The neighborhoods of Augustan Rome 9780521828277, 0521828279

Citation preview

THE NEIGHBORHOODS > OF AUGUSTAN

J. BERT LOTT

ROME

HIS VOLUME INVESTIGATES the neighborhoods of ancient Rome during the reign of the first Roman Emperor, Caesar Augustus (27 B.C.E.-I4 C.E.). Focusing on a group

of neighborhood-based voluntary associations that were important political and social communities for the city’s diverse population of slaves and ex-slaves, it locates the Augustan neighborhoods within the broader context of the history of Rome. John Bert Lott stresses their importance as physical and cultural divisions of the city and investigates the distinctive relationship between local neighborhoods and Augustus himself. An interdisciplinary study that makes use of archaeological, epigraphic, and topographic evidence, this book makes an important contribution to our knowledge of the urban life of Rome’s lower classes and to our understanding of the imperial ideology that supported the development of the dynastic Roman monarchy.

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF

AUGUSTAN

ROME

This volume investigates the neighborhoods of ancient Rome during the reign ofthe first Roman emperor, Caesar Augustus (27 B.C.E.—14 C.E.). Focusing on a group of neighborhood-based voluntary associations that were important political and social communities for the city’s diverse population ofslaves and ex-slaves, it locates the Augustan neighborhoods within the broader context of the history of Rome. John Bert Lott stresses their importance as physical and cultural divisions of the city and investigates the distinctive relationship between local neighborhoods and Augustus himself. An interdisciplinary study that makes use of archaeological, epigraphic, and topographic evidence, this book makes an important contribution to our knowledge of the urban life of Rome’s lower classes and to our understanding of the imperial ideology that supported the development of the dynastic Roman monarchy. John Bert Lott is assistant professor of classics at Vassar College.

ve

4224 Mee.

S10 gece, @ ‘ieee

r

dwn

Opa

ial

dl war] agi

oo:

fe ; abit ietaisate age Soret oes Dé

ips

‘:

cet

=

b 9S

=

nen, Cae

anleen

HPO.

.

2060

Se

—_

4

°

ar

9 DD

n> \ by)

=~»

i

cae

.

ie

£57

=

se

pute Jot

eee oe oe ee ems nhigne kod! (peere qatas Way

nade leo ?

ane

Ragen

Air Ay)

Or

a

opie

Oe PuAleae

hana

meet: SE es, |» We a@

«

nt eg ay) Geer ¢

ei Words ol Corte hPa

a YOO

ane wa

ete

yy

@

ceemaeDy Galea Seng p= =?

ne

Ce)alti
In particular, the urban prefect (praefectus urbi), who had served a largely symbolic role in the Republic as the consuls’ deputy, came by the height of the SS

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

empire to oversee in the emperor’s name almost all aspects of the city’s administration including the dispensation ofjustice. The new neighborhoods and their officers certainly played an important role in the city’s administration. They were charged with helping to control fires, they were the administrative divisions for Augustus’ neighborhood by neighborhood recensus of the city, and they looked after the local distribution points for the city’s water supply.’*+ We should not hesitate to interpret this role as reflecting an Augustan ideology of good city management involving the participation of abroad spectrum of urban residents. In books on the Roman city one often finds a contrast drawn between the magnificent public monuments Augustus built around the city and the generally poor condition of the rest of the city. J. Stambaugh writes, for example, “throughout the city one could find, just around the corner from the Augustan monuments of public grandeur, vacant lots and ramshackle tenements signifying private squalor” (1988: 51). As justifiable as this criticism may be, it does not take into account the emperor’s efforts to restore and beautify neighborhood shrines and to allow and even encourage neighborhood residents to continue to improve their local public spaces. The renovation of the compita of Rome’s neighborhoods and the revival and expansion of the associated ludi Compitalicii provided hundreds of small-scale local analogues to the new and newly repaired religious and civic monuments of the city. Alongside the improvement of city services, a renewed attention to traditional Roman religious places and ceremonies, recast to fit present circumstances,

also declared Augustus’

refoundation

of a

restored Rome. Augustus claimed to have restored no less than eightytwo religious precincts in 28 B.c.B, alone, neglecting no shrine that needed attention.'*> Ancestral priesthoods were revived and ancient ceremonies that had lapsed in more recent times were sumptuously celebrated, including the magnificent Secular Games that observed the beginning of a new era in 17 B.C.E. (Suetonius included the /udi Compitalicii in his list of ancient ceremonies that Augustus restored.'*°) However, the founder Augustus did not just create or rescue from oblivion the buildings, temples, precincts, and ceremonies that decorated the Augustan city. He also carefully refocused them around his personal rule, the ideal of the Principate, and importantly his dynastic 100

THE

REFORMS

OF AUGUSTUS

plans for the future. Ceremonies and buildings now declared the emperor to be the center of religion, culture, and the state, pointing out the benefits of the present age and emphasizing loyalty to the new dynasty. Indeed, municipal and religious construction was one of the most important ways that Augustus engaged in what D. Favro calls “dynastic imprinting,” whereby the emperor inextricably wove his family into the urban fabric of the city (1996: 128-133). During the reign of Augustus, monumental building, which had been an important tool in the aspiring politician’s kit, was slowly restricted to the emperor and his family. Monumental building provided a means for the emperor to make public his dynastic intentions, which were so difficult to discuss in the political and constitutional context of the “restored Republic.” Indeed the dynastic overtones of Augustan religious building were so strong that new construction became nearly synonymous with a new arrangement of the imperial house (Domus Augusta). The restoration of Rome’s compita was in most ways

no different from the restoration of more impressive civic cults and ceremonies, and compital monuments reflected the same ideological motifs of princeps, empire, and dynasty as did their larger cousins. Indeed, as we shall see in the next chapter, the neighborhoods were

finely attuned to the nuances of imperial and dynastic ideology, a fact which is all the more impressive because in one important way the revived neighborhoods were different from other imperial construction. It was not the emperor and his family who commissioned and paid for most neighborhood monuments and decorations but the magistri vici themselves. As was the case with revived state cults, Augustus now emphatically joined neighborhood religion as well as neighborhood places with the commemoration of himself and his family dynasty. The old crossroad gods, the Lares Compitales, were renamed the Lares Augusti, in honor of the emperor.'’7 In at least one neighborhood, Genius Caesarum,

the worship of the

“Virility of the Caesars,” was added to the wor-

ship of the renamed Lares. Since the application of the new epithet to the Lares has elicited a great deal of discussion, much ofit misled as to the designation’s significance, some

detailed comments

are re-

quired. The divine epithet augustus derived from the honorific name awarded Augustus in 27 B.C.E. in connection with the foundation of IOI

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

the Principate.'** Much ink has been spilled over the reasons the name Augustus was chosen in 27, and historians have minutely scrutinized all of its potential nuances.'*? To Cicero, who died long before 27 B.C.E., the adjective augustus had been a politically neutral word nearly synonymous with sanctus or religiosus.'3° It meant simply “holy” or perhaps, since it was usually applied to the physical paraphernalia of cult or places inhabited by deities, “belonging to god.” Perhaps the most important characteristic of the word, from Augustus’ perspective in 27, was that it had been completely absent from the charged political vocabularies of Late Republican politics. It is unattested as a personal name before 27, and had appeared only once as a divine epithet. In 19 B.C.E. a group of nineteen agricultural slaves in Transpadine Gaul erected a dedication to the Augusti Lares." The dedication probably belonged to a rural pagus or compitum, and there is another similar dedication to the Augusti Lares from nearby Brixia dating to the imperial period (CIL 5.4865 = Insc. Ital. 10.5.3.1027). These inscriptions possibly show an earlier association between the adjective augustus and rural Lares Compitales and slaves that carried forward to urban Rome. Recall that it was at the moment that Augustus received his new name that one of the tribunes rushed out into the neighborhood crossroads to convince residents to devote themselves to the new emperor (Dio SBI2 0}:

Regardless of its earlier uses, after 27 the adjective and divine epithet augustus almost invariably refers to the emperor or the Principate itself. Indeed augustus was used, along with a limited repertoire of other symbols (discussed briefly below) associated with the constitutional arrangements of 27 B.C.E., as a cipher for the new system of dynastic imperial governance. Together these symbols both provided the new dynasty with heritable signs of powers that were themselves in theory nonheritable and, taken altogether, mapped out an underpinning ideology for the empire. Given this, it is not surprising that, although its use as a divine epithet would later become ubiquitous, the application of augustus to gods at Rome was carefully controlled by the first emperor. Augustus allowed only six state gods to be called by his name. The Lares Augusti are attested first in neighborhood cult in 7 B.c.k., the annus primus of the Augustan vici (Numbers 7, 8). They were in

102

THE

REFORMS

telling company alongside the Campus Martius (announced cordia Augusta in the Forum Campus Agrippae (in or soon lugarius (7 C.E.), and lustitia

OF AUGUSTUS

well-known cults of Pax Augusta in the in 13 B.c.£. and dedicated in 9), Con(7 B.c.£.), Providentia Augusta in the after 4 C.E.?), Ops Augusta in the Vicus Augusta near the Circus Flaminius (13

c.E.).°° Each of these five cults was founded, or refounded, in con-

nection with an event of great importance to the new dynasty. The divine epithet augustus, adopted for the first time in 13 or 9 B.C.E., denoted an especially close relationship among the “august” gods, the emperor, his family, and the welfare of the state (Lott 1995: 26-108,

1996b). Together the cults mapped out a set of public ideals that at the same time fostered and depended upon the rule of Augustus and his dynasty. The association of the august gods with events of importance to the dynasty and the public — Augustus’ victorious return to the city (Pax Augusta), Tiberius’ first triumph (Concordia Augusta), Augustus’ adoption of Tiberius (Providentia Augusta), the alleviation of famine (Ops Augusta), and Tiberius’ second triumph (lustitia Augusta) — drove home the equation of prosperity, security, and success with the rule of the new domus. The use of the epithet augustus for the revived cults of Rome’s neighborhoods shows first that the emperor viewed his relationship with the neighborhoods as part of the broader ideology of the principate and second that the neighborhoods were after 7 B.C.E. an integral part of the new system of imperia governance and maintenance of the capital. It is important to note, by way of foreshadowing later discussion, that the neighborhoods did feel a close connection to emperor and empire symbolized by the epithet augustus. They began immediately to replicate the epithet locally for dedications to gods other than their Lares, strengthening and taking some responsibility for the link between themselves and the princeps. The connection between Augustus and the new Lares Augusti in the neighborhoods was more than nominal. Augustus personally provided new cult statuettes of the Lares Augusti for each neighborhood shrine. This was an extraordinary expansion of his earlier policy of donating statues to individual neighborhoods on an ad hoc basis. The neighborhood of the FMV proudly used the emperor’s extraordinary gift as the heading of their calendar and list of neighborhood officers:

103

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

Imperator Caesar Augustus, pontifex maximus, consul for the eleventh time,

holding tribunician power for the seventeenth time, gave the Lares Augusti to the officers of the neighborhood (Number 22).

The heading denotes the event from which the vicus of the FMV reckoned its new era and began its list of compital officers. The imperial gift-visit to a neighborhood also appears in visual form as the decoration in relief on one side of the so-called Belvedere altar (Number 6s5).83 Created sometime between 12 and 2 B.c.£., this altar, although

doggedly problematic in almost every respect, cannot be ignored by anyone interested in early imperial art or ideology at Rome. It was decorated on all four sides with scenes relating to the rule of Augustus, including one depicting the emperor’s visit to some neighborhood shrine. We do not know what cult the altar served or where it stood in the city. It has recently been suggested that it stood as the central altar in the compitum of an individual neighborhood, but this seems certainly incorrect for several reasons."*+ The altar must have belonged to some state cult associated with the imperial dynasty. The Lares relief on the altar shows the emperor handing over the two little statuettes of the Lares Augusti across an altar to two togate figures (Figure 8). Behind the larger figure of Augustus, who is wearing a toga draped over his head in the manner of a priest performing a religious duty, are two further figures wearing togas. The four figures besides the emperor must be the neighborhood’ first board of magistri vici.'85 The Belvedere altar then shows the moment of restoration of a vicus.¥3° From these two sources then, we learn that in 7 B.c.E. Augustus an-

nounced his revival of the vici by touring Rome’s neighborhoods and handing out new cult statuettes of the Lares Augusti to the local residents. Such a progress was not unprecedented. In preparation for the Saecular Games in 17 B.C.£., Augustus personally distributed the instruments for ritual purification to the city’s population (Kienast 1982: 187; Zanker 1988a: 168-169); a coin from 16 B.c.E. emphasized this

important moment of contact between urban population and ruler, even to those who had not participated. The Belvedere altar did the same for the establishment of the new compital gods. The gifts of 7 B.C.E. established in all of Rome’s neighborhoods a brief but defining link between princeps and plebs. The mechanics ofthe distribution 104

THE

REFORMS

OF AUGUSTUS

8. The Belvedere altar. Face showing Augustus distributing statuettes of the Lares Augusti to magistri vic. Number

65; Rome,

Museo

Vaticano, inv. 1115; DAI

© neg.

75.1290 Rossa.

of the new statuettes are unclear. An actual visit to every neighborhood would have taken up a great deal of time. Perhaps the emperor summoned all or some of the magistri to receive their statuettes at a single place on a single day. Enduring physical and textual reminders of the initiatory link between neighborhood and princeps, like the Belvedere altar and the heading of the FMV, ensured that it remained a central aspect of the new neighborhoods’ identity. Indeed it would be almost impossible 105

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

to overstate how much importance the neighborhoods placed on the imperial gift visit and the statuettes of the Lares Augusti. Besides the examples already noted, every surviving altar from an Augustan neighborhood depicts the two Lares, who appeared as dancing youths wearing short tunics and holding a drinking cups (Numbers 7, 8, 20, 23, 26; Figures 12 a, 13 b-c, 14 b). One altar, from the Vicus Aescleti in

the northern Campus Martius, went so far as to show the two Lares not as living figures, as cult statues usually appeared in Roman art, but as the actual statuettes that Augustus had provided complete with small statue bases (Number 26; Figures 13 b—c). This altar accented the gift and the giver as much as the gods themselves. The statuettes were multivalent symbols not only of the neighborhoods’ gods and cult but also of their restoration, and in particular of Augustus’ personal attention to the neighborhoods. Augustus visited each neighborhood only once; the statues continued to serve as reminders of his presence and

to inspire loyalty in the residents. Though Rome’s neighborhoods attracted little notice in our written sources, the sheer scale of Augustus’ undertaking ensures that the distribution of new statuettes of the Lares Augusti to each neighborhood must have made quite an impression, not just for participating residents in the neighborhoods but on all levels of society. In a brief mention of the new Lares in his poetic Fasti, Ovid emphasized and exaggerated precisely the large number of Lares handed over by Augustus: The city has a thousand Lares and the genius of the leader who handed them over and the neighborhoods worship the three gods.¥”

NEIGHBORHOOD

RELIGION

The goal of this book is not to explicate difficult matters of theRoman rites and rituals surrounding Lares. However, it is important to discuss

how, from a city-wide perspective, neighborhood religion was integrated into the panoply of new and revised Augustan civic ritual. At the same time, two long-standing misconceptions must be treated in depth. I will begin with the latter issues, which follow naturally on the last section. In her important and excellent book, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor, Lily Ross Taylor contended that the Augustan 106

THE

REFORMS

OF AUGUSTUS

neighborhood cults were in fact simply extensions of the emperor's private family cults (1931). According to Taylor, the compital Lares Augusti were the Lares Domestici, the protective family spirits of Augustus’ household, enshrined now in public cult alongside another domestic god, Augustus’ personal Genius (the Genius Augusti) (1931: 180-191). Therefore Augustan compital religion, directed at the two Lares Augusti and the Genius Augusti, replicated in the neighborhoods the domestic triad of Lares Domestici and the Genius ofthe paterfamilias familiar from the Lararia of private homes in Pompeii.'* Taylor’s conclusions have been generally accepted. Recently A. Fraschetti has forcefully restated and expanded them, and his conclusion is worth quoting. °° After 12 B.c.k. the Lares of the house of Augustus were invited to spread themselves into the “spatium urbis;” becoming its guardian deities along with the Genius of the living Augustus, which also left the house on the Palatine to protect the whole city.

