Divine Justification: Flavian Imperial Cult Jessica Suess
i
Divine Justification:
Flavian Imperial Cult
Jessica Suess
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Letters
Department of Ancient History
Oxford University
June 2011
Divine Justification: Flavian Imperial Cult Jessica Suess
ii
Acknowledgements
There will come a time when you believe everything is finished. That will be the beginning.
Louis L’Amour
After almost a decade of university study I have many to thank. From the University
of Queensland, Dr. Tom Stevenson and Professor Tim Parkin for convincing me to apply to
Oxford. From Oxford Dr. Simon Price, my MPhil supervisor who I came to Oxford to work
with in the first place, Dr. Neil McLynn, although only an interim supervisor for one term he
opened my eyes to my options, Professor Alan Bowman, for being a friendly face in what
often felt like a hostile world, and especially Dr. Josephine Quinn, for helping me through to
the finish.
I would like to thank my parents for always supporting but never pushing, my brother
and sister for constantly reminding me of the diverse options life has to offer, and my
husband Richard for putting up with me. I would like to thank Corrie Jones, the first friend I
made in Oxford, for his constant friendship and support over these many years, and the many
friends I met at Balliol College that made my Oxford experience, in particular Chris Davies,
Rick Malins, Sebastian Sequoiah-Grayson, Andrew Hay, Andrew Mitchell, Jon Selby, Joe
Merton, Alex Heath, Matt Penfold, Valentina Gosetti, Adam Creighton, Dan Nicolau, Mike
and Fiona Hodder, Russell Allen, Sam Henry, Daniel Hurn and Alyssa Voznaya. Further
thanks to Patricia Villalva and Laurence Yates, my two oldest friends.
Finally I would like to thank the Australian Postgraduate Award Scheme, the
Clarendon Fund, Balliol College, the Bodleian Library and the Eagle and Child for their
funding throughout this process. I now look forward to the next chapter.
Divine Justification: Flavian Imperial Cult Jessica Suess
iii
Abstract
It is the aim of this thesis to examine and contrast three aspects of the Roman state
imperial cult as it existed under the Julio-Claudians and Domitian: the official state cult
recorded by the Arval brothers (chapter one), and the roles of the Genius of the princeps
(chapter two) and the divi (chapter three) in Roman state imperial cult. I will identify
fundamental remodelling of several key aspects of the cult, and argue that this reflects
changes to the ideology of imperial power that the cult expressed. Specifically I will argue
that the imperial cult under the Julio-Claudians expressed the dynastic and earthly sources of
their power – their hereditary claim to power and the powers they were invested with by the
senate – and also created a cult of personality around each individual princeps, treating them
as a prince of Rome. I will show that it was exactly these aspects that were largely removed
from the form of the imperial cult by the reign of Domitian. Under Domitian, rather than
concentrating on the claim to power of an individual charismatic princeps, cult focussed on
the Principate as an important institution in Rome that had to be maintained over individual
reigns and even dynasties. As a result of these changes the princeps was also largely
represented as a chief magistrate who acted for the benefit of the state. The subsidiary goal
of this thesis is to suggest the possibility that the majority of this remodelling in fact took
place during the reign of Vespasian, but the evidence surviving from his reign is too limited
to confirm this suggestion with certainty.
Divine Justification: Flavian Imperial Cult Jessica Suess
iv
Contents
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
Contents iv
List of Figures v
Introduction 1
Chapter one: Arval Rituals 17
1.1: Anniversary and Birthday Cult 19
1.2: Principate Cult 24
1.3: Imperial Ideology and the Pantheon 34
1.4: Vespasian? 41
Chapter Two: Genius Principis 48
2.1: The Genius under the Julio-Claudians 51
2.2: Cult of the Genius under Domitian 60
2.3: Iconographic Evidence 70
2.4: Vespasian? 89
Chapter Three: The Divi 95
3.1: The Julio-Claudian Divi 97
3.2: Flavian Deifications 104
3.3: Cult Apparatus 111
3.4: Provincial Cult 123
3.5: Vespasian 128
Conclusion 138
Appendix One 144
Bibliography 149
Divine Justification: Flavian Imperial Cult Jessica Suess
v
List of Figures
Figure 1: As, Rome, AD 85. Obverse: IMP CAES DOMITIAN AUG GERM COS XI,
laureate head right. Reverse: SALUTI AUGUSTI SC altar (RIC (Domitian) 2:727; image
from www.fredericweber.com) p. 30
Figure 2: Rome, Sestertius, AD 88-89. Obverse: IMP CAES DOMIT COS XIIII CENS P
PP, laureate head right. Reverse: SC, Domitian standing left holding thunderbolt and spear
being crowned by Victory (RIC (Domitian) 2:639; image from www.wildwinds.com)
p. 33
Figure 3: Domestic shrine painting from the Casa dei Vettii depicting the Genius of the
paterfamilias between two Lares, Insula 6.15.1: Pompeii (image from www.the-
romans.co.uk)
p. 49
Figure 4: Augustan compitum altar depicting a Genius standing next to two Lares, Vatican
Museum: Rome (image from www.ancientrome.ru) p. 52
Figure 5: Frieze of the Vicomagistri, Vatican Museum: Rome (image from
www.wikipedia.org) p. 56
Figure 6: Camilli from the Frieze of the Vicomagistri, Vatican Museum: Rome (image from
www.wikipedia.org)
p. 56
Figure 7: Domestic shrine paintings depicted the Genius of the paterfamilias accompanied by
a Lar, Insula 5.2: Pompeii (image from www.novaroma.org) p. 58
Figure 8: Domestic shrine painting depicting the Genius accompanied by a Lar, a flute player
and sacrificial attendants, Insula 9.5.2/22: Pompeii (image from www.novaroma.org)
p. 58
Figures 9: Claudian statue of the imperial Genius from Puteoli, Vatican Museum: Rome
(image from www.flickr.com) p. 59
Figure 10: As reverse, Rome, AD 64, figure dressed in mantle holding patera and cornucopia
pouring an offering over an altar GENIO AUGUSTI SC (RIC (Nero) 1:215; image from
www.fredericweber.com) p. 60
Figure 11: As reverse, Lugdunum, AD 66, figure dressed in mantle holding patera and
cornucopia pouring an offering over an altar GENIO AUGUSTI SC RIC (Nero) 1:534; image
from www.fredericweber.com) p. 60
Figure 12: Triumphator Relief, Arch of Titus: Rome (image from Pfanner (1983) plate 45)
p. 71
Figure 13: Booty Relief, Arch of Titus: Rome (image from Pfanner (1983) plate 54)
p. 75
Divine Justification: Flavian Imperial Cult Jessica Suess
vi
Figure 14: Top of the arch depicted on the Booty Relief, Arch of Titus: Rome (image from
Pfanner (1983) plate 56) p. 75
Figure 15: Cancelleria B, Vatican Museum: Rome (image from www.Rome101.com)
p. 77
Figure 16: Front and side view of Vespasian portrait, Cancelleria B, Vatican Museum: Rome
(image from Daltrop, Hausman and Wegner (1966) plate 5) p. 78
Figure 17: Front and side view of Vespasian portrait, Museo Nazionale delle Terme: Rome
(image from Daltrop, Hausman and Wegner (1966) plate 4) p. 78
Figure 18: Front and side view of Domitian portrait, Cancelleria B, Vatican Museum: Rome
(image from Daltrop, Hausman and Wegner (1966) plate 31) p. 78
Figure 19: Front and side view of Domitian portrait, Boston Museum and Fine Art (image
from Daltrop, Hausman and Wegner (1966) plate 24) p. 78
Figure 20: Portrait of Domitian/Nerva, Cancelleria A, Vatican Museum: Rome (image from
www.Rome101.com) p. 80
Figure 21: Portrait of Domitian/Nerva, Holkham Hall: Norfolk, England (image from
www.wikipedia.org) p. 80
Figure 22: Portrait of Domitian, Museo del Palazzo dei Conservatori: Rome (image from
Daltrop, Hausman and Wegner (1966) plate 27) p. 81
Figure 23: Portrait of Domitian, Vatican Museum: Rome (image from Daltrop, Hausman and
Wegner (1966) plate 28) p. 81
Figure 24: Cancelleria A, Vatican Museum: Rome (image from www.Rome101.com)
p. 82
Figure 25: Head of woman leading the chariot on the Triumphator Relief, Arch of Titus:
Rome (image from Pfanner (1983) plate 47) p. 84
Figure 26: Amazonian goddess on Cancelleria B, Vatican Museum: Rome (image from
www.Rome101.com) p. 84
Figure 27: Amazonian goddess on Cancelleria A, Vatican Museum: Rome (image from
www.Rome101.com) p. 84
Figure 28: Reverse of sestertius minted at Rome AD 68 (RIC (Galba) 1:243; image from
www.fredericwber.com) p. 84
Figure 29: Head of the Genius Populi Romani from Cancelleria A, Vatican Museum: Rome
(image from Kunckel (1974) plate 21) p. 85
Divine Justification: Flavian Imperial Cult Jessica Suess
vii
Figure 30: Head of the Genius Populi Romani on Cancelleria B, Vatican Museum: Rome
(image from Kunckel (1974) plate 21) p. 85
Figure 31: Boscoreale Cup, Louvre: Paris (image from Kuttner (1995) figure 1) p. 87
Figure 32: Relief displaying profectio of Domitian, Museo della Torre: Anacapri (image from
Magi (1954-1955) 49) p. 88
Figure 33: Fourth century Gem displaying the triumphal image from the Arch of Titus,
Kunsthistorisches Museum: Vienna (image from Beiber (1945) figure 2) p. 88
Figure 34: Denarius reverse, Rome, 96 BC (Sydenham 604-5; image from
www.beastcoins.com) p. 90
Figure 35: Denarius obverse, Spain, 76BC (Sydenham 752; image from
www.coinarchives.com) p. 90
Figure 36: Denarius reverse, Rome, 72BC (Sydenham 791; image from Kunckel (1974) plate
4.2) p. 90
Figures 34: Genius Populi Romani coin reverses minted under Vespasian in AD 69/70, and
Titus in AD 80/81 (BMCRE 2:85 n. 417-418; 266 n. 210) p. 90
Figures 35: Reverses of sestertius minted at Lugdunum and Rome in AD 71 depicting the
Genius Senatus crowning the princeps (BMCRE 1:359 n. 260; 2:113 n. ƪ) p. 90
Figure 36: Reverse of Vespasianic sestertius of AD 71 showing Vespasian, crowned by
Victory, conducting a sacrifice before a monument (RIC (Vespasian) 2:463) p. 90
Figure 37: Sestertius obverse, Gaul, AD 68 (BMCRE 1:295 n. 21; image from Kunckel
(1974) plate 1.2) p. 91
Figure 38: Sestertius obverse, Spain, AD 68 (BMCRE 1:289 n. 2; image from Kunckel
(1974) plate 1.4) p. 91
Figure 39: Sestertius reverse, Spain, AD 68 (BMCRE 1:288 (Amn.); image from Kunckel
(1974) plate 1.5) p. 91
Figure 40: Sestertius reverse, Rome, AD 69/70 (BMCRE 2:285 n. 417-418; image from
Kunckel (1974) plate 1.6) p. 91
Figure 41: Sestertius reverse, Rome, AD 80/81 (BMCRE 2:266 n. 210; image from Kunckel
(1974) plate 1.7) p. 91
Figure 42: Sestertius reverse, Rome, AD 71 (BMCRE 2:113 n. ƪ; image from BMCRE 2:
plate 20.3) p. 92
Figure 43: Sestertius reverse, Lugdunum, AD 71 (BMCRE 1:359 n. 260; image from
BMCRE 1: plate 59.3) p. 92
Divine Justification: Flavian Imperial Cult Jessica Suess
viii
Figure 44: Sestertius reverse, Rome, AD 71 (Berlin inv. 852/1910=RIC (Vespasian) 2:463;
image from Kleiner (1989) plate 7.1) p. 94
Figure 45: Aureus reverse, Rome, AD 115/116 (vota suscepta) (BMCRE 3:612; image from
www.coinarchives.com) p. 94
Figure 46: Denarius, Rome, AD 82-84. Obverse: DOMITIA AUGUSTA IMP DOMIT,
draped bust right. Reverse: DIVUS CAESAR IMP DOMITIANI F, sitting left on a celestial
orb reaching to stars above (RIC (Domitian) 2:213; image from www.fredericweber.com)
p. 106
Figure 47: Denarius, Rome, AD 82-83. Obverse: DOMITIA AUGUSTA IMP DOMIT,
draped bust right. Reverse: PIETAS AUGUST, seated left holding sceptre alongside a child
(RIC (Domitian) 2:214; image from www.wildwinds.com) p. 108
Figure 48: Sestertius, Rome, AD 29-30. Obverse: SPQR IVLIAE AVGVST, carpentum.
Reverse: TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVST PM TR POT XXIIII, around large S C (RIC
(Tiberius) 1:51; image from www.wildwinds.com) p. 108
Figure 49: Sestertius, Rome, AD 80-81. Obverse: MEMORIAE DOMITILLAE SPQR,
carpentum. Reverse: IMP T CAES DIVI VESP F AUG PM TR P PP COS VII, around SC
(RIC (Titus) 2:153; image from www.federicweber.com) p. 108
Figure 50: Denarius, Rome, AD 80/81. Obverse: DIVUS AUGUSTUS VESPASIANUS,
laureate head right. Reverse: EX SC, quadriga right drawn by horses with car in form of
small temple flanked by victories (RIC (Titus) 2:143; image from www.wildwinds.com)
p. 112
Figure 51: Sestertius, Rome, AD 80/81. Obverse: DIVO AUG VESPAS SPQR, statue of
Divus Vespasianus togate and radiate seated left on chair cart drawn by elephants with riders,
holding sceptre and victory (RIC (Titus) 2:60; image from www.wildwinds.com)
p. 112
Figure 52: Aureus, Rome, AD 90-92. Obverse: DIVA IVLIA AVGVSTA, diademed and
draped bust right. Reverse: seated left, holding corn ears and sceptre, on car drawn l. by two
elephants with mahouts on their backs (RIC (Domitian) 2:219; image from
www.coinarchives.com) p. 114
Figure 53: Back of draped male torso leaning against a palm, Museo Nazionale Romano:
Rome (image from www.umich.edu) p. 115
Figure 54: Nude male torso, Museo Nazionale Romani: Rome (image from www.umich.edu)
p. 115
Figure 55: Corner entabulature fragment with part of a capital, Museo Nazionale Romano:
Rome ((image from www.umich.edu) p. 115
Figure 56: Vespasian wearing corona civica, Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, Ann Arbor
(image from www.umich.edu) p. 115
Divine Justification: Flavian Imperial Cult Jessica Suess
ix
Figure 57: Relief fragment with representation of the Temple of Quirinus and the head of a
flamen, Museo Nazionale Romano: Rome (image from www.umich.edu) p. 115
Figure 58: Relief fragment with the head of a soldier, Museo Nazionale Romano: Rome
(image from www.umich.edu) p. 115
Figure 59: Relief fragment with profile of a male head, Museo Nazionale Romano: Rome
(image from www.umich.edu) p. 115
Figure 60: Colossal head from the provincial temple at Ephesus (Image from www.anistor.gr)
p. 126
Introduction Jessica Suess
1
Divine Justification: Flavian Imperial Cult
In this thesis I will examine and contrast three aspects of the Roman state imperial cult as
it existed under the Julio-Claudians and Domitian: the official state cult recorded by the Arval
Brothers (chapter one), and the role of the Genius of the princeps (chapter two), and the role of
the divi (chapter three) in the Roman state imperial cult. The purpose of this thesis is to
demonstrate that the nature of the official imperial cult under Domitian differed in several
significant ways from the imperial cult as it existed under the Julio-Claudians. I will also
suggest that the differences in cult reflect fundamental changes to the ideology of imperial power
that the imperial cult expressed and reflected. Julio-Claudian power was based on dynastic
connection to Augustus, and this elite descent in turn led each Julio-Claudian princeps to be
treated as a charismatic prince whose individual person and character were of special
significance.1
I will argue that it was precisely the dynastic and individual charismatic aspects
that were removed from the imperial cult by the reign of Domitian, under whom the form of the
imperial cult presented the princeps more as a chief magistrate than as a prince of Rome.
The comparative study that forms the core of this thesis hopes to challenge a trend in
much existing scholarship, one which treats Flavian cult as a simple continuation and
intensification of Julio-Claudian imperial cult, and in turn uses evidence from across the period
to draw general conclusions.2
I will argue that the imperial cult did not simply progress and
develop continuously in a single direction, but that there is in fact evidence for rupture and
fundamental change between the Julio-Claudian period and the reign of Domitian, and therefore
that evidence must be applied more cautiously.
1
On the dynastic elements of Julio-Claudian power see Gagé (1931); Lesuisse (1962); Lyasse (2008).
2
Eg. Rosso (2006) 127; Luke (2010) 99.
Introduction Jessica Suess
2
This thesis also hopes to address a trend in the scholarship which does examine
specifically Flavian cult, one which concentrates on the reign of Domitian because of the
comparatively rich evidence surviving from his reign as opposed to those of Vespasian and
Titus. As a result developments to the imperial cult that have been identified for the Flavian
period have often been assigned to Domitian’s reign and his personal autocratic character, while
Vespasian’s reign is often characterised as a time of religious scepticism and conservatism.3
However, looking at the character of the changes made to the imperial cult that I will identify
throughout the main body of this thesis, it seems to me that they are more appropriate to the
reign of Vespasian, the founder of a new dynasty with no charismatic bloodline with which to
justify his position, than Domitian, whose claim to power was hereditary. Therefore, as a
secondary purpose, at the end of each chapter I will address the possibility that some of the
changes made to the Julio-Claudian imperial cult identified from the evidence for Domitian’s
reign may in fact have been introduced under Vespasian. Unfortunately these sections of the
thesis can only be speculative as the evidence surviving from Vespasian’s reign is simply too
limited to provide a clear image of the imperial cult at the time. Nevertheless, I hope this will
demonstrate that assigning the introduction of changes to Domitian’s reign because that is when
they first appear is an argument based on the silence of the evidence, and that it is worth
considering the possibility that many changes were introduced earlier in the Flavian period.
I have limited the scope of this thesis to imperial cult conducted by the Roman state, a
sphere that requires definition and justification. With the term cult I refer both to ritual activities
- such as vows, supplications and sacrifices - and the apparatus that supported those activities -
3
Eg. Abaecherli (1932) 262; Fears (1977) esp. 222-252, (1981) esp. 74-97; Bengston (1979) 215; Strobel (1994)
359-395; Luke (2010) 77-78.
Introduction Jessica Suess
3
such as temples and priests. With the term imperial cult I refer to cult conducted in connection
with the princeps, but also other members of the imperial family, living and deceased, and deities
specifically connected with the imperial household. I say cult conducted in connection with the
princeps, rather than to the princeps, as although direct cult in the form of a state temple and
priest was decreed for Julius Caesar shortly before his death, this form of cultic recognition did
not continue.4
Augustus refused direct cult during his life, only allowing cult to be offered to
gods of the Roman state for his safety, prosperity and success; consequently imperial cult was
conducted for the princeps to a variety of different deities. This precedent was imitated by
Tiberius, in practice prohibiting direct cult for subsequent principes and institutionalising the
Augustan form of cultic recognition. Augustus did actively pursue state deification for his
afterlife, and after his death was made a god of the Roman state, also creating a precedent for
posthumous cult of the princeps and members of the imperial family.
With reference to the Roman ‘state’ I mean to focus on these activities as they were
undertaken by Rome as a corporate and political entity.5
This appears to be a distinction that was
relevant to the Romans themselves, as they often referred to cult conducted for the res publica,
nostra civitas, populus Romanus, senatusque populus Romanus Quiritium and so on.6
The
primary difficulty presented by this definition is determining what cultic activity falls into this
category. Gradel, who also defines ‘state cults or collectively the state cult’ as ‘performed on
4
Most modern scholars now agree that Caesar was decreed state cult before his death, as this is consistent with the
testimony of the contemporary Cicero (Philippica 2.110) and the majority of the other ancient sources (Suetonius,
De Vitis Caesarum (Caesar) 76.1; Appian, Civil War 2.106; Cassius Dio, Roman History 44.4), with the exception
of Plutarch (Caesar 67.8). On Caesar’s deification see Weinstock (1971) 276-287, 305-317; Fishwick (1987)
1.1:56-72; Gradel (2002) 54-72.
5
For similar definitions of state cult see Wissowa (1912) 398-399; Ando (1999) 14; Gradel (2002) 9-14; Koch
(2003) 299-300.
6
Eg. Cicero, De Re Publica 2.1; Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 6.41.8, 44.12.11; Horace, Carmina 3.6.
Introduction Jessica Suess
4
behalf of the whole city – or city-state’,7
suggests that one universal defining characteristic of all
state cults was that they were ‘performed or presided over by state magistrates’, including
priests.8
I will apply this same definition throughout this thesis.
By limiting my study to the Roman state cult I specifically mean to exclude domestic,
corporate and civic cults as I am primarily concerned with how the princeps and Rome’s state
administrative bodies used the imperial cult to formulate the role of the princeps in the state, and
what unified underlying ideology was applied to the disparate rituals conducted for the princeps
to a plethora of different deities. Other cults, although certainly influenced by the state cult,
were regulated by the individual participants of each, and thus could vary greatly in both their
form and ideology. For similar reasons of consistency I will treat Rome’s provincial cults only
briefly as supporting evidence for the nature of the imperial cult in Rome. Although these
provincial cults officially represented Roman provinces as corporate entities, they were distinct
from the Roman state imperial cult as, unlike in Rome, Augustus did not forbid direct cult from
the provinces. As a consequence the official provincial cults were fundamentally different from
the official cult conducted in Rome. Fortunately the Flavian provincial cults have already been
discussed in considerable depth by Fishwick,9
allowing consultation of the evidence without
significant distraction from the main topic.
As stated above, by examining the state cult I mean to concentrate on how cult was used
by the Roman state to formulate the role of the princeps within that state, however I do not
intend to focus on the agency of specific principes. This is because, although each princeps
7
Gradel (2002) 9-10.
8
Gradel (2002) 11.
9
Fishwick (1987-2004).
Introduction Jessica Suess
5
certainly had a dominant role in formulating the imperial cult conducted during his reign, he was
not the exclusive policy maker; rather it was a cooperative effort involving the princeps, the
senate, and state magistrates and priests. Traditionally ultimate power over the state cult rested
with the popular assembly, and even in the late republic some decisions regarding religious rites
were invalid without their official vote,10
however in practical terms this authority had long been
delegated to the senate.11
It was also senators who populated the official priestly colleges who
acted as consultants to the senate, which would then instruct magistrates and priests to act.12
It
has often been suggested that with the advent of the Principate primary power over state religion
transferred to the princeps as Pontifex Maximus,13
but this is an inaccurate interpretation of his
priestly position. The chief pontifex had the role of advisor to the senate on religious matters,
with his specific expertise relating to the correct wording of rites; he was also responsible for
overseeing the major flamines and the Vestal Virgins.14
Polk has convincingly argued that
although this position gave the princeps the most important role in Rome’s religion, it did not
give him absolute control over it,15
and thus each princeps also joined all the major priestly
colleges, thereby claiming a monopoly over all the religious bodies that advised the senate.
It was through the senate that the princeps passed his religious policies.16
Augustus’
reformation of the calendar was passed by senatus consultum,17
the doors of the temple of Janus,
which Suetonius says Augustus closed three times, were in fact closed by decree of the senate,18
10
Eg. Cicero, De Domo Sua 136; Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 9.46.6-7.
11
Wissowa (1912) 394-398; North (2000) 22; Ando (2003) 8.
12
Eg. Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 39.8.3-7, 39.18.7-9.
13
Eg. Dumézil (1970) 582-583.
14
Haeperen (2002) esp. 132; Vanggard (1998) esp. 56-58; Polk (2008) 65.
15
Polk (2008) 65.
16
Gordon (1990) 183; Liebeschuetz (1979) 56; North (2000) 33.
17
Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Augustus) 31.2; Censorinus, De Die Natale 22.
18
Augustus, Res Gestae 13; Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Augustus) 31.2; Cassius Dio, Roman History 51.20.
Introduction Jessica Suess
6
and after Augustus dedicated the temple of Mars Ultor in 2 BC, it was the senate that decreed
that the consuls should celebrate the ludi Martiales there annually.19
The role of the senate in
specifically imperial cult policy is well preserved:20
honours for members of the imperial family
were consistently passed ex senatus consulto,21
new imperial cult holidays entered into the
calendars were commonly recorded as included by the authority of the senate or consuls,22
new
imperial cult monuments, such as the Ara Pacis, were voted by the senate,23
and apotheosis was
decreed by the senate.24
Not all proposals that went through the senate were to the princeps’
taste, and thus some were refused: Tiberius refused consecratio for Livia,25
Gaius refused
sacrifices to his Genius,26
and Nero refused a temple to himself as a divus during his lifetime.27
At the same time the princeps was not always successful in his plans: for example Gaius’ request
that Tiberius receive the same posthumous honours as Augustus was ignored by the senate.28
Thus Roman state imperial cult policy should not be assigned entirely to the princeps or the
senate alone, but was formed by the cooperative efforts of all Rome’s governing bodies, the
individual influence of each varying over time.29
I further hope by concentrating my study on official state Roman religion to redress two
further problems found in many discussions of Flavian imperial cult emerging from Kenneth
19
Augustus, Res Gestae 22.2; cf. Brunt (1984) 437.
20
Talbert (1984) 459, (1984b) 62; Martin (1985) 225.
21
Augustus, Res Gestae 14; ILS 139; Tacitus, Annales 2.83, 4.9.
22
See Lott (1995) 29-31.
23
Augustus, Res Gestae 11.
24
Tacitus, Annales 1.10, 1.54; Cassius Dio, Roman History 56.46.
25
Tacitus, Annales 5.1; Cassius Dio, Roman History 58.2, 59.11; cf. Herz (1981) 324; Flory (1995) 132.
26
Cassius Dio, Roman History 59.4.4.
27
Tacitus, Annales 15.74.3.
28
Cassius Dio, Roman History 59.3.7; cf. Price (1987) 86; Polk (2008) 71.
29
Under the autocratic princeps Domitian, Tacitus suggests that the senate was in a state of complete servility
(Agricola 42). Evidence from Trajan’s reign suggests that the optimus princeps only referred minor matters to the
senate (Pliny, Epistulae 2.11.18, 3.20.12, 4.12.3, 4.25.5, 5.13.6-8, Panegyricus 76). By contrast, during the early
years of Tiberius’ reign there are extensive examples of him consulting the senate (see Brunt (1984) 423 with
references).
Introduction Jessica Suess
7
Scott’s Imperial Cult under the Flavians published in 1936. Although a thorough collection of
the literary, epigraphic and numismatic evidence as well as scholarship available at the time, his
analysis is problematic firstly because he relies heavily on the comments of the silver age poets
to make assertions about official cult practice, and secondly because he views imperial cult as an
aberrant practice imported from the east and applied to Rome as a political tool. Since the
publication of his study many examinations of Flavian religion have built on his work and have
consequently been influenced by the evidence he collected and his analysis.30
In response to the first of these problems, although I will certainly utilise literary
testimony, unlike Scott who concentrated on these sources, I will concentrate instead on
evidence produced by Rome’s state bodies, such as coins, monuments, and the Acta Fratrum
Arvalium, which is the core evidence for chapter one. The Arval Brothers were a state college of
twelve priests responsible for the cult of Dea Dia, primarily at her sacred grove on the Via
Campania.31
By the late republic the priesthood had dwindled in importance, but was
rejuvenated by Augustus, who also gave them responsibility for some state imperial cult rituals.32
Prosopographical evidence on the brotherhood collected by Scheid indicates that Augustus made
the college one of the most important in Rome: the princeps and members of the imperial family
were always members, and the rest of the brotherhood comprised loyal supporters who enjoyed
prestigious careers.33
From the time of their rejuvenation until at least the mid-third century AD,
each year the Arvals set up records of the rites they conducted on stelae in their grove. These
describe their rituals in varying detail, listing the date and location of the rituals, their purpose,
30
Eg. Bengston (1979); Winkler (1995); Clauss (1999), reviewed by Fears (2002) 319-321; Rosso (2006).
31
Scheid (1990) 95-102.
32
Scheid (1990) 679-694.
33
Scheid (1975) 335-366, (1990) 183-184; cf. Benoist (1999) 57-58.
Introduction Jessica Suess
8
what victims were sacrificed to which deities, who conducted the rituals and which brothers were
physically present on the occasion. The Acta Fratrum Arvalium have no surviving parallels and
their purpose is unknown,34
nevertheless it is clear that the college were important players in the
state imperial cult landscape, both from the prosopographical evidence, and from where their
rites were conducted.35
They undertook the January 3rd
vota – conducted by officials throughout
the empire – on the Capitol where the consuls conducted the same rituals;36
they conducted
sacrifices on the birthday of Divus Augustus at his temple where the sodales Augustales
sacrificed;37
and they undertook sacrifices at the Ara Pacis on the anniversary of its dedication
until the reign of Gaius, and according to Augustus’ Res Gestae magistrates, unspecified priests
and the Vestal Virgins were all instructed to conduct rituals at the same location on that day.38
Thus the Arvals appear to have been key players in the state imperial cult, working alongside
Rome’s other important magistrates and priests on behalf of the state. Consequently it is
reasonable to suggest that trends in their cultic practices may be representative of wider trends in
the state imperial cult.
Addressing the second problem emerging from Scott’s thesis, I will understand the
purpose of cult within a paradigm identified for the Mediterranean world by Simon Price,39
and
specifically applied to the Augustan imperial cult in Rome by his student Ittai Gradel.40
According to this paradigm cult can be understood as part of a hierarchical social economy in
which individuals granted one another favours, called officia or beneficia, which the recipient
34
On possible purposes for the records see Rüpke (2004) 34-37.
35
Scheid (1990) esp. 384-426.
36
Scheid (1990) 298-309.
37
Scheid (1990) 257; Gradel (2002) 181-182, 274-275.
38
Augustus, Res Gestae 12; on the Ara Pacis and its role in the imperial cult see Zanker (1988) 121-123; Lott
(1995) 32-58; Severy (2003) 104-111.
39
Price (1984a) esp. 234-248.
40
Gradel (2002) esp. 15-26.
Introduction Jessica Suess
9
was obliged to repay; failure to acknowledge and repay this debt was considered a grievous
social crime.41
Favours could be almost anything, such as political, financial and social aid, or
manumission. Debt was repaid with gratia, meaning good will, and the form of that gratia was
determined both by the magnitude of the favour and the status gap between the two parties.
Between senators gratia could be a favour of one’s own,42
in unequal relationships it often
manifested as a set of standard obligations,43
and manumission was a favour so great that it could
not be repaid within a lifetime, and thus freedmen had to both work for their ex-masters in life
and include them in their will at death.44
Masters and patroni were supreme benefactors to their
slaves and clientes, people entirely reliant on their benefactors for their livelihood, and in these
relationships gratia often manifested as cult of the superior’s Genius.45
The gods similarly had a
position in this economy as supreme benefactors at the peak of the hierarchy, and in addition to
other forms of gratia, they also received direct cultic gratia, such as vows and sacrifices made
directly to them.46
It was also not unknown for men, colleges and civic communities to offer
direct cultic gratia to men who were their particular benefactors, but the Roman state is not
known to have offered such gratia to any man other than Julius Caesar.47
The state had
previously paid gratia to important men - to generals like Scipio Africanus and Pompey and
statesmen like Cato Censorinus and Cicero - but the state paid this gratia in honours such as
41
On this economy see Saller (1982) esp. 7-37, defended (1990) 49-62; cf. Wallace-Hadrill (1990) 3-4; Konstan
(1997) 122-148; contra Sherwin-White (1983) 271-273; contemporary commentary Cicero, De Officiis 1.47, 1.59;
Seneca, De Beneficiis 1.10.4, 2.23, 3.12.3, 4.20, 7.31.1.
42
Eg. Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares 2.6.1-2, 7.23, 13.30-39; Pliny, Epistulae 1.14, 1.19.
43
Martial and Horace, equestrians who relied on their patrons to publicise their literary works, would attend their
benefactors’ morning salutationes and escort them through town on business (Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 38.51.6;
Horace, Saturae 2.6.23, 2.26.8; Juvenal, Saturae 1.117; Seneca, De Beneficiis 6.33-4; De Brevitate Vitae 14.3;
Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium 101.3; Martial, Epigrammata 3.36, 9.100, 10.10, 10.29).
44
Gaius, Institutiones 3.41; cf. Saller (1982) 24.
45
Gradel (2002) 36-44.
46
Gradel (2002) 27-32.
47
On cult of men before the Principate see Gradel (2002) 32-34, 44-53.
Introduction Jessica Suess
10
public statues,48
special privileges49
and supplicationes.50
Supplications were days of public
rejoicing decreed by the senate in response to benefactions bestowed on the state by men, in
particular military victories. On these days many of Rome’s shrines exhibited images of the
gods of the Roman state and the populus attended en masse and made offerings to them in thanks
for the benefaction of victory provided through the actions of the general; thus supplications
were simultaneously cultic gratia for the gods and honorific gratia for the general.51
It was
along the same lines as these supplications – in that cult was offered to the gods for the deeds or
safety of the princeps - that the imperial cult conducted from the reign of Augustus onwards was
formed. Thus within this paradigm imperial cult is understood as a way in which Roman society
formulated the position of the princeps in relation to the state, as a supreme benefactor with a
power to influence its prosperity that approached that of the gods.
Turning to the main body of this thesis, in chapter one I will compare and contrast the
nature of the state imperial cult conducted by the Arval Brothers. I will show that both the
calendar of dates on which rites were conducted and the pantheon of deities to receive sacrifices
for the princeps differed significantly under the Julio-Claudians and Domitian, and suggest that
these differences represented significant changes in the way that the position of the princeps was
formulated by the cult. Under the Julio-Claudians the cult calendar concentrated on the
anniversaries of days on which the princeps received powers from the state and on imperial
48
Eg. Velleius Paterculus, Historiae Romanae 2.43.4; Valerius Maximus, Factorum et Dictorum Memorabilium
6.9.14; Pliny, Historia Naturalis 34.19; Plutarch, Caesar 6.1; Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Caesar) 11; Cassius
Dio, Roman History 42.18.12, 43.49.1.
49
Eg. Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 38.56.12; Cornelius Nepos, De Viris Illustribus 56.5; Cassius Dio, Roman History
37.21.4.
50
On supplications see Weinstock (1971) 62-64.
51
Eg. Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares 15.13.1, Epistulae ad Atticum 7.2.6, in Catilinam 3.15, Philippica 14.29, 37;
Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 3.7.7, 5.23.3, 21.51.7, 27.51.7, 34.42.1, 40.37.3, 43.13.8, 45.2.6. On the wording of
accounts of gratia supplications see Hickson-Hahn (2004) esp. 58-67.
Introduction Jessica Suess
11
birthdays. The first of these types of events reflected the earthly powers of the princeps, voted to
him by the state administration, and the second the dynastic element of Julio-Claudian power, by
highlighting the importance of the Julio-Claudian family to the Principate. The pantheon of
deities to receive sacrifices for the Julio-Claudian principes also highlighted the dynastic source
of their power: the Capitoline Triad and Salus, who received sacrifices for the princeps on almost
all imperial cult occasions throughout the Julio-Claudian and Flavian periods, were regularly
joined by the divi – deified ancestors of the Julio-Claudian gens – and the Genius of the princeps
– the personal guardian spirit of the princeps that also ensured the continuation of his family
dynasty. Together this cult calendar and pantheon highlighted the earthly and dynastic sources
of Julio-Claudian imperial power, and created a cult of personality around the princeps,
presenting him as a prince of Rome.
I will demonstrate that, by contrast, under Domitian annual imperial cult was no longer
conducted on anniversaries or imperial birthdays, and both the divi and the Genius of the
princeps were removed from the pantheon of deities who received sacrifices; consequently the
focus of the imperial cult changed significantly. The only annual imperial cult rites from the
Julio-Claudian period that continued to be conducted under Domitian were the January 3rd
vota.
These rites, rather than focussing on the personal and individual claims to power of the
incumbent princeps, focussed on the Principate as an important institution in the Roman state
that was maintained over individual reigns and dynasties. I will argue that as a result of
maintaining this ritual, which focussed on the Principate rather than the incumbent princeps, and
the lack of attention paid to the individual character of the princeps, by the reign of Domitian the
Introduction Jessica Suess
12
form of the Arval imperial cult characterised the princeps more as a chief magistrate responsible
to the Roman state than a prince nurtured by the state.
At the conclusion of this chapter I will suggest that the evidence leaves it an open
possibility that the changes made to the Arval cult calendar and pantheon by the reign of
Domitian, although they were certainly not yet introduced during the civil war period, may have
been introduced during the reign of Vespasian. I will argue that this is a possibility worth
considering firstly because the literary sources also suggest that major changes were made to the
imperial cult calendar during the reign of Vespasian, and secondly because the nature of the
changes made to the Arval imperial cult – suppression of the state and dynastic sources of
imperial power - appear to be more suited to the reign of Vespasian than Domitian. Vespasian
was the founder of a new dynasty with no significant ancestors on which to base his claim to
power, and unlike his civil war predecessors he did not date his accession to the time that he was
recognised by the senate and invested with state powers, but from the time that he was
recognised by his armies. Domitian’s claim to the Principate was his dynastic connection to
Vespasian, and the powers he accepted at the start of his reign.
In chapter two I will take a closer look at the role of the Genius of the princeps in Roman
state cult, iconography and ideology. The Genius of the princeps was gradually incorporated
into the Roman state imperial cult during the reigns of Augustus and the Julio-Claudians,
becoming a key figure probably by the reign of Gaius, and certainly by the reign of Nero.
Accompanying its increasingly important role in cult, under Nero the Genius of the princeps also
adopted a new iconography. Previously the Genius of the princeps was depicted in the same
Introduction Jessica Suess
13
guise as the Genius of any man, but on Neronian coinage the Genius Augusti was depicted using
the traditional iconography of the Genius Populi Romani. With this change in iconography I will
argue that the ideology of the Genius in state religion also changed: the role of primary guardian
spirit of the Roman state that had belonged to the Genius of Rome’s traditional sovereign body,
the Roman people, was usurped by the guardian spirit of the princeps, emphasising his role as
prince of Rome.
I will argue that under Domitian the role of the Genius of the princeps in cult and
iconography was significantly different from under Nero, being all but absent from both. I will
argue that the general absence of the Genius of the princeps from evidence for cult and
iconography should be interpreted as a suppression of its role in imperial ideology on the basis of
evidence for a new iconographic theme on three monumental sculptural reliefs surviving from
Domitian’s reign. On these three reliefs the Genius of the princeps is not only conspicuous by its
absence, but the place occupied by the Genius Augusti under Nero was given to a triad of deities
comprised of the Genius Populi Romani, Genius Senatus and the goddess Roma, which were
used in all three reliefs to represent and personify the Roman state. Contrasting with the
Neronian iconography which suggested that Nero’s wellbeing was the wellbeing of the state, on
these reliefs the princeps is depicted serving the state, again taking on the guise of a magistrate
or benefactor rather than a prince.
In the final section of this chapter I will argue that the changes made to the iconography
of the Genius by Domitian’s reign may already have been introduced under Vespasian. I will
show that Genius Populi Romani coins minted at the end of the civil war period and at the start
Introduction Jessica Suess
14
of the Flavian period show a definitive reaction against the iconographic presentation of the
Neronian Genius Augusti. I will show that alongside these unusual Genius Populi Romani coins,
Vespasian’s reign also saw the minting of new Genius Senatus coins, pre-empting the
Domitianic use of this deity. Finally I will argue that there is also numismatic evidence that the
Genius Populi Romani and the Genius Senatus, which are traditionally thought to have appeared
together for the first time under Domitian, may in fact have been depicted together on the
coinage under Vespasian. Thus I will argue that this iconographic evidence suggests that the
themes evident in Domitianic iconography and ideology of the Genius, which appear to reflect
its role in cult under Domitian, may already have been in use under Vespasian; though again this
suggestion can only be speculative.
In chapter three I will examine the role of the divi in Roman state cult and religion. It
will be seen that the divi were in fact promoted as important ancestors of the princeps under both
the Julio-Claudians and Domitian, but that this was done in significantly different ways. In the
Julio-Claudian imperial cult the primary role of the divi appears to have been as protectors of the
current princeps, and as such they were regular recipients of sacrifices for the princeps from the
Arvals. By contrast, not only were the Julio-Claudian divi removed from the pantheon of deities
to receive sacrifices for the princeps, this time certainly under Vespasian, they were never
replaced by the Flavian divi, even under Domitian who saw four members of his family deified,
more than under any other princeps.
Despite this disassociation of the divi from the cult conducted for the princeps that this
change in the Arval cult represented, I will argue that Domitian nevertheless used the Flavian
Introduction Jessica Suess
15
divi to bolster his claim to power through dynasty by promoting each Flavian divus not
individually, as they were under the Julio-Claudians, but as a collective, with shared temples and
priests, creating the idea of a distinctive Flavian heaven from which the princeps drew power. I
will show that this contrast between individual promotion and collective treatment of divi was
not isolated to Rome, but was also seen in the provincial imperial cult. Under the JulioClaudians
provincial cults were exclusively dedicated to a single princeps or divus, sometimes in
combination with other individually specified deities such as the goddess Roma. By contrast, the
provincial cult established at Ephesus in Asia under Domitian was dedicated to the Sebastoi, a
collective including multiple divi as well as the princeps and living members of the imperial
family, who were not excluded from direct cult as they were in Rome. Although the prominence
of the Flavian divi in Domitianic Rome demonstrates a promotion of ideas of dynasty under
Domitian, something that will not have been seen in previous chapters, it did so in a way that
again did not focus on the individual as a charismatic individual, so on the individual divi, but on
the divi as part of something bigger, just as the princeps was not promoted as an individual, but
as part of the Principate.
Again at the end of this chapter I will turn my attention to the reign of Vespasian. I will
suggest that although the prolific deification of members of the Flavian imperial family appears
to have been a specifically Domitianic phenomenon, with Vespasian apparently making no
attempts to deify any of his ancestors and deifications under Titus being limited to Divus
Vespasianus, there are connections between other Vespasianic and Domitianic policies towards
the divi. It was under Vespasian that the divi were removed from the cult of the princeps
conducted by the Arvals, and this was maintained in cult form by Domitian, with the divi
Introduction Jessica Suess
16
continuing to be excluded from the Arval cult, if not in spirit through his other use of the divi.
Further, there is direct Vespasianic precedent for Domitian’s treatment of the divi as a collective
in the provinces, as the first provincial cults of the Sebastoi were dedicated during his reign.
Although it is impossible to say how much this provincial policy may have influenced policy
towards the divi in Rome, that Vespasian was concerned with the divi in Rome is clear from his
maintenance of the cult of Divus Claudius.
Thus at the end of this thesis I hope to have identified several significant differences
between the Roman state imperial cult under the Julio-Claudians and Domitian, not only in form,
but also in the underlying ideology that the form of the cult communicated and reflected. I also
hope to have shown that it is a valid possibility that many of the changes made to the cult by
Domitian’s reign may in fact have been introduced under Vespasian, the significance of whose
reign to the development of the Roman state imperial cult, I feel, may often have been
overlooked due to an unfortunate scarcity of surviving evidence.
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


17
Chapter One: Arval Rituals
This chapter will compare the character of the imperial cult conducted by the Arvals
under the Julio-Claudians and Domitian. Fortunately the surviving Arval evidence from
Domitian’s reign, though incomplete, provides a useful cross section from which to draw
conclusions. Records survive from nine different years, including extended sections
spanning from January to September AD 87 and January to November AD 91. The Arval
evidence for the Julio-Claudian period part of this comparison is more uneven, with the most
consistent evidence surviving from the reigns of Gaius and Nero: much of AD 38-40 survives
from Gaius’ reign, with AD 38 surviving in full, and records from eight different years of
Nero’s reign survive, with AD 59 in full. The surviving evidence from the reigns of Tiberius
and Claudius is much more sporadic, but fortunately it has been much discussed and
consistently verifies observations made from the more intact records. A table listing all the
imperial cult rites preserved in the Acta Fratrum Arvalium from the reigns of Tiberius to
Domitian is provided in Appendix One.
The overall conclusion of this chapter will be that both the calendar of events marked
with imperial cult and the pantheon of deities to receive cult on these occasions differed
significantly under the Julio-Claudians and Domitian. Section one will show that annual cult
conducted both on the anniversaries of days on which the princeps received important powers
and on imperial birthdays formed the core of the Arval imperial cult calendar under the JulioClaudians,
but by the reign of Domitian annual cult on both these types of days had ceased:
imperial birthdays were not included in the Arval calendar at all, and Domitian’s assumptions
of powers were marked only once, with extraordinary cult (1.1). Section two will examine
the only annual imperial cult rituals from the Julio-Claudian period that did continue to be
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


18
conducted annually under Domitian, the January 3rd
vota, and the evolution of these vota
from the reign of Tiberius to Domitian. Particular attention will be paid to the changing
pantheon of deities to receive sacrifices on this day, which reflects general changes in the
Arval imperial cult pantheon. The Capitoline Triad and Salus were recipients of sacrifices
from the Arvals on almost all imperial cult occasions preserved in their records. Under the
Julio-Claudians this standard pantheon was consistently joined by the divi, deified ancestors
of the Julio-Claudian family, and the Genius of the princeps, a deity responsible for the
prosperity and continuation of the Julio-Claudian household. Both these types of deities were
absent from the pantheon under Domitian. In this section I will also examine the only new
annual imperial cult rite introduced into the Arval calendar under Domitian, a second annual
vota conducted on January 22nd
which appears to have augmented the January 3rd
vota (1.2).
In section three I will bring together the evidence for the changing cult calendar and
take a closer look at the changing character of the pantheon of deities to receive sacrifices for
the princeps. I will conclude that the Julio-Claudian Arval imperial cult calendar focussed on
the earthly and dynastic sources of Julio-Claudian imperial power, creating a cult of
personality around the individual incumbent princeps. At the same time the strong presence
of the divi and Genius in the Julio-Claudian imperial cult pantheon again emphasised the
dynastic source of imperial power. The removal of these elements from the cult calendar by
the reign of Domitian diminished the importance of these power bases in the cult. Further,
the focus placed on the January 3rd
vota and the new January 22nd
vota, by the removal of
other annual events, focussed the imperial cult as a whole on the importance of the Principate
as an institution in the state rather than on the individual incumbent princeps (1.3).
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


19
In the final section of this chapter I will suggest the possibility that many of the
changes made to the Julio-Claudian imperial cult by the reign of Domitian were first
introduced under Vespasian. This suggestion can only be speculative because of the nature
of the surviving evidence: only twelve individual entries in the Acta Fratrum Arvalium
survive from Vespasian’s decade long reign, and only four of these relate to the imperial cult,
the rest relate to the cult of Dea Dia or membership rituals.1
Nevertheless I will suggest that
information about the reign of Vespasian can be inferred from the fairly complete records that
survive from directly before and directly after his tenure. Complete records survive from the
first six months of AD 69, a period that encompasses portions of the reigns of Galba, Otho
and Vitellius. The rituals recorded are consistent with those conducted under Nero,
suggesting that little change was made to Arval imperial cult practices before the reign of
Vespasian. Similarly two continuous sections of the Arval records survive from Titus’ brief
two year reign, and together they cover an almost sixteen month period from May 29th
AD 80
to May 1st
AD 81, and from May 17th
to September 14th
AD 81. Despite the comprehensive
nature of the surviving sections only two imperial cult rituals are recorded, however what is
recorded suggests that both the dramatic decrease in annual rituals and the change in the
pantheon, clearly evident under Domitian, were already in place during Titus’ reign, and
therefore allows for the possibly that they were introduced under Vespasian (1.4).


