-10-03, 103. Piquentum (It. 10). CIL 5.485. InscrIt-10-03, 2. Capodistria (It. 10). CIL 5.517. SIRIS 598 = InscrIt-10-04, 9 = RICIS-02, 514/501 = RICIS- Tergeste (It. 10). 03, 514/501. CIL 5.520. ILS 4104 = InscrIt-10-04, 10 = CCCA-04, 244 = IFF 55. Tergeste (It. 10). CIL 5.522. InscrIt-10-04, 13 = Legio-XV-Apo 197. Tergeste (It. 10). CIL 5.529. InscrIt-10-04, 27 = SupIt-10-T, 7 = Tergeste p 47 = AE 1978, Tergeste (It. 10). 353 = AE 1992, 690. CIL 5.530. InscrIt-10-04, 26. Tergeste (It. 10).

216 EPIGRAPHIC CONCORDANCE

CIL 5.534 ILS 1379 = InscrIt-10-04, 33 = AE 1991, +757 Tergeste (It. 10). CIL 5.535. InscrIt-10-04, 35 = Tergeste p.82 = AE 1991, +757 Tergeste (It. 10). CIL 5.454. InscrIt-10-04, 59 = ILS 6681 = Tergeste p 41 = RSH 40. Tergeste (It. 10). CIL 5.706. InscrIt-10-04, 324 = InscrAqu-01, 358. Fons Timavi (It. 10). CIL 5.707. Fons Timavi (It. 10). CIL 5.708. InscrIt-10-04, 325 = EQNoricum-A, 3. Fons Timavi (It. 10). CIL 5.726. InscrAqu-01, 92. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.728. Pais 175 = InscrAuq-01, 90. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.729. InscrAqu-01, 89. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.730. InscrAqu-01, 95. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.731. InscrAuq-01, 93 = IEAquil 205. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.734. InscrAqu-01, 135. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.738. ILS 4868 = InscrAqu-01, 136. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.741. InscrAqu-01, 130. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.742. InscrAqu-01, 141 = ILS 4870. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.744. ILS 4874 = InscrAqu-01, 143. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.745. InscrAqu-01, 144. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.748. InscrAqu-03, 3254 = ILS 4871. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.749. InscrAqu-01, 131 = ILS 4873. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.752. InscrAqu-01, 150. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.753. InscrAqu-01, 132. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.756. InscrAqu-01, 163 = BonaDea 108. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.761. InscrAqu-01, 164 = ILS 3499 = BonaDea 112. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.765. InscrAqu-01, 170 = CIMRM-01, 740. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.771. InscrAqu-01, 176. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.772. InscrAqu-01, 177 = IEAquil 13. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.798. InscrAqu-01, 295 = Arctos-011-162 = AE 2011, +391. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.791. InscrAqu-01, 269. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.800. Pais 1117a = InscrAqu-01, 300 = IEAquil 224. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.801. Pais 66 = InscrAqu-01, 301 = ILS 3128 = IEAquil 240. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.802. InscrAqu-01, 302. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.813. InscrAqu-01, 325 = IEAquil 12. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.818. InscrAqu-01, 338. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.819. InscrAqu-01, 340. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.820. InscrAqu-01, 341. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.821. InscrAqu-01, 342. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.822. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.823. InscrAqu-01, 343. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.824. InscrAqu-01, 347. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.825. InscrAqu-01, 344. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.826. InscrAqu-01, 346 = IEAquil 228. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.827. ILS 3551 = InscrAqu-01, 345. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.828. InscrAqu-01, 351. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.829. InscrAqu-01, 350 = ILS 3550 = IEAquil 230. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.830. IGLTreviso 8. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.831. InscrAqu-01, 348 = IEAquil 231. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.832. Pais 68 = InscrAqu-01, 336 = ILS 3552. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.835. InscrAqu-01, 361 = IEAquil 236. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.836. InscrAqu-01, 362. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.838. InscrAuq-03, 3258. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.852. InscrIt-10-04, 337 = Tergeste p.89 = AE 1992, 703 Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.856. InscrAqu-01, 446 = ILS 547. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.857. InscrAqu-01, 447 = IEAquil 75. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.858. InscrAqu-01, 462 = AE 2007, +581. Aquileia (It. 10).

217 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

CIL 5.875. InscrAqu-01, 495 = ILS 1374 = IEAquil 62 = Bergemann 7 = Aquileia (It. 10). AE 1893, 91 = AE 1893, 125 = AE 1995, +571 CIL 5.834. InscrAqu-01, 356 = InscrIt-10-04, 398 = IEAquil 232. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.1758. AE 2006, +464. Forum Iulii (It. 10). CIL 5.1762. Forum Iulii (It. 10). CIL 5.1810. IulCarnicum-01, 7 = IulCarnicum-02, 5. Glemona (It. 10). CIL 5.1866. AE 1995, 584 = IRConcor 1. Concordia (It. 10). CIL 5.1867. Maffeiano 65. Concordia (It. 10). CIL 5.1871. IRConcor 8. Concordia (It. 10). CIL 5.1872. CIL 5.8654 = IRConcor 13 = ILLConcordia-01, 4 = AE 2007, Concordia (It. 10). +264. CIL 5.2036. Bellunum (It. 10). CIL 5.2144. Altinum (It. 10). CIL 5.2146. Altinum (It. 10). CIL 5.2313 CCID 452. Atria (It. 10). CIL 5.2383. ILS 3524 = AE 2007, +267. Ferrara (It. 8). CIL 5.2475. CCID 451. Ateste (It. 10). CIL 5.2480. Ateste (It. 10). CIL 5.2524. Questori 408. Ateste (It. 10). CIL 5.2533. Ateste (It. 10). CIL 5.2785. ILS 6694 = Questori 407. Patavium (It. 10). CIL 5.2786. Maffeiano 68. Patavium (It. 10). CIL 5.2788. Maffeiano 69. Patavium (It. 10). CIL 5.2789. Patavium (It. 10). CIL 5.2790. Patavium (It. 10). CIL 5.2795. ILS 3625. Patavium (It. 10). CIL 5.2801. Patavium (It. 10). CIL 5.2806. SIRIS 622 = RICIS-02, 515/701= SupIt-28, 4. Patavium (It. 10). CIL 5.2817. ILS 614. Patavium (It. 10). CIL 5.2818. Patavium (It. 10). CIL 5.2829. ILS 6692 = IFF 54 Patavium (It. 10). CIL 5.3106. ILS 3859 = AE 1997, +717 Vicetia (It. 10). CIL 5.3114. Vicetia (It. 10). CIL 5.3229. SIRIS 624 = RICIS-02, 515/802 = RICIS-03, 515/802. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3237. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3238. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3239. ILS 3116 = Giardino 1. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3240. ILS 3117 = Maffeiano 21. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3257. Pais 614 = ILS 3610 = Epigraphica-2013-439 = AE 2013, Verona (It. 10). +557. CIL 5.3258. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3263. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3276. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3277. Maffeiano 29. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3279. Giardino 3. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3280. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3281. Maffeiano 26. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3282. ILS 3767 = Maffeiano 27. Verona (It. 10) CIL 5.3291. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3292. Maffeiano 33. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3294. SIRIS 628 = RICIS-02, 515/806 = Maffeiano 9. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3299. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3300. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3301. Maffeiano 35. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3305. Maffeiano 28. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3306. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3258. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3259. ILS 3622 = Maffeiano 30. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3290. ILS 5541 = Maffeiano 1 Verona (It. 10).

218 EPIGRAPHIC CONCORDANCE

CIL 5.3341. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3376. CIL 5.3377 = Questori 415. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3420. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3427. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.3906. IMinerva p 83 = AE 2004, +613. Arusnates (It. 10). CIL 5.3911. IMinerva p 90 = AE 2004, +613. Arusnates (It. 10). CIL 5.3913. IMinerva p 93 = AE 2004, +613. Arusnates (It. 10). CIL 5.3915. ILS 6706 = Maffeiano 49 = AE 2000, +592 = AE 2011, +382. Arusnates (It. 10). CIL 5.3916. Maffeiano 48 = IFF 58. Arusnates (It. 10). CIL 5.3923. Maffeiano 46 = IFF 57. Arusnates (It. 10). CIL 5.3930. IFF 61. Arusnates (It. 10). CIL 5.3936. ILS 1348 = AE 2007, +1065 Arusnates (It. 10). CIL 5.4014. Arilica (It. 10). CIL 5.4089. Conze 5 = ILS 364 = AE 2004, 615. Bedriacum (It. 10). CIL 5.4161. InscrIt-10-05, 855. Brixia (It. 10). CIL 5.4282. InscrIt-10-05, 64. Brixia (It. 10). CIL 5.4286. InscrIt-10-05, 803. Brixia (It. 10). CIL 5.4290. InscrIt-10-05, 71. Brixia (It. 10). CIL 5.4294. InscrIt-10-05, 77 = AE 2007, +576. Brixia (It. 10). CIL 5.4368. InscrIt-10-05, 157 = ILS 6725 = Questori 425 Brixia (It. 10). CIL 5.4386. InscrIt-10-05, 999. Brixia (It. 10). CIL 5.4387. InscrIt-10-05, 180 = IFF 51. Brixia (It. 10). CIL 5.4442. InscrIt-10-05, 1003 Brixia (It. 10). CIL 5.4458. InscrIt-10-05, 247 = IFF 53. Brixia (It. 10). CIL 5.4485. InscrIt-10-05, 276 = ILS 6716 = IFF 52 = Bergemann 12 Brixia (It. 10). CIL 5.4865. InscrIt-10-05, 1027. Toscolano Maderno (It. 10). CIL 5.4950. InscrIt-10-05, 1187 Camunni (It. 10). CIL 5.4960. InscrIt-10-05, 1199 = ILS 5525 Camunni (It. 10). CIL 5.4965. InscrIt-10-05, 1203 Camunni (It. 10). CIL 5.4966. InscrIt-10-05, 1205 Camunni (It. 10). CIL 5.4982. InscrIt-10-05, 1053 = ETrentine 145 = AE 1993, +793. Brixia (It. 10). CIL 5.4986. InscrIt-10-05, 1061 = ETrentine 144. Brixia (It. 10). CIL 5.5007. Pais 693 = InscrIt-10-05, 1102 = ETrentine 142. Brixia (It. 10). CIL 5.5024. ETrentine 47. Tridentum (It. 10). CIL 5.5025. ETrentine 59. Tridentum (It. 10). CIL 5.5036. ILS 5016 = ETrentine 122. Tridentum (It. 10). CIL 5.5058. ETrentine 4. Anauni (It. 10). CIL 5.5065. ETrentine 38. Anauni (It. 10). CIL 5.5068. ETrentine 49. Cles (It. 10). CIL 5.5070. ETrentine 60. Anauni (It. 10). CIL 5.5079. IBR 57 = SIRIS 638 = RICIS-02, 515/1401 = RICIS-S-02, p Sublavio (It. 10). 288 = AE 2005, +639. CIL 5.5081. ILS 3160 = IBR 59 = AE 2005, +639. Sublavio (It. 10). CIL 5.5126. ILS 2722 = AE 2004, +344 Bergomum (It. 11). CIL 5.5239. ILS 6727 Santa Maria Rezzonico (It. 11). CIL 5.5260. IRComo-Po, 3. Comum (It. 11). CIL 5.5261. Epigraphica-1953-128. Comum (It. 11). CIL 5.5266. RHP 96 = ILS 2725 Comum (It. 11). CIL 5.5267. IRComo-Po, 8 = ILS 2721 = AE 2006, +114 = AE 2009, Comum (It. 11). +1761 CIL 5.5312. Comum (It. 11). CIL 5.5465. ILS 4259 = CIMRM-01, 718 = AE 2001, +1084 = AE 2009, Mediolanum (It. +413 = AE 2014, +513. 11). CIL 5.5511. AE 2008, +56 = AE 2014, +513. Mediolanum (It. 11). CIL 5.5647. IFF 65. Erba (It. 11).

219 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

CIL 5.5765. AE 1995, 659. Mediolanum (It. 11). CIL 5.5844. Mediolanum (It. 11). CIL 5.5908. Mediolanum (It. 11). CIL 5.5667. Cantu (It. 11). CIL 5.5749. AE 2002, +585. Modicia (It. 11).

CIL 5.6349. ILS 6738. Laus Pompeia (It. 11). CIL 5.6360. Laus Pompeia (It. 11). CIL 5.6365. IFF 67. Laus Pompeia (It. 11). CIL 5.6431. ILS 6743 = AE 2013 +588 Ticinum (It. 11) CIL 5.6435. SupIt-09-T, 21 = IFF 70 = AE 1982, 415 = AE 1992, 790 = Ticinum (It. 11) AE 2013, +588 CIL 5.6513. EaNovara 34 = MLNovara p 177 = IFF 90069b Novaria (It. 11). CIL 5.6514. EaNovara 35 = MLNovara p 169 = IFF 90069a = AE 1999, Novaria (It. 11). 763 = AE 2004, +344 CIL 5.6518. EaNovara 43 = ILS 6740a = MLNovara p 158. Novaria (It. 11). CIL 5.6520. ILS 6740 = MLNovara p160 Novaria (It. 11). CIL 5.6657. ILVercel 7 = ILS 6741a. Vercellae (It. 11). CIL 5.6658. ILVercel 8 Vercellae (It. 11). CIL 5.6797. InscrIt-11-02, 23 Eporedia (It. 11). CIL 5.6840. IAugPraetoria 26 = IFF 62. Augusta Praetoria (It. 11). CIL 5.6954. IFF 64b = AE 2007, +272. Augusta Taurinorum (It. 11). CIL 5.6955. Questori 455. Augusta Taurinorum (It. 11). CIL 5.6959. Augusta Taurinorum (It. 11). CIL 5.6960. Augusta Taurinorum (It. 11). CIL 5.6995. IDRE-01, 162. Augusta Taurinorum (It. 11). CIL 5.7002. Questori 456. Augusta Taurinorum (It. 11). CIL 5.7007. ILS 2544 = Bergemann 47 Augusta Taurinorum (It. 11). CIL 5.7021. Bergemann 48 Augusta Taurinorum (It. 11). CIL 5.7146. Augusta Taurinorum (It. 11). CIL 5.7345. IFF 66 Forum Vibii Caburrum (It. 9). CIL 5.7373. AE 2004, +344. Dertona (It. 9). CIL 5.7375. ILS 6744. Dertona (It. 9). CIL 5.7425. ILS 2720 = RHP 371. Libarna (It. 8). CIL 5.7428. Piemonte 124 = AE 1998, 520 = AE 1998, +516 Libarna (It. 8). CIL 5.7458. SupIt-24-H, 31 Vardagate (It. 9). CIL 5.7478. Pais 954. Industria (It. 9). CIL 5.7605. AlbaPomp 14 = Grabalt 242 Alba Pompeia (It. 9). CIL 5.7617. ILS 6750 = InscrIt-09-01, 130 = ZPE-47-201 = IFF 47 = AE Pollentia (It. 9). 1982, 376 CIL 5.7629. InscrIt-09-01, 160 = IFF 64a Caramagna Ligure (It. 9). CIL 5.7633. InscrIt-09-01, 175. Pollentia (It. 9).

