Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T01:17:12.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Numinibus Aug(ustorum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

Duncan Fishwick
Duncan Fishwick
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The theology of the Imperial Numen continues to stir vigorous debate. In an article recently published in this journal J.C. Mann has proposed a radically different interpretation of the concept as seen through Celtic eyes in the Roman provinces of the North-West. He lays down in the first place that it is epigraphically impossible for numinibus Aug. to refer to multiple living emperors, who would rather have been indicated by the reduplicated ‘g’. Nor can the reference be to the living emperor in combination with the deceased: deified dead emperors would certainly have had the divus title and could not in any case be credited with numen since they possessed no ‘divine power’. As a result, the formula n[u]minibus Aug. on an altar from Benwell (RIB 1330), for example, must be taken to refer to the numina of the reigning emperor, who in popular thought was considered to have multiple numina, powers ‘in every human field’ (p. 177). Long before its publication, an oral version of this thesis had convinced E. Birley, who on the strength of it completed both RIB 707 and 1330 in such a way as to refer likewise to the numina of the living emperor. Since this expansion affects the interpretation of epigraphical texts that are of interest in ways other than just recording the cult of the numen, the whole question merits re-examination.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 25 , November 1994 , pp. 127 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © Duncan Fishwick 1994. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ‘Numinibus Aug.’, Britannia xxii (1991), 173–7.Google Scholar

2 For earlier discussion see Fishwick, D., ‘Numen Augusti’, Britannia xx (1989), 231–4 with refs; idem, ‘Numina Augustorum’, in The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Roman Empire, EPRO 108, Vol. II, 1 (1991), 388-96; ‘The Imperial Numen in Roman Britain’, ibid., 397-422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Birley, E., ‘The Deities of Roman Britain’, ANRWW, 18, 1 (1986), 3–112Google Scholar, at 34f. with n. 117; cf. 81, n. 417 for the expansion n[u]minibus Aug(usti) in the Benwell text. Mann's thesis is also followed by Drinkwater, J.F. in CR xlii (1992), 344f.Google Scholar, where the review of The Imperial Cult in the Latin West, Vol. II, I, considers that the reconstruction of imperial liturgy and ceremonial is flawed inter alia by failure to consider ‘the religious feelings of the individual and his or her personal conception of the emperor as divine’. As announced in the preface, Vol. I, I (1987), x, the theology of the Roman emperor is the subject of a separate, concluding monograph to be published as Vol. IV and consequently has no place in a study of imperial festivals and observances. For interim discussion of some aspects of the topic see below, 134f. with ref. Simpson, C.J., Britannia xxiv (1993), 264f. takes Mann's comments to be full of insight - with one exception (below, note 46).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 For a convincing correction to the standard view see Vita-Evrard, G. Di, ‘De la date du procès d'Hérode Atticus à l'ère d'Hadrien et à l'association au pouvoir de Geta’, Praktika tou 8 diethnous synedriou ellenikes kai latinikes epigraphikes, Athens, 3-9 Oct., 1982, Vol. II (1982), resuméGoogle Scholar, dating the grant of the Augustus title to Geta in 210 rather than 209. See further eadem, , ‘Les “fastes impériaux” de Brescia’, in Epigrafia: Colloque A. Degrassi, Coll. de l'école franç, de Rome 143 (1991), 93–117, at 116; A.R. Birley, The African Emperor Septimius Severus (1988), 186f., 218.Google Scholar

5 For the view of M. Gayraud et al. that numinibus Aug./Augustorum applies solely to living emperors, even without reduplication of the ‘g’, and must consequently be attributed to the reigns of double emperors see the discussion in Fishwick, ‘Numina Augustorum’, op. cit. (note 2), 39if. with n. 21 and refs.

