No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
LIVIA: SACERDOS OR FLAMINICA?*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 April 2016
Extract
Dio reports that, at the time Augustus was declared Divus, Livia, who was already called Julia and Augusta, was appointed his priestess (Cassius Dio 56.46.1). The term Dio uses is hiereia, which occurs in the same passage as his account of the priests and sacred rites (en tais hierourgiais) that were assigned to Augustus on his deification. As Livia was also permitted to employ a lictor, an honour that Tiberius apparently restricted to her function as priestess, everything suggests that Livia played a part in the state cult. In contrast, the festival Livia established in honour of her deceased husband was certainly a private gathering: three days of scenic games to which were invited only persons of the highest station. To distinguish between the two is crucial to the precise title of Livia's office. Just as Mark Antony had been made flamen of Divus Iulius—to all appearances for life (Cassius Dio 44.6.4)—so Germanicus was appointed life-long flamen Augustalis (Tac. Ann. 2.83.2)—a distinctive term of office compared with the single year accorded provincial flamines in the Latin West. The office of Livia ought correspondingly to have been that of flaminica, even if it was unprecedented for a woman to serve a god who in the light of his will was technically her father. A precise parallel to all this, it is important to note, exists in the case of Divus Claudius, whose cult Agrippina was appointed to tend and who in her capacity as priestess of Divus Claudius was granted in addition two lictors. Fortunately in this case the exact terminology of her office is given by Tacitus in his account of the honours bestowed by the Senate on Agrippina, who evidently was named flaminica (Ann. 13.2.6):
… decreti et a senatu duo lictores, flamonium Claudiale, simul Claudio censorium funus et mox consecratio.
- Type
- Shorter Notes
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 2016
Footnotes
*
Sadly Duncan Fishwick passed away before the publication of his article.
References
1 A.A. Barrett, Livia. First Lady of Imperial Rome (New Haven and London, 2002), 161. In contrast to Dio's evidence Tacitus reports that Tiberius tried to prevent her being given a lictor (Ann. 1.14.2), a version usually discounted in the light of Tacitus' explicit hostility to Tiberius. The difference between Tacitus' evidence (no lictors at all) and that of Dio (lictors only in connection with Livia's religious duties) is in any case negligible.
2 D. Fishwick, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West (Leiden, 1987–2004), 1.1.162-3 n. 83.
3 Fishwick (n. 2), 1.1.62-6, 161–2.
4 Barrett (n. 1), 160–1.
5 Fishwick, D., ‘The deification of Claudius’, CQ 52 (2002), 341–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 341.
6 G. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer (Munich, 19122), 482–3; J.A. North in OCD 4, 580 s.v. flamines with references to subsequent literature; Brill's New Pauly 5 (2004), 448–50, s.v. flamines (F. Prescendi) with similar references to later discussion. The work of more recent commentators tends to be controversial, none undermining the authority of Wissowa for present purposes—despite the date of his book.
7 Wissowa (n. 6), 483, 520–1, 188; K. Latte, Rõmische Religionsgeschichte (Munich, 1976), 405.
8 Wissowa (n. 6), 483, 519 n. 1, 483, 131; Latte (n. 7), 109 n. 2.
9 Wissowa (n. 6), 299, 218, 320; Latte (n. 7), 71, 191, 161–2, 60, 228–31.
10 Wissowa (n. 6), 365–8, 368–73, 357–9, 341 n. 3. See in general Latte (n. 7), 349–50, 350–3, 274, 282–4, 342, 364.
11 For a detailed list of annual sacerdotes from 300 b.c., see the monumental compilation of J. Rüpke, Fasti Sacerdotum. A Prosopography of Pagan, Jewish, and Christian Religious Officials in the City of Rome, 300 B.C. to A.D. 499 (trans. D. Richardson) (Oxford, 2008), 69–455, cf. 463–965.
12 The generalization of S.R.F. Price (OCD 4, 1300, s.v. ‘ruler-cult’) that the title sacerdotes did not apply to Roman priesthoods, is disproved inter alia by the sacerdotes uirginum Vestalium: see above, p. 2.