220 EPIGRAPHIC CONCORDANCE

CIL 5.7645. InscrIt-09-01, 186. Fossano (It. 9). CIL 5.7689 InscrIt-09-01, 1 Augusta Bagiennorum (It. 9). CIL 5.7780. SupIt-04-A, 4 Albingaunum (It. 9). CIL 5.7783. ILS 1128 Albingaunum (It. 9). CIL 5.7788. SupIt-04-A, 12 = IFF 43 = IFF 44 Albingaunum (It. 9). CIL 5.7811. IFF 45. Albintimilium (It. 9). CIL 5.8127. InscrIt-10-01, 661 = ILS 4891. Nesactium (It. 10). CIL 5.8134. InscrIt-10-01, 19. Pola (It. 10). CIL 5.8135. InscrIt-10-01, 595 = ILS 3747a. Pola (It. 10), CIL 5.8205. Pais 1109 = InscrIt-10-04, 330 = AE 2007, +581. Miramare (It. 10). CIL 5.8215. CIL 5.8223 = Pais 114 = InscrAqu-01, 223 = SIRIS 603 = Aquileia (It. 10). RICIS-02, 515/105 = RICIS-03, 515/105 = IEAquil 223. CIL 5.8216. InscrAqu-01, 175 = ILS 3246 = IEAquil 216. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.8224. InscrAqu-01, 224 = SIRIS 604 = RICIS-02, 515/106 = RICIS- Aquileia (It. 10). 03, 515/106. CIL 5.8225. InscrAqu-01, 225 = SIRIS 605 = RICIS-02, 515/107 = RICIS- Aquileia (It. 10). 03, 515/107. CIL 5.8226. InscrAqu-01, 226 = SIRIS 606 = RICIS-02, 515/108 = RICIS- Aquileia (It. 10). 03, 515/108 = IEAquil 219. CIL 5.8227. InscrAqu-01, 227 = SIRIS 607 = RICIS-02, 515/109 = RICIS- Aquileia (It. 10). 03, 515/109. CIL 5.8234. InscrAqu-01, 271. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.8237. InscrAqu-01, 297 = IDRE-01, 144. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.8238. InscrAqu-01, 304 = IEAquil 225. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.8241. InscrAqu-01, 324. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.8244. InscrAqu-01, 337. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.8245. InscrAqu-01, 352 = IEAquil 229. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.8248. Pais 116 = InscrAqu-01, 368. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.8249. InscrAqu-01, 305. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.8250. InscrAqu-01, 203. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.8315. InscrAqu-01, 270. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 5.8655. IRConcor 12 = ILLConcordia-01, 3. Concordia (it. 10). CIL 5.8660. IRConcor 26 = ILS 1364 = IDRE-01, 150 = ILLConcordia-01, Concordia (It. 10). 15. CIL 5.8844. Verona (It. 10). CIL 5.8922. Mediolanum (It. 11). CIL 5.8971. Pais 149 = InscrAqu-01, 445 = IEAquil 77. Aquileia (It. 10). CIL 6.1690. ILS 1240 = AE 1976, 15. Roma. CIL 6.1691. Roma. CIL 6.1694. Roma. CIL 6.1851 ILS 6188. Roma. CIL 6.32929. ILS 2700. Roma. CIL 9.423. Venusia (It. 2). CIL 9.652. ILS 6481. Venusia (It. 2) CIL 9.687 IETraiana-B, 3 = Ordona-01, 7 = AE 1967, 89. Herdonia (It. 2). CIL 9.692 IETraiana-B, 12 = Ordona-01, 8 = AE 1967, 91. Herdonia (It. 2). CIL 9.731. EAOR-03, 79 = ELarino 7 = Engfer-01, 166 = AE 1991, 513 Larinum (It. 4). = AE 1995, +355 CIL 9.783. Luceria (It. 2). CIL 9.1090. Aeclanum (It. 2). CIL 9.1115 Aeclanum (It. 2). CIL 9.1123. ILS 1054 Aeclanum (It. 2) CIL 9.1153 ILS 6487 = SIRIS 469 = CCA-04, 108 = RICIS-02, 505/901 = Aeclanum (It. 2). IFF 15 = AE 2000, +352

221 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

CIL 9.1154. ILS 6486 = AE 2000, +352 Aeclanum (It. 2). CIL 9.1155. IFF 16a = AE 2000, +352 Aeclanum (It. 2). CIL 9.1160 ILS 6485 = Questori 173 Aeclanum (It. 2). CIL 9.1163. IFF 17 Aeclanum (It. 2). CIL 9.1556. ILS 109 Beneventum (It. 2). CIL 9.1566 AE 2014, 367 Beneventum (It. 2). CIL 9.2347. IFF 1a Allifae (It. 1). CIL 9.2562. ILS 3169. Bovianum Undecimanorum (It. 4). CIL 9.2595. AE 1997, 431 Terventum (It. 4). CIL 9.2600. ILS 6523 = Terventum p 162 = AE 1999, +125 Terventum (It. 4). CIL 9.2648. ILS 2228 = Questori 229 Aesernia (It. 4). CIL 9.2649. ILS 2732 = Questori 230 Aesernia (It. 4). CIL 9.2661. CIL 10.8492 = Venafrum 59 = Questori 140 = AE 2002, +379 Venafrum (It. 1). = AE 2008, +390 = AE 2008, 411. CIL 9.2835 Histonium (It. 4). CIL 9.2836 CCID 460 Histonium (It. 4). CIL 9.2853. ELarino 2a Histonium (It. 4). CIL 9.2855. ILS 5501 = Bergemann 49 = Questori 236. Histonium (It. 4). CIL 9.3014 ILS 4137 = CCCA-04, 172 Teate Marrucinorum (It. 4). CIL 9.3307. ILS 5599 = MEFR-1967-37 = Engfer-01, 261. Superaequum (It. 4). CIL 9.3336. Aternum (It. 4). CIL 9.3384. ILS 6529 = AE 2004, +495 = AE 2005, +432 = AE 2009 +293 Aufinum (It. 4). CIL 9.3385. Aufinum (It. 4). CIL 9.3434 Questori 247 Peltuinum (It. 4). CIL 9.3437. ILS 5063 = EAOR-03, 35 = Questori 245 = Engfer-01, 248 Peltuinum (It. 4). CIL 9.3522 Questori 248 = Engfer-01, 249 Furfo (It. 4). CIL 9.3607 Aveia (It. 4). CIL 9.3613 Questori 250 Aveia (It. 4). CIL 9.3960 Alba Fucens (It. 4). CIL 9.4133. ILS 5525a. Aequiculi (It. 4). CIL 9.4538 Nursia (It. 4). CIL 9.4686. AE 2013, 431 Reate (It. 4) CIL 9.4780. Forum Novum (It. 4). CIL 9.4952 ILS 3702 = Epigraphica-2011-317 = AE 2011, +327 = AE Cures Sabini (It. 4). 2011, +372 CIL 9.4961 Cures Sabini (It. 4). CIL 9.4962 ILS 650a Cures Sabini (It. 4). CIL 9.4963 Cures Sabini (It. 4). CIL 9.5068. IFF 30 Interamnia Praetuttiorum (It. 5). CIL 9.5180 Asculum Picenum (It. 5). CIL 9.5357 ILS 1417 Firmum Picenum (It. 5). CIL 9.5362 Firmum Picenum (It. 5). CIL 9.5363 RHP 396 = ILS 2737 = Epigraphica-2016-59 Firmum Picenum (It. 5). CIL 9.5365. Firmum Picenum (It. 5). CIL 9.5375. Firmum Picenum (It. 5).

222 EPIGRAPHIC CONCORDANCE

CIL 9.5422. Euergetismo-Fal, 1. Falerio Picenus (It. 5). CIL 9.5428. ILS 5652 = Euergetismo-Fal, 5a = IFF 29a Falerio Picenus (It. 5). CIL 9.5441 Falerio Picenus (It. 5). CIL 9.5530. CIL 9.6078,1 = AE 1983, 332 = AE 2013, 437. Urbs Salvia (It. 5). CIL 9.5534. ILS 1012. Urbs Salvia (It. 5). CIL 9.5579 AE 2003, +29 = AE 2012, +291 Septempeda (It. 5). CIL 9.5841 IDRE-01, 118 = Euergetismo-Aux, 7 = IFF 28 = AE 2001, Auximum (It. 5). +912 CIL 9.5845. ILS 3775 = Euergetismo-Aux, 9 = Engfer-01, 282 = AE 2003, Auximum (It. 5). +29. CIL 9.5890. ILS 3790a. Ancona (It. 5). CIL 9.5891. AE 2002, +417. Ancona (It. 5). CIL 9.5892. Ancona (It. 5). CIL 9.5904. Ancona (It. 5). CIL 9.6378. Planina (It. 5). CIL 10.2. Regium Iulium (It. 3). CIL 10.51. IFF 21 Vibo Valentia (It. 3). CIL 10.54. IFF 22. Vibo Valentia (It. 3). CIL 10.131. ILS 4027 Potentia (It. 3). CIL 10.137. ILS 6452 Potentia (It. 3). CIL 10.205 ILS 3545 Grumentum (It. 3). CIL 10.230. Grumentum (It. 3). CIL 10.378. InscrIt-03-01, 105 Atina (It. 3). CIL 10.413. InscrIt-03-01, 75 Volcei (It. 3). CIL 10.415. InscrIt-03-01, 25 = Engfer-01, 206 Volcei (It. 3). CIL 10.416. InscrIt-03-01, 22 = Chiron-1978-431=Engfer-01, 207 Volcei (It. 3). CIL 10.688. SIPSurrentum 14 = SIPSurrentum 18 = EAOR-08, 8 Surrentum (It. 1). CIL 10.796 PompIn 5 = AE 2013, +110 Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 10.810. ILS 3785 = PompIn 13 = AE 2001, +793 = AE 2006, +249 = Pompeii (It. 1). AE 2013, +195 CIL 10.811. PompIn 14 = AE 2013, +195. Pompeii (It. 1).

CIL 10.816. Epigraphica-1995-17 = PompIn 12 = AE 1992, 271 = AE Pompeii (It. 1). 1995, 298 = AE 2001, +793 = AE 2002, +333 = AE 2003, +276 = AE 2003, 315 = AE 2013, +195 CIL 10.820. ILS 5398 = PompIn 7 = MEFR-1967-39 = Engfer-01, 92 = Pompeii (It. 1). AE 2012, +340. CIL 10.824. ILS 6382 = PompIn 9 = AE 2012, +340. Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 10.825. ILS 6385 = PompIn 10 = AE 2012, +340. Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 10.826. ILS 6383. Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 10.827. ILS 6384. Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 10.830 ILS 6361a = PompIn 25 = MEFR-1967-40 Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 10.837 ILS 6361 = MEFR-1967-40 Pompeii (It. 1) CIL 10.838 ILS 6361a = PompIn 36 = MEFR-1967-40 Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 10.840. ILS 6362 Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 10.862 OpPomp-2002-35 = AE 2002, 334. Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 10.828. Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 10.943 Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 10.944. Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 10.945. Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 10.946. Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 10.947. MEFR-1967-40 Pompeii (It. 1). CIL 10.961. CIL 10.962 = IFF 13 Pompeii (It. 1).

223 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

CIL 10.1237. ILS 3812. Nola (It. 1). CIL 10.1238. ILS 6347. Nola (It. 1). CIL 10.1245. Nola (It. 1). CIL 10.1246 Nola (It. 1). CIL 10.1262. AE 2003, +325 Nola (It. 1). CIL 10.1411 ILS 74a Herculaneum (It. 1). CIL 10.1412 Herculaneum (It. 1). CIL 10.1481. IG 14.729 = CIG 5809 = IGI-Napoli-01, 20 = Horster p 285. Neapolis (It. 1). CIL 10.1496. Neapolis (It. 1). CIL 10.1562. ILS 344 = AE 2010, +32 Puteoli (It. 1).

CIL 10.1567. Puteoli (It. 1). CIL 10.1574 ILS 226 Puteoli (It. 1). CIL 10.1581 Puteoli (It. 1). CIL 10.1582. ILS 3611 Puteoli (It. 1). CIL 10.1594. SIRIS 499 = RICIS-02, 504/405 = AE 1990, 155 Puteoli (It. 1). CIL 10.1598 Puteoli (It. 1). CIL 10.1613. AE 2005, +336 Puteoli (It. 1). CIL 10.1615 Puteoli (It. 1). CIL 10.1616 Puteoli (It. 1). CIL 10.1632 Puteoli (It. 1). CIL 10.1690. ILS 5895 Puteoli (It. 1). CIL 10.1806. Puteoli (It. 1). CIL 10.2585. Puteoli (It. 1). CIL 10.3342a. Misenum (It. 1). CIL 10.3343. Misenum (It. 1). CIL 10.3682. CIL 10.8375 = InscrIt-13-02, 44 = ILS 108 Cumae (It. 1). CIL 10.3691. Cumae (It. 1). CIL 10.3698. ILS 4175 = CCCA-04, 7 = Louvre 916 Cumae (It. 1). CIL 10.3716. ILS 5189 = AE 2003, +338. Liternum (It. 1). CIL 10.3757. CLE 18 = ILS 137 = AE 2002, 360. Acerrae (It. 1). CIL 10.3792. ILS 4918 = InscrIt-13-02, 46 = EAOR-08, 47 = AE 1994, 429. Capua (It. 3). CIL 10.4634 Cales (It. 1). CIL 10.4641. ILS 6301 Cales (It. 1). CIL 10.4717. CIL 6.350 = SIRIS 503 = RICIS-02, 504/801 = Engfer-01, 46. Forum Popilii (It. 1). CIL 10.4868. ILS 2688 = Venafrum 31 Venafrum (It. 1). CIL 10.4873 IDRE-01, 104 = Venafrum 36 = Questori 142 Venafrum (It. 1). CIL 10.4893 Venafrum 61 = EAOR-08, 12 = Questori 141 = AE 2008, Venafrum (It. 1). +390 CIL 10.4897b. Venafrum 60 = EAOR-08, 35d = Questori 143 = AE 1999, Venafrum (It. 1). 468. CIL 10.5016. Venafrum 206 = EAOR-08, 35c. Venafrum (It. 1). CIL 10.5067. Questori 53 = Engfer-01, 12 Atina (It. 1) CIL 10.5201. ILS 6292 = IFF 4 Casinum (It. 1) CIL 10.5382. ILS 2926 = AE 1981, 223 Aquinum (It. 1). CIL 10.5393. ILS 6286 = Chiron-1978-430 Aquinum (It. 1). CIL 10.5413. ILS 6291a = IFF 3 Aquinum (It. 1). CIL 10.5656. EE-08-01, 888 = IFF 5 Fabrateria Vetus (It. 1). CIL 10.5822. Ferentinum (It. 1). CIL 10.5924. ILS 6262b = IFF 2. Anagnia (It. 1). CIL 10.6018. ILS 6293 = IFF 9. Minturnae (It. 1). CIL 10.6304. ILS 4324 = CCID 462 Tarracina (It. 1). CIL 10.6305. Tarracina (It. 1). CIL 10.6306. Campedelli 41 Tarracina (It. 1). CIL 10.6309. Tarracina (It. 1). CIL 10.6343. Tarracina (It. 1).

224 EPIGRAPHIC CONCORDANCE

CIL 10.6435. Privernum (It. 1). CIL 10.6461. AE 1957, 187. Setia (It. 1). CIL 10.6482. ILS 3807 Ulubrae (It. 1). CIL 10.6483. ILS 3081 Ulubrae (It. 1). CIL 10.6485. ILS 6274 Ulubrae (It. 1). CIL 10.6645. Antium (It. 1). CIL 10.6766. TermeDiocleziano-01, 368 Ardea (It. 1). CIL 10.8178. ILS 6321. Puteoli (It. 1). CIL 10.8342a Velia (It. 3). CIL 10.8398. Tarracina (It. 1). CIL 11.2 Ravenna (It. 8). CIL 11.9. ILS 699. Ravenna (It. 8). CIL 11.361. Ariminum (It. 8). CIL 11.363. Ariminum (It. 8). CIL 11.385. Ariminum (It. 8). CIL 11.386. ILS 6659 Ariminum (It. 8). CIL 11.407. ILS 6657 = Epigraphica-2008-203 = IFF 39 = AE 2013, +194 Ariminum (It. 8).

CIL 11.408. IFF 40 = AE 2013, +194 Ariminum (It. 8). CIL 11.415. ILS 6658 = IFF 38 Ariminum (It. 8). CIL 11.417. ILS 6661 Ariminum (It. 8). CIL 11.555. Caesena (It. 8). CIL 11.599. Forum Livii (It. 8). CIL 11.804. ILS 3218. Bononia (It. 8). CIL 11.948. Campedelli 129 = Epigraphica-1981-247 San Possidonio (It. 8). CIL 11.1050. Parma (It. 8). CIL 11.1062. ILS 5372 = Campedelli 128. Parma (It. 8). CIL 11.1161. Veleia (It. 8). CIL 11.1162. ILS 3870 = Tyche-1989-17 = AE 1989, 314. Veleia (It. 8). CIL 11.1192. ILS 6674 = EAOR-02, 56. Veleia (It. 8). CIL 11.1214. Placentia (It. 8). CIL 11.1230. Placentia (It. 8). CIL 11.1295. ILS 3136 = AE 2007, +150 = AE 2008, +537. Travi (It. 8). CIL 11.1320. Luna (It. 7). CIL 11.1322 ILS 2371. Luna (It. 7). CIL 11.1331 ILS 233 = Epigraphica-2016-56 = AE 2000, +251 = AE 2000, Luna (It. 7). +553 = AE 2001, +958. CIL 11.1335 AE 2008, +264 Luna (It. 7). CIL 11.1349a. AE 2000, +251 Luna (It. 7). CIL 11.1420. ILS 139 = Epigraphica-2007-99 = AE 2000, +37 = AE 2003, Pisae (It. 7). +626 = AE 2007, +70 = AE 2007, +539 = AE 2009, +14 = AE 2010, +37. CIL 11.1421 InscrIt-07-01, 7 = ILS 140 = Questori 328 = Bergemann 36 = Pisae (It. 7). Epigraphica-2007-99 = AE 1991, +21 = AE 2000, +37 = AE 2002, +451 = AE 2003, +626 = AE 2007, +70 = AE 2007, +539 = AE 2009, +14 = AE 2010, +37. CIL 11.1429 InscrIt-07-01, 12 Pisae (It. 7). CIL 11.1447a. CIL 14.292 = ILS 6137 Pisae (It. 7). CIL 11.1594. Florentia (It. 7). CIL 11.1605. IFF 37 Florentia (It. 7). CIL 11.1806. Saena (It. 7). CIL 11.1916. ILS 4366 = SIRIS 577 = RICIS-02, 511/301. Perusia (It. 7). CIL 11.1919. Perusia (It. 7). CIL 11.1922 ILS 5434. Perusia (It. 7). CIL 11.1923a ILS 6614 = AE 2010, 437a = AE 2011, +364 = AE 2012, Perusia (It. 7). +489. CIL 11.1923b ILS 6614 = AE 2010, 437b = AE 2011, +364 = AE 2012, Perusia (It. 7). +489.