6 Thomasson, B.E., ‘Zum Gebrauch von Augustorum, Augg. und Aug. als Bezeichnung der Samtherrschaft zweier Herrscher’, ZPE lii (1983), 125–35. The inscriptions cited in notes 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 are based largely on the data assembled by Thomasson, but include some omissions and corrections along with additional texts published subsequently to his paper. For Greek equivalents (Σεβ., Σεββ., Σεββαστŵν) see Thomasson, passim.Google Scholar

7 See the following examples:

Marcus and Verus

? A. Iulius Pompilius Piso (leg. Augg. pr. pr.): AE, 1933. 42 (perhaps suspect as Augg. is followed by d.n. in 1.2).

P. Iulius Geminius Marcianus (leg. Augg. pr. pr.): AE, 1897, 66; ?CIL III. 1414923; VIII. 7050 (=ILS 1102 (Mann, p. 173) = ILAlg II. 634).

M. Claudius Fronto (leg. Augg. pr. pr.): CIL VI. 1377 (=ILS 1098; Mann, p. 173).

Q. Antistius Adventus (leg. Augg. pr. pr.): CIL III. 92.

Q. Pompeius … Sosius Priscus (quaestor candidatus Augg.): CIL XIV. 3609 (=ILS 1104; Mann, p. 173).

C. Aufidius Victorinus (leg. Augg. pr. pr.): G. Alföldy, Fasti Hispanienses (1969), 38, 41.

L. Dasumius Tullius Tuscus (leg. Augg. pr. pr, proc. Augg.): CIL III. 4117.

T. Haterius Saturninus (leg. Augg. pr. pr.): CIL III. 3473, 3479; AE, 1962, 118.

M. Pontius Laelianus (leg. Augg. pr. pr.): AE, 1987, 869.

Marcus and Commodus

[…] Severus (leg. Augg. pr. pr.): CIL III. 141492.

C. Vallius Maximianus (proc. Augg): CIL II. 2015 (=ILS 1354a); AE, 1939, 166; 1961, 340.

T. Pomponius Proculus Vitrasius Pollio (comes Augg.): CIL VI. 1540 (=ILS 1112; Mann, p. 173).

It might be noted that in CIL VI. 1523 = ILS 1092 (Mann, p. 173) the second ‘g’ of leg. Aug[g.] is restored - presumably because of leg. Augustorum elsewhere in the text; so the example can hardly be used in evidence for present purposes. For doubts on completing Aug[g.] in this instance see Thomasson, op. cit. (note 6), 128, noting that Aug. is equally possible. For corruption or confusion in the text of CIL VI. 1377 (ILS 1098; Mann, p. 173) see the commentaries of Mommsen and Dessau ad loc. In RIB 636 (Mann, p. 173) the last ‘g’ of Augg. is uncertain.

8 Thomasson, op. cit. (note 6), 127: ‘Der Gebrauch von Augg. ist in vorseverischer Zeit aiisserst selten …’; cf. 132: ‘Sie [d.h. die gesicherten Falle] zeigen dass die Bezeichnung Augg. war schon in dieser Zeit bekannt und in Gebrauch war, aber bei weitem nicht in so grossem Umfang wie Augustorum oder gar Aug.’ For Augustorum written in full or variously abbreviated see Thomasson, throughout. For Aug. to denote double emperors in the pre-Severan period see the following examples:

Marcus and Verus

Frontinianus, D. FonteiusRufus, L. Stertinius(leg. Aug. pr. pr.: CIL VIII. 4205(=1LS 5752), 4589, 4599, 18065 (=1LS 2452), 18511; AE, 1933.69.Google Scholar

P. Caelius Optatus (leg. Aug. pr. pr.): CIL VIII. 2736, 18067 (=ILS 2303).

Q. Antistius Adventus (leg. Aug. pr. pr.): ILS 8977. For Augg. referring to the service of the same individual under Marcus and Verus see CIL III. 92 (note 7).

P. Iulius Geminius Marcianus (leg. Aug. pr. pr): CIL III. 96, 1414941, 14173. For Augg. referring to the service of the same individual under Marcus and Verus see CIL VIII. 7050 (=ILS 1102; Mann, p. 173) et al. (note 7).