The old crossroads Lares are thereby removed from the picture entirely, as their infrastructure, the vici, was taken over by the imperial

family cults of Lares and Genius. There are good reasons to disagree with Taylor’s and Fraschetti’s equation of the new compital Lares Augusti with the Lares of Augustus’ house on the Palatine. Indeed Ovid, writing just after the Augustan neighborhood reforms, tells us that the compital Lares were the children of the nymph Lara and the god Mercurius, not the Lares of the emperor, and the one large group of freedmen entirely absent from the record of magistri vici are the members of the familia Caesaris, the household of Augustus himself (Fasti 2.583—616).

Taylor’s thesis relies on three arguments, one of which — the association of the compital cults with the office of Pontifex Maximus — has already been discussed. The second involves the meaning of the divine epithet augustus applied to the Lares, and the third the supposed worship of the emperor’s Genius alongside the Lares Augusti in the neighborhoods. Both issues require further comment here. First, G. Wissowa believed that the cults of the “august” gods — gods titled with the epithet augustus — all began as extensions of the private cults of Augustus’ gens (1902: 85).'4° Roman gentes certainly did have 107

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

private cults and rites and the family name could be attached to the gods ofthese cults.'4" Wissowa’s understanding ofthe epithet augustus, however, needs revision:'4* All the other new “august” gods in Rome besides the Lares Augusti belonged to state cults, not private ones. Pax Augusta, Providentia Augusta, Ops Augusta, lustitia Augusta, and Concordia Augusta were not familial cults of Augustus’ clan. In these cases the epithet augustus stood as a symbol of the new public governance of the Domus Augusta. Indeed there is no evidence that the Julian gens devoted special family rites to any of the gods titled with the epithet augustus in the state cults of the Augustan regime. The one cult that we know was special to the Julii, that of Veidovis Pater at Bovillae,

is absent from the list of august gods even though the family’s connection with Bovillae survived at least into the reign of Tiberius (ILS 2988). Finally, as we shall see, the magistri vici themselves erected many monuments to august gods in their own neighborhoods at Rome. Beyond the capital, cults for the august gods were established by cities in North Africa, Spain, Dalmatia, and Gaul. Are we to believe that these

lowly freedmen and provincials presumed to meddle in the emperor’s ancestral religion? A few examples of public cults of gods with eponymous epithets can be cited as precedents for the “august” gods, all of which support my understanding of the epithet augustus. In the Hellenistic world there were altars of Zeus Philippios at Eresos on Lesbos,'*3 a temple of Aphrodite Stratonikis at Smyrna built before 242 B.c.k. that still existed under the Empire,4 a cult of Zeus Seleukios in Lydia attested in 228/9 c.£.,‘#° and an obscure cult of Apollo Pasparios (Habicht 1970: 4 n. 2).

Only in the case of the altars of Zeus Philippios are details available: From a dossier of civic decrees from the city of Eresos, we deduce that sometime around 336 B.c.£. Philip H of Macedon intervened in

the affairs of the city and probably established a new government. This new government established altars in the city to Zeus Philippios. Zeus was a protector of cities and governments, and Zeus Philippios was, evidently, Zeus who delivered his blessings through Philip.'4° In the Roman era, Cicero speaks of Asian cities erecting temples also to the virtues of theirRoman governors, but he does not suggest that the governors’ names were part of the official nomenclature of these cults (ON Far rangi 108

THE

REFORMS

OF AUGUSTUS

The only secure evidence for Roman eponymous divine epithets before 27 B.C.E. comes from the rule of Augustus’ adoptive father, Julius Caesar. Late in 45 or early in 44 B.c.B. the senate decreed that a temple be erected to the new goddess Clementia Caesaris.'4* Caesar’s death intervened and the temple was evidently never built, but its advertisement as a public cult was already accomplished. Clemency toward his adversaries in the civil wars was a well-publicized policy of Caesar."4 Earlier, those vanquished in civil conflict had suffered greatly. By establishing a cult of Clementia, the Senate recognized the actions of a heretofore-unknown divinity in order to explain and publicize a heretofore-unknown public policy. The epithet Caesaris recognized Caesar as the policy’s founder, and the cult statue group in the temple was to be of Caesar and Clementia together. The second example ofan eponymous epithet from the rule of Caesar is the Ludi Victoriae Caesaris (Insc. Ital. 13.2.485—486; cf. Weinstock 1971: 235). These games, Caesaris, did survive Caesar and continue into the late Empire (ILS 9349 [15 c.g.], CIL 6.37834.36 [reign of unlike the cult of Clementia

Trajan]). There is no record of their foundation, but the games were apparently first held in July of 45 B.c.E.%° In the pompa that preceded the games in 45, Caesar's statue was carried alongside that of Victoria Caesaris (Cic. Att. 13.44.1; cf. Ovid Amores. 3.2.45). There can be no doubt that these Caesarian cults (titled with a

genitive epithet rather than an tinction) were closely associated cults of the “august” gods with the physical association of god emphasized the connection.

adjective, a matter of little or no diswith the person ofCaesar, as were the the person of Augustus. In both cases and Caesar in the cult statue groups

We should not mistake, however,

that

these were state cults linking the public ideals of clemency (at home) and victory (abroad) to the ruling dictator Caesar. In particular, the blessings of Clementia Caesaris were public ones, not bestowed upon Caesar but on those who had opposed him and the state. There can be no question of an ancestral cult of Clementia, who is unknown as a goddess before 45 B.C.E., practiced by the Julian clan. Likewise, when Tiberius changed the name of Concordia, who had an old temple overlooking the Forum, to Concordia Augusta, he did not substitute a family cult for a state one but rather associated his family with the state cult and the benefits the goddess represented. 109

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

In conclusion, a strong statement can be made defining how the name and epithet augustus, and such cognates as Augustalia, are to be understood. Augustus was a multivalent eponym that helped to bind together a nexus of Augustan ideology, governance, and dynasty. Never a general reference to the private family practices of the Julian clan, it created and defined the concept of ruling dynasty within the public sphere of the Empire. The decision to title the compital Lares with the epithet Augusti pulled the neighborhoods, their religion, and their inhabitants into the new system of the Principate and declared the active support the city’s lower classes to be one of the ideals of the new regime. The second common misconception about neighborhood religion

concerns the worship of the Genius Augusti in the neighborhoods. Taylor points to the passage of Ovid (Fasti 5.145—-146) quoted at the end of the last section, “the city has a thousand Lares and the Genius of the leader who handed them over, and the vici worship the three powers (numina),” to suggest that Augustus installed a domestic triad of two Lares Augusti and the Genius Augusti in every neighborhood. Genius and twin Lares were a regular triad in private household cult, and Taylor and Fraschetti view the revival of the neighborhood cults as directly related to Augustus’ installation as chief priest and in particular the use of a portion of his personal house on the Palatine for the state cult of Vesta. Thus, the argument goes, as the state cult of Vesta was concentrated into Augustus’ personal space, his private cults of Lares and Genius were diffused around the public spaces of the city (Fraschetti 1994:

374). The dichotomy is clever, but the view that

Augustus gave over his Genius as well as the two Lares Augusti faces several problems. Not least is the fact that, with a single exception, it is impossible to find further evidence for the worship of any Genius in the Augustan vici at all, much less the standard and official installation of the Genius Augusti alongside the Lares Augusti in every neighborhood. One damaged compital altar from an unknown neighborhood does evidently mention a Genius of some sort, but no Genius appears in text or art on any of the other surviving Augustan compital altars, which presumably stood physically and symbolically at the center of neighborhood religion (Number 7). Moreover, the heading ofthe Fasti Magistrorum Vici says only that the emperor gave the neighborhood its 110

THE

REFORMS

OF AUGUSTUS

new Lares Augusti; the Belvedere altar shows the emperor handing over only the two Lares Augusti; Suetonius, who was well attuned to matters affecting Rome’s urban populace, mentions only Lares as the recipients of neighborhood cult. At first glance therefore, it seems unlikely that the Lares Augusti and Genius Augusti stood together as a unified assembly of domestic deities worshipped by imperial fiat in the neighborhoods, and closer examination of the cult of the Genius Augusti offers confirmation. In family cult a Genius was the guardian of a father’s procreative power to continue his family. Every Roman head of household (paterfamilias) had a Genius that was worshipped in the house alongside the family’s Lares Domestici. Numerous examples of Lararia from Pompeian houses show the three deities together in their shrine (Boyce 1937). Families worshipped the Genius with incense, flowers, and libations of unmixed wine, especially on the birthday of the paterfamilias. In 30 B.c.E. Augustus’ birthday, September 23, was declared an official public holiday (Dio $1.19.2; Insc. Ital. 13.2 404). By 8 B.c.E. annual

circus games (ludi circenses) had been added to the occasion (Dio $4.8.5, 55.6.6; Insc. Ital. 13.2 512-513). However, according to the calendar of the Arvals, sacrifices were offered on the day not to the Genius Augusti but to Mars, Neptune, and Apollo, the gods who had aided in the defeat of Antonius (Insc. Ital. 13.2 $12). The senate also ordered in 30 B.C.E. that libations be poured to the Genius Augusti at all banquets, and this evidently did become a widespread practice (Dio §1.19.7).'™

However, such libations were a far cry from an official state cult for the Genius Augusti. To find any sanctioned public worship of the Genius Augusti, one has to look beyond Rome. At Forum Clodii in Etruria wine and incense was offered the Genii of Tiberius and Augustus preceding a banquet on their respective birthdays (CIL 11.3303 = ILS 524).%* This is slim evidence for any state cult of the domes-

tic Genius Augusti during the first emperor’s lifetime, much less its widespread cultivation throughout the city of Rome in the neighborhoods. There is no evidence of special neighborhood celebrations on Augustus’ birthday, when his Genius should properly have been worshipped (as the evidence from Forum Clodii confirms). Rather the neighborhoods began their official year on August 1, not September 23 —the latter choice was certainly available — and we shall see that the III

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

two new compital holidays instituted by Augustus corresponded not with personal festivals of his family but with the festivals of other public Lares at Rome. Indeed the emperor’s encouragement of the public worship of his Genius later became one of the signs of autocracy and megalomania that denoted a “bad” emperor (cf. Weinstock 1971: 206—

217). Tiberius discouraged public celebrations for his birthday (Suet. Tib. 26.1; Dio 57.8.3); Gaius had his initial refusal of apublic cult of his Genius memorialized in stone (Dio 54.4.4); finally, Pliny praised

the emperor Trajan for refusing to allow state cult of his personal Genius (Pliny Pan. 52.8). Such a negative attitude toward Genius worship would not have been possible if the first emperor, who regularly stood as the model for proper imperial behavior, had established public cults of his Genius at Rome. We can confidently conclude that Augustus did not enforce the standardized worship of the Genius Augusti, derived from his family cults on the Palatine, in the neighborhoods.

However,

Ovid clearly

states that a Genius of some sort could be worshipped in the Augustan vici. Moreover, from the Flavian period onward, Genii were regularly associated with the compital cult, and already in the reign of Claudius a relief shows a group of compital officers holding their two Lares Augusti and a Genius of some sort (Numbers 36-47, 67). Finally, in one Augustan example from outside Rome, Lares Augusti and an imperial Genius of some sort received joint dedications (Manganaro 1989: 191 no. 81 = AE 1989 346a). Indeed, outside Rome dedications

to some form of imperial Genius by local officials, usually of lower social standing, were increasingly common in the early Empire. A closer examination of imperial Geni in Augustan compital cult is needed, but it should begin from the recognition that no regular cult of aGenius was created or imposed on the neighborhoods from above. So the question becomes, in what ways would a Genius be an appropriate recipient of compital cult and just what form might that worship take? There were several types of Roman Genii in public and private religion, and, like Roman Lares, Genii had made the transition

to public cult long before the reign of Augustus. Private clubs (collegia, sodalitates) might maintain a cult for the Genius of a particular benefactor or patron separate from his family religion.’*} There had been state cults of the Genius Populi Romani (the collective Genius of all Roman 112

THE

REFORMS

OF AUGUSTUS

citizens) located near the Forum since the second century B.¢.B. and on the Capitol since the time of Sulla (LTUR sv. Genius Populi Romani [Palombi]). A Genius, like Lares, could also be the protective deity of a physical place (Genii Loci). There was a Genius of the city of Rome (Genius Urbis Romae) worshipped on the Capitol. Towns, colonies, and municipalities also regularly worshipped a Genius whose brief was the physical extent of the settlement (Diz. Ep. sv. Genius [Cesano] vol. 3 pp. 468-473). Smaller places too (mountains, groves, rivers, springs,

granaries, fora, theaters, streets) might have a special protective Genius (Diz. Ep. sv. Genius [Cesano] vol. 3 pp. 462-467). We shall see in

the next chapter that the neighborhoods were capable of surprising individuality, both in their relations with the emperor and in how their

participants celebrated the local place they inhabited. Indeed vici often exercised their individuality by cultivating gods in addition to their Lares, and it is therefore not surprising prima facie that one or more would include a Genius of some sort in their neighborhood religion. It does not therefore seem unlikely that neighborhoods might also have recognized a local Genius, perhaps identified with another local god,

even before the reign of Augustus; nor would it be surprising if a local Genius were associated with the imperial family as the patrons of the vic. However, what must be emphasized about this list of possibilities

(which might be better sorted out through a new complete study of Roman Genii) is that if a vicus chose to add rites for an imperial Genius to their neighborhood religion, they did so on their own and could define that cult as they saw fit, within broad and malleable parameters of imperial ideology. Ovid has misled scholars into believing that the emperor installed a standardized and official cult of aGenius in every neighborhood. The poet does not, however, say anything about imperial actions at all, but simply notes, in a simplified way, the central role of imperial commemoration in the most visible cult of Lares at Rome in his day. With all this in mind, the one secure example of a neighborhood

worshipping a Genius should finally be examined briefly, not as a model for neighborhood worship of Geni throughout the city but as an example of how one neighborhood might choose to recognize an imperial Genius. Indeed the Genius worshipped in this one case was not the Genius Augusti. In 7 B.c.£. the magistri primi of an unknown 113

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

neighborhood gave their vicus a new altar devoted not just to the Lares Augusti but to some other god whose name survives as “G[....]M” on the altar. One might restore the text to read either “Gentis Caesarum” (to the Genii ofthe Caesars) or “‘Geniis Caesaris et eius liberorum” (to the Genii of Caesar and his children). There is support for both,

and room enough on the stone for either restoration with little or no abbreviation.'** The front relief from the altar itself shows the Genii (a necessarily plural concept) as a single togate Genius standing beside the two Lares Augusti (Number 7, Figure 12 a). We shall see in the next chapter that compital altars were regularly a mix of stock iconography

and unique compositions relevant to individual neighborhoods. This neighborhood’s recognition of the Genu of the imperial heirs (or perhaps a collective Genius of the imperial dynasty) shows a sophisticated understanding of the importance of religion and religious construction to the dynastic ideology of the Augustan regime. In 7 B.c.E. when the altar was dedicated, Augustus’ sons and heirs, Gaius Caesar and

Lucius Caesar, were just entering the limelight of public life. Later, in 2 B.C.E., another neighborhood, the Vicus Sandaliarius, also chose to

commemorate an important moment in the life of Augustus’ elder son Gaius on its altar (Number 20). In both instances we should see a local community experimenting with new religious and visual rhetoric to express its position in the new social system of the Principate. Such creativity and individuality in modes of imperial commemoration are not surprising. K. Galinsky has pointed out that such experimentation was a hallmark of the development of the Augustan regime

