No CrossRef data available.
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.
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
With the welcome appearance of The Roman Inscriptions of Britain, Vol. I: Inscriptions on Stone, by R. G. Collingwood and R. P. Wright, the major part of the epigraphical evidence for the Roman presence in Britain has at last been conveniently assembled under one cover. An Index is still forthcoming and inscriptions have not been included which came to light after 1954; but so clearly is the material laid out that it is a comparatively light task to comb the 2,400 inscriptions of the collection and to add later texts published in the annual report of the Journal from 1955 onwards. The following remarks have been occasioned by a survey of British inscriptions attesting the worship of the Imperial numen. They are not concerned, except incidentally, with the religious doctrine underlying this concept, still less with the thorny problem of the relationship between the numen and the genius. My main purpose is to consider some of the epigraphical problems resulting from the various ways in which the cult of the numen is recorded in order to establish a basis on which to discuss the nature and significance of this particular form of worship in Britain.
1 See now ‘Genius and Numen’ HThR LXII (1969)Google Scholar forthcoming.
2 REL IX, 1931, 102Google Scholar. For the expansion num (inibus) / n(uminibus) Aug(usti) see also Hirschfeld, ad CIL XIII, 949Google Scholar, 1320, 1330 et passim.
3 Germania XLIV, 1966, 138–141Google Scholar.
4 AJ XXXIX, 1882, 366Google Scholar; cf. Raman Lancashire (Liverpool, 1883) 196Google Scholar with figure, reproduced in CW2 XLVI, 1946, 139Google Scholar.
5 It is true that most of the other British inscriptions which Pippidi cites (CIL VII, 83, 87, 239, 506, 638, 639, 640, 755 = RIB 235, 193, 656, 1330 [not 1368 !], 1584, 1585, 1586, 1786) do in fact appear in the Index of CIL VII, p. 331, s.v. numina Augusti. But in not a single case is Augusti written in full: only the abbreviation Aug. The same point applies to CIL VIII, 9040; XII, 2224; XIII, 1318, which Pippidi also cites in support of his thesis. Further-more, in none of the British inscriptions above does RIB give the expansion numinibus Aug(usti) (there is a misprint in 656; see below p. 89). Instead, we have the form numinibus / numinib(us) Aug(ustorum): that is, in reading [nu]minib(us) [Au]g(usti) in 611 RIB breaks its own normally correct practice. Similarly the supplements to CIL VII in EE correctly expand numinibus / numinib(us) Aug. to numinib(us) Aug(ustorum); cf. Deininger, (above n. 3) 140, n. 22 quoting EE VII, 505; IX, 742.
6 P-W XVII, 2, 1937, cols 1277 f., 1283. For numina with a single emperor, see Verg., , Georg. 1, 30Google Scholar; Statius, , Silv., 3, 3, 183 f.Google Scholar; 4, 4, 57 and 8, 61 f.; 5, 2, 154.
7 Cf. Weinstock, in JRS XXXIX (1949), 167Google Scholar.
8 A single numen is explicitly applied to a single emperor in, for example, CIL II, 1516; CIL VIII, 5177; ILAlg. I, 1028; Inscr. Rom. Tripol. 324 (a).
9 The form numinibus Augustis (AÉ 1965, no. 195) is so extremely rare that it may best be excluded from the discussion. Similarly numini Augusta seems to occur with certainty only at Forum Clodi, CIL XI, 3303Google Scholar ( = ILS 154); cf. Pippidi l.c. 101. On the interpretation of this formula, see my article (n. 1), Appendix.
10 RIB 193, 235, 247, 274, 4S9, 611, 656, 707, 918, (?) 1056, 1227, 1327, 1330, 1584–88, 1596, 1786, 2042.
11 RIB 1041, 1700, 2217; JRS LII, 1962, 192, no. 8Google Scholar.
12 For detailed discussion of the thesis that both Augustorum and divorum Augustorum include the living emperor(s) with the divinised dead see further ‘Numina Augustorum’ CQ LXIII (1969)Google Scholar, forthcoming.