225 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

CIL 11.1923c. ILS 6614 = AE 2010, 437c = AE 2011, +364 = AE 2012, Perusia (It. 7). +489. CIL 11.1923d. ILS 6614 = AE 2010, 437d = AE 2011, +364 = AE 2012, Perusia (It. 7). +489. CIL 11.1941 ILS 6615. Perusia (It. 7). CIL 11.2099 Clusium (It. 7). CIL 11.2101. Clusium (It. 7). CIL 11.2116. ILS 6610. Clusium (It. 7). CIL 11.2634. Cosa (It. 7). CIL 11.2996. BonaDea 100. Pagliano (It. 7). CIL 11.2998. Engfer-01, 402. Volsinii (It. 7). CIL 11.3040. ILS 106 = AE 1995, 504a Pagus Stellatinus (It. 7). CIL 11.3076 ILS 116 Falerii (It. 7). CIL 11.3089. CIL 11.3090 = CIL 6.1109 = Horster p 319 = AE 1979, 217 Falerii (It. 7). CIL 11.3090a. CIL 6.1108 = SupIt-01-FN, 11 = Horster p 319 = AE 1979, Falerii (It. 7). 218 CIL 11.3091. Horster p 319. Falerii (It. 7). CIL 11.3092. Horster p 319. Falerii (It. 7). CIL 11.3098. CIL 11.7492 = ILS 999. Falerii (It. 7). CIL 11.3303. ILS 154 = Epigraphica-2008-357 = BonaDea 101 = Forum Clodii (It. Epigraphica-2016-55 = AE 2002, +138 = AE 2005, +128 = 7). AE 2005, +135 = AE 2005, +487 = AE 2008, +522 CIL 11.3321. ILS 3311. Sutrium (It. 7). CIL 11.3576. Castrum Novum (It. 7). CIL 11.3577. Castrum Novum (It. 7). CIL 11.3859. Ad Vicesimum (It. 7). CIL 11.5378. Castrum Novum (It. 7). CIL 11.3310 ILS 533 Forum Clodii (It. 7). CIL 11.3710. ILS 3839. Pyrgi (It. 7). CIL 11.3774. Careiae (It. 7). CIL 11.3780. ILS 6580 = Epigraphica-2016-58. Veii (It. 7). CIL 11.3785. Veii (It. 7). CIL 11.3878. Ad Vicesimum (It. 7). CIL 11.4170. ILS 157 = AE 2000, 499. Interamna Nahars (It. 6). CIL 11.4171. ILS 3793. Interamna Nahars (It. 6). CIL 11.4178. SupIt-19, p 51 Interamna Nahars (It. 6). CIL 11.4569. Carsulae (It. 6). CIL 11.4815. ILS 6638 Spoletium (It. 6). CIL 11.4818. ILS 6637 Spoletium (It. 6). CIL 11.4825. Spoletium (It. 6). CIL 11.5168. Vettona (It. 6). CIL 11.5175. Vettona (It. 6). CIL 11.5265. ILS 705 = EAOR-02, 20 = ZPE-182-297 = AE 1967, +112 = Hispellum (It. 6). AE 1994, +584 = AE 2001, +926 = AE 2002, +442 = AE 2012, +140 = AE 2012, +476. CIL 11.5266. Epigraphica-2002-143 = Horster p 312 Hispellum (It. 6). CIL 11.5283. ILS 6623 = EAOR-02, 21 = AE 2013, +444 Hispellum (It. 6). CIL 11.5635. ILS 6640. Camerinum (It. 6). CIL 11.5711. ILS 6641 = Epigraphica-2008-204 = AE 2013, +475. Tuficum (It. 6). CIL 11.5712. Epigraphica-2008-205. Tuficum (It. 6). CIL 11.5716. EAOR-02, 17 = AE 2004, +535 Tuficum (I.t 6).

226 EPIGRAPHIC CONCORDANCE

CIL 11.5739. Sentium (It. 6). CIL 11.5752. Epigraphica-2008-206 = IFF 35 = AE 2008, +499 = AE 2013, Sentium (It. 6). +194. CIL 11.5954b. Pitinum Mergens (It. 6). CIL 11.6010. Sestinum (It. 6). CIL 11.6051. Urvinum Mataurense (It. 6). CIL 11.6107. ILS 509 = AE 2004, +541 Urvinum Mataurense (It. 6). CIL 11.6070. Urvinum Mataurense (It. 6). CIL 11.6071. Urvinum Mataurense (It. 6). CIL 11.6172. Epigraphica-2008-206 = IFF 36 Suasa (It. 6). CIL 11.6306. ILS 5445 = Pisaurum 17 Pisaurum (It. 6). CIL 11.6315. Pisaurum 26. Pisaurum (It. 6). CIL 11.6333. ILS 1073 = Pisaurum 44 = Epigraphica-2008-207 = IFF 32. Pisaurum (It. 6). CIL 11.6335. ILS 7218 = Pisaurum 46 = AE 2013, 497. Pisaurum (It. 6). CIL 11.6354. ILS 6655 = Pisaurum 65 = Epigraphica-2008-207 = IFF 33 = Pisaurum (It. 6). AE 2005, +32. CIL 11.6503. Sassina (It. 6). CIL 11.6505 ILS 6646 Sassina (It. 6). CIL 11.6520. ILS 6647 = Epigraphica-2008-209 = IFF 34a = AE 1999, 616 Sassina (It. 6).

CIL 11.6652. AE 2003, +661. Mutina (It. 8). CIL 11.6710, 01 Bononia (It. 8). CIL 11.6955. ILS 8902 = AE 1904, 227 = AE 1989, 312 = AE 1991, 652 = Luna (It. 7). AE 2000, +251 = AE 2000, +553 = AE 2001, +958 CIL 11.6956. Luna (It. 7). CIL 11.6957. Questori 327. Luna (It. 7). CIL 11.7093. Perusia (It. 7). CIL 11.7270. Volsinii (It. 7). CIL 11.7271. Volsinii (It. 7). CIL 11.7290. Volsinii (It. 7). CIL 11.7413. Engfer-01, 364 = AE 1909, 59. Ferentium (It. 7). CIL 11.7421. Ferentium (It. 7). CIL 11.7431. Campedelli 121 = AE 1911, 184 Ferentium (It. 7). CIL 11.7552a Forum Clodii (It 7). CIL 11.7552b Forum Clodii (It. 7). CIL 11.7726 Fregenae (It. 7). CIL 11.7978. Vettona (It. 6). CIL 11.8049. AE 2003, 596 = AE 2013, +475. Tuficum (It. 6). CIL 14.6 ILS 414 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.9 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.20 ILS 372 = SIRIS 535 = RICIS-01, 503/1114 = ELOstia p 180 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.26 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.32 CIL 6.479 = ILS 6152 = AE 2013, +110. Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.40 CIL 14.41 = CIL 14.4301 = CIL 14.4302 = ILS 4135 = Ostia (It. 1). CCCA-03, 405 = AE 1920, 92. CIL 14.42 ILS 526 = ILS 4141 = CCCA-03, 406 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.43 CCCA-03, 407 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.44. ILS 3129. Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.68. CIL 6.789. Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.73. Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.109. Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.298. EE-09, p 335 = Questori 5 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.309. EE-09, p 335 = ILS 6163. Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.353. ILS 6148 = Bergemann 32 = AE 2003, +282 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.367. ILS 6164 Ostia (It. 1).

227 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

CIL 14.373. ILS 6141 = Questori 16 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.390. ILS 6139 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.391. Ostia 7,1 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.399. IFF 10a Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.400. ILS 6138 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.409. ILS 6146 = EAOR-04, 39 = CBI 859 = Questori 4 = AE 1999, Ostia (It. 1). +407. CIL 14.444. Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.2040. Vicus Augustanus Laurentium (It. 1). CIL 14.2041 Vicus Augustanus Laurentium (It. 1). CIL 14.2048. IFF 12 Vicus Augustanus Laurentium (It. 1). CIL 14.2088. ILS 316. Lanuvium (It. 1). CIL 14.2095 Lanuvium (It. 1).

CIL 14.2112 ILS 7212 = EE-09, p381 = TermeDiocleziano-02, p175 = AE Lanuvium (It. 1). 1983, 181 = AE 2003, +288 = AE 2010, +26 = AE 2011, 203 CIL 14.2156. ILS 3255. Aricia (It. 1). CIL 14.2254 CIL 6.32879 = GeA 1 Castra Albanum (It. 1). CIL 14.2255 CIL 6.3401 = ILS 2398 = GeA 2 Castra Albanum (It. 1). CIL 14.2256 CIMRM-01, 215 = ZPE-3-245 Castra Albanum (It. 1). CIL 14.2258 CIL 6.793 = ILS 505 Castra Albanum (It. 1). CIL 14.2387. ILS 2988. Bovillae (It. 1). CIL 14.2426. CIL 6.300. Bovillae (It. 1). CIL 14.2596. ILS 453 = ZPE-180-302 = AE 2012, +313 Tusculum (It. 1). CIL 14.2795. ILS 272 = Louvre 81 = AE 2000, +251 Gabii (It. 1). CIL 14.2796. EE-09, p 428 Gabii (It. 1). CIL 14.2797. EE-09, p 428 = Horster p 261 = Epigraphica-2002-116 = AE Gabii (It. 1). 2000, +251 = AE 2002, 299 CIL 14.2798. Horster p 264 Gabii (It. 1). CIL 14.2799. ILS 321 = AE 2000, +251 Gabii (It. 1). CIL 14.2804. ILS 6218 Gabii (It. 1). CIL 14.2854. Praeneste (It. 1). CIL 14.2898. ILS 3787. Praeneste (It. 1). CIL 14.2899. ILS 3788 = EE-09, p 432. Praeneste (It. 1). CIL 14.2922. ILS 1420 = EAOR-04, 3 Praeneste (It. 1). CIL 14.2964. Praeneste (It. 1). CIL 14.2972. ILS 6253 = EAOR-04, 24 Praeneste (It. 1). CIL 14.2989. ILS 6254 Praeneste (It. 1). CIL 14.2995. Praeneste (It. 1). CIL 14.3014. ILS 6252 = EAOR-04, 23 Praeneste (It. 1). CIL 14.3500. Trebula Suffenas (It. 1). CIL 14.3534. ILS 6227 = CCCA-03, 452 = InscrIt-04-01, 34. Tibur (It. 4). CIL 14.3540. InscrIt-04-01, 42 = ILS 6243. Tibur (It. 4). CIL 14.3551. InscrIt-04-01, 37. Tibur (It. 4) CIL 14.3561. InscrIt-04-01, 40 = ILS 3627 = ILS 6242. Tibur (It. 4). CIL 14.3570. CIL 6.528 = EE-09, p 469. Tibur (It. 4). CIL 14.3576. ILS 196 = InscrIt-04-01, 76 Tibur (It. 4). CIL 14.3581. CIL 11.4081 = InscrIt-04-01, 39 = Questori 287 = Engfer-01, Tibur (It. 4). 219 = AE 1968, 162. CIL 14.3590. InscrIt-04-01, 101 Tibur (It. 4). CIL 14.3652. InscrIt-04-01, 209. Tibur (It. 4). CIL 14.3656. InscrIt-04-01, 211 = ILS 6238. Tibur (It. 4). CIL 14.3657. InscrIt-04-01, 212. Tibur (It. 4).

228 EPIGRAPHIC CONCORDANCE

CIL 14.3658. InscrIt-04-01, 228. Tibur (It. 4). CIL 14.3661. InscrIt-04-01, 210 = ILS 6239. Tibur (It. 4). CIL 14.3665. InscrIt-04-01, 193 = ILS 6236. Tibur (It. 4). CIL 14.3675. InscrIt-04-01, 216. Tibur (It. 4). CIL 14.3679. CIL 14.3679a = InscrIt-04-01, 188 = ILS 6245 = AE 2000, Tibur (It. 4). +68. CIL 14.3680. InscrIt-04-01, 198. Tibur (It. 4). CIL 14.3681. InscrIt-04-01, 219. Tibur (It. 4). CIL 14.3684. InscrIt-04-01, 220 = ILS 6237. Tibur (It. 4). CIL 14.3690. InscrIt-04-01, 205. Tibur (It. 4). CIL 14.3691. EE-09, p 471 = InscrIt-04-01, 229. Tibur (It. 4). CIL 14.3693. EE-09, p 471 = InscrIt-04-01, 232 = Epigraphica-1966-10 = Tibur (It. 4). AE 1967, 78. CIL 14.4057 BonaDea 51 = AE 2001, +738 Fidenae (It. 1). CIL 14.4058 ILS 6224 = EE-09, 490 Fidenae (It. 1). CIL 14.4142. ILS 6140 = Questori 13 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4254. EE-09, p 471 = InscrIt-04-01, 254 = ILS 5191 = Tibur (It. 4). TermeDiocleziano-01, p 502 = TermeDiocleziano-02, p 148 = MNR-01-03, p 204 = SEG-56, 1134 = AE 2009, +85. CIL 14.4255. InscrIt-04-01, 227. Tibur (It. 4). CIL 14.4286. AE 1910, 193. Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4300. NSA-1927-386 = AE 1928, 124. Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4303. CCCA-03, 417 = AE 1917/18, 116 = AE 1919, 60 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4316 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4319 EE-09, 435 = AE 1908, 117 = AE 1908, +184 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4320 ELOstia p 191 = AE 1919, 61 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4324 ELOstia p 125 = AE 1910, 189 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4326. AE 1924, 108. Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4330. Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4334 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4356 AE 1889, 128 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4357 AE 1889, 127 = AE 1889, +166 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4365 + = ELOstia p 187 = AE 1914, 146 = AE 1971, 64 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4382 CIL 14.4366 AE 1889, 123 = AE 1889, +166 = AE 2004, +43 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4368. ILS 2154 = AE 1889, 124 = AE 1889, +166 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4376. AE 1889, 126 = AE 1889, +166 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4378 AE 1928, 125 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4380 AE 1889, 125 = AE 1889, +166 = AE 1968, 8a Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4381 ILS 2155 = ELOstia p 205 = AE 1889, 104 = AE 1889, +166 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4386 AE 1889, 122 = AE 1889, +166 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4387. AE 1889, 105 = AE 1889, +166 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4388. AE 1889, 102 = AE 1889, +166 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4389 CIL 14.4493 = CIL 14.4681 = MEFR-1976-620 = AE 1977, Ostia (It. 1). 154. CIL 14.4393 ILS 465 = AE 1889, 78 = AE 1889, +151 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4396 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4397 ILS 2158 = AE 1889, 103 = AE 1889, +166 Ostia (It. 1) CIL 14.4398 ILS 2159 = ELOstia p241 = AE 1889, 106 = AE 1889, +166 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4553 EE-09, 448 = BCAR-1980/81-147 = AE 1910, 32 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4554 EE-09, 468 = BCAR-1980/81-145 = AE 1907, 219 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4555. BCAR 1980/81-146 = AE 1924, 115b Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4556 BCAR 1980/81-147 = AE 1924, 115a Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4570 ELOstia p 194 = AE 1922, 93 = AE 1995, +59 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4622. ELOstia p 199 = Questori 11 = AE 1916, 117. Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4641. CIL 14.4644 = AE 1910, 197 = AE 1986, 113 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4642. Bergemann 33 = AE 1910, 181 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4648. Questori 15 = AE 1928, 132 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4664. Questori 6 = AE 1913, 190 Ostia (It. 1).

229 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

CIL 14.4671. Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.4674. CIL 14.447 = CIL 14.4675 = SIRIS 547 Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.5321. NSA-1930-211 = SdOstia-11, 19. Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.5346. NSA-1930-202 = SdOstia-11, 40 = IFF 10b Ostia (It. 1). CIL 14.6308. ILS 583 = Pisaurum 19. Pisaurum (It. 6). CIMRM-01, SdOstia-02, p 82. Ostia (It. 1). 273 CSL-1985/87- Lunensia p 150 Luna (It. 7). 525. CSL-1985/87- Lunensia p 156 Luna (It. 7). 532. EAOR-08, 35b. Venafrum (It. 1). EE-08-01, 259d. Petelia (It. 3). EE-09, 610. Horster p 266 = Epigraphica-2002-139 = AE 2002, 292. Lanuvium (It. 1). Epigraphica- AE 1985, 463. Atria (It. 10). 1984-69. Epigraphica- AE 2013, 502. Florentia (It. 7). 2013-408. IFF 49. Gregori-01 Brixia (It. 10). IGI-Napoli 02, SEG-04, 99. Neapolis (It. 1). 115 IG II2 3169. IG II2 3170. IG III 129. IG IV 591. Argos. IG VII 49. Megara. IG XIV 723 CIG 5787 = IGI-Napoli 01, 11. Neapolis (It. 1). IG XIV 737. IGI-Napoli 01, 47. Neapolis (It. 1). IG XIV 746 IGI-Napoli 01, 49. Neapolis (It. 1). IG XIV 747 IGI-Napoli 01, 51. Neapolis (It. 1). IG XIV 754. IGI-Napoli 01, 55. Neapolis (It. 1). IG XIV 755 IGI-Napoli 01, 58. Neapolis (It. 1). IG XIV 755e IGI-Napoli 01, 64. Neapolis (It. 1). (b) IG XIV 755b. IGI-Napoli 01, 60. Neapolis (It. 1). IG XIV 896. SEG-48, 1261. Capreae (It. 1). IG XIV 1102. IGUR I 240 = SEG 55.1061 Roma. IG XIV 1114. IGUR IV, p151, 263 Roma. ILS 73 CIL 6.872 = AE 1949, +174 Roma. ILS 73a CIL 9.5136. Roma. ILS 524. Pais 743 = IRComo-Po, 5. Comum (It. 11). ILS 7215 EE-08-01, 210 = EE-08-01, 827 Castrum Truentinum (It. 5). ILVercel 93. IFF 71 = AE 1986, 264. Vercellae (It. 11). InscrAqu-01, Aquileia (It. 10). 91. InscrAqu-01, Aquileia (It. 10). 133. InscrAqu-01, Aquileia (It. 10). 134. InscrAqu-01, Aquileia (It. 10). 137. InscrAqu-01, IEAquil 208. Aquileia (It. 10). 138. InscrAqu-01, Aquileia (It. 10). 139. InscrAqu-01, IEAquil 210. Aquileia (It. 10). 140. InscrAqu-01, Aquileia (It. 10). 142.