(1996: 9). Two specific issues of compital religion having been dealt with at length, a brief account of the holidays and ceremonies that the Augustan neighborhoods celebrated in common is in order. There are several matters of significance to the formal practice of the religion of the Lares that are scanted in favor of the political and social aspects of the rites. After 7 B.C.E. one central activity of the neighborhoods remained, as it had been in the Republic, the celebration of Compitalia

and the maintenance of the compital shrines at the city’s crossroads. The new Augustan annual officers appear performing the sacrifices for Compitalia on several compital altars (Figures 12 b—c, 13 a). Compitalia continued to fall around the winter solstice and the New Year II4

THE

REFORMS

OF AUGUSTUS

(by the later Empire the date would be fixed as January 3), and the importance of the festival as a New Year’s celebration was not lost in the Augustan age. Indeed we have already seen one way Augustus reaffirmed this aspect of Compitalia: Every New Year’s the urban populace donated money on behalf of the emperor’s welfare. Augustus used this money to commission valuable statues that he donated to individual neighborhoods. The gifts both reflected traditional Roman New Year’s practices (which have survived to the present day!) and used them to reaffirm the reciprocal link between princeps and urban plebs. Augustus also allowed /udi Compitalicii, which had been forbidden or discouraged since the time of Caesar, to accompany the Compitalia over three days (Suet. Aug. 31.4; Festus 304L; cf. Palmer 1976: 168—

170). In at least one instance, perhaps the first after their revival, the emperor himself subsidized the celebrations given vicatim by paying for stage plays himself (Suet. Aug. 43). Finally, Suetonius reports that Augustus instituted two new festivals for the compital Lares: He established that the Lares Compitales should be decorated twice annually, with spring and with summer flowers.'®

These new holidays, which evidently corresponded with the changing seasons and must have greatly changed the physical appearance of the city, helped to integrate the worship of the Lares Augusti into the rhythms of urban life. Augustus’ innovation was not the use of flowers in compital cult since garlands had long been a regular part of the religion of Lares (Plautus Aul. 25, 385; Cato Agr. 143; Ovid, Fasti 6.791—792; Pliny NH 21.11). Rather it must have been the wor-

ship of compital Lares on these two specific days that Augustus newly ordered. Investigation of these two new dates for compital worship, therefore, can reveal something about the role Augustus envisioned for the compital cults and neighborhoods. Ovid and the inscribed calendars together reveal the exact dates of the two holidays. First, Ovid’s notice about the neighborhoods worshipping the Lares Augusti and Genius “of the leader who handed them over” comes as part of a refusal to deal with compital cult in his Fasti under May 1, which was the holiday for another old cult of Lares at Rome,

the Lares Praestites ($.129—-147). Notice of cult for Lares, IIS

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

without epithet, survives also in two of the inscribed imperial calendars (Insc. Ital. 13.2 452). Ovid’s mention of the compital Lares Augusti

under this date makes sense only if this were one of the days when the emperor ordered the city’s compital shrines garlanded. Second, a cult of Lares of some sort appears under June 27 both in the preAugustan calendar from Antium and in Ovid. The calendar entry reads, ““Lar(ibus) V[...],” (holiday for the Lares V...) (Insc. Ital. 13.2 13, 473-474). Ovid begins his notice for June 27, “The next morning

the Lares obtained a sanctuary on the spot where many a wreath is twined by skilled hands.”*° Here again Ovid makes a fairly transparent reference to the emperor’s new holidays with the mention of garlands. The summer solstice was thought to fall on June 24, 26, or 27, so June 27 would be a fitting counterpart to the Compitalia, which fell just after the winter solstice (Insc. Ital. 13.2 300). The Lares with unclear epithet worshipped on June 27 in Republican and Augustan times were surely the Lares whose temple at the top of the Sacra Via, near the arch of Titus, Augustus himself restored.” The dates of both new festivals were thus already holidays for Lares at Rome in the Republic, the Lares Praestites on May 1 and the Lares of the Sacra Via on June 27. Such association of the revamped neighborhood cults with other Lares worshipped in the city was at odds with the regular Augustan practice of placing new cult holidays on days of personal importance to members of the imperial family such as birthdays, wedding anniversaries, adoption dates, or dates of triumphs. In this instance, the emperor emphasized the traditional nature of the compital cults of the Lares Augusti as part of the city’s nexus of protective deities carried over from Republican times and improved. Ovid certainly makes a conscious comparison between the neglect ofreligion in the Late Republic which had allowed the cult of the Lares Praestites to wither and Augustus’ attention to religion under which the compital Lares Augusti flourished. The two Lares Praestites protected the whole city, perhaps especially from fire, so an association with the Lares of the Augustan vici, which fielded a neighborhood fire and police watch, was natural (LTUR sv. Lares Praestites [FE Coarelli]). The association of the Lares Praestites with fire is suggested by the presence of Vulcanus on a Republican denarius of 112 B.c.B. that also shows the twin Lares (RRC n. 298). The temple of the Lares on 116

THE

REFORMS

OF AUGUSTUS

the Sacra Via may have already been associated with the city’s streets and neighborhoods in the Republic, if Palmer correctly restores their epithet in the calendar from Antium as “Vf{icinales]” (of the viciniae) (1976: 171).5* Augustus may have drawn the cult on the Sacra Via closer to the distributed compital cults. I will argue below that this temple came to mark the special vicus to which the emperor’s own residence on the Palatine belonged. In conclusion, Augustus both integrated the neighborhoods’ religion into the wider contexts of state religion and maintained the traditional practices of compital cult. Neighborhood religion, no longer limited to the sometimes-confrontational midwinter Compitalia, was now closely linked to other civic cults of Lares. Although the neighborhoods show a keen awareness of the importance of dynasty in imperial ideology, they remained thus subdivisions of the city of Rome in both their administrative and religious activities rather than extensions of the emperor’s family region.

EMPEROR

AND

NEIGHBORHOOD

A general thesis of the emperor’s relationship with the vici as social and political groups rather than religious and administrative ones can be succinctly stated. In his essay “How to Study Urban Political Power,” John Mollenkopf argues that such cooption of “movements that challenge urban governments” is one of the central processes of urban politics Over time (1992: 227). On the other hand, Mollenkopf points out

that successful urban governments need “to develop a grassroots base of legitimacy as well as support from elite interests” and “keep potential sources of electoral challenge fragmented or demobilized” (1992: 228). While Mollenkopf is examining electoral politics in American cities, which certainly 1s not analogous to Augustus’ position in Rome, the dual imperatives to co-opt and demobilize nonelite urban residents precisely parallels both earlier failures and Augustus’ success in controlling the vici. In the Late Republic, the reciprocal political power of the neighborhoods and popularis politicians depended on a symbiotic relationship. Popularis leaders courted and used the support of the urban populace, the plebs Romana, to further their political goals. Gratidianus, Manilius, and Clodius had all used, or planned to use, Rome’s 117

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

neighborhoods as such a political base. On the other hand, popularis politicians provided the neighborhood communities with focus and access to the stage of municipal politics. Julius Caesar adhered to the model, and Augustus inherited the popularis ideological program directly from his adoptive father. The first emperor restored Rome’s old neighborhood system, personally endowed the neighborhoods with valuable gifts, and allowed their officers to gain status though participation in civic administration. Whereas the optimates of the Late Republic had feared the compital organizations and their local and civic leaders and tried to curb their influence, Augustus encouraged but redirected them (cf. Galinsky 1996: 300).

It is important to note to what extent the Augustan reforms Balkanized Rome’s neighborhood communities. There are only two scraps of evidence from the Augustan neighborhoods that suggest the collaboration of two or more Augustan vici (Numbers 15, 24). The urban plebs did have in the early empire a collective identity as the plebs of the thirty-five tribes (plebs urbana quinque et triginta tribuum). All Roman citizens were divided into thirty-five tribes for purposes of voting in the tribal assembly.? It is in their incarnation that the urban plebs offered collective honors to the emperor and his family, and we should suppose that such honors were enacted in the tribal assembly, and that they were planned by the tribules in the administrative offices each tribe maintained 1n the city, not in the neighborhoods (Nicolet 1985: 823—

826). When the plebs chose to spontaneously honor Augustus with the title pater patriae in 2 B.C.E., we are told they did so collectively in the circus not in the neighborhoods (Suet. Aug. 58.1). Augustus forced the neighborhoods into a compartmentalized administrative, religious, and honorific structure that effectively prevented any collective action. Indeed the inefficiencies created by such a segregated structure may have been the impetus for transferring responsibility for fighting fires to the vigiles in 6 C.E. Opponents of autonomous local government within cities regularly cite problems arising from the Balkanization of city services. There is certainly reason to believe that a large part of Augustus’ intent in 7 B.C.E. was to enhance his relationship with, strengthen his

control over, and reduce the political power of the urban plebs. Augustus was well aware that the anger of the urban populace could be 118

THE

REFORMS

OF AUGUSTUS

extremely disruptive to civil order and politically hazardous to the new regime. The conflicts of the Late Republic provided ample evidence, and civil violence was certainly not unknown in Augustan Rome either. For example, flood and famine in the winter of

23/22 B.c.k. led

urban populace to demand relief by rounding up the Senate in the Curia and threatening to burn the building over them (Dio 54.1). Au-

gustus personally took over the administration ofthe city’s food supply (a cura annonae) to quell the disturbances. The so-called plot of Egnatius Rufus provides another example of the presumptive political danger to Augustus that the alliance of the fickle urban plebs with another aristocrat represented. The details are murky, but the general outline of the plot is clear (Velleius 2.91.3—2.92; Dio 53.24.46; cf. Raaflaub

and Samons 1990: 427). As aedile Egnatius Rufus organized a private fire brigade at his own expense, and from this initiative gained the support of the urban plebs who elected him praetor. Still relying on his popularity with the urban plebs, Egnatius tried to stand before he was legally eligible for the consulship of 18 B.c.£., but was prevented by the presiding consul from presenting himself as a candidate. Civil disturbances followed, which were so severe that Rufus was arrested

and executed and Augustus was recalled from abroad. When Augustus arrived to settle affairs in the city, there was such relief that an altar to Fortuna Redux (Fortune Returned) was dedicated where he entered the city (LTUR sv. Fortuna Redux, Ara [Coarelli]). However, Rufus’ career path was remarkably similar to that of the Republican popularis Gratidianus, who also attempted to parlay actions popular with the urban populace into higher political office. It must have been clear to Augustus that the loyalty and quietude of the city’s lower classes was anything but secured, especially when the emperor was not present. There is no evidence that neighborhoods were involved in the disturbances of 22 or 19 B.C.E. However, Rufus used the office of aedile,

traditionally closely linked to the vici, to begin his courtship of the urban plebs just as Augustus and Agrippa had earlier in 33 B.c.E. It was not incidental that one duty of civic administration that Augustus assigned to the magistri vici was that of fighting fires. By doing so he co-opted Rufus’ issue and neutralizing it as a vector for garnering political support. In general, Augustus’ reorganization of the neighborhoods in 7 B.c.k. effectively ended the possibility that someone like 119

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

Egnatius Rufus might use Rome’s neighborhoods as a political base from which to advance themselves or oppose the Augustan regime. Augustus curtailed all the traditional routes to power and prestige for Rome’ aristocracy, not just monumental building and triumphs, but also the cultivation of the urban populace that had empowered popularis politicians like Gratidianus, Manilius, and Clodius in the Late

Republic. The relationship between the emperor as patron and the neighborhoods was a reciprocal one that existed within the limits of Augustus’ consensus for his rule. The Augustan neighborhoods for their part placed great emphasis on their relationship with the princeps, not on a municipal scale in elections and organized demonstrations — which were probably completely forbidden — but locally in each individual vicus and neighborhood association. After 7 B.C.E. prominence within a vicus required participation in a neighborhood structure that was built around overt and implied displays of loyalty to the new regime. Leading a neighborhood meant presiding over the worship of the Lares August, so named in honor of the princeps, and participating in the municipal administration of the imperial capital. One important way the magistri vici declared their support for the new regime was through the new altars, shrines, statues, and dedications with which they redecorated

their revived neighborhoods. Not surprisingly, the new compital altars for the Lares Augusti were especially linked to imperial commemoration in form and iconography (see Figures 12-14 for the following discussion of iconography). The Lares Augusti, which appear regularly on the surviving altars from Augustan compita, recalled the emperor’s personal role in the neighborhoods’ revitalization. In addition to the Lares Augusti, compital altars also regularly exhibited a standard collage of easily recognizable images borrowed from the iconography of state monuments and coins. For example, in 27 B.c.E. the Senate voted that along with his new name, Augustus should be allowed to decorate permanently the doorposts to his house with laurels and to place an oak wreath over the door, symbolizing peace, victory, and his protection of Roman citizens.’°° Along with the emperor’s new name, these two honors became well-known and often-repeated visual symbols for the princeps and Principate."*' They were among the most common attributes used by the Roman mint on both the obverse and 120

THE

REFORMS

OF AUGUSTUS

the reverse of coins.'°* Oak wreath and laurels are prominent components of the iconography of every Augustan compital altar, declaring the neighborhoods’ acceptance and participation in the new Augustan ideology

(see Hanno

1986; Lott 1995:

132-137; Alféldi 1973). Also,

since the wreath and laurels were well-publicized decorations associated with the emperor’s personal residence, their use on neighborhood altars might be taken to stand for the emperor’s residence itself. This turns Taylor’s thesis, already rejected, on its head. The slaves and freedmen from the city’s neighborhoods did not become symbolically members of the household of Augustus; rather Augustus became symbolically a resident of every vicus with his residence denoted in the iconography of their central altars. The servile and freed residents of every neighborhood thus sacrificed on his behalf too when they performed the rites of Compitalia on behalf of everyone in the vicus. This suggestion begs the question: What ofthe vicus on the Palatine in which the Domus Augustana actually fell? Surely a typical compital altar representing the emperor’s domus would not do here? I would like to suggest a new interpretation of the old temple for Lares worshipped on June 27. This temple (aedes) was erected sometime before the first century B.C.E. at the top of the Sacra Via (in summa sacra via) where it crossed the hump of the Velia at the future site of the Arch of Titus (LTUR sv. Lares, Aedes [Coarelli]). Augustus restored the temple in 4 B.C.E. (Res Gestae 19). Recall that one of Augustus’ gifts to the city bought with the New Year’s monies thrown into the Lacus Curtius for his welfare was a pair of statues of the Lares Publici (the people’s Lares) erected in 4 B.c.£. (Number 16; Figure 9). Since the inscribed base for this gift was also found at the height of the Sacra Via, the temple and neighborhood gift must be related. Augustus’ house must have belonged to a vicus that corresponded to the street today called the Clivus Palatinus, which ran from the Arch of Titus at the top of

the Sacra Via up the Palatine to Augustus’ house (Figure 10). So at one end of the neighborhood stood the emperor’s dwelling and at the other end the restored temple for the Lares (now called publici) and a compital shrine with a monument for the Lares Publici. Just as the emperor belonged to every neighborhood, the emperor’s neighborhood became a public neighborhood dedicated to the Lares ofall the people, connected both to an historical cult of Lares in the city and to a new I21

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

\

9. Base for statues of the Lares Publici given by Augustus to a neighborhood on the Palatine in 4 B.c.zE. Number

16; Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, inv. 2606;

Fotografia della Soprintendenza Archeologica delle province di Napoli e Caserta ©, neg. 198028.

compital monument donated by the emperor. And June 27 became one of the new city-wide holidays for the restored Lares Augusti. Neighborhood communities were more continuously and actively linked to imperial events and imperial ideology than the replication of imperial iconography like laurels and the oak wreath. The neighborhoods and their officers were finely attuned to important imperial happenings and the nuances of an ever-changing imperial ideology, as we have already seen in the case of the neighborhood that worshipped the Geniuses of the Caesars. Even the lists of consuls and magistri on the Fasti Magistrorum Vici were carefully composed to reflect the rise of the new regime. The list of consuls begins with the first consulship of Augustus in 43 B.C.E., listing the emperor as regular consul (ordinarius) rather than the replacement consul (suffectus) that he actually was (Number 22).'°3 The neighborhood’s interest in imperial affairs 122