13 So Hemelrijk, E.A., ‘Local empresses: priestesses of the imperial cult in the Latin West’, Phoenix 61 (2007), 318–49Google Scholar, at 319 n. 5. Contra, Fishwick (n. 2), 3.2.7 n. 12, referring to Livia as flaminica. Hemelrijk implausibly argues on the basis of scanty and largely circumstantial evidence that local priestesses imitated the current empress in their outward appearance and their badges of office. She also cites ([this note], 318 n. 2) the view of M. Beard, J. North, S. Price, Religions of Rome (Cambridge, 1998) 1.353-4 that local communities differed in following the model of Rome according to their status as colonia, municipium or ciuitas. For refutation of this view, which takes no account of the contrary epigraphical evidence, see Fishwick, D., ‘A critical assessment: on the imperial cult in Religions of Rome ’, RST 28 (2009), 129–74Google Scholar, at 138–40.
14 Wissowa (n. 6), 483 alludes to ‘der allgemeine Ausdruck sacerdos'.
15 I am greatly indebted to Dr. G. Duursma, Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, Munich, for forwarding numerous references from TLL vol. S—currently in preparation with completion expected by 2020. These include an export from the Cross Database of all examples of the use of sacerdos / sacerdotes in poetry during the two centuries before and after the birth of Christ. While no instance of an incorrect title of any imperial priesthood catches the eye, the usage of Ovid makes it clear that, with the priesthoods of gods of all kinds, he uniformly takes advantage of the metrical convenience of sacerdos / sacerdotes. Given this context, his referring to Livia as sacerdos rather than flaminica of Divus Augustus appears entirely consistent with his standard poetical usage and can hardly be taken as evidence for the precise official title of Livia.
16 On Velleius Paterculus, see A.J. Woodman's survey of recent scholarship in OCD 4, 1538–9; further Brill's New Pauly 15 (2010), 265–7 (G. Krapinger), to which add E. Cowan (ed.), Velleius Paterculus. Making History (Swansea, 2011).
17 Fishwick (n. 2), 3.2.25-7, 60–4.
18 Fishwick (n. 2), 3.2.64-5.
19 Fishwick (n. 2), 3.2.65-7.
20 Fishwick (n. 2), 3.2.257-60, 263–5.
21 Fishwick (n. 2), 3.2.268-71, 273–4.
22 Fishwick (n. 2), 3.2.281-3.
23 Fishwick (n. 2), 3.2.288-9.
24 Fishwick (n. 2), 3.2.257-60, 263–5.
25 Fishwick (n. 2), 3.2.141-3, 151–4.
26 Fishwick (n. 2), 3.2.85-6, 104–25. For an updated list of imperial priests in the Spains, see M. González Herrero, Implantación y organización del culto imperial en Hispania (forthcoming). For the moment, see B. Goffaux, ‘Priests, conuentus and provincial organization in Hispania Citerior’, in J.H. Richardson, F. Santangelo (edd.), Priests and State in the Roman World (Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftliche Beiträge 33) (Stuttgart, 2011), 445–70.
27 Fishwick (n. 2), 1.2.269-70. See further T. Fujii, Imperial Cult and Imperial Representation in Roman Cyprus (Stuttgart, 2013), 32–4 and passim, with the review of Fishwick, D., JRA 27 (2014), 828–32Google Scholar.
28 Fishwick (n. 2), 3.2.172, 183–5.
29 Fishwick (n. 2), 3.2.223-6, 242–7.
30 Fishwick (n. 2), 3.2.247.
31 Fishwick (n. 2), 3.2.249, 252–3.
32 Fishwick (n. 2), 3.2.188-9, 200–4. See further id., ‘On the origins of Africa Proconsularis III: the era of the Cereres again’, AntAfr 32 (1996), 13–36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the title sacerdos publica in North Africa, see V. Gaspar, ‘Status and gender in the priesthood of Ceres in Roman North Africa’, in Richardson – Santangelo (n. 26), 471–500.
33 Fishwick (n. 2), 3.2.211-14.
34 On the contrast with the usage in municipal cult, where the choice of term lay with the local curia, see Fishwick (n. 2), 1.1.166 n. 109 with references, observing that sacerdos, flamen and pontifex soon lost any distinction and were used inconsistently. At Pompeii, for example, the same priest served terms in Augustus' lifetime as sacerdos Augusti Caesaris, sacerdos Augusti, flamen Augusti and flamen Caesaris [Augusti]: CIL 10.830.837-8.947-8, while his successor was styled sacerdos Augusti once again (CIL 10.840, cf. 10.944).