230 EPIGRAPHIC CONCORDANCE

InscrAqu-01, Aquileia (It. 10). 145. InscrAqu-01, Aquileia (It. 10). 146. InscrAqu-01, Aquileia (It. 10). 147. InscrAqu-01, AE 1898, 85. Aquileia (It. 10). 148. InscrAqu-01, AE 1956, 14. Aquileia (It. 10). 149. InscrAqu-01, AE 1895, 39. Aquileia (It. 10). 151. InscrAqu-01, AE 1926, 109. Aquileia (It. 10). 174. InscrAqu-01, Aquileia (It. 10). 178. InscrAqu-01, Pais 157 = Pais 1133. Aquileia (It. 10). 179. InscrAqu-01, Aquileia (It. 10). 180. InscrAqu-01, IEAquil 21 = AE 1934, 239. Aquileia (It. 10). 181. InscrAqu-01, Aquileia (It. 10). 197. InscrAqu-01, Aquileia (It. 10). 296. InscrAqu-01, Pais 164. Aquileia (It. 10). 303. InscrAqu-01, Pais 166. Aquileia (It. 10). 322. InscrAqu-01, Aquileia (It. 10). 323. InscrAqu-01, AE 1934, 327. Aquileia (It. 10). 327. InscrAqu-01, Aquileia (It. 10). 339. InscrAqu-01, Pais 168 = Pais 1135. Aquileia (It. 10). 349. InscrAqu-01, Aquileia (It. 10). 355. InscrAqu-01, Aquileia (It. 10). 357. InscrAqu-01, Aquileia (It. 10). 363. InscrAqu-01, Aquileia (It. 10). 365. InscrAqu-01, Pais 170. Aquileia (It. 10). 396. InscrAqu-01, Aquileia (It. 10). 408 InscrAqu-01, Aquileia (It. 10). 454. InscrAqu-01, AE 1934, 232. Aquileia (It. 10). 486a InscrIt-03-01, Cosilinum (It. 3). 224 InscrIt-10-01, Pola (It. 10). 18. InscrIt-10-01, Pais 1095. Pola (It. 10). 585.

231 ALEX A. ANTONIOU

InscrIt-10-01, Nesactium (It. 10). 660. InscrIt-10-01, Nesactium (It. 10). 662. InscrIt-10-01, Nesactium (It. 10). 665. InscrIt-10-02, CIMRM-01, 754. Parentium (It. 10). 216. InscrIt-10-02, Parentium (It. 10). 232. InscrIt-10-03, Capodistria (It. 10). 35. InscrIt-10-04, Tergeste (It. 10). 34. InscrIt-10-04, Tergeste (It. 10). 326. InscrIt-10-04, Tergeste (It. 10). 327. InscrIt-10-05, AE 1952, 139. Brixia (It. 10). 65. InscrIt-10-05, AE 1952, 133. Brixia (It. 10). 75. IRConcor 9. Concordia (It. 10). IRConcor 19. CIL 5.1940 = Pais 394. Concordia (It. 10). Firenze p 216. Florentia (It. 7). Lunensia p 152 Luna (It. 7). NSA-1953-20 Ad Vicesimum (It. 7). NSA-1953-243. Ostia (It. 1). Olympia V Olympia/ (1896) 56. Pais 1. InscrIt-10-01, 659. Nesactium (It. 10).

Pais 2. InscrIt-10-01, 663. Nesactium (It. 10).

Pais 410. ILS 3774. Concordia (It. 10).

Pais 624. SIRIS 623 = RICIS-02, 515/801 = RICIS-S-02, p 288 = Verona (It. 10). Questori 416. Pais 669. ILS 7265. Mantua (It. 10). Pais 715. ETrentine 52. Cles (It. 10). Pais 870. Pais 1298 = ILS 6742 = EAOR-02, 11 = Epigraphica-2002- Ticinum (It. 11). 238 = AE 2002, +265. Pais 883. EaNovara 46 = ILS 6741 = MLNovara p 223. Novaria (It. 11). Pais 1011. SupIt-13-F, 4 = MEFR-2000-918 = AE 1994, 1140 = AE Forum 2000, +585. Germanorum (It. 9). Pais 1227 IRConcor 27 = IDRE-01, 151 = ILLConcordia-01, 16. Concordia (It. 10). PortaNola p 73 Pompeii (It. 1). SIRIS 486. RICIS-02, 504/206. Pompeii (It. 1). SupIt-08-C, 1. AE 1964, 210 = AE 1991, 693 = AE 2003, 651. Caesena (It. 8). SupIt-12-At, 1. AE 1994, 589. Attidium (It. 6). Zevi 2008, no. Misenum (It. 1). 12 Zevi 2008, no. Misenum (It. 1). 13 ZPE-68-163 Clusium (It. 7).

232 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Augustus. Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Text, Translation, and Commentary. Edited and translated by Alison E. Cooley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Cassius Dio. Roman History. Edited and translated by Earnest Cary, . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1916. Suetonius. Divus Titus. Translated by J.C. Rolfe, Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914. Tacitus. Annals. Translated by Clifford H. Moore, Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931. Secondary Aalders, G.J.D. “Cassius Dio and the Greek World.” Mnemosyne 39, nos 3/4 (1986): 282- 304. Adamo Muscettola, S. “The Sculptures of the Sacellum of the Augustales.” In The Archaeological Museum of the Phlegrean Fields in the Castle of Baia, edited by P. Miniero, 66-77. Naples: Soprintendenza Archeologica di Napoli e Caserta, 2000. Adams, J.N. “‘Romanitas’ and the Latin Language.” CQ 53, no. 1 (2003): 184-205. https://doi.org/10.1093/cq/53.1.184 Agnoli, Nadia. “Palestrina. Il Cosiddetto Macellum.” Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche. 9, no. 9 (1998): 157-81. Alföldy, Géza. “Ein Tempel des Herrscherkultes in Comum.” Athenaeum 61, no. 1 (1983): 362-73. Alföldy, Géza. “Subject and Ruler, Subjects and Methods: an Attempt at a Conclusion.” In Subject and Ruler: The Cult of the Ruling Power in Classical Antiquity. [JRA Supp. Series 17], edited by Alastair Small, 254-61. Ann Arbor: Thomson-Shore, 1996. Altman, Marion. “Ruler Cult in Seneca.” CPh 33, no. 2 (1938): 198-204. Amalfitano, Paolo, Giuseppe Camodeca and Maura Medri. I Campi Flegrei: Un Itinerario Archeologico. Venice: Marsilio Editore, 1990. Ando, Clifford. Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000. Ando, Clifford. “Introduction: Religion, Law and Knowledge in Classical Rome.” In Roman Religion, edited by Clifford Ando, 1-15. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003. Ando, Clifford. The Matter of the Gods. Religion and the Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008.

233 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Ando, Clifford. “A Religion for the Empire.” In Roman Religion, edited by Clifford Ando, 220-46. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003. Ando, Clifford. “Vergil’s Italy: Ethnography and Politics in First-Century Rome.” In Clio and the Poets. Augustan Poetry and the Traditions of Ancient Historiography, edited by D.S. Levene and D.P. Nelis, 123-42. Leiden: Brill, 2002. “Antiquity à-la-Carte Application,” University of North Carolina, accessed 22, 2017, http://awmc.unc.edu/awmc/applications/alacarte/. Aoyagi, Masanori and Claudia Angelelli. “La C.D. Villa di Augusto a Somma Vesuviana (NA). Nuove Ipotesi di Lettura sulla Base Più Recenti Richerche Archeologiche.” RendLinc 85 (2013): 171-202. Arce, Javier. “La Transformación Administrativa de Italia: Diocleciano.” In L’Italie d’Auguste à Dioclétien. Actes du colloque international de Rome (25-28 Mars 1992), 399-409. Rome: École Française de Rome, 1994. Arnaldi, Adelina. “Testimonianze del Culto Imperiale Nell’Etruria Centro-Settentrionale Costiera.” In Nuove Richerche sul Culto Imperiale in Italia. Atti dell’incontro di Studio. Ancona, 31 gennaio 2004, edited by Lidio Gasperini and Gianfranco Paci, 33-74. Tivoli: Edizioni Tored, 2008. Arnason, Johann P. “The Roman Phenomenon: State, Empire, and Civilization.” In The Roman Empire in Context: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, edited by Johann P. Arnason and Kurt A. Raaflaub, 351-86. United Kingdom: Wiley- Blackwell, 2011. Arnold, Irene Ringwood. “Agonistic Festivals in Italy and .” AJA 64, no. 3 (1960): 245-51. https://doi.org/10.2307/502464. Ashby, T. “The Classical Topography of the Roman Campagna: Part I.” PBSR 1, no. 2 (1902): 127-281. Ausbüttel, Frank M. Untersuchungen zu den Vereinen im Westen des Römischen Reiches [Frankfurter Althistoriche Studien 11]. Kallmünz: Michael Lassleben, 1982. Badian, E. “History from ‘Square Brackets’.” ZPE 79 (1989): 59-70. Baillie Reynolds, Paul Kenneth. The Vigiles of Imperial Rome. London: Oxford University Press, 1926. Ball, Larry F. and John J. Dobbins, “Pompeii Forum Project: Current Thinking on the Pompeii Forum.” AJA 117, no. 3 (2013): 461-92. Barnes, Timothy D. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981. Barrett, A. Caligula. The Abuse of Power. 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge, 2015.

234 BIBLIOGRAPHY Barrett, John C. “Chronologies of Remembrance: The Interpretation of Some Roman Inscriptions.” WorldArch 25, no. 2 (1993): 236-47. Beard, Mary. “Religion.” In CAH. Vol. IX. The Last Age of the , 146-43 B.C, edited by J.A. Crooks, A. Lintott and E. Rawson, 729-68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Beard, Mary. Pompeii. The Life of a Roman Town. Great Britain: Profile Books, 2008. Beard, Mary. “Writing and Religion: Ancient Literary and the Function of the Written Word in Roman Religion.” In Literacy in the Roman World [JRA Supp. Series 3], edited by J.H. Humphrey, 35-58. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, 1991. Beard, Mary. “Writing and Ritual: A Study of Diversity and Expansion in the Arval Acta.” PBSR 53 (1985): 114-62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068246200011521 Beard, Mary and John Henderson. “The Emperor’s New Body: Ascension from Rome.” In Parchments of Gender. Deciphering the Bodies of Antiquity, edited by Maria Wyke, 191-219. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. Beard, Mary, John A. North and Simon Price. Religions of Rome. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Beard, Mary, John A. North and Simon Price. Religions of Rome. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Beaujeu, Jean. “Le Paganisme Romain sous le Haut Empire.” ANRW. II.16.1 (1978): 3-26. Beaujeu, Jean. La Religion Romaine a l’Apogée de l’Empire. I. La Politique Religieuse des Antonins (96-192). Paris: Société d’Édition, 1955. Becatti, Giovanni. Scavi di Ostia IV. Mosaici e Pavimenti Marmorei. Tavole. Italy: Instituto Poligrafico Dello Stato, 1961. Becker, Jeffrey A., Marcello Mogetta and Nicola Terrenato. “A New Plan for an Ancient Italian City: Gabii Revealed.” AJA 113, no. 4 (2009): 629-42. Beloch, Karl Julius. Kampanien. Geschichte und Topographie des antiken Neapel und Seiner Umgebung. Breslau: Verlag von E. Morgenstern, 1890. Bendlin, Andreas. “Associations, Funerals, Sociality, and Roman Law: The Collegium of Diana and Antinous in Lanuvium (CIL 14.2112) Reconsidered.” In Aposteldekret und Antikes Vereinswesen: Gemeinschaft und ihre Ordnung, edited by M. Öhler, 207-96. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Bendlin, Andreas. “Peripheral Centres – Central Peripheries: Religious Communication in the Roman Empire.” In Römische Reichsreligion und Provinzialreligion, edited by Hubert Cancik and Jörg Rüpke, 35-68. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997.

235 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Benelli, Enrico. “The Romanization of Italy through the Epigraphic Record.” In Italy and the West. Comparative Issues in Romanization, edited by Simon Keay and Nicola Terrenato, 7-16. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2001. Benjamin Anna S. “The Altars of Hadrian in Athens and Hadrian’s Panhellenic Program.” Hesperia 32, no. 1 (1963): 57-86. Beurlier, Emile. Le Culte Rendu Aux Empereurs Romains. Paris: E. Thorin, 1890. Bickerman, E.J. “Diva Augusta Marciana.” AJPh 94, no. 4 (1974): 362-76. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/294016 Birley, Antony Richard. “Hadrian’s Travels.” In The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power. Proceedings of the Third Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire. (Roman Empire, c. 200 B.C. – A.D. 476). Netherlands Institute in Rome, March 20-23, 2002, edited by Lukas de Blois, Paul Erdkamp, Olivier Hekster, Gerda de Kleijn and Stephan Mols, 425-41. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 2003. Birley, Antony Richard. Onomasticon to the Younger Pliny: Letters and Panegyric. Leipzig: K.G. Saur München, 2000. Birley, Eric. “The Religion of the Roman Army: 1895-1977.” ANRW II.16.2 (1978): 1506- 541. Biundo, Raffaella. “Struttura della Classe Dirigente a Pompei a Pompei e Mobilità Sociale. I Rapporti con il Centoro.” In Les Élites Municipales de l’Italie Péninsulaire de la Mort de César à la Mort de Domitien Entre Continuité et Rupture. Classes Sociales Dirigeantes et Pouvoir Central, edited by Mireille Cébelliac-Gervasoni, 33-69. Rome: École Française de Rome, 2000. Bloch, Herbert. “A Monument to the Lares Augusti in the Forum of Ostia.” HThR 55, no. 4 (1962): 211-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0017816000007902 Boatwright, Mary Taliaferro. “Hadrian and Italian Cities.” Chiron 19 (1989): 235-71. Boatwright, Mary Taliaferro. Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. Boatwright, Mary Taliaferro. Hadrian and the City of Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987. Bodel, John. “Epigraphy and the Ancient Historian.” In Epigraphic Evidence. Ancient History from Inscriptions, edited by John Bodel, 1-56. London and New York: Routledge, 2001.

236 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bodel, John. “‘Sacred Dedications’: A Problem of Definitions.” In Religious Dedications in the Greco-Roman World. Distribution, Typology, Use. [Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae 35], edited by John Bodel and Mika Kajava, 17-30. Roma: Estratto, 2009. Boissier, G. “Étude sur Quelques Colléges Funéraires Romains. Les Cultores Deorum.” Revue Archéologique, Nouvelle Série 23 (1872): 81-94. Bollman, Beate. “Les Collèges Religieux et Professionels Romains et Leurs Lieux de Réunion à Ostie.” In Ostia. Port et Porte de la Rome Antique, edited by Jean-Paul Descoeudres, 172-78. Geneva: Musée Rath Genève, 2001. Borbonus, Dorian. Columbarium Tombs and Collective Identity in Augustan Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Bormann, E. “Inschriften aus Umbrien.” Archäologisch Epigraphische Mitteilungen aus Österreich-Ungarn 19 (1896): 112-25. Borriello, Maria Rosaria and Antonio D’Ambrosio. Forma Italiae. Regio I. Volumen XIV. Baiae-Misenum. Firenze: Leo S. Olshcki Editore, 1979. Bourdieu, Pierre. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Bowersock, Glen Warren. “Greek Intellectuals and the Imperial Cult in the Second Century A.D.” In Le Culte des Souverains dans l’Empire Romains. Sept Exposés Suivis de Discussions, edited by Willem den Boer, 177-212. Geneva: Fondation Hardt, 1972. Briggs, Cecil C. “The ‘Pantheon’ of Ostia (and its Immediate Surroundings).” MAAR 8 (1930): 161-69. Brodd, Jeffrey. “Religion, Roman Religion, Emperor Worship.” In Rome and Religion: A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on the Imperial Cult, edited by J. Brodd and J.L. Reed, 35-48. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Brouwer, Hendrik. H. Bona Dea. The Sources and a Description of the Cult. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Bruun, Christer. “The Antonine Plague in Rome and Ostia.” JRA 16 (2003): 426-34. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047759400013234 Bruun, Christer. “Civic Rituals in Imperial Ostia.” In Ritual Dynamics and Religious Change in the Roman Empire. Proceedings of the Eighth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Heidelberg, July 5-7, 2007), edited by Olivier Hekster, Sebastian Schmidt-Hofner and Christian Witschel, 123-41. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Bruun, Christer. “Pericula Alexandrina: The Adventures of a Recently Discovered Centurion of the Legio II Parthica.” Arctos 29 (1995): 9-27.

237 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Bruun, Christer. “True Patriots? The Public Activities of the *Augustales of Roman Ostia and the Summa Honoraria.” Arctos 48 (2014): 67-91. Buonocore, Marco. “Le Iscrizioni ad Augusto e alla sua Domus nelle Città Dell’Italia Centro-Appenninica (Regio IV). In Contributi All’Epigrafia d’Età Augustea. Actes de la XIIIe Recontre Franco-Italienne sur l’Epigraphie du Monde Romain, edited by Gianfranco Paci, 31-90. Tivoli: Editrice Tipigraf, 2007. Buonopane, Alfredo. “Il Materiale Epigrafico.” In L’Area del Capitolium di Verona. Ricerche Storiche e Archeologiche, edited by Giuliana Cavalieri Manasse, 269-88. Verona: Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici del , 2008. Burnett, Andrew, Michel Amandry and Pere Pau Ripollès. Roman Provincial Coinage. From the Death of Caesar to the Death of (44 BC – AD 69). Vol. 1. London: British Museum Press and Bibliothèque Nationale de , 2006. Burrell, Barbara. “False Fronts: Separating the Aedicular Façade from the Imperial Cult in Roman Asia Minor.” American Journal of Archaeology. 110, no.3 (2006): 437-69. Busch, Alexandra Wilhelmine. “‘Militia in Urbe’. The Military Presence in Rome.” In The Impact of the Roman Army. (200 BC – AD 476) Economic, Social, Political, Religious and Cultural Aspects. Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Roman Empire, 200 BC-AD 476). , March 29 – April 2, 2005, edited by Lukas de Blois and Elio Lo Cascio, 315-42. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Busch, Alexandra Wilhelmine. “Kaiserzeitliche Wehrarchitektur im Zentrum des Römischen Reiches.” Römische Wehrbauten. Befund und Rekonstruktion 7 (2013): 112-31. Busch, Alexandra Wilhelmine. “Von der Kaiservilla zu den Castra. Das Lager der Legio II Parthica in und seine Vorgängerbebauung – ein Vorbericht zu den Projektarbeiten in 2009.” KuBA 1 (2011): 87-94. Busch, Alexandra Wilhelmine and Silvia Aglietti. “Castra Albana. Le Richerche e le Attività dell’Istituto Archeologico Germanico (DAI) nel 2010.” In Lazio e Sabina 8, edited by G. Ghini and Z. Mari, 255-64. Roma: Edizioni Quasar, 2012. Calza, Guido, Giovanni Becatti, Maria Floriani Squarciapino, Raissa Calza and Patrizio Pensabene. Scavi di Ostia, I, Topografia Generale. Roma: Libreria dello Stato, 1953. Camodeca, Giuseppe. “Domiziano e il Collegio degli Augustali di .” In Ἐπιγαφαί: Miscellanea Epigrafica in Onore di Lidio Gasperini, edited by Gianfranco Paci, 171- 87. Tivoli: Tipigraf, 2000.

