22 August 2024: Due to technical disruption, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working to restore services and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
The Tabula Hebana ( = TH) has brought fresh evidence about the honours decreed for Germanicus after his death in A.D. 19. These clauses of the tablet, in contrast to the central, legal, clauses, have been unduly neglected in the discussion. I do not claim that they are as important as the legal clauses; but I feel that they are worth greater attention than they have so far received and that at least one of the two honours which I propose to discuss in this article, the provision of the empty curule chairs (1. 50 ff.), is of considerable interest. My answer to the question it raises need not be the right one; but often questions are more important than the answers.
This paper was read at the meeting of the Oxford Philological Society on 17th May, 1957.
Dr. Last has always shown a lively interest in the TH: he read a paper about it in Cambridge in 1951, discussed details in JRS 43, 27 ff. and 44, 119 ff., to say nothing about conversations in private. Will this article interest him as well? And will it remind him of the great debt, personal and scholarly, which I owe him for generous help on numberless occasions ever since Good Fortune led my ways to this country?
2 The text was published by Coli, NSc 1947, 55 ff., and (the new fragment) Parola del Passato (= PP) 6, 1951, 435Google Scholar; the supplements are his unless other wise stated. New editions in L'Année épigraphique, 1949, 215; de Visscher, F. and others, PP 5, 1950, 98 ff.Google Scholar; Oliver-Palmer, , Am. Journ. of Philol. 75, 1954, 227 ff.Google Scholar; Ehrenberg-Jones, Documents ill. the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius 2, 94a.
3 cf. Stuart, M., Class. Phil. (= CP) 35, 1940, 64 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 It is to be added to the two obvious errors in 58: Romam for Roma, propriusve for propiusve.
5 The exception is Pliny, NH 2, 190Google Scholar, ‘… ritus molles, sensus liquidos, ingenia fecunda totiusque naturae capacia …’ Another exception, SHA Max. & Balb. 17, 3Google Scholar (‘nulla oratio tarn felix, nullum ingenium tarn fecundum umquam fuerit …’) disappears if here too facundum is, as in my opinion it should be, adopted. Facundum ingenium occurs in Livy 28, 25, 14; Auson. 160, 22; Ven. Fort, vita Marcelli I, 2Google Scholar; cf. also Tac., Ann. I, 53Google Scholar, and the connection of ingenium with facundia, eloquentia, oratio (Thes. LL. 7, 1, 1527); further ILS 2929 ‘M. Postumium Festum oratorem utraque facundum …’ (‘cuius eloquentiam laudat Fronto … p. 200 N.’: Dessau ad loc.); SHA Numer. II, 3Google Scholar. Corte's, F. Della note, PP 5, 1950, IIIGoogle Scholar: ‘“feeing.” farebbe escludere la lezione “facundi” in Plinio, (NH 36, 72Google Scholar): “ingenio fecundo Novi Mathematici” (‘fecondi” cod. T, “fecundo” codd. PH),’ is misleading and irrelevant. For this is extracted from an obsolete edition of Pliny whereas Mayhoff's reading with most of the MSS is ‘ingenio Facundi Novi mathematici’, and consequently Facundus Novus is a proper name (as would be Fecundus Novus of cod. T) and cannot be declared right or wrong on account of the wording of the TH. For the confusion between facundus and fecundus in medieval MSS see Thes. LL 6, 120, 22.
6 Tac., Ann. 13, 3Google Scholar; Suet., Tib. 70; Quint. 3, 1, 17; Gelzer, P-W 10, 481; 486; Suet., Cal. 3, 1Google Scholar; W. Kroll, P-W 10, 463.
7 For the library Castagnoli, Rend. Linc. 1949, 380; Calabi, , PP 9, 1954, 212Google Scholar; for another part of the porticus, Gatti, PP 5, 152 f.; for the tetrastylum Augusti Seston, CRAI 1950, 106; id. PP 5, 1950, 173.
8 cf. Pliny 35, 9; 7, 115; Suet., Cal. 34, 2; Isid. 6, 5, 2; Ihm, Centralblatt f. Bibliothekswesen 10, 1893, 515 ff.Google Scholar; C. E. Boyd, Public Libraries & Literary Culture in Ancient Rome 1915, 25.