M. Claudius Fronto (leg. Aug. pr. pr): CIL VI. 1377 (=ILS 1098; Mann, p. 173). For Augg. referring to the service of the same individual under Marcus and Verus see CIL VI. 1377 (=ILS 1098) (note 7).

T. Pomponius Proculus Vitrasius Pollio (leg. Aug. pr. pr.): CIL II. 5679 (=ILS 1113: ?governor of Hisp. Cit. under Marcus and Verus). For Augg. referring to the service of the same individual under Marcus and Verus and Marcus and Commodus see CIL VI. 1540 (=ILS 1112; Mann, p. 173) (note 7).

A. Iunius Pastor L. Caesennius Sospes (leg. Aug. pr. pr): CIL VI. 1435 (perhaps Aug. refers to double emperors).

Sex. Calpurnius Agricola (leg. Aug. pr. pr.): RIB 1137.

M. Servilius Fabianus Maximus (leg. Aug. pr. pr.): CIL III. 12514.

P. Furius Saturninus (leg. Aug. pr. pr): CIL III. 1177, 1460.

Sex. Baius Pudens (proc. Aug.): CIL IX. 4964 (=ILS 1363), VIII. 21007.

T. Claudius Pnscianus (proc. Aug.): AE, 1977, 605; CIL VIII. 9363 (=ILS 1351).

Marcus and Commodus

A. Iulius Pompilius Piso (leg. Aug. pr. pr): CIL VIII. 2488; AE, 1911, 103; 1916, 30, 31. For ?Augg. referring to the service of the same individual under Marcus and Verus see AE, 1933, 42 (note 7).

As is clear from the inscriptions of Q. Antistius Adventus, P. Iulius Geminius Marcianus, M. Claudius Fronto and T. Pomponius Proculus Vitrasius Pollio, perhaps also A. Iulius Pompilius Piso, the abbreviations Aug. and Augg. could be used alternatively in the pre-Severan period to denote double emperors.

9 Thomasson, op. cit. (note 6), 133.

10 See the following in particular:

L. Baebius Caecilianus: (leg. Aug. pr. pr., A.D. 199): CIL III. 3706.

L. Petronius Verus (leg. Aug. pr. pr.. A.D. 198): CIL III. 252 = 6754; 1418434, 41.

C. Atticius Strabo (leg. Aug. pr. pr., A.D. 198-200): AE, 1906, 21; 1907, 58.

Ignotus (leg. Aug. pr. pr., A.D. 198): AE, 1908, 22.

C. Ovinius Tertullus (leg. Aug. pr. pr., A.D. 200): CIL III. 7603.

Flavius Ulpianus (leg. Aug., A.D. 202): AE, 1926, 75.

L. Marius Perpetuus (leg. Aug. pr. pr., under Sept. Severus and Caracalla): CIL III. 14150; cf. 1178 (=ILS 1165) with PIR S(M)no. 311.

L. (?) Septimius Marianus (leg. Aug. pr. pr., between A.D. 198 and 202): AE, 1986, 641.

T. Atticius Norbanus Strabo (leg. Aug. pr. pr., A.D. 198): AE, 1922, 5: 1986, 683.

Pompeius Longus (proc. Aug., ?A.D. 211-12): AE, 1988, 978.

11 Claudius Apellinus (leg. Augg., under Severus Alexander): RIB 1281. A.R. Birley, The Fasti of Roman Britain(1981), I95f., suggests the second (smaller) ‘G’ may have been added after the death of Severus Alexander.

L. Prosius Rufinus (leg. Augg., under Severus Alexander): AE, 1969-70, 582.

See further Aelius Triccianus (leg. Augg. pr. pr., A.D. 217/8 – under Macrinus as Augustus and Diadumenius as Caesar): C/Z, III. 10644.

P. Septimius Geta (leg. Auggg. pr. pr., A.D. 193): AE, 1946, 131 (presumably reflecting the circumstances of the time when the cursus was inscribed).