238 BIBLIOGRAPHY Camodeca, Giuseppe. “Nola: Vicende Sociali e Istituzionali di una Colonia Romana da Silla alla Tetrarchia.” In Gérer Les Territoires, Les Patrimoines et Les Crises. Le Quotidien Municipal II, edited by L. Lamoine, C. Berrendonner and M. Cébeillac- Gervasoni, 295-328. Clermont-Ferrand: Presses Universitaires Blaise-Pascal, 2012. Capasso, Bartolommeo. Napoli Greco-Romana. Napoli: Arturo Berisio Editore, 1905. Carcopino, Jérôme. “La Mosaïque de la Caserne des Vigiles à Ostie.” MEFRA. 27 (1907): 227-41. Carradice Ian A. and V. Buttrey. The Roman Imperial Coinage. From AD 69-96. Vespasian to Domitian. Vol. 2.1. 2nd ed. London: Spink, 2007. Castagnoli, Ferdinando. “Topografia dei Campi Flegrei.” In I Campi Flegrei. Nell’Archeologia e Nella Storia. Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1977. Castrén, Paavo. Ordo Populusque Pompeianus. Polity and Society in Roman Pompeii. [Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae Vol. 8]. 1983 ed. Roma: Bardi Editore, 1983. Cenerini, Francesca. “The Role of Women as Municipal Matres.” In Women and the Roman City in the Latin West, edited by Emily Hemelrijk and Greg Woolf, 9-22. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Champlin, Edward. “Pliny’s Other Country.” In Aspects of Friendship in the Graeco-Roman World [JRA Supp. Series 43], edited by M. Peachin, 121-28. Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2001. Charlesworth, Martin Percival. “‘Deus Noster Caesar’.” CR 29, nos 5/6 (1925): 113-15. Charlesworth, Martin Percival. “The Refusal of Divine Honours: An Augustan Formula.” PBSR 15 (1939): 1-10. Charlesworth, Martin Percival. “Some Observations on Ruler-Cult Especially in Rome.” HThR 28, no. 1 (1935): 5-44. Charlesworth, Martin Percival. The Virtues of a Roman Emperor: Propaganda and the Creation of Belief. London: Milford, 1937. Chelotti, Marcella. “I Sacerdozi nella Regio Secunda Augustea: Il Flaminato.” In Les Élites Municipales de l’Italie Péninsulaire de la Mort de César à la Mort de Domitien Entre Continuité et Rupture. Classes Sociales Dirigeantes et Pouvoir Central, edited by Mireille Cébelliac-Gervasoni, 121-35. Rome: École Française de Rome, 2000. Chiarucci, Pino. Lanuvium. Roma: Paleani Editrice, 1983. Ciotti, Umberto. “Carsulae.” In San Gemini e Carsulae, edited by A. Violati, 11-80. : Carlo Emilio Bestetti, 1976. Clark, Anna J. Divine Qualities. Cult and Community in Republican Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

239 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Clark, Anna J. “Magistri and Ministri in Roman Italy: Associations with Gods.” In Priests and State in the Roman World, edited by James H. Richardson and Federico Santangelo, 347-72. Germany: Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart, 2011. Clarke, M.L. The Roman Mind: Studies in the History of Thought from Cicero to Marcus Aurelius. London: Cohen and West, 1956. Clauss, Manfred. Kaiser und Gott. Herrscherkult im Römischen Reich. Leipzig: Saur München, 1999. Coarelli, Filippo. Lazio. Guide Archeologiche Laterza. Roma: Bari, 1982. Coarelli, Filippo. “Il Pantheon, L’Apoteosi di Augusteo e L’Apoteosi di Romolo.” Analecta Romana Instituti Danici. Supplementum X. Citta e Architettura nella Roma Imperiale. (1983): 41-6. Cole, S. “Elite Scepticism in the Apocolocyntosis: Further Qualifications.” In Seeing Seneca Whole: Perspectives on Philosophy, Poetry, Politics, edited by K. Volk and G.D. Williams, 175-82. Boston: Brill, 2006. Colognesi, Luigi Capogrossi. Law and Power in the Making of the Roman Commonwealth. Translated by L Kopp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Cooley, Alison E. “Beyond Rome and Latium: Roman Religion in the Age of Augustus.” In Religion in Republican Italy, edited by Celia E. Schultz and Paul B. Harvey Jr, 228- 52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Cooley, Alison E. The Cambridge Manual of Latin Epigraphy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Cooley, Alison E. “The Last Days of Augustus.” In Afterlives of Augustus, AD 14-2014, edited by Penelope J. Goodman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming. Cooley, Alison E. “Politics and Religion in the Ager Laurens.” In The Epigraphic Landscape of Roman Italy. [Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supp. 73], edited by A.E. Cooley, 173-91. London: Institute of Classical Studies, 2000. Corbier, Mireille. “Les Circonscriptions Judiciaires de l’Italie, de Marc-Aurèle à Aurélien.” MEFRA 85, no. 2 (1973): 609-90. https:/doi.org/10.3406/mefr.1973.959 Cornell, Tim. “The End of Roman Imperial Expansion.” In War and Society in the Roman World, edited by John Rich and Graham Shipley, 139-70. London and New York: Routledge, 1993. Courtney, Edward. A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal. Berkeley: California Classical Studies, 2013.

240 BIBLIOGRAPHY Crawford, M.H. “Italy and Rome from Sulla to Augustus.” In CAH. Vol. 10: The Augustan Empire, 43 BC-AD 69, edited by A.K. Bowman, E. Champlin and A. Lintott, 414- 433. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Curchin, Leonard A. “Cult and Cult: Indigenous Participation in Emperor Worship in Central Spain.” In Subject and Ruler: The Cult of the Ruling Power in Classical Antiquity [JRA Supp. 17], edited by Alastair Small, 143-52. Ann Arbor: Thomson- Shore, 1996. Curchin, Leonard A. “Review: Culto Imperial: Política y Poder.” JRS 100 (2010): 336-37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0075435810000936 Curran, John. “Constantine and the Ancient Cults of Rome: The Legal Evidence.” Greece & Rome 43, no. 1 (1996): 68-80. https://doi.org/10.1093/gr/43.1.68 Curti, Emmanuele. “Toynbee’s Legacy: Discussing Aspects of the Romanization of Italy.” In Italy and the West. Comparative Issues in Romanization, edited by Simon Keay and Nicola Terrenato, 17-26. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2001. D’Arms, John H. Commerce and Social Standing in . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981. D’Arms, John H. “Puteoli in the Second Century of the Roman Empire: A Social and Economic Study.” JRS 64 (1974): 104-24. https://doi.org/10.2307/299263 D’Arms, John H. Romans on the Bay of Naples. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970. Dareggi, Gianna. “Il Ciclo Statuario della “Basilica,, di Otricoli: La Fase Guilio-Claudia.” Bollettino d’Arte 14 (1982): 1-36. de Blois, Lukas. “Emperorship in a Period of Crises. Changes in Emperor Worship, Imperial Ideology and Perceptions of Imperial Authority in the Roman Empire in the Third Century A.D.” In The Impact of Imperial Rome on Religions, Ritual and Religious Life in the Roman Empire. Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire. (Roman Empire, 200 B.C. – A.D. 476). Münster, June 30-July 4, 2004, edited by Lukas de Blois, Peter Funke, and Johannes Hahn, 268-78. Leiden, Brill, 2006. de Maria, Sandro. “L’Augusteum di Fano e i luoghi del Culto Imperial nel I Secolo D.C.” In L’Augusteum di Fanum Fortunae. Un Edificio del Culto Imperial Nella Fano d’Eta Romana, edited by Sandro de Maria, 133-49. Milan: Silvana Editoriale, 2015. DeLaine, Janet. “The Builders of Roman Ostia: Organisation, Status and Society.” In Proceedings of the First International Congress on Construction History. Madrid 20th-24th January, 2003, edited by S. Huerta, 723-32. Madrid: Juan de Herrera, 2003.

241 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Della Corte, Matteo. “Somma Vesuviana. Ruderi Romani.” Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità (1932): 309-10. Demougin, Ségolène. “À Propos des Élites Locales en Italie.” In L’Italie d’Auguste à Dioclétien. Actes du Colloque International de Rome (25-28 Mars 1992), 353-76. Rome: École Française de Rome, 1994. Dobbins, John J. “The Imperial Cult Building in the Forum at Pompeii.” In Subject and Ruler: The Cult of the Ruling Power in Classical Antiquity. [JRA Supp. Series 17], edited by Alastair Small, 99-114. Ann Arbor: Thomson-Shore, 1996. Dobbins, John J. “Problems of Chronology, Decoration, and Urban Design in the Forum of Pompeii.” AJA 94, no. 4 (1994): 629-94. Dumézil, Georges. La Religion Romaine Archaïque. Avec un Appendice sur la Religion des Etrusques. Paris: Payot, 1974. Duncan-Jones, R.P. “The Impact of the Antonine Plague.” JRA 9 (1996): 108-36. Duthoy, Robert. “Les *Augustales.” ANRW. II.16.2 (1978): 1254-309. Duthoy, Robert. “Notes Onomastiques sur Les *Augustales Cognomina et Indication de Statut.” L’Antiquité Classique 39, no. 1 (1970): 88-105. Duthoy, Robert. “Recherches sur la Repartition Geographique et Chronologique des Termes Sevir Augustalis, Augustalis et Sevir dans L’Empire Romain. Epigraphische Studien 2 (1976): 142-214. Dyson, Stephen L. Community and Society in Roman Italy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992. Ebel, Eva. Die Attraktivität Früher Christlicher Gemeinden: Die Gemeinde von Korinth im Spiegel Griechisch-Römischer Vereine. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Eck, Werner. “Die Inschrift: Fragment Einer Kultur.” In XII Congressus Internationalis Epigraphicae Graecae et Latinae: Provinciae Imperii Romani Inscriptionibus Descriptae, edited by M. Mayer i Olívê, G. Baratta and A. Guzmán Almagro, 449- 60. Barcelona: Monografies de la Secció Històrico-Arqueològica X, 2007. Eck, Werner. “Kaiserliches Handeln in Italischen Städten.” In L’Italie d’Auguste à Dioclétien. Actes du Colloque International Organise par l’École Française de Rome (Rome, 25-28 Mars 1992), 329-51. Rome: École Française de Rome, 1994. Eck, Werner. “Mommsen e Il Metodo Epigrafico.” In Concordia e la X Regio. Giornate di Studio in Onore di Diario Bertolini nel Centenario della Morte. Atti del Convegno Portogruaro 22-23 Ottobre 1994, edited by P. Croce da Villa and A. Mastrocinque, 107-12. : Zielo/Libraria Padovana, 1995.

242 BIBLIOGRAPHY Eder, Walter. “Augustus and the Power of Tradition.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus, edited and translated by Karl Galinsky, 13-32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Egelhaaf-Gaiser, Ulrike. “Roman Cult Sites: A Pragmatic Approach.” In A Companion to Roman Religion, edited by Jörg Rüpke, 205-21. Blackwell: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007. Enciclopedia Dell’Arte Antica: Classica e Orientale: Supplemento 1970. Roma: Institutio della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1973. Ensslin, W. “Praefectus Iure Dicundo.” RE 22, no. 44 (1954): 1320. Étienne, Robert. “Un Complexe Monumental du Culte Impérial à Avenches.” Bulletin de l’Association Pro Aventico 29 (1985): 5-26. Etienne, Robert. “A Propos du Cosidetto Édifice des Augustales d’Herculanum.” In 1738-1988. 250 Anni di Ricerca Archeologica. Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Ravello, Ercolano, Napoli, Pompei, 30 Ottobre-5 Novembre 1988, edited by L. Franchi dell’Orto, 345-50. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 1993. Evans, Nancy. “Embedding Rome in Athens.” In Rome and Religion: A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on the Imperial Cult, edited by J. Brodd and J.L. Reed, 83-98. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Fears, Rufus J. “Cumae in the Roman Imperial Age.” Vergilius 21 (1975): 1-21. Fears, Rufus J. “Herculanensium Augustalium Aedes and the Theology of Ruler Cult.” In Classical Archaeology Towards the Third Millennium. Reflections and Perspectives. Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Classical Archaeology. Amsterdam, July 12-17. 1988, edited by Roald F. Docter, Eric Maria Moorman, 166- 69. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum, 1999. Feeney, Denis. Literature and Religion at Rome. Cultures, Contexts and Beliefs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Feinberg, Karen Lauter. “The Survival of Latin Identity under Roman Domination.” PhD diss., University of Cincinatti, 1971. Felletti-Maj, Bianca Maria. La Tradizione Italica nell’Arte Romana. Roma: Giorgio Bretschneider, 1977. Fenelli, Maria and Marcello Guaitoli. “Nuovi Dati Degli Scavi di Lavinium.” Archeologia Laziale 10 (1990): 182-93. Fink, Robert Orwill, Allan Spencer Hoey and Walter Fifield Snyder. “The Feriale Duranum.” Yale Classical Studies 7 (1940): 1-223.

243 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Fishwick, Duncan. “The Altar of Augustus at Tarraco.” In The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. Vol. 1.1, 171-79. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Fishwick, Duncan. “Augustan Blessings and Virtues.” In The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. Vol. 2.1, 455-74. New York: Brill, 1991. Fishwick, Duncan. “Augustan Gods.” In The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. Vol. 2.1, 446-54. New York: Brill, 1991. Fishwick, Duncan. “The Augustales and the Imperial Cult.” In The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. Vol. 2.1, 609-16. New York: Brill, 1991. Fishwick, Duncan. “Augusto ut Deo.” In The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. Vol. 2.1, 436-45. New York: Brill, 1991. Fishwick, Duncan. “Dated Inscriptions and the Feriale Duranum.” In The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. Vol. 2.1, 593-608. New York: Brill, 1991. Fishwick, Duncan. “The Development of Provincial Ruler Worship in the Western Roman Empire.” ANRW II.16.2 (1978): 1201-253. Fishwick, Duncan. “Domus Divina.” In The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire, 423-35. Vol. 2.1. New York: Brill, 1991. Fishwick, Duncan. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. Vol. 1.1. New York: Brill, 1987. Fishwick, Duncan. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. Vol. 3.1. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Fishwick, Duncan. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. Vol. 3.2. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Fishwick, Duncan. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. Vol. 3.3. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Fishwick, Duncan. “Liturgy and Ceremonial.” In The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. Vol. 2.1, 475-590. New York: Brill, 1991.

244 BIBLIOGRAPHY Fishwick, Duncan. “Genius and Numen.” In The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. Vol. 2.1, 375-87. New York: Brill, 1991. Fishwick, Duncan. “Sanctissimum Numen: Emperor or God?” ZPE 89 (1991): 196-200. Fishwick, Duncan. “The ‘Temple of Augustus’ at Tarraco.” Latomus 58, no. 1 (1999): 121- 38. Formato, Lucia Clara. “African Red Slip Ware and African Cooking Ware from the Military Camp of the Legio II Parthica at Albano Laziale/Italy.” Rei Cretariae Romanae Favtorvm Acta 44 (2016): 175-82. Fraschetti, Augusto. Roma e il Principe. Bari: Editori Laterza, 1990. Fraser, Trudie E. Hadrian as Builder and Benefactor in the Western Provinces. [BAR International Series 1484]. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2006. Friesen, Steven J. “Normal Religion, or, Words Fail Us: A Response to Karl Galinsky’s Roman Emperor: Uniter or Divider?” In Rome and Religion: A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on the Imperial Cult, edited by J. Brodd and J.L. Reed, 23-26. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Galinsky, Karl. Augustan Culture: An Interpretative Introduction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. Galinsky, Karl. “The Cult of the Roman Emperor: Uniter or Divider?” In Rome and Religion: A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on the Imperial Cult, edited by J. Brodd and J.L. Reed, 1-22. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Garofalo, Paolo. Lanuvio. Storia e Istituzioni in Età Romana. Vols 1 and 2. Tivoli: Edizioni Tored, 2014. Gaspar, Veerle. “Sacerdotes Piae. Priestesses and Other Female Cult Officials in the Western Part of the Roman Empire from the First Century B.C. until the Third Century A.D.” PhD diss., Instituut voor Cultuur en Geschiedenis, 2012. Gasperini, Lidio. “L’Augusteo di Firmo Piceno in Un’Epigrafe da Rileggere.” Annali della Facoltà di e Filosofia, Università di . 10 (1977): 59-87. Gasperini, Lidio. “L’Augusteo di «Forvm Clodii».” In Nuove Richerche sul Culto Imperiale in Italia. Atti dell’incontro di Studio. Ancona, 31 gennaio 2004, edited by Lidio Gasperini and Gianfranco Paci, 91-134. Tivoli: Edizioni Tored, 2008. Gasperini, Lidio. “L’Iscrizione del Pago Stellatino (CIL XI.3040).” Miscellanea Greca e Romana. 19 (1995): 248-70. Gasperini, Lidio and Gianfranco Paci, eds. Nuove Richerche sul Culto Imperiale in Italia. Atti dell’incontro di Studio. Ancona, 31 gennaio 2004. Tivoli: Edizioni Tored, 2008.