1.1: Anniversary and Birthday Cult
Under the Julio-Claudians the events most often marked by the Arval Brothers with
sacrifices were the days on which the princeps received state powers, and the anniversaries of
those days throughout the rest of his reign. Benoist argues that these days represented the






























































1
On these rituals see Scheid (1990) 451-464, 506-514.
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


20
earthly sources of the power of the princeps, and that these rituals sanctified them annually.2
This pattern of anniversary cult is made clear from the surviving Arval evidence from the
reigns of Gaius and Nero. Under Gaius the Arvals conducted cult on the anniversaries of the
days on which Gaius was first hailed imperator (March 18th
AD 37),3
when he first entered
the city as princeps (March 28th
AD 37),4
and when he assumed the title pater patriae
(September 21st
AD 38).5
Although not an anniversary per se, Gaius’ assumption of his
second consulship on January 1st
AD 39 was also sanctified by the Arvals with sacrifices.6
Consulship rituals appear to fall into the same category as anniversary cult as they too related
to earthly powers bestowed on the princeps by the state, and sanctified them for the year.7
A
similar calendar of anniversary cult probably continued to be conducted under Claudius, for
although the Acta Fratrum Arvalium from his reign are very fragmentary, a definite example
survives of a rite conducted on the anniversary of his assumption of the title pater patriae
(January 12th
AD 42) in an unknown year, suggesting that the same general pattern
continued.8
Under Nero anniversary cult was conducted annually for his assumption of
tribunicia potestas (December 4th
AD 54)9
and imperium (October 13th
AD 54),10
and rites
were also undertaken for his assumption of the consulship in various years.11
These types of anniversaries appear to have been important in the imperial cult from
the very beginning of the Principate.12
Although little remains from the Acta Fratrum






























































2
Benoist (1999) 196-213; cf. Scheid (1990) 385-394.
3
CFA 12c:8-14, 13e:12-17.
4
CFA 12c:15-19.
5
CFA 12c:83-91. On Gaius’ accession see Jakobson and Cotton (1985) 497-503.
6
CFA 13abcd:4-11.
7
On Arval consulship rituals see Scheid (1990) 393-395.
8
CFA 17:1-14.
9
CFA 25b:14-21, 27:19-23.
10
CFA 27:9-14, 28a-c:48-50, 30cef.II:34-40.
11
CFA 25a:1-7, 26a-lr:1-12, 27:64-27, 28de:15-23, 33:1-5.
12
Benoist (1999) 197-201.
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


21
Arvalium from the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, many contemporary calendars survive
from throughout Italy in which similar days are marked as holidays. Although these
calendars were produced by a variety of different groups – such as municipal governments or
collegial affiliations – they were most likely derived from an official Roman example. This
is indicated by the fact that, accounting for additions over time, the calendars are consistent
with one another, and their content is verified by literary sources, including Augustus’ Res
Gestae and Ovid’s Fasti.13
For Augustus, days on which he bestowed important benefactions
on Rome – such as his victory at Alexandria which saved Rome from Marcus Antonius and
Cleopatra and his restoration of the res publica – and days that saw him take up earthly
powers – such as the day he first took up the fasces, the day he first assumed the consulship,
the day the senate awarded him the title Augustus and the day he became Pontifex Maximus –
were recorded as festive days in the calendars.14
Tiberius’ military victory at Illyricum was
similarly noted, as was his assumption of earthly powers, such as the role of Pontifex
Maximus following Augustus’ death.15
The Augustan and Tiberian cult calendars differ from the Arval calendar under the
later Julio-Claudians in that benefactions, seemingly marked annually under Augustus and
Tiberius, were marked by the Arvals under the Julio-Claudians with singular extraordinary
rituals rather than annual cult. Furthermore, in addition to benefactions bestowed on Rome
by the princeps being marked with extraordinary cult, under the Julio-Claudians benefactions
received by the princeps, such as the detection of conspiracies against him, also appear to
have been marked by the Arvals with extraordinary cult. The Arval records from Nero’s






























































13
Lott (1995) 29-31; Benoist (1999) 31-36.
14
Fasces: January 7th
(Fasti Praenestini, Feriale Cumanum); consulship: August 19th
(Feriale Cumanum, Fasti
Antiates Minores); title Augustus: January 26th
(Fasti Praenestini, Feriale Cumanum); Pontifex Maximus:
March 6th
(Fasti Praenestini, Fasti Maffeiani, Feriale Cumanum).
15
Illyricum: October 23rd
(Fasti Praenestini); Pontifex Maximus: March 10th
(Fasti Praenestini; Fasti Vaticani).
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


22
reign preserve testimony of extraordinary cult conducted for Nero’s departure to war and
military victories,16
the detection of conspiracies,17
the safe pregnancy of Nero’s wife
Poppaea,18
and for Nero’s various adventus.19
Each occasion saw a one-off Arval ritual that
was not repeated in later years.20
These slight differences in cult patterns may indicate that while under Augustus the
princeps’ actions on behalf of Rome were considered a primary source of and justification for
his power and position in the state, by the reigns of Gaius, Claudius and Nero the Principate
had become institutionalised, and it was the powers granted to them by the state that were
considered the primary source of their position. Nevertheless, the Augustan and Tiberian
calendars indicate that the anniversaries of days on which the princeps received official state
powers were considered important annual events from the beginning of the Principate, and
that by marking them annually the Arvals were continuing a longer tradition.
Alongside his official powers, the dynastic source of Tiberius’ power was also
recognised in the calendars, as his adoption by Augustus (June 26th
AD 4) was a holiday.21
This source of imperial power also appears to have been important in the Arval cult
conducted under the later Julio-Claudians, as Nero’s adoption by Claudius also saw annual
sacrifices from the Arvals throughout Nero’s reign (February 25th
AD 50).22
The importance
of the role of the Julio-Claudian dynasty in justifying and securing the power of the princeps
was also incorporated into cult calendars through the frequent celebration of imperial






























































16
CFA 30cd.I:8-14, 30cef.II:1-11; cf. Scheid (1990) 403-408.
17
CFA 28a-c:10-16, 30cd.I:1-8; cf. Scheid (1990) 394-403.
18
CFA 29.I:18-24.
19
CFA 28a-c:24-32, 28a-c:33-40, 29.II:1-29, 30cef.II:27-29; on the importance of adventus see Benoist (2005)
79-91.
20
On extraordinary Arval cult see Scheid (1990) 408-411.
21
Fasti Amiternini.
22
CFA 26a-lr:28-32, 34:12-18; cf. Scheid (1990) 394-396.
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


23
birthdays. According to the surviving calendars and other sources, at various different times
under Augustus and Tiberius the birthdays of both principes, and also Livia, Gaius Caesar,
Lucius Caesar, Drusus, Germanicus, and probably also Germanicus’ sons Nero and Drusus,
were all festive days.23
Similarly many imperial birthdays were marked with annual rituals
by the Arvals. Under Gaius sacrifices were undertaken on the birthdays of the princeps, the
deceased Tiberius and Livia, Gaius’ grandmother Antonia Minor, his deceased father
Germanicus and mother Agrippina, and on the birthdays of Divus Augustus and Diva
Drusilla, though not on Drusilla’s birthday during her lifetime.24
The only references to
birthday rites from the extremely fragmentary Arval records from Claudius’ reign are to
Divus Augustus’ birthday in unknown years,25
but similar cult may have continued as
according to Cassius Dio equestrian games were held on Claudius’ birthday, the Praetorians
observed the birthdays of Claudius’ wife Messalina and son Britannicus, and Claudius
introduced public games on the birthdays of his deceased father Drusus and mother
Antonia.26
Under Nero cult was undertaken on the birthdays of the princeps, his mother
Agrippina and wife Messalina during their lives, and on the birthday of Nero’s deceased
biological father Domitius Ahenorbarbus.27
According to the Arval records, under Tiberius
and early in Gaius’ reign birthdays simply saw sacrifices to Jupiter, but later in Gaius’ reign
Jupiter was joined by the rest of the Capitoline Triad, and by the reign of Nero they were also
joined by the divi and the Genius of the princeps.28
This plethora of imperial birthdays
marked with cult would have given the Julio-Claudian dynasty an unmistakable presence in






























































23
See Benoist (1999) 213-232 with references.
24
Gaius: CFA 12c:77-82; Tiberius: CFA 12d:5-10; Livia: CFA 12c:1-4, 13e:1-3; Antonia: CFA 12c:5-7, 13e:4-
11; Germanicus: 12c:29-36, 14.I:1-9; Agrippina: 13fgh:9-16; Divus Augustus: CFA 12c:92-109; Diva Drusilla:
14.I:19-26.
25
CFA 18:1-18, 19:1-10.
26
Cassius Dio, Roman History 60.5, 60.12.4, 60.17.9; cf. Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Claudius) 11.2.
27
Nero: CFA 24:6-14, 25b:28-31, 28de:9-14, 28f:1-10; Agrippina: CFA 25b:6-14, 27:15-18; Domitius
Ahenorbarbus: CFA 24:1-5, 25b:22-27, 27:24-28, 28de:3-8; Messalina: CFA 37:1-3; cf. Scheid (1990) 412-417.
28
Aberrantly, on the birthday of Domitius Ahenorbarbus rites were conducted to the penates before his ancestral
home (see Scheid (1990) 417).
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


24
the Roman state cult, and the inclusion of dynastic deities such as the divi and Genius in the
pantheon by the reign of Nero indicates the role of these rituals in highlighting the dynastic
source of imperial power.
Thus it seems that the dominant annual rituals conducted by the Arvals under the
Julio-Claudians, which formed the core of their cult calendar, focussed on the earthly power
and dynastic descent of the princeps. These same rituals also built a cult of personality
around the princeps as they concentrated on things specific to his individual character: his
anniversaries and family. This set the Julio-Claudian principes apart from Rome’s other
magistrates, who were also vested with state power, but who were interchangeable, while the
princeps was a charismatic head of individual importance.
By contrast, although extraordinary rituals were conducted shortly after Domitian’s
accession in AD 81 for his reception of imperium (September 14th
)29
and tribunicia potestas
(September 30th
),30
the anniversaries of these events were not marked with cult by the Arvals
in subsequent years. Furthermore, the birthdays of Domitian, living members of the imperial
family and the Flavian divi were all absent from the Arval records. These absences seem to
represent a remarkable contrast considering the core role that these anniversaries played in
the Julio-Claudian Arval calendar.
1.2: Principate Cult
Although the annual anniversary and birthday rituals that dominated the JulioClaudian
Arval imperial cult calendar ceased to be conducted annually by the reign of






























































29
CFA 49:27-32.
30
CFA 49:33-38.
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


25
Domitian, one annual ritual was conducted consistently throughout the Julio-Claudian and
Flavian periods: the January 3rd
vota. According to Weinstock the conception of the January
3rd
vota dates from the time of Julius Caesar when the senate decreed that vows and sacrifices
should be conducted annually for Caesar’s welfare.31
Weinstock argues that this involved
including Caesar’s welfare alongside that of the state in the vota for its prosperity conducted
annually on January 1st
.32
During this January 1st
ritual, led by the consuls, victims were
promised to the Capitoline Triad and Salus on the same day the following year if they
preserved the safety of the state, and the victims promised the previous year were sacrificed.33
No explicit evidence survives to support Weinstock’s supposition that Julius Caesar was
included in this rite, nevertheless similar vows, though apparently not as part of the January
1st
vota, appear to have been conducted for Augustus as he claims that the senate ordered the
consuls and priests to conduct vows for his wellbeing every five years.34
The Arval records
preserve vows for the wellbeing of the Principate, modelled on those undertaken for the state
on January 1st
, conducted annually on January 3rd
from at least AD 28 onwards.35
Literary
sources verify that the January 3rd
vota were conducted throughout the empire.36
I refer to
these vota as being for the prosperity of the Principate, rather than the princeps, firstly
because it was not only the safety of the princeps that was requested on January 3rd
, but also
certain members of his family, again alluding to the important role of the continuation of the
Julio-Claudian dynasty to the security and prosperity of the Principate. Under Tiberius, Livia
and the sons and grandsons of their household were included in the vota in some years.37
In
AD 38 Gaius’ sisters may have been included alongside him, for although only his generic






























































31
Cassius Dio, Roman History 44.6.1.
32
Weinstock (1971) 217-220.
33
Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 21.63.7; Ovid, Fasti 1.79-88; Tacitus, Annales 4.70.1; Cassius Dio, Roman History
45.17.9; cf. Benoist (1999) 161-170.
34
Augustus, Res Gestae 9; cf. Strothmann (2000) 189-190.
35
On these vota see Scheid (1990) esp. 298-311; cf. Moralee (2004) 25-27.
36
Eg. Tacitus, Agricola 21; Pliny, Epistulae 10.35-36, 101-102.
37
CFA 6:1-6, 7a.II:13-23.
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


26
domus is not mentioned in the rite conducted on the Capitol on January 3rd
AD 38, a
subsidiary rite appears to have been conducted on January 11th
when the brothers sacrificed a
cow to Dea Dia, vowed on January 3rd
, to ensure the luck and prosperity of Gaius and his
sisters.38
Cassius Dio also says that Gaius’ sisters were included in the prayers conducted
annually by the magistrates for his safety.39
Only fragmentary evidence survives from
Claudius’ reign,40
but under Nero his wife Octavia was certainly included in the vota before
her death, and his other wives probably later.41
The second reason I refer to the January 3rd
vota as conducted for the Principate rather than the princeps is because, unlike any other
imperial cult conducted by the Arvals, it was conducted on the same day every year under all
principes, rather than on a date of specific relevance to the individual princeps. This
highlights its relevance to the institution rather than the individual.
The vota continued during the civil war period, being conducted for Galba on January
3rd
AD 69, and later in that year substitutes for the vota were conducted for Otho and
Vitellius shortly after their accessions. That the rite conducted for Otho on January 26th
was
a substitute for the January 3rd
rite is indicated by the fact that the vows made were to be
fulfilled on January 3rd
the following year.42
III K(alendas) Febr(uarias) mag(istro) Imp(eratore) M(arco) Othone Caesare Aug(usto)
promag(istro) / L(ucio) Salvio Othone Titiano colleg(ii) fratrum [A]rval(ium) nomine im/molavit in
[Cap]itolio ob vota nuncupata pro salute Imp(eratoris) M(arci) / Othonis Caesari[s A]ug(usti) in
annum proximum in III Non(as) Ianuar(ias) / Iovi b(ovem) m(arem) Iunoni vacc(am) Minervae
vacc(am) Saluti p(ublicae) p(opuli) R(omani) vacc(am) divo / Aug(usto) b(ovem) m(arem) divae
Aug(ustae) vacc(am) divo Claudio b(ovem) m(arem) in collegi(o) adfuerunt / L(ucius) Salvius Otho
Titianus L(ucius) Maecius Postumus P(ublius) Valerius M[a]/rinus M(arcus) Raecius Taurus.43






























































38
CFA 12a:1-25.
39
Cassius Dio, Roman History 59.3; cf. Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Gaius) 15.
40
CFA 23:1-9.
41
CFA 26a-lr:3-22, 27:37-48, 28de:24-32, 35ab.II:1-7.
42
See Scheid (1990) 309.
43
CFA 40[1-7].I:46-54.
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


27
Three days before the kalends of February when Imperator Marcus Otho Caesar Augustus was
president and Lucius Salvius Otho Titianus was vice-president of the college of Arval Brothers, on
account of vows made for the safety of Imperator Marcus Otho Caesar Augustus for January 3rd
of the
coming year, sacrifices were made in the name of the college, an ox to Jupiter, a cow to Juno, a cow
to Minerva, a cow to Salus Publica Populi Romani, an ox to Divus Augustus, a cow to Diva Augusta
and an ox to Divus Claudius. Present from the college were Lucius Salvius Otho Titianus, Lucius
Maecius Postumus, Publius Valerius Marinus and Marcus Raecius Taurus.
That the first Arval rite conducted under Vitellius was also a substitute for the January 3rd
vota is indicated by the pantheon to which the sacrifices were made. By the end of the JulioClaudian
period the standard pantheon to which the January 3rd
vota were conducted was the
Capitoline Triad and Salus along with the divi. The Capitoline Triad and Salus were the
pantheon of the January 1st
vota, though it must be noted that the form of the January 1st
vota
has been extrapolated by scholars from comparison with the January 3rd
vota and a passage
from Livy which describes the rite as beginning with a sacrifice on the Capitol to Jupiter and
concluding with a sacrifice to Salus.44
Divus Augustus was added to the pantheon under
Gaius, and he was joined by Diva Augusta under Claudius, and by Divus Claudius under
Nero. Diva Poppaea and Diva Claudia Virgo may also have been added to the pantheon later
in Nero’s reign, as they received sacrifices for Nero on other occasions, but the last surviving
example of the vota from his reign comes from AD 63, before their deifications. The vota
conducted for Galba in AD 69 were made to the same pantheon, though Diva Poppaea and
Diva Claudia were removed if they had ever been included, and the same pantheon appears
again in the Othonian substitute. Significantly, under Galba and Otho these vota are the only
Arval imperial cult rituals to include the divi in their pantheon. If the same pattern was
followed under Vitellius then the first rite that the Arvals conducted for him, the only
surviving Vitellian rite to include the divi in its pantheon, must also be a substitute for the
vota.






























































44
Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 4.14-15; cf. Schwarte (1977) 226; Scheid (1990) esp. 298-309.
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


28
isdem co(n)s(ulibus) pr(idie) Idus Mart(ias) / vota nu<m=N>cupata pro s[al]ute et reditu [[Vitelli]]
Germanici Imp(eratoris) praeeunte L(ucio) Maecio / Postumo mag(isterio) [[Vitelli]] Germanici
Imp(eratoris) promag(istro) Maecio Postumo coll(egii) fra(trum) / Arval(ium) nomine Iov(i) b(ovem)
m(arem) Iun(oni) vacc(am) Min(ervae) vacc(am) Saluti p(ublicae) p(opuli) R(omani) vacc(am) divo
Aug(usto) b(ovem) m(arem) / divae Aug(ustae) vacc(am) divo Claudio b(ovem) m(arem). In coll(egio)
adf(uit) L(ucius) Maecius Postumus.45
When the same men were consuls, on the day before the ides of March46
vows were made for the
safety and return of Vitellius Germanicus Imperator. The proceedings were led by Lucius Maecius
Postumus when Vitellius Germanicus Imperator was president and Maecius Postumus was vicepresident
of the college of Arval Brothers, and in the name of the college he promised an ox to
Jupiter, a cow to Juno, a cow to Minerva, a cow to Salus Publica Populi Romani, an ox to Divus
Augustus, a cow to Diva Augusta and an ox to Divus Claudius. Present from the college was Lucius
Maecius Postumus.
That these substitutes were conducted indicates the perceived importance of this ritual in
maintaining the continuation and prosperity of the Principate.
Under the Flavians these rites continued to be conducted for the safety of the princeps
and select members of the imperial family. The surviving records show that until AD 78 they
were undertaken for the safety of Vespasian and Titus,47
and in AD 79 Domitian joined
them.48
During the reign of Titus they were undertaken for the safety of Titus, Domitian, and
Titus’ daughter Julia.49
These incarnations of the vota differ from those which had been
conducted before in that the divi were conspicuously absent from the pantheon, which
consisted only of the Capitoline Triad and Salus.






























































45
CFA 40[1-7].I:76-80.
46
The date of this rite, March 14th
, is contentious, for although Otho had already left Rome, he had not yet
encountered Vitellius, and the Vitellian party was not yet dominant in Rome (Benoist (2001) 286-288). Scheid
suggests that the rite was conducted for Otho but was retrospectively assigned to Vitellius ((1998) 107). This,
however, would be inconsistent as the Acta Fratrum Arvalium were only engraved once a year and no other rites
were reassigned (Beard (1985) 125-127). A more likely possibility is that the date is simply recorded
inaccurately, and the rite was actually conducted in mid-April. News of Otho's suicide reached Rome during the
ludi of Ceres, April 12th
-18th
, and Vitellius apparently received allegiance immediately (Tacitus, Historiae 2.55).
47
CFA 43aa'bcdf:1-10; 44a:1-16.
48
CFA 45:1-8.
49
CFA 48:35-61.
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


29
Following Titus’ death a substitute for the January 3rd
vota appears to have been
conducted for Domitian on October 1st
AD 81.50
The entry in the Acta Fratrum Arvalium
records first the fulfilment of vows previously made with sacrifices to the Capitoline Triad,
Salus, and the Genius of Domitian; this is the only occasion on which the imperial Genius
appears in the surviving Flavian Arval records and is discussed further in chapter two.
Following the fulfilment of these vows, further vows are made for the future safety of
Domitian, Domitia and Julia, but these are made only to the Capitoline Triad and Salus; this
ambiguity is again discussed in chapter two. Although, unlike in the Othonian example, it is
not explicitly stated that these new vows should be fulfilled on January 3rd
, this must be what
was intended as the January 3rd
vota are the only rites in which family members were
included under Domitian.51
Throughout the rest of Domitian’s reign the vota were conducted
as usual on January 3rd
for the safety of Domitian, his wife Domitia, and Julia before her
death in AD 89, to the same set of deities that were used under Vespasian and Titus, the
Capitoline Triad and Salus, without the divi.52
Although in general the Domitianic form of the January 3rd
vota followed that of his
Flavian predecessors, the records from Domitian’s reign do include a unique variation in the
composition of the pantheon, this time in connection with the goddess Salus. In all earlier
recorded January 3rd
vota the goddess appears either as Salus, or a variation of Salus Publica.
Under Domitian before AD 91 she most often appeared as Salus Publica Populi Romani
Quiritum. In AD 91 she appeared as Salus Augusta Publica Populi Romani Quiritum;53
this
is the first reference to Salus as Salus Augusta in the surviving Arval records. Unfortunately






























































50
CFA 49:39-51.
51
Cf. Scheid (1990) 314.
52
CFA 54:1-26; 55.I:1-50; 58:1-28; 59:1-23; 60:1-11.
53
CFA 59:18.
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


30
the records from after AD 91 are not complete enough to determine whether this change was
maintained. It has been suggested that this change in title was designed to place emphasis on
the importance of the personal safety of the princeps, an action considered appropriate for an
autocrat like Domitian.54
However, I would like to suggest that the emergence of Salus
Augusta in the Arval records may only have been first possible under Domitian due to the
dedication slightly earlier of the first official state shrine of Salus Augusta. Personifications
of Salus Augusta first appeared on the coinage under Tiberius from AD 22/23, probably
minted in connection with an illness of Livia, who lent her features to the bust of the
goddess.55
However, although it has been previously suggested that an altar may also have
been dedicated to the goddess around this time, it seems that the senate actually voted an altar
to Pietas Augusta, which was only completed under Claudius in AD 43.56
The first evidence
for an actual altar for the goddess is the depiction of an altar on the coinage, first under
Titus,57
and then later under Domitian.58
Figure 1: As, Rome, AD 85. Obverse: IMP CAES DOMITIAN AUG GERM COS XI, laureate head
right. Reverse: SALUTI AUGUSTI SC altar.59
On the basis of the date of its first appearance, Winkler suggested that the altar may have
been dedicated in association with Titus’ illness before his death.60
However another change






























































54
Eg. Schwarte (1977) 229; Versnel (2007) 247.
55
BMCRE (Tiberius) 1:81-84; Tacitus, Annales 3.64; cf. Lott (1995) 210.
56
CIL 6.915; cf. Lott (1995) 211.
57
BMCRE (Titus) 2:261+.
58
RIC (Domitian) 2: 242d, 250a-b, 251, 271, 272, 304a-b, 338, 396.
59
RIC (Domitian) 2:272; Winkler (1995) plate 4.6; image from www.fredericweber.com.
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


31
in the way in which Salus is invoked by the Arvals, this time under Vespasian, suggests to me
that at least the inception, if not the completion, of the altar belongs to his reign. In the
records surviving from Vespasian’s reign Salus was invoked simply as Salus until AD 78, but
in AD 79 she was invoked as Salus Publica. One possible explanation for the change in her
title at this time may be that an altar had been dedicated to Salus Augusta, and thus perhaps it
was necessary to specify that the Salus invoked on January 3rd
was the same Salus that had
been invoked in previous years and not the new goddess worshipped at the altar of Salus
Augusta.61
Consequently the introduction of Salus Augusta into the Arval imperial cult
pantheon may only have been possible under the Flavians when the first public shrine was
dedicated to the goddess. However, that this Domitianic innovation may not simply have
been designed to meet the demands of the new cult is indicated by the fact that the invocation
of Salus as Salus Augusta was not used by Domitian’s immediate successors.
Another unique Domitianic development to the Arval imperial cult appears to be the
introduction of new annual vota, on January 22nd
. Record of these vota survives from AD 86,
87, 89 and 90, and they were probably conducted annually until the end of Domitian’s reign.
The AD 86 example is given below and describes the fulfilment and making of vows for the
safety of the princeps, explicitly because it is upon his safety that the safety of all depends.
These vota differ from the January 3rd
vota in that it is only the safety of the princeps that is






























































































































































































60
Winkler (1995) 111-117.
61

As a brief aside, I would like to suggest that rather than being connected with an imperial illness, the altar
may have referred to healing powers of the princeps. Vespasian displayed powers of healing during his trip to
Alexandria before returning to Rome in AD 70. As a vessel of the god Serapis he was able to heal a blind man
and a crippled man (Tacitus, Historiae 4.81; Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Vespasian) 8). There is also some
evidence that the Flavian divi may have had a connection with healing as Luke notes that under Antoninus Pius
a college of Aesculapius and Hygeia, healing deities, met in the temple of Divus Titus in the Porticus Divorum
dedicated to both Divus Titus and Divus Vespasianus (CIL 6.10234). On the basis of this Luke suggests that the
Flavian divi may have had a connection with healing (Luke (2010) 94-95).
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


32
mentioned, not his family members, and only Jupiter Optimus Maximus that receives
sacrifices.62
Ser(vio) Cornelio Dolabella C(aio) Secio Campano co(n)s(ulibus) XI K(alendas) Febr(uarias)
magisterio Imp(eratoris) Caesari[s] / Domitiani Aug(usti) Germanici promag(istro) L(ucio) Veratio
Quadrato collegi(i) fratrum / Arvalium vota nuncupaverunt pro salute Imp(eratoris) Caesaris
Domitiani Aug(usti) Ger(manici) / Iuppiter O(ptime) M(axime) Capitoline si Imp(erator) Caesar divi
Vespasiani f(ilius) Domitianus Aug(ustus) Germanic(us) / pontifex maximus trib(unicia) pot(estate)
censor perpetuus pater patriae ex cuius incolumi/tate omnium salus constat quem no[s] sentimus
dicere vivet domusque eius / incolumis erit a(nte) d(iem) XI K(alendas) Februar(ias) quae proximae
populo Romano Quiritibus / rei publicae populi Romani Quiritium erunt et eum diem eumque salvum
/ servaveris ex periculis si qua sunt eruntve ante eum diem eventumque / bonum ita uti nos sentimus
dicere dederis eumque in eo statu quo nunc [est] / aut eo meliore servaveris custodierisque
aeternitate[m] imperi(i) quod [susci]/piendo ampliavit ut voti compotem rem publicam saepe facias
ast tu ea ita / faxis tum tibi bove aurato vovemus esse futurum.63
When Servius Cornelius Dolabella and Gaius Secius Campanus were consuls, eleven days before the
kalends of February when Imperator Caesar Domitian Augustus Germanicus was president and
Lucius Veratius Quadratus was vice-president of the college of Arval Brothers, vows were undertaken
for the safety of Imperator Caesar Domitian Augustus Germanicus. O Jupiter Optimus Maximus
Capitolinus, if Imperator Caesar Domitian Augustus Germanicus - son of Divus Vespasianus,
Pontifex Maximus, with tribunician power, perpetual censor and father of his country - on whose
safety the health of all depends, of whom we hold that we are speaking, shall live and his house be
safe on January 22nd
which will be next for the Roman people, the Quirites, for the state of the Roman
people, the Quirites, and if you shall keep that day and him safe from whatever dangers there are or
will be before that day and if you shall give a happy outcome in such a way as we hold ourselves to
mean, and if you shall keep him in that condition in which he now is or in a better one, and if you
shall guard the eternity of the empire, which he has ennobled by undertaking responsibility for it, so
that you may often grant the state its prayer, if you shall do these things thus, we vow that you shall
have a gilded bull.
This vota has long been considered evidence that Domitian presented himself as Jupiter’s
vice-gerent on earth, elected to the Principate by the chief god of the Roman state.64
This
ideology of divine election is generally considered to have been a prominent method of
justifying imperial power under Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian and the Antonines.65
Fears
identifies this same ideology on Domitianic coinage, specifically on types minted between






























































62
The AD 90 example is very fragmentary, but it refers to Domitian as compos, master and controller, of the res
publica, a title copied by the contemporary poets on several occasions (Statius, Silvae 3.4.20; Martial,
Epigrammata 1.4.2, 7.5.5, 8.2.6, 8.32.6). Caesar was also referred to as compos of the world (Cicero, de Officiis
8.83; Lucan, Pharsalus 8.553), as was Augustus (Horace, Carmina 1.12.57, 1.1.6; Ovid, Epistulae ex Pontum
2.8.26; 1.9.36, 3.3.61).
63
CFA 54:35-47.
64
Fears (1977) 249, (1981) 80.
65
Eg. Scott (1936) 139; Fears (1977) (1981); Scheid (1990) 346.
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


33
AD 85 and 96, and therefore corresponding with the introduction of the vota, depicting the
princeps bearing the thunderbolt of Jupiter.66


Figure 2: Rome, Sestertius, AD 88-89. Obverse: IMP CAES DOMIT COS XIIII CENS P PP,
laureate head right. Reverse: SC, Domitian standing left holding thunderbolt and spear being
crowned by Victory.67
Fears argues that this type clearly shows Domitian as Jupiter’s earthly delegate, rather than
assimilating Domitian with Jupiter, on the basis that in his other hand Domitian holds a
warrior’s spear rather than the sceptre of Jupiter.68
He also points out that Statius similarly
identifies Domitian as Jupiter’s terrestrial agent in a poem praising the Via Domitiana.

 
 
 
 en hic est deus, hunc iubet beatis
pro se Iuppiter imperare terris...69
See, he is a god, him that Jupiter commands to rule the happy earth in his stead...


If Fears is correct, not only do the Arval records from Domitian’s reign demonstrate the
decline of Julio-Claudian methods of justifying imperial power by dynasty, but they point
towards what this ideology was gradually being superseded with, the idea that the princeps
was Jupiter’s vice-gerent on earth.






























































66
BMCRE 2:345*, 381, 396, 443, 465, 476.
67
RIC (Domitian) 2:639; image from www.wildwinds.com.
68
Fears (1977) 225-226.
69
Statius, Silvae 4.3.128-129.
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


34
1.3: Imperial Ideology and the Pantheon
Thus it is apparent from comparison of the surviving Acta Fratrum Arvalium in the
above two sections that by the reign of Domitian some significant changes had been made to
the imperial cult conducted by the Arvals under the Julio-Claudians. It is the premise of this
thesis that the imperial cult formulated, reflected and communicated the source of the power
of the princeps and justified his role in the state, and thus these changes to the form of the
cult appear also to represent fundamental changes in the ideology of imperial power between
the Julio-Claudian period and the reign of Domitian; this is clearly demonstrated in the case
of the January 22nd
vota.
Turning to the ideology reflected by the wider cult, change to the form of the cult has
already been established in the case of the cult calendar. Under the Julio-Claudians the
anniversaries of days on which the princeps received power in the state and imperial
birthdays formed the core of the Arval calendar. As such the cult focussed on and reflected
the earthly and dynastic sources of Julio-Claudian imperial power, and at the same time built
up a cult of personality around the individual princeps, presenting him as a charismatic ruler
with an individual claim to power. By the reign of Domitian neither of these types of events
were marked annually. The only annual imperial cult rituals from the Julio-Claudian period
that continued to be conducted annually under Domitian were the January 3rd
vota. Unlike
the other annual rituals, the vota did not focus on anything individual to the princeps – his
birthday or days of particular importance in his career – but was conducted on the same day
every year under every princeps; this is the only imperial cult ritual conducted for the
princeps that was conducted on the same day under each. As such, rather than focussing on
the specific princeps and his particular claim to power, the January 3rd
vota focussed on the
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


35
Principate as an institution, and its important role as a fundamental piece of the state. This
change in cult calendar thus appears to reflect a shift in the power base of the princeps, with
less focus on the earthly and dynastic sources of his power, and also a shift in his role in the
state, away from that of a charismatic prince towards that of an incumbent chief magistrate.
Significant change in cult form has also been established in the case of the cult
pantheon, as it has already been demonstrated that the divi were absent from the pantheon of
deities to receive sacrifices on January 3rd
, a position they enjoyed since the reign of Gaius,
under all three Flavians. In fact the divi are absent from all the surviving Arval rituals from
Domitian’s reign. Similarly the Genius of the princeps, although it appears anomalously in a
ritual conducted for Domitian in AD 81 that is discussed further in the following chapter, is
also absent from all the surviving Arval rituals for the rest of Domitian’s reign. As these
were both dynastic deities promoted by the Julio-Claudians, like the removal of imperial
birthdays, this change to the cult appears to reflect a removal of focus from the dynastic
source of imperial power. The Genius of the princeps was also the personal guardian spirit of
the princeps, so its removal may also reflect a change in focus from the princeps as a
charismatic individual of unique importance, to the princeps as a chief magistrate.
In addition to these two specific dynastic deities being absent, a less extensive
pantheon of deities appears to have been used in general in the cult conducted by the Arvals
for Domitian than for the cult that they conducted for the Julio-Claudians. This can be seen
in a comparison of the extraordinary benefaction cult under Nero and Domitian. The
Domitianic Arval records preserve testimony of two instances of extraordinary cult from AD
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


36
87 and a series of instances from AD 89.70
The first example from AD 87 refers to
Domitian’s return to Rome following his successful campaign against the Dacians.
L(ucio) Volusio Satur[nin]o C(aio) Calpu[rnio Pisone co(n)s(ulibus) ... K(alendas) Febr(uarias) ex
s(enatus) c(onsulto) ad vota reddenda] / in Capit[olio pr]o salute e[t reditu(?) Imp(eratoris) Caesaris
Domitiani Aug(usti)] / Germanici magister[io C(ai) Iuli Silani promag(istro) C(aio) Salvio Liberale
Iovi O(ptimo) M(aximo)] / b(ovem) m(arem) Iunoni Regin[ae b(ovem) f(eminam) Minervae b(ovem)
f(eminam) ... in collegio] / adfuerunt Imp(erator) Caesar Domitian[us Aug(ustus) Germanicus
C(aius) Salvius Liberalis] / Nonius Bassus L(ucius) Maecius Postumus L(ucius) [Veratius
Quadratus].71
When Lucius Volusius Saturninus and Gaius Calpurnius Piso were consuls ... before the kalends of
February, by decree of the senate on account of vows having been undertaken on the Capitol for the
safety and return of Imperator Caesar Domitian Augustus Germanicus, when Gaius Julius Silanus was
president and Gaius Salvius Liberalis was vice president, there were sacrificed an ox to Jupiter
Optimus Maximus, a cow to Juno Regina, a cow to Minerva... present from the college were
Imperator Caesar Domitian Augustus Germanicus, Gaius Salvius Liberalis, Nonius Bassus, Lucius
Maecius Postumus and Lucius Veratius Quadratus.
A similar rite was conducted for the return to Rome of Nero, Poppaea and Claudia some time
in AD 63. Aside from the presence of Nero’s wife and daughter in the purpose of the
sacrifice, the only notable difference between this and the Domitianic record is that the
Neronian sacrifices were conducted to a much more extensive pantheon, including Virtue
goddesses, the Genius of Nero and the Junones of his wife and daughter.
isdem [co(n)s(ulibus)] / IV Idus [...] / magisterio Q(uinti) Tilli Sassi c[ollegi(i) Fratrum] / Arvalium
nomine im[molavit in Capito]/lio A(ulus) Vitellius ob adv[entum Neronis Claudi] / Caesaris Augusti
G[ermanici et Poppaeae] / Augustae et Claud[iae Augustae Iovi b(ovem) m(arem)] / Iunoni vacc(am)
Min[ervae vacc(am) Saluti pu]/blicae vaccam [Felicitati(?) vaccam] / Spei vacc(am) Gen[io ipsius
taurum Iunoni] / Poppaeae Aug[ustae vaccam Iunoni Claudiae] / Augustae v[accam] / in collegio
a[dfuerunt A(ulus) Vitellius Sulpicius] / Camerin[us 3 L(ucius) Vitel]/lius C(aius) Pis[o].72
When the same men were consuls, four days before the ides of... when Quintus Tillius Sassius was
president of the college of Arval Brothers, Aulus Vitellius sacrificed on the Capitol in their name on
account of the return of Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, Poppaea Augusta and Claudia
Augusta, an ox to Jupiter, a cow to Juno, a cow to Minerva, a cow to Salus Publica, a cow to Felicitas,
a cow to Spes, a bull to the Genius of Nero, a cow to the Juno of Poppaea Augusta and a cow to the
Juno of Claudia Augusta. Present from the college were Aulus Vitellius, Sulpicius Camerinus...
Lucius Vitellius and Gaius Piso.






























































70
On extraordinary cult see Scheid (1990) 394-412.
71
CFA 55.I:64-69.
72
CFA 29.II:1-21.
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


37
The second act of extraordinary cult preserved from AD 87 was undertaken for the detection
of a conspiracy against Domitian and consisted of the sacrifice of a single ox on the Capitol,
presumably to Jupiter Optimus Maximus.
isdem co(n)s(ulibus) X K(alendas) Oct(obres) in Ca[p]itolio ob detecta scelera nefariorum
mag(isterio) / [C(ai)] Iuli Silani {immolavit} in Capitolio b(ovem) m(arem) immolavit L(ucius)
Venu/[leius Ap]ronianus.73
When the same men were consuls, ten days before the kalends of October on the Capitol when Gaius
Julius Silanus was president, on account of the detection of crimes most abominable Lucius Venuleius
Apronianus sacrificed an ox on the Capitol.
Again an example of a similar rite conducted in response to the detection of a conspiracy
survives from AD 59 under Nero, and again the most notable difference between the two is
that the Neronian rite involved a much more extensive pantheon of deities, including the
Capitoline Triad, Virtue deities, the Genius of the princeps and Divus Augustus.
[is]dem co(n)s(ulibus) Nonis Aprilib(us) / [L(ucius) Calpurnius L(uci) f(ilius)] Piso magister collegii
fratrum Arvalium nomine immolavit / [in Capitolio ex] s(enatus) c(onsulto) ob supplicationes indictas
pro salute Neronis Claudi Caesar(is) / [Aug(usti) Germ(anici) I]ovi bovem marem Iunoni vaccam
Minervae vaccam Saluti / publicae vaccam] providentiae vaccam Genio ipsius taurum divo Aug(usto)
bovem marem / [in co]llegio adfuerunt C(aius) Vipstan{i}us Apronianus.74
When the same men were consuls on the nones of April, Lucius Calpurnius Piso, son of Lucius,
president of the college of Arval Brothers, sacrificed in their name on the Capitol by decree of the
senate on account of supplications having been pronounced for the safety of Nero Claudius Caesar
Augustus Germanicus, an ox to Jupiter, a cow to Juno, a cow to Minerva, a cow to Salus Publica, a
cow to Providentia, a bull to the Genius of Nero and an ox to Divus Augustus. Present from the
college was Gaius Vipstanius Apronianus.
The series of extraordinary cult rites surviving from January AD 89 all appear to
relate to Domitian’s suppression of the revolt of Saturninus.75
isdem co(n)s(ulibus) pr(idie) Idus Ianuar(ias) / in Capitolio ex s(enatus) c(onsulto) pro salute
vict[oria e]t reditu{m} / Imp(eratoris) Domitiani Caesaris Augusti Ger[manici fratres] Arvales vo[ta]
/ nuncuparunt in colleg[io interfuerunt] / L(ucius) Veratius Quadratus P(ublius) Sallustius Bl[aesus
L(ucius) Maecius Postumus] A(ulus) Iulius / Quadratus L(ucius) Venuleius Montanus Ap[ronianus]76






























