13 Cf. CIL II, 2009; III, 751 = 7434; VIII, 958, 5177, 14395; XII, 4146; XIII, 2501, 5166; AÉ 1962, no. 225.
14 CIL II, 2070; AÉ 1930, no. 150, et passim.
15 Pfister (above n. 6) cols. 1275 f.
16 There seem to be only four, possibly five, examples of numini Augustorum in the whole of the north-west: CIL XIII, 2501, ?3651, 5166; RGK Ber. XVII (1927), no. 204; Wuilleumier, P., ILTG, Gallia, Suppl. XVII, 1963Google Scholar, no. 156. These are greatly outnumbered by dedications to the numina Augustorum, which occur in large numbers throughout the area.
17 CIL VIII, 14395, which is dated A.D. 209 and refers to Severus and his sons, gives the text [arcum fecit] et numini Aug. eorum dicavit. This again is an inscription from Africa, where a singular numen with the plural Augustorum seems much more common than elsewhere in the Empire.
18 Cf. RIB 327, 918, 1596, 2042; Espérandieu, IGN 17; CIL XIII, 4132; also the term geminatum numen applied to the double reign of Diocletian and Maximian, A.D. 289: Deininger l.c., n. 17, quoting Paneg. Lat. 10 (2), II, 2. This again reinforces the basic concept of one numen per living emperor.
19 On this formula see Gundel, H. G., Epigraphica xv, 1953, 128–150Google Scholar. The abbreviation D N M Q eius / eorum is restored in RIB 1202, 1235, though unexampled elsewhere in Britain.
20 Similarly in the Gauls and the Germanies there is only a single instance, CIL XIII, 389, and in Dessau's selection only two, ILS 112, 5146. Deininger l.c., n. 29, has noted that of these ILS 112 ( = CIL XII, 4333) is dated A.D. II, ILS 5146 (= CIL IV, 3882) is not later than Tiberius' reign, while CIL XIII, 389, is dated by its letter-forms to the first century: that is, all could refer to Augustus himself. I exclude ILS 5372 (= CIL XI, 1062) from the discussion, as only ]mini August[ is preserved on the stone; cf. AÉ 1946, no. 198; CIL XIII 949, (?946) might also have originally read [numini] Augusti.
21 Hermes XIX, 1884, 232Google Scholar, no. 3.
22 Dessau ad ILS 4538, 9302; Deininger l.c.
23 This excludes RIB 978, 1706, 2066 where numini occurs in the devotus formula; also RIB 979, where Birley's restoration … templum num[ini eius vetus]tate … merits serious consideration.
24 See above, n. 12.
25 RIB 623, 1593 f, 1882, 1904, 1987, 1991, 2063 (in 640, where the expansion of n. Aug. is also indeterminable, the reference is omitted).
26 RIB 309, 657, 1083, 2103.
27 RIB 1983 (partly restored), 2040.
28 This is, indeed, confirmed by the note to RIB 1692. ‘Some of the altars dedicated num. Aug. do not specify the name of the emperor but after Aug. or D.N. give the dedicator's name.’ This clearly shows that, on the view of RIB, num. Aug. is an abbreviation for num(ini) Aug(usti).
29 Th.L.L. II, 1385, s.v.
30 Th.L.L. II, 1386, s.v.; Augg. (sic) refers to Postumus on a milestone from Margam, Glamorgan: JRS XXVII, 1937, 249Google Scholar.
31 Cf. Meyer, E., Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte u. Altertumskunde XLII, 1943, 65–67Google Scholar with refs. For a later example, dated A.D. 191, see Vicent, A. M., Noticiario Arqueologico Hispanico VI, 1962, 423 ff.Google Scholar with pl. 106 ( = AÉ 1966, 181). For Augg. lib. referring to successive emperors see H. Chantraine, Freigelassene und Sklaven im Dienst der römischen Kaiser (1967) 225 ff.
32 RIB gives a plural expansion for n. in a restoration to 913.
33 Collart, P. and van Berchem, D., Rev. Hist. Vaudoise XLVII, 1939, 128Google Scholar.
34 Similarly Cagnat, Cours d'Épig. Lat. (1890) 400 f., treats both n. and num. as an abbreviation of numini. Also in AÉ, num. Aug. regularly appears in the Index s.v. numen Aug.; yet when followed by Augg. num. is transcribed num(inibus); cf. AÉ 1945, no. 123.