245 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Geer, Russel Mortimer. “The Greek Games at Naples.” TAPhA 66 (1935): 208-21. Geremia Nucci, Roberta. Il Tempio di Roma e di Augusto a Ostia. Roma: «L’Erma» di Bretschneider, 2013. Gibson, Roy K. and Ruth Morello. Reading the Letters of Pliny the Younger. An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Gilliam, J.F. “The Roman Military Feriale.” HThR 47, no. 3 (1954): 183-96. Glinister, Fay. “Colonies and Religious Dynamism in Mid-Republican Italy.” In The Impact of Rome on Cult Places and Religious Practices in Ancient Italy [Bulletin of Classical Studies Sup. 132], edited by Tesse D. Stek and Gert-Jan Burgers, 145-56. London: University of London, 2015. Glinister, Fay. “Reconsidering ‘Religious Romanization’.” In Religion in Republican Italy, edited by Celia E. Schultz and Paul B. Harvey Jr, 10-33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Gonçalves, Ana Teresa Marques. “Septímio Severo e a Consecratio de Pertinax: Rituais de Morte e Poder.” História, São Paulo 26, no. 1 (2007): 20-35. Gordon, Arthur E. The Cults of Lanuvium. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1938. Gordon, Richard. “The Roman Imperial Cult and the Question of Power.” In The Religious History of the Roman Empire. Pagans, Jews and Christians, edited by J. North and S.R.F. Price, 37-70. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Gordon, Richard. “The Veil of Power: Emperors, Sacrificers and Benefactors.” In Pagan Priests. Religion and Power in the Ancient World, edited by Mary Beard and John North, 201-31. Great Britain: Duckworth, 1990. Gordon, Richard, Mary Beard, Joyce Reynolds and Charlotte Roueché. “Roman Inscriptions 1986-90.” JRS 83 (1993): 131-58. Gradel, Ittai. Emperor Worship and Roman Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002. Gradel, Ittai. “Mamia’s Dedication: Emperor and Genius. The Imperial Cult in Italy and the Genius Coloniae at Pompeii. Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 20 (1992): 43-58. Gradel, Ittai. “Review: Die Munizipale Mittelschicht im Kaiserzeitlichen Italien: Zu Einem Neuen Verständnis von Servirat und Augustalität.” JRS 84 (1994): 259-60. Gradel, Ittai. “Review: The Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire.” JRS 95 (2005): 260-261. Green, Peter. Classical Bearings. Interpreting Ancient History and Culture. German Democratic Republic: Thames and Hudson, 1989. Green, McAllen. “Notes on the Augustan Deities.” CJ 23, no. 2 (1927): 86-93.

246 BIBLIOGRAPHY Greenberg, James. “Plagued by Doubt: Reconsidering the Impact of a Mortality Crisis in the 2nd C. A.D.” JRA 16 (2003): 413-25. Gregori, Gian Luca. “Il Culto delle Divinità Auguste in Italia: Un’indagine Preliminare.” In Religious Dedications in the Greco-Roman World. Distribution, Typology, Use. [Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae 35], edited by John Bodel and Mika Kajava, 307- 30. Roma: Estratto, 2009. Gregori, Gian Luca. “In Margine alla Carriera di L. Titinus Glaucus Lucretianus.” In Les Élites Municipales de l’Italie Péninsulaire de la Mort de César à la Mort de Domitien Entre Continuité et Rupture. Classes Sociales Dirigeantes et Pouvoir Central, edited by Mireille Cébelliac-Gervasoni, 160-75. Rome: École Française de Rome, 2000. Gregori, Gian Luca. “Un’Eccezionale Dedica a Favore di Caligola.” In Un Luogo per Gli Dei. L’Area del Capitolium a , edited by F. Rossi, 303-6. Firenze: Ministero dei Beni e Delle Attività Culturali e del Turismo, 2014. Grella, Consalvo. “L’Ara di Abellinum nel Museo Archeologico di Avellino.” Napoli Nobilissima 22 (1983): 139-42. Guadagno, Giuseppe. “Supplemento Epigrafico Ercolanese.” CronErcol 8 (1978): 132-55. Haeussler, Ralph. Becoming Roman? Diverging Identities and Experiences in Ancient Northwest Italy. California: Left Coast Press, 2013. Hamilton, G.J. and A.H. Smith. “Gavin Hamilton’s Letters to Charles Townley.” JHS 21 (1901): 306-21. Hänlein-Schäfer, Heidi. Veneratio Augusti: Eine Studie zu den Tempeln der Ersten Römischen Kaisers. [Archeologica 39]. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider, 1985. Hano, Michel. “A L’Origine du Culte Impérial: Les Autels des Lares Augusti. Recherches sur les Thèmes Iconographiques et Leur Signification. ANRW II.16.3 (1986): 2333- 381. Harris, William V. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989. Harvey Jr., Paul B. “Religion and Memory at Pisaurum.” In Religion in Republican Italy, edited by Celia E. Schultz and Paul B. Harvey Jr, 117-36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Häussler, R. “Writing Latin – From Resistance to Assimilation: Language, Culture and Society in N. Italy and S. Gaul.” In Becoming Roman, Writing Latin? Literacy and Epigraphy in the Roman West. [JRA Sup. 48], edited by Alison E. Cooley, 61-76. Rhode Island: Thomson-Shore, 2002.

247 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Hekster, Olivier. “Honouring Ancestors: The Dynamic of Deification.” In Ritual Dynamics and Religious Change in the Roman Empire. Proceedings of the Eighth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Heidelberg, July 5-7, 2007), edited by Olivier Hekster, Sebastian Schmidt-Hofner and Christian Witschel, 95-110. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Hekster, Olivier. “Review: Emperor Worship.” CR 53, no. 2 (2003): 426-28. Helgeland, John. “Roman Army Religion.” ANRW II.16.2 (1978): 1470-505. Hemelrijk, Emily. Hidden Lives, Public Personae. Women and Civic Life in the Roman West. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Hemelrijk, Emily. “Local Empresses: Priestesses of the Imperial Cult in the Cities of the Latin West.” Phoenix 61, no. 3/4 (2007): 318-49. Hemelrijk, Emily. “Priestesses of the Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Benefactions and Public Honour.” L’Antiquité Classique 75 (2006): 85-117. Hemelrijk, Emily. “Priestesses of the Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Titles and Function.” L’Antiquité Classique 74 (2005): 137-70. https://doi.org/10.3406/antiq.2005.2568 Henzelmann, Michael. “Review: Heiligtümer in Ostia.” AJA 112, no. 3 (2008). Henzen, Wilhelm. Acta Fratrum Arvalium Quae Supersunt. Berlin: Typis et Impensis G. Reimeri, 1874. Hernández, C.A. “El Culto Imperial: Una Reflexión Historiográfica.” Arys 12 (2014): 181- 212. Højte, Jakob Munk. Roman Imperial Statue Bases. From Augustus to Commodus. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2005. Hope, Valerie M. “Constructing Roman Identity: Funerary Monuments and Social Structure in the Roman World.” Mortality 2, no. 2 (1997): 103-21. Hopkins, Keith. Conquerors and Slaves. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Hopkins, Keith. Death and Renewal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Houston, George W. “Nonius Flaccus: A New Equestrian Career from Firmum Picenum.” CPh 73, no. 2 (1977): 232-38. Hurlet, Frédéric. “Sources and Evidence.” In A Companion to the Flavian Age of Imperial Rome, edited by Andrew Zissos, 17-39. UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2016. Jacques, François. Les Curateurs des Cités dans l’Occident Romain. De Trajan à Gallien. Études Prospographiques. Paris: Nouvelles Éditions Latines, 1983. Johannowsky, Werner. Dal Tifata al Massico. Scritti sulla. Campania Settentrionale (1961- 2000). Campania: Arti e Paesaggi, 2009. Jones, Brian W. The Emperor Domitian. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.

248 BIBLIOGRAPHY Jones, G.D.B. “Capena and the Ager Capenas.” PBSR 30 (1962): 116-207. Kahlos, Maijastina. “Introduction: Roman Emperors and the Divine – Shifts and Downshifts.” ColleGium. 20 (2016): 1-9. Kajava, Mika. “Religion in Rome and Italy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, edited by Christer Bruun and Jonathan Edmondson, 397-419. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Keaveney, Arthur. Rome and the Unification of Italy. London: Croom Helm, 1987. Keay, Simon. “Romanization and the Hispaniae.” In Italy and the West. Comparative Issues in Romanization, edited by Simon Keay and Nicola Terrenato, 117-44. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2001. Keay, Simon and Nicola Terrenato. “Preface.” In Italy and the West. Comparative Issues in Romanization, edited by Simon Keay and Nicola Terrenato, ix-xii. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2001. Keppie, Lawrence. Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in Italy, 47-14 B.C. London: British School at Rome, 1983. Keppie, Lawrence. Understanding Roman Inscriptions. London: B.T. Batsford, 1991. Kettenhofen, Erich. Die Syrischen Augustae in der Historichen Überlieferung: Ein Beitrag zum Problem der Orientalisierung. Bonn: Hablet, 1979. Kloppenborg, John S. “Collegia and Thiasoi: Issues of Function, Taxonomy and Membership.” In Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World, edited by John S. Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Wilson, 16-30. London and New York: Routledge, 1996. Kockel, Valentin. “Archäologische Funde und Forschungen in den Vesuvstädten I,” AA (1985): 495-571. Koortbojian, Michael. The Divinization of Caesar and Augustus. Precedents, Consequences, Implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Kovács, Péter. Marcus Aurelius’ Rain Miracle and the Marcomannic Wars. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Krascheninnikoff, M. “Ueber die Einführund des Provinzialen Kaisercultus im Römischen Westen.” Philologus 53 (1894): 147-89. https://doi.org/10.1524/phil.1894.53.14.147 Kreitzer, Larry. “Apotheosis of the Roman Emperor.” The Biblical Archaeologist 53, no. 4 (1990): 210-17. https://doi.org/10.2307/3210166 Krohn, Fritz. Vitruvii. De Architectura. Libri Decem. Teubner: De Gruyter, 1912. Krumme, M. “Isis in Praeneste. Zur Rekonstruktion des Unteren Heiligtums.” Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 105 (1990): 155-65.

249 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Laird, Margaret L. Civic Monuments and the Augustales in Roman Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Laird, Margaret L. “Evidence in Context: The Public and Funerary Monuments of the Seviri Augustales at Ostia.” PhD diss., Princeton University, 2002. Laird, Margaret L. “Reconsidering the so-called ‘Sede degli Augustali’ at Ostia.” MAAR 45 (2000): 41-84. https://doi.org/10.2307/4238765 Lambert, Royston. Beloved and God. The Story of Hadrian and Antinous. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1984. Lange, Carsten Hjort. “Triumphal Chariots, Emperor Worship and Dio Cassius: Declined Triumphal Honours.” Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 40 (2015): 7-19. Latte, Kurt. Römische Religionsgeschichte. München: Beck, 1960. Launaro, Alessandro. “The Economic Impact of Flavian Rule.” In A Companion to the Flavian Age of Imperial Rome, edited by Andrew Zissos, 189-206. UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2016. Laurence, Ray. “Territory, Ethnonyms and Geography: the Construction of Identity in Roman Italy.” In Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire, edited by Ray Laurence and Joanne Berry, 95-110. London and New York: Routledge, 1998. Laviosa, Clelia. “Rusellae. Relazione Preliminare Della Settima e Della Ottava Campagna di Scavi.” Studi Etruschi 37 (1969): 577-609. Leach, Eleanor W. “Flavian Pompeii: Restoration and Renewal.” In A Companion to the Flavian Age of Imperial Rome, edited by Andrew Zissos, 327-43. UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2016. Levene, D.S. “Defining the Divine in Rome: In Memoriam S.R.F. Price.” TAPhA 42, no. 1 (2012): 41-81. Levick, Barbara. “Corbulo’s Daughter.” Greece & Rome 49, no. 2 (2002): 199-211. https://doi.org/10.1093/gr/49.2.199 Lewis, Charlton T. and Charles Short. A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews’ Edition of Freund’s Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879. Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. 8th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1901. Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G. Continuity and Change in Roman Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979. Lo Cascio, Elio. “La Dinamica della Popolazione in Italia da Augusto al III secolo.” In L’Italie d’Auguste à Dioclétien. Actes du Colloque International Organise par

250 BIBLIOGRAPHY l’École Française de Rome (Rome, 25-28 Mars 1992), 91-125. Rome: École Française de Rome, 1994. Lo Cascio, Elio and Laurens E. Tacoma, eds. The Impact of Mobility and Migration in the Roman Empire. Proceedings of the Twelfth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Rome, June 17-19, 2015). Impact of Empire, 22. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2016. Lomas, Kathryn. “Colonizing the Past. Cultural Memory and Civic Identity in Hellenistic and Roman Naples.” In Remembering Parthenope. The Reception of Classical Naples from Antiquity to the Present, edited by Jessica Hughes and Claudio Buongiovanni, 64-84. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Lomas, Kathryn. “Introduction.” In Urban Society in Roman Italy, edited by T.J Cornell and Kathryn Lomas, 1-7. London: University College London Press, 1995. Lomas, Kathryn. “Public Building, Urban Renewal and Euergetism in Early Imperial Italy.” In “Bread and Circuses” Euergetism and Municipal Patronage in Roman Italy, edited by Kathryn Lomas and Tim Cornell, 28-45. London and New York: Routledge, 2003. Lomas, Kathryn. “Roman Imperialism and the City in Italy.” In Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire, edited by Ray Laurence and Joanne Berry, 64-78. London and New York: Routledge, 1998. Lomas, Kathryn. Roman Italy, 338 BC – AD 200. A Sourcebook. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996. Lomas, Kathryn. “The Greeks in the West and the Hellenization of Italy.” In The Greek World, edited by Anton Powell, 347-367. London and New York: Routledge, 1995. Lomas, Kathryn. “Urban Elites and Cultural Definition: Romanization in Southern Italy.” In Urban Society in Roman Italy, edited by T.J Cornell and Kathryn Lomas, 107-20. London: University College London Press, 1995. Lombardi, Paola. “Le Iscrizioni Greche.” In Capri Antica Dalla Preistoria alla Fine Dell’Età Romana, edited by Eduardo Federico and Elena Miranda, 299-342. Capri: Edizioni La Conchiglia, 1998. Lott, B.J. Death and Dynasty in Early Imperial Rome. Key Sources, with Text, Translation, and Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Lozano, Fernando. “The Creation of Imperial Gods: Not Only Imposition Versus Spontaneity.” In More than Men, Less Than Gods. Studies on Royal Cult and Imperial Worship. Proceedings of the International Colloquium Organized by the

251 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Belgian School at Athens (November 1-2, 2007), edited by Panagiotis P. Iossif, Andrzej S. Chankowski and Catharina C. Lorber, 475-519. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. Lugli, G. Forma Italiae. Regio I. Latium et Campania. Volumen Primum Ager Pomptinus, Pars Prima Anxur-Tarracina. Roma: Danesi, 1926. MacMullen, Ramsay. “The Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire.” AJPh 103, no. 3 (1982): 233-46. MacMullen, Ramsay. “The Legion as a Society.” Historia 33, no. 4 (1984): 440-56. MacMullen, Ramsay. Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981. Madsen, Jesper Majbom. “Cassius Dio and the Cult of Ivlivs and Roma at Ephesus and Nicaea (51.20.6-8).” CQ 66.1 (2016): 286-97. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838816000252. Madsen, Jesper Majbom. Eager to be Roman. Greek Response to Roman Rule in and Bithynia. Great Britain: Duckworth, 2009. Madsen, Jesper Majbom. “Joining the Empire. The Imperial Cult as a Marker of a Shared Imperial Identity.” In Imperial Identities in the Roman World, edited by Wouter Vanacker and Arjan Zuiderhoek, 93-109. London and New York: Routledge, 2017. Maiuri, August. Pompeii. Novara: Istituto Geografico de Agostini, 1957. Mann, J.C. “Epigraphic Consciousness.” JRS 75 (1983): 204-6. Marengo, Silvia Maria. “Aspetti del Culto Imperiale in Area Medioadriatica Attraverso le Fonti Epigrafiche.” In In Nuove Richerche sul Culto Imperiale in Italia. Atti dell’incontro di Studio. Ancona, 31 gennaio 2004, edited by Lidio Gasperini and Gianfranco Paci, 147-72. Tivoli: Edizioni Tored, 2008. Mari, Zaccaria. “La Tomba-Tempio di Antinoo a Villa Adriana.” In Suggestioni Egizie a Villa Adriana, edited by Benedetta Adembri and Mari Zaccaria, 35-45. Milano: Electa, 2006. Marrone, Giovannella Cresci and Giovanni Mennella. Pisaurum. 1. Le Iscrizioni della Colonia. Pisa: Giardini, 1984. Matei-Popescu, Florian. The Roman Army in Moesia Inferior. Bucharest: Conphys Publishing House, 2010. Mau, Amadeo. Pompeii: Its Life and Art. Translated by F.W. Kelsey. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1902. Mau, Amadeo. “Der Städtische Larentempel in Pompeji.” RömMitt 11 (1896): 285-301. Mayer i Olivé, Marc. “El Culto Imperial Como Punto de Encuentro entre Culturas. Una Aproximación Sucinta.” In Pólis/Cosmópolis. Identidades Globais & Locais, edited

252 BIBLIOGRAPHY by Carmen Soares, Maria do Céu Fialho and Thomas Figueira, 227-35. Coimbra: Coimbra University Press, 2016. McCarty, M.M. “Religious Dedications.” In The Oxford Handbook of Roman Sculpture, edited by E. Friedland, M. Sobocinski and E. Gazda, 358-73. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. McDermott, William C. “Pliny the Younger and Inscriptions.” The Classical World 65, no. 3 (1971): 84-94. McDermott, William C. and Anne E. Orentzel. Roman Portraits. The Flavian-Trajanic Period. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1979. McIntyre, Gwynaeth. A Family of Gods. The Worship of the Imperial Family in the Latin West. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2016. Meiggs, Russell. Roman Ostia. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973. Mellor, Ronald. “The Goddess Roma.” ANRW II.17.2 (1981): 950-1030. Mellor, Ronald. ΘΕΑ ΡΩΜΗ. Τhe Worship of the Goddess Roma in the Greek World. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Meyer, Elizabeth A. “Explaining the Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire: The Evidence of Epitaphs.” JRS 80 (1990): 74-96. Meyer, Ernst. “Augusti.” Chiron 5 (1975): 393-402. Mierow, Charles Christopher. “Tiberius Himself.” PhQ 22, no. 4 (1943): 289-307. Migliorati, Guido. Iscrizioni per la Ricostruzione Storica dell’Impero Romano: da Marco Aurelio a Commodo. Milan: EDUCatt, 2011. Miletti, Lorenzo. “Setting the Agenda: The Image of Classical Naples in Strabo’s Geography and Other Ancient Literary Sources.” In Remembering Parthenope. The Reception of Classical Naples from Antiquity to the Present, edited by Jessica Hughes and Claudio Buongiovanni, 19-38. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Millar, Fergus. The Emperor in the Roman World. (31 BC – AD 337). London: Duckworth, 1977. Millar, Fergus. “Italy and the Roman Empire: From Augustus to Constantine.” Phoenix 40, no. 3 (1986): 295-318. https://doi.org/10.2307/1088845 Miranda, Elena. “Consoli e Altri Elementi di Datazione nei Cataloghi Agonistici di Neapolis.” In Le Tribù Romane. Atti della XVIe Rencontre sur l’Épigraphie (Bari 8- 10 Ottobre 2009), edited by M. Silvestrini, 417-22. Bari: Edipuglia, 2010. Miranda de Martino, Elena. “Augusto e i Sebastá.” In Augusto e la Campania da Ottaviano a Divo Augusto 14-2014 d.C., edited by Teresa E. Cinquantaquattro, Carmela Capaldi and Valeria Sampaolo, 28-29. Milano: Electa, 2014.

253 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Miranda de Martino, Elena. “Neapolis e gli Imperatori. Nuovi dati dai Cataloghi dei Sebastà.” In Oebalus. Studi Sulla Campania Nell’Antichità, edited by F. Senatore, 203-15. Roma: Bardi Editore, 2007. Miranda de Martino, Elena. “Ritratti di Campioni dai Sebastà di Napoli.” Mediterraneo Antico 16, no. 2 (2013): 519-36. Mitchell, Stephen. Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Mogetta, Marcello and Jeffrey A. Becker. “Archaeological Research at Gabii, Italy: The Gabii Project Excavations, 2009-2011.” AJA 118, no. 1 (2014): 171-88. Mols, S.T.A.M. “The Cult of Roma Aeterna in Hadrian’s Politics.” In The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power. Proceedings of the Third Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire. (Roman Empire, c. 200 B.C. – A.D. 476). Netherlands Institute in Rome, March 20-23, 2002, edited by Lukas de Blois, Paul Erdkamp, Olivier Hekster, Gerda de Kleijn and Stephan Mols, 458-65. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 2003. Mommsen, Theodor. De Collegiis et Sodaliciis Romanorum. Accedit Inscriptio Lanuvina. Kiliae: Libraria Schwersiana, 1843. Mommsen, Theodor. Römisches Staatsrecht, II.2. Tübingen: Wissenchaftlichen Buchgemeinschaft, 1952. Monti, Salvatore. “I Problem dell’Iscrizione ‘Giovenaliana’ di Aquino (CIL X 5382).” Rendiconti della Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti 40 (1965): 79-110. Moorman, Eric M. “Sulle Pitture della Herculanensium Augustalium Aedes.” CronErcol 8 (1983): 175-77. Morley, Neville. “Cities in Context: Urban Systems in Roman Italy.” In Roman Urbanism. Beyond the Consumer City, edited by Helen M. Parkins, 42-58. London and New York: Routledge, 1997. Mouritsen, Henrik. “Honores Libertini. Augustales and Seviri in Italy.” Hephaistos 24 (2006): 237-48. Muccigrosso, John. “Religion and Politics: Did the Romans Scruple about the Placement of their Temples?” In Religion in Republican Italy, edited by Celia E. Schultz and Paul B. Harvey Jr., 181-206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Mucznik, Sonia. “Roman Priestesses: the Case of Metilia Acte.” Assaph 4 (1999): 61-78. Murison, Charles Leslie. “The Emperor Titus.” In A Companion to the Flavian Age of Imperial Rome, edited by Andrew Zissos, 76-91. UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2016.

254 BIBLIOGRAPHY Naylor, Michael. “The Roman Imperial Cult and Revelation.” Currents in Biblical Research. 8, no. 2 (2010): 207-39. Newby, Zahra. Greek Athletics in the Roman World: Victory and Virtue. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Nicolet, Claude. Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early Roman Empire. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1991. Nicolet, Claude. “Tribuni Militum a Populo.” Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire 79, no. 1 (1967): 29-76. Nicols, John. “The Emperor Vespasian.” In A Companion to the Flavian Age of Imperial Rome, edited by Andrew Zissos, 60-75. UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2016. Niebuhr, Barthold Georg. Lectures on the History of Rome. From the Earliest Times to the Fall of the Western Empire. Vol. 3. 2nd ed. London: Taylor, Walton and Maberly, 1849. Nilsson, Martin Persson. Greek Piety. Translated by H.J. Rose. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1948. Nock, Arthur Darby. Conversion; the Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933. Nock, Arthur Darby. “Deification and Julian: I.” JRS 47, no. 1/2 (1957): 155-23. Nock, Arthur Darby. “Religious Developments from the Close of the Republic to the Death of Nero.” In CAH. Vol. X. The Augustan Empire. 44 B.C. – A.D. 70, edited by S.A. Cook, F.E. Adcock and M.P. Charlesworth, 465-511. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966. Notarian, Matthew F. “Civic Transformation in Early Imperial Latium: An Archaeological and Social History of Praeneste, Tibur and Tusculum.” PhD diss., University of Buffalo, 2011. Opper, Thorsten. Hadrian. Empire and Conflict. London: British Museum Press, 2008. Orlin, Eric M. Foreign Cults in Rome. Creating a Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Orr, David G. “Roman Domestic Religion: The Evidence of the Household Shrines.” ANRW. II.16.2 (1978): 1557-591. Osgood, Josiah. “Cassius Dio’s Secret History of Elagabalus.” In Cassius Dio. Greek Intellectual and Roman Politician, edited by Carsten Hjort Lange and Jesper Majbom Madsen, 177-90. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Ostrow, S.E. “‘Augustales’ along the Bay of Naples: A Case for their Early Growth.” Historia 34, no. 1 (1985): 64-101.

255 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Ostrow, S.E. “The Augustales in the Augustan Scheme.” In Between Republic and Empire. Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate, edited by G.W. Bowersock, Mark Toher, and Kurt A. Raaflaub, 364-79. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. Paci, Gianfranco. “Tiberio e il Culto Imperiale.” In Nuove Richerche sul Culto Imperiale in Italia. Atti dell’incontro di Studio. Ancona, 31 gennaio 2004, edited by Lidio Gasperini and Gianfranco Paci, 193-218. Tivoli, Edizioni Tored, 2008. Pacifici, Vincenzo. “Notes on Some Recent Discoveries at Tivoli: The Temple of Hercules.” JRS 10 (1920): 90-5. Palmer, Robert E.A. “‘Private’ Religion and Compita at Ostia.” JRA 9 (1996): 381-85. Panciera, . “Umano, Sovrumano o Divino? Le Divinità Auguste e L’imperatore a Roma.” In The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power. Proceedings of the Third Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire. (Roman Empire, c. 200 B.C. – A.D. 476). Netherlands Institute in Rome, March 20- 23, 2002, edited by Lukas de Blois, Paul Erdkamp, Olivier Hekster, Gerda de Kleijn and Stephan Mols, 215-39. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 2003. Patterson, John R. “The Collegia and the Transformation of the Towns of Italy in the Second Century AD.” In L’Italie d’Auguste à Diocletien. Actes du Colloque International de Rome (25-28 Mars 1992), 227-38. Rome: École Française de Rome, 1994. Patterson, John R. “The Emperor and the Cities of Italy.” In “Bread and Circuses” Euergetism and Municipal Patronage in Roman Italy, edited by Kathryn Lomas and Tim Cornell, 89-104. London and New York: Routledge, 2003. Patterson, John R. Landscapes and Cities. Rural Settlement and Civic Transformation in Early Imperial Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Pedley, John Griffiths. Paestum. Greeks and Romans in Southern Italy. London and New York: Thames & Hudson, 1990. Pensabene, P. “The Architectural Decoration of the Sacellum of the Augustales.” In The Archaeological Museum of the Phlegrean Fields in the Castle of Baia, edited by P. Miniero, 58-65. Naples: Soprintendenza Archeologica di Napoli e Caserta, 2000. Perrotta, Annamaria, Claudio Scarpati, Giuseppe Luongo and Masanori Aoyagi. “Burial of Emperor Augustus’ Villa at Somma Vesuviana (Italy) by Post-79 AD Vesuvius Eruptions and Reworked (Lahars and Stream Flow) Deposits.” Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 158 (2006): 445-66. Peters, W.J.Th. La Casa di Marcus Lucretius Fronto a Pompei e le sue Pitture. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers, 1993. Peterson, Roy Merle. The Cults of Campania. Rome: American Academy in Rome, 1919.

256 BIBLIOGRAPHY Piranomonte, Marina. “Religion and Magic at Rome: The Fountain of .” In Magical Practice in the Latin West. Papers from the International Conference held at the University of Zaragoza, 30 Sept. – 1 Oct. 2005, edited by Richard Gordon and Francisco Marco Simón, 191-214. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Pollini, John. “Studies in Augustan “Historical” Reliefs.” PhD diss., University of California, 1978. Potter, David. Constantine the Emperor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Price, S.R.F. “From Noble Funerals to Divine Cult: The Consecration of Roman Emperors.” In Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies, edited by S.R.F. Price and D. Cannadine, 56-105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Price, S.R.F. “Gods and Emperors: The Greek Language of the Roman Language Cult.” JHS 104 (1984): 79-95. Price, S.R.F. “Review: Veneratio Augusti. Eine Studie zu den Tempeln des Ersten Römischen Kaisers.” JRS 76 (1986): 300-1. Price, S.R.F. Rituals and Power. The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Purcell, Nicholas. “Rome and Italy.” In CAH. Part IV. Rome, Italy and the Provinces, edited by Alan K. Bowman, Peter Garnsey and Dominic Rathbone, 405-43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Raggi, Andrea. “‘Religion’ in Municipal Laws?” In Priests and State in the Roman World, edited by James H. Richardson and Federico Santangelo, 333-46. Germany: Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart, 2011. Rainbird, J.S. “The Fire Stations of Imperial Rome. PBSR 54 (1986): 147-69. Rankov, Boris. “Review: Libertinus Miles: Les Cohortes de Vigiles.” CR 50, no. 1 (2000): 357-59. Rasmussen, Susanne William, “Ritual and Identity: A Sociological Perspective on the Expiation of Public Portents in Ancient Rome.” In Religion and Society. Resources and Identity in the Ancient Graeco-Roman World. The BOMOS-Conferences 2002- 2005 [Analecta Romana Instituti Danici Supplementum XL], edited by Anders Holm Rasmussen and Susanne William Rasmussen, 37-42. Roma: Edizioni Quasar, 2008. Raven, Susan. Rome in Africa. London and New York: Routledge, 1993. Redaelli, Davide. “I Veterani delle Milizie Urbane in Italia e Nelle Province di Lingua Latina. Indagine Storico-Epigrafica.” PhD diss., Università degli Studi di Trieste, 2014.

257 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Reeder, Jane Clark. The Villa of Livia ad Gallinas Albas. A Study in the Augustan Villa and Garden. Providence: Brown University, 2001. Reinhold, Meyer. The Golden Age of Augustus. Toronto: Samuel Stevens, 1978. Reinhold, M. and P.M. Swan. “Cassius Dio’s Assessment of Augustus.” In Between Republic and Empire. Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate, edited by G.W. Bowersock, Mark Toher, and Kurt A. Raaflaub, 155-73. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. Revell, Louise. Roman Imperialism and Local Identities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Rich, J.W. “Augustus, War and Peace.” In The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power. Proceedings of the Third Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire. (Roman Empire, c. 200 B.C. – A.D. 476). Netherlands Institute in Rome, March 20-23, 2002, edited by Lukas de Blois, Paul Erdkamp, Olivier Hekster, Gerda de Kleijn and Stephan Mols, 329-57. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 2003. Rich, J.W. Cassius Dio. The Augustan Settlement (Roman History 53-55.9). Warminster: Aris & Phillips Ltd, 1990. Richardson Jr., Lawrence. “Concordia and Concordia Augusta: Rome and Pompeii.” PP 33 (1978): 260-72. Richardson Jr., Lawrence. Pompeii. An Architectural History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988. Rieger, Katharina. Heiligtümer in Ostia. Munich: Pfeil, 2004. Rieger, Katharina. “Les Sanctuaires Publics à Ostie de la République Jusqu’au Haut Empire.” In Ostia. Port et Porte de la Rome Antique, edited by Jean-Paul Descoeudres, 247-61. Geneva: Musée Rath Genève, 2001. Rives, James. “Civic and Religious Life.” In Epigraphic Evidence. Ancient History from Inscriptions, edited by John Bodel, 118-36. London and New York: Routledge, 2001. Rives, James. “Imperial Cult and Native Tradition in Roman North Africa.” CJ 96, no. 4 (2001): 425-36. Rives, James. “Women and Animal Sacrifice in Public Life.” In Women and the Roman City in the Latin West, edited by Emily Hemelrijk and Greg Woolf, 129-46. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Robinson, O.F. Ancient Rome: City Planning and Administration. London and New York: Routledge, 1922. Rose, Herbert Jennings. “Nvmen Inest: ‘Animism’ in Greek and Roman Religion.” HThR 28, no. 4 (1935): 237-57.

258 BIBLIOGRAPHY Rüpke, Jörg. “Dedications Accompanied by Inscriptions in the Roman Empire. Functions, Intentions, Modes of Communication.” In Religious Dedications in the Greco- Roman World. Distribution, Typology, Use. [Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae 35], edited by John Bodel and Mika Kajava, 31-42. Roma: Estratto, 2009. Rüpke, Jörg. Fasti Sacerdotum. Die Mitglieder der Priesterschaften und das Sakrale Funktionspersonal Römischer, Griescher, Orientalischer und Jüdisch-Christlicher Kulte in Der Stadt Rom von 300 v. Chr. bis 499 n. Chr. München: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2005. Rüpke, Jörg. Kalender und Öffentlichkeit: Die Geschichte der Repräsentation und Religiösen Qualifikation von Zeit in Rom. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1995. Rüpke, Jörg. Religion of the Romans. Translated and edited by Richard Gordon. Cambridge: Polity Press, Cambridge, 2007. Rüpke, Jörg. “Roman Religion – Religions of Rome.” In A Companion to Roman Religion, edited by Jörg Rüpke, 1-9. Blackwell: Wiley, 2007. Rüpke, Jörg. “Roman Religion and the Religion of Empire. Some Reflections on Method.” In The Religious History of the Roman Empire. Pagans, Jews, and Christians, edited by J.A. North and S.R.F. Price, 9-36. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Ryberg, Inez Scott. Rites of the State Religion in . Rome: American Academy in Rome, 1955. Sablayrolles, Robert. Libertinus Miles. Les Cohortes des Vigiles. École Française de Rome: Palais Farnèse, 1996. Salmon, E.T. The Making of Roman Italy. New York: Cornell University Press, 1982. Salzman, Michele R. “‘Superstitio’ in the ‘Codex Theodosianus’ and the Persecution of Pagans.” Vigiliae Christianae 41, no. 2 (1987): 172-88. Sanchez, Pierre. “Les Institutions de la Colonia Ostiensis.” In Ostia. Port et Porte de la Rome Antique, edited by Jean-Paul Descoeudres, 143-51. Geneva: Musée Rath Genève, 2001. Santangelo, Federico. “Pax Deorum and Pontiffs.” In Priests and State in the Roman World, edited by James H. Richardson and Federico Santangelo, 161-86. Germany: Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart, 2011. Santero, J.M. “The ‘Cultores Augusti’ and the Private Worship of the Roman Emperor.” Athenaeum 61 (1983): 111-25. Scheid, John. “Cults, Myths, and Politics at the Beginning of the Empire.” Translated by P. Purchase. In Roman Religion, edited by Clifford Ando, 117-40. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003.

259 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Scheid, John. “Hierarchy and Structure in Roman Polytheism: Roman Methods of Conceiving Action.” Translated by P. Purchase. In Roman Religion, edited by Clifford Ando, 164-89. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003. Scheid, John. “Les Espaces Cultuels et Leur Interprétation.” Klio 77 (1995): 424-32. Scheid, John. Religion et Piété à Rome. Paris: Editions de la Découverte, 2001. Scheid, John. “Roman Animal Sacrifice and the System of Being.” In Greek and Roman Animal Sacrifice. Ancient Victims, Modern Observers, edited by C.A Faraone and F.S. Naiden, 84-95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Schmölder, Andrea. “Le Ravitaillement en Eau.” Translated by P.B. Emery. In Ostia. Port et Porte de la Rome Antique, edited by Jean-Paul Descoeudres, 100-7. Geneva: Musée Rath Genève, 2001. Schulz, Verena. “Historiography and Panegyric: The Deconstruction of Imperial Representation in Cassius Dio’s Roman History.” In Cassius Dio. Greek Intellectual and Roman Politician, edited by Carsten Hjort Lange and Jesper Majbom Madsen, 267-96. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Scott, Kenneth. “Humor at the Expense of the Ruler Cult.” CPh 27, no. 4 (1932): 317-28. Scott, S.A. “Local Responses to Roman Imperialism.” AJA 114, no. 3 (2010): 557-561. Scrinari, Valnea Santa Maria. Museo Archeologico di Aquileia. Catalogo delle Sculture Romane. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato, 1972. Segenni, Simonetta. “Aspetti e Problemi Della Prassi Amministrativa Nella Regio IV.” In Le Quotidien Municipal Dans l’Occident Romain, edited by C. Berrendonner, M. Cébeillac-Gervasoni, and L. Lamoine, 219-32. Clermont Fermond: Presses Universitaires Blaise-Pascal, 2008. Sgubini Moretti, Anna Maria. “Statue e Ritratti Onorari da Lucus Feroniae.” Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia 55-6 (1982-4) 71-109. Shelton, Jo-Ann. The Women of Pliny’s Letters. London and New York: Routledge, 2013. Silvestrini, Marina. “Uno Nuova Iscrizione per i Lari Augusti dal Territorio di Vibinum.” MEFRA 104, no. 1 (1992): 145-57. Simpson, Christopher J. “Caligula’s Cult: Immolation, Immortality, Intent.” In Subject and Ruler: The Cult of the Ruling Power in Classical Antiquity. [JRA Supp. Series 17], edited by A. Small, 63-71. Ann Arbor: Thomson-Shore, 1996. Simpson, Christopher J. “The Cult of the Emperor Gaius.” Latomus 40, no. 3. (1981): 489- 511.

260 BIBLIOGRAPHY Small, Alastair. “The Shrine of the Imperial Family in the Macellum at Pompeii.” In Subject and Ruler: The Cult of the Ruling Power in Classical Antiquity. [JRA Supp. Series 17], edited by Alastair Small, 115-36. Ann Arbor: Thomson-Shore, 1996. Smith, R.R.R. and Bryan Ward-Perkins. The Last Statues of Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Smith, William. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography. London: Walton and Maberly, 1854. Sontheimer, Ludwig. Vitruvius und seine Zeit. Eine Literarhistorische Untersuchung. Tübingen: Kommissionsverlag der J.J. Heckenhauerschen Buchhandlung, 1908. Sørensen, Søren Lund. “Cassius Dio and the Foreigners.” In Cassius Dio. Greek Intellectual and Roman Politician, edited by Carsten Hjort Lange and Jesper Majbom Madsen, 76-91. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Spawforth, A.J.S. Greece and the Augustan Cultural Revolution, Greek Culture in the Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Speidel, Michael P., and Alexandra Dimitrova-Milčeva, “The Cult of the Genii in the Roman Army and a New Military Deity.” ANRW II.16.2 (1978): 1542-555. Spurza, Joanne. “The Emperors at Ostia and Portus: Imperial Visits and Accommodation.” In Ostie e Portus nelle Loro Relazioni con Roma. Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae 27, edited by Christer Bruun and Anna Gallina Zevi, 123-34. Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 2002. Stambaugh, John E. “The Functions of Roman Temples.” ANRW II.16.1 (1978): 554-608. Starr, Chester G. The Roman Imperial Navy. 31 B.C. – A.D. 324. Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons Ltd, 1960. Stek, Tesse D. “Cult, Conquest, and ‘Religious Romanization’. The Impact of Rome on Cult Places and Religious Practices in Italy.” In The Impact of Rome on Cult Places and Religious Practices in Ancient Italy. [Bulletin of Classical Studies Supp. 132], edited by Tesse D. Stek and Gert-Jan Burgers, 1-28. London: University of London, 2015. Swan, Peter Michael. The Augustan Succession: An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s Roman History Books 55-56 (9 B.C. – A.D. 14). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Syme, Ronald. “Journeys of Hadrian.” ZPE 73 (1988): 159-70. Syme, Ronald. “The Patria of Juvenal.” CPh 74, no. 1 (1979): 1-15. Syme, Ronald. “People in Pliny.” JRS 58, no. 1/2 (1968): 135-51. Syme, Ronald. “Princesses and Others in Tacitus.” Greece & Rome 28, no. 1 (1981): 40-52. Syme, Ronald. Roman Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1939.

261 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Syme, Ronald. “Transpadana Italia.” Athenaeum 63 (1985): 28-36. Symonds, John Addington. Sketches and Studies in Italy and Greece. Third Series. London: Smith, Elder & Co, 1898. Tacoma, Laurens E. Moving Romans. Migration to Rome in the Principate. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Taylor, Lily Ross. “Augustales, Seviri Augustales, and Seviri: A Chronological Study.” TAPhA 45 (1914): 231-53. Taylor, Lily Ross. The Cults of Ostia. Greek & Roman Gods – Imperial Cult – Oriental Gods. Baltimore: Ares Publishers, 1913. Taylor, Lily Ross. The Divinity of the Roman Emperor. Middleton: American Philological Association, 1931. Taylor, Lily Ross. “The Worship of Augustus in Italy During his Lifetime.” TAPhA 51 (1920): 116-33. Terrenato, Nicola. “Introduction.” In Italy and the West. Comparative Issues in Romanization, edited by Simon Keay and Nicola Terrenato, 1-6. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2001. Thomas, Edmund and Christian Witschel. “Constructing Reconstruction: Claim and Reality of Roman Rebuilding Inscriptions from the Latin West.” PBSR. 60 (1992): 135-77. Tomasi, Paola. “Aebutia, Asprilla o Attia? Note a CIL V, 7345 e l’Evergesia Termale in Transpadana.” In Il Paesaggio e L’Esperienza. Scritti di Antichità Offerti a Pierluigi Tozzi in Occasione del suo 75˚ Compleanno, edited by Rodolfo Bargnesi and Rita Scuderi, 155-67. Pavia: Pavia University Press, 2012. Torelli, Mario. Etruria. Guide Archeologiche Laterza. Bari: Laterza, 1980. Torelli, Mario. “The Haruspices of the Emperor: Tarquitius and Sejanus’ Conspiracy.” In Priests and State in the Roman World, edited by James H. Richardson and Federico Santangelo, 137-59. Germany: Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart, 2011. Tortorici, Edoardo. Castra Albana. Forma Italiae. Regio I – Volvmen Vndecimvm. Roma: De Luca Editore, 1975. Toynbee, J.M.C. “Review: Die Bildnisse des Antinous: Ein Beitrag zur Porträtplastik unter Kaiser Hadrian.” JRS 57, no. 1/2 (1967): 267-68. Trimble, Jennifer Ferol. “The Aesthetics of Sameness: A Contextual Analysis of the Large and Small Herculaneum Woman Statue Types in the Roman Empire.” PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1999.

262 BIBLIOGRAPHY Trombley, Frank R. “The Imperial Cult in Late Roman Religion (ca. A.D. 244-395): Observations on the Epigraphy.” In Spätantiker Staat und Religiöser Konflict. Imperiale und Locale Verwaltung und die Gewalt Gegen Heiligtümer, edited by J. Hahn, 19-54. Germany: De Gruyter, 2011. Trout, Dennis E. “Lex and Iussio: The Feriale Campanum and Christianity in the Theodosian Age.” In Law, Society, and Authority in Late Antiquity, edited by R.W. Mathisen, 162-78. Oxford University Press, 2011. Tuck, Steven L. “Imperial Image-Making.” In A Companion to the Flavian Age of Imperial Rome, edited by Andrew Zissos, 109-28. UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2016. Turcan, Robert. “Le Culte Impérial au III° Siècle.” ANRW II.17.2 (1978): 996-1084. Vaglieri, Dante. Sylloge Epigraphica Orbis Romani. Inscriptiones Italiae Regionum I.II.III.IV.V. Continens. Vol. 2.1. Rome: L. Pasqualucci Sumptibus, 1904. Vallat, Jean-Pierre. “The Romanization of Italy.” In Italy and the West. Comparative Issues in Romanization, edited by Simon Keay and Nicola Terrenato, 102-10. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2001. Van Abbema, Laura K. “Women in Flavian Rome.” In A Companion to the Flavian Age of Imperial Rome, edited by Andrew Zissos, 296-312. UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2016. Van Andringa, William. “Rhetoric and Divine Honours: On the ‘Imperial Cult’ in the Reigns of Augustus and Constantine.” ColleGium 20 (2016): 10-21. Van Dam, Raymond. The Roman Revolution of Constantine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Van Haeperen, Francoise. “Origine et Fonctions des Augustales (12 av. n.è. – 37) Nouvelles Hypothèses.” L’Antiquité Classique 85 (2016): 127-55. Vandevoorde, Lindsey. “Of Mice and Men. Financial and Occupational Differentiation Among *Augustales. Cahiers Mondes Anciens 7 (2015): 2-24. Vandevoorde, Lindsey. “Respectability on Display. Alba and Fasti of the Augustales in the Context of Collegial and Magisterial Hierarchy.” Revue Belgede Philologie et d’Histoire 91 (2013): 127-52. Vanggaard, Jens H. The Flamen: A Study in the History and Sociology of Roman Religion. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1988. Várhelyi, Zsuzsanna. The Religion of Senators in the Roman Empire. Power and the Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Varner, Eric R. “Domitia Longina and the Politics of Portraiture.” AJA 99, no. 2 (1995): 187-206.

263 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Varner, Eric R. Mutilation and Transformation: “Damnatio Memoriae” and Roman Imperial Portraiture. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Vidman, Ladislav. Fasti Ostienses. Praha: Ceskoslovenska Akademie Ved, 1957. von Hesberg, H. “Archäologische Denkmäler zum Römischen Kaiserkult.” ANRW II.16.2 (1978): 911-95. Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew. “The Monumental Centre of Herculaneum: In Search of the Identities of the Public Building.” JRA 24 (2011): 121-60. Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew. “Mutatas Formas: The Augustan Transformation of Roman Knowledge.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus, edited and translated by Karl Galinsky, 55-84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew. “Public Honour and Private Shame: the Urban Texture of Pompeii.” In Urban Society in Roman Italy, edited by T.J Cornell and Kathryn Lomas, 39-62. London: University College London Press, 1995. Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew. Rome’s Cultural Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Wallace, Rex. An Introduction to Wall Inscriptions from Pompeii and Herculaneum. Wauconda: Bolchazy-Carducci, 2005. Warde Fowler, William. Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic. An Introduction to the Study of the Religion of the Romans. London: MacMillan and Co, 1899. Wardle, David. “Deus or Divus: The Genesis of Roman Terminology for Deified Emperors and a Philosopher’s Contribution.” In Philosophy and Power in the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honour of Miriam Griffin, edited by Gillian Clark and Tessa Rajak, 181-91. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Wardle, David. “On the Divinity of the Roman Emperor Once More.” Scholia 13 (2004): 125-32. Wardle, David. “Suetonius on Augustus as God and Man.” CQ 62, no. 1 (2012): 307-26. Wardle, David. “Suetonius on Vespasian’s Rise to Power under the Julio-Claudians.” Acta Classica 53 (2010): 101-15. Webster, Graham. The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries A.D. 3rd ed. Totowa: University of Oklahoma Press, 1985. Webster, J. Creolizing the Roman Provinces. AJA 105 (2001): 209-225. Weinstock, Stefan. Divus Julius. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971. Whitmarsh, Tim. Battling the Gods. Atheism in the Ancient World. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2015.

264 BIBLIOGRAPHY Whitmarsh, Tim. “The Mnemology of Empire and Resistance: Memory, Oblivion, and Perigesis in Imperial Greek Culture.” In Cultural Memories in the Roman Empire, edited by Karl Galinsky and Kenneth Lapatin, 49-64. Los Angeles: Getty Publications, 2015. Whitmarsh, Tim. “Thinking Local.” In Local Knowledge and Microidentities in the Imperial Greek World, edited by Tim Whitmarsh, 1-16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Williams, Stephen. Diocletian and the Roman Recovery. London: B.T. Batsford, 1985. Wissowa, Georg. Religion und Kultus der Römer. München: Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1902. Wood, Susan. “Who Was Diva Domitilla? Some Thoughts on the Public Images of the Flavian Women.” AJA 114, no. 1 (2010): 45-57. Woolf, Greg. “Beyond Romans and Natives.” World Archaeology 28, no. 3 (1997): 339- 350. Woolf, Greg. “Divinity and Power in Ancient Rome.” In Religion and Power. Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond, edited by Nicole Brisch, 235-51. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2008. Woolf, Greg. “Found in Translation: the Religion of the Roman Diaspora.” In Ritual Dynamics and Religious Change in the Roman Empire. Proceedings of the Eighth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Heidelberg, July 5-7, 2007), edited by Olivier Hekster, Sebastian Schmidt-Hofner and Christian Witschel, 239-52. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Woolf, Greg. “Monumental Writing and the Expansion of Roman Society in the Early Empire.” JRS 86 (1996): 22-39. Woolf, Greg. “Roman Peace.” In War and Society in the Roman World, edited by John Rich and Graham Shipley, 171-94. London and New York: Routledge, 1993. Zaccaria, Claudio. “Quanti e Quali Augustei Nella Regio X? A Proposito Della Documentazione Epigrafica e Archeologica del «Culto Imperiale». In Nuove Richerche sul Culto Imperiale in Italia. Atti dell’incontro di Studio. Ancona, 31 gennaio 2004, edited by Lidio Gasperini and Gianfranco Paci, 219-57. Tivoli: Edizioni Tored, 2008. Zanker, Paul. Pompei: Società, Immagini Urbane e Forme dell’Abitare. Translated by A. Zambrini. Torino: Einaudi, 1993. Zanker, Paul. Pompeji: Stadtbilder als Spiegel von Gesellschaft und Herrschaftsform. Mainz am Rhein, 1987.

265 ALEX A. ANTONIOU Zanker, Paul. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Translated by A. Shapiro. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988. Zevi, Fausto. “Le Basi Iscritte del Sacello degli Augustali.” In Museo Archeologico dei Campi Flegrei: Catalogo Generale Cuma. Vol. 1, edited by F. Zevi and P. Miniero, 212-34. Napoli: Electa Napoli, 2008. Zevi, Fausto. “The Marble Bases of the Sacellum of the Augustales at Miseno.” In The Archaeological Museum of the Phlegrean Fields in the Castle of Baia, edited by P. Miniero, 45-55. Naples: Soprintendenza Archeologica di Napoli e Caserta, 2000. Zevi, Fausto. “Miscellanea Ostiense. 3: Il Tempio del Collegio dei Fabri Tignuarii e una Dedica a Pertinace Divinizzato.” RendLinc. 26 (1971): 472-78. Zissos, Andrew, ed. A Companion to the Flavian Age of Imperial Rome. UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2016. Zissos, Andrew. “The Flavian Legacy.” In A Companion to the Flavian Age of Imperial Rome, edited by Andrew Zissos, 487-514. UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2016. Zissos, Andrew. “Introduction.” In A Companion to the Flavian Age of Imperial Rome, edited by Andrew Zissos, 1-14. UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2016.

266 XI 142 X 135 133 148 150 134 128 136 147 146 141 140 129 153 132 144 149 154 152 143 138 156 151 130 155 131 137 145 127 116 123 139 125 118 115 126 119 124 IX 114 121 112VIII 117 113 120 102 111 122 101 82 77 97 83 105 84 88 78 86 68 107 87 VI 74 75 104 73V 71 93 89 80 70 VII 69 106 79 59 59 85 110 76 72 81 94 103 96 62 50 61 95 56 60 51 64 108 52 100 54 55 92 98 90 53 57 91 66 49 63 109 12 29 ROMA 14 IV 99 30 24 22 6 9 65 58 16 4 31 11 5 48 I3 8 32 2 36 28 13 38 18 7 II 26 35 I Latium et Campania 17 34 37 21 1 10 20 II et Calabria 25 15 19 23 27 47 45 III Lucania et Bruttium 41 43 39 40 IV 42 V Picenum VI Umbria VII Etruria VIIIAemilia III 44 IX X Venetia et Histria XI Transpadana 46

Map 1: Full Map of all Catalogued Sites and Augustan Regions XI X

148

139 IX 114 VIII

77 105 VI V 71 80 106 VII 110 96

100 98 63 ROMA 14 IV 22 6 65 31 I 28 II I Latium et Campania 35 21 II Apulia et Calabria 10 20 23 III Lucania et Bruttium 47 IV Samnium V Picenum VI Umbria VII Etruria VIIIAemilia III IX Liguria X Venetia et Histria XI Transpadana

Map 2: Map of Municipal Temples.