73
CFA 55.II:62-64.
74
CFA 28a-c:10-16.
75
On the Saturninus Revolt see Jones (1992) 144-149.
76
CFA 57:13-18.
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


38
When the same men were consuls, on the day before the ides of January, by senatorial decree the
Arval Brothers made vows on the Capitol for the safety, victory and return of Imperator Domitian
Caesar Augustus Germanicus. Present in the college were Lucius Veratius Quadratus, Publius
Sallustius Blaesus, Lucius Maecius Postumus, Aulus Julius Quadratus and Lucius Venuleius
Montanus Apronianus.
isdem co(n)s(ulibus) XVI K(alendas) [F]ebr(uarias) / in Capitolio ob vota ad suscipienda e[x ed]icto
co(n)s(ulum) et ex s(enatus) c(onsulto) / pro salute et redit[u e]t victoria / Imp(eratoris) Caesaris
Domitiani Aug(usti) Germ[anici] collegium fratrum / Arvalium convenit in [colleg(io) inter]fuerunt /
A(ulus) Iulius Quadratus L(ucius) Maecius Postum[us L(ucius) Vera]tius Quadratus / [L(ucius)]
Venuleius Montanus Apronianus P(ublius) [Sallustius B]laesus Q(uintus) Tillius Sass(ius).77
When the same men were consuls, sixteen days before the kalends of February, the college of Arval
Brothers convened on the Capitol on account of vows to be fulfilled by edict of the consuls and decree
of the senate for the safety, return and victory of Imperator Caesar Domitian Augustus Germanicus.
Present from the college were Aulus Julius Quadratus, Lucius Maecius Postumus, Lucius Veratius
Quadratus, Lucius Venuleius Montanus Apronianus, Publius Sallustius Blaesus and Quintus Tillius
Sassius.
isdem co(n)s(ulibus) VIIII [K(alendas) Febr(uarias)] / in Capitolio s{a}enatus tur{a}e et vino
sup[plicavit interfuerunt] / A(ulus) Iulius Quadratus L(ucius) Maecius Postumus P(ublius) [Sallustius
Blaesus L(ucius) Venuleius] / Montanus Apronianus Q(uintus) Tillius S[assius L(ucius) Veratius
Quadratus].78
When the same men were consuls, nine days before the kalends of February, on the Capitol the senate
made supplications of incense and wine. Present from the college were Aulus Julius Quadratus,
Lucius Maecius Postumus, Publius Sallustius Blaesus, Lucius Venuleius Montanus Apronianus,
Quintus Tillius Sassius and Lucius Veratius Quadratus.
isdem co(n)s(ulibus) VIII [K(alendas) Febr(uarias)] / in Capitolio ob laetitiam publicam in tem[plo
Iovis O(ptimi) M(aximi)? fratres Arvales] / Iov[i] O(ptimo) M(aximo) bovem marem immolarunt
[interfuerunt] / A(ulus) Iulius Quadratus L(ucius) Maecius Postumus P(ublius) Sallusti[us Blaesus
L(ucius) Venuleius] / Montanus Apronianus Q(uintus) Tillius Sassius79
When the same men were consuls, eight days before the kalends of February, the Arval Brothers
sacrificed an ox to Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitol in the Temple of Jupiter Optimus
Maximus on account of public rejoicing. Present were Aulus Julius Quadratus, Lucius Maecius
Postumus, Publius Sallustius Blaesus, Lucius Venuleius Montanus Apronianus and Quintus Tillius
Sassius.
isdem co(n)s(ulibus) IIII K(alendas) Febr(uarias) / in Capitolio ad vota solvenda et nuncupanda pro
salute et re[ditu] / Imp(eratoris) Caesaris Domitiani Aug(usti) Germanici fratres Arvales
conven[erunt] / I[o]vi Iunoni Minervae Marti Saluti Fortunae Victoriae Reduci / [Genio po]puli
Romani voverunt in collegio adfuerunt / [A(ulus) Iulius Quadra]tus L(ucius) [Maeci]us Postumus
Q(uintus) Tillius Sassius P(ublius) Sallustius / [Blaesus]80
When the same men were consuls, four days before the kalends of February, the Arval Brothers
convened on the Capitol for the completion and renewal of vows for the safety and return of






























































77
CFA 57:19-25.
78
CFA 57:31-34.
79
CFA 57:35-39.
80
CFA 57:40-46.
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


39
Imperator Caesar Domitian Augustus Germanicus. Vows were made to Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Mars,
Salus, Fortuna, Victoria Redux and the Genius Populi Romani. Present from the college were Aulus
Julius Quadratus, Lucius Maecius Postumus, Quintus Tillius Sassius and Publius Sallustius Blaesus.
As can be seen, on January 12th
vows were made for Domitian’s safety, victory and return by
order of the senate. Five days later on the 17th
similar vows were made by edict of the
consuls and decree of the senate. These seem to represent vows made before the conflict was
resolved to ensure Domitian’s success against the revolt that threatened the stability of Rome.
The next three rites appear to follow news of Domitian’s success. On January 24th
the senate
made supplications of wine and incense on the Capitol; the Arvals do not describe themselves
as participating in this rite, though they appear to have been present. This may be a
description of the rituals conducted by the senate in order to inaugurate days of public
rejoicing, which the Arvals did participate in on January 25th
when they made a sacrifice to
Jupiter Optimus Maximus ob laetitiam publicam (on account of public rejoicing). Finally on
January 29th
the Arvals made sacrifices in response to the successful fulfilment of the
requests they made in their previous vows, perhaps referring back to the vows made on the
12th
and 17th
of January, and they also made new vows for the future safety of the princeps.81
These final sacrifices were conducted to a much more extensive pantheon including the
Capitoline Triad, Mars, Salus, Fortuna, Victoria Redux and the Genius Populi Romani.
Despite the long lists of deities to receive sacrifices for Domitian at the end of January
AD 89, the general trend in Domitianic extraordinary benefactor cult appears to have been to
use a limited pantheon, on at least two occasions, the detection of the conspiracy in AD 87
and for the public rejoicing in AD 89, the pantheon being limited to Jupiter Optimus
Maximus alone, like for the January 22nd
vota. This contrasts starkly with the rites conducted
on similar occasions under Nero. Supplications decreed by the senate under Nero saw the






























































81
Scheid (1990) 405-407, cf. 314-315, 321-326.
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


40
Arvals sacrifice to the Capitoline Triad, Felicitas, Clementia, and probably other deities as
the text cuts off.82
Nero’s safety and return in AD 59 similarly saw sacrifices to a pantheon
of deities including the Capitoline Triad, Felicitas, the divi, Nero’s Genius, Mars Ultor and
possibly other deities as again the surviving text cuts off.83
The placement of a laurel on the
Capitol for Nero in AD 63 saw sacrifices to the Capitoline Triad, Jupiter Victor, Pax, Janus
Geminus, and again other deities now lost from the list.84
Thus the Domitianic lists of deities
seem significant not only in their omissions of specific deities, in particular the divi and the
Genius of the princeps, but also in their focus on Jupiter Optimus Maximus. Here again the
form of the Domitianic Arval cult moved focus away from dynastic justifications of power,
and again focussed on Jupiter Optimus Maximus as the primary backer of imperial power.
Thus it is the conclusion of this discussion that the form of the imperial cult
conducted by the Arval Brothers changed significantly between the Julio-Claudian period and
the reign of Domitian, and that the evident changes appear to reflect a change in how the
power of the princeps was predominantly justified. The Julio-Claudian basis of power was
dynastic descent from Augustus and the state powers with which they were subsequently
vested; as such they were charismatic rulers who enjoyed a cult of personality. Although
dynasty and earthly powers were certainly still a part of the formulation and justification of
the power of the princeps under Domitian – the importance of dynasty will be seen in chapter
three in the discussion of the divi – in the Arval cult the primary justification of imperial
power that was presented was divine: Domitian was Jupiter’s selected representative on earth.






























































82
CFA 30cd.I:15-21.
83
CFA 28a-c:24-2.
84
CFA 30cd.I:8-14.
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


41
1.4: Vespasian?
It is possible, and it seems to me likely, that the changes made to the Julio-Claudian
cult by the reign of Domitian may have been introduced under Vespasian. In this section I
will demonstrate firstly that the changes certainly do not predate the reign of the first Flavian
as the surviving Arval evidence from the civil war period demonstrates that the same calendar
of events and deities received cult under Galba, Otho and Vitellius as under Nero. I will then
show that the surviving Arval evidence from the reigns of Vespasian and Titus allows for the
possibility that the Domitianic form of the Arval imperial cult was already in place, although
the evidence is too fragmentary to verify this with certainty. Finally I will present
circumstantial evidence in support of this possibility: firstly, literary evidence that changes
were made to the state cult calendar in general under Vespasian, and secondly the nature of
the changes themselves, which appear to point to the reign of Vespasian.
Starting with the calendar of events, under Galba, Otho and Vitellius, the same pattern
of days were marked with cult by the Arvals as were marked under the Julio-Claudians.
Arval evidence does not survive from the first six months of Galba’s reign when accession
rites would likely have been conducted, but records do survive from the reign of Otho, under
whom rites were conducted for his imperium (January AD 69),85
tribunicia potestas
(February 28th
AD 69),86
co-option into all the major priestly colleges (March 3rd
AD 69),87
and as Pontifex Maximus (March 9th
AD 69).88
Similarly rites were conducted under
Vitellius for his tribunicia potestas (April 30th
AD 69),89
dies imperii (May 1st
AD 69),90
and






























































85
CFA 40[1-7].I:35-40.
86
CFA 40[1-7].I:58-62.
87
CFA 40[1-7].I:68-71.
88
CFA 40[1-7].I:72-76.
89
CFA 40[1-7].I:81-84.
90
CFA 40[1-7].I:84-88.
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


42
on the occasion of some unknown comitia meeting,91
perhaps voting him the perpetual
consulship.92
Although it is impossible to tell whether the anniversaries of these days would
have been marked with cult since each general reigned for less than a year, that at this point
the pattern of cult seems to have been following the Neronian pattern is indicated by the fact
that consulship rites were conducted for Galba (January 1st
AD 69),93
Otho (January 26th
AD
69),94
and probably for Vitellius’ assumption of the perpetual consulship as suggested
above;95
these rites, akin to the anniversary rituals, were not conducted under Domitian.
Furthermore, birthday rituals were also conducted in AD 69, at least under Vitellius, as the
records preserve rites on the birthday of his wife Galeria,96
and also for an unknown person
slightly later in the year.97
By contrast, there is no evidence for the Arvals conducting cult on anniversaries or
birthdays under Vespasian or Titus. Unfortunately very little evidence survives from the first
year of Vespasian’s reign to determine whether, as under Domitian, extraordinary cult was
conducted in connection with his reception of powers upon his accession.98
The only
surviving fragment of the Acta Fratrum Arvalium from AD 70 records rites for Vespasian’s
adventus in September.99
[ ... pr]omag(istro) Q(uinto) Tillio Sassio c[ollegii fratrum] / [Arvalium nomine im]molavit in
Capitolio ob diem [quo urbem in]/[gressus est Imperator C]aesar Vespasianus Aug(ustus) Iovi






























































91
CFA 40[6].
92
ILS 242.
93
CFA 40[1-7].I:1-6.
94
CFA 40[1-7].I41-45.
95
CFA 40[6].
96
CFA 40[1-5].II:10-14.
97
CFA 40[7].
98
On the senate’s conferral of powers on Vespasian see Tacitus, Historiae 4.3.3, 4.4.3; Cassius Dio, Epitome
66.1.1; cf. Kienast (1996) 108.
99
Vespasian was no longer in Egypt when Jerusalem fell on September 8 AD 70 (Josephus, Jewish War 7.21),
but he was not yet in Rome for the Capitoline Temple ceremony held on June 21 AD 70 (Tacitus, Historiae
4.53). Cf. Tacitus, Historiae 3.48, 4.51; Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Vespasian) 7; Levick (1999) 91; Griffin
(2000) 4.
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


43
bov[em m(arem)] / [Iunoni vaccam Mi]nervae vacc(am) Fortunae Reduc[i vaccam] / [in collegio
adfueru]nt Q(uintus) Tillius Sassius C(aius) Licinius [Mucianus...100
When Quintus Tillius Sassius was vice-president of the college of Arval Brothers he sacrificed in their
name on the Capitol, on account of the day on which Imperator Caesar Vespasian Augustus entered
the city, an ox to Jupiter, a cow to Juno, a cow to Minerva and a cow to Fortuna Redux. Present in the
college were Quintus Tillius Sassius, Gaius Licinius Mucianus...
The same event almost certainly saw widespread popular cult throughout Rome, as according
to Josephus public rejoicing, including supplications, was carried out on Vespasian’s
return.101
The evidence for extraordinary accession rituals is equally lacking for Titus. This
is firstly because the Arval records from the months immediately following his accession do
not survive, and secondly because it is not clear that such rites would have been conducted in
that year as he assumed tribunicia potestas and imperium in AD 71 under Vespasian; the
Arvals records from that year also do not survive.102
Nevertheless it is certain that neither the anniversaries of any accession rituals nor
imperial birthdays received annual recognition under Titus, as neither type of event appears
in the extant surviving sections of the Acta Fratrum Arvalium preserving from May AD 80 to
September AD 81. It is more difficult to draw conclusions about anniversary and birthday
cult in the case of Vespasian as the continuous sections of the Arval records surviving from
his reign are brief, covering from January to May of AD 72, 75 and 78, and this short period
unfortunately does not include Vespasian’s birthday (November 17th
), his dies imperii (July
1st
),103
or the anniversaries of his assumption of any powers.104
It is certain, however, that






























































100
CFA 41:1-5; cf. Scheid (1990) 409-411.
101
Josephus, Jewish War 1.71-4.
102
Buttrey (1980) 18-27.
103
Tacitus, Historiae 2.79.
104
According to Buttrey’s examination of Flavian titulature, although Vespasian was probably granted
tribunicia potestas and imperium between January and July AD 70, he back dated these assumptions to his dies
imperii, so if any annual cult was conducted it would probably have been carried out on that day ((1980) 6-17).
That Vespasian’s accession rites may have been compounded into a single ritual conducted on his dies imperii is
lent support by the literary sources as Josephus says that Vespasian’s accession and Vitellius’ downfall were
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


44
unlike under Nero, but consistent with the Arval cult under Domitian, Arval sacrifices were
not conducted under Vespasian for his assumption of the consulship. As mentioned above,
although not anniversary cult per se, rituals to mark the princeps’ assumption of the
consulship, conducted consistently by the Arvals between the reigns of Gaius and Vitellius,
marked the earthly power of the princeps like his tribunicia potestas and imperium.105
Just as
anniversary cult was not conducted under Domitian, neither was consulship cult, as indicated
by the Arval records surviving from AD 87, when Domitian served as consul ordinarius;
although the date is covered by the surviving text, no cult was conducted for his assumption
of the consulship at the start of that year. Similarly, the Arval records survive from the start
of AD 75, when Vespasian served as consul ordinarius, but there is no record of cult
conducted in connection with this. Considering that both anniversary and consulship cult
marked the earthly state powers of the princeps, and considering that both types of cult were
conducted under the Julio-Claudian but not Domitian, it is reasonable to hypothesise that if
consulship cult was not conducted under Vespasian, anniversary cult was probably also not
conducted.
Turning to the pantheon of the Arval imperial cult, it can be said with relative
certainty that the divi, absent from the pantheon of deities to receive cult under Domitian,
were removed from the pantheon under Vespasian. As seen above in the discussion of the
January 3rd
vota, the divi, prominent in the imperial cult pantheon under Nero, continued to






























































































































































































celebrated in a single festival (Jewish War 4.654), and Tacitus says that July 1st
was principatus dies celebratus
for Vespasian (Historiae 2.79). Spooner suggests that this passage may also be indicative of annual cult for
Vespasian’s accession ((1891) 260). Although Tacitus sometimes uses the verb celebrare to describe a
celebration or festival (eg. Historiae 2.95) he also uses it to mean ‘to consider or think (eg. Historiae 2.71), and
Chilver argues in favour of the latter usage in this context, suggesting that Tacitus is contrasting the fact that
Vespasian considered the day he was hailed by his troops as his dies imperii, whereas Galba, Otho and Vitellius
all counted their accession from the date they were recognised by the senate ((1979) 239).
105
Gaius: CFA 13abcd:4-11; Nero: CFA 25a:1-7, 26a-lr:1-12, 27:64-27, 28de:15-23, 33:1-5; cf. Scheid (1990)
393-395.
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


45
have a role in the pantheon under the civil war generals, though only on the occasion of the
January 3rd
vota. Fortunately, the January 3rd
vota are one of the few imperial cult rituals that
are well attested from the early Flavian period, with examples surviving from AD 75, 78, 79
and 81. The Julio-Claudian divi are absent from all these rituals, and in the example from
Titus’ reign and later examples from Domitian’s reign, they were not replaced by the Flavian
divi. This is firm evidence that the divi were removed from the pantheon under Vespasian.
The evidence for the other dynastic deity prominent in the Julio-Claudian pantheon,
the Genius of the princeps, is less clear. As mentioned above and discussed further in chapter
two, the Genius of the princeps, consistently included in the imperial cult pantheon under
Nero and the civil war generals, was absent from the Arval imperial cult pantheon on all but
one occasion during Domitian’s reign. The occasion on which it does appear is the substitute
for the January 3rd
vota at the start of his reign; an anomalous appearance since the January
3rd
vota are one of the few rites in which the Genius of the princeps consistently did not
appear under Nero and the civil war generals. Also, Julio-Claudian precedent suggests many
of the surviving Domitianic rites should have included his Genius if he was following
Neronian practices. The appearance of the Genius in the pantheon under Domitian does not
appear to have been a continuation of practice under Vespasian and Titus as the Genius does
not appear in any of the examples of the January 3rd
vota surviving from their reigns; this
suggests that the inclusion of the Genius in this ritual at the start of Domitian’s reign was
unique to him. However, since so few other rituals survive from the reigns of Vespasian and
Titus which Julio-Claudian precedent suggests would have included the Genius, it cannot be
said with certainty, from the Arval evidence alone, whether the Genius was removed from the
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


46
pantheon. I will discuss further evidence for the removal of the Genius from outside the
Arval evidence in the following chapter.
Thus there is definitive evidence that the divi were removed from the pantheon of
deities to receive sacrifices during the reign of Vespasian, and that anniversary and birthday
cult had ceased to be conducted by the reign of Titus. The evidence also allows the
possibility that anniversary and birthday cult, and the divi and Genius were all removed from
the Arval imperial cult during the reign of Vespasian, though not before; unfortunately the
Arval evidence is too fragmentary to verify this possibility. That Vespasian’s reign was the
time of major change for the Arval imperial cult may be lent support by a passage from
Tacitus in which he suggests that the imperial cult calendar was deliberately decreased near
the start of Vespasian’s reign. Tacitus records that in AD 70 the senate ordered excess
flattery to be cut from the calendar.106
This should not be taken as evidence that the senate
was acting without or against the new princeps. Before mentioning the changes to the
calendar Tacitus says that Domitian was addressing the senate on his father’s behalf and
proposed that imperial honours be restored to Galba, a proposal that the senate ratified.
Tacitus then says that commissioners were appointed to review the calendar, and although it
is not explicitly stated, this was plausibly also at the behest of Vespasian through his agents
in Rome.
Finally, the nature of the changes made to the Arval imperial cult suggests that they
were more likely to have been introduced under Vespasian than Domitian. It was the
dynastic elements and the elements that referred to the earthly powers bestowed on the






























































106
Tacitus, Historiae 4.40.
Chapter One: Arval Rituals Jessica Suess


47
princeps by the state that were removed from the cult, and these removals appear to have
resulted in the removal of focus on the individual character and personality of the incumbent
princeps. The nature of these changes do not suit the reign of Domitian, whose claim to
power was his dynastic descent from Vespasian, a fact he did promote in other forms as will
be seen in chapter three, and who, according to admittedly hostile contemporary accounts,
was an autocrat who promoted his own person as important in the state.107
Vespasian on the
other hand had no deified ancestors on which to rely, and the literary tradition that he was of
humble origins may well reflect the fact that he did not try to validate his position through his
birth.108
Further, Vespasian did not date his accession from the time he was recognised by
the senate as even his civil war predecessors had done, but rather from the time he was hailed
by his armies, demonstrating a lack of concern for the earthly powers bestowed on the
princeps by the state. Thus the nature of the changes made to the Arval imperial cult by the
reign of Domitian align with the character of Vespasian and his reign, supporting the
possibility left open by the surviving evidence that the changes were introduced during his
reign.






























































107
See Jones (1992) 161.
108
Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Vespasian) 12.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
48
Chapter Two: Genius Principis
Roman Genii deities – and their female equivalents Iunones1
- were personalised
deities attached to every person, corporate entity and location.2
The third-century
grammarian Censorinus is the only surviving Roman author to explicitly define the Genius of
a man.
Genius est deus, cuius in tutela ut quisque natus est vivit. Hic sive quod ut genamur curat, sive quod
una genitur nobiscum, sive etiam quod nos genitos suscipit ac tutatur, certe a genendo genius
appellatur... Hunc in nos maximam quin immo omnem habere potestatem creditum est... Genio igitur
potissimum per omnem aetatem quotannis sacrificamus, quamquam non solum hic sed et alii sunt
praeterea dei conplures hominum vitam pro sua quisque portione adminiculantes.... Sed omnes hi
semel in uno quoque homine numinum suorum effectum repraesentant, quocirca non per omne vitae
spatium annuis religionibus arcessuntur. Genius autem ita nobis adsiduus observator adpositus est,
ut ne puncto quidem temporis longius abscedat, sed ab utero matris acceptos ad extremum vitae diem
comitetur.3
A Genius is a god under whose protection each person lives from birth. Whether this is because it
makes sure we get generated, or is generated with us, or takes us up and protects us once we are
generated, it is clear that it is called our ‘gen-ius’ for ‘gen-eration’... It was believed that the Genius
had the greatest, or rather absolute, power over us... Therefore we offer special sacrifices to our
Genius every year throughout our lives. Although it is not the only god, but one of the many gods
who support human life during everyone’s allotted span... all these other gods show the effect of their
divine powers at only certain points for each person and therefore are not summoned with annual
religious observances during the entire course of one’s life. Our Genius on the other hand has been
appointed to be so constant a watcher over us that he never goes away from us for even a second, but
is our companion from the moment we are taken from our mother’s womb to the last day of our life.
Modern scholars have defined the Genius both as a life force or guardian spirit, and by its
role in procreation and the continuation of the family dynasty.4
Wissowa described the
Genius as:
...die göttliche Verkörperung der im Manne wirksamen und für den Fortbestand der Familie
sorgenden Zeugungskraft.5
Individuals cultivated their own Genius on their natalis, the anniversary of the start of the
relationship between a man and his deity.6
The Genius of the paterfamilias of a domus –






























































1
Roscher (1884-1937) Iunones; Orr (1978) 1570-1571.
2
Orr (1978) 1575; eg. Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 21.62; Petronius, Cena Trimalchionis 21; Martial, Epigrammata
1.12.9-12; Minucius Felix, Octavius 29.5; CIL 7.103, 7.440, 8.2597, 10.772, 14.10.
3
Censorinus, De Die Natali 3.1-5.
4
Eg. Wissowa (1912) 175; Orr (1972) 45-49; Kunckel (1974) 17-21; Schilling (1979) 416; Gradel (2002) 36-
44.
5
Wissowa (1912) 175.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
49
comprising his kin and familia (slaves and freedmen)7
– was given a prominent place in the
household shrine. It was typically depicted in domestic lararia dressed in a toga drawn over
its head (capite velato), holding a patera and a cornucopia.8
Dedicatory inscriptions from
throughout Italy demonstrate that it was also common practice for members of a familia, in
particular freedmen, to honour the Genius of their paterfamilias independently.9
Figure 3: Domestic shrine painting from the Casa dei Vettii depicting the Genius of the paterfamilias
between two Lares, Insula 6.15.1: Pompeii.10
In this chapter I will demonstrate that the role of the Genius of the princeps in the
state cult changed significantly between the end of the Julio-Claudian period and the reign of
Domitian. In section one I will outline the gradual incorporation of the Genius principis into
the Roman state imperial cult under Augustus and the Julio-Claudians, showing that it
became a prominent recipient of sacrifices for the princeps probably by the reign of Gaius,
and certainly by the reign of Nero. I will also demonstrate that alongside its increasing






























































































































































































6
Eg. Catullus, Carmina 64-47-8, Horace, Odes 4.11.1-8; Ovid, Tristia 3.13.15, 4.5.19, 5.5.13; Tibullus, Elegiae
1.7.49-54, 2.2.5-8; Juvenal, Saturae 6.22; Servius, ad Aeneidos 6.603; Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum Gestarum
24.2.21, 143; Arnobius, Adversus Nationes 7.2.67.
7
Saller (1994) 74-102.
8
According to contemporary literature the Genius could also take the form of a serpent (Livy, Ab Urbe Condita
26.19.7; Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae 6.1.3; Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Caesar) 94.4; Virgil, Aeneid 5.95).
Serpents also commonly appear in domestic shrines, but Boyce suggests that these represented the Genius Loci
((1937) 18). On the Genius of the paterfamilias in household shrines see Fröhlich (1991) 111-114, 119-120;
Gradel (2002) 38-44.
9
Gradel (2002) 39, 372-373.
10
Image from www.the-romans.co.uk; cf. Fröhlich (1991) plate 7.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
50
importance in cult, the Genius of the princeps became an increasingly important iconographic
figure. I will suggest that by the reign of Nero it was depicted in such a way as to indicate
that the Genius of the princeps was the primary guardian Genius of both the princeps and the
state, and in turn that the welfare and prosperity of the princeps and Rome were one and the
same (2.1).
In section two I will examine the evidence for the role of the Genius principis in cult
under Domitian. I will argue that with the exception of a sacrifice near the start of
Domitian’s reign, the Genius of the princeps was excluded from the pantheon of deities to
receive sacrifices for the princeps from the Arvals (2.2). With this argument I will be going
against the suggestion previously made by Gradel that the cult of the Genius of the princeps
was promoted under Domitian. In addition to addressing specific points of his argument in
section two, in section three of this chapter I will provide support for my interpretation of the
cultic evidence over Gradel’s through an examination of contemporary iconographic
evidence. The Genius of the princeps is not only conspicuously absent from all iconographic
evidence surviving from Domitian’s reign, but on three surviving monumental sculptural
reliefs the place of Nero’s Genius Augusti as the Genius of the state is occupied by the
Genius Populi Romani and Genius Senatus who, alongside the goddess Roma, were used on
all three reliefs to depict Rome. Thus I will argue that just as Neronian Genius iconography
reflected the increasing importance of the Genius of the princeps in the Roman state imperial
cult, its role in Domitianic iconography may reflect the suppression of the Genius principis in
cult during his (2.3).
At the end of this chapter I will suggest that the changes made to the role of the
Genius of the princeps in state imperial cult by the reign of Domitian may already have been
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
51
introduced under Vespasian. I will show that the cultic evidence, although too limited to
make this argument conclusively, allows for the possibility that the Genius principis was not
included in the Arval cult under Vespasian and Titus. I will then argue that there is evidence
that the iconography of the Genius Senatus and Genius Populi Romani that appears on the
Domitianic monumental sculptural reliefs may already have been introduced under
Vespasian. On the basis of this iconography I will argue that it is reasonable to suggest that
the absence of the Genius of the princeps from the evidence for cult from Vespasian’s reign
could be interpreted as its absence from cult rather than simply a lack of evidence (2.4).
2.1: The Genius under the Julio-Claudians
The Genius of the princeps - the paterfamilias of the domus Augusti - was gradually
incorporated into the state imperial cult during the reigns of Augustus and the JulioClaudians.
Under Augustus it was introduced into the compita. Each of Rome’s
neighbourhoods (vici) had a compitum altar dedicated to the Lares Compitales (guardians of
the crossroads) and other particular patrons of the individual neighbourhood.11
In around 7
BC Augustus rejuvenated the vici and their shrines, presenting each neighbourhood with new
statuettes of the Lares.12
Subsequently these guardians of the city streets were identified with
the guardians of Augustus’ domus and became known as the Lares Augusti. At this time it
seems that the Genius of the princeps was also included in the compita alongside the Lares
Augusti, apparently mimicking Augustus’ domestic cult, as in his Fasti Ovid describes the
three gods as appearing together all over Rome.






























































11
On Augustus’ reorganisation of the compita see Taylor (1931) 184-195; Favro (1996) 123-127; Gradel (2002)
116-128; Lott (2004) 81-98.
12
Some appear to have been rejuvenated slightly earlier: 10 BC: CIL 6.30974; 9 BC: CIL 6.457; 8 BC: CIL
6.458.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
52
Bina gemellorum quaerebam signa deorum:
viribus annosae facta caduca morae.
mille lares geniumque ducis qui tradidit illos,
urbs habet et vici numina trina colunt.13
I sought for the images of the twin gods, but by the force of long years they had decayed. In the city
there are a thousand Lares, and the Genius of the dux, who handed them over to the public; the
neighbourhoods worship the three divinities.
This new practice is verified by the presence of the Genius in a single surviving Augustan
compitum altar, on which it is depicted alongside the Lares on the face of the altar, and is also
probably mentioned in the altar’s inscription: Laribus Augustis G[eniis Caesaru]m sacr[um]
(sacred to the Lares Augusti and the Genii of the Caesars).14
This epigraphic restoration is
based on identical references to the Genii Caesarum on six other compita altars surviving
from the Flavian period to the first half of the second century AD.15
A contemporary
Augustan inscription from Liparia records a similar dedication Genio Caesaris et eius
liberorum (to the Genius of Caesar and his children), perhaps explaining the plural reference
of Genii Caesarum as to the Genii of Augustus and his heirs.16
Figure 4: Augustan compitum altar depicting a Genius standing next to two Lares, Vatican Museum:
Rome.17






























































13
Ovid, Fasti 5.143-146.
14
CIL 6.445.
15
CIL 6.449, 451, 452, 30958, AE (1971) 33, (1971) 34. Only two other surviving compita inscriptions refer to
the Genius at all, and these both designate the Genius of a specific princeps (CIL 6.30960, 30961).
16
AE (1989) 346a.
17
Image from www.ancientrome.ru.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
53
Despite this inclusion in the compita, the Genius of the princeps does not appear to
have become a prominent deity in the state cult at this time. Although Augustus’ birthday,
the main cult day of his Genius, was declared a state holiday in 30 BC, there is no evidence
that his Genius received state sacrifices on this day at any time during his reign.18
Further,
the new holidays introduced at the vici in connection with the reorganisation of the compita
did not include Augustus’ birthday, or indeed any personal or familial holidays of the
imperial family.19
The Arval Brothers certainly did not sacrifice to the Genius of Augustus,
as according to a Fasti belonging to them – engraved sometime between 36 and 21 BC but
updated with subsequent entries until at least 12 BC – no sacrifices were offered to Augustus’
Genius on his birthday, only to Mars, Neptune and Apollo.20
The earliest known occasion on
which it can be said definitively that the Arvals conducted sacrifices to the Genius of the
princeps is on the birthday of Nero in AD 55.
XVIII k(alendas) Ianuar(ias) in Capitoli[o] / P. Memmius Regulus promagistro fra[trum Arvalium
nomine ob natalem] / Neronis Claudi Caesaris Aug(usti) Ger[manici principis parentique publici] /
immolauit Iovi o(ptimo) m(aximo) bouem m[arem, Iunoni vaccam, [Minervae vaccam,] / Saluti
publicae vaccam, Genio ipsi[us taurum] / In conlegio [adfuerunt ...] / P(ublius) Memmius Regulus
[...] / Faustus Corneliu[s Sulla ...].21
Eighteen days before the kalends of January, on the Capitol, on account of the birthday of Nero
Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, first citizen and public father, Publius Memmius Regulus,
vice president of the college of Arval Brothers, sacrificed an ox to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, a cow to
Juno, a cow to Minerva, a cow to Salus Publica and a bull to the Genius of Nero. Present from the
college were Publius Memmius Regulus and Faustus Cornelius Sulla.
Throughout Nero’s reign his Genius was a prominent part of the Arval pantheon receiving
sacrifices on his birthday, dies imperii, for his assumption of the consulship and position of
Pontifex Maximus, and on various extraordinary cult occasions.22
The Genius of the princeps






























































18
Cassius Dio, Roman History 51.19.2, 54.8.5, 55.6.6; Gradel (2002) 128-132.
19
Lott (2004) 111-112, 114-117.
20
Fasti Fratrum Arvalium; Gradel (2002) 128-132.
21
CFA 24:6-11.
22
CFA 26a-lr:1-22, 27:9-14, 29-35, 64-70, 28a-c:10-16, 24-32, 33-40, 28de:9-14, 15-23, 28f:1-20, 29.II:1-21,
30cd.I:22-30, 30gh.I:1-11, 30cef.II:1-11.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
54
also continued to be prominent in the cult conducted by the Arvals for Galba, Otho and
Vitellius.23
Although the earliest definitive reference to the Genius of the princeps in the
surviving Acta Fratrum Arvalium comes from AD 55, it may have been incorporated into
their cult as early as the reign of Gaius. Cassius Dio claims that Gaius had a decree of state
sacrifices to his Genius annulled early in his reign,24
and there is no evidence for the Genius
appearing in the continuous surviving sections of the Arval records from AD 38 to 40.
However this initial refusal would not have tied Gaius’ hands for the future, and reference to
the Genius of the princeps may appear in a fragment of the Arval records dated, on account
of reference to Diva Drusilla, to later in Gaius’ reign.
[Io]vi [bovem marem, Iunoni vaccam,] / Miner[vae vaccam, Saluti publicae (?)] / vaccam, [Felicitati
(?) vac] / cam, Gen[io ipsius taurum, et] / ante tem[plum divi Augusti novum] / divae D[rusillae
sorori Germanici Aug(usti)] / vaccam, [item luco deae] / Diae […].25
An ox to Jupiter, a cow to Juno, a cow to Minerva, a cow to Salus Publica, a cow to Felicitas, a bull to
the Genius of him, and before the new temple of Divus Augustus a cow to Diva Drusilla the sister of
Germanicus Augustus, and at the same time in the grove of Dea Dia...
The supposition that this fragmentary surviving text refers to Gaius’ Genius may be lent
support by the testimony of the contemporary Persius, who describes games held upon Gaius’
return from Germany as dedicated to ‘dis... genioque ducis’ (to the gods and the Genius of
the leader).26
This reference may indicate that the Genius of the princeps was increasing in
prominence in cult at around this time. It may also be telling that oaths by the Genius of the
princeps appear to have come into vogue under Gaius. It was an old Roman custom to swear
by one’s own Genius or that of another.27
Despite this tradition Cassius Dio records that






























































23
CFA 40[1-7].I:24-34, 35-40, 41-45, 58-62, 63-67, 68-71, 72-76, 81-84, 84-88, II:1-5, 1013, 15-18.
24
Cassius Dio, Roman History 54.4.4.
25
CFA 16:1-8.
26
Persius, Saturae 6.48.
27
Weinstock (1971) 214.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
55
Augustus and Tiberius did not allow oaths to be taken by their Genii,28
though he also gives
examples of individuals ignoring their objections and swearing such oaths.29
The first
epigraphic example of an oath by the Genius of the princeps appears on the Sulpician Tablet
from Pompeii, dating to October AD 39, in which the parties swore oaths ‘per Iovem
Optu/mum Max(umum) et numen divi Aug(usti) et Geni/um C(ai) Caesaris Augusti’ (by
Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the divinity of Divus Augustus and the Genius of Gaius Caesar
Augustus).30
Suetonius records that some people were put to death for refusing to swear by
Gaius' Genius,31
and also recounts the anecdote that Gaius swore by the Genius and Salus of
his horse, a story that was probably a political satire on the issues of the day.32
Thus it seems
a likely possibility that the cult of the Genius of the princeps began to expand under Gaius.33
The evidence also suggests that the Genius of the princeps had a role in state cult,
beyond the compita, under Claudius. There are no references to the Genius of the princeps in
the surviving Arval records from Claudius’ reign, but the records are so fragmentary from
that time that no complete pantheon survives from any events which Neronian examples
suggest might have included Claudius’ Genius. However, moving beyond the Arval rituals,
there is positive evidence that Claudius’ Genius had a role in the state cult in the form of the
Frieze of the Vicomagistri.34






























































28
Cassius Dio, Roman History 57.8.3.
29
Cassius Dio, Roman History 57.9.3, 58.12.6; cf. 58.6.2 (Genius of Sejanus).
30
Tabulae Pompeianae Sulpiciorum 68=AE (1973) 138.
31
Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Gaius) 27.3.
32
Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Gaius) 55.3; Cassius Dio, Roman History 59.14.7.
33
Cassius Dio, Roman History 54.4.4.
34
Gradel (2002) 162-187. On the frieze see Ryberg (1955) 75-80; Anderson (1984) 33-54.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
56
Figure 5: Frieze of the Vicomagistri, Vatican Museum: Rome.35
Gradel has convincingly argued that the main recipients of cult in the depicted scene were the
Genius of the princeps, Divus Augustus and Diva Augusta - who was deified under Claudius
in AD 42 - on the basis of the depicted camilli and the nature of the sacrificial victims.36
Each camillus bears a small statue, two Lares, a Genius and a now lost figure. Their group is
marked as important in the scene by the fact that, although they are youths, they are the same
height as the adult figures around them, and they are sculpted almost fully frontal with great
depth and pronounced facial portraiture.37
Ryberg suggests that the four youths share
generalised Julian facial features and are meant to represent imperial princes, and as such are
probably participating in the ritual as sodales Augustales, priests created for the worship of
Divus Augustus and his gens discussed in the following chapter.38
If the camilli are sodales
Augustales then their presence suggests the presence of both the imperial domestic deities
they hold and the divi to whom they were dedicated in the depicted ritual.
Figure 6: Camilli from the Frieze of the Vicomagistri, Vatican Museum: Rome.39






























































35
Image from www.wikipedia.org.
36
Gradel (2002) 183-186; cf. Ryberg (1955) 78.
37
Ryberg (1955) 77-78; Gradel (2002) 175-176.
38
Ryberg (1955) 79-80.
39
Image from www.wikipedia.org.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
57
Gradel argues that the sacrificial victims, identified as a bull, a steer, and a heifer, indicate
that the Genius of the princeps and the two divi were the recipients of the sacrifices. In the
imperial cult conducted by the Arval Brothers the only gods to regularly receive a bull as a
sacrificial victim were Mars and the Genius of the princeps, and the only gods to regularly
receive a steer were Jupiter and the male divi. Furthermore, when a ritual was conducted at a
single location, deities always received sacrifices in a set order: Jupiter and the Capitoline
Triad, other Olympian deities, Abstractions and Virtues, and then the Genius of the princeps
and the divi in chronological order, or the divi before the Genius if the cult was conducted at
the temple of Divus Augustus. Consequently the steer cannot be for Jupiter, who always
received sacrifice first, and thus must be for Divus Augustus. The heifer must then be for a
diva as they are the only female deities to receive sacrifices after the Divus Augustus.
Finally, the Genius was much more likely to receive sacrifices alongside these two divi than
was Mars.40
Therefore, on the basis of this relief, it seems that under Claudius state cult was
conducted to the Genius of the princeps beyond the compita, and that it was in some way
connected with the cult of the Julio-Claudian divi and the sodales Augustales.
Although I have argued that the role of the Genius of the princeps in state cult appears
to have begun to expand beyond the compita from the reign of Gaius, Nero’s reign should
still be characterised as a time of major development in the cult and representation of the
imperial Genius. Firstly, the Iunones of Nero’s wife Poppaea and daughter Claudia Virgo
also received sacrifices from the Arval Brothers from at least AD 63, and in AD 66 they were
replaced by the Iuno of Nero’s new wife Messalina.41
This appears to be a new development
under Nero as earlier in his reign in AD 58 sacrifices were conducted on the birthday of his






























































40
Gradel (2002) 175-176.
41
CFA 29.II:1-21, 30cd.I:22-30, 30cef.I:1-11.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
58
mother Agrippina not to her Iuno, but to the Capitoline Triad and Concordia ipsius,
seemingly referring to Concordia as belonging to Agrippina in the same fashion as Nero’s
Genius belonged to him.42
Later in that year on Nero’s own birthday sacrifices were made to
the Capitoline Triad, Salus Publica, Nero’s Genius and Concordia honoris Agrippinae
Augustae.43
Thus Concordia appears to have been included in this ritual in lieu of
Agrippina’s Iuno, suggesting that precedent for sacrifices to the Iunones of imperial women
had not yet been established.
Secondly, Nero’s Genius received a new iconographic representation. The original
iconography of the Genius of the princeps under the Julio-Claudians mirrored the traditional
depiction of the Genius of the paterfamilias of any Roman domus, as a youth wearing a toga
drawn over his head, usually holding a cornucopia, a horn filled with various fruits that was a
symbol of abundance, and a patera, a shallow dish used for pouring libations, as seen in
domestic shrine painting.
Figure 7: Domestic shrine paintings depicted the Genius of the paterfamilias accompanied by a Lar,
Insula 5.2: Pompeii.44
Figure 8: Domestic shrine painting depicting the Genius accompanied by a Lar, a flute player and
sacrificial attendants, Insula 9.5.2/22: Pompeii.45
This is the form which Augustus’ Genius took on the single surviving compitum to depict his
Genius, and also seems to be the form of the statuette of Claudius’ Genius held by the






























































42
CFA 27:15-18.
43
CFA 27:29-35.
44
Image from www.novaroma.org.
45
Image from www.novaroma.org.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
59
camillus on the Frieze of the Vicomagistri, though only the billowing toga is still readily
visible. The same iconography is seen on two statues discovered at Puteoli dating to the
reigns of Gaius and Claudius. Both depict young men with distinctly Julian facial features,
each wearing a toga capite velato and holding cornucopia and patera; these attributes
indicate that they are statues of Genii rather than of Julian princes in priestly garb.46
Figures 9: Claudian statue of the imperial Genius from Puteoli, Vatican Museum: Rome.47
In contrast, during Nero’s reign the Genius of the princeps, appearing on Rome’s coinage for
the first time, was depicted on bronzes minted at Rome and Lugdunum between AD 64 and
66 using iconography previously associated with the Genius Populi Romani. The Genius of
the Roman people usually appeared as a semi-nude youth with a mantle around his waist
holding a cornucopia and patera. Nero’s Genius appears with this same iconography,
pouring a libation over a lighted altar, and is only distinguishable as belonging to the princeps






























