9 Cass. Dio 49, 43, 8; Plut., Marc. 30, 11Google Scholar.
10 Dio 55, 8, 1, in the Ὀκταουίειον; Jos. B. lud. 7, 5, 4, 124Google Scholar, in the Ὀκταουίας περίπατοι; Pliny 36, 28, calls it curia Octaviae; 35, 114, in scholae Octaviae porticibus; 36, 22, in Octaviae scholis.
11 Charis. 222 K. (287 B.); his request was granted as may be inferred from SHA Ant. 5, 2Google Scholar (‘clipeum Hadriano magnificentissimum posuit’); cf. in general J. Bolten, Die Imago clipeata 1937, 20; W. H. Gross, Convivium … für K. Ziegler 1954, 70 ff. (not always convincing).
12 Aero, Ps., Hor. c. I, 3, 17Google Scholar, ‘Caesar in bibliotheca statuam sibi posuerat habitu ac statu Apollinis’; Serv., Ecl. 4, 10, ‘.…“tuus iam regnat Apollo” … et tangit Augustum, cui simulacrum factum est cum Apollinis cunctis insignibus’; accepted by Castagnoli 381 f.
13 It could be added that neither Tacitus nor the TH call the place ‘library’ where the images of Germanicus and Drusus were to be set up. This in fact causes no difficulty. Just as the meeting place in the porticus Octaviae (see above, n. 10) that on the Palatine could be referred to with many names: Tac., Ann. 2, 37Google Scholar, and 13, 5, calls it simply Palatium, the TH 1 ‘… in eo templo quo senatus haberi solet’, Serv., Aen. II. 235Google Scholar, ‘… in Palatii atrio’; cf. also Suet., Aug. 29, 3Google Scholar, ‘… addidit porticus cum bibliotheca Latina Graecaque, quo loco iam senior saepe etiam senatum habuit …’
14 Prop. 2, 31, 1 ff.; cf. Last, , JRS XLIII, 1953, 28 fGoogle Scholar.
15 Gatti, Miss, PP 5, 1950, 152 f.Google Scholar, distinguishes between the images of the porticus, which she believes to be statues, and the imagines clipeatae of the Library. This is, I think, impossible (a) because the images of authors belong by tradition to a library, and (b) because the agreement between the two passages in Tacitus (2, 37; 2, 83) and the TH only makes sense if they refer to one and the same part of the porticus.
16 For a different view see Seston, , PP 5, 1950, 172Google Scholar ff. The place may have gained in distinction if the statutory sacrifice before the meetings of the Senate (Suet., Aug. 35, 3Google Scholar) was performed in front of this statue of Apollo (on the altar mentioned by Prop. 2, 31, 7?): but the verdict would remain the same.
17 Suet., Tib. 26, 1Google Scholar, ‘… etiam statuas atque imagines (prohibuit) nisi permittente se poni; permisitque ea sola condicione, ne inter simulacra deorum sed inter ornamenta aedium ponerentur’; cf. Nock, , Harvard Studies in Class. Philol. 41, 1930, 55, 3Google Scholar; Calabi, , PP 9, 1954, 213Google Scholar.
18 The joint editors in PP supplement the word memoria three times: 51 the sellae ‘[… in memoriam] eius sacerdoti’; 57 annual iustitium ‘a[dmemoriam Germanici Caes. …]’; 60 annual inferiae ‘ [… divis manibus et in memoriam Germanici …]’. The last is acceptable but perhaps in the form ‘dis manibus et memoriae …’ (cf. Thes. LL 8, 675, 42), but then the line is not sufficiently filled. The first with sellae is possible (Thes. LL 8, 679) but Coli's supplement in honorem seems to be the better one (cf. Gai. 1, 145, ‘… quas [= Vestals] etiam veteres in honorem sacerdotii liberas esse voluerunt’; CIL VIII, 4580; Tac., Ann. I, 7, 6Google Scholar; 2, 83, 1; 5, 2, 1; Thes. LL 6, 2925). As to the second I cannot find any evidence that a iustitium was established ad memoriam.