12 cf. CIL II. 2009 (Flavian or post-Flavian), 2344 (A.D. 98); AE, 1966, 181 (A.D. 191). So too perhaps AE, 1983, 643 (A.D. 221), reading [numinib(us) Au]gg. For discussion of this text see below, note 54; cf. Fishwick, ICLW, Vol. II, 1 (1991), 404, n. 32. Also of interest is CIL II. 1338: sacerdos Divorum Augg. (date uncertain).

13 cf. Thomasson, op. cit. (note 6), 135: ‘Diese Liste wird gezeigt haben, dass die Abkiirzung Aug. bzw. Σεβ., auch in spaterer Zeit ein nicht ganz zuverlassiges Datierungskriterium bildet …’

14 Thomasson, op. cit. (note 6), 133.

15 As noted by R.P. Wright ad RIB 152, although he takes the reference to be to deified emperors alone, without the inclusion of the living emperor.

16 CRAI (1971), 472, 11.18-23.: Descriptum et recognitum ex commentario civitate Romana I donatorum divi Aug. et 77. Caesaris Aug., et C. Caesaris, et Divi Claudi, I et Neronis, et Galbae, et Divorum Aug. Vespasiani et Titi et Caesaris I Domitiani, et Divorum Aug. Ner[v]ae et Traiani Parthici, et Traiani Hadriani, et Hadriani Antonini Pii. et Veri Germanici Medici I Parthici Maximi, et Imp. Caesaris M. Aureli Antonini Aug. Germalnici Sarmatici, et Imp. Caesaris L. Aureli Commodi Aug. Germanici Sarimatici, quern protulit Asclepiodotus lib., id quod i. s. est. I Imp. Caesare L. Aurelio Commodo Aug. et M. Plautio Quintilio cos. p. non. lul. Romae … It may be noted that in this text, which dates from 6 July A.D. 177, in the double reign of Marcus and Commodus (A.D. 176-180), the abbreviation Aug. is plainly used of multiple Augusti.

17 Meyer, E., ‘Augusti’, Chiron v (1975), 393–402. See earlier idem, ‘Zur Geschichte des Wallis in römischer Zeit’, BZG xlii (1943), 59-78 at 60-9Google Scholar; ‘Augusti,’ MH xvi (1959), 273–4Google Scholar; ‘Augusti ein Nachtrag,’ MH xvii (1960), 118Google Scholar; ‘Nochmals Augusti’, Klio lii (1970), 283–5.Google Scholar

18 Meyer, op. cit. (note 17, 1975), 399f.

19 Fishwick, , ‘Flamen Augustorum’, in ICLW, Vol. 1, 2 (1987), 269–81Google Scholar, at 27Iff., citing CIL II. 4217, 4239, 4225 (= ILS 2714), 4226 (= ILS 27148). See further Alföldy, G., Flamines Provinciae Hispaniae Citerioris, Anejos de Archivo Español de Arqueologia 6 (1973), 46–9.Google Scholar

20 See further Meyer, op. cit. (note 17, 1975), 393f., citing ILTun 148: aedem Augustor(um) et imagine[m … (A.D. 106/7); CIL in. 6992 (= ILS 314): numini domus Augustor[um] et Imp Caesari … Hadriano Au[g.] (A.D. 129); AE, 1917-18, III: pro i]ncolumitiate [domu]s aeternae Augustorum (A.D. 152). Cf. Meyer, op. cit., 401 with refs, citing νεωκόρος τŵν Σεβαστŵν (first century A.D.); ναὸς των Σεβαστŵν (reign of Vespasian); ibid., 400, citing CIL IX. 5068: sacerdos Augustorum; cf. CIL II. 1338, 1471; IX. 2347: sacerdos Divorum Augustorum.