46
Kunckel (1974) 27, 78.
47
Image from www.flickr.com.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
60
by the coin’s legend which refers to it as the Genius Augusti; this is the earliest recorded use
of this term.
Figure 10: As reverse, Rome, AD 64, figure dressed in mantle holding patera and cornucopia pouring
an offering over an altar GENIO AUGUSTI SC.48
Figure 11: As reverse, Lugdunum, AD 66, figure dressed in mantle holding patera and cornucopia
pouring an offering over an altar GENIO AUGUSTI SC.49
Gradel suggests that the effect of this change in iconography was that the Genius of the
Roman people, the traditional sovereign body of Rome, was superseded by the Genius of the
reigning princeps as the primary, most important Genius of the city and its empire, and as the
Genius that represented Rome.50
2.2: Cult of the Genius under Domitian
Gradel has previously argued that, as under Nero, the Genius of the princeps was
prominent in Domitianic cult. The basis of his argument is an isolated appearance of the
Genius of the princeps in the Acta Fratrum Arvalium from Domitian’s reign, and a passage
from Pliny’s Panegyricus which he argues suggests that the Genius of the princeps was
comparatively prominent in cult under Domitian by comparison to its role in cult under
Trajan. To justify his interpretation of the evidence Gradel argues that Genius cult was
oppressive, and therefore the type of cult that would have been promoted by an autocratic






























































48
RIC (Nero) 1:215; image from www.fredericweber.com.
49
RIC (Nero) 1:534; image from www.fredericweber.com.
50
Gradel (2002) 188-189.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
61
princeps like Domitian, but not ‘good’ rulers such as Trajan.51
In this section I will reexamine
the evidence used by Gradel and demonstrate that it can also be interpreted as
indicating that the Genius of the princeps had a minimal role in state cult under Domitian,
and one that was similar to its role in cult under Trajan. I will then demonstrate that Gradel’s
argument that Genius worship was oppressive is not conclusive, and argue that its message in
the imperial cult was not of oppression but of dynasty. Finally, in the following section of
this chapter, I will present iconographic evidence for the state Genii under Domitian and
argue that the Genius of the princeps was largely suppressed in state imagery and ideology,
lending support to my suggestion that the Genius of the princeps was also largely suppressed
in cult under Domitian.
Starting with the Arval evidence, it has already been seen in chapter one that the
Genius of the princeps was not regularly included in the pantheon of deities to receive
sacrifices for the princeps by the reign of Domitian, as it appears in only one surviving Arval
ritual from his reign. Gradel contrasts this single reference with the complete absence of the
Genius of the princeps from the Arval evidence from the reigns of Vespasian and Titus, and
therefore suggests that it is indicative of the promotion of the Genius of the princeps under
Domitian.52
This is a dubious comparison due to the nature of the surviving evidence, as the
only Arval imperial cult rites preserved from the reigns of Vespasian and Titus are several
examples of the January 3rd
vota and two extraordinary rituals, one of which does not list any
sacrifices. The January 3rd
vota are one of the few rites in which the Genius of the princeps
was not included under Nero and the civil war generals, and therefore it would not be
expected in these rituals under the Flavians. Consequently, these January vota alone cannot
be used to prove that the Genius of the princeps was absent from the Arval imperial cult






























































51
Gradel (2002) 189-191.
52
Gradel (2002) 189.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
62
pantheon under Vespasian and Titus, and too few other rituals survive to make a definitive
judgement either way. When, by contrast, the presence of the Genius of the princeps in the
Arval records under Domitian is compared with its presence under Nero and the civil war
generals, it is apparent that the decrease is dramatic, and represents a significant change in the
role of the Genius of the princeps in the Arval cult.
It also seems significant that the single appearance of Domitian’s Genius in the Arval
records is not in a place suggested by Neronian and civil war precedent, but in the single
place where it is unexpected, the substitute for the January 3rd
vota conducted shortly after
Domitian’s accession on October 1st
AD 81.53
The inclusion of the Genius of the princeps in
this rite is puzzling not only because it goes against existing precedent, but also because it
does not fit into the annual cycle of these rituals. The January 3rd
vota, whether carried out
on the usual day or at another time in the year as a substitute, always started with the vows
that were made to the gods for the safety of the princeps and his family in the previous year
being fulfilled, and then new vows made for the coming year. Thus the vows being fulfilled
in the Domitianic rite of October AD 81 must be those made earlier that year on January 3rd
.
This is verified by the fact that the vows being fulfilled are described in the October text as
having been made by Lucius Pompeius Vopiscus and Gaius Arruntius Catellius Celer under
the auspices of Gaius Iunius Mefitanus, and this is exactly the arrangement listed in the text
for the January AD 81 vows. If this is the case, then the vows made and fulfilled are
inconsistent, as the January AD 81 text does not include vows to the Genius of the princeps,
but Domitian’s Genius received a sacrifice in the fulfilment of those vows in October. The
text of the January and October rites are given in full below.
III Nonas Ian(uarias) / magister C(aius) Iunius Tadius Mefitanus collegi(i) fratrum Arvalium nomine
vota nuncupavit / pro salute Imp(eratoris) Titi Caesaris divi f(ilii) Vespasiani Aug(usti) pontif(icis)






























































53
CFA 49:39-51.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
63
max(imi) tribunic(ia) potest(ate) co(n)s(ulis) VIII et Caesaris / divi f(ilii) Domitia/ni co(n)s(ulis) VII et
Iuliae Aug(ustae) liberorumque eorum victumis immolatis in Ca/pitolio quae superioris anni magister
voverat persolvit Iovi O(ptimo) M(aximo) boves mares II / Iunoni Reginae vaccas duas Minervae
vaccas II Saluti publicae vaccas II et in / proximum annum nuncupavit praeeunte L(ucio) Pompeio
Vopisco C(aio) Arruntio Catellio Celere in ea verba quae infra scripta sunt / Iuppiter O(ptime)
M(axime) si Imp(erator) Titus Caesar Vespasianus Aug(ustus) pontif(ex) max(imus) trib(unicia)
potest(ate) p(ater) p(atriae) / et Caesar divi f(ilius) Domitianus quos nos sentimus dicere vivent
domusque / eorum incolumis erit a(nte) d(iem) III Non(as) Ian(uarias) quae proximae p(opulo)
R(omano) Q(uiritibus) rei p(ublicae) p(opuli) R(omani) Q(uiritium) / [er]unt et eum diem eosque
salvos servaveris ex periculis si qua sunt / [eruntve ante] eum diem eventumque bonum ita uti nos
sentimus dicere / [dederis eosque in eo st]atu quo nunc sunt aut eo meliore servaveris ast tu / [ea ita
faxsis tunc tibi nom]ine collegi(i) fratrum Arvalium bubus au/[ratis II vovemus esse futur]um / [Iuno
Regina quae in verba Iovi O(ptimo) M(aximo) bubus a]uratis II vovimus esse futu/[rum quod hodie
vovimus ast tu ea ita faxsis tunc] tibi in eadem verba no/[mine collegii fratrum Arvalium vaccis
auratis II vovemus] esse futurum / [Minerva quae in verba Iovi O(ptimo) M(aximo) bubus auratis II
vovimus esse] / [futurum quod hodie vovimus ast tu ea ita faxsis tunc tibi in eadem verba no]/[mine
collegii fratrum Arvalium vaccis auratis II vovemus esse futurum] / [salus publica quae in verba Iovi
O(ptimo) M(aximo) bubus auratis II vovimus] / [esse futurum quod hodie vovimus ast tu ea ita faxsis
tunc tibi in eadem verba no]/[mine collegii fratrum Arvalium vaccis auratis II vovemus esse
futurum].54
On January 3rd
Gaius Iunius Tadius Mefitanus, president of the college of Arval Brothers, pronounced
vows in their name for the safety of Imperator Titus Caesar Vespasian Augustus - son of a god and
chief priest with tribunician power and consul eight times - and of Caesar Domitian - son of a god and
consul seven times - and of Julia Augusta and of all the children of them. On the capitol, after the
victims which the president had vowed in the previous year had been sacrificed, two oxen to Jupiter
Optimus Maximus, two cows to Juno Regina, two cows to Minerva and two cows to Salus Publica,
fulfilling that promise, vows, led by Lucius Pompeius Vopiscus and Gaius Arruntius Catellius Celer,
were pronounced for the following year in those words which are written below. O Jupiter Optimus
Maximus, if Imperator Titus Caesar Vespasian Augustus - chief priest with tribunician power and
father of his country - and Caesar Domitian - son of a god - about whom we perceive ourselves to be
speaking, live and their households are prosperous on January 3rd
in the year that is next for the
Roman people, the Quirites, and the republic of the Roman People , the Quirites, and if you keep that
day and them safe from whatever dangers there are and will be before that day, and if you give a
happy outcome as we perceive it, and if you keep them in their current condition or a better one, if
you do these things thus, we will sacrifice two gilded bulls to you in the name of the college of Arval
Brothers. O Juno Regina, in the words with which we promised Jupiter Optimus Maximus that he
will have two gilded bulls, which we vowed today, if you shall do these things thus, then in the same
words we vow two gilded cows to you in the name of the college of Arval Brothers. O Minerva, in
the words with which we promised Jupiter Optimus Maximus that he will have two gilded bulls,
which we vowed today, if you shall do these things thus, then in the same words we vow two gilded
cows to you in the name of the college of Arval Brothers. O Salus Publica, in the words with which
we promised Jupiter Optimus Maximus that he will have two gilded bulls, which we vowed today, if
you shall do these things thus, then in the same words we vow two gilded cows to you in the name of
the college of Arval Brothers.


isdem co(n)s(ulibus) K(alendis) Octobr(ibus) [i]n Capitolio collegiu<m=S> fratrum Arvalium
immolavit ob votorum / [co]mmendandorum causa pro salute et incolumitate Caesaris divi f(ilii)
Domitian(i) / Aug(usti) per L(ucium) Pompeium Vopiscum C(aium) Arruntium Catellium Celerem
promag(istrum) C(ai) Iuni Me/fitani Iovi O(ptimo) M(aximo) bovem marem Iunoni Reginae vaccam
Minervae vaccam Salut(i) / vaccam Genio ipsius taurum item in annum proximum nuncupavit in /
Capitolio pro salute Imp(eratoris) Caesaris divi f(ilii) Domitiani Aug(usti) in ea verba q(uae) s(upra)






























































54
CFA 48:35-61.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
64
s(cripta) s(unt) / Iovi O(ptimo) M(aximo) bovem marem Iunoni Reginae vaccam Minervae vaccam
Saluti vaccam / item pro salute Domitiae Aug(ustae) coniugis eius in ea verba quae supra scripta sunt
/ Iovi O(ptimo) M(aximo) bovem marem Iunoni Reginae vaccam Minervae vaccam Saluti vaccam /
item pro salute Iuliae T(iti) Imp(eratoris) f(iliae) Aug(ustae) in ea verba quae supra scripta sunt Iovi
(Optimo) M(aximo) bovem / marem Iunoni Reginae vaccam Minervae vaccam Saluti vaccam in
collegio adfuerun[t] L(ucius) Pompeius Vopiscus C(aius) Arruntius Catellius Celer Q(uintus) Tillius
Sassius L(ucius) Veratius Quadratus C(aius) Salvius / Liberalis Nonius Bassus.55
On October 1st
when the same men were consuls the college of Arval Brothers sacrificed on the
Capitol on account of the fulfilment of vows made by Lucius Pompeius Vopiscus and Gaius Arruntius
Catellius Celer during the presidency of Gaius Iunius Mefitanus for the safety and prosperity of
Caesar Domitian Augustus, son of a god: an ox was given to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, a cow to Juno
Regina, a cow to Minerva, a cow to Salus and a bull to the Genius of Domitian. At the same time the
college pronounced vows on the Capitol for the coming year for the safety of Imperator Caesar
Domitian Augustus, son of a god, in those words which are written above, promising an ox to Jupiter
Optimus Maximus, a cow to Juno Regina, a cow to Minerva and a cow to Salus. At the same time for
the safety of Domitia Augusta, the wife of Domitian, in those words which are written above they
promised an ox to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, a cow to Juno Regina, a cow to Minerva and a cow to
Salus. At the same time for the safety of Julia Augusta, daughter of Imperator Titus, in those words
which are written above they promised an ox to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, a cow to Juno Regina, a
cow to Minerva and a cow to Salus. College members present were Lucius Pompeius Vopiscus,
Gaius Arruntius Celer, Quintus Tillius Sassius, Lucius Veratius Quadratus and Gaius Salvius
Liberalis Nonius Bassus.
In addition to the inconsistency in the pantheons between the January 3rd
vows and the
October 1st
sacrifices, the vows made on October 1st
to be fulfilled on January 3rd
AD 82 also
do not include the Genius of the princeps, and the Genius of the princeps is not included in
any other examples of the January 3rd
vota from the rest of Domitian’s reign.56
This is
particularly significant because this is the only surviving example of the January 3rd
vota
from the Arval records in which the pantheons of deities listed as receiving fulfilment
sacrifices and future vows are different. One possible explanation for this inconsistency in
the text could be that the Genius of the princeps, apparently included in the January 3rd
vota
sometime between January and October AD 81, was removed from that vota again by
January 3rd
AD 82. Beard has shown that the Arval records were only inscribed once a year,
usually in April.57
If vows were made to the Genius of the princeps on October 1st
AD 81,
but the Genius was subsequently removed from that ritual before January AD 82 and






























































55
CFA 49:39-51.
56
CFA 54:1-26, 55.I:1-50, 58:1-28, 59:1-23, 60.1-11.
57
Beard (1985) 126.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
65
therefore the fulfilment sacrifices never conducted, it is possible that when the rituals were
retrospectively recorded in April AD 82 the vow made but never fulfilled was not included.
Regardless of whether this explanation is accurate, it is apparent that the Genius of the
princeps was only included in the Arval cult for a brief period at the start of Domitian’s reign.
The next evidence to address is Pliny’s Panegyricus, a eulogy to the new princeps
Trajan read before the senate in AD 100 and then considerably enlarged for publication.58
In
the text Pliny praises Trajan for not allowing gratitude for his benefactions to be directed to
his Genius, but instead to Jupiter, implying that Domitian had done the opposite.
Simili reverentia, Caesar, non apud genium tuum bonitati tuae gratias agi, sed apud numen Iovis
optimi maximi pateris.59
With similar reverence, Caesar, you do not allow gratitude for your good deeds to be directed towards
your Genius, but prefer it to be directed to Jupiter Best and Greatest.
Gradel takes this to be evidence both that the Genius was promoted in cult under Domitian,
and for its removal from cult after his reign.60
Although Pliny’s statement may well be based in fact, and may indeed refer to the
apparent brief promotion of the Genius of the princeps in cult at the start of Domitian’s reign,
aside from this aberrant appearance there is actually little to distinguish between the role of
the Genius of the princeps in the state under Domitian and Trajan. Just as the Genius of the
princeps is absent from the surviving Arval records from Domitian’s reign after AD 81, it is
absent from the surviving records from Trajan’s reign. Domitian’s Genius was present in the
compita, where the Genii Caesarum had played a role since the reign of Augustus, as
indicated by a surviving Roman compitum inscription from Domitian’s reign.






























































58
Radice (1968) 166.
59
Pliny, Panegyricus 52.6.
60
Gradel (2002) 192.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
66
Laribus Aug(ustis) et Geni(i)s Caesarum [Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) Domitiano Aug(usto) co(n)s(uli) IX]
/ desig(nato) X p(atri) p(atriae) permissu A(uli) Anni Camartis tr[ib(uni) pleb(is) aediculam
reg(ionis) I vici honoris] / et virtutis magistri anni LXXXXII a s[olo impensa sua restituerunt] /
C(aius) Iulius C(ai) l(ibertus) Zosimus M(anius) Birrius M(ani) l(ibertus) Hierus M(anius) B[...61
Dedicated to the Lares Augusti and the Genii Caesarum when Imperator Caesar Domitian Augustus
father of his country was consul for the ninth time and designated for the tenth. With the permission
of the tribune of the plebeians Aulus Annius Camars this chapel in region one, in the neighbourhood
of Honos and Virtus, was restored by the magistrates of the 92nd
year with their own funds. Gaius
Julius Zosimus, freedman of Gaius, Manius Birrius Hierus, freedman of Manius, Manius B...
The Genii Caesarum however also continued their role in the compitum under Trajan, as
indicated by a similar surviving inscription.62
Laribus Augustis et Geni(i)s Caesarum / Imp(eratori) Caesari divi Nervae filio Nervae Traiano
Aug(usto) Germ(anico) pontifici maximo trib(unica) pot(estate) IIII co(n)s(uli) III desi[g(nato) IIII] /
permissu C(ai) Cassi Interamnani Pisibani Prisci praetoris aediculam reg(ionis) XIIII vici censori
magistri anni CVI[I] / vetustate dilapsam inpensa sua restituerunt idem {pr} probavit / L(ucio) Roscio
Aeliano co(n)s(ulibus) / Ti(berio) Claudio Sacerdot{a}e // L(ucius) Cercenius L(uci) lib(ertus)
Hermes / P(ublius) Rutilius P(ubli) f(ilius) Priscus // M(arcus) Livius M(arci) lib(ertus) Donax /
L(ucius) Coranius L(uci) lib(ertus) Euaristus // dedic(atum) / IIII K(alendas) Ian(uarias).63
Dedicated to the Lares Augusti and the Genii Caesarum when Imperator Caesar Nerva Trajan
Augustus Germanicus, son of Divus Nerva, pontifex maximus with tribunician power for the 4th
time
and consul for the third time and designated for the fourth time. With the permission of the praetors
Gaius Cassius Intermnanus and Pisibanus Priscus this chapel in region fourteen, in the neighbourhood
of the censor, dilapidated with great age, was restored by the magistrates of the 107th
year with their
own funds, and the same chapel was commended when Lucius Roscius Aelianus and Tiberius
Claudius Sacerdos were consuls. Lucius Cercenius Hermes, freedman of Lucius, Publius Rutilius
Priscus, son of Publius, Marcus Livius Donax, freedman of Marcus, Lucius Coranius Eauristus,
freedman of Lucius. Dedicated four days before the kalends of January.
Further, as seen in section one, oaths by the Genius of the princeps came into vogue under
Gaius. Such oaths continued to be conducted under both Domitian and Trajan. Examples
from Domitian’s reign survive from Egypt, and from Malaca, Irni and La Puebla de Cazalla
in Baetica,64
and an example from Trajan’s reign survives from Picenum in Italy: per I(ovem)






























































61
CIL 6.449.
62
The Genius of the princeps may also have continued to be included in the compita under Vespasian and Titus,
for although no compita inscriptions from Rome survive at all from their reigns, ten compita altars were
preserved at Pompeii, in their form from AD 79. At least two of these included the Genius of the princeps,
depicted on wall paintings connected with the altars, and thus comparison suggests that the Genius also
appeared in the compita in Rome in AD 79 (Bakker (1994) 127 nos. 18 and 19; Spinazzola (1953) 161-185 figs
213-214, 215-217).
63
CIL 6.451.
64
Egypt: AE (1910) 75, (1950) 240; Malaca: CIL 2.1963, 1964; La Puebla de Cazalla: CILA 2(4).1206; Irni:
CILA 2(4).1201. An example also survives from Herculaneum from the reign of Vespasian: AE (1951) 217,
(1956) 265.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
67
O(ptimum) M(aximum) Geniumque Imp(eratoris) / Caesaris Nervae Traiani Aug(usti) /
Ger(manici) (by Jupiter Optimus Maximus, and the Genius of Imperator Caesar Nerva Trajan
Augustus Germanicus).65
Thus there seems to be little evidence for differences in the role of
the Genius of the princeps in the state under Domitian and Trajan.
Gradel prefers his interpretation of the evidence – as indicating that the cult of the
Genius of the princeps was promoted under Domitian – because he considers Genius worship
to be oppressive, representing the princeps as master over a dependent populus, and therefore
appropriate for an autocrat like Domitian. His characterisation of Genius cult is based on the
observation that almost all epigraphic dedications to the Genius of another man, excluding
the princeps, were made by freedmen.66
From this Gradel concludes that in private
interactions cultivating the Genius of another man was the domain of the servile classes, and
that it would have been offensive for a man, including the princeps, to ask ranking members
of Rome to cultivate his Genius.67
Gradel suggests that by sacrificing to a man’s Genius one
was accepting a position as their client, and according to Cicero men of rank and substance
patrocinio vero se usos aut clientes appellari mortis instar putant (find it as bitter as death to
be under patronage or to be called clients).68
Gradel validates his inference by refuting the
long standing argument that the Genius of the princeps played a key role in the imperial cult
under Augustus as an alternative to direct cult, demonstrating that under Augustus Genius
cult was in fact limited to the compita, where it was acceptable because the vicomagistri that
served at those altars were predominantly freedmen.69
He argues that:






























































65
EE 08-01.210.
66
Gradel (2002) 39, 372.
67
Gradel (2002) 34-41, 101-102.
68
Cicero, De Officiis 2.20.69.
69
Gradel (2002) 118.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
68
It is in my view a mistake, though a common one, to see the form of Genius worship as a more
‘moderate’ option, chosen to avoid divine cult… Genius worship should be seen and interpreted in its
proper institutionalised context within the domus.70
Following on from this he notes peaks in the cult of the Genius of the princeps under
autocratic rulers such as Gaius, Claudius, Nero and Domitian.71
I disagree with Gradel’s suggestion that cult of the Genius of the princeps was
considered oppressive. The role of the Genius of the princeps in the state imperial cult
appears rather to have been dynastic. This supposition is also lent support by the peaks and
troughs in the role of the Genius in the imperial cult. Unlike Augustus and Tiberius – who
was invested with the powers of the Principate during the reign of Augustus72
– the claims to
power of Gaius, Claudius and Nero were all based on their dynastic membership of the JulioClaudian
family, and therefore the Genius was useful to them to formulate the source of their
power. This would also explain why it briefly re-emerged at the start of Domitian’s reign as
unlike Titus – who was invested with the powers of the Principate during Vespasian’s reign73
– Domitian, although he had served as consul on several occasions, was still essentially a
private citizen at the time of his accession, without tribunicia potestas and imperium;
Domitian’s claim to power was dynastic. This would also explain the next re-emergence of
the Genius in the Arval cult after the reign of Domitian, under Marcus Aurelius in AD 176,
for the adventus of Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus.
ob adventum Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris)] / [M(arci) Aureli Antonini Aug(usti) immolavit] Iovi Opt(imo)
Max(imo) bovem mare[m Iunoni Reginae] / [bov(em) femin(am) Minervae bov(em) femin(am) Sa]luti
bovem femin(am) Neptuno t[aur(um) Genio Imperatoris taur(um)] / [et ob adventum L(uci) Aureli
C]ommodi Caes(aris) Iovi bov(em) mare[m Iunoni Reginae] / [bovem femin(am) Minervae bovem
femin(am) Saluti] bov(em) fem(inam) Genio Imperatori[s taur(um)].74






























































70
Gradel (2002) 43-44.
71
Gradel (2002) 36-44.
72
Cox (2005) 251-270.
73
Cox (2005) 251-270.
74
CFA 88:5-9.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
69
On account of the adventus of Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus an ox was
sacrificed to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, a cow to Juno Regina, a cow to Minerva, a cow to Salus, a
bull to Neptune and a bull to the Genius of the Imperator, and on account of the adventus of Lucius
Aurelius Commodus Caesar an ox was sacrificed to Jupiter, a cow to Juno Regina, a cow to Minerva,
a cow to Salus and a bull to the Genius of the Imperator...
To explain this sacrifice under the ‘good’ princeps Marcus Aurelius, Gradel suggests that this
happened without his explicit consent while he was away on campaign.75
However, in my
view it should rather be noted that this development was made in the year after the revolt of
Avidius Cassius when Marcus Aurelius did much to promote Commodus as his heir,76
and
the year before he entered into his joint rule with his son.77
Thus although Gradel views this
time as ‘unexpected’, Marcus Aurelius being a quintessential ‘good’ princeps, it seems to me
like a natural time for its rise. Marcus Aurelius was the first princeps in over a century to be
succeeded by his biological son and therefore had a reason to promote ideas of dynasty.
Returning to Gradel’s epigraphic evidence, although the majority of epigraphic
dedications made to the Genius of a living man, excluding the princeps, were made by
freedmen,78
in contrast the majority of dedications to the Genius of a deceased individual
were made by close family and friends of comparable social status.79
To explain this Gradel
suggests that cult of a living and deceased man’s Genius were fundamentally different,80
but
it seems to me that it is not the cult, but the purpose of the inscriptions, that changes. Gradel
himself points out that private and domestic cult, like that of a man’s Genius, created little
archaeological evidence because it was conducted by well informed insiders who did not
need to explain or advertise their actions in texts or with grand monuments.81
Consequently
the question should not be why so few epigraphic dedications to the Genius of another man






























































75
Gradel (2003) 192.
76
Historia Augusta (Commodus) 2.2, 12.2.
77
Historia Augusta (Marcus Aurelius) 27.5, (Commodus) 2.3-5, 12.5; cf. Birley (1987) 256.
78
Gradel (2002) 372.
79
Gradel (2002) 36 n. 13.
80
Gradel (2002) 36 n. 13.
81
Gradel (2002) 198.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
70
were produced by the higher classes, but why so many were produced by freedmen. An
explanation could be that due to their position freedmen were under obligation to display
their gratitude to their patron, and epigraphic dedications were a means of this. After death, it
was a man’s family and heirs that would commemorate him, explaining why dedications to
the Genii of deceased men were made by family and friends. Thus Gradel’s evidence may
reflect epigraphic habit rather than cultic habit.
Consequently it seems to me that Gradel’s interpretation of the evidence for the cult
of the Genius of the princeps under Domitian is not the only possible interpretation of that
evidence, and that it is also possible to suggest from the same evidence that the Genius of the
princeps was largely suppressed in cult for the majority of Domitian’s reign. In the following
section of this chapter I will support my interpretation of the evidence on the basis of
iconographic evidence surviving from Domitian’s reign.
2.3: Iconographic Evidence
An iconographic theme preserved on three monumental sculptural reliefs, which I will
argue date to the reign of Domitian, the Triumphator Relief on the Arch of Titus and
Cancelleria A and B, support my suggestion that the role of the Genius of the princeps in
state theology and cult changed significantly between the reigns of Nero and Domitian. On
these reliefs the Genius of the princeps is not only conspicuous by its absence, but each relief
also includes the Genius Populi Romani and Genius Senatus, depicted together perhaps for
the first time,82
who alongside the goddess Roma are used in all three scenes to represent and
personify the Roman state. Thus, whereas the Neronian Genius Augusti coins presented the
Genius of the princeps as the sovereign Genius of the Roman state, with this Domitianic






























































82
Béranger (1964) 78-79; Kunckel (1974) 40-41.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
71
iconography sovereignty was returned to the Genii of Rome’s traditional sovereign bodies,
the senate and Roman people. It is my position that this iconography represents a major shift
in the apparent attitude of the state’s administrative engines regarding the role that the Genius
of the princeps should play in state theology. Moreover, this change in attitude probably
made an impact not only on iconography and theology, but also on cult ritual, and thus this
iconography supports my reading of the cultic evidence presented in the previous section.
The Triumphator Relief adorns the Arch of Titus on the Via Sacra.83
The date of this
arch is not firmly established by its adorning inscription, which simply states that it was
dedicated to Divus Titus by the senate and people of Rome.84
This dedication, plus the
depiction of the apotheosis of Titus on the arch itself, indicate that the monument was
completed after Titus’ death; exactly how long after is debatable.
Figure 12: Triumphator Relief, Arch of Titus: Rome.85
The reign of Domitian - Titus’ immediate and only Flavian successor, and the princeps under
whose auspices Titus was deified – seems like the most obvious time for the arch’s






























































83
On the Arch of Titus in general see Pfanner (1983) passim; Arce (1993) 1:109-111.
84
CIL 6.945.
85
Image from Pfanner (1983) plate 45.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
72
dedication. Nevertheless this suggestion has been refuted on the basis of the literary tradition
that Domitian hated his brother and did little to honour him;86
thus some scholars have argued
that the arch was dedicated under Trajan.87
It is my position that the arch was in fact
dedicated under Domitian, firstly because arguments against a Domitianic date and in favour
of a Trajanic date are weak, and secondly because reference to Domitian appears on the arch,
which is unlikely to have been made following his damnatio memoriae.
Firstly addressing positive arguments for a Trajanic date, some scholars have
preferred this later date on the basis of dimensional and artistic similarity between the Arch
of Titus and the Arch of Trajan at Beneventum.88
However, Pfanner has convincingly refuted
the suggestion that the two arches were made in the same workshop,89
and similarity between
the arches can be explained as the result of Trajanic mimesis of the Flavian monument.90
Similarly Bennett suggested that an inscription found near the Arch of Titus, describing a
dedication made by Trajan to Divus Titus, comes from the arch and can verify its dedication
under Trajan.91
However, that this inscription describes the dedication of the arch seems
unlikely as the monument already bears an inscription claiming the senate and people as
dedicators and, as Darwall-Smith points out, it would be unusual for a monument to claim
two different dedicators in this way.92



Looking at arguments against a Domitianic date, McFayden pointed out that the arch
is absent from Martial’s Epigrammata 1.70, and as a result suggests that it must not yet have






























































86
Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Titus) 10.1, (Domitian) 2.3; Cassius Dio, Epitome 66.26.
87
Eg. McFayden (1915) 133; Hassel (1966) 23, 50-51; Vermeule (1969) 92; Bennett (1997) 148; Geyssen
(1999) 718-738; Kleiner (2009) 266.
88
Eg. Magi (1945) 162; Hassel (1966) 23, 50-51; Vermeule (1969) 92; Bennett (1997) 148; Kleiner (2009) 266.
89
Pfanner (1983) 22, 44.
90
Jones (2000) 66; Strong (1988) 153; Kleiner (1992) 224-229; Kleiner (2009) 266.
91
CIL 6.946; Bennett (1997) 148.
92
Darwall-Smith (1996) 170.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
73
been constructed at the time of its composition.93
In the text Martial instructs the personified
epigram to travel to the house of Proculus on the Palatine and perform the morning salutatio
there in his place. Martial describes the route for the poem from the Temple of Castor,
passing the temple of Vesta and the house of the Vestal Virgins; it is then to seek out the
Palatine by way of the Sacra Via, where it will encounter plurima... summi... imago ducis
(many grand images of the leader). The voyaging poem is not to be distracted by the colossal
statue, but is to turn at the Tecta Lyaei and the tholus of Magna Mater to the house of
Proculus.94
On this route Martial’s epigram would have passed the Arch of Titus.
McFayden’s assumption that if the arch had existed at the time of the poem’s composition
that Martial would have mentioned it, cannot be validated. Martial did not catalogue every
monument on his route, and Geyssen has argued that he specifically selected monuments
connected with Domitian in order to imply that Domitian’s house on the Palatine, rather than
the nearby house of Proculus, was the true destination of the poem. Underlying reference to
Domitian within in the poem is implied by reference to the epigram’s addressee as beloved of
Phoebus and the Muses, patron deities which Geyssen suggests were inappropriate for
Proculus, a patron who Martial did not deign to visit personally, but appropriate for
Domitian, whose poetic interests are well documented.95
Martial could have had many
reasons for avoiding explicit reference to Domitian’s triumphant brother in his composition,
so the absence of reference to the arch in this poem is not strong evidence against it being
existent at the time.
In fact, another poem of Martial’s may suggest that construction of the arch had
begun under Titus himself. Scholars have argued, based on similarities between the events






























































93
McFayden (1915) 132.
94
Martial, Epigrammata 1.70.
95
Geyssen (1999) 728-729.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
74
recorded in Martial’s Liber Spectaculorum and ostensibly historical events recorded by
Suetonius and Cassius Dio, that the anonymous Caesar who Martial addresses in his book on
spectacles must be Titus, and the occasion the inauguration of the Flavian amphitheatre in
AD 80.96
The evidence regarding the arch comes from the following poem which is built by
a series of now and then contrasts.
Hic ubi sidereus propius videt astra colossus
et crescent media pegmata celsa via,
invidiosa feri radiabunt atria regis
unaque iam tota stabat in urbe domus.
Hic ubi conspicui venerabilis amphitheatri
erigitur moles, stagna Neronis etant.
Hic ubi miramur velocia munera thermas.
abstulerat miseris tecta superbus ager.
Claudia diffusas ubi porticus explicat umbras,
Ultima pars aulae deficientis erat.
Reddita Roma sibi est et sunt te praeside, Caesar,
deliciae populi, quae fuerant domini.97
Here, where the starry colossus sees the constellations close at hand and a lofty framework rises in the
middle of the road, the hated halls of a cruel king used to gleam and in the whole city there was only
one house standing. Here, where the awesome bulk of the amphitheatre soars before our eyes, once
lay Nero’s pools. Here, where we marvel at the swift blessing of the baths, an arrogant estate had
robbed the poor of their dwellings. Where the Claudian portico weaves its spreading shade marks the
point at which the palace finally stopped. Rome has been restored to herself, and with you in charge,
Caesar, what used to be the pleasure of a master is now the pleasure of the people.98
Coleman argues that the scaffolding must have been for the construction of an important
monument to warrant a reference in the poem, located near the colossus of Nero with which it
is compared, and that the Arch of Titus would have been the only monument in the vicinity to
fit the bill.99
Furthermore, the fact that the exterior of the arch is largely unadorned may lend
support to the supposition that the arch was started under Titus, and finished under Domitian:
if the arch was less important to the new princeps he may not have completed it as
elaborately as originally planned.100






























































96
Coleman (1998) 15.
97
Martial, Liber Spectaculorum 2.
98
Translation from Coleman (2006) 14.
99
Coleman (1998) 19-20.
100
The arch was probably originally surmounted by statuary, Lehmann-Hartleben (1937) suggests a quadriga of
elephants on the basis of a 6th
century record of such a group on the Via Sacra by Cassiodorus (Variae 10.30).
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
75
Finally, a positive argument can be made for a Domitianic date on the basis of the
iconography of the Booty Relief, which hangs opposite the Triumphator Relief inside the arch
and depicts men carrying spoils taken from Judea in the triumphal procession of AD 71.101
Figure 13: Booty Relief, Arch of Titus: Rome.102
This procession passes beneath an arch depicted at the far right of the relief which is shown
as surmounted by statuary consisting of two men in quadrigae flanking a man on horseback
and a larger than life female figure.
Figure 14: Top of the arch depicted on the Booty Relief, Arch of Titus: Rome.103






























































101
Pfanner (1983) 91; Rankov (1984) 283. Kleiner (1992) suggests that another argument for a Domitianic date
can also be made on the basis of the location of the arch. She argues that the Flavians had a policy of reclaiming
land used for Neronian structures to build new public structures. The arch occupied the space of the domus
transitoria which Nero built to link the Palatine and Esquiline hills with his residence (183-185).
102
Image from Pfanner (1983) plate 54.
103
Image from Pfanner (1983) plate 56.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
76
This arch must represent a temporary structure erected for the day of the Judean triumph,
which was probably replaced later with a permanent structure.104
If this is the case then the
statuary must represent the triumphatores Vespasian and Titus in the quadrigae flanking an
equestrian Domitian accompanied by a now unidentifiable goddess.105
Josephus, a witness to
the event, records that Domitian rode horseback on the day.106
That Domitian is depicted on
the arch at all suggests that the relief was created before his damnatio memoriae, and the fact
that he is the central figure strongly supports the suggestion that the relief image was
completed during his reign.
The Cancelleria Reliefs also appear to be Domitianic. The two reliefs are certainly
contemporaneous with one another and belong together as a pair, or part of a larger series.
This is indicated by their complementary compositions: each Luna marble relief is made up
of four symmetrical panels 2.06 metres tall, both were originally 6.058 meters long, both
contain seventeen figures divided into two roughly even groups, and the height of both
depicted processions sags in the centre, probably to create an even appearance when viewed
from where they were hung, presumably on the same monument.107
Their workmanship
suggests that they originally belonged to a state monument, but they appear to have been
removed for re-cutting and never returned, as indicated by their find spot in a mason’s yard or
marble worker’s deposit near the tomb of the Hirtius in the Campus Martius.108
Their
classicizing style suits a late-Neronian, Flavian or Trajanic-Hadrianic date, each of which has






























































104
On these types of arches see Kleiner (1985) 11-12.
105
Pfanner (1983) 67; Kleiner (1990) 127-136. Pfanner suggests that the goddess is Virtus, I think that Minerva
or Roma would be more consistent with Domitianic iconography, but the figure is simply too worn for a clear
identification.
106
Josephus, Jewish War 7.152.
107
Toynbee (1957) 6-7.
108
The majority of the pieces of the friezes were discovered on the grounds of the Palazzo della Cancelleria
Apostolica in the region of the Campus Martius, but two portions of Frieze A were found twenty-four metres
east of the rest under the modern Corso (Magi (1945) 3-34; Kähler (1950) 30; Herzog (2001) 107).
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
77
been advocated.109
Dating has primarily relied on identifying the original characters of the
imperial figures depicted. I advocate a Domitianic date on the same basis.
Cancelleria B depicts a procession led by an apparitor standing to the left of an
enthroned goddess, followed by five Vestal Virgins and three lictores. Next a young man
stands in the foreground with a togate bearded figure and a semi-nude heroic figure behind
his shoulders, greeting an older man being crowned by victory. Behind this man stands
another lictor and a man holding a volume. Most scholars identify the young man as
Domitian and the older man as Vespasian on the basis of portraiture.
Figure 15: Cancelleria B, Vatican Museum: Rome.110
The older figure has a wide rectangular hair style arranged at the back of the neck in short
curls typical of Vespasian’s portraits at the start of his reign before he was bald. The same
hairstyle can be seen on portraits of Vespasian in the British Museum,111
at Kopenhagen,112
and in Rome’s Museo Nazionale delle Terme.113
The portrait also has Vespasian’s typical
hooked nose, upwardly arched brows, bulging eyelids, thin tightly pressed mouth, fleshy
cheeks and broad wrinkled forehead.






























































109
Neronian: Herzog (2001); Flavian: Magi (1945) (1955-1956); Hamburg (1945); Last (1948); Bendinelli
(1949); Ryberg (1955); Toynbee (1957); Simon (1960); Keller (1967); Daltrop, Hausman and Wegner (1966);
Kunckel (1974); Ghendini (1986); Trajanic-Hadrianic: McCann (1972); Bergman (1981).
110
Image from www.Rome101.com.
111
British Museum inv. 1890.
112
NY Carlsberg Gyptothek inv. 2585.
113
Museo Nazionale delle Terme inv. 330.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
78
Figure 16: Front and side view of Vespasian portrait, Cancelleria B, Vatican Museum: Rome.114
Figure 17: Front and side view of Vespasian portrait, Museo Nazionale delle Terme: Rome.115
The portrait of the youth also matches types of Domitian from early in Vespasian’s reign,
exhibiting a full curly coiffure with curving locks moving over the forehead from right to left,
a hooked nose and broad face with a long mouth and a full slightly receding lower lip, and a
firm square chin. These characteristics are also seen on a portrait of Domitian from the
Museum of Fine Art in Boston.116
Figure 18: Front and side view of Domitian portrait, Cancelleria B, Vatican Museum: Rome.117
Figure 19: Front and side view of Domitian portrait, Boston Museum and Fine Art.118
Alternative identifications have been suggested. McCaan and Bergman argue that the
hairstyle of the youth closely resembles that of the young Hadrian on the Arch of Trajan at
Beneventum, and they prefer this identification because the youth wears a light beard.119
To
match Hadrian they suggest that the older figure must be Trajan re-cut as Nerva, pointing to a






























































114
Image from Daltrop, Hausman and Wegner (1966) plate 5.
115
Image from Daltrop, Hausman and Wegner (1966) plate 4.
116
Boston Museum of Fine Art inv. 88.639.
117
Image from Daltrop, Hausman and Wegner (1966) plate 31.
118
Image from Daltrop, Hausman and Wegner (1966) plate 24.
119
McCaan (1972) 251; Bergman (1981) 25.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
79
relatively high ridge between the face of the older imperial and the background of the relief
as evidence for re-cutting. This identification seems unlikely as the hair of the older figure
does not match any known styles of Trajan or Nerva. More recently Herzog suggested that
the older man is Nero re-cut as Vespasian greeting a personification of the equestrian order;
this latter identification is based on the fact that the youth wears equestrian style boots.120
This identification also seems unlikely since, as Toynbee has pointed out, it is the youth who
is the centre of the scene, and thus he is probably at least as important as the man he is
greeting.121
Furthermore the suggestion that the older figure has been re-cut is not commonly
accepted because the features do not appear to have been altered and the head is consistent in
size with the body. Toynbee suggests that the high ridge may be the result of the main
sculptor leaving the heads of the youth and the older man, which display a more striking
individuality and realism than the surrounding portraits, to a specialist imperial portrait
sculptor.122
Consequently the traditional identification of these men as Domitian and
Vespasian seems most likely.
The fact that the portraits display features appropriate for those used early in
Vespasian’s reign suggests an identification for the scene: Vespasian’s return to Rome in AD
70 when he was greeted by Domitian.123
However, considering that it is Domitian who is the
central figure, this is probably a retrospective view of this event from Domitian’s reign. Last
suggests that this may explain why Domitian appears uncharacteristically with equestrian
boots and a light beard: until his accession in AD 81 Domitian appeared numismatically as
princeps iuventutis, a role with equestrian associations, and the beard may indicate that






























































120
Herzog (2001) 114.
121
Toynbee (1957) 5.
122
Toynbee (1957) 6-7.
123
Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Domitian) 13; Cassius Dio, Epitome 66.10.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
80
Domitian had not yet performed the ceremony of depositio barbae.124
Perhaps the purpose of
these features was to make it clear that the youth interacting with Vespasian was Domitian
and not Titus.
The one imperial figure featured on Cancelleria A has certainly been re-cut, as
indicated by the fact that the head is much smaller than the body and neck, the significant
ridge between the face and the background, and between the face and hairline of the figure,
which indicates that the hair probably belongs to the original character. Most scholars agree
that he is Domitian re-cut as Nerva.125
This is evident in the lengthening of the nose, the
addition of naso-labial lines and Adam’s apple, and shrinking of the eyes and chin; but the
portrait still retains some of the fuller more rectangular characteristics of Domitian.126
Similar signs are evident on re-cut portraits of Domitian as Nerva from Holkham Hall and the
Palazzo dei Conservatori.127
Figure 20: Portrait of Domitian/Nerva, Cancelleria A, Vatican Museum: Rome.128
Figure 21: Portrait of Domitian/Nerva, Holkham Hall: Norfolk, England.129
The hairstyle is appropriate for Domitian during his own reign, rather than under Vespasian,
showing long strands of hair brushed forward from the occiput and arranged in a series of






























