19 cf. Mommsen, , CIL I, p. 332Google Scholar; Henzen, Acta fratrum Arvalium 49 f.; Gagé, Res gestae 182 f.
20 Mon. Anc. 11; Dio 54, 10, 3; Fasti Amit.
21 Tac., Ann. I, 15, 3Google Scholar; 1, 54, 3; Dio 56, 46, 4. The ludi held on his birthday are to be distinguished from them. The public festival was decreed in 30 B.C. (Dio 51, 19, 2); occasional games were held in 20 B.C. (Dio 54, 8, 5), 13 B.C. (54, 26, 2), II B.C. (54, 34, 1); they became annual games in 8 B.C. (55, 6, 6) and were called for A.D. 13, no doubt by mistake, Augustalia (56, 29, 2); they are mentioned after Augustus’ death for 14 (56, 46, 4), 15 (57, 14, 4), and in the calendars (CIL 1, p. 329).
22 Tac., Hist. 2, 95Google Scholar; Ann. 1, 54, 1; Wissowa, Religion 345 f.; 564.
23 Dion. Hal. 2, 52, 5; cf. the annual sacrifice of the Vestals at the ‘tomb’ of Tarpeia on 13th February (Dion. Hal. 2, 40, 3; Philocal.) and of the Flamen Quirinalis at the ‘tomb’ of Larenta on 23rd December (Varr. LL 6, 23Google Scholar; Gell. 7, 7, 7); Wissowa, Religion 233.
24 Tac., Ann. I, 15, 3 ff.Google Scholar; Dio 56, 46, 2; Mommsen, , StR 2, 237, 4Google Scholar; but later the sodales had part in organizing games (not the ludi Augustales) in A.D. 22 (Tac., Ann. 3, 64Google Scholar, 3) and A.D. 31 (Dio 58, 12, 5). A list of the known sodales is given by M. W. H. Lewis, The Official Priests of Rome under the Julio Claudians 1955, 133 ff.
25 When the ludi votivi were held in A.D. 22 for the sick Iulia Augusta with the assistance of the sodales Augustales, Tac., Ann. 3, 64, 4Google Scholar, remarks: ‘… ideo Augustales adiectos, quia proprium eius domus sacerdotium esset, pro qua vota persolve rentur.’
26 cf. W. Reichel, Über vorhellenische Götterkulte 3ff.; Fiechter, , Archaeol. Jahrb. 33, 1918, 179ff.Google Scholar; Hug, P-W 6A, 615 f.; Richter, Ancient Furniture fig. 11; 56; Danthine, H., Mél. Dussaud 2, 857 ffGoogle Scholar.
27 cf. Porph. v. Pyth. 17; Or. Sib. 8, 48 f.; Furtwängler, Meisterwerke 188; Rohde, , Psyche I, 130Google Scholar n.; Catal. of Greek Coins, Lycaonia, etc., 73; 119; 124; Galatia 264, 270; L. Anson, Numismata Graeca 1911, 137 f. (reference of Dr. C. M. Kraay); Weniger, , Arch. Rel. Wiss. 22, 37 f.Google Scholar; Eitrem, , Symb. Osl. 10, 1932, 35Google Scholar; L. R. Taylor, Quantulacumque, Studies pres. to K. Lake 1937, 253 ff. That is why we find thrones as votive offerings, to Apollo (Mon. Antichi 5, 28), to Hermes and Heracles (Preisigke, Sammelbuch 1164), to Dionysus (CIL VIII, 12501 = ILS 4922), to the Dioscuroi (Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria and India 205), to Isis, Osiris and Anubis (in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford: Michaelis, Ancient Marbles 87; CIG 6841), etc.