21 Fishwick, , ‘The Temple of the Three Gauls’, in ICLW, Vol. I, 2 (1987), 308–16; Meyer, op. cit. (note 17, 1975), 400.Google Scholar

22 Fishwick, ‘Numina Augustorum’, op. cit. (note 2), 392f. So also Alföldy, G., ‘Ein Tempel des Herrscherkultes in Comum’, Athenaeum lxi (1983), 362–73, at 371.Google Scholar

23 See further H.J. Rose, Ancient Roman Religion (1948), 9-49.

24 S.R.F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (1984), 29f., 43, 52, 244, 247f.; Fishwick, , ICLW, Vol. I, 1 (1987), 6, n, 46, 185; idem, Phoenix xl (1986), 225f.Google Scholar

25 On Dio's omission of Roma and the inclusion of the goddess in the cult see Fishwick, , ICLW, Vol. I, 2 (1987), 126–30.Google Scholar

26 Fishwick, ibid., 91f. with nn. 52-6. Cf. Gradel, I., ‘Mamia's dedication: Emperor and Genius. The Imperial Cult in Italy and the Genius Coloniae in Pompeii’, Analecta Romana Instituti Danici xx (1992), 43–58, at 44-8.Google Scholar

27 For discussion see Hänlein-Schäfer, H., ‘Veneratio Augusti’, Archaeologica 39 (1985), 278–80, citing Castagnoli's proposed re-construction of the text: [L.] Calpurnius L. f. [IIvir col.] Aug. [Put. cum] ornamentis d. s. r[ef.] On the archaeological evidence the podium belongs to the second century B.C.Google Scholar

28 cf., for example, the Caesareum at Beneventum (CIL IX. 1556 = ILS 109: Hänlein-Schäfer, op. cit. (note 27). 141f.) and at Volcei (Inscrlt III. 1. 25: eadem, 143f.); also the Augusteum at Firmum Picenum (AE, 1975. 354: eadem, 146), at Ferentium (AE, 1911, 184: eadem, 146f.), and at Pisae (CIL XI. 1420: eadem, 148). Gradel, op. cit. (note 26). 57, n. 31 adds CIL XI. 948, 7270.

29 ‘No honour was left for the gods, when [Augustus] allowed himself to be worshipped with temples and statues of deities through flamens and priests.’

30 Mann adduces (p. 175) an inscription set up at Stobi, Macedonia, by three Augustales, who were evidently Roman citizens and in all probability freedmen: deo Caes(ari) Aug(usto) i p. p. … (AE, 1939, 113; cf. Alföldy, G., ‘Augustus und die Inschriften: Tradition und Innovation,’ Gymnasium xcviii (1991), 289–324Google Scholar, at 303, n. 32, referring the text specifically to Augustus. But this evidence is hardly apposite. For one thing the inscription probably dates from the end of the third century, before the partial transformation of the theatre into an arena (AE, 1958, 244). For another, the text occurs in a Greek context (cf. AE, 1939, 114), so the use of the term deus may be influenced by the marked Greek tendency for bestowing the epithet θεός on the emperor. See Fishwick, , ICLW, Vol. I, 2 (1987), 28 with n. 49 and refsGoogle Scholar; Price, S.R.F., ‘Gods and emperors: the Greek language of the Roman imperial cult’, JHS civ (1984), 79–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is true that there are dedications to Augustus in which the term sacrum puts him technically on level terms with a god, but in none of these is the emperor given the epithet deus. For discussion see Fishwick, , ‘Augusto ut deo’, in ICLW Vol. II, 1 (1991), 436–45; Alföldy. op. cit., 303f.Google Scholar

31 Fishwick, D., ‘Augustus Deus and Deus Augustus’, in Hommages à Maarten J. Vermaseren, Vol. I (1978), 375–80; idem, ‘Augustan Gods’, in ICLW, Vol. II, 1 (1991), 446-54, at 452f. Contra Alföldy, op. cit. (note 30), 303, n. 32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 Alföldy, op. cit. (note 30), 304, understands Augustus in the sense of ‘heilig’, contra, Fishwick, op. cit. (note 31) 1991. 447f.

33 For Dio's mention in this case of the inclusion of Roma see note 25.

34 cf. Mann, p. 177: ‘… excluding the so-called divine emperors, who in fact had no divine power at all, and thus no numen’.