124
Last (1948) 10.
125
Magi (1945) (1955/1956); Hamburg (1945); Curtius (1948); Bendinelli (1949); Ryberg (1955); Toynbee
(1957); Simon (1960); Keller (1967); Daltrop, Hausman and Wegner (1966); Kunckel (1974); Ghendini (1986).
126
Varner (2004) 115-117.
127
Palazzo dei Conservatori inv. 423.
128
Image from www.Rome101.com.
129
Image from www.wikipedia.org.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
81
waves over the top of the head, also seen on portraits of Domitian from the Museo del
Palazzo dei Conservatori,130
and the Vatican Museum.131
Figure 22: Portrait of Domitian, Museo del Palazzo dei Conservatori: Rome.132
Figure 23: Portrait of Domitian, Vatican Museum: Rome.133
Schefold suggested that the head was always that of Nerva, and that the artist re-cut the head
when he realised that he had made it too large;134
but the hairstyle does not match any
original Nervan styles. Herzog has dismissed the previous suggestion that the relief is
Hadrianic on the basis bearded figure in the entourage, which can be seen below, because
bearded soldiers are known from the Flavian period, for example on the Domitianic panel in
the Louvre showing the Suovetaurilia.135
Herzog suggests that the image is Nero, re-cut as
Domitian, re-cut as Nerva,136
but this is based entirely on the fact that he has identified Nero
on Cancelleria B. Consequently again the traditional identification of Domitian is most
likely, and the fact that this relief uses a more mature portrait of Domitian suggests that the
two contemporaneous reliefs were both created during his reign.
The identity of the scene depicted on Cancelleria A is less obvious than its partner.
The far left is missing but the wing of an airborne Victory and the axe of a missing lictor can






























































130
Museo Nuovo VII.18.
131
Braccio Nuovo 126.
132
Image from Daltrop, Hausman and Wegner (1966) plate 27.
133
Image from Daltrop, Hausman and Wegner (1966) plate 28.
134
Schefold (1949) 546-548.
135
Herzog (2001) 112.
136
Herzog (2001) 112.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
82
still be seen. They were followed by another lictor, and then Mars, Minerva, and Domitian in
tunic and paludamentum. He is followed by two more lictores and a female goddess, then
two soldiers in the background and a bearded togate figure and a semi-nude heroic figure in
the foreground. Four more military figures then round out the procession, carrying spears,
pila and ornamented cylindrical shields. When he first published this relief Magi suggested
an adventus,137
but since then most scholars have argued in favour of a profectio.138
A
profectio is indicated by the fact that Victory does not crown the princeps, as seen on the
Triumphator Relief and on Cancelleria B, but flies ahead of him as a precursor. Which one
of Domitian’s profectiones is not indicated by the scene.
Figure 24: Cancelleria A, Vatican Museum: Rome.139
All three of these Domitianic reliefs depict the princeps alongside deities, including a
triad of gods comprising a goddess in a crested helmet, a semi-nude heroic figure and a togate
figure. It is my position firstly that these three figures are Roma, the Genius Populi Romani
and the Genius Senatus, and secondly that these three deities were used in these reliefs to
personify the Roman state. To justify these claims I will firstly argue in favour of my
identification of these deities, and then discuss their role in the scenes.






























































137
Magi (1945) 98.
138
Hamberg (1945); Curtius (1948); Bendinelli (1949); Ryberg (1955); Toynbee (1957); Keller (1965); Kunckel
(1974); Ghendini (1986).
139
Image from www.Rome101.com.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
83
Starting with the goddess, on the Triumphator Relief she is quite weathered but her
crested helmet can be made out, a typical attribute of either Roma or Virtus; unfortunately no
other identifying attributes survive on this frieze to distinguish between the two. A goddess
appears with the same crested helmet on the two Cancelleria Reliefs. On frieze B she is
enthroned in the top left corner. On this basis Bendinelli argued that the goddess could not be
Roma, as this seated position implies that the goddess is depicted in her guise as a temple
icon, and Roma did not have a temple in Rome until the reign of Hadrian.140
Bendinelli
consequently preferred an identification of Bellona, however, this criticism seems unjustified
as from the reign of Nero onwards Roma was commonly depicted numismatically enthroned
on a bed of arms.141
In fact, according to Bieber in his study of the comparative iconography
of Roma and Virtus, enthronement is an identifying aspect of Roma as opposed to Virtus.142
The goddess in the crested helmet depicted on Cancelleria A carries a shield, which is a
common attribute of neither Roma nor Virtus, but Roma often appears seated on a shield, so a
possible explanation for this deviation could be that she is carrying her attribute because she
is standing as part of the procession. On the basis of these attributes I agree with those who
have identified this goddess as Roma.143






























































140
Vermeule (1959) 29; Boatwright (1987) 129.
141
Vermeule (1959) 29, contra Bendinelli (1949).
142
Bieber (1945) 22-34.
143
Magi (1945) (1955/1956); Hamberg (1945); Curtius (1948); Schefold (1949); Rumpf (1955/1956); Toynbee
(1957); Simon (1960); Kunckel (1984).
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
84
Figure 25: Head of woman leading the chariot on the Triumphator Relief, Arch of Titus: Rome.144
Figure 26: Amazonian goddess on Cancelleria B, Vatican Museum: Rome.145
Figure 27: Amazonian goddess on Cancelleria A, Vatican Museum: Rome.146
Figure 28: Reverse of sestertius minted at Rome AD 68.147
One further reason for identifying the goddess as Roma over Virtus is the fact that
Virtus rarely appears alone, as she is usually coupled with Honos. However, some scholars
have argued that the nude figure with mantle around his waist that appears in all three
processional scenes is Honos. In the same fashion as Roma and Virtus, Honos and the Genius
Populi Romani share very similar iconography. Both wear the same mantle and carry similar
attributes: both often carry cornucopia and sceptre, but Honos will sometimes carry a palm,
and the Genius Populi Romani a patera.148
Unfortunately on the Cancelleria Reliefs the only
surviving attribute is the cornucopia, and no attributes survive on the Triumphator Relief.
However, according to Bieber, Honos always appeared wearing a laurel crown as a symbol of
noble achievement.149
None of our mantled figures wears such a crown supporting an
identification of the deities in these scenes as the Genius Populi Romani.






























































144
Image from Pfanner (1983) plate 47.
145
Image from www.Rome101.com.
146
Image from www.Rome101.com.
147
RIC (Galba) 1:243; image from www.frederic.weber.com.
148
Bieber (1945); Kuttner (1995) 19.
149
Bieber (1945); Kuttner (1995) 19.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
85
Figure 29: Head of the Genius Populi Romani from Cancelleria A, Vatican Museum: Rome.150
Figure 30: Head of the Genius Populi Romani on Cancelleria B, Vatican Museum: Rome.151
Nevertheless some scholars still prefer to identify the figure as Honos because of his
proximity to the goddess which they identify as Virtus; they claim that in these scenes they
represent attributes possessed by the princeps.152
However, it seems to me that it cannot be
these two deities that are coupled together in the scenes due to the appearance of the third
figure, a togate and bearded man. Pfanner, although he identifies the goddess and mantled
figure as Virtus and Honos, concedes in his examination of the Triumphator Relief that on the
basis of iconography this figure must be either a personification of the Senate or its Genius.153
In fact all identifications of this togate figure on all three reliefs make reference to the
senate.154
Significantly, in all three reliefs it is also the two male figures, and not the youth
and the goddess, which are paired together. Consequently I agree with Kunckel, Hannestad
and Kleiner that they must be the Genius Senatus and Genius Populi Romani.155
Having identified the deities, it is my position that in all three scenes this divine triad
is used to personify the Roman state. In the profectio scene of Cancelleria A Domitian leaves






























































150
Image from Kunckel (1974) plate 21.
151
Image from Kunckel (1974) plate 21.
152
Eg. Pfanner (1983).
153
Pfanner (1983) 15.
154
Simon has unconvincingly suggested that the bearded figure could be Numa Pompilius ((1985) 549-554).
155
Kunckel (1974) 40; Kleiner (1992) 183.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
86
these three gods behind him, Roma pushing him forward as Domitian joins the gods of war,
Victory, Mars and Minerva. In the adventus scene the gods are among the party that greet the
returning princeps alongside Domitian. On the Triumphator Relief Titus rides his chariot
through the city surrounded by these deities. Although these reliefs mark the first time that
the Genius Senatus and Genius Populi Romani appear together,156
this iconographic motif
nevertheless appears to reprise an Augustan one. On one of the Boscoreale Cups an
enthroned Augustus is depicted receiving a Victory from Venus, behind whom stands the
Genius Populi Romani and a personification of Roma. It has been suggested that this duo too
is Honos and Virtus,157
but Kuttner convincingly argues in favour of the Roma/Genius
identification on the basis that the mantled figure holds a patera and wears no laurel
crown,158
and the Amazonian appears with a weapons pile under her foot.159
Kuttner argues
that the fact that Roma and the Genius Populi Romani converse suggest that they are meant to
be a pair that, with Venus whose hearth is the hearth of the Roman state, represent the city of
Rome.160






























































156
Béranger (1964) 78; Kunckel (1974) 40.
157
Ryberg (1955) 141; Simon (1985) 241.
158
Kuttner (1995) 19; cf. Bieber (1945).
159
Kuttner (1995) 19; cf. Bieber (1945).
160
Kuttner (1995) 18.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
87
Figure 31: Boscoreale Cup, Louvre: Paris.161
This Boscoreale Cup was probably a vessel for private use, but Kuttner and Koeppel suggest
that the scene was copied from a state monument. They hypothesise that it may even be the
now almost completely lost Roma panel on the Ara Pacis which they suggest probably
depicted Roma crowned by the Genius Populi Romani.162
Regardless of whether this scene
was specifically taken from the Ara Pacis, that it was taken from some state monument is
likely since this type of copying was common, for example Domitian’s profectio scene from
Cancelleria A is copied on a local relief from Anacapri, and two fourth-century AD gems,
one in Philadelphia formerly in the Biehler Collection and one from southern France now in
Vienna, copy the Triumphator Relief from the Arch of Titus.






























































161
Image from Kuttner (1995) figure 1.
162
Kuttner (1995) 20.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
88
Figure 32: Relief displaying profectio of Domitian, Museo della Torre: Anacapri.163
Figure 33: Fourth century Gem displaying the triumphal image from the Arch of Titus,
Kunsthistorisches Museum: Vienna.164
On the basis of this evidence it seems reasonable to suggest that in these reliefs Roma and the
Genius Senatus and Genius Populi Romani were used to personify the Roman state.
Thus it is the conclusion of this discussion that when the evidence for the role of the
Genius of the princeps in the state imperial cult under Nero and the civil war generals and
under Domitian is compared, that it is apparent that the role of the Genius of the princeps had
changed significantly and been minimised by the reign of Domitian. This change in cult is
also reflected in the iconography of the Genius of the princeps. Under Nero the Genius
Augusti appeared on the coinage for the first time using the same iconography that was used
for the Genius of the Roman people, and in this way Nero’s Genius was presented as the
sovereign Genius of Rome. Under Domitian the Genius of the princeps is completely absent
from surviving iconography, and the Genius Populi Romani and the Genius Senatus,
alongside the goddess Roma, are used to represent and personify the Roman state, retaking
the sovereignty that was usurped by Nero’s Genius Augusti. This change in the dynamic of
the state Genii is clearer in the iconographic evidence than the cultic evidence, but the
iconographic evidence supports the interpretation of the cultic evidence.






























































163
Image from Magi (1954-1955) 49.
164
Image from Bieber (1945) figure 2.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
89
2.4: Vespasian?
It is possible that the changes made to the role of the Genius of the princeps in state
cult and iconography that has been identified for Domitian’s reign were in fact introduced
during the reign of Vespasian. The change does not appear to predate his reign as the Genius
of the princeps was prominent in the Arval cult conducted for Galba, Otho and Vitellius.165
The Genius of the princeps is absent from the Acta Fratrum Arvalium surviving from the
reigns of Vespasian and Titus, however, as already mentioned, this is not conclusive evidence
as the only Arval imperial cult rites preserved for those years are several January 3rd
vota and
two extraordinary rituals, one of which does not list any sacrifices. The January 3rd
vota are
one of the few rites in which the Genius of the princeps was not included under Nero and the
civil war generals, and therefore it would not be expected in these rituals under the Vespasian
and Titus. Consequently, these rituals alone cannot be used to prove that the Genius of the
princeps was absent from the Arval imperial cult pantheon, and too few other rituals survive
to make a definitive judgement either way.
Nevertheless, the suggestion that the Genius of the princeps was absent from the
Arval cult pantheon can again be lent validity by contemporary iconographic evidence
reflecting the state administration’s attitude towards the deity. The numismatic depiction of
Nero’s Genius Augusti, discussed above, appears to have been rejected in the years
immediately following Nero’s death through the minting of Genius Populi Romani coin
types.166
Genius Populi Romani types were not popular during the republic and are only
known from three types, all minted by the Cornelii Lentuli family. In 96-94 BC and again in
89 BC it appeared on denarii reverses in its semi-nude form, holding a corona over the head






























































165
CFA 40[1-7].I:24-34, 35-40, 41-45, 58-62, 63-67, 68-71, 72-76, 81-84, 84-88, II:1-5, 1013, 15-18.
166
Gradel (2002) 188-189.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
90
of Roma.167
In 76-74 BC denarii minted in Spain depicted a bearded bust on the obverse
labelled G(enius) P(opuli) R(omani).168
In 72 BC another denarius type minted in Rome
depicted the semi-nude Genius Populi Romani on the reverse, crowned by a flying victory.169
Figure 34: Denarius reverse, Rome, 96 BC.170
Figure 35: Denarius obverse, Spain, 76BC.171
Figure 36: Denarius reverse, Rome, 72BC.172
This relatively rare theme on the republic coinage enjoyed resurgence during the civil war of
AD 68-69 when it appeared on coins minted by Galba’s supporters in Gaul and Spain. Types
were minted depicting the Zeus-like bust and the youthful bust of the Genius Populi Romani
on the obverse, and another type showed the semi-nude figure pouring a libation over an altar
on the reverse, reclaiming the imagery used for Nero’s Genius Augusti.173






























































167
BMCRR 1:1705=Sydenham 604-605.
168
Crawford 393/1a=Sydenham 752.
169
BMCRR 1:3329=Sydenham 791.
170
Sydenham 604-5; image from www.beastcoins.com.
171
Sydenham 752; image from www.coinarchives.com.
172
Sydenham 791; image from Kunckel (1974) plate 4.2.
173
Gaul: BMCRE 1:295 n. 21-22; Spain: BMCRE 1:288-298 n. 1-2.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
91
Figure 37: Sestertius obverse, Gaul, AD 68.174
Figure 38: Sestertius obverse, Spain, AD 68.175
Figure 39: Sestertius reverse, Spain, AD 68.176
This trend of depicting the Genius Populi Romani on the coinage was continued under
Vespasian and Titus. Types depicting the sacrificing Genius Populi Romani on the reverse
were struck at the mint at Illyricum in AD 69-70, and were repeated on coins issued from the
Roman mint in AD 76, and AD 80-81.177
Figure 40: Sestertius reverse, Rome, AD 69/70.178
Figure 41: Sestertius reverse, Rome, AD 80/81.179
The fact that these types assigned the exact same iconography to the Genius Populi Romani
as had previously been used for Nero’s Genius Augusti, as opposed to other imagery that was
available, suggests that these were minted in deliberate response to the iconographic and






























































174
BMCRE 1:295 n. 21; image from Kunckel (1974) plate 1.2.
175
BMCRE 1:289 n. 2; image from Kunckel (1974) plate 1.4.
176
BMCRE 1:288 (Anm.); image from Kunckel (1974) plate 1.5.
177
AD 69-70: BMCRE 2:85 n. 417-418; AD 76: RIC (Vespasian) 2:677; AD 80-81: BMCRE 2:266 n. 210.
178
BMCRE 2:85 n. 417-418; image from Kunckel (1974) plate 1.6.
179
BMCRE 2:266 n. 210; image from Kunckel (1974) plate 1.7.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
92
ideological promotion of the Genius Augusti under Nero.180
That a backlash against the
Genius Augusti existed on the coinage supports the suggestion that a similar backlash may
have existed in cult.
Surviving numismatic evidence also suggests that the dual iconographic promotion of
the Genius Populi Romani and Genius Senatus identified for Domitian’s reign may have had
a precedent in iconography from Vespasian’s reign. The earliest known appearances of the
Genius Senatus on the Roman coinage are on two sestertii types minted at Rome and
Lugdunum respectively in AD 72. The first shows the bust of Vespasian on the obverse and
the Genius Senatus holding a wreath over the head of a soldier on the reverse with the legend
Concordia Senatus.181
The second has the same reverse but with the legend Senatus Pietati
Augusti, and shows the bust of Galba on the obverse.182
Figure 42: Sestertius reverse, Rome, AD 71.183
Figure 43: Sestertius reverse, Lugdunum, AD 71.184
Kunckel suggests that the reverse reflects the role of the senate in electing and empowering
the princeps.185
This would seem cohesive with the unusual Galban obverse as Galba
claimed he was an elected princeps, and called himself legate of the senate and people of






























































180
Gradel (2002) 189.
181
BMCRE 2:113 n. ƪ.
182
Kunckel (1974) 38, 140; BMCRE 1:359 n. 260.
183
BMCRE 2:113 n. ƪ; image from BMCRE 2: plate 20.3
184
BMCRE 1:359 n. 260; image from BMCRE 1: plate 59.3.
185
Kunckel (1974) 38.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
93
Rome until he met with a senatorial embassy that officially conferred him imperial power.186
It may be that with the Galban obverse the Vespasianic party was alluding to the fact that
Vespasian avenged the overthrow of Galba, the elected princeps of the senate. The soldier
depicted on both types is most likely Vespasian, the victory he holds reflecting the source of
his power.
In addition to both Genii appearing individually on Vespasianic coins, the first known
depiction of the Genius Populi Romani and Genius Senatus together is also on a sestertius
from AD 71. The reverse shows Vespasian in priestly garb and crowned by a winged victory
performing a ritual before a monument. Six specimens of this type survive in varying states
of preservation, and consequently several different descriptions of the monument have been
published: Cohen describes it as a temple or triumphal arch,187
Fiorelli as a gate of the city,188
in RIC Mattingly describes it as a temple, and in BMCRE as a double triumphal arch
surmounted by a quadriga.189
Kleiner recently re-examined the best preserved specimen from
Berlin, depicted below, and has argued that the monument is in fact a double arch in three
quarter view surmounted by statuary showing two standing figures: a semi-nude youth in a
mantle holding cornucopia and patera, and a bearded togate figure.190
This iconography
matches that used for the two genii on Domitianic sculptural reliefs, and on a Trajanic aureus
reverse from AD 115/116. Thus the earliest pairing of the Genius Populi Romani and Genius
Senatus, traditionally assigned to the reign of Domitian, may in fact belong under Vespasian.






























































186
Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Galba) 10.
187
Cohen 424 n. 589.
188
Fiorelli (1870) 99 n. 589.
189
RIC (Vespasian) 2:71 n. 463; BMCRE 2:124 n. 576.
190
Kleiner (1989) 85-91.
Chapter Two: Genius Principis Jessica Suess
94
Figure 44: Sestertius reverse, Rome, AD 71.191
Figure 45: Aureus reverse, Rome, AD 115/116 (vota suscepta).192
Thus it is the conclusion of this section that the cultic evidence leaves it an open
possibility that the Genius of the princeps, largely excluded from the pantheon of deities to
receive sacrifices from the Arvals under Domitian, was already excluded from that pantheon
under Vespasian. The suggestion that this change in cult was introduced under Vespasian is
lent support by evidence suggesting that the replacement of the Genius Augusti with the
Genius Populi Romani and the Genius Senatus in iconography under Domitian was also
already introduced under Vespasian, as not only were the Genius Populi Romani and Genius
Senatus both depicted individually on Vespasianic coins, they also appear to have been
depicted together for the first time on his coinage. Consequently it seems possible that the
evident changes made to the role of the Genius of the princeps in cult and iconography
between the reigns of Nero and Domitian may have been introduced under Vespasian.






























