35 See the discussion by Étienne, R., Le Culte impériale dans la péninsule ibérique d'Auguste à numini Dioclétien (Paris, 1958) 320–34Google Scholar with refs.
36 N is, of course, always the abbreviation for numini in the formula D N M Q E.
37 CIL XIII, 3527 (Belgica); CIL XIII, 1742, 2532, ? 3107, ? 3154 (Lugdunensis). In CIL XIII, 3107 the reading n. Aug. is given only by Fournier MS. f. 23, n. 2., and was omitted by Fournier in Proc. verb, de la soc. de la Loire, 1808, 60. It does not occur in the facsimile provided by Hirschfeld and Ricci. The reading is also very uncertain in CIL XIII, 3154.
38 CIL XIII, 389, 949 ? (Aquitania); RGKBer XL (1959) no. 8 (Belgica).
39 Thus one may doubt, for example, the expansion n(uminibus) deorum given by Hirschfeld in CIL XII, 5953. especially when the same editor expands n. to n(umini) in CIL XII, 252 and when the formula numini deorum (surely to be expected of the gods collectively) occurs in full in CIL VI, 539; CIL XIV, 2582. Again, Hirschfeld ad CIL XIII, 1742, notes a horizontal bar above the single N and remarks ‘linea supra N. i.e. n(uminibus) fortasse casu effecta’. A similar line occurs above the N in CIL XIII, 3527, and above the second N in CIL XIII, 3639; also over the double NN in RIB 1452: I O [M] | Dol. | pro sal. Augg. nn. | … and over the single n. of noster in RIB 1225: … et n(umini) d(omini) n(ostri) Aug.…; et passim. This is surely an intentional mark by the lapicide to denote a contraction and has no bearing on whether the singular or plural is intended.
40 For example, n. is expanded to n(umini), though without inherent certainty, in CIL in, 12350; XIV, 4317. On the other hand, Hirschfeld expands n. to n(uminibus)—incorrectly on the above argument—in CIL XIII 3107, 3154.
41 This is the second (b) of two dedications found on a granite altar from Saint-Quentin (Creuse). The first (a) reads: num. Aug. | deo Mer|curio Sa|bini ius(su) | Carissa | ar[am …] | d.s.p. The interpretation to be placed on these inscriptions is surely that (a) is dedicated to the numina of all emperors worshipped collectively in the cult, whereas in (b) Sabinus has paid his vow to the numina of two living Augusti. On this view num. is used consistently on both and num. Aug. in (a) is a further example of the very common formula num. / numinibus Aug. with which so many dedications begin in the north-west. Wuilleumier, however, expands num. Aug. in (a) to num(ini) Aug(usti). This would mean that (b), which seems to have been cut later than (a) (Bull. Arch. Com. Trav. Hist., 1928–29, 73 f.), employed the same abbreviation as that already on the stone to denote a different form. Surely this is unlikely. It may be noted that like AÉ and RIB Wuilleumier regularly expands num. Aug. in the singular except where the plural is definitely indicated as by Augg., divor. Aug.
42 Deininger, l.c. with statistical data.
43 One might compare the Cogidubnus inscription (RIB 91), which is also very early (? reign of Vespasian) and records the rare formula pro salute domus divinae; cf. RIB ad. 89, 1922Google Scholar.
44 Cf. I. A. Richmond in Hull, M. R., Roman Colchester (1958) xxv–xxviiiGoogle Scholar.
45 Hübner read provinc(iae servus); cf. Haverfield, in JRS I, 1911, 151Google Scholar; RCHM: London in (1928) 59, 173, no. 16. For further discussion see Phoenix xv, 1961, 165–67Google Scholar.
46 Cf. CIL VIII, 70009f, 18905, 22076, 23415.
47 Cf. CIL VIII, 8476, 12061, 15421, 15644, 23114, 25849.
48 Cf. CIL VIII, 958, 5177 ( = ILAlg. I, 533), 14395.
49 Cf. ILAlg. I, 3991; IL Tun. 1501; IRT 315 (a).
50 In CIL III, 1127, the emperors are mentioned by name: numinib(us) A[ugg] Severi et Antonini et Getae Caes. et Deae Dianae…. Whether Aug. is singular or plural in CIL III, 3487 is indeterminable: numini Aug. et genio imp. Caes. T. Ae[l]. Hadr. Antonini (A.D. 138). On either expansion numen is singular, as commonly in African inscriptions.