35 Fishwick, D., ‘Votive offerings to the emperor’, ZPE lxxx (1990), 121–30. Contra Price, op. cit. (note 30), 91-3.Google Scholar

36 An example, perhaps isolated, of a vow made to the Numen Augusti - not to the emperor himself - occurs at Narbo: … numini Augusti votum I susceptum a plebe Narbolnensium inperpetuom l… (CIL XII. 4333 = ILS 112, 11. 4-6). Cf. Fishwick, , ICLW, Vol. II, 1 (1991), 502. But there seem to be no examples of the form numini Augusti l numini I numinibus Aug(ustorum) v. s. L. m. For dedications to the Imperial Numen in combination with a god to whom a vow is paid see below, note 53.Google Scholar

37 G. Henzen, Acta Fratrum Arvalium (1874), 102f. Cf., for example, CIL XI. 1331 (= ILS 233): … voto compos posit lovi luno[ni] I Minervae Felicitati Romae Divo Augusto.

38 See in particular Charlesworth, M.P., ‘Some observations on ruler-cult, especially in Rome’, HThR xxviii (1935), 5–44, at 36, 42Google Scholar; Nock, A.D., ‘Deification and Julian,’ JRS xlvii (1957), 115–23, at 121 with n. 4 (= idem in Z. Stewart (ed.), Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (1972), 844 with n. 47).Google Scholar

39 ‘… who are consecrated not to testify to their divinity but to honour the memory of their reign.’

40 Fishwick, D., ‘Ovid and Divus Augustus’, CP lxxxvi (1991), 36–41; idem, op. cit. (note 35), 128, n. 27, citing Livy I. 16. 3; Suet., Iul. 85; Vergil, Eel. IX. 46-9; Georg. I. 24-42; Aen. I. 286-90; Val. Max. I. 6. 13; Ovid, Ex Ponto IV. 9. 127-34; IV. 13-24; Met. XV. 869f.Google Scholar

41 Nock, op. cit. (note 38), 116, 121 (= Essays 835, 843); Fishwick, op. cit. (note 40, 1991), 37.

42 For discussion see Fishwick, D., ‘Prudentius and the cult of Divus Augustus,’ Historia xxxix (1990), 475-86.Google Scholar

43 ‘Nor were there lacking men who observed that he foretold many things by dreams and were thereby themselves enabled to predict events that did come to pass.’ Cf. J. Bayet, Histoire politique et psychologique de la religion romaine (1957), 190: ‘On est loin des ironies sur 1'apotheose des pamphletaires rationalistes, Seneque au Ier siecle ou Lucien au He.’

44 Fishwick, D., ‘Seneca and the temple of Divus Claudius’, Britannia xxii (1991), 137–41, at 140 (for the correct Greek see 137); ‘The Temple of Divus Claudius at Camulodunum' (forthcoming).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Fishwick, op. cit. (note 39), 38; idem, ICLW, Vol. 11, 1 (1991), 567, 573f. with refs.

46 D. Fishwick, ‘Prayer and the living emperor’, in R.M. Wilhelm and H. Jones (eds). The Two Worlds of the Poet. New Perspectives on Virgil (1992). 343-55. Simpson, op. cit. (note 3), arrives at a similar conclusion by a different route.

47 Fink, R.O., Hoey, A.S. and Snyder, W.F., ‘The Feriale Duranum,’ YCS vii (1940), 1–222Google Scholar; Fishwick, D., ‘Dated inscriptions and the Feriale Duranum’, Syria lxv (1988), 349–61; idem, ‘Soldier and emperor’, Ancient History Bulletin vi (1992), 63-72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48 Price, S.R.F., ‘Between man and god; sacrifice in the Roman imperial cult’, JRS lxx (1980), 28–43, at 36 with n. 80Google Scholar; Fishwick, , ICLW, Vol. I, 1 (1987), 37 with n. 39.Google Scholar

49 Nock, A.D., ‘Σὐνναος Θεὀς’, HSCP xli (1930), 1–62, at 53f.Google Scholar

50 Fishwick, , ICLW, Vol. I, 2 (1987), 219–39, 279f.Google Scholar

51 Fishwick, , ICLW, Vol. II, 1 (1991), 394f.Google Scholar

52 Birley, op. cit. (note 3), 35, n. 128.

53 For what look to be dedications to the Imperial numen I numina in combination with a deity to whom the payment of a vow is recorded see, for example, RIB 146 (Bath), 611 (Overborough), 1074 (Lanchester). The Benwell text (RIB 1330: above, p. 127) is surely a parallel text, though including the pro salute formula.