191
Berlin inv. 852/1910=RIC (Vespasian) 2:463; image from Kleiner (1989) plate 7.1.
192
BMCRE 3:612; image from www.coinarchives.com; cf. Kunckel (1974) 39, 130 n. VIII, 7-9, 11; BMCRE
3:587, 612, 323, 775.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
95
Chapter Three: The Divi
More similarity exists between the role of the divi in state religion under the JulioClaudians
and Domitian than for the aspects of the imperial cult discussed in the previous
chapters. Both the Julio-Claudians and Domitian used the divi to bolster their own position
on the basis of their dynastic connections, but this was done in distinctly different ways. As
has already been seen in chapter one, the divi played a central role in the Arval pantheon of
deities to receive sacrifices for the princeps under the Julio-Claudians; a role that
characterised them as guardians of the princeps and emphasised the dynastic source of
imperial power. As has also been seen in chapter one, the Julio-Claudian divi were removed
from that pantheon at the start of Vespasian’s reign, and both the Julio-Claudian and Flavian
divi were absent from the pantheon of deities to receive sacrifices for the princeps throughout
the Flavian period. Despite this significant change, I will argue that Domitian nevertheless
used the Flavian divi to bolster his claim to power through dynasty by promoting each
Flavian divus not individually, as they had been under the Julio-Claudians, but as a collective,
with shared temples and priests, creating the idea of a distinctive Flavian heaven from which
the princeps drew power. Furthermore I will suggest that this collective treatment of the divi
mirrored the focus in the Arval cult on the Principate rather than the princeps, as the divi
were not of individual significance, but part of something larger.
In order to make this argument, in the first section of this chapter I discuss the concept
of deification in the Roman world, and the evolution of that concept under the JulioClaudians
(3.1). I will then discuss the identity of the five Flavians to receive deification, and
when they were deified, establishing that while Vespasian was deified under Titus, it was
only under Domitian that, in addition to Titus, three other members of the Flavian imperial
family were deified (3.2). Following on from this I will discuss the state priests and temples
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
96
dedicated to the Flavian divi, demonstrating that unlike the Julio-Claudian divi, who were
treated individually, the Flavian divi were almost exclusively treated as a collective (3.3). I
will argue that this contrasting treatment is not only evident in Rome, but also in the official
cult conducted in the provinces. Under the Julio-Claudians provincial cults were dedicated to
a single princeps or divus, sometimes in combination with other specified entities such as the
goddess Roma, but under Domitian the provincial cult at Ephesus was dedicated to the
Sebastoi, a collective that included both the divi and the princeps and members of the
imperial family, who were not excluded from direct cult as they were in Rome (3.4).
Again at the end of this chapter I will turn my attention to the reign of Vespasian.
Although it is clear that the divi, absent from the pantheon of deities to receive sacrifices for
the princeps under Domitian, were removed from that pantheon under Vespasian, similar
connections between other Vespasianic and Domitianic policies towards the divi cannot be
made. The prolific deification of members of the Flavian imperial family in particular seems
to have been a peculiarly Domitianic phenomenon with Vespasian apparently making no
attempts to deify any of his ancestors, and deifications under Titus being limited to Divus
Vespasianus. Nevertheless I will argue that it would be a mistake to view Vespasian as antidivi,
and that Vespasian in fact did much to support the institution. Further, I will argue that
there may be some Vespasianic precedent for the Domitianic treatment of the divi as a
collective, as the first provincial cults dedicated to the Sebastoi were in fact established
during his reign. How much the collective treatment of the divi and members of the imperial
family in the provinces influenced the collective treatment of the Flavian divi in Rome cannot
be known, but I will suggest that Vespasian’s reign should perhaps not be considered a time
devoid of attention to the divi, but rather as a time when the relationship between the princeps
and the divi, who were no longer his ancestors, was in a state of flux (3.5).
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
97
3.1: Julio-Claudian Divi
In English 'to deify' means to make, treat or consider something like a god. To
understand this concept in the Roman world two different elements must be delineated; I will
distinguish between them using the terms deification and apotheosis. I will use the Latinderived
term deification to refer to cult apparatus, such as temples and priests, which granted
an individual the same gratia as the divine gods such as Jupiter received. I will use the Greek
term apotheosis to refer to a metaphysical transformation.
In the Roman world all individuals could undergo a type of apotheosis upon their
death, joining a cohort of divinised ancestral spirits collectively called the di manes or
penates. Households cultivated their divinised dead to ensure their continued prosperity, and
they received state cult at the public festival of the Parentalia.1
However, just as men were
not equal in life, it was thought that the illustrious and powerful could gain a more tangible
form of divinity after death, and thus in the 50s BC Cicero could intelligibly describe Scipio
Africanus, by virtue of his earthly deeds, as having ascended to heaven to become a star; a
common symbol of apotheosis.2
Cicero similarly praised the Roman forefathers who helped
establish the republic as worthy of undergoing a supreme apotheosis that would rank them
among the company and number of the gods.3
The Roman state deified men by offering them the same form of gratia that it offered
the gods: direct cult. Apotheosis and deification did not depend on one another, and thus
Julius Caesar could be deified shortly before his death, when the Roman state decreed him a
1
On the cult of the di manes and penates see Wissowa (1912) 232-420; Weinstock (1971) 295-292.
2
Cicero, De Re Publica 6.9-26. The same topic was discussed by Cicero previously in 63 BC (Lege Agraria
2.95, Pro Rabirio Perduellionis Reo 29-30). The idea of earning apotheosis can be traced in literature to Ennius
at the start of the second century BC, whose discussion of Romulus’ apotheosis is quoted heavily by Cicero
(Tusculanae Disputationes 1, De Natura Deorum 1.119, De Re Publica 1.25). On earning apotheosis through
earthly deeds see Cole (2006) 531-548.
3
Cicero, Pro Sestio 143, De Legibus 2.18, 2.22.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
98
sacred image, temple and priest.4
However, when Augustus did not permit the state to deify
him during his lifetime, though he conspicuously pursued deification for his death and widely
anticipated supreme apotheosis, it was implied that such an apotheosis was a prerequisite for
state deification.5
Consequently only after a senator testified to having witnessed Augustus’
apotheosis did he receive state deification with a senatorial decree of honores caelestes that
included the title divus,6
a temple (eventually dedicated in AD 37), a cult image and priests.7
Germanicus was made Augustus’ flamen and Livia his flaminica, and a college of sodales
Augustales was created, composed of twenty-one of Rome’s best men drawn by lot, to which
imperial princes were added as supernumerary members.8
Augustus’ precedent paved the way for the deification of several other members of
the Julio-Claudian family. Although Tiberius did not allow his mother Livia to be deified
immediately following her death,9
his policy against deifying other members of the imperial
family was ignored under Gaius, whose sister Drusilla was deified;10
Livia herself was also
eventually deified under Claudius.11
At the start of Nero’s reign Claudius was deified,12
and
later in his reign Nero’s deceased wife Poppaea and their daughter Claudia Virgo also
became divae.13
It appears that the widespread application of state deification to members of
4
Cicero, Philippica 2.110; Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Caesar) 76.1; Appian, Civil War 2.106; Cassius Dio,
Roman History 44.4; contra Plutarch, Caesar 67.8; cf. Weinstock (1971) 276-287; Fishwick (1987) 1.1:56-72;
Gradel (2002) 54-72; Wardle (2002) 181-191.
5
On Augustus’ pursuit of posthumous apotheosis and deification see Bosworth (1999) 1-18; for anticipation see
Taeger (1960) 141-185; Gradel (2002) 266-271.
6
On this title see Wardle (2002) 181-191; Gradel (2002) 61-69.
7
Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Augustus) 100.4; Cassius Dio, Roman History 56.46.2; cf. Bickerman (1973)
13; Price (1987) 73, 86-87; Gradel (2002) 273-274.
8
Tacitus Annales 6.45.2; Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Tiberius) 47, (Gaius) 21; Cassius Dio, Roman History
59.7.1; cf. Gradel (2002) 271-276.
9
Tacitus, Annales 5.1; Cassius Dio, Roman History 58.2, 59.11; cf. Flory (1995) 132.
10
Cassius Dio, Roman History 59.11.4; cf. Herz (1981) 324-336.
11
Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Claudius) 11; cf. Wood (2000) 250; Barrett (2002) 144.
12
Tacitus, Annales 12.69, 13.2.6; Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Claudius) 45, (Nero) 8; cf. Fishwick (2002)
341-349.
13
They appear as divae in the Acta Fratrum Arvalium and receive sacrifices for Nero, and a rare Roman as
depicts a female figure standing inside a temple on both sides, with the obverse legend DIVA CLAUD(ia)
NER(o) F(ilia) and the reverse legend DIVA POPPAEA AUG(usta) (MIR p. 161).
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
99
the imperial family was not always popular, and thus Diva Drusilla, Diva Poppaea and Diva
Claudia Virgo were all promptly ignored following the deaths of Gaius and Nero
respectively.
Although each of these deified Julio-Claudians became divi, they were not all deified
in the same fashion. In his 1949 article Oliver pointed out that although the Feriale
Duranum, an early third-century military calendar, listed the birthdays of many of the divi as
cult days for the cohort, it did not list the birthdays of all the divi.14
The feriale includes the
birthdays of Divus Augustus and Divus Claudius, and probably also those of Divus
Vespasianus and Divus Titus: the sections of the feriale that would have included these two
Flavian birthdays do not survive, but the editors of the feriale suggest that they probably were
listed on the basis of comparison with the Fasti Philocali of AD 354, the Fasti Silvii of AD
448/449, and the third century Papyri Osloenses, in which they do appear.15
The birthdays of
the other Julio-Claudian and Flavian divi, the women and children of the principes, do not
appear. In contrast the birthdays of all the Trajanic-Hadrianic and Antonine divi, both
principes and their family members with the exception of Trajan’s father, do appear.
Oliver is not surprised by the absence of most of the Julio-Claudian divae, as their
cults had already been ignored immediately following the reign of the princeps under whom
they were deified. He is surprised by the absence of Diva Augusta since, as seen in chapter
one, she continued to feature in the imperial cult pantheon recorded by the Arval Brothers
14
Hoey, Fink and Snyder (1940). This Latin papyrus from the Roman garrison at Dura belonged to the Cohors
XX Palmyrenormum, stationed there from AD 200-250. The calendar appears to have been discarded when the
area was evacuated in AD 256, but it seems to have been heavily used before that time as it shows signs of
repair and reinforcement. The calendar itself seems to date specifically to sometime between November AD
224 and August AD 227, under Severus Alexander. This date is based on the fact that it refers to Julia Maesa as
a diva, and she was not consecrated until after November AD 224, and it also refers to Severus Alexander’s
father-in-law, who was disgraced by August AD 227.
15
Hoey, Fink, Snyder (1940) 163.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
100
until the end of the civil war period when all the divi were removed. Consequently Oliver
concludes that to explain her absence from the Feriale Duranum the cult of Diva Augusta
must have been diminished at some time after the civil war, probably during the reign of
Vespasian.16
He suggests that at this time the cults of all the divi were separated into two
categories, divi principes and divi minores. The previous principes, Divus Augustus and
Divus Claudius, were placed in the first category, and the family divi, the only one still
honoured at the time being Diva Augusta, were placed in the second category and received a
lesser form of cult. He argues that Flavians also divided their own divi into these same two
categories, explaining the probable presence of Divus Vespasianus and Divus Titus in the
Feriale Duranum, but the apparent absence of the other three Flavian divi. According to
Oliver this division must have been abolished under Hadrian: he suggests that Hadrian did
this to promote the cult of Marciana, who was already deified along with Trajan’s father as
divi minores under Trajan, elevating her status to that of the divi principes in order to utilise
her to further his own claims to power. After this time all new divi, whether they were
principes or family members, were given the status of divi principes.
Oliver’s explanation is unnecessary as it seems that the birthday of Livia was never a
cult day for Diva Augusta. According to the Acta Fratrum Arvalium a sacrifice was
conducted to Jupiter on Livia’s birthday during her lifetime under Tiberius and posthumously
under Gaius, but there is no evidence that any sacrifices were ever made to her as a diva on
her natalis after her deification. This absence of evidence should not simply be dismissed as
the result of the fragmentary nature of the Arval records from Claudius’ reign, as another
entry indicates that Diva Augusta enjoyed a different cult day, the birthday of her husband
Augustus. Under Gaius, Augustus’ birthday was celebrated on September 23rd
with a
16
Oliver (1949) 35-40.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
101
sacrifice to Divus Augustus at the templum novum, and on September 24th
with a sacrifice on
the Capitol to Jupiter.17
Under Claudius, September 23rd
saw sacrifices on the Capitol to
Jupiter and at the new Ara Gentis Iuliae to both Divus Augustus and Diva Augusta,
indicating that this also became a cult day for her.
IX K(alendas) Oct(obres)] / [natale divi Augusti in Capito]/[lio immolavit L(ucius) Vitellius] /
[magister pro collegio] / [fratrum Arvalium Iovi] / [bovem marem ad aram] / [gentis Iuliae
immolavit] / [di]vo Aug(usto) [bovem marem] / [et divae Au]g(ustae) vaccam …18
Nine days before the kalends of October on the birthday of Divus Augustus, Lucius Vitellius,
president of the college of Arval Brothers, sacrificed an ox to Jupiter on the capitol, and an ox to
Divus Augustus and a cow to Diva Augusta at the altar of the Julian family...
This evidence, in combination with the fact that following her deification Diva Augusta was
not granted a new temple but was rather installed in the temple of her husband,19
suggests
that Diva Augusta may have shared in Divus Augustus’ cult on some capacity.
A similar connection with or dependence on Divus Augustus may also be identifiable
for Diva Drusilla. According to Suetonius and Cassius Dio, Diva Drusilla enjoyed an
elaborate cult: she received the cult name Panthea, her own sodales, a cult statue in the
temple of Venus in the Forum, and games in the style of the Megalesia.20
This testimony is
not supported by the epigraphic evidence, and considering the sensationalism associated with
descriptions of Gaius’ reign, the testimony of the literary sources should be viewed with
scepticism. A more conservative character to Drusilla’s deification is implied by a closer
examination of the evidence. The literary sources also record that when Drusilla died in AD
38 initially only a public funeral and public mourning were decreed, following the precedent
of Livia.21
It was only after a senator, who may have been trying to win favour with the
17
CFA 12c:92-109.
18
CFA 19:1-4.
19
[Seneca] Apocolocyntosis 9; Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Claudius) 11; Cassius Dio, Roman History 60.5.
20
Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Gaius) 24; Cassius Dio, Roman History 59.11, 59.13.8, 60.5.2; cf. Herz (1981)
324-336; Barrett (1989) 87-8.
21
Drusilla: Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Gaius) 24; Livia: Tacitus, Annales 5.1; Cassius Dio, Roman History
58.2, 59.11.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
102
princeps, claimed to have witnessed Drusilla’s apotheosis that deification was decreed.22
The
rites actually recorded for Drusilla’s consecration by the Arval Brothers were conducted on
September 23rd
AD 38, again on the birthday of Augustus, though the details of the ritual
itself no longer survive.
a(nte) d(iem) VIIII K(alendas) Octobr(es) / [Taurus Statilius Cor]vinus promagister collegii fratrum
Arvalium / [nomine in templ]o novo natali divi Augusti divo Augusto / [bovem marem inmola]vit /
[adfuerunt .../ [eodem die ob consecrationem Drusilla]e in templo divi Augusti novo / [… c]ollegium
fratrum / [arvalium …23
Nine days before the kalends of October, Taurus Statilius Corvinus, president of the college of Arval
Brothers, sacrificed an ox to Divus Augustus at the new temple of account of the birthday of Divus
Augustus. Present in the college were... On the same day, on account of the consecration of Drusilla
in the new temple of Divus Augustus the college of Arval Brothers ...
One good reason to select this date for Drusilla’s consecration, rather than her own birthday
in June, could have been that as was the case with Diva Augusta, Diva Drusilla’s divinity was
in some way dependent upon that of her prestigious great-grandfather. When cult was
conducted on the birthday of Diva Drusilla in AD 40 it was not conducted in the temple of
Venus, as the literary sources would suggest, and it was also not conducted to Diva Drusilla
directly, but rather sacrifices were conducted on the Capitol to the Capitoline Triad, in the
same manner as cult conducted on the birthday of the non-deified Germanicus in the same
year.24
Thus it seems that even if her cult had continued beyond the reign of Gaius, Diva
Drusilla’s birthday would probably not have appeared in the Feriale Duranum.
Thus it is apparent that there was already differentiation between the cults of the
different divi in the Julio-Claudian period. This variation should not be interpreted as a
deliberate and hard distinction between two types of divi, those who had served as princeps
and those who had not, though this seems to have been the effect. Rather this variation
should be seen as the natural result of experimentation with deification. During the Julio-
22
[Seneca], Apocolocyntosis 1; Cassius Dio, Roman History 59.11.4.
23
CFA 12c:92-104.
24
CFA 14.I:19-26.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
103
Claudian period deification was still a novel concept and there was not a standard set of
honours and cult rituals that defined it. Thus the posthumous honours for Drusilla and Livia
were based on those of Augustus, but were not identical to them: they received the title diva
but not unique temples, Diva Augusta received sacrifices but not her own cult day. Similar
adaptation of Augustus’ posthumous honours can be seen for Germanicus, who did not
receive official deification or the title divus. According to Tacitus and the Tabula Hebana,
following Germanicus’ death a sella curulis Germanici Caesaris was to be placed among the
seats of the priests at the ludi Augustales, therefore honouring Germanicus as part of the
games posthumously established for Divus Augustus. The throne was to be kept in the
temple of Mars Ultor until the completion of the temple of Divus Augustus when it was to be
kept there, paralleling exactly the arrangements for the cult image of Divus Augustus at the
time.25
Thus the posthumous honour of state deification should be seen as a developing idea
under the Julio-Claudians, and we should not be surprised that the cults of the individual divi
were not identical. It seems only to have been with Claudius that Augustus’ posthumous
honours were exactly replicated, with Divus Claudius being granted his own temple and
flamen, the sodales Augustales becoming sodales Augustales Claudiales to accommodate the
new god, and Claudius’ birthday being established as a unique cult date for the god.26
The
one thing that the Julio-Claudian divi, with the exception of Diva Drusilla, did have in
common was that they were included in the pantheon of deities to receive sacrifices for the
princeps from the Arvals. This role in cult appears to have defined their role in state
ideology: as divine ancestors of the princeps who protected his position and bolstered his
power.
25
Tabula Hebana, lines 50-52; Tacitus, Annales 2.83; cf. González (1999) 123-129.
26
Tacitus, Annales 12.69.4; cf. Fishwick (2002) 341.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
104
3.2: Flavian Deifications
Five members of the Flavian family received deification: Vespasian, Titus, Julia Titi,
Caesar Domitiani filius and Domitilla. In this section I will discuss when each was deified,
arguing that four were deified under Domitian. This is significant not only because it
represents more deifications than under any other princeps, but it also indicates that although
Vespasian was deified under Titus, the practice of securing widespread family deifications in
the Flavian period is unique to the reign of Domitian.
The first Flavian to receive deification was Vespasian, though only after a significant
delay. Vespasian died on June 24th
AD 79, but he was not yet a divus in September of that
year. This is indicated by two military diplomas dating to September AD 79 that refer to
Titus as Augusti filius, rather than divi filius, indicating that Vespasian had not yet become a
divus.27
Three other inscriptions surviving from AD 79, two from Phrygia and one from the
Aqua Marcia in Rome, do refer to Titus as divi filius,28
and thus Clarke suggests that
Vespasian was deified before the end of that year.29
However, coins minted in AD 79 refer to
Titus and Domitian exclusively as Augusti filius, but on those minted in AD 80 the pair
appear variously as Augusti filius and divi filius, indicating that their titles changed in that
year, and therefore that Vespasian was only deified in AD 80.30
Buttrey supports this latter
conclusion, arguing that the coinage was an official document produced by Rome’s
administrative bodies, whereas the inscriptions from Phrygia were local documents which
may have pre-empted official policy.31
Buttrey also points out that there is evidence that the
Aqua Marcia inscription was repaired after AD 79, at which time Titus’ titles may have been
27
AE (1962) 288; CIL 16.24.
28
IK Laodikeia am Lykos 9=IGRR 4.845; IK Laodikeia am Lykos 15=IGRR 4.846; CIL 6.1246.
29
Clarke (1966) 318-327.
30
For the numismatic evidence see BMCRE 2:lxxi.
31
Buttrey (1976) 453.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
105
updated.32
Consequently it seems that Vespasian was probably not deified until AD 80. This
represents a significant delay in comparison with Claudius, who appears to have been deified
on the day of his death.33
The date of Titus’ deification is more difficult to determine as the phrase ‘brother of a
god’ was not included among Domitian’s titles. Suetonius and Cassius Dio both attest that
Domitian deified Titus without delay,34
however it must have taken at least two weeks as
Titus died on September 13th
AD 81 and on October 1st
of that year his daughter Julia Titi
still appeared in the Arval records as Julia T. Imperatoris filia Augusta, indicating that her
father was not yet deified.35
Unfortunately in all later entries in the Arval records she appears
simply as Julia Augusta, offering no further insight. She does appear as divi filia on coins
and in other inscriptions, but none that can be dated precisely.
Julia Titi herself, who died sometime in AD 89, must have been deified within a few
months of her death as she appears as a diva on coins minted between AD 90 and 94, and is
alluded to as a goddess twice in book six of Martial’s Epigrammata, probably also published
in AD 90. Martial describes her as dwelling in heaven with Venus and Cupid,36
and as
spinning a golden life thread for Domitian’s future successor.
Nascere Dardanio promissum nomen Iulo,
vera deum suboles: nascere, magne puer,
cui pater aeternas post saecula tradit habenas,
quique regas orbem cum seniore senex.
ipsa tibi niveo trahet aurea police fila
et totam Phrixi Iulia nebit ovem.37
32
Clarke (1966) 324; Buttrey (1976) 453; Levick (1999) 196.
33
Tacitus, Annales 12.69, 13.2.6; Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Claudius) 45, (Nero) 8; cf. Fishwick (2002)
341.
34
Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Domitian) 2; Cassius Dio, Epitome 67.2.
35
CFA 49:35-59.
36
Martial, Epigrammata 6.13.
37
Martial, Epigrammata 6.3.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
106
Be born, name promised to Dardanian Julus, true child of the gods; be born, great boy, so that ages
hence your father may hand you the everlasting reigns and you may rule the world, an old man with
an older. Julia herself with snowy finger will draw golden threads for you and spin Phrixus’ entire
sheep.
The other two Flavian divi must have been deified many years after their deaths. The
first is Domitian’s infant son by his wife Domitia Longina, the daughter of the famous
general Gnaius Domitius Corbulo,38
who was born in AD 73 and died shortly thereafter.39
The infant was deified early in Domitian’s reign, appearing on the coins minted between AD
82 and 84.40
Figure 46: Denarius, Rome, AD 82-84. Obverse: DOMITIA AUGUSTA IMP DOMIT, draped bust
right. Reverse: DIVUS CAESAR IMP DOMITIANI F, sitting left on a celestial orb reaching to stars
above.41
The infancy of the new divus was a common theme in the literary sources. Martial describes
the child as a sender of snowfall,42
and compares Domitian to the Olympian gods whose
mortal sons had died, but joined them in heaven.43
Quintilian similarly refers to the boy as a
youth, stating that the prince did not earn his place in heaven but was born immortal.44
Silius
Italicus similarly refers to the child as innately divine in a speech he puts in the mouth of
Jupiter.
ille etiam qua prisca, vides, stat regia nobis,
aurea Tarpeia ponet Capitolia rupe
38
On Domitia see Varner (1995) 187-206; Levick (2002) 199-211; Chausson (2003) 101-129.
39
Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Domitian) 3.
40
RIC (Domitian) 2:209a, 213, 440; on Domitian’s deified son see Desnier (1979) 54-64.
41
RIC (Domitian) 2:213; image from www.fredericweber.com.
42
Martial, Epigrammata 4.3.
43
Martial, Epigrammata 9.86.
44
Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 3.7.9.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
107
et iunget nostro templorum culmina caelo.
tunc, o nate deum diuosque dature, beatas
imperio terras patrio rege. tarda senectam
hospitia excipient caeli, solioque Quirinus
concedet, mediumque parens fraterque locabunt:
siderei iuxta radiabunt tempora nati.45
He shall also erect a golden Capitol on the Tarpeian rock, where, as you see, my ancient palace now
stands, and raise the summit of the temple to reach our abode in the sky. Then, o son of gods and
father of gods to be, rule the happy earth with paternal sway. Heaven shall welcome you at last, in
your old age, and Quirinus give up his throne to you; your father and brother shall place you between
them; and hard by the head of your deified son shall send forth rays.
The last of the Flavian divi, Diva Domitilla, is more enigmatic than the others, with
both her identity and the date of her deification under debate. Starting with her identity, she
was either the wife or daughter of Vespasian, both of whom died before AD 69.46
Scholars
have used numismatic, epigraphic and literary evidence to attempt to identify the diva, but
with little success.47
On the basis of the numismatic evidence, Mattingly suggested that
Domitilla must be the mother of Titus and Domitian. Her bust appears with reverses of
Fortuna Augusta, Concordia Augusta, Pax Augusta and Pietas Augusta,48
and although
Mattingly considered the first three types fairly generic, he suggested that the fourth clearly
points to a mother.49
The Pietas reverse depicts a woman reclining and reaching towards a
child, and Mattingly suggested that this is meant to be the diva maternally caring for the
imperial heirs.50
Kienast follows Mattingly, pointing out that whereas Domitia, the mother of
Domitian’s deified son, also appeared with this reverse, the apparently childless Julia Titi did
not, suggesting that the type was only appropriate for imperial mothers.51
45
Silius Italicus, Punica 3.622-629.
46
Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Vespasian) 3.
47
Wife: Scott (1936) 45; Veyne (1962) 50-51; Ritter (1972) 761; Kienast (1989) 141-147; Barratt (2005) 385-
96; Rosso (2006) 144; Wood (2010) 45-57; Daughter: Dessau (1897) 2:81; Mattingly, RIC 2:114, 153, BMCRE
2:270; Raepsaet-Charlier (1987) 350; Alexandridis has suggested that both women were deified ((2004) 15).
48
Girard (1998) p. 215-216, n. 137-142; RIC (Domitian) 2:70-73; Vagi (2000) p. 313, n. 979-982.
49
BMCRE 2:lxxv.
50
BMCRE 2:lxxv.
51
Kienast (1989) 142.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
108
Figure 47: Denarius, Rome, AD 82-83. Obverse: DOMITIA AUGUSTA IMP DOMIT, draped bust
right. Reverse: PIETAS AUGUST, seated left holding sceptre alongside a child.52
This conclusion assumes that there was a standard for which Virtues should be associated
with imperial wives, mothers, daughters and sisters. This is problematic both because this
Pietas type was unprecedented, and because the assumption of standard Virtue associations
appears to be false as imperial women appear to have been connected with Virtues important
to the character of the reign of the individual princeps rather than their position in the
imperial family.53
A different reverse type, depicting a carpentum drawn by mules, does in
fact appear to have been minted exclusively for imperial mothers: it was struck by Tiberius
for Livia, Gaius for Agrippina the elder, Claudius for Antonia, and by Titus for Domitilla.54
Figure 48: Sestertius, Rome, AD 29-30. Obverse: SPQR IVLIAE AVGVST, carpentum. Reverse: TI
CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVST PM TR POT XXIIII, around large S C.55
Figure 49: Sestertius, Rome, AD 80-81. Obverse: MEMORIAE DOMITILLAE SPQR, carpentum.
Reverse: IMP T CAES DIVI VESP F AUG PM TR P PP COS VII, around SC.56
52
RIC (Domitian) 2:214; image from www.wildwinds.com.
53
Livia lent her features to numismatic depictions of Pax under Augustus (Wood (2000) 104), and Salus,
Iustitia and Pietas under Tiberius (RIC (Tiberius) 1:47, 46, 43). Gaius' three sisters were depicted on a reverse
with the attributes of the goddesses Securitas, Concordia and Fortuna (RIC (Gaius) 1:33). Claudius’ mother
Antonia appeared only with the newly coined Constantia Augusti (RIC (Claudius) 1:65-66).
54
Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Gaius) 15, (Claudius) 11; on the honours appropriate for wives and mothers
see Hidalgo de la Vega (2003) 47-72.
55
RIC (Tiberius) 1:51; image from www.wildwinds.com.
56
RIC (Titus) 2:153; image from www.federicweber.com.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
109
However Domitilla is not referred to as diva on Titus’ coin, and none of the Julio-Claudian
recipients of this type were divae at the time of minting. Many scholars have failed to draw
this distinction and thus unjustly identified Diva Domitilla as the wife and mother on the
basis of this type, when in fact the numismatic evidence offers no clear indication of her
identity.
The epigraphic evidence is similarly uninformative as all surviving inscriptions
mentioning the diva are extremely fragmentary, preserving only her name, with no clue to her
identity.57
An ostensibly clearer identification is provided by Statius’ poem to commemorate
the dedication of Domitian’s equestrian statue in the Forum, in which Statius lists the divine
members of Domitian’s family: father, brother, son and sister.
… hoc et sub nocte silenti,
cum superis terrena placent, tua turba relicto
labetur caelo miscebitque oscula iuxta.
ibit in amplexus natus fraterque paterque
et soror: una locum cervix dabit omnibus astris.58
In the dead of night, when earthly things please heavenly, your folk will glide from the sky and
mingle kisses close. Son and brother and father and sister will come to your arms. One neck shall
make room for every star.
Although Statius’ identification of Domitilla as the sister of Domitian seems clear, Kienast
has argued that with soror Statius is in fact referring to Domitian’s niece Julia Titi, pointing
out that she was recently deified and would not have been ignored. Further, there is no
succinct word in Latin for niece, and thus Kienast suggests that Statius substituted the term
sister.59
Unfortunately, although the poem certainly dates to around the same time as Julia
Titi’s death and deification, the exact chronological relationship is unclear, rendering any
such conclusions speculative. Consequently it seems that the evidence is simply insufficient
to definitively identify Diva Domitilla.
57
AE (1962) 272, (1994) 244; CIL 5.2829; 6.893; IG 7.572.
58
Statius, Silvae 1.1.94-98.
59
Kienast (1989) 143-146; Wood (2010) 49-50.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
110
Until recently most scholars dated the deification of Domitilla to the reign of Titus on
the basis of the numismatic evidence. The Domitilla-carpentum types are dated to AD 80-81
by Titus’ titles on the coin legend. The Diva Domitilla types lack a similar point of
reference, but have commonly been dated to the same year by analogy. However, as seen in
the above discussion, the carpentum type was not in fact part of the series honouring Diva
Domitilla, so this analogy is unwarranted. Re-examining the coins Carradice has shown that,
on the basis of their metrological properties, the Diva Domitilla types must date to after
Domitian’s reform of the coinage in AD 82.60
Wood has also argued that the coins must date
to before AD 84/85, as on Domitianic coins minted before AD 85 the obverse legend always
runs counter-clockwise with the letters oriented upwards, but on later Domitianic coins the
legend is read clockwise from the lower left with the letters inwards. The Diva Domitilla
coins are consistent with the former, and thus it seems that Domitilla was deified early in
Domitian’s reign, probably around the same time as his son.61
Consequently it seems that four of the five Flavian deifications belong to the reign of
Domitian. This is remarkable in itself for the simple fact that it represents the creation of
more divi than under any other princeps. It also means that although Titus chose to honour
his deceased mother, with the carpentum type used previously to honour important mothers
of the Julio-Claudian family, he chose not to deify her, and thus the deification of members of
the Flavian family, aside from the deceased princeps himself, appears to have been a
peculiarly Domitianic phenomenon.
60
Carradice (1983) 16-22.
61
Wood (2010) 48; Carradice (1983) 23-24.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
111
3.3: Cult Apparatus
In addition to their significant number, the Flavian divi also appear to have been
prominent in Domitianic Rome, as reference to them in contemporary literature was
ubiquitous.62
With this prominence the Flavian divi appear to have had a similar role in
Domitianic Rome to that which the Julio-Claudian divi enjoyed under the Julio-Claudian
principes, with the exception of the absence of the Flavian divi from the Arval pantheon of
deities to receive sacrifices for the princeps, and the failure of the Arvals to conduct sacrifices
on their birthdays. Nevertheless, in addition to their different roles in the cult conducted for
the princeps, the apparatus created for the cult of the Flavian divi also appears to have
differed from that created for their Julio-Claudian predecessors. Specifically, whereas Divus
Augustus and Divus Claudius had distinct temples and distinct priests, the Flavian divi appear
only to have had shared temples and collective priests.
Three temples for the Flavian divi are known from Domitianic Rome, two dedicated
to Divus Vespasianus and Divus Titus together, and a temple of the Flavian gens, which was
probably dedicated to all the divi as well as important family deities such as their penates and
Lares. The first temple of Divus Vespasianus and Divus Titus, at the north-west end of the
Forum Romanum, appears to have been all but completed as a temple to Divus Vespasianus
alone during Titus’ reign,63
but according to the fourth-century chronographer it was only
completed under Domitian and dedicated to Divus Vespasianus and Divus Titus together.64
That it was almost complete under Titus is indicated by the inscription on the temple’s
entablature, only part of which survives today, recording a dedication to Divus Vespasianus
alone.
62
On the Flavian divi in literature see Scott (1936) 61-82.
63
On the Temple of Divus Vespasianus see Blanckenhagen (1940) 213; De Angeli (1992), (1996) 124-125.
64
Chronographer of AD 354, 146; Notitia Regionum VIII; Anderson (1983) 93-105.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
112
Divo Vespasiano Augusto s(enatus) p(opulus)q(ue) R(omanus) / Imp(eratores) Caess(ares) Severus et
Antoninus Pii Felic(es) Augg(usti) restituer(unt) 65
Dedicated to Divus Vespasianus Augustus by the senate and people of Rome. Restored by Imperator
Caesar Severus Augustus and Imperator Caesar Antoninus Pius Felix Augustus.
An additional dedication to Divus Titus must have been added later, otherwise a dual
dedication, like that on the nearby temple of Divus Antoninus Pius and Diva Faustina, would
have been more sensible.66
An original dedication date under Titus is also indicated by the
numismatic evidence, specifically coin types minted in AD 80/81 which are usually
associated with the inclusion of Divus Vespasianus’ divine image in the procession of the
images of the gods at the circus.67
Figure 50: Denarius, Rome, AD 80/81. Obverse: DIVUS AUGUSTUS VESPASIANUS, laureate
head right. Reverse: EX SC, quadriga right drawn by horses with car in form of small temple flanked
by victories.68
Figure 51: Sestertius, Rome, AD 80/81. Obverse: DIVO AUG VESPAS SPQR, statue of Divus
Vespasianus togate and radiate seated left on chair cart drawn by elephants with riders, holding
sceptre and victory.69
Although both types are traditionally associated with the circus honour, it seems to me that
the different coin legends may indicate different references. The EX SC type could refer to
the decree of the cart in the circus. The elephant drawn type with the legend Divo Aug(usto)
Vesp(asiano) SPQR, echoing the dedication of the temple, may in fact refer to that temple.
Perhaps this coin celebrates the placement of the cult image of Divus Vespasianus in the
65
CIL 6.938; the full inscription was copied into the eighth-century Einsiedeln Itinerary.
66
CIL 6.31224. Getty has attempted to tie the temple to Titus through an allusion in Valerius Flaccus’
Argonautica (1.13-17) to cultusque deum delubraque genti (Getty and Sahin (1936) 55). His argument,
however, only works if the poem is dated to the reign of Titus, but dates under all three Flavians have been
suggested. Recently Kleywegt has argued convincingly that the poem was published under Vespasian ((2005)
19). On the Argonautica see Taylor (1994) 212-235.
67
This was not strictly a cultic honour as the same honour was granted to Germanicus under Tiberius (Tacitus,
Annales 2.83.3) and Agrippina under Gaius (Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Gaius) 15).
68
RIC (Titus) 2:143; image from www.wildwinds.com.
69
RIC (Titus) 2:60; image from www.wildwinds.com.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
113
relatively complete temple during Titus’ reign.70
If the temple was already dedicated to
Divus Vespasianus alone under Titus then the decision to rededicate the temple to both divi
may indicate an active policy aimed at keeping the Flavian divi together rather than an
arrangement of convenience.
The fact that the rededication of the temple to both divi was not simply an act of
convenience and cost is also indicated by the fact that it did not prevent the dedication of
additional temples. A second temple of Divus Vespasianus and Divus Titus was dedicated in
the Campus Martius. No Domitianic literary or numismatic evidence refers to the structure,71
and the primary testimony for this temple comes from Eutropius and the Chronographer of
AD 354, who variously refer to the structure as the porticus divorum, templum divorum or
just the divorum.72
The plan of the temple is preserved on fragments 35a-i of the Severan
Marble plan, which depicts two separate aedes within a large rectangular area enclosed by a
colonnade entered via a triple arch.73
One of these aedes is referred to as belonging to Divus
Titus in an inscription from AD 153.
Lex collegi(i) Aesculapi et Hygiae... XIII K(alendas) Oct(obres) die felicissimo n(atali) Antonini
Aug(usti) n(ostri) Pii p(atris) p(atriae) sportulas dividerent in / templo divorum in aede divi Titi...74
Law of the college of Aesculapes and Hygia... Thirteen days before the kalends of October, the most
lucky day that is the birthday of our Antoninus Augustus Pius, father of his country, gifts were handed
out in the sacred precinct of the divi, in the shrine of Divus Titus...
The other aedes is ascribed to Divus Vespasianus on the basis of comparison with the other
Flavian temple, and an inscription found near the Lateran museum referring to a templum
Divi Vespasiani may refer to this structure.75
70
Other types for Divus Vespasianus show him seated on a throne holding victory and a sceptre or seated on a
curule chair holding a branch and sceptre (BMCRE (Titus) 2:107, 145). These seem to mark his earthly
accomplishments rather than depict cult statues.
71
Mattingly suggests that an aureus and sestertius type from AD 95/96 depicting a small temple containing a
seated figure shows the porticus temples (BMCRE (Domitian) 2:229, 476*), but Carradice has questioned their
authenticity ((1982) 379-380).
72
Eutropius, Historiae Romanae Brevarium 7.23; Chronographer of AD 354, 146.
73
On the Porticus Divorum see Richardson (1976) 159-163; Coarelli (1995) 2:19-20.
74
CIL 6.10234.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
114
There is no evidence that the other three Flavian divi had individual temples, but like
the Julio-Claudian divae before them they may have had a place in the temples of Divus
Vespasianus and Divus Titus. That Diva Julia Titi was installed in some temple may be
indicated by the numismatic evidence as a coin was minted for her under Domitian depicting
her statue in an cart drawn by elephants, paralleling the type for Divus Vespasianus discussed
above, and perhaps referring to the instalment of her image in a temple of Divus Titus.76
Figure 52: Aureus, Rome, AD 90-92. Obverse: DIVA IVLIA AVGVSTA, diademed and draped bust
right. Reverse: seated left, holding corn ears and sceptre, on car drawn l. by two elephants with
mahouts on their backs.77
It is also possible that this coin type depicts the installation of her cult image in the
Templum Gentis Flaviae, in which all five Flavian divi probably had a place, possibly
alongside domestic deities of the gens. This templum was built in the sixth region of Rome in
the house in which Domitian was born,78
emulating the conversion of Augustus’ birth place
into a shrine.79
Koeppel argues that the Hartwig-Kelsey sculptural fragments came from this
structure.80
The surviving fragments depict stylised palm trees with figures leaning against
them supporting capitals embellished by dentils with hollowed centres, a specifically
75
AE (1929) 54.
76
Diva Julia Titi received cult from some civic communities: a dedication survives from Celeia in Noricum
(CIL 3.13524a), and there are priestesses at Novaria (CIL 5.5614) and Aeclanum (CIL 9.1153).
77
RIC (Domitian) 2:219; image from www.coinarchives.com.
78
Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Domitian) 1, 5, 15; Chronographer of AD 354; cf. Coarelli (1985) 151-153;
Torelli (1987) 564-569. Sixteenth-century remains of the structure were described by Flaminio Vacca (Altmann
(1906) 88). The area has been identified with the Flavian family on the basis of two inscriptions (CIL 6.29788,
15.7451).
79
Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Augustus) 5; Fishwick (1992) 232-255.
80
Koeppel (1980) 14-29.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
115
Domitianic decorative technique.81
Also surviving are the heads of Vespasian, a flamen, a
soldier and a youth, as well as part of a bull. Koeppel argues that together these came from
the temple’s capitals and two exterior reliefs, one depicting the sacrifice of a bull, and the
other the triumph or adventus of Vespasian.82
Figure 53: Back of draped male torso leaning against a palm, Museo Nazionale Romano: Rome.
Figure 54: Nude male torso, Museo Nazionale Romani: Rome.
Figure 55: Corner entabulature fragment with part of a Capitol, Museo Nazionale Romano: Rome.83
Figure 56: Vespasian wearing corona civica, Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, Ann Arbor.
Figure 57: Relief fragment with representation of the Temple of Quirinus and the head of a flamen,
Museo Nazionale Romano: Rome.
Figure 58: Relief fragment with the head of a soldier, Museo Nazionale Romano: Rome.
Figure 59: Relief fragment with profile of a male head, Museo Nazionale Romano: Rome.84
This depiction of Vespasian verifies that Divus Vespasianus probably had a role at the
temple, and the same seems to be true of Diva Julia Titi as according to Suetonius her ashes
81
Koeppel (1980) 15.
82
Koeppel (1980) 15; Torelli (1987) 569-570; D’Ambra (1993) 30; Coarelli (1995) 2:368-369.
83
Images from www.umich.edu.
84
Images from www.umich.edu.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
116
were interred there.85
Unlike the other temples of the Flavian divi, the Templum Gentis
Flaviae is regularly referred to in the contemporary literature,86
though it cannot be
definitively identified on the coinage.87
It was probably dedicated in AD 94 as it is first
mentioned, several times, in book nine of Martial’s Epigrammata, published around that
time.88
It may also be mentioned in book four of Statius’ Silvae published in the same year,89
and is certainly mentioned in book five, composed in AD 96.
... ‘est hic agnosco, minister
illius, aeternae modo qui sacraria genti
condidit unque alio, posuit sua sidera caelo.90
Yes this is the minister of him that lately founded a shrine for his eternal race and set his stars in
another firmament.
Although the structure is certainly referred to as a temple by the contemporary poets, it is
clear that it also served as a mausoleum, both from the fact that Julia’s ashes were deposited
there,91
and the fact that Martial’s compares the templum with an Idean ‘bustum’, a funeral
pyre, and with an Augustan polus, which in this context probably refers to the Mausoleum of
Augustus.92
Iuppiter Idaei risit mendacia busti,
dum videt Augusti Flavia templa poli,
atque inter mensas largo iam nectare fusus,
pocula cum Marti traderet ipse suo,
respiciens Phoebum partier Phoebique sororem,
cum quibus Alcides et pius Arcas erat,
“Gnosia vos” inquit “nobis monumenta dedistis:
certine quam plus sit Caesaris esse patrem.”93
85
Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Domitian) 17.3.
86
It is also mentioned by later sources: Historia Augusta (Divus Claudius) 3.6; (Triginta Tyranni) 33.6; Notitia
Regionum VI.
87
Mattingly (BMCRE 2:lxxxvii; p. 338, n. 119) argues that an octastyle temple coin reverse from AD 92/93
depicts the Templum Gentis Flaviae. Based on the literary sources Ward-Perkins suggests that the temple was
round ((1981) 77), and Scott suggests that an aureus of AD 95/96 showing a four columned round temple
depicts the templum ((1936) 67; BMCRE 2:229). Torelli suggests that a sestertius of AD 95/96 showing a three
storied building with a façade of ten columns may be the temple ((1987) 564-567; BMCRE 2:12), and Hill links
a further coin with the temple ((1989) 16; BMCRE 2:229), though its authenticity has been questioned
(Carradice (1982) 379-380).
88
Martial, Epigrammata 9.1.6-10, 9.3.12, 9.20, 9.93.3.
89
Statius, Silvae 4.3.18-19; cf. Sauter (1934) 150-152; Scott (1936) 64.
90
Statius, Silvae 5.1.239-41.
91
On the interment of the other Flavians see Arce (1988) 78-80.
92
On the Mausoleum of Augustus see Hesberg and Panciera (1994).
93
Martial, Epigrammata 9.34.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
117
Jupiter laughed at the falsehood of his Idean tomb when he saw the Flavian temple of the Augustan
heaven; and at table, already drenched with copious nectar, as he handed the cup to son Mars, looking
the while at Phoebus and Phoebus’ sister (Alcides and the loyal Arcadian were there too), “You gave
me,” he said, “a Gnosian monument. See how much greater a thing it is to be Caesar’s father.”
Consequently Dąbrowa argues that the Templum Gentis Flaviae combined the functions of
Julio-Claudian mausoleum and Ara Gentis Iuliae,94
even though the Romans did not usually
combine their burial and cult sites.95
The prominence of the Templum Gentis Flaviae in the
literary sources over the other temples of the Flavian divi may be a further indication as to the
important role that the Flavian divi played in Rome as a collective, rather than individuals.
Just as the Flavian divi appear only to have had shared temples, it also appears that,
again in contrast to Julio-Claudian precedent, they only had collective priests. The JulioClaudian
divi were served by at least two types of priests: flamines and sodales. In the
Roman state cult a flamen was an individual priest responsible specifically for a designated
deity. Germanicus was the first flamen of Divus Augustus,96
and Livia the first flaminica.97
Upon Germanicus’ death it was decreed that only another member of the imperial family
could fill the position,98
and he was followed in quick succession by Tiberius’ son Drusus,
and then his own son Nero.99
No successor was immediately appointed for Livia following
her death, but upon his accession Gaius made his grandmother Antonia sacerdos divi
Augusti.100
The deviant title sacerdos may indicate that Antonia did not in fact take over
Livia's priesthood, which may have been a unique honour for the wife of Augustus and not
designed to be continuous. In similar fashion, following Claudius’ deification Agrippina was
94
Dąbrowa (1996) 153-161.
95
Richard (1966) 134-135.
96
Tacitus, Annales 2.83.1; Cassius Dio, Roman History 56.41.1; CIL 10.513.
97
Ovid, Epistulae ex Ponto 4.9.107; Velleius Paterculus, Historia Romanum 2.75.3; Tacitus, Annales 1.73.3;
Cassius Dio, Roman History 56.46.1.
98
Tabula Siarensis; González (1999) 129.
99
For references see Rüpke (2008) 161-173.
100
Cassius Dio, Roman History 59.3.4; CIL 6.921; RIC (Gaius) 1:67-68.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
118
made his flaminica,101
but his flamen was one Gaius Hostidius Geta, who does not appear to
have been a member of the imperial family.102
The incumbent flamen of Divus Augustus at
the start of Nero’s reign was one of Augustus’ more distant relatives, D. Iunius Silianus
Torquatus.103
Consequently it seems that the selection criteria for the flamen of the JulioClaudian
divi were relaxed over time. The sodales Augustales were a college of priests
created by Tiberius to serve Divus Augustus and the Julian gens. Originally it was made up
of twenty-one members of Rome’s elite, to which the men of the imperial family were added
as supernumerary members.104
After Claudius’ deification they became sodales Augustales
Claudiales, so the Claudian gens was added to their responsibilities.105
This college
continued to be important in Rome after the fall of the Julio-Claudians, with all three Flavian
principes being members.106
The Flavian divi do not appear to have had flamines, nor do any priests appear to have
been dedicated to an individual Flavian divus. There is no surviving epigraphic evidence for
any such priests in the Roman state cult, though the position did exist in municipal
communities.107
Momigliano suggests that this absence is not simply an accident of survival
on the basis of Suetonius’ description of Domitian celebrating his new Capitoline games with
the aid of the flamen of Jupiter and the collegium flavialium, clearly referring to the sodales
101
Tacitus, Annales 13.2.3.
102
CIL 9.2847; cf. Rüpke (2008) 721.
103
AE (1936) 68; CIL 3.2808, 9.913, 10.798, 11.3336. Kleiner (1971) suggests that Claudius took up the office
himself at some point and is depicted as such on the Ara Pietatis.
104
Tacitus, Annales 1.54; Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Claudius) 6.2; cf. Pistor (1965) 145-146; Gottlieb
(2000) 1109; Varhalyi (2002) 43.
105
There are no examples of sodales Claudiales without them also being Augustales (eg. CIL 5.6977, 6978,
6979, 6980, 6.332, 41218, 41219, 8.18269, 11.3367, 14.2391).
106
Rüpke (2008) 197-218.
107
AE (1908) 205, (1913) 190, (1916) 117, (1917/1918) 23, (1934) 232, (1947) 46, (1952) 226, (1973) 616,
(1987) 204, (1987) 478, (1988) 182, (1988) 184; CIL 2.2227, 2412, 6095, 3.660, 13910, 5.5239, 5667, 6360,
6513, 6514, 6797, 6995, 7021, 7458, 8.14364, 26470, 26604, 9.731, 2600, 2855, 10.413, 5382, 11.1447a,
14.298, 4641, 4664, 14.400, 4142, 4622; ILAfr 280, 469; ILTun 723, 1513; IRT 275, 347.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
119
Flaviales, discussed further below.108
Momigliano argues that if there had been Flavian
flamines they too would have been mentioned here.109
This supposition may be supported by
the fact that, judging from the precedent of Divus Augustus, the flamen and flaminica of the
divi were likely to have been members of the imperial family, and the evidence confirms that
none of the prominent Flavians held these titles. Curiously this absence of flamines appears
to be specifically Flavian as inscriptions do survive recording flamines of Divus Nerva,110
Divus Traianus,111
and Divus Hadrianus.112
By contrast, considerable epigraphic evidence survives for sodales of the Flavians,
with thirty inscriptions from throughout the empire seeming to refer to individuals who held
the position in Rome’s state cult.113
The Flavian sodales did not all have identical titles, but
were known variously as Flaviales, Titiales, Flaviales Titiales or Titiales Flaviales. The
significance of these respective variations has been debated. Scott suggested that two distinct
groups of sodales were created, Flaviales and Titiales, serving Divus Vespasianus and Divus
Titus respectively. This is based on the fact that in an inscription from Ager Mogontiacensis
each adjective is prefaced independently by the title sodalis.114
A(ulus) Didius Gallus / [F]abricius Veiento co(n)s(ul) / III XVvir sacris faciend(is) / sodalis
Augustal(is) sod(alis) Flavial(is) / sod(alis) <T=I>i<t=I>ialis et Attica eius / Nemeton(ae) v(otum)
s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)115
108
Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Domitian) 4.
109
Momigliano (1975) 662.
110
Sextus Carminius Vetus on the basis that L. Calventius Eunomus is listed as kalator of Nerva’s flamen and
Eunomus was his freedman (CIL 6.31034, 6.32445b); and M. Clodius Lunensis, again on the basis of record of
his kalator M. Clodius Tiro (CIL 6.32445b).
111
D. Manilius Vopiscus Vicinialliaus, L. Elufrius Severus Iulius Quadratus Bassus (CIL 14.4242); P. Coelius
Balbinus Vibullius Pius (CIL 6.1383).
112
C. Betitius Pius Maximillianus (CIL 9.1160).
113
CIL 3.6813, 6.1333, 32436a, 33084, 37177-8, 41095, 41111, 41112, 41117, 8.13, 11.1430, 5670, 5672,
13.1806, 5089, 7253, 14.2397, 2501; AE (1912) 222, (1917/18) 26, (1952) 115, 168, (1973) 300, (1974) 129,
(1983) 142, (1962) 229; (1998) 285 (1999) 1576; ILS 8970, 8975; ILAlg 1.1230-2; ILJug 2.2568bs. See Rüpke
(2005) (2008).
114
Scott (1936) 80.
115
CIL 13.7253.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
120
Aulus Didius Gallus Fabricus Veiento consul for the third time, member of the board of fifteen men in
charge of sacred duties, sodalis Augustalis, sodalis Flavialis, sodalis Titialis, and Attica his wife
dedicated this to Nemetona, willingly and deservedly fulfilling his vow.
Scott argued that the distinct priesthoods merged following the death of Domitian when the
Flavian divi became less important, and that the order of the adjectives depended on which
priesthood the individual was originally a member.116
Dessau took the opposite view and
suggested that the additional sod., which is unique to the Ager Mogontiacensis inscription, is
an epigraphic error, and that Didius Gallus Fabricius only served as sodalis Augustalis and
sodalis Flavialis Titialis. He proposed that the occasional inversion of the title to Titiales
Flaviales is simply epigraphic variation.117
The problem with Dessau’s interpretation is that,
unlike in the case of the sodales Augustales Claudiales for whom there is no record of
sodales Claudiales without Augustales included in the title, there are examples of sodales
Titiales without Flaviales included. In his recent study of Roman priests Rüpke suggested
the title sodalis Titialis was either epigraphic variant, as the five inscriptions bearing this title
are all from long after the Flavian period, or that in some cases the inscriptions may also in
fact mark the individual as a member of the sodales Titi: this was an old college responsible
for traditional Sabine rituals that was rejuvenated under the Julio-Claudians.118
To me it
seems most likely that the various Flavian sodales formed one college as an inscription from
Bovilliae refers to a sodalium Flavialium Titialium, indicating a single group.119
This is
probably a reference to the state college, rather than a local group, as the sodales Augustales
created under Tiberius also had ritual duties at Bovilliae, as indicated by the fact that fasti of
these priests survive from both Bovilliae and Rome.120
Presumably the Flavian sodalium also
had a role at Bovilliae, emulating the Augustan sodalium.
116
Scott (1936) 80.
117
Dessau (1877) 211-213.
118
Rüpke (2008); Tacitus, Annales 1.54.
119
CIL 14.2397.
120
Bovilliae: CIL 14.2388-2404; Rome: CIL 6.1984-1988; cf. Varhelyi (2002) 33.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
121
Dessau argued that the Flaviales were created following Vespasian’s deification, and
that the title Titiales was immediately added following Titus’ deification. McFayden on the
other hand suggested that no Flavian sodales were created until the reign of Domitian, when
the sodales Flaviales were given the care of Divus Vespasianus, Divus Titus and the other
Flavian divi; he suggests that Titiales was added to their title only following Domitian's death
to clearly limit the domain of the Flavian sodales to Divus Vespasianus and Divus Titus,
excluding the rest of the disgraced gens.121
The suggestion that only the title Flaviales
existed under Domitian is supported by the testimony of Suetonius who only mentions
Flaviales at the Capitoline games,122
but the title Titiales must have been added very shortly
after Domitian’s death, probably around the same time as his damnatio memoriae, as Didius
Gallus Fabricius used the dual title very early in Trajan’s reign.123
I disagree, however, with
McFayden’s suggestion that the Flaviales were only created under Domitian, as a surviving
epigraphic fragment, discovered after the publication of his article, appears to preserve the
record of one sodalis Flavialis from the reign of Titus.
[Aus]pic[iis Imp(eratoris) T(iti)] Caesa[ris d]ivi Vespa[sia]ni f(ilius) Vespa[siani Aug(usti)
pont(ificis) max(imi) trib(unicia) pot(estate) IX imp(eratoris) XV co(n)s(ulis) VIII censoris p(atris)
p(atriae) per M(arcum) Ulp]ium Traianum co(n)s(ulem) leg(atum) A[ug(usti) leg(ionis) X Fretensis
bello Iudaico] et provinciae Syriae proco(n)s(ulem) Asiae et Hispanicae Baeticae XVvir(um) [s(acris)
f(aciundis) sod]alem Flavial{l}em triumphalibus orn[a]men[t]is...124
Under the auspices of Imperator Titus Caesar Vespasian Augustus, son of Divus Vespasianus,
pontifex maximus with tribunician power for the 9th
time, hailed imperator fifteen times, consul eight
times, censor and father of his country, through Marcus Ulpius Traianus, consul, legate of Augustus
for the tenth legion Fretensis during the Jewish war, proconsul of the provinces of Syria, Asia and
Baetica, member of the board of fifteen men in charge of sacred duties, sodalis Flavialis with
triumphal ornamentation...
This inscription, though heavily restored, clearly refers to Titus as the living princeps, and
Traianus, the father of Trajan, as sodalis Flavialis. Consequently it seems that the title
sodales Flaviales was simply not changed under Domitian, and this is perhaps not surprising,
121
McFayden (1915) 140-141.
122
Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Domitian) 4.4.
123
CIL 13.7253.
124
AE (1999) 1576.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
122
as if this college was analogous with the sodales Augustales, it would have been given
responsibility for Divus Vespasianus and his gens, which included all the other Flavian
divi.125
Epigraphic evidence also survives for one kalator sacerdotii Flaviali,126
and two
sacerdotes Titiales Flaviales.127
The character of these sacerdotes is enigmatic. Momigliano
explored both the possibilities that they were some kind of replacement for the flamines, and
that they were members of the sodalium Flavialium Titialium.128
They certainly do not seem
to have been replacements for the flamines in the sense that they were responsible for a single
Flavian divus, as indicated by the fact that both the adjectives Titiales and Flaviales were
attached to their titles, indicating multiple responsibilities. It also seems possible that these
sacerdotes had nothing to do with either priesthood, especially in light of the fact that, on the
basis of these inscriptions, the title only appears to have emerged after the Flavian period, as
the inscriptions date from between the reigns of Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius.129
Perhaps
these sacerdotes were part of some new college created under the Antonines, such as the ordo
sacerdotum domus Augustae, for which the earliest surviving evidence is a college Album of
AD 182.130
Unfortunately the evidence is insufficient to draw any kind of picture of these
priests. What is apparent is that the cult apparatus that surrounded the Flavian divi during the
125
As an aside, Momigliano (1975) makes the interesting suggestion that the sodales Flaviales were based in
the Temple of Jupiter Propugnator, on the basis of an early third-century inscription regarding a college that met
inside that temple on the Palatine (CIL 6.2004). Momigliano suggests that the unnamed college in the
inscription may be the Flavian sodales since they participated in the Capitoline games for Jupiter, and because
Domitian probably built this temple (cf. Darwall-Smith (1996) 112). Although this is an attractive suggestion it
does not seem likely as there is no specific evidence connecting the priesthood of the temple with the sodales
Flaviales or any of its individual members, and the inscriptions describes the Jupiter group as meeting on
December 12th
, and then on April 10th
, but not on November 17th
or December 30th
, the birthdays of Vespasian
and Titus, which would probably have been important cult days for the sodales Flaviales (cf. Rüpke (2008) 9).
126
CIL 6.2188.
127
CIL 6.1523, 8.597.
128
Momigliano (1975) 661.
129
For their careers see Varhelyi (2002) 40.
130
On the ordo sacerdotum domus Augustae see Rüpke (2008) 10.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
123
reign of Domitian was designed to treat them not as individuals, but collectively as a divine
cohort.
3.4: Provincial Cult
The contrast between Julio-Claudian singular approach and Flavian collective
approach in Rome is also reflected in the form of their respective provincial cults. Although
provincial cults are outside of the parameter of ‘Rome’ established for this thesis, they were
nevertheless ‘official’ in that they were authorised by the Roman administration to represent
a certain region as a corporate entity, in the same way that state cults represented Rome as a
corporate entity. The title ‘provincial’ can be misleading since not all cults that served a
province were official – the cult of the Achaean League represented most of Greece but was
never certified by Rome131
- and not all officially sanctioned cults served a province per se the
altar at Lugdunum served three,132
and the Arae Sestianae only a subsection of a
province.133
The defining characteristic of a ‘provincial cult’, that distinguished it from the
‘civic cults’ located in individual communities throughout the empire, was that it was given
official status by Rome.134
Although provincial cults were sanctioned, and often initiated and
modified, by Rome’s administrative engines, their conduct was the domain of provincial
councils, called a koinon in the east and a consilium in the west. These councils comprised
local community leaders and conducted business of provincial concern, such as prosecuting
corrupt Roman governors and magistrates.135
131
Lozano (2002) passim, esp. 138.
132
Fishwick (2002) 3.1:9-21.
133
Fishwick (2002) 3.1:6-9.
134
On the distinction between provincial and civic cults see Price (1984a) 54-55; Fishwick (1987) 1.1:91-92,
129-130.
135
On provincial councils see Price (1984a) 75-77; Fishwick (1987) 1.2:283-285; Burrell (2004) 343-358.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
124
The first provincial cult was created in 29 BC when the communities of Asia, through
their provincial council, requested and were granted permission to dedicate a temple at
Pergamum to Augustus and Roma.136
As a condition, Rome’s administration required that a
sister cult be dedicated to Divus Julius and Roma for the use of Roman citizens living in the
province.137
According to Cassius Dio an analogous pair of provincial cults was dedicated to
the same deities in Bithynia;138
and archaeological and epigraphic remains reveal a provincial
temple dedicated to Augustus and Roma at Ankyra in the province of Galatia.139
In the west
a series of provincial altars were dedicated to the same two deities. The most well known
was dedicated by the elder Drusus at Lugdunum in 12 BC to represent the inhabitants of the
three newly established provinces of Gallia Lugdunensis, Gallia Aquitania and Gallia
Belgica; once established its care was passed to the consilium provinciae.140
Similarly the
Tres Arae Sestianae was established in Hispania Citerior between 22 and 15 BC by the
Roman general L. Sestius Quirinalis Albinus to service three sub-administrative regions of
the province.141
Although less evidence survives, it seems that similar altars were established
near modern Cologne, probably designed to serve the province of Germania,142
among the
Ligones in Gallia Belgica,143
and on the eastern bank of the Elbe.144
136
Tacitus, Annales 4.37; Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Augustus) 52; Cassius Dio, Roman History 51.20.6;
cf. Burrell (2004) 17-22. Suetonius’ account implies that Augustus imposed the requirement that Roma be
included in the cult on the provincials.
137
Cassius Dio, Roman History 51.20.6; for epigraphic evidence see Fayer (1976) 112-113. This requirement
suggests that there was a sharp distinction between what cults were considered appropriate for Roman and
provincial citizens to participate in, even outside Rome. However, this distinction seems to have broken down
quickly as already in the Julio-Claudian period Roman citizens living in the provinces are known to have served
as provincial priests (Fishwick (2002) 3.1:230-233).
138
Cassius Dio, Roman History 51.20.6; cf. Fishwick (1987) 1.1:76; Burrell (2004) 147-152.
139
Burrell (2004) 166-173; cf. Fittschen (1995) 309-315; for archaeological evidence see Krencker and Schede
(1936) 22, 51; for epigraphic evidence see Bosch (1967) 35-49.
140
Strabo, Geography 4.3.4; Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 139; Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Claudius) 2.1; Cassius
Dio, Roman History 54.32.1; for the dedication being to Roma as well as Augustus, a fact not preserved by the
literary sources, see CIL 13.1036, 1042-5; RIC (Tiberius) 1:237; Fishwick (2002) 3.1:9-19.
141
Ptolemy, Geography 2.6.3; Pomponius Mela, De Situ Orbis 3.13; Pliny, Historia Naturalis 41.11; cf.
Fishwick (2002) 3.1:6-9.
142
Tacitus, Annales 1.39; cf. Fishwick (2002) 3.1:20-21.
143
Cassiodorus, Chronicon 385D; cf. Fishwick (2002) 3.1:22.
144
Cassius Dio, Roman History 55.10a.2; cf. Fishwick (2002) 3.1:23.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
125
Under Augustus’ successor Tiberius newly established provincial cults took different
forms. In AD 23 Asia requested, and was granted, permission to dedicate another provincial
temple at Smyrna, but this time dedicated to Tiberius, Livia and the Senate.145
However, in
AD 25 when Baetica made a similar request to dedicate a provincial temple to Tiberius it was
refused, with Tiberius claiming that he preferred to reserve the honour for his father
Augustus.146
Perhaps the refusal was motivated by the fact that, unlike Asia, Baetica did not
already possess a provincial cult of Augustus. Ten years earlier, when the neighbouring
province of Hispania Citerior sent an embassy to Rome requesting permission to dedicate a
provincial temple to Divus Augustus in their capital Tarraco their request was granted, and
according to Tacitus became in omnes provincias exemplum (an example to all the
provinces).147
Whether Tacitus’ words refer to an official policy, a passing recommendation,
or to actions after the fact is unclear, but an identical provincial cult dedicated to Divus
Augustus was set up in the neighbouring Spanish province of Lusitania at their capital
Emerita.148
That one cult was copied from the other is suggested by the numismatic
evidence: both provinces minted coins referring to Augustus with the unusual title Deus
Augustus, rather than using his proper posthumous title Divus Augustus, and both provinces
also minted coins using the previously unknown legend Aeternitas/atis Augustae.149
Tiberius’ failure to maintain the form of provincial cult used by Augustus meant that
no standard was established for his successors. Thus when a provincial cult was begun for
Gaius at Miletus in Asia it did not adhere to any established form, but was to be set up inside
the existing temple of Apollo near Didyma.150
The cult appears to have been abandoned
145
Tacitus, Annales 4.15, 4.55-56; cf. Burrell (2004) 38-42.
146
Tacitus, Annales 4.37-38; cf. Fishwick (2002) 3.1:111.
147
Tacitus, Annales 1.78; cf. Fishwick (2002) 3.1:43-53.
148
Fishwick (2002) 3.1:53-59.
149
Fishwick (1987) 1.1:151-152, 156-157; (2002) 3.1:43-44.
150
Cassius Dio, Roman History 59.28.1; cf. Burrell (2004) 55-57.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
126
following Gaius’ death.151
Similarly the provincial cult established under Claudius at
Camulodunum in his newly won province of Britain was dedicated to the living princeps
without Roma, and centred on a temple like the cults of Divus Augustus rather than on an
altar, like the previous western cults of the living princeps.152
Thus it seems that although
under Augustus there was some standardisation applied to the provincial cults of the empire,
this disappeared by the end of the Julio-Claudian period.
The Domitianic provincial temple at Ephesus was very different from the JulioClaudian
provincial cults because rather than focusing on a single princeps or divus, it was
dedicated to the Sebastoi. Knowledge of the temple comes from its archaeological remains,
and thirteen inscriptions found in close proximity. Found among the archaeological remains
of the temples was a colossal statue head which has variously been identified as representing
Domitian or Divus Titus, indicating that the temple was established under the Flavians.153
Figure 60: Colossal head from the provincial temple at Ephesus.154
151
Burrell (2004) 57.
152
[Seneca], Apocolocyntosis 8.3; Tacitus, Annales 14.32; for the archaeological evidence see Hull (1958) 162-
177; Richmond (1946) 57-60; Crummy (1980) 243-251; Drury (1984) 28; Fishwick (2004) 3.3:135-148.
153
Domitian: Keil (1931) 59-60; Knibbe (1980) 775; Meric (1985) 240; Varner (2004) 128; Titus: Daltrop,
Hausmann and Wegner (1966) 26, 38, 86, 100; Friesen (1993) 62.
154
Image from www.anistor.gr.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
127
The thirteen inscriptions form a uniform set that were set up by different neighbouring cities
on account of the completion of a ναῶι τῶι ἐν Ἐφέσωι τῶν Σεβαστῶν κοινῶ[ι] τῆς Ἀσίας
(temple in Ephesus of the Sebastoi common to the people of Asia).155
Sebastos is the Greek
term for Augustus, and thus the cult was dedicated to the Augusti in the plural. Local cults in
the east dedicated to the Sebastoi are known from the reign of Claudius onwards, and
probably acted as a precedent that was imported to the provincial level.156
Price and Lozano
both argue that Sebastoi was an indefinite term which could include the living princeps, the
divi, deceased principes who had not been deified, and any other important members of the
imperial family, living or deceased; the exact composition of the group was determined by
the individuals applying the term.157
Thus just as the nature of the priests and temples of the divi in Rome indicate that at
least Divus Augustus and Divus Claudius were treated as separate and unique deities, the
provincial cults dedicated under the Julio-Claudians treated each princeps or divus
individually. By contrast, just as the Flavian divi were treated as a collective in Rome, the
provincial cult established under Domitian treated the princeps, divi and imperial family as a
collective. There could be many possible explanations for this change in approach, but one
does not appear to be decreased importance of the divi or decreased finances for their cult in
Domitianic Rome, as the Flavian divi were arguably more prominent than their JulioClaudian
predecessors, enjoying multiple temples, even though they were shared. They are
also consistently referred to collectively in contemporary literature, already quoted above, for
example when Silius Italicus describes Domitian’s divine father, brother and son as together
155
IvE 232, 232a, 233, 234, 235, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 1498, 20248; cf. Friesen (1993) 59-75; Burrell
(2004) 64.
156
Athens: IG 2(2):3183; Acraephiae: IG 7.2713; Aphrodisias: REG 19 (1906) n. 8; Cos: IGRR 4.1086; Delphi:
BCH 20 (1896) 710; Didyma: OGIS 494=ILS 8860; Eresus: IG 12(2):549=IGRR 4.18; Lampascus: IGRR
4.180; Magnesia on Menander: IMagn 113; Sidyma: IGRR 3.577; Thyateira: IGRR 4.1242.
157
Price (1984b) 79-85; Lozano (2007) 139-152.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
128
in the heavens,158
and when Statius refers to son, brother, father and sister all supporting the
living princeps.159
Consequently the decision to treat the Flavian divi as a collective appears
to be a conscious one. One possible explanation could be that by treating them collectively
emphasis was placed on dynasty: they were not just individual gods but part of a divine line.
Perhaps this was considered important to counterbalance the loss of focus on dynasty caused
by the removal of the divi from the pantheon of deities to receive sacrifices for the princeps.
Another possibility is that just as the princeps was increasingly less treated as a charismatic
individual in the Arval cult and increasingly more treated as one in a line of principes that
ensured the Principate as an institution, so too this may have had the effect of moving focus
away from the individual, and focussing on the larger institution. Regardless, this collective
treatment was surely a deliberate policy.
3.5: Vespasian?
Although, as seen in chapter one, it is clear that the divi, absent from the pantheon of
deities to receive sacrifices for the princeps under Domitian, were removed from that
pantheon under Vespasian, it is more difficult to draw similar connections between other
Vespasianic and Domitianic policies towards the divi. The prolific deification of members of
the Flavian imperial family in particular appears to have been a peculiarly Domitianic
phenomenon. There is no evidence that Vespasian attempted to deify any of his family, and
the literary tradition of his humble origins and his contempt of attempts to create for him an
illustrious ancestry may reflect his lack of interest in this.160
Similarly, although Titus did see
the deification of Vespasian, as has been argued above, no other divi were created during his
reign.
158
Silius Italicus, Punica 622-629.
159
Statius, Silvae 1.1.94-98.
160
Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Vespasian) 12.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
129
Despite this it would be a mistake to view Vespasian as anti-divi, as he in fact
supported the institution by maintaining the cult of Divus Claudius. Construction of a grand
temple of Divus Claudius was begun under Nero on the Caelian Hill, but the temple was not
only neglected, but also partially destroyed to make space for other Neronian building
projects.161
Russo suggests that this neglect was the equivalent of undoing Claudius’
deification,162
but this is overstating the matter for, as seen in chapter one, Divus Claudius
continued to receive sacrifices from the Arvals alongside the other divi until the reign of
Vitellius. Nevertheless it is significant that the temple of Divus Claudius was completed
under Vespasian – and Suetonius specifically assigns the impetus for this action to
Vespasian163
– as it seems that he could have ignored Divus Claudius if he chose. That
Vespasian was under no pressure to support Divus Claudius is indicated by the lex de imperio
Vespasiani. Whereas this senatus consultum confirming Vespasian’s powers referred to
Augustus as a divus, it only referred to Claudius by his mortal titles, ignoring his divinity, and
thus it seems that in AD 69 Claudius’ divine status was not secure.164
Darwall-Smith
suggests that Vespasian’s purpose in completing the temple was to draw a link between
himself and the previous dynasty through Claudius, and he supports this position by pointing
out connections between the two: Vespasian received triumphal ornamentation, two
priesthoods, and a consulship under Claudius, and Titus grew up with Claudius’ son
Britannicus.165
It seems to me that better explanations present themselves. First, that
Vespasian was working to maintain respect for the Principate as an institution by maintaining
161
Martial, Liber Spectaculorum 2.9-10; Frontinus, de Aquis 1.20, 2.76; Colini (1944) 137-162; Buzzetti (1993)
1:277-278; Cante et al (1997) 123-151.
162
Russo (2006) 130.
163
Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Vespasian) 9.
164
CIL 6.930=ILS 244; cf. Brunt (1977) 95-116; Hurlet (1993) 261-280. Charlesworth suggested that with this
wording the senate was protesting Claudius’ treatment of them ((1937) 58), and Levick suggests that they were
simply treading cautiously because they were unsure how Vespasian would regard Claudius ((1999) 191).
165
Darwall-Smith (1996) 52-54.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
130
respect for its previous incumbents, possibly to counter the damage he himself did to the
institution through his vilification of Nero.166
Second, that Vespasian was maintaining a
precedent for future imperial deifications. Without Claudius, Augustus and Livia were the
only divi to receive lasting deification, and neither were a good precedent: as the founder of
the Principate Augustus could be considered a special case, and Livia’s deification was tied
up with her husband’s. That Vespasian was concerned with future deification is indicated
firstly by the prediction of that deification by the elder Pliny, a friend and supporter of
Vespasian, in the preface of his Historia Naturalis, and also by an anecdote recorded by
Suetonius indicating that Vespasian predicted his own deification with his final words, vae
puto deus fio (o dear, I think I am becoming a god).167
Further, also according to Suetonius,
Vespasian proclaimed in the senate that his sons would succeed him or no one, and he must
have had plans to secure that, quite possibly including his deification to add prestige to the
position of his sons in the same way as Julio-Claudian deifications had previously.168
Vespasian eventually was deified, confirming the precedent of deification, and allowing a
further four members of the Flavian family to be deified.
Further, there may be Vespasianic precedent for the Domitianic treatment of the divi
as a collective, as the first provincial cults dedicated to the Sebastoi were in fact established
during his reign, in Pamphylia and Macedon. The province of Pamphylia was reorganised
under Vespasian,169
and at that time a provincial cult was also established at Perge, the seat of
the Roman governor of Pamphylia and Lycia.170
An inscription from AD 275-276 calls
166
Ramage (1983) 209-214.
167
Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Vespasian) 23-24.
168
Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum (Vespasian) 25.
169
Pamphylia was on the southern coast of Asia Minor between Lycia, Galatia and Cilicia. At some point
Pamphylia was incorporated into both the provinces of Galatia and Cilicia, though its final settlement, under
Vespasian, was as a semi-independent province connected to Lycia; it had its own provincial koinon, but on the
Roman side it was administratively merged. This arrangement lasted until the early 4th
century AD when the
provinces became completely independent (Sahin (1995) 1).
170
Haensch (1997) 290-297.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
131
Perge ‘four times neokoros’ - indicating that in the third century the city held four provincial
cults - and claims it was first made neokoros by Vespasian - indicating that it first received a
provincial cult during his reign.
[αὖξε Πέργη ἡ] ἀπὸ Οὐεσ[πα][σιανοῦ
ν]εωκόρος
. . .
αὖξε Πέργη δ’ νεωκόρος
αὖξε Πέργη ἡ πρώτη τῶν
ἀγορέων171
Increase Perge, the city named neokoros by Vespasian… Increase Perge, the city which is four times
neokoros and first of the assembly.
Another inscription records that Perge possessed an archiereus of the Sebastoi and
agonothetes of both the great pentaeteric Kaisarea and the Artemesia Vespasianeia.172
This
indicates that like the Ephesian cult, the Vespasianic provincial cult at Lycia was dedicated to
the Sebastoi.173
The Macedonian provincial cult was located in Beroia, the seat of the provincial
koinon, while the Roman governor probably resided in Thessaloniki. The foundation of this
cult is usually dated to the reigns of Domitian or Nerva on the basis of two inscriptions. The
first honours Quintus Popillius Python, archiereus of the Sebastoi and agonothetes of the
koinon of Macedon, who led an embassy to Nerva requesting that Beroia continue to be the
only city in Macedon with the rank of neokoros of the Sebastoi and metropolis.174
τὸν διὰ βίου ἀρχιερῆ τῶν Σεβαστῶν
καὶ ἀγωνοθέτην τοῦ κοινοῦ Μ<α>κεδόνων
Κ(όιντον) Ποπίλλιον Πύθωνα πρεσβεύσαντα
ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος Βεροίας
ἐπὶ θεὸν Νέρουαν ὑπὲρ τοῦ µόνην
αὐτὴν ἔχε̣ιν τὴν νεωκορίαν τῶν Σεβαστῶν
καὶ τὸ τῆς µητροπόλεως ἀξίω-
171
Merkelbach and Sahin (1988) 115-116, n. 22, lines 5-6, 14-17. The earliest inscription to refer to the city as
neokoros comes from AD 141/2 (IGRR 3.793).
172
Sahin (1995) 18, n. 35.
173
Burrell (2004) 175-177.
174
On Python Tataki (1998) 259 n. 1114.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
132
µα καὶ ἐπιτυχόντα…175
C. Papillius Python, high priest of the Sebastoi for life, agonothetes of the koinon of Macedon, being
the ambassador of Beroia to Theos Nerva he successfully asserted the claim of his city to the
exclusive right to the privilege of neokoria and the position of metropolis…
The second was set up by Tiberius Iulius ?krates, an archiereus of the Sebastoi and
agonothetes of the koinon of Macedon, in gratitude for Nerva’s renewal of those
privileges.176
θεὸν Νέρουαν
ἡ Βεροιαίων πόλις
συντηρήσαντα αὑτῇ
τὰ τῆς µητροπόλεως
δίκαια, ἐπιδόντος τὴν δαπά[νην
ἐ]κ τῶν ἰδίων Τι(βερίου) Ἰουλίου
[....]κράτους τοῦ ἀρχιερέως
[τῶν Σε]β[α]στῶν καὶ ἀγωνοθέ[του
τ]οῦ κ̣ο̣ινοῦ Μακεδόνων.177
The city of Beroia erected this to Theos Nerva, on account of him having maintained their rights as
Metropolis, the expense of the monument was met by Tiberius Iulius ?krates, high priest of the
Sebastoi and agonothetes of the koinon of Macedon.
Burrell assigns this cult to Nerva,178
but it is clear that Nerva preserved existing rights, which
would not be necessary during his short reign if he had established them.179
Zeithen more
plausibly credits Domitian with the cult,180
but I would like to suggest a Vespasianic
foundation based on two additional inscriptions.
The first inscription is a dedication to Titus as reigning princeps by an archiereus.
[Αὐτοκράτορι]
Τίτῳ Καίσα[ρ]ι
θεοῦ Οὐεσπα̣[σι][ανοῦ
υἱῷ ἀ]ρχιερατεύοντος [— — —]181
Dedicated to Imperator Titus Caesar son of Theos Vespasian [by] the man being high priest…
175
Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulous (1998) n. 117, lines 1-9; Cormack (1940) 50-52.
176
On Iulius see Tataki (1998) 179 n. 626.
177
Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulous (1998) n. 63, lines 1-5; Cormack (1940) 50-52.
178
Burrell (2004) 191-192.
179
Tataki suggests that Python may have led the embassy to Nerva as the existing provincial priest, which
would again require that the cult had already been established (Tataki (1988) 259-261 n. 1114).
180
Ziethen (1994) 33-34, 253-254.
181
Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoklos (1998) n. 62; Tataki (1988) 184 n. 641.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
133
Unfortunately the text cuts off, so evidence for whether the priest was provincial or civic is
lost. The term archiereus suggests that the priest was provincial, as civic priests were
usually, though not always, simply iereus.182
The existence of a provincial priest of Macedon
during Titus’ reign would seem to indicate that a provincial cult was already established
there, probably under Vespasian. The second inscription, dated to AD 69-74 by the reference
to the Macedonian proconsul L. Baebius Honoratus,183
may, like the Nervan inscriptions,
refer to Beroia as ‘metropolis and neokoros’.
[Αὐτοκράτορα Καίσαρα Οὐεσπασιανὸν(?) Σεβαστὸν Μ]ακεδόνων τὸ κοινὸν καὶ
[Βεροιαίων ἡ µητρόπολις καὶ νεωκόρος, διέποντος τ]ὴν ἐπαρχείαν · Λ(ευκίου) · Βαιβίου
Ὁνωράτου…184
To Imperator Caesar Vespasian Sebastos by the koinon of Macedon and the metropolis and neokoros
of Beroia when the governor of Macedon was L. Baibius Honoratus…
Reference to the status of the city is entirely restored, but this restoration is strongly
supported by the estimated size of the missing lacuna, comparison with other inscriptions
using similar wording,185
and the surviving reference to the koinon of Macedon. This is the
earliest reference to the koinon from Roman controlled Macedon. The emergence of the term
may indicate that the koinon took on a new significance at this time, perhaps in connection
with the administration of the new provincial cult.186
No alternative restorations have been suggested,187
but the above is not commonly
accepted because current scholarship connects the introduction of the title neokoros with the
Domitianic cult at Ephesus, as the earliest definitive surviving references to a city as
neokoros come from Ephesus, and the title only appears to have been applied to other cities
182
Nigdelis argues that the provincial priesthood of T. Flavius Pramonos may also belong to the Flavian period,
but the inscription is too fragmentary to be certain (Nigdelis (1995) 170-183).
183
Tataki (188) 132 n. 318.
184
Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoklos (1998) n. 61, lines 1-2.
185
Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoklos (1998) n. 66, 70, 481, 483.
186
Kienast (1996) 170-171; Burrell (2004) 192.
187
IPArk (1899) 4.3:167.1; SEG 16.391, 43.383.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
134
that already had provincial cults, like Pergamum and Smyrna, at the end of the first century
AD.188
Nevertheless, there is some evidence to support the suggestion that the title may have
been used selectively before Domitian’s reign. In the first case, Friesen has shown that the
Ephesian temple was completed between AD 88 and 91,189
but the earliest reference to
Ephesus as neokoros of the Sebastoi comes from a theatre architrave from AD 85/86.190
This
indicates either that this new title and honour was fully envisioned around the time that the
temple was granted, rather than completed, or that the title was not new at that time,
precedent perhaps existing from Beroia and Perge. If this is the case the question is why did
it take so long for other cities to adopt the title. It seems to me that the answer may lie in the
Beroian inscription, as the city asks that it continue to be the only city in the province with
the title neokoros and the status of metropolis. This request may indicate that when the title
was first applied it was meant to honour the exclusive seat of the provincial cult in a
province, and was designed for provinces like Pamphylia and Macedon where provincial cult
was newly established. However, when the title was adopted at Ephesus in Asia, a province
with multiple provincial cults, this changed. This theory is supported by the epigraphic
evidence from Pergamum, which indicates that the city did not simply start using the title, but
negotiated its adoption. This would explain why it used the title neokoros from AD 100, but
in AD 102 upgraded to ‘first neokoros’, a distinction the city maintained when it became
‘first and twice’ and eventually ‘first and thrice’ neokoros as it was granted additional
provincial cults.191
An original underlying element of exclusivity contained within the title
may also explain why Nicomedia, the first seat of the provincial cult in Bithynia, did not
adopt the title until the end of the second century AD, and then only when it received its
188
Price (1984a) 64-65; Dräger (1993) 238-256; Friesen (1993) 53-59.
189
Friesen (1993) 41-49.
190
IvE 2034.
191
For epigraphic evidence see Eck (1970) 171; Halfmann (1979) 112-115.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
135
second provincial cult and became twice neokoros.192
Between the reigns of Augustus and
Vespasian, Nicomedia was eclipsed as the first city in Bithynia by Nicea: perhaps the new
pre-eminent city opposed the use of this title by its now lesser brother. Nicea began to refer
to itself as neokoros before Nicomedia, when it received a provincial cult under Hadrian in
AD 123.193
Finally, although the date of the Perge inscriptions renders it of limited use to
this debate, the fact that it specifically states that it was made neokoros by Vespasian may
indicate that they were in fact granted the title at this time and not simply granted the title
retrospectively for that cult when they received future cults. The prestige connected with
receiving the title so early may also explain the prominent role of Vespasian in the inscription
created two centuries after his death. Consequently I think that it is not unreasonable to
suggest that the title neokoros was first applied to the seat of a provincial cult before the reign
of Domitian, and that the above inscription provides evidence that the provincial cult of the
Sebastoi in Macedon was established under Vespasian.
Even though the evidence for the Macedonian cult is not conclusive, the Pamphylian
provincial cult of the Sebastoi alone demonstrates that a direct Vespasianic precedent existed
for Domitian’s cult of the Sebastoi at Ephesus.
It is the conclusion of this section that although the widespread deification of
members of the Flavian family appears to be a peculiarly Domitianic phenomenon, there are
some connections between the policies towards the divi implemented under Vespasian and
Domitian. The most obvious is in their role in the cult of the princeps conducted by the
Arvals. The divi were removed from the pantheon of deities to receive sacrifices for the
princeps under Vespasian, and the absence of all divi from that pantheon was maintained
192
TAM 4(1):25, AD 214.
193
IK Iznik 29-30.
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
136
under Domitian, even after the creation of new Flavian divi. Similarly, although the Arvals
had previously conducted cult on the birthday of Divus Augustus, though this appears to have
ceased under Nero, the Arvals did not conduct cult on the birthdays of any of the Flavian divi.
Although these changes to the Arval cult could appear like an attack on the divi, I think that
this is not how it should be read. Vespasian supported the institution of the divi, maintaining
the cult of Divus Claudius although he was under no obligation to do so, and also becoming a
member of the sodales Augustales Claudiales. Thus the changes to the Arval cult do not
appear to be an attack on the divi, but rather a change applied to the relationship between the
divi and the princeps in cult: cult could be conducted to the divi independently, and does
seem to have been conducted for Divus Vespasianus and Divus Titus as indicated by the
appearance of their birthdays in later calendars, but their cult could not be linked with that
conducted for the princeps. This appears to be a distinction that Domitian technically
maintained, by keeping the divi out of the Arval cult, even if it was not maintained in the
spirit of his reign when the Flavian divi were promoted in other media as important ancestors
and supporters of Domitian as princeps. Further, precedent for the Domitianic treatment of
the divi as a collective may also be identifiable for Vespasian’s reign through the provincial
cults: Domitian’s provincial cult was also dedicated to a collective, and the earliest precedent
for this kind of provincial cult comes from the reign of Vespasian. Although it is a stretch to
argue that Vespasian’s collective treatment of the divi in the provinces influenced Domitianic
treatment of the divi in Rome, or even that Vespasian himself applied a similar policy in
Rome, it is an attractive suggestion. If I am correct in my supposition that the collective
treatment of the divi had the same effect as the changes made to the calendar and pantheon of
the Arval cult, to remove focus from the individual and place it on the institution, that
Vespasian may also have applied this in Rome would make sense. It would be consistent
with the changes I argue he made to the Arval cult, and it would make sense for Vespasian,
Chapter Three: The Divi Jessica Suess
137
who did not have a connection to the existing divi, to want to focus on them as an institution,
rather than as charismatic gods that supported their individual descendants.
Conclusion Jessica Suess
138
Conclusion
The primary aim of this thesis has been to demonstrate that significant differences
existed between several aspects of the Roman state imperial cult as it existed under the JulioClaudians
and Domitian, and that these changes represent fundamental remodelling of several
key aspects of the cult. The subsidiary goal of this thesis has been to suggest the possibility
that the majority of this remodelling took place during the reign of Vespasian, although lack
of evidence makes this impossible to determine with certainty.
The aspect of the imperial cult examined in chapter one was the rituals conducted by
the Arval Brothers. It was demonstrated that while annual cult conducted on the
anniversaries of days on which the princeps received state powers and on imperial birthdays
formed the core of the cult calendar under the Julio-Claudians, both of these types of rites
ceased to be conducted by the reign of Domitian. This represented a major change in the
dynamic of the cult calendar as the Julio-Claudian focus on the earthly and dynastic sources
of the power of the individual incumbent princeps was removed. The January 3rd
vota was
the only rite from the Julio-Claudian period that continued to be conducted annually under
Domitian. This rite, conducted on the same day each year under all principes, did not focus
on the individual princeps, but rather on the Principate as an institution that was important in
the Roman state and had to be maintained regardless of the incumbent princeps. In this way
the cult calendar shifted in focus away from a personality cult of the princeps, onto the
Principate as an institution. A similar depersonalising trend is also evident in the pantheon of
deities that received sacrifices for the princeps. Under the Julio-Claudians sacrifices were
consistently conducted to the Capitoline Triad, Salus, the divi - deified ancestors of the
princeps - and the Genius of the princeps - another dynastic deity that was also the personal
guardian spirit of the princeps. This pantheon drew focus towards the individual person of
Conclusion Jessica Suess
139
the princeps and his dynastic membership of the imperial family. By the reign of Domitian
the divi and the Genius of the princeps were removed from the pantheon, again moving focus
away from the individual person of the princeps.
Although the evidence for the Arval cult surviving from the reigns of Vespasian and
Titus is limited, it was possible to demonstrate firstly that Julio-Claudian style anniversary
and birthday cult had already ceased to be conducted by the reign of Titus, and secondly that
the divi were removed from the pantheon by the reign of Vespasian. The surviving evidence
also leaves the possibility open that the changes to the calendar were also in place during
Vespasian’s reign and that, like the divi, the Genius of the princeps was removed from the
pantheon during Vespasian’s reign. This possibility is worth considering in light of the
character of the changes made to the Arval cult which were more suited to the reign of
Vespasian than Domitian. It was the dynastic and earthly sources of imperial power that
were suppressed in the cult, but Domitian’s claim to power was his dynastic membership of
the Flavian family, and his position was granted to him by the powers voted to him by the
state. Vespasian on the other hand had no dynasty on which to draw, and unlike his civil war
predecessors, who dated the start of their reigns to when they were voted titles and powers by
the senate, Vespasian dated his accession to the day he was hailed by the troops,
demonstrating disdain for the state powers that formulated the position.
Chapter two established the role of the Genius of the princeps in state cult,
iconography and ideology. It was demonstrated that the Genius of the princeps was a key
figure in cult during the reigns of Nero and the civil war generals, and that in addition to its
strong presence in cult, under Nero the Genius of the princeps came to be represented not
only as the guardian spirit of the princeps, but also the state itself, when the iconography of
Conclusion Jessica Suess
140
the Genius Populi Romani, the Genius of Rome’s traditional sovereign body, was usurped on
the coinage by the newly named Genius Augusti. By contrast, under Domitian the cult of the
Genius of the princeps appears to have been limited, and its role in iconography one of
conspicuous absence. Furthermore, not only was the Genius of the princeps absent from
surviving Domitianic iconography, but the place of Genius of the state, occupied by Nero’s
Genius Augusti, was returned to the Genius Populi Romani which, in combination with the
Genius Senatus and the goddess Roma, was used on three surviving monumental sculptural
reliefs to personify the state. On these reliefs these three deities appear among the
community that greet Vespasian upon his adventus to Rome in AD 70, surround Titus while
he celebrates his triumph over Judea in AD 71, and see Domitian off on one of his many
campaigns on behalf of the state. In this way the Flavian principes were presented as
working for the state for her benefit as a serving chief magistrate, rather than as the
embodiment of the state as Nero was with his Genius Augusti.
It was suggested in this chapter that it is entirely possible that the extensive role of the
Genius of the princeps under Nero and the civil war generals was already limited during
Vespasian’s reign, though again the evidence is too limited to determine this with certainty.
Not only is the Genius of the princeps absent from all evidence for cult and iconography
surviving from the reigns of Vespasian and Titus, but coins were minted for the Genius
Populi Romani using the same iconography that had been usurped for Nero’s Genius Augusti,
suggesting that there was a backlash against its appropriation. Furthermore, although the
Domitianic monumental sculptural reliefs are usually cited as the first occasions on which the
Genius Populi Romani and Genius Senatus were depicted together, there is evidence that the
two in fact appeared together for the first time on a Vespasianic coin of AD 71. This may
Conclusion Jessica Suess
141
indicate that the iconographic and ideological role of the Genius identified on the Domitianic
monumental sculptural reliefs may have been introduced under Vespasian.
Chapter three examined the role of the divi in Roman state cult and religion. It was
seen that the divi were in fact promoted as important ancestors of the princeps under both the
Julio-Claudians and Domitian, but in significantly different ways. In the Julio-Claudian
imperial cult the primary role of the divi appears to have been as protectors of the current
princeps, and as such were regular recipients of sacrifices for the princeps from the Arvals.
By contrast, not only were the Julio-Claudian divi removed from the pantheon of deities to
receive sacrifices for the princeps during the reign of Vespasian, but they were not replaced
by the Flavian divi, even under Domitian who saw four members of his family deified, more
than under any other princeps. Despite this disassociation of the divi from the cult conducted
for the princeps, Domitian nevertheless used the Flavian divi to bolster his claim to power by
their heavy promotion in other spheres. The Flavian divi were, however, promoted in a new
way. Rather than being promoted as individual divi as the Julio-Claudians had been, each
Flavian divus was part of a collective, with shared temples and priests. This contrast between
individual and collective treatment was not isolated to Rome, but was also seen in the
provincial imperial cult. Under the Julio-Claudians provincial cults were exclusively
dedicated to a specific princeps or divus, sometimes in combination with other individually
specified deities such as the goddess Roma. The provincial cult established at Ephesus in
Asia under Domitian was dedicated to the Sebastoi, a collective including multiple divi, and
the princeps and living members of the imperial family, who were not excluded from direct
cult as they were in Rome. This approach to the divi may have had a similar aim as the
changes made to the Arval cult, which saw less focus on the individual princeps and more
focus on the Principate as an institution; the divi also appear to have been treated less as
Conclusion Jessica Suess
142
individuals and more as part of a larger institution.
In this chapter I also argued that although the prolific deification of members of the
Flavian imperial family appears to have been a specifically Domitianic phenomenon, there
are connections between other Vespasianic and Domitianic policies towards the divi. It was
under Vespasian that the divi were removed from the cult of the princeps conducted by the
Arvals, and this was maintained in cult form by Domitian, with the divi continuing to be
excluded from the Arval cult, if not in spirit through his other use of the divi. Further, there is
direct Vespasianic precedent for Domitian’s treatment of the divi as a collective in the
provinces, as the first provincial cults of the Sebastoi were dedicated during his reign.
Although it is impossible to say how much this provincial policy may have influenced policy
towards the divi in Rome, that Vespasian was concerned with the divi in Rome is clear from
his maintenance of the cult of Divus Claudius.
Thus the surviving evidence allows for the possibility that many of the changes
applied to the Julio-Claudian imperial cult by the reign of Domitian were in fact introduced
under Vespasian, and several fragments of evidence may even suggest that this is a strong
possibility, but collectively the surviving evidence is simply too limited to properly
characterise the form of the Roman state imperial cult under Vespasian. Nevertheless my
suggestion throughout that Vespasian’s reign was a time of major change and development in
the imperial cult in Rome is lent further support by evidence from the provincial cults, this
time from the western empire. Duncan Fishwick has firmly established that new provincial
cults were created in Gallia Narbonensis,1
Baetica2
and Africa Proconsularis3
during
Vespasian’s reign, and that these three provincial cults, plus the existing provincial cults in
1
IG 2(2) 4193a-b=ILS 6964; Fishwick (1987) 1.2:240-241, 254-256; (2002) 3.2:100-109, 130-133.
2
Fishwick (1987) 1.2:220-239; (2002) 3.1:112-119.
3
Fishwick (1971) 467; (1987) 1.2:260; (2002) 3.1:200-204.
Conclusion Jessica Suess
143
Hispania Citerior,4
Lusitania5
and Tres Galliae,6
underwent major reorganisation during his
reign, and that all six provincial cults were given a uniform set of regulations exemplified by
the Lex Narbonensis.7
He also makes strong arguments, on the basis of priestly titles, that
new provincial cults were also established in Mauretania Caesariensis, Mauretania Tingitana,
Alpes Cottiae, Alpes Maritimae and Sardinia under Vespasian.8
Even if Fishwick is only
correct about the first half of this argument, this still represents that most extensive and
systematic attention paid to the provincial imperial cult since the reign of Augustus, as seen
in chapter three. This extensive reorganisation of provincial imperial cults throughout the
western empire along new and different lines demonstrates that the Vespasianic
administration was highly concerned with the imperial cult and open to manipulating and
changing it in innovative ways, and this attention may well also have been applied in Rome.
Thus it is the conclusion of this thesis that several significant differences existed in
the form of the imperial cult as it existed under the Julio-Claudian and Domitian, and these
changes appear to represent major reorganisation of the existing imperial cult. Although it is
impossible to determine with certainty on the basis of the surviving evidence, there is a
reasonable possibility that much of this reorganisation took place during the reign of
Vespasian.
4
Fishwick (2002) 3.1:156-166; (2002) 3.2:73-137; (2004) 3.3:31-40.
5
Fishwick (2002) 3.1:166-169
6
Fishwick (2002) 3.1:150-154.
7
Fishwick (2002) 3.1:100-111, 3.2:3-15.
8
Fishwick (1987) 1.2:266-281; (2002) 3.1:171-195; (2002) 3.2: Mauretania Caesariensis (206), Mauretania
Tingitana (209), Alpes Cottiae (249), Alpes Maritimae (252-253), Sardinia (213-214).
Appendix One: Surviving Arval Imperial Cult Rituals, Tiberius to Domitian
144
DATE EVENT LOCATION:
DEITIES CFA
REF.
TIBERIUS
11
Jan
AD
21 pro
salute
of
Tiberius,
Livia,
children
and