51 I have found one further example where num. must definitely indicate the singular, since a singular numen is always attributed to the domus Augusta: Num. dom. Aug. | sacrum … (CIL VI, 236 = ILS 3668). This again is not an abbreviation of the num. Aug. type.
52 Libyca II, 1954, 187–203; 435–459; CRAI, 1955, 126–136Google Scholar; Paléographie Romaine (1952), 103 ff. See now G. Susini, Il lapicida romano (1966), 30 f.
53 It is true that an., for example, can be short for either anno or annis, but here there would normally be no question of any misunderstanding since the figure is usually given as well.
54 E. Birley, ‘Britain after Agricola and the End of the Ninth Legion’ in Roman Britain and the Roman (1961) 20 ff., at 28.
55 Under military I include dedications by soldiers acting as units or in a private capacity (individuals or groups of individuals), since the latter must largely reflect the practice of the former. Indeed, civilian cult as a whole must have been largely influenced by military in a province like Britain. This is true at least of northern Britain, as of Belgica and the Germanies.
56 For dated inscriptions with the formula numinibus Augustorum see F. Stähelin, Die Schweiz in römischer Zeit (1948) 360, n. 1. While this list seems complete for CIL XIII, it omits several from Britain given above. Furthermore, in the Gauls and the Germanies a great many dedications to the numina Augustorum are undated and it is not impossible that in some cases these may have been set up in the earlier part of the second century. Editorial observations on the letter-forms of some inscriptions tend to strengthen this hypothesis. One would hesitate to claim, therefore, that the formula numinibus Aug. / Augustorum indicates of itself a date ca. A.D. 200, even though most of Stähelin's list belong to this period. Contra E. Howald u. E. Meyer, Die Römische Schweiz (1941) ad. no. 54; cf. 81.
57 RIB 1700 quoting Haverfield in Roman Britain in 1914, 31, no. 5.
58 The earliest dedication to the Divine House on the Continent is from Nasium in Belgica: CIL XIII, 4635. Two other examples which may belong to the first century come from Divodurum (Metz): CIL XIII, 4324 f.
59 On the domus divina see P-W v, 1905, 1527; De Ruggiero, II, 3, 1910, 2062–67.
60 For discussion and references see Phoenix xv, 1961, 219 f.Google Scholar
61 Wenham, L. P., ‘The Garrisoning of Maryport,’ CW2 XXXIX, 1939, 21Google Scholar.
62 YCS VII, 1940, 50 f.Google Scholar
63 Benario, H. W.. ‘The Date of the Feriale Duranum,’ Historia XI, 1962, 192–6Google Scholar; YCS l.c. (above, n. 62) 22 f.
64 I have in hand a survey of the Imperial Cult in the Roman Army and a study of the general practice of the Ruler Cult throughout the Celtic World.
65 Augg. n. seems unparalleled with numinibus; for Augg. n., Augustorum n., Auggg. n. with servus/verna, see Chantraine (above, n. 31) 232 f.
66 All other instances of the cult give the full formula numinibus Augustorum. The only point that calls for comment here is the translation of 1700: Pro domu | divina et nu|minibus Aug|ustorum … ‘For the Divine House and the Deities of the Emperors…’ As one can hardly make a dedication on behalf of the mumina, the translation should surely be: ‘For the Divine House and to the Deities of the Emperors.…’
67 The present discussion, which only the publication of RIB has made possible, supersedes an earlier treatment of the Imperial numen in my survey of the Imperial Cult in Roman Britain, Phoenix XV, 1961, 159–73Google Scholar; 213–229. The expansions of the various abbreviations given there were largely based on those of Hubner and Haverfield and should now be partly revised in the light of the conclusions reached above.
68 I am much indebted to the editorial committee of the Journal for helpful suggestions; also to the Canada Council for supporting the cost of field work.