28 Plat. Euthyd. 277d; Orph. frg. 290, 12 K.; Suid. s.v. Πίνδαρος; IG 22, 1328, 9 f.; Dio Chrys. 12, 33; Eunap., v. Soph. 7, 3, 2Google Scholar; Papyri Graec. Magicae 1, 332; 2, 162; 5, 33; 7, 747 (1, p. 18; 28; 182; 2, p. 33 Pr.); Lobeck, , Aglaoph. I, 368 f.Google Scholar; Rohde, , Psyche 2, 49 n.Google Scholar; Rouse, Greek Votive Offerings 195; Latte, De saltatione 95 f.; Nock, , JHS 46, 1926, 47 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id., AJA 45, 1941. 577 ff.; Klauser, Die Cathedra 45; Festugière, L'idéal religieux des Grecs et l'Evangile 1932, 306, 3; Nilsson, , Gesch. d. gr. Rel. 2, 615Google Scholar; Bousquet, , Rev.arch., 6 Sér., 29/30, 1949, 125 fGoogle Scholar.
29 Fest. 298 M. (386 L.); Tert. spect. 7; ad nat. I, 10 (p. 77, 21 R.-W.); Wissowa, Religion 423; id., P-W 12, 1115; Mattingly, , Coins 2, p. lxxii f.Google Scholar; Alföldi, , Röm. Mitt. 50, 1935, 135Google Scholar; Taylor, L. R., CP 30, 1935, 122 ff.Google Scholar; id., Atti del VIII Congresso internazionale di Storia delle religioni 1956, 349 f.
30 cf. Picard, , Cahiers archéol. 6, 1954, 11 f.Google Scholar; pl. 1, 2; id. Man. Piot 49, 1957, 44 f.; P. Hommel, Stud, zu den röm. Figurengiebeln d. Kaiserzeit 1954, 34; fig. 4; I. S. Ryberg, Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art 1955, fig. 36c. For a throne of Magna Mater carried in procession see Tillyard, , JRS 7, 1917, 284 ff.Google Scholar; pl. 8; Cumont, Rel. orient.4 53, fig. 3.
31 Helbig, Wandgemälde 152; Daremberg-Saglio 4, 1391, fig. 6515; Picard, pl. 3, 2. Two thrones with symbols in Munich: Furtwängler-Wolters, Beschreibung d. Glyptothek 335, no. 346 f. (= Richter, Anc. Furniture figs. 284 f.); another throne of Venus (?) from Herculaneum: Picard CA 13; pl. 2, 2. For the Christian version of the throne with dove see C. O. Nordström, Ravennastudien 1953, 50 ff.
32 Dütschke, , Antike Bildwerke in Oberitalien 4, 370 (no. 850)Google Scholar; Schreiber, Die ant. Bildwerke d. Villa Ludovisi 177; Ricci, C., Ausonia 4, 1909, 249 ff.Google Scholar; Taylor, L. R., CP 30, 1935, 126Google Scholar; Picard CA 12 ff.
33 A. Levi, Sculture greche e romane del Palazzo ducale di Mantova 1931, 74, no. 166; pl. 84, 2; Cook, , Zeus 2, 812Google Scholar; CAH, plates, 4, 144b. A pyxis in the Louvre with the throne of Iuppiter: Graeven, Mon. Piot. 6, 1899, 170 f.Google Scholar; pl. 15; Picard, l.c. pl. 5.
34 The throne of Iuppiter on coins of Vespasian, Titus, Domitian (Mattingly, , Coins 2, 231Google Scholar; 297; cf. Usener, , Kl. Schr. 4, 475 f.Google Scholar; Cook, , Zeus 2, 810Google Scholar f.; Alföldi, , Röm. Mitt. 50, 136Google Scholar; Abaecherli, , CP 30, 1935, 139Google Scholar, pl. 1, 1); throne of Mars (rather than of Minerva) with helmet on coins of Titus (Mattingly 2, 240), of Neptune with dolphin (Mattingly 2, 236).
36 cf. Herter, , Rhein. Mus. 74, 1925, 164 ff.Google Scholar; Picard CA; P. Schramm, Herrschaftszeichen u. Staatssymbolik (1954–56) 1, 316 ff.; 3, 1095 ff.
36 Diod. 18, 61, 1; Polyaen. 4, 8, 2; cf. Ephipp., FGrHist. 126 F 4 Jacoby; Theocr. 17, 18 f.; Picard CA 5 ff. On this kind of tradition Serv. Aen. I, 276Google Scholar seems to depend ‘… sella curulis cum sceptro et corona et ceteris regni insignibus semper iuxta sancientem aliquid Romulum ponebatur (for the dead Remus), ut pariter imperare viderentur’ (cf. Mommsen, , Ges. Schr. 4, 19, 1)Google Scholar: or did a constitutional practice of this kind exist in Rome? For a Christian version of this practice see Cyrill. Alex, ad Theodos. 251 (Patr. Gr. 76, 472): the synod, assembled at Ephesus in the Church of St. Mary, σύνεδρον δὲ ὥστερ καὶ κεφαλὴν ἐποιεῖτο Χριστόν. ἔκειτο γὰρ ἐν ἁγίῳ θρόνῳ τὸ σεπτὸν Εὐαγγέλιον, μονονουχὶ καὶ ἐπιβοῶν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἱερουργοῖς· κρῖμα δίκαιον κρίνατε…
37 cf. Mommsen, , StR. I 3, 390 ffGoogle Scholar.
38 The first instance, that of Porsina (Dion. Hal. 5, 35, 1), may be legendary; there is literary evidence about Masinissa (Livy 30, 15, 11; App., Lib. 32, 137Google Scholar), Ariovistus (Caes., BG 1, 43, 4), Ptolemy, king of Mauretania (Tac., Ann. 4, 26, 4Google Scholar), and numismatic evidence about Cotys and other kings of Odrysia, Iuba II, and Ptolemy; cf. Mommsen, , StR. 3 3, 592, 3Google Scholar; Sutherland, , Num. Chr. 6th s. 10, 1950, 295 f.Google Scholar; J. Mazard, Corpus nummorum Numidiae Mauretaniaeque 1955, 88; 134 f. (reference of Dr. C. M. Kraay). This gift of a sella was not a Roman invention: cf. the golden throne sent by the king of the Iberi to Pompey (Plut., Pomp. 36, 10Google Scholar) and by Cleopatra to Octavian (Dio 51, 6, 5).
39 cf. e.g. A. W. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens 1953, 275 ff.
40 Livy 2, 31, 3; Fest. 344 M. (464 L.); Mommsen, , StR. I 3, 452Google Scholar; Kübler, P-W 2A, 1313 f.; for a different view see Alföldi, , Rom. Mitt. 50, 134Google Scholar. It is worth adding that a space, 5 feet in length and depth, at the Rostra for spectacles was given to the family of the distinguished dead as in the case of Ser. Sulpicius Rufus in January, 43 B.C., Cic., Phil. 9, 7, 16Google Scholar; Pliny, NH 34, 24Google Scholar.
41 e.g. the coin of M. Valerius Messala, c. 53 B.C., with a sella curulis and below a royal diadem (Grueber 1, 493), points to the fact (as explained by Mommsen, Röm. Münzw. 631) that the kings obey the consul of Rome; cf. Mommsen, , StR I 3, 383, 6Google Scholar; 399. 3; 404. 2; J. W. Salomonson, Chair, Sceptre and Wreath 1956, 68.
42 Mommsen, Röm. Münzw. 608; Grueber I, 332; Münzer, P-W 7, 353.
43 Mommsen, Röm. Münzw. 623, n. 454; Grueber I, 439 f.
44 Mommsen, Röm. Münzw. 643; Grueber 1, 485.
45 Dio 44, 4, 2; 44, 6, 3.
46 This was already suggested by Mommsen, , StR I 3, 452, 3Google Scholar.
47 Dio 45, 6, 5; App. B.C. 3, 28; cf. Alföldi, Studien über Caesars Monarchic 77 ff.; Kraft, K., Jahrb.f. Numismatik u. Geldgesch. 3–4, 1952–1953, 32 ffGoogle Scholar. (the conjecture, ibid. 33 f., to change in Veil. 2, 40, 4, corona aurea into laurea is not convincing because laurea is the regular term and corona laurea occurs only exceptionally).
48 Grueber 2, 405; pl. 104, 12; Alföldi, Röm. Mitt. 50, pl. 14, 10; Dio 56, 29, 1.
49 Dio 48, 31, 3; Suet., Aug. 43, 5Google Scholar.
50 Dio 53, 30, 6; cf. Kornemann, Doppelprinzipat 10 f. I presume that the image was not placed on the chair but only the wreath, cf. Dio 74, 4, 1 (below n. 54); Alföldi, , Röm. Mitt. 50, 135, 4Google Scholar.
51 Dio 58, 4, 4.
52 Mattingly, , Coins 2, 233 f.Google Scholar, 298 f., 302; Alföldi 137, figs. 4; 6; Taylor, L. R., CP 30, 1935, 130Google Scholar.
53 Dio 72, 17, 4. A brief mention should be made of the Christian version of the empty throne, the ἑτοιμασία τοῦ θρόνον (cf. Psalm. 9, 8; 88, 15; Ez. 1, 26; 10, 1; Apocal. Ioh. 4, 2 ff.). Pass. SS. Timothei et Maurae 18 (Acta Sanctorum, 3. Maii, vol. 1, p. 744): … ἀνήγαγέ με εἰς οὐρανὸν καὶ ἔδειξέ μοι θρόνου ἐστρωμένον, ἔχοντα στολὴν λευκὴν καὶ στέφανον κείμενον ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ. Cyrill. Alex, ad Theodos. 251 (quoted above, p. 148Google Scholar, n. 36). A sarcophagus in Frascati (De Rossi, Bull. archeol. crist. 1872, pl. 6) and a gem in Berlin (Dölger, ΙΧΘΥΣ I2, 343; pl. 3, 15) represent a throne with cloth, cushion, wreath and the monogram of Christ; on a mosaic in the Basilica of S. Maria Maggiore in Rome there is a crown on the throne and behind it a cross (Bruyne, De, Riv. archeol. crist. 13, 1936, 258Google Scholar); for further instances and discussion see O. Wulff, Die Koimesiskirche in Nicäa 1903, 210 ff. (important); Wilpert, , Die röm. Mosaiken I (1916), 58 ff.Google Scholar; Alföldi, , Röm. Mitt. 50, 1935, 138 f.Google Scholar; A. Grabar, L'empereur dans l'art byzantin 1936, 199; Treitinger, Die oström. Kaiser- u. Reichsidee 1938, 33; 146; F. Van der Meer, Maiestas Domini 1938, 231 ff.; Baus, Der Kranz in Antike u. Christentum 1940, 209 ff.; Grabar, , Cahiers archéol. 6, 1952, 31 ff.Google Scholar; 7, 1954, 19 ff.; C. O. Nordstrom, Ravennastudien 1953, 46 ff. (with illustrations); H. v. Einem, Nachr. Gött. Ges. 1955, 108 ff.; Stommel, , Münch. Theol. Zeitschr. 3, 1952, 28 ff.Google Scholar, is not accessible to me.
54 Dio 74, 4, 1, … καὶ χρυσῆν εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ ἐφ᾿ ἄρματος ἐλεφάντων ἐς τὸν ἱππόδρομον ἐσάγεσθαι καὶ ἐς τὰ λοιπὰ ἐκέλευσε θέατρα θρόνους τρεῖς καταχρύσους αὐτῷ ἐσκομίζεσθαι.
55 cf. Livy 1, 20, 2; 27, 8, 8; Plut., QR 113; Paul. 93 M. (82 L.); Ov. f. 2, 23; Serv. Dan., Aen. 8, 552Google Scholar; Mommsen, , StR I 3, 391, 1Google Scholar; 403; Wissowa, , Religion 507, 9Google Scholar.
56 Tac., Ann. I, 54, 2Google Scholar; 2, 83, 2; ILS 169; 222; G. Howe, Fasti sacerdotum 42; 51; M. W. H. Lewis, The Official Priests of Rome under the Julio-Claudians 1955. 78. On the possible representation of a flamen Augustalis on the Ara Pietatis Augustae see R. Bloch and Cagiano de Azevedo, Le antichità di Villa Medici 1951, 12; Lewis 79.
57 The office of the flamen Dialis was vacant at that time, but Caesar himself was created a flamen Dialis in his youth though he never took up that office (Vell. 2, 43, 1): has this incident anything to do with his innovation?
58 It seems to follow from Tac., Ann. 13, 2, 3 (‘decreti et a senatu duo lictores, flamonium Claudiale, simul Claudio censorium funus …’) that the same privileges were decreed in A.D. 54 for the flamen divi Claudii. Mommsen, , StR. I 3, 391, 4Google Scholar, assumed that the two lictors were given to Messalina as priestess of Claudius (just as Livia received one lictor in 14 as priestess of Augustus, Tac., Ann. I, 14, 3Google Scholar; Vell. 2, 75, 3; Dio 56, 46, 2): this is possible but a lictor belonged also to the office of the flamen. What is, however, impossible is to assume with Furneaux ad l. and Bickel, Thes. LL 6, 875, that Tacitus refers with flamonium to Messalina: neither she nor Livia could be called a flaminica who was either the wife of the flamen Dialis or later the priestess of the divae of the imperial house. Another point seems worth mentioning. It was noticed by Hirschfeld, Kl. Schr. 489 ff., and Wissowa, , Religion 507, 9Google Scholar, that the provincial flamen of Narbo had the same political privileges as the flamen Dialis: CIL XII, 6038 (ILS 6964), 4, ‘…in decurionibus senatuve [sententiae dicendae]’; he had a privileged seat, though not a sella curulis, in the theatre, 5, ‘…[inter decuriones s]enatoresve subsellio primo spectan[di ludos publicos ius potestasque esto].’ Similar regulations must have existed elsewhere (cf. Hirschfeld, l.c.). Now if it was right to suggest above that the flamen Augustalis followed the pattern of the flamen of Divus Iulius it might be right to assume again that the real precedent of the provincial flamen was that of Augustus, and not the flamen Dialis. But in this case a new problem would arise. There was a local flamen of Augustus in many places outside Rome already during his life, e.g. in Pisa, Venafrum, Pompeii (ILS 140; 2688; 6361a; for a full list see F. Geiger, De sacerdotibus Augustorum municipalibus 1913, 8): did they possess similar political privileges? If they did, ought we not to assume that the first move to create a flamen divi Augusti with a special status in Rome was made under Augustus—which would be to some extent reminiscent of what Caesar did in 44 ?
59 The various uses of the wreath need not be discussed here, cf. e.g. K. Baus, Der Kranz in Antike u. Christentum 1940 (with bibliography); Cumont, Symbolisme funéraire, Index s.v. ‘couronne.’
60 See above, p. 149 f., nn. 45 and 50; Kraft, K., Jahrb.f. Numismatik u. Geldgesch. 3–4, 1952–1953, 31 ffGoogle Scholar. (with bibliography).
61 cf. Steiner, , Bonn.Jahrb. 114, 1905, 40 ff.Google Scholar
62 cf. e.g. Mon. Anc. 34, 2; Alföldi, , Röm. Mitt. 50, 1935, 10 f.Google Scholar; I. S. Ryberg, Rites of State Religion in Roman Art 1955, 55; 82 f. That is probably why Tiberius refused to adopt it for himself, Suet., Tib. 26, 2Google Scholar. Later, as on some tombs, the oak wreath had become a mere decoration, Altmann, Die röm. Grabaltäre 182 ff.
63 cf. Mau, Pompeji in Leben u. Kunst 2 440; Altmann 28 f.
64 cf. Ruggiero, , Diz. epigr. I, 1007Google Scholar; Ihm, Thes. LL 2, 2012Google Scholar; Dessau, , ILS 3, p. 707 fGoogle Scholar.
65 cf. Neumann, P-W 3, 502. This was the continuation of a Republican practice of which we know almost nothing, cf. CIL I2 682 (ILS 6302: 94 B.C., Capua) ‘… uteique ei collegio seive magistri sunt Iovei compagei locus in teatro esset quasei sei ludos fecissent’; Nock, Mél. Bidez 632. It is again possible that the honour of the Augustales was of an earlier date: there were Augustales already while Augustus was still alive, Nock, ibid., 628 f.
66 These monuments are described and illustrated by Conze, , Röm. Bildwerke einheimischen Fundorts in Österreich 3, 1877, 9 ff.Google Scholar; Espérandieu, Bas-reliefs de la Gaule romaine 1, no. 199; Arndt-Amelung, Einzelaufnahmen 2006; Eitrem, , From the Collections of the Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek 3, 1942, 189 ff.Google Scholar; Diez, E., Österr. Jahresh. 36, 1946, 97 ff.Google Scholar; Poulsen, Catal. of Anc. Sculpture in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 1951, no. 817; Salomonson, J. W., Bull. v.d. Vereeniging tot Bevordering d. Kennis v.d. ant. Beschaving 30, 1955, 1 ff.Google Scholar; id., Chair, Sceptre and Wreath 1956, 9 ff. (reference of Mrs. E. Dinkier). A. M. Colini, Il fascio littorio 1932, is not accessible to me.
67 CIL XI, 6176; Henzen, Ann. dell' Inst. 1872, 61 ff.; pl. F; Ryberg o.c. 101, 62; cf. CIL XI, 1440 (Inscr. It. 7, 7, 1, 31); Salomonson l.c. 10, fig. 12.
68 Mommsen, , StR. I 3, 404, 1Google Scholar: ‘…Ob der auf den Steinen der Sevirn häufig … neben den Fasces dargestellte, äusserlich von der sella curulis sich nicht unterscheidende Sessel dieses Bisellium ist, wie Jordan … annimmt, oder ob den Augustalen als Spielgebern Fasces und curulischer Sessel zukommen, kann hier nicht erorter t werden.’ Instances of bisellia for seviri: CIL IX, 2682; 3524; 14, 318 (ILS 6162).
69 Mau, Pompeji in Leben u. Kunst 2 440; Diez, l.c. 98 ff.; Eitrem, l.c. 190; Henzen, l.c.
70 So on an ash urn from Volterra (Salomonson l.c. 4, fig. 6); on another urn from Volterra (Körte, Brunn, I rilievi delle urne etrusche 3, 112Google Scholar; pl. 91, 3) there is a procession in which the sella is being carried (to be compared with the consular procession in Rome on 1st January, Ovid. Ex P. 4, 9, 27)Google Scholar; cf. also Brunn-Körte 3, 111; pl. 91, 2; the relief on a chair in the Museo delle Terme in Rome (Salomonson l.c. 5, fig. 6) with the official, his chair, and his retinue.
71 cf. Klauser, Die Cathedra im Totenkult 1927; Richter, Ancient Furniture, fig. 53; Hug, P-W 6A, 617; Grabar, , Cahiers archéol. 6, 1952, 34 ffGoogle Scholar.
72 Paul. 64 M. (56 L.); Fest. 313 M. (410 L.); Wissowa, P-W 12, 1113 f.; Abaecherli, , CP 30, 1935, 131 ffGoogle Scholar.
73 Taylor, L. R., CP 30, 1935, 122 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Alföldi, , Röm. Mitt. 50, 1935, 134Google Scholar f.
74 Mattingly, , Coins 4, 64Google Scholar; 491; 654; pl. 10, 3 f.; 68, 3 f.; 86, 11; Strack, , Unters. s. röm. Reichs pragung 3, 96Google Scholar. It is relevant that during the lifetime of Faustina Maior coins with the throne of Iuno Regina were issued, Mattingly, , Coins 4, 9Google Scholar; 24; 172; pl. 2, 4; 4, 4–7; 24. 4; Strack 3, 47 f.; Mattingly, , Harv. Theol. Rev. 41, 1948, 149CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
75 Gatti, , PP 5, 1950, 155Google Scholar; Seston, ibid. 184; Calabi, , PP 9, 1954, 213Google Scholar f. Miss Calabi's view was anticipated by Lipsius (on Tac., Ann. 2, 83Google Scholar), who assumed that three chairs (this because of the evidence about Pertinax, see above, n. 54) were to be placed in three theatres.
76 Or. gr. 383, 25 (to be understood as e.g. Soph., Ant. 1041 ἐς Διὸς θρόνους); Papyri Graec. Magicae 7, 333 (2 p. 15 Pr.); 5, 41 (1, p. 182); Eitrem, l.c. 194: 202.