grandchildren
domus
eorum
Grove:
Dea
Dia 4a:7‐19
30
Jan
AD
25? Birthday
of
Livia Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus 10:1‐4
4
Jan
AD
27 Annual
Vota:
Tiberius
and
Livia Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus,
Juno
Regina,
Minerva;
Grove:
Dea
Dia 5a‐e:1‐33
30
Jan
AD
27 Birthday
of
Livia Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus 5f:1‐14
3
Jan
AD
28? Annual
Vota:
Tiberius,
Livia,
domus
eorum ... 6:1‐6
16
Nov
AD
33 Birthday
of
Tiberius Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus 7a.I:1‐5
23
Sept
AD
35 Birthday
of
Divus
Augustus Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus 7a.II:1‐3
16
Nov
AD
35 Birthday
of
Tiberius Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus 7a.II:4‐12
3/4
Jan
AD
36 Annual
Vota:
Tiberius Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus... 7a.II:13‐23
13
Jan
AD
37 pro
salute
of
Tiberius ... 8a:1‐6
23
Jan
AD
37 Security
and
Safety
of
Tiberius Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus 8a:7‐14
GAIUS
3
Jan
AD
38 Annual
Vota:
Gaius Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus,
Juno
Regina,
Minerva,
Dea
Dia,
Salus,
Divus
Augustus;








(Jan
11,
Grove
and
Domus
Caesaris:
Dea
Dia)

12a:1‐24
30
Jan
AD
38 DedicaJon
of
Ara
Pacis Ara
Pacis:
Pax
Augusta 12b:8‐12
30
Jan
AD
38 Birthday
of
Livia Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus 12c:1‐4
31
Jan
AD
38 Birthday
of
Antonia Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus 12c:5‐7
18
Mar
AD
38 Gaius
hailed
Imperator Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva;
Templum
Novum:
Divus
Augustus 12c:8‐14
28
Mar
AD
38 Gaius
enters
Rome Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva;
Templum
Novum:
Divus
Augustus 12c:15‐19
23
Apr
AD
38 DedicaJon
of
the
Statue
of
Divus
Augustus
near

the
Theatre
of
Marcellus
Before
the
statue
of
Divus
Augustus
at
the
Theatre
of
Marcellus:
Divus
Augustus 12c:24‐28
24
May
AD
38 Birthday
of
Germanicus Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus 12c:29‐36
26
Jun
AD
38 AdopJon
of
Tiberius Ara
ProvidenJae
Augustae:
ProvidenJa
Augusta 12c:54‐57
4
Jul
AD
38 Ara
Pacis
vowed Ara
Pacis:
Pax
Augusta 12c:66‐70
1
Aug
AD
38 DedicaJon
of
the
Temple
of
Divus
Augustus Templum
Novum:
Divus
Augustus 12c:71‐76
31
Aug
AD
38 Birthday
of
Gaius Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus 12c:77‐82
21
Sept
AD
38 Gaius
hailed
Pater
Patriae Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva;
Templum
Novum:
Divus
Augustus 12c:83‐91
23
Sept
AD
38 Birthday
of
Divus
Augustus/ConsecraJon
of

Drusilla
Templum
Novum:
Divus
Augustus 12c:92‐104
24
Sept
AD
38 [Birthday
of
Divus
Augustus] Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus 12c:105‐109
16
Nov
AD
38 Birthday
of
Tiberius Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus 12d:5‐10
1
Jan
AD
39 Gaius
assumes
consulship Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus,
Juno
Regina,
Minerva;
Templum
Novum:
Divus
Augustus 13abcd:4‐11
30
Jan
AD
39 Birthday
of
Livia Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus 13e:1‐3
Appendix One: Surviving Arval Imperial Cult Rituals, Tiberius to Domitian
145
31
Jan
AD
39 Birthday
of
Antonia Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus 13e:4‐11
18
Mar
AD
39 Gaius
hailed
Imperator Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva 13e:12‐17
AD
39 ? Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus,
Juno,
Minerva,
Salus,
Divus
Augustus;
Templum
Concordiae:

Concordia;
PalaJne:
Divus
Augustus;
Ara
ProvidenJae
Augustae:
ProvidenJa
Augusta
13fgh:1‐8
24/26
Oct
AD
39 Birthday
of
Agrippina Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus 13fgh:9‐16
27
Oct
AD
39 DetecJon
of
Conspiracy ... 13fgh:17‐22
24
May
AD
40 Birthday
of
Germanicus Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva 14.I:1‐9
2/5
Jun
AD
40 Birthday
of
Diva
Drusilla Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva 14.I:19‐26
CLAUDIUS
12
Jan
AD
44 Claudius
hailed
Pater
Patriae Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Felicitas,
Divus
Augustus,
Diva
Augusta 17.1‐14
17
Jan
AD
44 ConsecraJon
of
Diva
Augusta Templum
Novum:
Divus
Augustus,
Diva
Augusta 17.15‐23
23
Sept
AD
43/45 Birthday
of
Divus
Augustus Capitol:
Jupiter;
Ara
GenJs
Juliae:
vaccam? 18:1‐11
24
Sept
AD
43/45 [Birthday
of
Divus
Augustus] PalaJne:
Divus
Augustus,
Diva
Augusta 18:12‐18
23
Sept
AD
43/45 Birthday
of
Divus
Augustus Capitol:
Jupiter;
Ara
GenJs
Juliae:
Divus
Augustus,
Diva
Augusta 19:1‐4
24
Sept
AD
43/45 [Birthday
of
Divus
Augustus] PalaJne:
Divus
Augustus,
Diva
Augusta 19:5‐10
3
Jan
AD
47? Vota:
? ? 23:1‐9
12
Oct
AD
53 Augustalia Templum
Novum:
Divus
Augustus,
Diva
Augusta 20:17‐30
28
Jun
AD
54 Vow
for
the
Safety
of
Nero Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus,
Juno
Regina,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica
Populi
Romani
QuiriJum 22:3‐29
NERO
11
Dec
AD
55 Birthday
of
DomiJus
Ahenorbarbus ante
domum
DomiJanum:
bouem
marem? 24:1‐5
15
Dec
AD
55 Birthday
of
Nero Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus,
Juno,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica,
Genius
ipsius 24:6‐14
AD
55/56? Vota:
Nero,
Agrippina,
Octavia? ... 31:1‐7
1
Jan
AD
57 Nero
assumes
consulship Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus,
Juno,
Minerva;
Templum
Novum:
Divus
Augustus,
Diva

Augusta,
Divus
Claudius
25a:1‐7
6
Nov
AD
57 Birthday
of
Agrippina Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica,
Concordia 25b:6‐14
4
Dec
AD
57 Tribunicia
Potestas
of
Nero Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva 25b:14‐21
11
Dec
AD
57 Birthday
of
DomiJus
Ahenorbarbus ante
domum
DomiJanum:
bouem
marem? 25b:22‐27
15
Dec
AD
57 Birthday
of
Nero Capitol:
Jupiter... 25b:28‐31
1
Jan
AD
58 Nero
assumes
consulship Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus,
Juno
Regina,
Minerva,
Genio
ipsius 26a‐lr:
1‐12
3
Jan
AD
58 Annual
Vota:
Nero,
Octavia Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica;
Templum
Novum:
Divus
Augustus,
Diva
Augusta,

Divus
Claudius
26a‐lr:
13‐22
25
Feb
AD
58 AdopJon
of
Nero Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica
Populi
Romani 26a‐lr:28‐32
12
Oct
AS
58 Augustalia Templum
Novum:
Divus
Augustus,
Diva
Augusta,
Divus
Claudius 27:4‐8
13
Oct
AD
58 Imperium
of
Nero Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Felicitas
Publica,
Genius
ipsius,
Divus
Augustus,
Diva
Augusta,

Divus
Claudius
27:9‐14
6
Nov
AD
58 Birthday
of
Agrippina Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica,
Concordia
ipsius 27:15‐18
Appendix One: Surviving Arval Imperial Cult Rituals, Tiberius to Domitian
146
4
Dec
AD
58 Tribunicia
Potestas
of
Nero Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva 27:19‐23
11
Dec
AD
58 Birthday
of
DomiJus
Ahenorbarbus ante
domum
DomiJanum:
bouem
marem? 27:24‐28
15
Dec
AD
58 Birthday
of
Nero Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica,
Concordia
Honoris
Agrippinae
Augustae,
Genius

ipsius
27:29‐35
3
Jan
AD
59 Annual
Vota:
Nero,
Octavia Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica;
Templum
Novum:
Divus
Augustus,
Diva
Augusta,

Divus
Claudius
27:37‐48
25
Feb
AD
59 AdopJon
of
Nero Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica 27:57‐63
4
Mar
AD
59 Nero
assigned
Consulship Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Genius
ipsius 27:64‐70
5
Apr
AD
59 DetecJon
of
Conspiracy Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica,
ProvidenJa,
Genius
ipsius,
Divus
Augustus... 28a‐c:10‐16
23
Jun
AD
59 Safety
and
Return
of
Nero Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica,
Felicitas...
Templum
Novum:
Divus
Augustus,
Diva

Augusta,
Divus
Claudius;
Forum
Augustum:
Mars
Ultor,
Genius
ipsius
28a‐c:24‐32
11
Sept
AD
59 Safety
and
Return
of
Nero Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva;
Forum
Augustum:
Genius
ipsius,
Salus;
ante
domum

DomiJanum:
di
Penates
28a‐c:33‐40
12
Oct
AD
59 Augustalia Templum
Novum:
Divus
Augustus,
Diva
Augusta,
Divus
Claudius 28a‐c:41‐47
13
Oct
AD
59 Imperium
of
Nero Capitol... 28a‐c:48‐50
11
Dec
AD
59 Birthday
of
DomiJus
Ahenorbarbus ante
domum
DomiJanum:
bouem
marem? 28de:3‐8
15
Dec
AD
59 Birthday
of
Nero Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica,
Felicitas,
Genius
ipsius 28de:9‐14
1
Jan
AD
60 Nero
assumes
consulship Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Genius
ipsius 28de:15‐23
3
Jan
AD
60 Annual
Vota:
Nero,
Octavia Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica;
Templum
Novum:
Divus
Augustus,
Diva
Augusta,

Divus
Claudius
28de:24‐32
15
Dec
AD
60 Birthday
of
Nero Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Felicitas
Publica,
Concordia,
Genius
ipsius 28f:1‐10
3
Jan
AD
61/65 Annual
Vota:
Nero,
wife Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica;
Templum
Novum:
Divus
Augustus... 35ab.II:1‐7
1
Jan
AD
61? Nero
assumes
consulship Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica;
Templum
Novum:
Divus
Augustus,
Diva
Augusta,

Divus
Claudius
33:1‐5
25
Feb
AD
62? AdopJon
of
Nero Capitol:... 34:12‐18
21
Jan
AD
63 Pregnancy
and
Safety
of
Poppaea Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva... 29.1:18‐24
aber
11
Jan
AD
63 Adventus
of
Nero,
Poppaea,
Claudia Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica,
Felicitas,
Spes,
Genius
ipsius,
Iuno
Poppaea,
Iuno

Claudia
29.II:1‐21
aber
11
Jan
AD
63 DetecJon
of
Conspiracy Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Mars,
ProvidenJa...
,
Honos,
Aeternitas... 30cd.I:1‐8
aber
11
Jan
AD
63 Award
of
a
Laurel Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Jupiter
Victor...Pax...;
Arcus
Ianus
Geminus:... 30cd.I:8‐14
aber
11
Jan
AD
63 SupplicaJons
decreed
by
the
Senate Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Felicitas,
ClemenJa... 30cd.I:15‐21
aber
11
Jan
AD
63 ? Capitol
and
Templum
Novum:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Divus
Augustus,
Diva
Augusta,
Divus

Claudius,
Diva
Claudia
Virgo,
Diva
Poppaea,
Genius
Imperatoris
Neronis
Claudi
Caesaris
AugusJ

Germanici,
Juno
Messalinae
30cd.I:22‐30
aber
11
Jan
AD
63 ? ...
Securitas...
Victoria...
Genius
ipsius 30gh.I:1‐11
Appendix One: Surviving Arval Imperial Cult Rituals, Tiberius to Domitian
147
aber
11
Jan
AD
63 Award
of
a
Laurel Templum
Novum:
Divus
Augustus,
Diva
Augusta,
Divus
Claudius,
Diva
Claudia
Virgo,
Diva

Poppaea,
Genius
ipsius,
Juno
Messalinae
30cef.II:1‐11
25
Sept
AD
66 Safety
and
Return
of
Nero,
Messalina ... 30cef.II:27‐29
12
Oct
AD
66 Augustalia Templum
Novum:
Divus
Augustus,
Diva
Augusta,
Divus
Claudius,
Diva
Claudia
Virgo,
Diva

Poppaea
30cef.II:30‐34
13
Oct
AD
66 Imperium
of
Nero Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Felicitas
Publica;
Templum
Novum:
Divus
Augustus,
Diva
Augusta,

Divus
Claudius,
Diva
Claudia
Virgo,
Diva
Poppaea...
30cef.II:34‐40
AD
68? Birthday
of
Messalina ... 37:1‐3
GALBA
Jan
1
AD
69 Galba
assumes
consulship Capitol:... 40[1‐7].I:1‐6
Jan
3
AD
69 Annual
Vota:
Galba Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Salus;
Templum
Novum:
Divus
Augustus,
Diva
Augusta,
Divus