54 If a reference to the numina is correctly restored in AE, 1983, 643 - as is certainly very possible - then Augg. must attest the numina of living and deceased emperors since the dedication is dated by consuls to A.D. 221: [Neptuno?] et Genio loci l et [numinib(us) Au]gg.…

55 cf. CIL VIII. II 193, 25512f., 25934; ILAfr 546; AE, 1966, 509; ?1976, 737 bis; also perhaps ILS 9495 (above, p. 133). Cf. AE, 1977, 855: Dis Caesarum l sacrum …, also perhaps CIL XI. 6306.

56 Fishwick, , ICLW, Vol. II, 1 (1991), 447f., 452.Google Scholar

57 For discussion of the text see Fishwick, op. cit. (note 56), 380, 39910, 490, 510, 537, 576, 586.

58 Pfister notes in RE XVII, 2 (1937), 1285 that after death men are not numina, but only possess numen.Google Scholar

59 ‘Against Rubrius it was charged that he had violated by perjury the divinity of Augustus.’ For commentary see Goodyear, F.R.D., The Annals of Tacitus, Vol. II (1981), 155f.Google Scholar, though the reference to Horace, Ep. II. 1. 15f. is not apposite: see Fishwick, , ICLW, Vol. II, 1 (1991), 377.Google Scholar

60 ‘… whereupon Mamercus Scaurus, an ex-consul, Junius Otho, a praetor, Bruttedius Niger, an aedile, fastened upon him simultaneously and charged him with violating the divinity of Augustus …’

61 ‘Nor did he ever afterwards take oath about matters of the highest importance, even before the assembly of the people or in the presence of the soldiers, except by the divinity of Drusilla.’

62 Mommsen, Th., Römisches Staatsrecht II, 23 (1887) (1963), 800.f.Google Scholar; RE X (1917), 1254f. s.v. iusiurandum (Steinwenter); Der Kleine Pauly III (1969), 14s.v. ius (Simon). [Divoru]m is restored in the Herculaneum text, but surely certain.Google Scholar

63 Fishwick, D., ‘Le numen impérial en Afrique romaine’, in Afrique du nord antique et médievale, spectacles, vie portuaire, religions. Actes du Ve colloque international, 115e Congr. nat. Soc. sav. Avignon, 9-13 avril, 1990 (1992), 83–94.Google Scholar

64 ILAlg I. 533 (Zattara, A.D. 121; above, p. 137); CIL VIII. 958 (Municipium Aurelia Vina); 14395 (Vaga, A.D. 209); 4199 (Marcouna, A.D. 147/8).

65 Pfister, op. cit. (note 58), 1274f.

66 Fishwiek, op. cit. (note 2) (1989).

67 Fishwiek, , ‘Augustan Blessings and Virtues’, in ICLW, Vol. II, 1 (1991), 455–74, at 469f.Google Scholar

68 op. cit. (note 66), 232, n. 14.

69 See J. Kolendo, ‘Le culte impérial et la faute du lapicide; à propos d'une inscription des environs de Théveste (ILAlg i, 3715)’, in A. Mastino (ed.), L'Africa Romana: Atti del IV Convegno di Studio Sassari, 12-14 dicembre 1986 (1987), 331-6.

70 Eck, W., ‘Das s.c. de Cn. Pisone patre und seine Publikation in der Baetica’, Cahiers du Centre G. Glotz iv (1993), 189–208, especially 195f. I am very much indebted to Richard Talbert for bringing the text to my attention and for sending me a copy of Eck‘s paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar