fishwick, on c. i. l., ii, 473

7/27/2019 Fishwick, On c. i. l., II, 473

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fishwick-on-c-i-l-ii-473 1/5

On C. I. L., II, 473Author(s): Duncan FishwickSource: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 91, No. 1 (Jan., 1970), pp. 79-82Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/293401 .

Accessed: 30/12/2010 16:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

American Journal of Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/293401?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/293401?origin=JSTOR-pdf




ON C.I.L., II, 473.

The text of this inscription, republished in Memorias de los

Museos Arqueologicos provinciales,1has now been established as

follows:

Divo Augusto Albinus Albui f. flamen iDivae Aug(ustae) provinciae Lusitan(iae)

Since Livia is divinised, the stone must be assigned to the periodafter A. D. 42 (Suet., Claud., 2; Seneca, Apocol., 9, 5; Dio Cass.,LX, 5): presumably it was inscribed under Claudius, though at

first sight there is nothing definite to provide a terminus ante.

Now that Hiibner's proposed reading flamen divi Aug(usti).. is out of the question,2 we are faced with the problem ofthe strange-sounding title flamen divae Aug(ustae) provinciae

Lusitan(iae). Two solutions have been suggested. On the

grounds that it would be impossible for a flamen to have served

the cult of diva Augusta, R. Rtienne has proposed taking divae

Augustae as a dative in the sense that the text recordsa dedica-tion both to divus Augustus and to diva Augusta.3 On this viewdiva Augusta was cut immediately after flamen simply by a mis-take of the lapidary, and the priest's title therefore conforms tothe normal flamen provinciae / flamen provinciae Lusitaniae.4If one may fairly judge from a

photograph,however, the stone

was in fact engraved with exemplary care and skill; in which

1 IV (1943), p. 45 = Ann. pigr., 1946, no. 201 = V. Ehrenberg and

A. H. M. Jones, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and

Tiberius2 (Oxford, 1955), no. 112. A photograph of the stone is con-

veniently reproduced in R. ttienne, Le culte imperial dans la p6ninsuleIberique d'Auguste a Diocl6tien (Paris, 1958), P1. I.

2Cf. C.I.L., II, p. 57.

3 Culte imperiale, pp. 124 ff.; cf. p. 298.

4See stienne's lists, pp. 122, 126; to which add a further flamenprovinciae Lysitani(ae) (sic) from Ossonoba, published in Petrus Nonius

(Lissabon), III (1940), pp. 151 f. Hiibner took C.I.L., II, 41 (flamenAugustalis pro[v]inc(iae) Lu[s]ita[niae]) to be false; Krascheninni-koff considered it genuine, Philologus, LIII (1894), p. 177, n. 138; cf.Kornemann in Klio, I (1901), p. 122, n. 3.

79



DUNCAN FISHWICK.

case to suppose that the mason executed divae Aug. four words

and two lines later than intended is to assume an oversightextreme by any yardstick. Alternatively, J. Deininger has sug-

gested, though with great reserve, that iunder Claudius the pro-vincial cult of Lusitania may simply have been devoted to the

cult of Livia and that only later under Vespasian was a full

scale provincial cult introduced.5 This is certainly a reasonable

inference from the priest's title, but would divus Augustus ever

have been excluded in favour of Livia? The point would carry

all the greater weight if in fact the origins of the provincialcult of Lusitania go back to Tiberius.6 In any case the inscrip-tion itself records a dedication to divus Augustus by the pro-vincial priest of Lusitania (cf. C. I. L., II, 41), which would

have to be taken as a purely private act if in fact the provincialcult served only diva Augusta at this time.

There remains a third possibility that one would have thoughtat least equally conceivable. Etienne remarks that to interpret

flamen divae Aug(ustae) on the model of flamen divi Aug(usti)is not permissible since only a fiaminica could have served the

cult of diva Augusta.7 Since, however, the inscription itself is

dedicated divo Augusto, it would appear that we are at a time

when the provincial flamen, and therefore the province of

Lusitania, certainly paid worship to the deified Augustus. Now

in the history of the Imperial cult the second important figureto be consecrated was Livia (A.D. 42), followed by Claudius

on his death in A. D. 54; thereafter deification became the ruleexcept for emperors such as Domitian, whose memory was

damned. But as a whole litany would have been too unwieldyto manage, worship was normally paid to the divi collectively:this is shown by the term divorum in the titles of provincial

priests, especially from the Flavian period onwards. A possible

explanation, then, of the title flamen divae Aug(ustae) in

C.I. L., II, 473 may be that the stone was inscribed relatively

soon after the consecrationof Livia; that is, when diva Augustahad recently joined company with divus Augustus and the pro-

5J. Deininger, Die Provinziallandtage der romischen Kaiserzeit

(Vestigia: Beitrage zur alten Geschichte, VI) (Miinchen, 1965), p. 29.6 ttienne, op. cit., p. 126; Deininger, op. cit., note 3 with refs.7

tienne, pp. 125, 172.

80



ON C. I. L., II, 473.

vincial cult of Lusitania was now directed not to one but to

two deified members of the Julio-Claudian house. That theactual name of Livia should appear in the priest's title could

be the result of two circumstances. In the first place, the list of

divinised members of the imperial house had not yet grown to

the extent that a collective noun would have been normal and

accepted in preference to individual names.8 Secondly, Emerita

had had a municipal cult of Julia Augusta during her lifetime

(Ann. Epigr., 1915, no. 95: A. D. 14-29); hence it is possible

that local piety may partly explain why Livia's new name isemphasised in the title of the provincial priest, whose seat was

also at Emerita (cf. Eph. Ep., VIII, p. 520, no. 302). Why the

divinised Augustus is not also included in the priest's title is

less clear, but perhaps this was thought unnecessary since the

dedication clearly indicated that the flamen served the cult

of divus Augustus. At all events on this explanation the in-

scription would have been set up between A. D. 42 and A. D. 54,

the period when the provincial cult of Lusitania included bothdivus Augustus and the newly consecrated diva Augusta.9 A

slight difficulty is that a female flaminica rather than a male

ftamennormally superintended the provincial cult of the divae.10

But this was true rather of later times when there was more than

one diva. This point again perhaps indicates a date for C.I. L.,

II, 473 in the years just after A. D. 42; that is, before the female

fashion had been established.1

8 Cf. the Claudian designation of the old temple of divus Augustuson the Palatine following the consecration of Livia: templum divi Aug.

[et] divae Augustae (C. I. L., VI, 4222).9 If the cult of divus Claudius had not reached Spain before Nero

destroyed the temple on the mons Caelius (begun by Agrippina), then

the terminus ante might have to be put forward to the beginning of

Vespasian's reign, though the divination of Claudius was never formally

annulled; cf. M. P. Charlesworth, J. R.S., XXVII (1937), pp. 57-60.

?10tienne, pp. 166-72.

11In municipal cult, where a flaminica also catered for the divae

(itienne, pp. 238-50), there are two early exceptions to the rule. Both

at Olisipo (C. I. L., II, 194 = I. L.., 6896; A. D. 14-19) and at

Emerita (Ann. Spigr., 1915, no. 95: A. D. 14-29) a flamen served the

cult of Julia Augusta in her lifetime. In any case there is some over-

lap: both males and females served the cult of the domus Augustaand one even finds a sacerdos perpetua divorum divarum (C.I.L., II,

1341).

81



DUNCAN FISHWICK.

To lend support to this interpretation a new inscription from

Santarem (Scallabis) has now been published in Revista deGuimardes.l2Erected in honour of L.(?) Pomponius Capito, itrecords that his distinguished career culminated in the provin-cial flaminate of Lusitania. The stone is dated to the first halfof A. D. 48 by the consulships of A. Vitellius and L. VipstanusPoplicola.l3 The title of the provincial priesthood is given as

flamen provinc(iae) Lusitaniae divi Aug(usti) [et?] divae

Aug(ustae): 14

[L(ucio) ? Po]mponio M(arci) f(ilio) Capitoni II [viro]col(oniae) Aug(ustae) E[m(eritae)] I [pr]ae(fecto)fabru[m] I [flam]in(i) col(oniae) Aug(ustae) E[m(eritae)]I[fla]mini provinc(iae) [Lu] [sita]niae divi Aug(usti)[et?] | divae Aug(ustae) I [A. Vitel]lio L(ucii) f(ilio)Vipstano co(n)s(ulibus) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum).

DUNCAN FISHWICK.ST. FRANCISXAVIER,

ANTIGONISH,NOVA SCOTIA.

1LXXVI (1966), p. 30 =Ann. Spigr., 1966, no. 177. I am much

indebted to J. Deininger for a photocopy of the original publication.13A. Degrassi, I fasti consolari dell' Impero Romano (Roma, 1952),

p. 14.14For the possible inclusion of et see C. I. L., VI, 4222 (above, note 8).

82