Claudius
40[1‐7].I:7‐16
Jan
10
AD
69 AdopJon
of
Licinius
Piso Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica
Populi
Romani...
ProvodenJa...
Securitas...
Genius

ipsius
40[1‐7].I:24‐34
OTHO
Jan
15
AD
69? Imperium
of
Otho Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Victoria,
Salus,
Felicitas,
Mars
Ultor,
Genius
ipsius 40[1‐7].I:35‐40
Jan
26
AD
69 Otho
assumes
consulship Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Genius
ipsius 40[1‐7].I:41‐45
Jan
30
AD
69 SubsJtute
Annual
Vota:
Otho Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica
Populi
Romani,
Divus
Augustus,
Diva
Augusta,
Divus

Claudius
40[1‐7].I:46‐54
Feb
28
AD
69 Tribunucia
Potestas
of
Otho Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Salus,
Victoria,
Genius
Populi
Romani,
Genius
ipsius 40[1‐7].I:58‐62
Mar
1
AD
69 Award
of
a
Laurel Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Salus,
Victoria,
Mars,
Genius
ipsius 40[1‐7].I.63‐67
Mar
3
AD
69 Otho
co‐opted
into
all
major
priestly
colleges Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Genius
ipsius 40[1‐7].I:68‐71
Mar
9
AD
69 Otho
becomes
Pon:fex
Maximus Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Dea
Dia,
Genius
ipsius 40[1‐7].I:72‐76
VITELLIUS
Mar
14
AD
69 SubsJtute
Annual
Vota:
Vitellius Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica
Populi
Romani,
Divus
Augustus,
Diva
Augusta,
Divus

Claudius
40[1‐7].I:76‐80
April
30
AD
69 Tribunicia
Potestas
of
Vitellius Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Salus,
Genius
ipsius 40[1‐7].I:81‐84
May
1
AD
69 Dies
imperii
of
Vitellius Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Jupiter
Victor,
Salus,
Felicitas,
Genius
Populi
Romani;
Forum

Augustum:
Mars
Ultor,
Genius
ipsius
40[1‐7].I:84‐88
May
AD
69 Safety
and
Adventus
of
Vitellius Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Jupiter
Victor,
Salus
Publica
Populi
Romani,
Felicitas,
Genius

Populi
Romani;
Forum
Augustum:
Mars
Ultor,
Genius
ipsius
40[1‐5].II:1‐5
June
3
AD
69 Birthday
of
Gelaria Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica
Populi
Romani,
Concordia,
Genius
ipsius 40[1‐5].II:10‐13
June
or
July
AD
69 ? Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Jupiter
Victor,
Salus
Publica
Populi
Romani;
Forum
Augustum:

Mars
Ultor,
Genius
ipsius
40[1‐5].II:15‐18
AD
69 pro
salute/ob
comi:a ... 40[6]
Appendix One: Surviving Arval Imperial Cult Rituals, Tiberius to Domitian
148
AD
69 ob
natalem ... 40[7]
VESPASIAN
Sept
AD
70 Adventus
of
Vespasian Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Fortuna
Redux 41:1‐5
Jan
3
AD
75 Annual
Vota:
Vespasian
and
Titus Capitol:... 43aa'bcdf:1‐10
Jan
3
AD
78 Annual
Vota:
Vespasian
and
Titus Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus,
Juno
Regina,
Minerva,
Salus 44a:1‐16
Jan
3
AD
79 Annual
Vota:
Vespasian,
Titus,
DomiJan Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus,
Juno
Regina,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica 45:1‐8
TITUS
Dec
7
AD
80 RestoraJon
of
Capitoline
Temple Capitol
in
Temple
of
Ops 48:11‐16
Jan
3
AD
81 Annual
Vota:
Titus,
DomiJan,
Julia Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus,
Juno
Regina,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica 48:35‐61
DOMITIAN
Sept
14
AD
81 Imperium
of
DomiJan Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus,
Juno
Regina,
Minerva,
Salus,
Felicitas,
Mars 49:27‐32
Sept
30
AD
81 Tribunicia
Potestas
of
DomiJan Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus,
Juno
Regina,
Minerva 49:33‐38
Oct
1
AD
81 SubsJtute
Annual
Vota:
DomiJan,
DomiJa,
Julia Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus,
Juno
Regina,
Minerva,
Salus,
Genius
ipsius 49:39‐51
Jan
3
AD
86 Annual
Vota:
DomiJan,
DomiJa,
Julia Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus,
Juno
Regina,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica 54:1‐26
Jan
22
AD
86 Vota:
DomiJan Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus 54:35‐47
Jan
3
AD
87 Annual
Vota:
DomiJan,
DomiJa,
Julia Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus,
Juno
Regina,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica
Populi
Romani
QuiriJum 55.I:1‐50
Jan
14/21
AD
87 Safety
and
Return
of
DomiJan Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus,
Juno
Regina,
Minerva 55.I:64‐69
Jan
22
AD
87 Vota:
DomiJan Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus 55.I:70‐II:12
Sept
22
AD
87 DetecJon
of
Conspiracy Capitol:
bovem
marem? 55.II:62‐64
Jan
12
AD
89 Safety,
Victory
and
Return
of
DomiJan Capitol 57:13‐18
Jan
17
AD
89 Safety,
Return
and
Victory
of
DomiJan Capitol 57:19‐25
Jan
22
AD
89 Vota:
DomiJan Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus 57:26‐30
Jan
24
AD
89 SupplicaJons
for
DomiJan Capitol:
supplicaJon
of
incense
and
wine 57:31‐34
Jan
25
AD
89 Public
Rejoicing
for
DomiJan Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus 57:35‐39
Jan
29
AD
89 Safety
and
Return
of
DomiJan Capitol:
Jupiter,
Juno,
Minerva,
Mars,
Salus,
Fortuna,
Victoria
Redux,
Genius
Populi
Romani 57:40‐46
Jan
3
AD
90 Annual
Vota:
DomiJan,
DomiJa Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus,
Juno
Regina,
Minerva,
Salus
Publica
Populi
Romani
QuiriJum 58:1‐28
Jan
22
AD
90 Vota:
DomiJan Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus 58:36‐43
Jan
3
AD
91 Annual
Vota:
DomiJan,
DomiJa Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus,
Juno
Regina,
Minerva,
Salus
Augusta
Publica
Populi
QuiriJum 59:1‐23
Jan
3
AD
92 Annual
Vota:
DomiJan,
DomiJa Capitol:
Jupiter
OpJmus
Maximus,
Juno
Regina,
Minerva,
Salus
? 60.1‐11
Bibliography Jessica Suess
149
Bibliography
Ancient Authors
Acta Fratrum Arvalium
Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum
Gestarum
Appian, Civil War
Arnobius, Adversus Nationes
Augustus, Res Gestae
Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae
Caesar, Bellum Gallicum
Cassiodorus, Variae
Cassius Dio, Roman History
Epitome
Catullus, Carmina
Censorinus, De Die Natali
Christodorus, Chronicon
Chronographer of AD 354
Cicero, De Domo Sua
De Legibus
De Natura Deorum
De Officiis
De Re Publica
Epistulae ad Atticum
Epistulae ad Familiares
In Catilinam
Lege Agraria
Philippica
Pro Rabirio Perduellionis Reo
Pro Sestio
Tusculanae Disputationes
Cornelius Nepos, De Viris Illustribus
Eutropius, Historiae Romanae
Brevarium
Fasti Amiternini
Fasti Antiates Minores
Fasti Fratrum Arvalium
Fasti Maffeiani
Fasti Philocali
Fasti Praenestini
Fasti Silvii
Fasti Vaticani
Feriale Cumanum
Feriale Duranum
Frontinus, de Aquis
Gaius, Institutiones
Historia Augusta
Horace, Carmina
Saturae
Josephus, Jewish War
Juvenal, Saturae
Livy, Ab Urbe Condita
Lucan, Pharsalus
Bibliography Jessica Suess
191
Martial, Epigrammata
Liber Spectaculorum
Minucius Felix, Octavius
Notitia Regionum
Ovid, Epistulae ex Pontum
Fasti
Tristia
Papyri Osloenses
Persius, Saturae
Petronius, Cena Trimalchionis
Pliny (elder), Historia Naturalis
Pliny (younger), Epistulae
Panegyricus
Plutarch, Caesar
Pomponius Mela, De Situ Orbis
Ptolemy, Geography
Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria
Seneca, De Beneficiis
De Brevitate Vitae
Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium
[Seneca], Apocolocyntosis
Servius, ad Aeneidos
Silius Italicus, Punica
Statius, Silvae
Strabo, Geography
Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum
Tabula Hebana
Tabulae Pompeianae Sulpiciorum
Tabula Siarensis
Tacitus, Agricola
Annales
Historiae
Tibullus, Elegiae
Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica
Valerius Maximus, Factorum et
Dictorum Memorabilium
Velleius Paterculus, Historiae Romanae
Virgil, Aeneid
Catalogues
AE: L’Année Épigraphique (1888-) Paris: E. Leroux.
BCH: Bulletin de correspondance hellénique (1877-) Paris: E. Thorin.
BMCRE: Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, Mattingly, H., et al (1923-)
London: British Museum Publications.
BMCRR: Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum, Grueber, H., et al (1910-)
London: British Museum Publications.
Bibliography Jessica Suess
192
CFA: Recherches archéologiques à la Magliana: Commentarii Fratrum Arvalium qui
supersunt: les copies épigraphiques des protocols annuels de la confrérie arvale: 21 av.-
304 ap. J.-C., Scheid, J. (1998) Rome: Ecole française de Rome.
CIL: Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (1863-) Berlin: G. Riemer.
CILA: Corpus de inscripciones latinas de Andalucía, Gonzáles Fernández, J., et al
(1989-2002) Seville: Consejería de Cultura y Medio Ambiente de la Junta de Andalucía,
Dirección General de Bienes Culturales.
Cohen: Description Historique des Monnaies Frappeés sous l'Empire Romain, Cohen, H.
(1859-1868) Paris: M. Rollin.
EE: Ephemeris Epigraphica, Henzen, W. (1872-1913) Berlin: G. Reimer.
IG: Inscriptiones Graecae, Kern, O. (1913) Bonn: Marcus and Weber.
IGRR: Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes, Cagnat, R., et al (1906-1927)
Paris: E. Leroux.
IK Iznik: Katalog der antiken Inschriften des Museums von Iznik, S. Sahin (1979-1987)
Bonn: Habelt.
IK Laodikeia am Lykos: Die Inschriften von Laodikeia am Lykos, Corsten, T. (1997)
Bonn: Habelt.
ILAfr: Inscriptions Latines d’Afrique, Cagnat, R. (1923) Paris: Leroux.
ILJug: Inscriptiones Latinae quae in Iugoslavia, Şaşel, A. (1963-1986) Ljubljana: Situla.
ILS: Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, Dessau, H. (1892-1916) Berlin: Weidmannos.
ILTun: Inscriptiones Latines de la Tunisie Merlin, A. (1944) Paris: Presses universitaires
de France.
IMagn: Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander, Kern, O. (1967) Berlin: Dr Gruyter.
IPark: Prozessrechtliche Inschriften der griechischen Poleis: Arkadien, Thür, G. (1994)
Wein: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
IRT: The Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania, Reynolds, J., Ward-Perkins, J.B. (1952)
Rome: British School.
IvE: Die Inschriften von Ephesos, Wankel, H. (1979-1984) Bonn: Habelt.
Bibliography Jessica Suess
193
MIR: Monete Imperiali Romane, G. Mazzini (1957) Milan: Mario Ratto.
OGIS: Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, Dittenberger, W. (1903-1905) Leipzig:
Hirzel.
REG: Revue des études grecques (1888-) Paris: E. Leroux.
RIC: Roman Imperial Coinage, Mattingly, H. et al (1923-) London: Spink and Son.
SEG: Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (1923-) Leiden: Brill.
Sydenham: The Coinage of the Roman Republic, Sydenham, E.A. (1952) London: Spink.
TAM: Tituli Asiae Minoris (1901-) Wein: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Websites
www.ancientrome.ru
www.anistor.gr
www.beastcoins.com
www.coinarchines.com
www.flickr.com
www.fredericweber.com
www.novaroma.org
www.Rome101.com
www.the-romans.co.uk
www.umich.edu
www.wikipedia.org
www.wildwinds.com
Modern Works
Abaecherli, A.L. (1932) ‘The Dating of the Lex Narbonensis’, Transactions and
Proceedings of the American Philological Association 63:256-268.
Alexandridis, A. (2004) Die Frauen des römischen Kaiserhauses, Mainz: von Zabern.
Altmann, W. (1906) Die italischen Rundbauten, eine archäologische Studie, Berlin:
Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.
Anderson, J.C. (1983) ‘A Topographical Tradition in Fourth Century Chronicles:
Domitian's Building Program’, Historia 32:93-105.
Anderson, J.C. (1984) The Historical Topography of the Imperial Fora, Brussels:
Latomus.
Ando, C. (1999) ‘Was Rome a Polis?’, Classical Antiquity 18.1:5-34.
Bibliography Jessica Suess
194
Ando, C. (2003) Roman Religion, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Arce, J. (1993) ‘Arcus Titi (Via Sacra)’, E.M. Steinby (ed.) Lexicon Topographicum
Urbis Romae, Rome: Edizioni Quasar 1:109-111.
Arce, J. (1998) Funus Imperatorum: los funerales de los emperadores romanos, Madrid:
Alianza Editorial.
Bakker, J.T. (1994) Living and Working with the Gods: Studies of Evidence for Private
Religion and its Material Environment in the City of Ostia (100-500 AD), Amsterdam:
Gieben.
Barrett, A. (1989) Caligula: The Corruption of Power, London: Routledge.
Barrett, A. (2002) Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Barrett, A. (2005) ‘Vespasian's Wife’, Latomus 64.2:385-396.
Beard, M. (1985) ‘Writing and Ritual: A Study of Diversity and Expansion in the Arval
Acta’, Papers of the British School at Rome 53:114-162.
Beard, M., North, J., Price, S.R.F. (1998) Religions of Rome, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bendinelli, G. (1949) I rilievi domizianei di Palazzo della Cancelleria in Roma, Turin:
University of Turin.
Bengston, H. (1979) Die Flavier: Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Geschichte eines
römischen Kaiserhause, Munich: Beck.
Bennet, J. (1997) Trajan, Optimus Princeps: A Life and Times, London: Routledge.
Benoist, S. (1999) La fête à Rome au premier siècle de l'Empire: recherches sur l'univers
festif sous les regnes d'Auguste et des Julio-Claudiens, Brussels: Latomus.
Benoist, S. (2001) ‘Le prince, la cité et les événements l'année 68-69 à Rome’, Historia
50.3:279-311.
Benoist, S. (2005) Rome, le prince et la cité: pouvoir impérial et cérémonies publiques, I
siècle av.-début du IV siècle apr J.-C, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Béranger, J. (1964) ‘Les Génies du Sénate et du Peuple romain et les reliefs flaviens de la
Cancelleria’, M. Renard, R. Schilling (eds.) Hommages à Jean Bayet, Brussels: Latomus,
pp. 76-88.
Bibliography Jessica Suess
195
Bergman, M., Zanker, P. (1981) “’Damnatio Memoriae’ Umgearbeitete Nero und
Domitiansporträts: zur Ikonographie der flavischen Kaiser und des Nerva”, Jahrbruch
des Deutschen Archäoligischen Instituts 96:317-412.
Bieber, M. (1945) ‘Honos and Virtus’, American Journal of Archaeology 49:22-34.
Bickerman, E.J. (1973) ‘Consecratio’, W. den Boer (ed.) Le culte des souverains dans
l'empire romain, Geneva: Fondation Hardt, pp. 1-37.
Birley, A. (1987) Marcus Aurelius: A Biography, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Blanckenhagen, P. (1940) Flavische Architektur und ihre Dekoration untersucht am
Nervaforum, Berlin: Mann.
Boatwright, M.T. (1987) Hadrian and the City of Rome, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press.
Bosch, E. (1976) Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Ankara im Altertum, Ankara: Türk
Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Bosworth, B. (1999) ‘Augustus, the Res Gestae and Hellenistic Theories of Apotheosis’,
Journal of Roman Studies 89:1-18.
Boyce, G. (1937) Corpus of the Lararia of Pompeii, Rome: Memoirs of the American
Academy.
Brunt, P. (1977) ‘Lex de imperio Vespasiani’, Journal of Roman Studies 67:95-116.
Brunt, P. (1984) ‘The Role of the Senate in the Augustan Regime’, Classical Quarterly
34:423-444.
Burrell, B. (2004) Neokoroi: Greek Cities and Roman Emperors, Leiden: Brill.
Buttrey, T.V. (1976) ‘Vespasian’s Consecratio and the Numismatic Evidence’, Historia
25:449-457.
Buttrey, T.V. (1980) Documentary Evidence for the Chronology of Flavian Titulature,
Meisenheim am Glan: Hain.
Buzetti, C. (1993) ‘Templum Divus Claudius’, E.M. Steinby (ed.) Lexicon
Topographicum Urbis Romae, Rome: Edizioni Quasar 1:277-278.
Cante, M., Panciera, S., Panella, C., Zeggio, S. (1997) ‘Il tempio restaurato da Claudio
el’organizzazione degli spazi tra pendice nord-orientale del Palatino e valle del Colosseo
in età giulio-claudia: Nuovi dati’, Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia:
Memoriae 67:123-151.
Bibliography Jessica Suess
196
Carradice, I. (1982) A Catalogue of Roman Coins, Augustus to Commodus, in the
Collections of the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh: Royal Scottish Museum.
Carradice, I. (1983) Coinage and Finances in the Reign of Domitian: AD 81-96, Oxford:
British Archaeological Reports.
Charlesworth, M.P. (1937) ‘Flaviana’, Journal of Roman Studies 27:54-62.
Chausson, F. (2003) ‘Domitia Longina’, Journal des Savants 1:101-129.
Chilver, G.E.F. (1979) A Historical Commentary of Tacitus' Histories I and II, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Clark, A. (2007) Divine Qualities and the Articulation of Identities in Republican Rome,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clarke, G.W. (1966) ‘The Date of the Consecratio of Vespasian’, Historia 15:318-327.
Clauss, M. (1999) Kaiser und Gott: Herrscherkult im römischen Reich, Stuttgart:
Teubner.
Coarelli, F. (1985) Il Foro Romano, Rome: Edizioni Quasar.
Coarelli, F. (1995a) ‘Porticus Divorum, Templum’, E.M. Steinby (ed.) Lexicon
Topographicum Urbis Romae, Rome: Edizioni Quasar 2:19-20.
Coarelli, F. (1995b) ‘Gens Flavia, Templum’, E.M. Steinby (ed.) Lexicon
Topographicum Urbis Romae, Rome: Edizioni Quasar 2:368-369.
Cole, S. (2006) ‘Cicero, Ennius, and the Concept of Apotheosis at Rome’, Arethusa
39.3:531-548.
Coleman, K.M. (1998) ‘The Liber Spectaculorum: Perpetuating the Ephemeral’, R.
Grewing (ed.) Toto Notus in Orbe: Perspektiven der Martial-Interpretation, Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner Verlag, pp. 15-36.
Coleman, K.M. (2006) Martial: Liber Spectaculorum, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Colini, A.M. (1944) ‘Storia e topografia del Celio nell’Antichità’, Atti della Pontificia
Accademia Romana di Archeologia: Memoriae 29.3:531-548.
Cormack, J. (1940) ‘The Nerva Inscription at Beroia’, Journal of Roman Studies 30:50-
52.
Bibliography Jessica Suess
197
Cox, S.E. (2005) ‘The Mark of the Successor: Tribunician Power and the Ara Providentia
under Tiberius and Vespasian’, Numismatica e antchità classiche 34:251-270.
Crummy, P. (1980) ‘The Temples of Roman Colchester’, W. Rodwell (ed.) Temples,
Churches and Religion in Roman Britain: Recent Research in Roman Britain, Chichester:
British Archaeological Reports, pp. 243-283.
Curtius, L. (1948) ‘Ikonographische Beiträge zum Porträt der römischen Republik und
der julisch-claudischen Familie, XIII & XIV’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts 1:53-94.
D’Ambra, E. (1993) Private Lives, Imperial Virtues: The Frieze of the Forum
Transitorium in Rome, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Dąbrowa, E. (1996) ‘The Origin of the Templum Gentis Flaviae: A Hypothesis’,
Memoirs of the American Academy at Rome 41:153-161.
Daltrop, G., Hausmann, U., Wegner, M. (1966) Die Flavier: Vespasian, Titus, Domitian,
Nerva, Julia Titi, Domitilla, Domitia, Berlin: Mann.
Darwall-Smith, R. (1996) Emperors and Architecture: A Study of Flavian Rome,
Brussells: Latomus.
De Angeli, S. (1992) Templum Divi Vespasiani, Rome: De Luca.
De Angeli, S. (1996) ‘Templum Divi Vespasiani’, E.M. Steinby (ed.) Lexicon
Topographicum Urbis Romae, Rome: Edizioni Quasar 3:144-148.
De Angeli, S. (1999) ‘Le basi Farnesi IL 6.198 e 200 e l'altare del Quirinale CIL VI 199’,
Numismatica e antchità classiche 28:235-273.
Desnier, J. (1979) ‘Divus Caesar Imp. Domitiani F.’, Revue des Etudes Anciennes 81:54-
64.
Dessau, H. (1877) De sodalibus et flaminibus Augustalibus ad summos in philosophia
honores, Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.
Dessau, H. (1897) Prosopographia imperii romani saec. I. II. III, Berlin: Reim.
Dräger, M. (1993) Die Städte der Provinz Asia in der Flavierzeit: Studien zur
kleinasiatischen Stadt- und Regionalgeschichte, Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
Drury, P.J. (1984) ‘The Temple of Claudius at Colchester Reconsidered’, Britannia 15:7-
50.
Dumézil, G. (1970) Archaic Roman Religion, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bibliography Jessica Suess
198
Eck, W. (1970) Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian. Prosopographische
Untersuchungen mit Einschluss der Jahres und Provinzialfasten der Statthalter, Munich:
Beck.
Favro, D.G. (1996) The Urban Image of Augustan Rome, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fayer, C. (1976) Il Culto della Dea Roma, Pescara: Trimestre.
Fears, J.R.R. (1977) Princeps a diis electus: The Divine Election of the Emperor as a
Political Concept at Rome, Rome: American Academy.
Fears, J.R.R. (1981) ‘The Cult of Jupiter and Roman Imperial Ideology’, Aufstieg und
Niedergang der römischen Welt 2.17.1:3-141.
Fears, J.R.R. (2002) ‘Emperor and God: Ruler Cult in the Roman World’, Classical
Review 52.2:319-321.
Fiorelli, G. (1870) Catalogo del Museo Nazionale di Napoli, Naples: Liceo V. Emanuele.
Fishwick, D. (1987-2005) Imperial Cult in the Latin West, Leiden: Brill.
Fishwick, D. (1992) ‘On the Temple of Divus Augustus’, Phoenix 46:232-255.
Fishwick, D. (2002) ‘The Deification of Claudius’, Classical Quarterly 52:341-349.
Fittschen, K. (1995) ‘Zur Datierung des Augustus-Roma-Tempels in Ankara’,
Archäologischer Anzeiger 2:309-315.
Flory, M. (1995) ‘The Deification of Roman Women’, Ancient History Bulletin 9.1:127-
134.
Friesen, S. (1993) Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial
Family, Leiden: Brill.
Fröhlich, T. (1991) Lararien und Fassadenbilder in den Vesuvstädten: Untersuchungen
zur « volkstümlichen » pompejanischen Malerei, Mainz: von Zabern.
Gagé, J. (1931) ‘Divus Augustus: l’idée dynastique chez les empereurs Julio-Claudiens’,
Revue Archeologique 24:11-41.
Getty, R., Sahin, S. (1936) ‘The Date and Composition of the Argonautica of Valerius
Flaccus’, Classical Philology 31.1:53-61.
Bibliography Jessica Suess
199
Geyssen, J. (1999) ‘Sending a Book to the Palatine: Martial 1.70 and Ovid’, Mnemosyne
52.6:718-738.
Ghedini, F. (1986) ‘Riflessi della politica domizianea nei rilievi flavi di Palazzo della
Cancelleria’, Bullettino della Commissioni Archeologica Comunale di Roma 91:291-309.
Girard, J.-B. (1998) Monnaies de l’empire romain: III Du soulèvement de 68 après J.-C.
à Nerva, Catalogue, Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale.
Gonzalez, J. (1999) ‘Tacitus, Germanicus, Piso and the Tabula Siarensis’, American
Journal of Philology 120.1:123-142.
Gordon, R. (1990) ‘From Republic to Principate: Priesthood, Religion and Ideology’,
Beard, M., North, J. (eds.) Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World,
London: Duckworth, pp. 177-198.
Gottleib, G. (2000) ‘Kaiserpriester’, Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 15:1104-1121.
Gradel, I. (2002) Emperor Worship and Roman Religion, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Griffin, M. (2000) ‘The Flavians’, A.K. Bowman, P. Garnsey, D. Rathbone (eds.)
Cambridge Ancient History XI, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-83.
Gounaropoulou, L., Hatzopoulous, M.B. (1998) Epigraphes kato Makedonias, Athens:
Hypourgeio Politismou, Etnikon Hidryma Ereunon.
Haensch, R. (1997) Capita Provinciarum: Statthaltersitze und Provinzialverwaltung in
der römischen Kaiserzeit, Mainz: von Zabern.
Haeperen, F. (2002) Le collège pontifical (3ème s.a. C.-4ème s.p. C.): contribution à
l'étude de la religion publique romaine, Brussels: Institut Historique Belge de Rome.
Halfman, H. (1979) Die Senatoren aus dem östlichen Teil des Imperium Romanum bis
zum Ende des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Hamberg, P.G. (1945) Studies in Roman Imperial Art, with Special Reference to the State
Reliefs of the Second Century, Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Hassel, F.J. (1966) Der Trajansbogen in Benevent, Mainz: von Zabern.
Herz, P. (1981) ‘Diva Drusilla’, Historia 30:324-336.
Herzog, H. (2001) ‘Die Cancelleriareliefs’, Bollettino dei Monumenti: musei et gallerie
pontificie 21:103-147.
Hesberg, H., Panciera, S. (1994) Das Mausoleum des Augustus, Munich: Beck.
Bibliography Jessica Suess
200
Hickson-Hahn, F. (2004) ‘Ut diis immortalibus honos habeatur: Livy’s Representation of
Gratitude to the Gods’, A. Barchiesi, J. Rüpke, S. Stephens (eds.) Rituals in Ink: a
Conference on Religion and Literary Production in Ancient Rome held at Stanford
University in February 2002, Stuttgart: Steiner, pp. 57-76.
Hidalgo de la Vega, M.P. (2003) ‘Esposas, hijas y madres imperiales: el poder de la
legitimad dinástica’, Latomus 62.1:47-72.
Hill, P.V. (1989) The Monuments of Ancient Rome as Coin Types, London: Seaby.
Hoey, R., Fink, A., Snyder, W. (1940) The Feriale Duranum, New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Hurlet, F. (1993) ‘La Lex de imperio Vespasiani et la légitimité augustéenne’, Latomus
52:261-280.
Jakobson, A., Cotton, H.M. (1985) ‘Caligula’s Recusatio Imperii’, Historia 34:497-503.
Jones, B.W. (1992) The Emperor Domitian, London: Routledge.
Jones, J.R. (1966) ‘Vespasian Junior’, Numismatic Chronicle 6:61-63.
Jones, M.W. (2000) ‘Genesis and Mimesis: The Design of the Arch of Constantine in
Rome’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 59.1:50-77.
Kähler, H. (1950) ‘Review of Magi, I rilievi Flavi del Palazzo della Cancelleria’,
Gnomon 22:30-41.
Keller, E. (1967) ‘Studien zu den Cancelleria Reliefs’, Klio 49:193-217.
Keil, J. (1931) ‘XVI: Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos’,
Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 27:51-60.
Kienast, D. (1989) ‘Diva Domitilla’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 76:141-
147.
Keinast, D. (1996) Römische Kaisertabelle. Grundzüge einer römischen
Kaiserchronologie, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Kleiner, D. (1992) Roman Sculpture, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kleiner, F. (1971) ‘Flamen on the Ara Pietatis’, American Journal of Archaeology
75:391-394.
Bibliography Jessica Suess
201
Kleiner, F. (1985) The Arch of Nero in Rome: a Study of the Roman Honorary Arch
before and under Nero, Rome: G. Bretschneider.
Kleiner, F. (1989) ‘A Vespasianic Monument to the Senate and Roman People’,
Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 68:85-95.
Kleiner, F. (1990) ‘The Arches of Vespasian in Rome’, Mitteilung des deutschen
archäologischen Instituts: Römische Abteilung 97:127-136.
Kleiner, F. (2009) Gardner’s Art Through the Ages: A Global History, Boston:
Wadsworth.
Kleywegt, A.J. (2005) Valerius Flaccus Argonautica Book I, Leiden: Brill.
Knibbe, D. (1980) ‘Ephesos vom Beginn der römischen Herrschaft im Kleinasien bis
zum Ende der Principatzeit, A Historischer Teil’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen
Welt 2.7.2:748-810.
Koch, C. (2003) ‘Roman State Religion in the Mirror of Augustan and Late Republican
Apologetics’, C. Ando (ed.) Roman Religion, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp.
296-329.
Koeppel, G.M. (1980) ‘A Fragment from a Domitianic Monument in Ann Arbor and
Rome’, Bulletin of the Museums of Art and Archaeology of the University of Michigan
9:9-29.
Konstan, D. (1997) Friendship in the Classical World, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Krenke, D., Scheid, M. (1936) Der Tempel in Ankara, Berlin: De Gruyter.
Kunckel, H. (1974) Die Römische Genius, Heidelberg: Kerle.
Kuttner, A. (1995) Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus: the Case of the
Boscoreale Cups, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Last, H. (1948) ‘On the Flavian Reliefs from the Palazzo della Cancelleria’, Journal of
Roman Studies 38:9-14.
Lehmann-Hartleben, K. (1934) ‘L’Arco di Tito’, Bullettino della Commissione
Archeologica Comunale di Roma 6:89-122.
Lesuisse, L. (1962) ‘L'aspect héréditaire de la succession impériale sous les JulioClaudiens’,
Les Études Classiques 30:32-50.
Levick, B. (1999) Vespasian, London: Routledge.
Bibliography Jessica Suess
202
Levick, B. (2002) ‘Corbulo’s Daughter’, Greece and Rome 49.2:199-200.
Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G. (1979) Continuity and Change in Roman Religion, Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Lott, J.B. (1995) The Earliest Use of the Divine Epithet Augustus, 27 BCE - 37 CE:
Dynastic Names and Religion in the Augustan Principate, Dissertation: University of
Pennsylvania.
Lott, J.B. (2004) The Neighbourhoods of Augustan Rome, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lozano, F. (2002) La religion del poder: el culto imperial en Atenas en época de Augusto
y los emperadores Julio-Claudios, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Luke, T.S. (2010) ‘A Healing Touch for Empire: Vespasian's Wonders in Domitianic
Rome’, Greece and Rome 57.1:77-105.
Lyasse, E. (2008) Le Principat et son fondateur: l’utilisation de la réferénce à Auguste de
Tibère à Trajan, Brussels: Latomus.
Magi, F. (1945) I rilievi Flavi del Palazzo della Cancelleria, Rome: Bardi.
Magi, F. (1955-1956) ‘Sui rilievi della Cancelleria’, Bonner Jahrbücher des Rheinischen
Landesmuseums in Bonn und des Rheinischen Amtes für Bodendenkmalpflege im
Landschaftsverband Rheinland und des Vereins von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande
155-156:309-313.
Martin, S. (1985) ‘Review: Images of Power, the Imperial Senate’, Journal of Roman
Studies 75:222-228.
McCann, A.M. (1972) ‘A Re-Dating of the Reliefs from the Palazzo della Cancelleria’,
Mitteilung des Deutschen archäologischen Instituts: Römische Abteilung 79:249-276.
McFayden, D. (1915) ‘The Date of the Arch of Titus’, Classical Journal 11:131-141.
Meriç, R. (1985) ‘Rekonstruktionsversuch der Kolossalstatue des Domitian in Ephesos’,
W. von Alzinger, C. Schwanzer, C. Neeb Gudrun (eds.) Pro Arte Antiqua: Festschrift für
Hedwig Kenner I, Wein: Koska, pp. 239-241.
Merkelbach, R. Sahin, S (1998) ‘Die publizierten Inschriften von Perge’, Epigraphica
Anatolica 11:97-170.
Momigliano, A. (1975) ‘Sodales Flaviales Titiales e Culto di Giove’, Quinto contributo
alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico, Leiden: Brill, pp. 657-666.
Bibliography Jessica Suess
203
Moralee, J. (2004) For Salvation's Sake: Provincial Loyalty, Personal Religion and the
Epigraphic Production in the Roman and Late Antique Near East, London: Routledge.
Nigdelis, P. (1995) ‘Oberpriester und Gymnasiarchen im Provinziallandtag Makedoniens:
eine neue Ehreninschrift aus Beroia’, Klio 11:170-183.
North, J. (2000) Roman Religion, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oliver, J.H. (1949) ‘The Divi of the Hadrianic Period’, Harvard Theological Review
2.1:35-40.
Orr, D.G. (1972) Roman Domestic Religion: A Study of the Roman Household Deities
and their Shrines at Pompeii and Herculaneum, Dissertation: University of Maryland.
Orr, D.G. (1978) ‘Roman Domestic Religion: The Evidence of Household Shrines’,
Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2.16.2:1557-1591.
Pfanner, M. (1983) Der Titusbogen, Mainz: von Zabern.
Pistor, H.-H. (1965) Prinzeps und Patriziat in der Zeit Augustus bis Commodus,
Dissertation: Freiburg.
Polk, R.M. (2008) Circa deos ac religiones: Religion and the Emperor from Augustus to
Constantine, Dissertation: Harvard University.
Price, S.R.F. (1984a) Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Price, S.R.F. (1984b) ‘Gods and Emperors: The Greek Language of the Roman Imperial
Cult’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 104:79-95.
Price, S.R.F. (1987) ‘From Noble Funerals to Divine Cult: the Consecration of Roman
Emperors’, D. Cannadine, S. Price (eds.) Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in
Traditional Societies, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 56-105.
Radice, B. (1968) ‘Pliny and the Panegyricus’, Greece and Rome 15:166-172.
Raepsaet-Charlier, M.T. (1981) Prosopographie des femmes de l'ordre sénatorial: Ier-IIe
siècles, Lovanni: Aedibus Peeters.
Ramage, E.S. (1983) ‘Denigration of Predecessor under Claudius, Galba and Vespasian’,
Historia 32:200-214.
Rankov, N.B. (1984) ‘Review M. Pfanner Der Titusbogen’, Classical Review 34:282-284.
Bibliography Jessica Suess
204
Rausa, F. (1997) ‘La base Farnese CIL VI 196 e il tema della Fortuna Redux nella
propaganda di Vespasiano’, Numismatica e Antichità Classiche 26:287-310.
Richard, J.-C. (1966) ‘Tombeaux des empereurs et temples des divi: Notes sur la
signification religieuse des sépultures imperials à Rome’, Revue de l’Histoire des
Religions 170:127-142.
Richardson, L. (1976) ‘The Villa Publica and the Divorum’, L. Bonfante, H. von Heintze
(eds.) In Memoriam Otto J. Brendel. Essays in Archaeology and the Humanities, Mainz:
von Zabern, pp. 159-163.
Richmond, I. (1946) ‘The Four Coloniae of Roman Britain’, Archaeological Journal
103:57-84.
Ritter, H.W. (1972) ‘Zue Liebens geschichte der Flavia Domitilla, der Frau Vespasians’,
Historia 21:759-761.
Roscher, W. (1884-1937) Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen
Mythologie, Leipzig: Tuebner.
Rosso, E. (2006) ‘Culte imperial et image dynastique: les divi et divae de la Gens Flavia’,
T. Nogales, J. Gonzales (eds.) Culto Imperial: Politica y Poder, Rome: L'Erma di
Bretschneider, pp. 125-151.
Rüpke, J. (2004) ‘Acta aut Agenda’, A. Barchiesi, J. Rüpke, S. Stephens (eds.) Rituals in
Ink: a Conference on Religion and Literary Production in Ancient Rome held at Stanford
University in February 2002, Stuttgart: Steiner, pp. 23-44.
Rüpke, J. (2005) Fasti Sacerdotum: die Mitglieder der Priesterschaften und das sakrale
Funktionspersonal römischer, griechischer, orientalischer und jüdisch-christlicher Kulte
in der Stadt Rom von 300 v. Chr. bis 499 n. Chr., Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Rüpke, J. (2008) Fasti Sacerdotum: a Prosopography of Pagan, Jewish, and Christian
Religious Officials in the City of Rome, 300 BC to AD 499, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ryberg, I.S. (1955) Rites of State Religion in Roman Art, Rome: American Academy.
Sahin, S. (1995) ‘Studien zu den Inschriften von Perge II: der Gesandte Apollonios und
seine Familie’, Epigraphica Anatolica 25:1-23.
Saller, R. (1982) Personal Patronage under the Early Empire, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bibliography Jessica Suess
205
Saller, R. (1990) ‘Patronage and Friendship in Early Imperial Rome: Drawing the
Distinction’, A. Wallace-Hadrill (ed.) Patronage in Ancient Society, London: Routledge,
pp. 49-62.
Saller, R. (1994) Patriarchy, Property and Death in the Roman Family, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sauter, F. (1934) Der römische Kaiserkult bis Martial und Statius, Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer.
Schefold, K. (1949) ‘Neue Deutung der Reliefs von der Cancelleria im Vatikan’, Atlantis
21:546-548.
Scheid, J. (1975) Les Frères Arvales: Recrutement et origine sociale sous les empereurs
julio-claudiens, Paris: Presses Universitaires.
Scheid, J. (1990) Romulus et ses frères: le collège des frères arvales, modèle du culte
public dans la Rome des empereurs. Paris: de Boccard.
Scheid, J. (1998) Recherches archéologiques à la Magliana: Commentarii Fratrum
Arvalium qui supersunt: les copies épigraphiques des protocols annuels de la confrérie
arvale: 21 av.-304 ap. J.-C., Rome: Ecole française de Rome.
Schilling, R. (1979) Rites, cultes, dieux de Rome, Paris: Klincksieck.
Schwarte, K.H. (1977) ‘Salus Augusta Publica: Domitian und Trajan als Heilbringer des
Staates’, A. von Lippols, N. Himmelmann (eds.) Bonner Festgabe Johannes Straub zum
65, Geburtstag am 18 Oktober 1977 dargebracht von Kollegen und Schülern, Bonn:
Rheinland Verlag, pp. 225-246.
Scott, K. (1936) Imperial Cult under the Flavians, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Severy, B. (2003) Augustus and the Family at the Birth of the Roman Empire, London:
Routledge.
Sherwin-White A.N. (1983) ‘Review of Personal Patronage under the Early Empire by
Richard Saller’, Classical Review 33.2:271-273.
Simon, E. (1960) ‘Zu den flavischen Reliefs von der Cancelleria’, Jahrbuch des
Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 75:134-156.
Simon, E. (1985) ‘Virtus und Pietas: zu den Friesen A und B von der Cancelleria’,
Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 100:543-555.
Spinazzola, V. (1953) Pompei alla luce degli scavi nuovi di Via dell'Abbondanza (anni
1910-1923), Roma: Libreria della Stato.
Bibliography Jessica Suess
206
Spooner, W.A. (1891) Cornelii Taciti Historiarum, libri qui supersunt, London:
MacMillan.
Strobel, K. (1994) ‘Domitian: Kaiser und Politik im Spannungsfeld des Überganges zur
Monarchie des 2. Jh. n. Chr.’, Pallas 40:359-395.
Strong, D. (1988) Roman Art, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Strothmann, M. (2000) Augustus-Vater der res publica: zur Funktion der drei Begriffe
restitutio-saeculum-pater patriae im augusteischen Principat, Stuttgart: Steiner.
Taeger, F. (1960) Charisma, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Talbert, R.J.A. (1984a) The Senate of Imperial Rome, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press.
Talbert, R.J.A. (1984b) ‘Augustus and the Senate’, Greece and Rome 31.1: 55-63.
Tataki, A. (1988) Ancient Beroea: Prosopography and Society, Athens: Kentron
Hellenikes kai Romaikes Archaiotetos.
Taylor, L.R. (1931) The Divinity of the Roman Emperor, Middletown, Conn.: American
Philological Association.
Taylor, P.R. (1994) ‘Valerius' Flavian Argonautica’, Classical Quarterly 44:212-235.
Torelli, M. (1987) ‘Culto imperiale e spazi urbani in eta flavia: Dai rilievi Hartwig
all’arco di Tito’, L’Urbs: Espace urbain et histoire (I siecle av. J.-C. – III siecle ap. J.C.).
Actes du colloque international organisé par le Centre national de la recherche
scientifique et l'Ecole française de Rome (Rome, 8-12 mai 1985), Rome: École française
de Rome, pp. 563-582.
Toynbee, J.M.C. (1957) The Flavian Reliefs from the Palazzo della Cancelleria in Rome,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vagi, D.L. (2000) Coinage and History of the Roman Empire 82 BC to AD 480, London:
Fitzroy.
Vanggard, J. (1988) The Flamen: a Study in the History and Sociology of Roman
Religion, Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
Varhelyi, Z. (2002) The Religion of the Senatorial Elite in the Roman Empire: AD 69-235,
Dissertation: Columbia University.
Bibliography Jessica Suess
207
Varner, E. (1995) ‘Domitia Longina and the Politics of Portraiture’, American Journal of
Archaeology 99.2:187-206.
Varner, E. (2004) Mutilation and Transformation: Damnatio Memoriae and Roman
Imperial Portraiture, Leiden: Brill.
Vermeule, C.C. (1959) The Goddess Roma in the Art of the Roman Empire, Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Vermeule, C.C. (1969) ‘Review of Der Trajansbogen in Benevent’, American Journal of
Archaeology, 73.1:92-93.
Versnel, H.S. (2007) ‘Making Sense of Jesus’ Death: The Pagan Contribution’, J. Frey, J.
Schröter (eds.) Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
pp. 213-293.
Veyne, P. (1962) ‘Les honneurs postumes de Flavia Domitilla’, Latomus 21:49-98
Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1990) Patronage in Ancient Society, London: Routledge.
Wardle, D. (2002) ‘Divus or Deus: The Genesis of Roman Terminology for Deified
Emperors and a Philosopher's Contribution’, G. Clark, T. Rajak (eds.) Philosophy and
Power, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 181-191.
Ward-Perkins, J.B. (1981) Roman Imperial Architecture, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Weinstock, S. (1971) Divus Julius, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Winkler, L. (1995) ‘Salus’ vom Staatskult zur politischen Idee: eine archäologische
Untersuchung, Heidelberg: Verlag Archäologie und Geschichte.
Wissowa, G. (1912) Religion und Kultus der Römer, Munich: Beck.
Wood, S. (2000) Imperial Women: A Study in Public Images 44 BC to AD 68, Leiden:
Brill.
Wood, S. (2010) ‘Who was Diva Domitilla? Some Thoughts on the Public Images of the
Flavian Women’, American Journal of Archaeology 114:45-57.
Zanker, P. (1988) The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Ziethen, G. (1994) Gesandte vor Kaiser und Senat: Studien zum römischen
Gesandschaftswesen zwischen 30 v. Chr. und 117 n. Chr., St. Katharine: Scripta
Mercaturae Verlag.