THE

REFORMS

OF AUGUSTUS

10. Map showing the route of the Sacra Via across the Palatine. The intersection of the street leading across the Palatine with the Sacra Via, where Augustus’ gift of statues of the Lares Publici was found, is marked with an arrow. After Haselberger and Romano 2002: 1:3000 scale map, number 227.

in the city was more than historical. The distribution over time of the twenty-eight dated compital inscriptions attests a more than casual attention to, and alignment with, contemporary happenings of imperial, not neighborhood, significance. These inscriptions, which come

from expensive gifts of magistri vici to their neighborhoods, cluster not only as one would expect in 7 B.c.E. (between seven and nine dedications) but also, and less predictably, in 2 B.c.£. (at least five dedications, possibly eight) (Table 2). 2 B.c.E. was a watershed year for Augustus 123

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

TABLE 2. Number ofDedications by Neighborhood Officers per Year Year

Number

(numbers (numbers (numbers (numbers (numbers (numbers

AO iyCEtLe Neate i OHH ues

Sil BCA. 2D IC. 21 BiGsEs) 1 WC sait

Reference

Wear 2

NEA 22 MeZbe Se Yean.Os Cae Mearea2

s—IT) 12—13) 14, 16) 17-20, probably 15) 21-23) 24—25)

2), (Cathe Mere t3)2

(number 26) (number 27) (number 28)

=o (Cline Sieehe OP 3—4 C.B.; Year 10: AS GE Near LW: S SONGsEne Vearae) O—7aEe cata 7-8 GE.) Year 14 8=9 C.E.: Year 15 Q—I0 C.E.: Year 16 O-line © Bem Cavanin: Ti1 JuCBee Vearas: 1213) CH eeVeATehO: 13—I4 C.E.: Year 20:

(number 29) (number 30) (number 3r) CY) te) J) teh Ota) Sy We es) sy 1) eh toh fal ©

(cf. Syme 1974). He was titled pater patriae and dedicated the temple of Mars Ultor in the Forum Augustum with lavish spectacles led by his adopted sons Gaius and Lucius Caesar. The clustering of compital dedications in this year shows a desire on the part of the neighborhoods to have their monuments correspond with these important imperial events. Beyond chronological correspondence, neighborhood monuments could consciously recall in their local context specific events of imperial import. For example, in 1 c.k£., L. Lucretius Zethus, a magister from a neighborhood on the northern Campus Martius dedicated for his neighborhood an altar collectively to the same gods who received attention as part of Augustus’ celebration of the Secular Games of 17 B.C.£. The Secular games, which declared the beginning of anew age — tacitly recognized in the new era used by the neighborhoods — played a central role in defining the ideals and ideology of the Augustan Principate (Palmer 1990: 18-28). Zethus proudly reflected on a local level this imperial event that had occurred nearby. 124

THE

REFORMS

OF AUGUSTUS

A more elaborate example was connected with the important events of 2 B.c.B. In 2 B.c.B. the magistri of the Vicus Sandaliarius, which at some time received one of Augustus’ gifts of valuable statues, donated a new altar to their neighborhood’s compitum (see Figure 14). One side and the rear of the altar depict scenes familiar from the iconography of the compital cults: The back shows the oak wreath and laurels and one side the two Lares Augusti of the neighborhood. The other side, however, depicts the goddess Victory, a seemingly unlikely choice for an urban neighborhood, and the scene on the front of the altar is unique. It shows three figures, two males and one female. The left-hand figure 1s recognizable as the princeps Augustus himself.'°¢ The central male holds an augural wand and a chicken pecks at his feet. These attributes identify him as an augur and military commander with imperium able to hold the tripudium, the augury that foretold the army’s success or failure from the way chickens ate. This figure is Augustus’ adopted son, Gaius Caesar. The female on the right is probably Augustus’ wife Livia."°> The inscription of Augustus’ name in the middle of the scene as part of a consular date dispels any doubts about the imperial associations of the scene, and we do not have to look far for

an explanation of the composition. In 2 B.c.£., the same year that the Vicus Sandaliarius dedicated its new altar, Augustus officially opened and dedicated his new forum, the Forum Augusti with its centerpiece temple of Mars Ultor, the god of war. The magnificent games and entertainment that accompanied the dedication ensured that the urban populace remembered the occasion for years to come (Suet. Aug. 29.2; Dio $5.10.2—5). As part of the ceremonies, Augustus transferred several

important military rites, including the taking of the military auguries, from the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitolium to the new temple of Mars (Bonneford 1987).'°° Finally, Augustus’ oldest adopted son Gaius Caesar, who had presided over much of the dedicatory celebration with his younger brother Lucius Caesar, was set to depart to the East for his first independent military command immediately following the dedication of the temple. On their altar the magistri of the Vicus Sandaliarius deliberately mirrored the important military and dynastic connotations of the dedication of the temple of Mars Ultor in 2 B.c.z. The goddess victory and the holding of a military augury recognized the centering of military religion on Augustus’ 125

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

Forum and the new temple of Mars. The imperial family group (Augustus, Livia, and Gaius) recalled the importance of Gaius’ entry into public service in the dynastic ideology of the Augustan Principate. Finally, in addition to identifying the figure of Augustus, the unusually emphatic position of the consular date on the altar accented the fact that Augustus held the consulship in 2 B.c.£. for the first time since 23 B.C.E. in order to preside over Gaius’ entry into public life. The care that the Vicus Sandaliarius paid to the precise ideological nuances of the events of 2 B.c.E. demonstrates an astonishing desire on the part of the new neighborhoods to participate in the new imperial scheme and to demonstrate their loyalty to Augustus and his family. Their acceptance both validated the imperial vision and linked the neighborhoods to important imperial events. However, the neighborhoods decision to commemorate locally certain imperial events was not driven simply by imperial concerns. Both the neighborhood of Zethus on the Campus Martius and the Vicus Sandaliarius chose to commemorate events that had occurred in or near the physical territory of their respective neighborhoods. Magistri of these and other neighborhoods consciously picked events with local resonance in order to appeal to the knowledge and local pride of their fellow residents as much as to the emperor. In this way the neighborhoods and officers drew local prestige and pride from impressive imperial spectacles rather than simply commemorating them. The consideration of such neighborhood monuments within the local context of vicus and neighborhood community is the subject of the next chapter.

CONCLUSION

The articulation through this chapter of a complex set of political, ideological, and administrative relations between neighborhood and city and between neighbor and emperor leads to one final question: Did the Augustan reforms significantly alter the relationship between the neighborhoods and neighborhood associations and the civic administration and government ofthe city? The neighborhood’s political relationship with the emperor was not parallel to the relationship between neighborhoods and politicians in the late Republic. The issue is more than one ofscale — many competing patrons vs. one uncontested 126

THE

REFORMS

OF AUGUSTUS

patron for the whole city; the Augustan neighborhoods were removed from the active “politicking” of the late Republic into a more bureaucratic role in the administration of the city. The neighborhoods, while constantly recognizing the new imperial system and honoring the emperor, were not engaged in trying to promote the emperor’s career. The vici erected statues of Marius Gratidianus and Sulla in the city’s streets and turned out as violent voters for later politicians such as Clodius. Augustus needed no such help or recognition. As far as we know, no Augustan neighborhood ever erected a statue of the emperor at all and the emperor called upon the vici not for political support but for help in admunistering the city’s food and water supply, for policing the streets, and for fighting fires. The “bureaucratization” of the neighborhoods within the system of urban praetor, official curatores, and regionary magistrates was the first step in changing magistri vici from leaders of local communities into the administrative bureaucrats that they later became. The new upward responsibilities given the magistri vici to an overarching organization of the city fundamentally changed their social position both in relation to the city as a whole and in relation to their individual neighborhoods. As a result, the contrived aspects of the vici, now limited narrowly to civic religion, imperial honorific, and urban administration, begin to overshadow the natural. The utility to the emperor of the new circumstances 1s clear in terms of both public order and loyalty and the maintenance of the city. It is interesting to note in preview of the following chapter that it was the legitimization and systemization of the neighborhood associations by a new public role that enabled the monumentalization of neighborhood spaces in the reign of Augustus. Neighbors now participated openly in the creation for their portion of the urbs of a monumental vision that existed in concert with rather than in opposition to the imperial vision of the capital. It is the physical remains of these monuments, which reified the neighborhoods’ new position in the city, that allow us to undertake a detailed examination of the Augustan neighborhoods.

127;

THE ARTIFACTS

OM NGIGHyOrt

Oop

CULTURE

his chapter sets aside the general perspective of the previous chapter to focus on the local places, monuments, and communities that made up the neighborhoods of Augustan Rome. It is easy to forget that the vici were themselves focal points of complex and distinctive communities and not just indistinct parts of a larger system of civic administration and imperial honorific. It 1s important to remember that, as D. Timms puts it, “the urban community 1s neither an undifferentiated mass nor a haphazard collage of buildings and people”; it is through residential differentiation in particular that the urban fabric of the city comes to be a “mosaic of social worlds” (Timms 1971: 1; cf. Wirth 1938). At Rome important cultural factors

such as occupation, ethnic background, and even language helped to isolate Rome’s neighborhoods from one another. Although this had been the case during the Republic as well, the lack of collective action and an expressed collective identity was a fundamental characteristic of the Augustan neighborhoods and their officers. This chapter pursues two specific goals: first to examine the urban spaces and physical artifacts that, besides the names of individuals and neighborhoods, are all that remain to us from the Augustan vici; and

second to investigate public life and social organization in the new neighborhood communities. Corresponding to these two goals, both spatial/topographical and chronological/historical arguments are employed. The importance of studying the public spaces of the vici in order to understand their public culture is aptly expressed by Sharon Zukin in her study of the culture of cities:

THE

ARTIFACTS

OF NEIGHBORHOOD

CULTURE

I also see public culture as socially constructed on the micro-level. It is produced by the many social encounters that make up daily life the streets, shops, and parks — the spaces in which we experience public life in cities. The right to be in these spaces, to use them in certain ways, to invest them with a sense

of our selves and our communities make up a constantly changing public culture. People with economic and political power have the greatest opportunity to shape public culture by controlling the building of the city’s public spaces in stone and concrete. Yet public space is inherently democratic (Zukin 1995:

135).

The monuments of the vici, standing in the interstices between imperial monuments, provide insight into public space and public culture at Rome. In particular, the inscribed gifts of ambitious magistri to their neighborhoods illuminates an agonistic political culture centered on the bustling spaces of the neighborhoods’ compita. This culture utilized the new visual rhetoric of imperial honorific but was centered in individual neighborhoods and served to promote magistri vici within the limited spatial and social context of the vicus. Emphasis is placed squarely on the complex and highly politicized neighborhood voluntary associations and the actions of their officers, the magistri vici. A broader picture of neighborhood culture and society would necessarily include a number of other important formal and informal interactions among residents — for example, friendship, trade, or the use of commu-

nal resources — that can be perceived only dimly through the evidence at hand. Nevertheless, the actions of the neighborhood associations speak to all three metrics that William Julius Wilson suggests for examining the strength of neighborhood society, first the prevalence and activity of social networks, second the level of collective supervision residents exercise over neighborhood society and issues, and third the rate of participation, amount of time and effort expended, and amount of social status given to formal and voluntary association (Wilson 1996: 119). The evidence reveals a localized public culture in which local residents did affect their immediate surroundings, if always

within the larger social context of their symbolic relationship with the emperor and the larger physical context of Augustus’ massive urban monuments.

129

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

THINK

GLOBALLY,

OF AUGUSTAN

ACT

ROME

LOCALLY

The last chapter argued that there was a powerful reciprocal relationship between ruler and plebs enabled and symbolized by the revitalized Augustan vici. This argument should not be overstated, however, or allowed to de-emphasize the essentially local nature of the Augustan neighborhoods. There is no doubt that the real interactions of the neighborhoods and neighborhood officers with Augustus were an important aspect of the life and culture of the vici. Nevertheless, imperial commemoration intended primarily to gain the goodwill of the emperor was not the only — and probably not even the most — significant aspect of life in Rome’s neighborhoods. We cannot say how often Augustus actually visited any one vicus to view its commemorative monuments and to be impressed by its loyalty, but after the initial gift-visit an imperial presence must have been exceedingly rare in any vicus. Because all the surviving neighborhood monuments were strongly associated with imperial commemoration and closely attuned to imperial ideology, it is easy to be lulled into believing that an oftenactualized relationship existed between vici and princeps, rather than a largely symbolic one, and that this relationship provided the social purpose for the neighborhoods to the exclusion of all others. However, when Suetonius reports the reciprocal New Year’s gifts between emperor and urban populace, he also makes clear the symbolic rather than real nature of the interaction (Aug. $7; cf Dio $4.35.2).

When the people gave him the New Year’s gifts he turned into statues for the neighborhoods, Augustus was himself often not even in Rome. This is confirmed by the fact that three of the surviving five inscriptions from Augustus’ gifts of statues vicatim explicitly state that Augustus was not present when the people gave him the money that he used to pay for the neighborhood statues.'°? We may assume that the emperor was also not often present in person to bestow his reciprocal gift of a statue on some individual neighborhood. Nor does the evidence suggest that every neighborhood received such an imperial donation, though every neighborhood did receive statues of the Lares Augusti. These reciprocal gifts from the emperor seem to have been reserved for prominent neighborhoods and associated with imperial building projects. This exclusivity probably made the New Year’s statues a mark 130

THE

ARTIFACTS

OF NEIGHBORHOOD

CULTURE

of pride for those neighborhoods that had them and a matter of envy for those that did not. The neighborhood in the Subura that received a statue of Mercurius certainly displayed it prominently at their crossroads. However, this pride expressed itself along a horizontal social axis, vis-a-vis other neighborhoods, not upward toward the emperor. S. Treggiari has pointed out that Augustus reinforced the distinctions among Rome’s social classes, which could only have separated him from the freedmen and slaves who participated in compital activities (1996). Recall that as part of his reforms Augustus limited the rights of magistri vici to dress as free-born municipal magistrates, thus ensuring that their proper station in society was disturbed as little as possible without completely withdrawing privileges inherited by the magistri vici from their Republican counterparts (Dio $55.8.6—7). If, then, we reject the view that the Augustan neighborhoods were engaged either in purely upward-looking commemoration of the emperor or in the familial duties of extended members of the emperor’s household (as Taylor and Fraschetti would argue), then a new interpretive model for understanding the local political culture of the neighborhoods is required. Two revealing analogies suggest themselves: first the agonistic politics of the Republican political elite; and second the municipal

constructions of the Italian and provincial elite in the Augustan era. At its highest levels, the government of the Roman Republic (traditionally s09—31

B.C.E.) was an aristocracy that can perhaps best be

characterized as an ongoing competition among a political elite for status among their peers and popularity with the populace of Rome in general. Aspiring statesmen from the senatorial families that virtually monopolized public office waged this competition not just through their performance in official posts, but also through various forms of public spectacle and display, which served to translate wealth and success into social prestige and popular approval. Two examples are well-known: First, in the triumph, the public celebration of military

victory awarded by the senate, a successful general paraded through the streets of Rome accompanied by his troops, captives, and booty.

Second, Roman senators advertised themselves in a more enduring fashion by permanently reshaping the city form of Rome itself. Ambitious senators monumentalized the public spaces of the city with temples, markets, porticoes, bridges, and aqueducts that improved the 131

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

city’s administration and infrastructure. Such construction turned the cityscape of Republican Rome into an agonistic space where aristocrats built structures that competed ahistorically with one another just as their builders did for prestige, fame, and status (cf. Favro 1996: 45-50). When in 27 B.c.£. Octavian, the ultimate victor of the civil

wars that destroyed the Republic, set aside the vengeful and competitive partisan politics that had blighted the final years of the Republic and became Augustus the princeps, the old oligarchic government of Republican Rome ended. The aristocratic competition for status and popularity was won, or as one scholar has put it, “relative political equality was destroyed” (Eck 1984: 130). Over time, the new emperor Augustus, who ruled until his death in 14 c.£., deprived Rome’s aristo-

crats of independent executive and military positions and forbade them access to many of the means ofpublic display and spectacle that might have enhanced their reputation or suggested competition with the new imperial family. Under Augustus both triumphs and large-scale public monumental building at Rome came to be restricted to the emperor and his family, as all other noble families were made subordinate to the ruling dynasty.'°* The competition did not end everywhere — it may even have intensified in some places as towns across the empire became more prosperous under Augustus — but it did adapt itself everywhere to the new political realities of the Empire. Local municipal elites employed the new visual, religious, and festival rhetoric of imperial commemoration, which they had often learned through service to the emperor, on behalf of their cities. For example, embassies to seek imperial benefactions often coincided with the creation of new priesthoods, festivals, and temples for the emperor (Price 1984: 243-244). However,

such innovations must also be understood as communicating peer to peer within the local community. Serving as priest of Augustus did honor the emperor but also advanced one’s own local political career. Construction by the municipal elite of the well-known town of Pompeu, which like Rome underwent major alterations in the reign of Augustus, exemplifies the point. Let us begin with one monument in particular, the so-called building of Eumachia. In 3 c.f. Eumachia, the

matriarch ofa leading family in Pompeii and civic priestess ofan imperial cult, constructed a large public building fronting on the Pompeian 132

THE

ARTIFACTS

OF NEIGHBORHOOD

CULTURE

forum, the city’s most important civic space.'°? We can still read the dedicatory inscription from over the entrances to the building: Eumachia daughter of Lucius, public priestess, in her own name and that of her son Marcus Numistrius Fronto constructed from her own money and dedicated this porch, hall, and colonnade to Concordia Augusta and Pictas.

The dedication is to two gods important to the new regime, Concordia Augusta and Pietas, and the building centered on a statue group of the imperial family that matched a statue of Eumachia to one of Livia, the emperor’s wife. Eumachia’s construction carefully evoked in function, form, and decoration several major Augustan monuments at Rome. The emperor’s wife Livia and her son Tiberius had presented their own portico for Concordia to Rome in 7 B.c.£.'7' The statuary program of Eumachia’s building quoted directly from the statues of the summi viri in Augustus’ forum at Rome.'” Finally, the monumental doorway of Eumachia’s building was superbly carved with an acanthus scroll inhabited by birds, insects, and small animals, which clearly depended on the lower friezes of Augustus’ Altar of Peace at Rome. That monument too had as a major theme the matching of civil concord and the flourishing of the city’s patron family. The building was unquestionably a monument of imperial commemoration and imitation much like the monuments of Rome’s neighborhoods, though on a grander scale. However, P. Zanker has rightly pointed out that the building of Eumachia was not simply an act of loyalty directed toward Rome and the Emperor (1988a: 320-321, 1998: 81-102). Rather it was one piece of an ongoing competition among the leading families of Pompeii to adorn their city with glorious buildings and thus to gain political clout and social recognition locally. A list of important building projects of the Augustan age at Pompeii would also include the Temple of Fortuna Augusta built by M. Tullius, the rebuilt theatre commissioned by two members of the Holconii family, and other large and small projects inspired by imperial models at Rome.'7? The new buildings were integrated into the Pompeian townscape and were intended to competitively promote their builders with the residents of Pompei as much as to impress the emperor with their builders’ loyalty. In a very real way imperial 133

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

commemoration, while undoubtedly present, was not the primary intention of the Pompeian benefactors, but rather provided them a visual and architectural “vocabulary” for promoting themselves locally within the broader context of commemorating the new regime. After all, there is no evidence that the emperor Augustus ever visited Pompeu. To understand the social and political purpose of the building of Eumachia it is just as important to consider it within the context of Pompeian society and the development of monumental architecture at Pompeii as it is to link it to Augustan ideology through imperial buildings at Rome. Eumachia carefully fine-tuned her use of commemorative motifs to better promote herself. Her mother-and-son dedication to Concordia mirrored the mother-and-son dedication of the Porticus of Livia to Concordia mentioned above. Thus Eumachia implicitly compares her own place and that of her son in Pompeii to the position of the Emperor’s wife and her son in Rome. The building suggested that the civic harmony and success of Pompeii depended on Eumachia and her son just as that of Rome depended on Livia and her son. By mimicking Livia’s own model of commemorative action, Eumachia represented herself as an important patron to the people of Pompeii, who were the ones who saw and used the building, and maintained the context of demonstrating loyalty to the new regime.

Just like the municipal elite of Pompeii and also of Republican Rome, the Augustan magistri vici spent a great deal of energy and money bestowing monuments and physical improvements on their compitum and vicus, though the impressiveness of neighborhood monuments was limited by expense among other factors. Indeed the material evidence for Rome’s compita is fuller than one might expect because the Augustan reorganization stimulated in the revitalized vici a period of energetic building activity. In 7 B.c.z. Augustus himself provided all the neighborhoods with their new cult images of the Lares Augusti. However, the statuettes were probably publicly displayed only a few times a year, on special occasions like the Compitalia and Augustus’ two new festivals. As with the valuable cult statues of state temples, the small statuettes of the Lares Augusti would normally have been locked up in their shrines. The neighborhoods did find ways to call

134

THE

ARTIFACTS

OF NEIGHBORHOOD

CULTURE

attention to the imperial gifts they had received, such as depicting the Lares Augusti on their altars or mentioning them in public inscriptions like the heading of the Fasti Magistrorum Vici. Still, neither the magistri nor the neighborhood residents probably had direct contact with the emperor's gifts on a day-to-day basis. What were more regularly accessible and viewable at the compita were public monuments that, as their inscriptions attest, neighborhood officers acting alone or collegially commissioned and paid for at the local level. These included the shrines (aediculae) for the Lares Augusti erected in many Augustan neighborhoods, the altars for the cult that stood outside, and other monuments that reflected the neighborhoods’ religious interests and administrative duties. (The evidence for the existence of Augustan aedicula rests largely on later epigraphic records of their repair [Numbers 36—47].) Moreover, the new physical monuments of the vici did not exist in a vacuum. Context and meaning were constantly created around them by the day-to-day activities of residents, by the rituals of neighborhood religion, by the official activities of the neighborhood associations such as fire fighting, and by the political ambitions of neighborhood leaders. Despite their display of carefully chosen visual vocabulary of imperial honorific, the meaning so created around neighborhood monuments was largely local, embedded in a local “neighborhoodscape” and local neighborhood culture. Indeed, given the gulf of status between neighborhood and emperor, it is easy to understand that the magistri vici and the neighborhoods were not aiming primarily to impress the emperor with their public beneficence and beliefin Augustan ideals through their monuments — after all, how often did the emperor see what they had made? I will argue that their construction was driven by the desire of local leaders to present themselves to their neighbors and to exalt their neighborhood over others as much as by an abstract need to honor the emperor. The monuments of the Augustan neighborhoods can, then, inform us about the rela-

tionship between the emperor and the people, but also about public life within Rome’s neighborhoods. The remainder of this chapter focuses on individual places, monuments, and people in order to uncover and investigate these strategies for self-promotion. The argument begins by recontextualizing the new neighborhood altars erected for the Lares Augusti discussed in the last chapter. Next it considers how an 135

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

agonistic political culture was reflected in the “neighborhoodscapes” of two particular neighborhoods. Finally, the career of an individual neighborhood officer (magister vici) 1s examined.

ALTARS

IN THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

In 7 B.c.k. every neighborhood needed new sacred furniture for its new Lares Augusti. This seems to have regularly been a small decorated square or rectangular marble altar. Earlier shrines for neighborhood Lares had probably been much less expensive framed wall paintings like the lararia familiar from houses and streets in Pompeu (cf. Boyce 1937; Bakker 1994: 125-127). Indeed Naevius gives us a derogatory

description of a painter painting such a shrine on Compitalia, “Do you compare Theodotous with Apelles? Theodotus who, while sitting in a closet screened round with mats, painted on Compitalia the Lares at play?’'7* The new Augustan compital monuments for the Lares Augusti were more public, more expensive, and more impressive. Five compital altars for the Lares Augusti that are securely from the reign of Augustus are known (Numbers 7, 20, 23, 26, 27; Figures 11—13).

A further eight altars, mostly fragmentary, possibly belonged to the Lares Augusti of the Augustan neighborhoods (Numbers s5—62). Even if all thirteen altars are Augustan and compital, only a small percentage of the neighborhood altars have survived.'?> The small decorated square altar was developed as a new monumental form in the Late Republic, undoubtedly linked to increasing exploitation of the Luna marble quarries which supplied the stone for all our compital altars. Our altars are all of similar size and all borrow consciously from imperial motifs associated with the city for their basic decorative themes. Hano (1986) charts the regular appearance of Lares Augusti, laurel branches, oak wreath, and sacrificing magistri on the altars; Zanker (1970-1971) argues in particular that the regular structure and elements

of the sacrifice scenes point to some formal mechanism to supply the vici from a limited number of dedicated workshops familiar with the basic form. However,

the altars were not of any standard, mandated

composition. Rather, they combined, arranged, and emphasized their consistent elements in different ways, as well as incorporating unique elements related to the individual neighborhoods in which they stood 136

THE

ARTIFACTS

OF NEIGHBORHOOD

CULTURE

or important current events. This limited variety of composition is a manifestation both of the culture of local neighborhood competition and of the financial and ideological constraints placed upon the competition. As with other neighborhood monuments, the neighborhood officers, freedmen magistri and slave ministri, commissioned and paid for the new altars. In the last chapter I discussed the altars’ resonance with imperial ideology as a sign of a reciprocal relationship between princeps and vicus, and others have examined their iconography with an eye to the reflection of imperial ideology (cf. Hano 1986). Now I would like to reexamine five altars within the context of local neighborhoods and the local competition for prestige among magistri.

Altar from the Vicus Statae Matris The plainest example demonstrates that these altars reflected local concerns as well as imperial ones. In year 6 (2/1 B.c.E.) the ministri of the Vicus Statae Matris gave their neighborhood a new altar, which they decorated simply with branches of laurel, a patera, and an oak wreath (Number 23; Figure 1r).'7° On the front of the altar they inscribed For the Lares Augusti. The ministri of year 6 Felix slave of L. Crautanius Florus slave of Sex. Avienius Eudoxsus slave of C. Caesius

Polyclitus slave of Sex. Ancharius.

Later a second inscription was added on the rear ofthe altar, which was not originally designed to bear a text (Gatti 1906). The stonecutter had to awkwardly squish with confusing ligatures the second text above and below the patera that takes up most of this face of the altar. The new inscription reads,

For the Lares Augusti of the Vicus Statae Matris.

The ministri of year 6 vacat L. and N. Savoni Felix slave of L. Crautanius Ptolomaeus vacat 137

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

Eudoxsus slave of C. Caesius Niger Polyclitus slave of Sex. Ancharius Faustus.

The new information identifies the specific neighborhood that the ministri served, as well as more fully identifying the ministri themselves by their owners’ full names. One of the original four, Florus, is left off

the new inscription and a space left blank for the addition of his name later or perhaps of anew name. Maybe Florus had died in the period between the two inscriptions and was going to be replaced by another minister who had not yet been chosen. The addition of the two Savoni (or perhaps of their slave, whose name was never added?) adds to the confusion. Both inscriptions on the altar largely parallels the monumental dedicatory inscriptions from state monuments of the Republic and Empire, which also ensured that a donor got credit for his generosity. The dedicatory inscription was an integral part of how Roman monuments were experienced; passersby would know to read a monument’s monumental text, and expect to find there certain information presented according to recognizable formulas. Ovid confirms the importance of such monumental inscriptions and reveals some of their significance in his treatment of Augustus’ new temple of Mars Ultor, in which he fancifully describes Mars’ first visit to his new home. Mars passes through Augustus’ Forum and pauses outside the temple at the far end to survey its various decorations. As part of Mars’ inspection, “He sees the name of Augustus on the front of the temple and after reading Caesar’s name the building seems to him even greater.” "77 In this passage Ovid reverses the normal relationship between a building and the benefactor: The name of Augustus, present in the dedicatory inscription, increases the prestige of the temple rather than the impressive temple increasing the prestige of its builder. The ministri clearly understood the connection between inscribed name and gift. On the altar of the Vicus Statae Matris, the original inscription may not have been

clear enough,

so the ministri had a

more informative version added to secure the connection between themselves and their gift. Since it 1s hard to believe that the more precise versions of the slaves’ names would have made them more identifiable to anyone beyond their immediate neighbors or that the re-inscription 138

THE

ARTIFACTS

a)

OF NEIGHBORHOOD

CULTURE

|

b)

11. Altar for the Lares Augusti given to the Vicus Statae Matris by four ministri vici. a) Front (unaltered) inscribed face showing the names of four ministri within a corona civica. b) Side showing a branch of laurel. Number

2144; DAI © negg. 35.210—211

23; Rome,

Museo

Nuovo,

inv.

Faraglia.

added any force to the commemorative value of the monument, the costly addition must have been aimed locally at the other residents of the Vicus Statae Matris. The new inscription might also reflect a change in the altar’s location or orientation, or a change in the buildings and streets that surrounded it. If the original inscription was hidden or obscured, the ministri may have commissioned the new one to ensure the visibility of their names. The ministri of year 6 evidently thought the expense worthwhile, even though it could hardly have enhanced their relationship with the emperor. The ministri might also have decided to add the name of the neighborhood because of the growing importance of the goddess Stata Mater in local compital religion, which is discussed below.

139

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

Vatican Inventory 311 The earliest surviving example of an Augustan compital altar, dated to year 1 of the new era, comes from an unknown neighborhood, perhaps from the Caelian in Regio II (Number 7, Figure 12). The altar, which is now in the Vatican Museum, was inscribed in large letters “sacred to the Lares Augusti and the Genius of the Caesars.” Below in smaller letters are the fragmentary names of the four dedicators, who identified themselves proudly as “the first officers who entered office on August 1.” That is, these were the first officers of this neighborhood after the Augustan reorganization. We may expect that they were the wealthiest, most prominent residents of the neighborhood, at least within the social spectrum of freedmen and slaves that characterized the participants in Augustan neighborhood organizations. In addition to the inscription, the decorations in relief on all four sides of the altar are of particular interest here. The front shows the Genius of the Caesars standing beside two Lares. This is the only Augustan compital altar on which a serious togate Genius appears alongside the Lares Augusti.'7* The Genius holds a patera in one hand, and probably held a now lost cornucopia in the other. The two youthful Lares dance and hold rhytons.'7? The presence of the Genius on this altar — either the Genius of the Caesars or the Genius of Caesar and his children — must reflect an individual choice on the part of this neighborhood rather than an official mandate to worship the emperor’s Genius. The two sides ofthe altar lack any direct commemorative references to the princeps. Each side shows a pair of togate men standing at an altar while a flautist plays in the background, signaling that a sacrifice is underway. All together these four officiates must be the four officers who commissioned the altar shown in the act of performing cult at it for the Lares Augusti. Sacrifice scenes were common fare in the iconography of Roman altars and religious architecture in general. They provided a permanent visual representation of the rites that actually occurred at the altar only rarely. However, even if the sacrifice scenes on the altar (as well as those on other compital altars) are less than unique, they still contain individualized elements that illuminate the neighborhood communities that created them. The repetition of

140

c) 12. Altar for the Lares Augusti and G[enii Caesar]um(?) given to a neighborhood by four magistri vici primi in 7 B.C.E. a) Front showing two Lares Augusti, a Genius (?), and two laurel branches. The damaged inscription identifies names the dedicants and the magistri. b—c) Two sides each showing a pair of magistri sacrificing at a small square altar while flautist plays in the background. Number 7; Rome, Museo Vaticano, inv. 311; DAI © negg. 34.73-75 Faraglia.

I4I

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

the identical scene on two sides of the altar shows that it was important to represent all four magistri at their gift just as it was important to list all four magistri in the inscription. This created a clear context out of a generic composition: neighborhood officers performing cult in their neighborhood. The inscription provided an even more specific context for the scenes, identifying the four officers shown by name. The depiction of collegial magistrates acting collegially, not common in Roman relief before the reign of Augustus, probably owes something to collegial groups on Augustus’ Altar of Peace.

Altar of the Vicus Aesculeti The sacrifice scene as a specific representation of the compital cult within a neighborhood appears in a more developed form on the altar of the Vicus Aescleti, which was dedicated in 2 C.£. in the Vicus

Aescleti on the westernmost edge of the Campus Martius (Number 26; Figure 13). The altar has been recomposed from fragments and much of its present aspect is unsure. However, we can say that the altar was inscribed to the Lares Augusti on its front, and the names of the four officers who presented the altar appear one on each side. In a reversal of the program on the Vatican altar, the two sides of the altar each show one of the neighborhood’s statues of the Lares Augusti holding a laurel branch. A complex sacrifice scene representing the cult performed at the altar has been promoted to the larger rear face of the monument. In the scene, the four magistri stand together at an altar, two to a side. Attendants bring forward the victims, a sow and a bull, and a flute player plays in the background. A lictor with his bundle of rods stands in the background to the left. The scene contains much that is specific to compital cult. Here the magistri are wearing the special togas allowed to them during sacrifices in their neighborhood. Neighborhood officers performing their duties were also allowed the use of lictors. The pig was a proper lustral sacrifice for Lares, and the bull is a ubiquitous victim in Augustan art."° 13. Altar for the Lares Augusti given to the Vicus Aesculeti by four magistri vici. a) Front showing a sacrifice scene led by four magistri vici. A flautist and lictor stand in the background. Two sacrificial victims, a bull and a sow, are placed diminutively

142

c) 13. (continued) along with handlers in the foreground. b-c) Sides each showing a statuette of one of the Lares Augusti holding a laurel branch. d) Rear showing a heavily damaged corona civica. Number 26; Rome, Museo Nuovo, inv. 855; DAI © negg. 60.1472,

1247,

1471, 1248 Koppermann.

143

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

The expensive animal victims for the sacrifice are unnaturally small so as not to hide the magistri, who are clearly the central focus of the scene.

Altar of the Vicus Sandaliarius The Vicus Sandaliarius was an old street and neighborhood in Regio IV (LTUR sv. Vicus Sandaliarius [Coarelli]). It was near the temple of Tellus. The Regionary catalogues place the statue of Apollo Sandaliarius that Augustus donated to the neighborhood between the Bucinum and the temple of Tellus, the Horrea Chartaria, and the Tigillum Soro-

rium. The ancient street may have corresponded to a section of the Northern Via del Colosseo. (The Tigillum Sororium, the last landmark in the list, stood near the Vicus Compiti Acili at the Northeast end of the Via del Colosseo where it meets the Via della Polveriera.) The neighborhood was at some time a preferred haunt of booksellers. In 2 B.c.E. the magistri provided their neighborhood with a new central altar, on which their names were of course inscribed, “D. Oppius C. l(ibertus) Ias6, D. Lucilius D. l(ibertus) Salvius, L. Brinnius C. l(ibertus) Princeps, L. Farius L. labertus) Salvius” (Number 20). The four magistri decorated the front face of their altar with a scene that is unique among compital altars: three members of the imperial dynasty stand side by side, Augustus, Gaius Caesar, and Livia. Augustus’ heir Gaius Caesar stands between his adoptive parents and holds an augural wand (lituus); a chicken pecks at his feet (Figure 14). The scene refers to the dedication of the emperor’s new temple of Mars Ultor also in 2 B.c.E. and Gaius Caesar’s imminent departure for the East on his first military command. In the last chapter I used this unusual composition to argue that the Augustan vici paid remarkably close attention to imperial events and to the ever-changing nuances of imperial ideology. In particular, the scene shows a subtle understanding of complex adjustments that Augustus made to the religious rites of war in conjunction with his new temple of Mars. The neighborhoods were particularly concerned with the politics of dynasty and with the emperor's heirs Gaius and Lucius Caesar, and later Tiberius, Germanicus, and Drusus Caesar in particular.

144

14. Altar for the Lares Augusti given to the Vicus Sandaliarius by four magistri vici in 2 B.C.E. a) Front showing Augustus the emperor flanked by Livia and Gaius. b) Side showing two Lares Augusti. c) Side showing Victory with shield and trophy. d) Rear showing corona civica, laurel branches, and sacrificial implements. Number 20; Florence, Uffizi, inv. 972; DAI © negg. 65.2155, 75.291, 75-294, 59.68 Koppermann, Rossa.

145

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

However, the unique scene shows us another way the local concerns of neighborhood identity and prestige could be embedded in the larger context of imperial honorific. The Vicus Sandaliarius and the compital precinct that housed its new altar abutted the Forum Augusti with its new temple of Mars Ultor. Moreover, the new altar was dedicated in the same year — very possibly near the same time — as Augustus’ grand celebration for his new forum and temple. The coincidence of space and time created an implicit link between Augustus as the benefactor of the city and empire and the officers of the Vicus Sandaliarius as the benefactors oftheir neighborhood. The connection is strengthened by the explicit reference to events surrounding the opening of Augustus’ forum on the primary relief of the compital altar.

Ara Augusta of Lucretius Zethus This stratagem was not isolated to altars for the Lares Augusti. In 1 C.E., a magister from a neighborhood on the northwestern Campus Martius, L. Lucretius Zethus, donated an altar to his neighborhood

(Palmer 1990: 18-28). A long inscription found near the Tiber bank records the gift (Number 25; Figure 15): Sacred to the eternal god Jupiter, Juno Regina, Minerva, Sol, Luna, Apollo,

Diana, Fortuna, Juno Lucina, Ops, Isis Pelagia and the Divine Fates. May things be good, propitious, and lucky for the Imperator Caesar Augustus, his Genius and that of the Senate and Roman people and for all peoples. With the ninth year going well, when Gaius Caesar and Lucius Paullus were consuls, L. Lucretius Zethus, freedman of Lucius, established this august altar

at the command ofJupiter.

The location of the neighborhood is important to understanding the significance of Zethus’ gift. The vicus, whose name is not recorded, lay at the extreme end of the Campus Martius near an area called the Tarentum where many of the rituals for the Secular Games were held. The multiple deities Zethus chose for his altar correspond almost precisely to the gods cultivated during Augustus’ celebration of the Secular Games in 17 B.c.£. Even the formal prayer language of Zethus’ inscription — quod bonum, faustum, felixque — corresponds closely to the formulas used for the prayers used during the Secular Games.™! Like 146

THE

ARTIFACTS

OF NEIGHBORHOOD

CULTURE

15. Inscribed tablet recording an ara augusta dedicated by L. Lucretius Zethus in 1 25; Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, inv. 72473; Fotografia della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma ©. c.£. Number

the magistri of the Vicus Sandaliarius, Zethus used the spatial coinci-

dence of his neighborhood with the Tarentum to leech prestige from the emperor’s famous celebrations there by drawing on the language and deities associated with the Secular Games of 17 B.c.£. The associ-

ation of the altar with Augustus’ celebrations was made more clear by the use of the epithet augusta, added to the altar (ara augusta) itself rather than the gods in this case. This usage is unparalleled in early imperial religion, and it was perhaps driven by the competing desires to title the gods honored just as they had been for the secular games (where none received the epithet augustus) and to use the epithet that signaled the association of a cult with the imperial dynasty and government.

147

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

Undoubtedly the central altars of Rome’s neighborhoods did intentionally reflect imperial ideology, both generally and with respect to specific events, but it was a self-serving reflection. Messages oflocal pride were encoded within the visual motifs of imperial commemoration. For Zethus and the magistri from the Vicus Sandaliarius, imperial events that occurred within their neighborhoods became local events promoting the vicus and its officers. Other neighborhoods, we shall see, also used imperial and civic monuments that fell within their borders in a similar way. On the altar of the Vicus Aesculeti and Vatican inventory 3I1, representations ofthe rites for the Lares Augusti became an opportunity to show the individual officers who commissioned the altars devoutly performing their duties; the accompanying inscriptions made sure that the scenes were not generic ones.

TWO

AUGUSTAN

NEIGHBORHOODS

Neighborhoods were more than altars; they comprised runs of street with all their adjoining buildings, public and private. Every neighborhood had a compitum, a crossroads where the neighbors maintained a precinct for their cult of the Lares Augusti. In addition to altars for the Lares Augusti provided by magistri and ministri, the precinct also might have a shrine (aedicula) for the cult, buildings for administration and record keeping, and other public monuments related to the neighborhood’s special cults and public activities. Moreover, the streets themselves with their shops and fountains were important public spaces within the neighborhood communities. Just as the building of Eumachia must be treated within the broader context of Pompeian political society, it is necessary to consider neighborhoods in their entirety in order to understand the place of individual monuments and magistri in their spatial and social nexus. The remains from two neighborhoods in particular provide a clearer understanding of how neighborhood artifacts functioned within their neighborhoods.

Vicus Compiti Acili In 1932 excavations for the construction of the Via dei Fori Imperiali uncovered the podium, steps, and portions of the inscribed architrave 148

THE

ARTIFACTS

OF NEIGHBORHOOD

CULTURE

ofa small rectangular shrine (Number 12). Fragments of an inscribed altar were also recovered (Number 27). The two inscriptions attest that this shrine and altar are the remains of the Augustan compitum of the Vicus Compiti Acili (VCA). The remains were found near the intersection of the modern-day Via del Colosseo and the Via della Polveriera. The area was a significant one for the compital cults at Rome. The temple of the Lares (Publici), whose holiday on June 26 Augustus also made a holiday for the Lares Augusti, stood nearby at the head of the Sacra Via (summa Sacra Via). The Sacellum Streniae, which was linked to the compital Lares and the New Year, also stood at the very end of the Sacra Via. The exact topography and street layout of the neighborhood of the Compitum Acili has engendered scholarly argument (Castagnoli 1988; Panella 1987; Terrenato 1992; Ziolkowski

1996); I accept the recent

conclusions of A. Ziolkowski that the Compitum Acili stood on the edge of the district called Carinae, above the head of the Sacra Via,

at the intersection of two major streets, the continuator of the Sacra Via along the course of the present day Via della Polveriera (running SW—NE), and the street on which the Vicus Compiti Acili (so called by Zioikowski following Colini) stood, running NW-SE from the Vicus Cyprius past the Compitum Acili and across the Colosseum valley to the Porta Capena. The neighborhood of the Compitum Acili must have corresponded to the run of street from the Vicus Cyprius across the saddle between the Velia and the Oppius to the Compitum Acili (approximately 150 meters). The neighborhood’s crossroads and shrine therefore stood at the end of the vicus where it met an important thoroughfare into the city. We will see that the crossroads of the neighborhood of the Fasti Magistrorum Vici was similarly situated. The compitum converged on a central shrine that stood not just near, but at, an actual crossroads (as in situ street pavement and drains surrounding it show). The regular positioning of compital monuments in the streets of their neighborhoods is confirmed by the locations of the altar and podium for the Suburan Mercurius of 10 B.c.£. and by another altar and statue pair for Concordia Augusta. Both of these monuments were also found in sifu in the ancient roadway still surrounded by street paving (Numbers 2, 54). The shrine of the VCA stood on a small rectangular podium (2.8 Xx 2.4 meters) raised 1.4 149

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

meters above street level and ascended by a short flight of stairs (Figure 16). Surviving architectural elements, including the inscribed architrave and fragments of columns, attest that a small temple (aedicula) once stood on the podium. In structure, the podium and aedicula of the VCA mirrors on a smaller scale the new style used for the majestic temples of the new dynasty. Just like those larger temples, the aedicula bore a monumental inscription carved into the architrave that clarified the context and meaning of the shrine. When Imperator Caesar Augustus, pontifex maximus, with tribunician power for the eighteenth time, imperator for the fourteenth time, and L. Cornelius Sulla were consuls, the second board of officers for the Vicus Compiti Acili built and dedicated this shrine. (Number 12).

Below this the names of the four freedmen who served as the magistri secundi for the VCA appeared in smaller, but still prominent, letters. Three of the four names can still be read on the fragment of the architrave: [M.] Licinius M. Sextiliae l(ibertus) Diogenes, L. Aelius L. l(ibertus) Hilarus, and M. Tillius M. I(ibertus) Silo. A small piece (ca. 54cm. X $4 cm. X 24 cm.) ofan altar belonging to the neighborhood

was also recovered from the excavations. The fragment bears part of the altar’s dedicatory inscription, “the magistri of the Vicus Compiti Acili for the year 10,” followed by the remains of two names M(arcus) An{t]onius [ — ]rionis l@bertus) Felix and L(ucius) Venuleiu[s] Turanni l(ibertus) Bucci[o] (Number 27). The evidence taken together allows a broad outline of the history of the VCA to be set out. The Compitum Acili (named after an important Republican family with property in the area) existed at Rome as early as 219 B.C.B., when Rome’s first Greek doctor settled in the neighborhood." Therefore the Augustan VCA was a continuation of an older Republican neighborhood, just like the vicus in the Subura that received a statue of Mercurius in 10 B.c.E. The neighborhood existed as early as the third century B.c.£. when its shrine was prominent and well-known enough to serve as a landmark. In 7 B.c.z. Augustus reorganized the VCA along with Rome’s other neighborhoods. Sometime in § B.C.E., Diogenes, Hilarus, Silo, and their unknown comrade,

sitting as the second board of magistri (serving from August I, 6 B.C.E. 150

THE

ARTIFACTS

OF NEIGHBORHOOD

CULTURE

16. Reconstruction of the Augustan aedicula at the Compitum Acili. After Colini 1961-1962:

I55 fig. 12.

to July 31, 5 B.c.£.) after the Augustan reorganization, commissioned and donated a new compital shrine for the neighborhood. Eight years later, the tenth board of officers (Felix, Buccio, and two others) do-

nated a new altar to the neighborhood. The neighborhood of the Compitum Acili did not survive the Julio-Claudian dynasty. It stood on land that the emperor Nero cleared for the Domus Aurea. Later the space of the Compitum Acili was incorporated into the Flavian structures surrounding the Colosseum. With the loss of the residential community, the official neighborhood must have also ceased to exist. Three points about the Augustan Vicus Compiti Acili deserve emphasis: First, the reorganization of7 B.c.E. did not sever the connection of the VCA with its Republican past. Rather, the new neighborhood was a continuation of the old. The compitum of the VCA did not receive a new shrine and altar until the second and tenth year of its new era, respectively. A preexisting shrine and altar must have been used earlier. Second, the neighborhood itself — more precisely, specific annual boards of magistri — provided the new shrine and altar for the compitum and the cult of the Lares Augusti. Third, the magistri who commissioned and paid for the new aedicula and altar ensured that they were closely identified with their gifts. The inscription on the shrine of the VCA announced the names of Diogenes, Hilarus, Silo, and their lost comrade to their neighbors present and future. The altar placed eight years later in front of the shrine proclaimed the beneficence of four different magistri. The ISI

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

juxtaposition of the two monuments, shrine and altar, turned the cross-

roads into an agonistic space, just as the great public spaces of the city had earlier served Republican nobles. However, the magisti vicorum were not wholly independent like the nobles of the Republic, but rather bound up in a system of imperial honorific and commemoration. The inscription on the shrine of the VCA reflects this obligation when it places an unusual emphasis on a portion of the consular date, the name of Augustus: It appears by itselfin larger letters on the first line of the text. When dedicatory inscriptions include a consular date, they usually place it at the end of the text in a less than prominent position, and it is strange that the names of the two consuls, which together secure the date, would not be parallel. The same stratagem for presenting the princeps’ name in an emphatic position was used on another important compital monument, the altar of the Vicus Sandaliarius, where the

consular date containing Augustus’ name is inscribed by itself on the front of the altar (Number 20). The somewhat inelegant method of emphasizing the emperor’s name may reflect uncertainty and anxiety on the part of the neighborhoods as to how to both honor Augustus and emphasize themselves in a genre that was traditionally concerned entirely with self-promotion. The solution is ingenious: By changing the normal phrasing and physical emphases of their monumental text, the magistri cleverly both honored the princeps and increased the status of their own shrine and thus of themselves. Eumachia used the context of imperial commemoration to compare herself and her family at Pompeii implicitly to Livia and the imperial family at Rome. This was accomplished by mirroring Livia’s mother-and-son dedication to Concordia and by pairing a statue of herself with statues of the imperial family. In the Compitum Acili, the juxtaposition of the names of the magistri with that of Augustus on the inscription likewise compared the magistri in their neighborhood with the emperor in the

state. Vicus of the Fasti Magistrorum Vici Although the Fasti Magistrorum Vici (FMV) has come up already, it is important to consider this important inscription, which is arguably the most illuminating document of the Augustan vici, within the local 1§2

THE

ARTIFACTS

OF NEIGHBORHOOD

CULTURE

QUARTIERE ., TESTACCIO ;

ae ! ut unused

JE

ant BSBA 6

AREAL A iH

i

4ea

as i

ee Re Coe entrees

17. District around the FMV, including the “schola” (circled), the Horrea Galbana, and the Porticus Aemilia. After Gatti 1934 tav. 2.

context ofits neighborhood and compitum (Number 22). Two of the three fragments of the FMV

were discovered in 1928, together with

other epigraphic fragments and the remains of a neighborhood building (the so-called schola) below the southwestern slope of the Aventine under the modern-day Via Marmorata 106 in the angle that street makes with the Via G. Branca (Mancini 1935, LTUR

sv. Schola (Via

Marmorata) [Lega]). (The original provenance of the third fragment, now lost, is unknown.) In antiquity the docks, warehouses, granaries, and markets that were the final destination of riverine commercial traffic up the Tiber dominated this district, and the enormous storehouses

of both the Porticus Aemilia and the Horrea Galbae (Horrea Sulpicia) were imposingly close to the neighborhood schola (Figure 17). Despite several fragments of the Severan Marble Plan that show nearby areas, the specific topography of the compitum itself from which the schola, FMV, and other inscriptions were recovered is annoyingly unclear. The compitum must have centered on the intersection of the Via Ostiensis, which ran around the base of the Aventine, out of the city, and due south to the port at Ostia, and a road that led west between

the Porticus Aemilia and the Horrea Galbae past the Monumentum Galbae. Significant amounts of paving survive to show the course of the road, which was the primary route by which goods traveled 153

THE

from the Horrea

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

(Sulpicia) Galbae into the city. Along this road,

whose name, like the name of the neighborhood, is not known, must

have been the neighborhood (vicus) proper. The two monuments of the neighborhood that were not found at the schola with the FMV were found along the course of this street near the Monumentum Galbae (Numbers 17, 21; cf. LFUR tav. 40). The well-chosen location for the

neighborhood’s compitum on two busy, commercial roads ensured that this crossroads was a public space often viewed by both residents and travelers alike. Neither the neighborhood’s central shrine (aedicula) nor its altar for the Lares Augusti has been recovered. The “‘schola” — the name has no ancient support — measuring 12.6 by 6.6 meters is the only such building from an Augustan neighborhood to have been securely recovered. A schola is properly the clubhouse of a collegium. The name was presumably attached to the building in question because of architectural similarities with other scholae and because of the mistaken belief that the neighborhoods were run by collegia compitalicia. The building was originally constructed in the reign of Augustus, and the great majority of epigraphic fragments found with the schola date from this period. It later underwent at least two and maybe more renovations and rebuildings, each more lavish than the last; in the reign of Augustus the walls of the building, of which only three survive, were painted to resemble expensive polychrome marble (LTUR sv. Schola (Via Marmorata) [Lega]). The building was located off the main street of the neighborhood, probably in a courtyard open to the street of the vicus and perhaps to the Via Ostiensis as well. Outside of Rome similar compital buildings and rooms that served individual neighborhoods perhaps can be identified in Ostia and Pompeii."3 We might suppose therefore that such buildings could have been a regular part of compital organizations. There is no evidence that the neighborhoods themselves did not bear the expense ofthe construction, maintenance, and improvement of such buildings as the schola. The number of donations that adorned the space around the schola shows that it was an active central place in the neighborhood where magistri could expect their generosity to be noted by their neighbors. Although there is no ancient testimony, we can safely deduce that the

154

THE

ARTIFACTS

OF NEIGHBORHOOD

CULTURE

schola and adjunct buildings served several purposes. It was a meetinghouse where those who participated in the neighborhood came to plan their /udi Compitalicii and other festivals and to elect magistri. A bench ran around the interior of the building to accommodate the residents of the neighborhood during meetings. The open rooms at Pompeii that may have been meeting places for neighborhoods also contained masonry benches.'** The space must also have been an administrative center for the magistri who had to organize and oversee the local watch throughout the year. Finally, the existence of the FMV tells us that it must have been a storage location for the neighborhood’s records, including their list of magistri and the recensus of local residents for the grain dole. In addition the neighborhood probably also maintained a list of currently active neighbors, an album." The FMV itself reflects the existence of accurate administrative records kept by the neighborhoods, probably on papyrus, though it was not itself an administrative document since no effort was made to keep it up to date after its original inscription. However, since some later officers did have themselves added to the inscription, it must have been both prominently displayed and regularly consulted, if only out of curiosity. Indeed, the fact that it was inscribed on both sides means that it must have been a freestanding monument, probably in a courtyard around the schola. The table itself (as it is partially reconstituted from three fragments) was divided into upper and lower registers on both sides. The upper register contained a calendar noting the official festivals of the year (_fasti annales), six months on each side. The lower register contained lists of annual magistrates (_fasti magistrorum), consuls on one side and magistri vici on the other (see Figure 8). The physical shape and contents of the FMV 1s paralleled by other fasti from the early Empire.'8° Towns regularly maintained local fasti, and private collegia did so as well, noting their local officers and the consuls. '°7

The fragment of one compital fasti from the Republic survives from Pompeii, partially giving the names of nine “officers of neighborhood and crossroads” (magistri vici et compiti) for 47 and 46 B.c.B. (Insc. Ital. 13.1 271-272 no. 17). The fragments of two other fasti probably

from Augustan neighborhoods at Rome also survive, and others of the unidentifiable fasti collected by A. Degrassi in Inscriptiones Italiae

155

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

13 fascicules 1 and 2 may have belonged to neighborhoods (Numbers 63, 64; Figure 18).

We cannot know whether all neighborhoods produced stone fasti, which were not particularly useful as administrative documents since they were difficult to alter, but several neighborhoods evidently chose to do so. The need for a neighborhood, which was an official division of the city responsible for an official state cult, to maintain a copy of the city’s calendar noting important holidays and festivals is clear. The reason that a public stone copy was desirable is less obvious. Since towns and collegia regularly kept public fasti, the vici may have done so also as a public statement of their newfound legitimacy. The very use of the genre of the public fasti added status to the neighborhoods, whose participants were near the bottom of Rome’s social scale, and declared their active participation in the new Augustan city. The FMV made a conscious analogy between the consuls in the city and the magistri in the vicus. More specifically, Augustus compiled a definitive list (the so-called Fasti Capitolini Consulares et Triumphatores) of consuls and triumphing generals from the beginning of the Republic that he displayed on his triumphal arch in the Forum (Jnsc. Ital. 13.1.1-142). The Fasti Capitolini provided a sense of connection and continuity between the long history of the Republic and the new regime of the Principate. Likewise, the FMV was an expensive claim by the magistri to a lasting prestige among their peers and neighbors. Just as was the case with other aspects of the Augustan neighborhoods, the FMV was carefully phrased in the rhetoric of imperial honorific. The magistri of the FMV began their consular list not with the first consuls of the Republic but with the first consulship of Augustus in 43 B.C.E., listing the future princeps as regular consul (ordinarius) rather than as the replacement consul (suffectus) that he actually was (Insc. Ital. 13.1.287). (The original consuls for the year, A. Hirtius and C. Vibius Pansa,

both died in the campaign at Mutina against M. Antonius. The young Octavianus compelled his own election along with that of his cousin Q. Pedius to replace the dead consuls.) The list of magistri on the FMV corresponded with the neighborhood’s new era, which began with Augustus’ personal gift of new statuettes of the Lares Augusti. The inscription’s correlation of the first consulship of Augustus with the first board of magistri, even though the two were in fact thirty-six years 156

THE

ARTIFACTS

OF

NEIGHBORHOOD

CULTURE

18. Fragment of a calendar from Rome with the heading “MAG II.” The Calendar should probably be associated with a particular neighborhood, like the calendar from the FMV. Number 64; Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, inv. 2634; Fotografia della Soprintendenza Archeologica delle province di Napoli e Caserta ©, neg. 102728.

distant, was a powerful statement of the neighborhood’: association with the Emperor. Nevertheless, the FMV was primarily a token of local prestige meaningful only within a very restricted spatial and social context. Few people beyond the borders of the neighborhood and the membership of the neighborhood would have recognized or cared about the identities of the magistri or have been impressed by the office these freedmen held. The monument was erected in a place where it was seen primarily by local neighbors. However, within the local space of neighborhood and compitum, among the physical monuments the magistri had erected, the names added gravity and prestige to both former and present officers. The calendar in the upper portions of the FMV is so damaged that we cannot know if or how it was customized for this particular neighborhood. However, the list of magistri from the FMV provides a

unique opportunity to scrutinize the persons active and successful in a single vicus. A number ofthe names are unusual, for example, Considius, Satrius, Titinius, Milionius, Sorilius, Veveius, Opsilius, Lacutanus,

and Cretarius. Not all magistri on the list were freedmen: Three freeborn men served the neighborhood in its earliest years, two in year I and one in year 3. In deference to their status, free-born magistri are 1$7

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

always listed first on the FMV. This is the case with other compital dedications made by free-born and freed magistri as well (Numbers 7, 24). The same family names appear among the magistri repeatedly. There are two Annii, two Cornelii, two Cornificii, three Milionii,

and four Sulpicii. The repetition of a few family names in the list of magistri reveals residential differentiation in this part of the city that was based on household. The four Sulpicii are particularly interesting in this regard since the vicus fell within the historical Praedia Galbana, where the noble Sulpicii had had their suburban villa, and bordered the Horrea Sulpicia. The area and warehouses had been associated with the Sulpicii Galbae since at least the late second century B.C.E. when the monumental tomb ofSer. Sulpicius Galba, consul 108 B.C.E., was erected on the street that coincided with the neighborhood of the FMV. The neighborhood’ continuing connection with the family is shown by the fact that the two Augustan dedications from the neighborhood that did not stand near the compitum and schola were erected at this tomb (Numbers 17, 21; cf. Number 35). It was surely the local as-

sociations of their name and the presumably large number of clients of the Sulpicii living in the neighborhood that allowed so many Sulpici to attain the office of magister. The Sulpician magistri therefore reveal an old and close connection between vicus and local inhabitants that relied on conditions like the history of local land ownership rather than any new imperial associations. It is tempting, though conjectural, to see the Annu and Milionu as the freedmen (or freedmen of the freedmen) of T. Annius Milo, the opponent of P. Clodius, who commanded his own gangs of street thugs raised from the neighborhoods in the Late Republic. (Milionius is almost unparalleled as a Latin nomen.) Milo had houses on the Cermalus and Clivus Captiolinus nearer the center of the city, but we are told that he had agents with houses in every neighborhood (NTDAR sv. Domus, T. Annius Milo Papinianus). The success of the Milonu and Annu in securing the office of magister would then have depended on the tie between Milo’s clients and the city’s neighborhoods, which pre-dated the Augustan reforms. The consideration of such a factor in the selection of neighborhood officers would reveal an aspect of neighborhood culture that had persevered from Republic to Empire. It is an important point to note that certain individuals, like 158

THE

ARTIFACTS

OF

NEIGHBORHOOD

CULTURE

the Sulpici, Annii, and Milionii in the neighborhood

of the FMV,

were evidently more likely to seek successfully the office of magister vici due to factors unrelated to imperial commemoration or association with the imperial family. Indeed only two compital officers from anywhere in Rome can be said to have had a direct link to the new imperial regime, servile ministri from the Vicus Censori who were evidently owned by ex-members of the team of aqueduct repairmen that Agrippa posthumously donated to the state.'** In addition to the FMV itself, the magistri of the neighborhood of the FMV commissioned an astonishing number of gifts for their vicus in the years immediately following the Augustan reorganization. No fewer than ten examples of the officers’ generosity survive. The list below briefly lists in chronological order these dedications, which are treated more fully in the Appendix.

1. Year 1: 7/6 B.c.£. The first board of magistri donated a statue base 2. 3. 4.

5.

or altar of some unknown god (Number 10). Year 3: 6/5 B.c.E. At least two of the magistri of year 3 gave some gift remembered in a fragmentary inscription (Number 14). Year 5: 3/2 B.c.E. All four magistri of year 5 gave a statue or altar for Mercurius Augustus (Number 17). Year 5: 3/2 B.c.£. At least one of the magistri of year 5, M. Pontius Eros, gave some gift remembered in a fragmentary inscription (Number 18). Year 6: 2/1 B.c.£. All four magistri of year 6 gave a statue or altar

for Apollo Augustus (Number 21). 6. Year 6: 2/1 B.c.£. The magistri of year 6 presumably paid for the production of the FMV that was first inscribed in that year (Number 22): 7. Unknown, perhaps either year 4 or 5. A magister whose cognomen was Felix donated some gift to the vicus, perhaps along with his colleagues ( Number 51). 8. Unknown. An unknown magister or magistri donated a statue of Diana in an unknown year (Number 49). g. Unknown. An unknown magister or magistri donated a gift decorated with the compital tokens of laurel and oak in an unknown year (Number 50).

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

10. Unknown. A fragment of an inscription records the name of a single magister, [P]lacidius. Placidius is not attested in the FMV, so he may or may not have held office during the reign of Augustus (Number 52). Even if we consider only the seven dedications that are certainly Augustan, the magistri of this neighborhood averaged more than one new expensive inscribed dedication per year for the first six years after the reorganization of 7 B.c.E. The ratio is even greater if we add in the schola itself and the unattested altar and aedicula for the Lares Augusti that doubtless stood in the compitum. The frequency of dedication attests to a vigorous neighborhood community in which magistri were willing to spend significant amounts of money to place a gift among an ever more crowded set of neighborhood monuments. The sheer number of such monuments evidenced in the neighborhood of the FMV shows the importance of these monuments to the social structure of the Augustan vici. The neighborhood’s decision to honor gods important to the new regime, Apollo Augustus, Mercurius Augustus, and Diana (Augusta?) was surely a conscious one (I will return to neighborhood gods below). However, imperial resonance was not the only reason a god might be worshipped in the vici. The neighborhood’ cult for Diana provides a useful example (Number 49). According to tradition, King Servius Tullius, who was also responsible for the creation of the city’s neighborhoods and the celebration of Compitalia, established the cult of Diana at Rome on the Aventine (LTUR sv. Diana Aventina, aedes [Vindittelli]; Insc. Ital. 13.2.494-496). On account of this, slaves and

the city’s lower classes especially worshiped Aventine Diana on her holiday on August 13 (Festus 460L, 467L). We might expect that she was of particular interest to Rome’s neighborhoods even before the Augustan reforms, and at least two other neighborhoods erected mon-

uments to her in the reign of Augustus (Numbers 5, 24). As was noted in Chapter 3, L. Cornificius restored temple on the Aventine 33 B.C.E. Two freed Cornificii served the neighborhood of the FMV as magister vici, L. Cornificius L. 1. Fortunatus (year 2) and P. Cornificius P. P. 1. Eros (year $). If, as seems likely, these men were members of the familia of L. Cornificius, then one of them was surely responsible 160

THE

ARTIFACTS

OF NEIGHBORHOOD

CULTURE

for the neighborhood’s monument for Diana and a personal reason emerges for the dedication. Eros or Fortunatus did not just honor a goddess important in the Augustan imperial pantheon, but one special to the people who participated in the neighborhoods and one closely linked to themselves as well. Our examination of the neighborhood of the FMV has revealed an active neighborhood culture with both local and imperial facets, rooted in imperial commemoration but also in local housing patterns, the earlier history of the neighborhoods, the presence of important monuments and buildings within the neighborhood, and the cohesion of family groups over time. It was within this complex solution of empire and crossroads that ambitious residents sought the office of magister vici and beautified and monumentalized the neighborhood around them. The next section examines just how the career of a neighborhood officer might progress within this milieu by examining the cursus honorum of a single magister.

NUMERIUS

LUCIUS

HERMEROS*9

Just as the reciprocal relationship between emperor and vicus functioned through demonstrations of loyalty to new regime, demonstrations of local pride and ambition enabled a reciprocal relationship between magister and vicus and magister and emperor that was an essential part of the competitive culture of neighborhood political society. Given the low station of the magistri and the limited scope of the vicus, the rewards for service as magister must be sought at the local rather than civic or imperial level, but, as it was for Eumachia

at Pompeii, the

relationship between magister and neighborhood was based not just on local factors but also on imperial events, the manipulation of imperial honorific, and the neighborhood’s

relationship with the em-

peror. The career of one particular magister, the freedman Numerius Lucius Hermeros, demonstrates the complex interactions of magister,

neighborhood, and emperor. Hermeros served as magister no less than three times for a neighborhood that evidently ran through the Forum Boarium under S. Maria in Cosmedin, where two of Hermeros’ ded-

ications were found.'?° Multiple terms in office are not unparalleled among magistri vici. In Year 31 of the Vicus Censori, a certain slave 161

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

Probus donated a statue of Aesclepius as minister iterum (Number 32). Moreover, one entire ticket of magistri from the neighborhood of the

FMV was reelected to a second term, which they noted by adding both their years in office to the FMV after its initial carving (Number 22). Even though he must have had some level of affluence, Hermeros had evidently reached the apex of his public opportunities. There was no way to translate his status, and his office in the vicus, into municipal

public office. Indeed only the freedmen of the imperial family and other associated noble clans could hope for more important public office in the imperial bureaus at Rome, and these men conspicuously did not serve as magister vict. Hermeros marked each of his three years in office with the donation ofa valuable gift to the neighborhood (Numbers 6, 28, 48; cf. Panciera

1980: 203-204). In the first year ofhis vicus, Hermeros and two fellow magistri primi dedicated a statue to Mercurius Augustus. In year 11 of the neighborhood (4/5 c.£.), Hermeros (as magister iterum) and two new colleagues donated a set of gold and silver scale weights to the

neighborhood and built a shrine to Hercules to house them..In year 19 (12/13 C.E.), Hermeros and his colleagues from year 11 joined the magistri of year 19 in recertifying the weights (Number 31). Finally, as magister tertium, Hermeros dedicated by himself a statue of Venus Augusta. The gods Hermeros honored, Mercurius Augustus, Hercules, and

Venus Augusta, were all-important in Augustan ideology and religion as well. (The role of Mercurius, the bringer of prosperity to even the lowly, in Augustan ideology has already been discussed.) However, as with the cult of Diana in the neighborhood of the FMV, there was more to Hermeros’ choice of deities. All three gods were linked not only to the emperor but also in important ways to the Forum Boarium itself, where Hermeros’ neighborhood lay. Indeed the Forum Boarium was the center of the worship of Hercules in Rome, and several shrines of Hercules stood there, including the Ara Maxima (Coarelli 1988: 60-103). The only known state temple of Mercury in Rome stood above the Forum Boarium between the Circus Maximus and the northwestern slope of the Aventine (Livy 2.21.7, 2.27.5—6; Val. Max. 9.3.6; Ovid Fasti 5.669—-670, Insc. Ital. 13.2.458—459). Finally, the oldest temple of Venus at Rome, that of Venus Obsequens, stood 162

THE

ARTIFACTS

OF NEIGHBORHOOD

CULTURE

somewhere nearby at the Circus Maximus (Livy 10.31.9; Festus 322L; Insc. Ital. 13.2.497-498). Hermeros may therefore have deliberately

chosen gods whose state temples stood as landmarks near his vicus. Other magistri in other neighborhoods followed the same plan. In 24 c.E. a slave Probus, minister for the Vicus Censori, made a dedication to

Aesculapius Augustus in his neighborhood (Number 32). The Vicus Censori is the only known neighborhood from the Tiber Island, which was also the home to Rome’s only temple of Aesculapius, where a statue of Antonius Musa, a physician who had saved Augustus’ life, was erected in 23 B.c.E. (Suet. Aug. 59). Lucretius Zethus (Number

25) and the magistri of the Vicus Sandaliarius (Number 20) emphasized on their altars certain imperial events because they had occurred in their vici. Hermeros’ dedications, however, went beyond the simple recognition of local gods. His choices reflected both the nature of his neighborhood and Hermeros himself. The Forum Boarium was an important commercial district in the city, and Hermeros’ dedications reflected the mercantile interests of his constituency. Both Mercury and Hercules were closely associated with commerce. The gold and silver weights Hermeros provided as magister iterum, presumably for neighborhood residents to use in their businesses, show Hermeros’

desire

to address local needs and concerns through his beneficence. Indeed the fairness of weights was so important that only nine years later, along with the magistri of the year 19, Hermeros and his colleagues revalidated the accuracy of their gift (Number 31). Venus (Augusta), ancestress of the emperor through Julius Caesar, played a central role in Augustan religious ideology; however, Hermeros managed to advertise his position as magister vici while also recognizing the imperial goddess. The inscribed base, which is all that survives of Hermeros’ dedication,

is decorated on the front with a pair of doves drinking from a bowl and on the side with a dove feeding its nestlings. Doves are a token of Venus, and the drinking composition is not unique (cf. Pliny N. H. 36.184; Zanker 1988a: 122 fig. 99, 279 fig. 220b). Moreover, the motif

of abundant sustenance is acommon one in Augustan art (e.g., Zanker 1988a: 172-183). However, the two panels together, doves drinking and one dove feeding others, recalls precisely two other primary duties of the magistri vici, to maintain the neighborhood’ fountains and lists of 163

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

those eligible for the grain distributions. Hermeros alluded therefore in a monument related both to a local temple and imperial religion to his own activities as neighborhood officer. Most simply, Mercurius and Venus together also evoked the two halves of Hermeros’ cognomen, Herm(es) and eros.

Hermeros’ name changed slightly but significantly over his career. In his first term in office he is called N(umerius) Lucius N(umerii) I(ibertus) Hermeros. In his later terms he is named on his gifts as N(umerius) Lucius N(umerii) l(Gibertus) Hermeros Aequitas. Evidently Hermeros acquired the second cognomen Aequitas (Fairness) sometime between 7 and § B.c.£. The reason for the change can be found, it

seems, in the nature of Hermeros’ second gift to his neighborhood. The public set of precious metal scale weights that Hermeros donated and evidently agreed to maintain as part of “watching out for his neighborhood” (invigulantes pro vicinia) would have helped to ensure fair commerce within the neighborhood. Hermeros’ neighbors responded by offering him the new name Mr. Fairness. In the Republic honorific names (cognomina ex victis), which victorious generals were awarded for particularly impressive campaigns, were particularly sought after by ambitious nobles as a way to publicize their actions and increase their prestige (Linderski r990b). The honorific cognomen Augustus was so closely associated with the emperor that it could serve as a symbol for the Principate itself. Hermeros’ new name explicitly recalled the nature of Hermeros’ activities on his neighborhood’s behalf. Numerius Lucius Hermeros Aequitas evidently spent a great deal of time and money serving his neighborhood over a twenty-year span. He donated valuable gifts, helped to enable fair commerce, and generally watched out for the neighborhood — a job that included making sure no one tampered with the neighborhood’s public weights. However, Hermeros’ dedications and honors were carefully chosen to develop his status within the neighborhood by suggesting parallels between himself leading the neighborhood and Augustus leading the empire. Hermeros laid claim to the same gods as the emperor. Like the emperor, he took an honorific name to publicize his actions. Even holding the same office repeatedly was a strategy by which Augustus took control of the state without dissolving traditional offices. It is important to remember that the Augustan reforms created a new relationship 164

THE

ARTIFACTS

OF NEIGHBORHOOD

CULTURE

between magister vici and neighborhood provided under Augustus that was public and legitimate but undefined. Like Eumachia at Pompeii, Hermeros adopted and adapted the new recognizable vocabulary of imperial power to describe his own position in the vicus.

SOME

OTHER

DEDICATIONS

AND

MAGISTRI

While every Augustan neighborhood had its own pair of Lares Augusti donated by Augustus, Lares were not the only gods worshiped in the neighborhoods and endowed by the emperor or neighborhood officers. Individual neighborhoods might, for example, have a special affinity for gods whose shrines fell within the neighborhood’s borders, who had helped the neighborhood in some way, or who were associated with the culture or ethnic background of the neighborhood’s residents. The veneration of such special patron deities pre-dates the Augustan reforms. The worship of the Etruscan deity Vortumnus by the Etruscan residents of the Vicus Tuscus was in tradition as old as the Republic itself, and the Vicus Compiti Acili was especially devoted to Salus and Valetudo, gods of health that surely arrived in the vicus along with Rome’s first Greek doctor in 219 B.c.E. The statues that Augustus donated to individual vici were probably themselves expensive mages of neighborhoods’ patron gods. We know the emperor provided statues of Concordia, Salus Publica, Pax, Mercurius, Apollo,

Volcanus, Juppiter, and Lares Publici to different neighborhoods (Dio $4.35.2; Suet. Aug. 57; Numbers

2, 3, 4, 16, 29). However, as with

most neighborhood

and improvements,

monuments

the magistri vici

themselves bore the responsibility and the expense for the vast majority of such dedications to special neighborhood gods. This was not a uncommon or ancillary part of the officers’ duties. The magistri regularly attended individually and collegially to their neighborhood’s old divine patrons after the Augustan reforms and even adopted new patrons as circumstances required. The officers of the neighborhood of the FMV provided at least six and possibly as many as nine such gifts in the first six years after the reforms of 7 B.C.E., including shrines or statues of Mercurius Augustus, Apollo Augustus, and Diana (Augusta) (Numbers 10, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 35, 49-53). I have treated many such

dedications already in connection with individual neighborhoods and 105

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

neighbors, but I would like to close with some general comments and

a close examination of one deity, Stata Mater, whose worship in the neighborhood exemplifies the complex mix of local and imperial that characterized the Augustan vici. It is easy to undervalue these dedications: they do not concern the central cult of a neighborhood; they often do not fit easily into the context of imperial honorific; and they rarely survive as more than inscriptions on plaques or bases devoid of topographical or historical context. However, they are important to the investigation of local society in the vici precisely because they seem more distant from the emperor and because they are not part of the regular administration and cult practices found in every neighborhood. Rather we can infer that the officers of individual neighborhoods were responding to local circumstances and explicitly addressing an audience of their neighborhoods. The divine recipients of such neighborhood gifts in the reign of Augustus were as diverse as the city’s population, and the reasons for a neighborhood’s choice of one particular god over another are not always as clear as they are in the case of Probus’ Aesculapius Augustus, Hermeros’ Mercurius Augustus, or Cornificius’ Diana (Augusta?). Nevertheless, two general criteria for selection do suggest themselves: First, the gods chosen were often associated spatially, culturally, or admunistratively with the individual neighborhoods that honored them. Second, the neighborhood officers preferred to commission monuments for gods that Augustus had also honored or that were important to imperial ideology. A quick list of Augustan compital dedications to gods other than the Lares Augusti immediately reveals the significant impact of the second criterion. The list includes Aesculapius, Apollo, Concordia, Diana, Hercules Tutor, Mercurius, Volcanus Quietus, Stata Mater, Fortuna, and Venus (Numbers 5, 6, II, 13, 17, 19,

21, 24, 25, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 48, 49). Almost all the notable dynastic

gods of the Augustan regime are represented. More often than not, when a neighborhood officer commissioned a monument for a god other than the Lares Augusti, he strengthened the connection with the emperor by naming his patron with the epithet “augustus,” just like the Lares. The emperor himself never so titled any of the gods he gave to the neighborhoods except the Lares, so we are left to wonder if the neighborhoods themselves had to seek permission, perhaps from 106

THE

ARTIFACTS

OF

NEIGHBORHOOD

CULTURE

Site:ve

RM RN Ne * ESSHUANIE \

19. Plaque from a compital dedication to Volcanus Quietus Augustus and Stata Mater Augusta in year five of the Vicus Armilustri. Number 19; Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, inv. 2597; Fotografia della Soprintendenza Archeologica delle province di Napoli

e Caserta

©,

neg.

102730

the regional magistrate, to use the emperor’s name as an epithet. The second criterion is more difficult to assess, but we have seen how local

and personal concerns effected neighborhoods’ and neighbors’ choice of gods. The most popular compital gods, Mercurius, Hercules, and Diana, had both strong imperial and compital associations allowing magistri to address both local and imperial audiences. However,

besides the Lares Augusti, the most

common

recipient

of Augustan compital worship was not an important Augustan god at all, but the relatively minor goddess Stata Mater.

In Augustus’ reign

Stata Mater was a recent addition to the Roman pantheon. An Aurelius Cotta installed her in the Forum Romanum around the death of Sulla to protect the Forum’s new pavement from fire (Festus 416 L). The new goddess was from the beginning extraordinarily popular with Roome’s

lower

classes,

who

had the most

to fear from

urban

fires.

The existence of a Vicus Statae Matris on the Caelian suggests that RLome’s neighborhoods had probably adopted the goddess as a patron before

the reign

of Augustus;

however,

the reforms

of Augustus

evidently sparked an extensive expansion of her presence in Rome’s vici. An astonishing four dedications to her by Augustan neighborhood officers survive to us (Numbers

11, 13, 19, 30 [Stata Fortuna]; Figure

19). An explanation for her popularity seems straightforward: Rome 167

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

had two recurrent urban nightmares, flood and fire — the well-known conflagration under Nero was a disaster often repeated in the city’s history and the reign of Augustus was no exception. Eight fires between 27 B.C.E. and 14 C.B. were severe enough to make it into our source materials (cf. Favro 1996: 112-114). Stata Mater was a goddess

who stopped fires, properly worshiped on the spot where a spreading fire stood (stata) still. According to Dio, it was arson in the Forum Romanum that provoked Augustus to revamp the neighborhoods and to assign them the job of controlling fires (55.8.6—7). Compital worship of Stata Mater shows that the neighborhoods took their new duty seriously, and the surviving dedications must have been how neighborhood officers proudly commemorated the successful suppression ofa fire. Perhaps they placed a statue of the goddess on the very spot where the fire was extinguished. Even though Stata Mater was linked to a task assigned to the vici by the emperor, the audience for dedications to the goddess was unequivocally local: Those neighbors whose houses had been saved from the fire, and who had taken part in the brigades under the orders of the magistri. It is easy to see how these dedications could serve to increase an officer’s prestige and to further his local career. Evidently the emperor was unimpressed, since after his own house on the Palatine burnt he created the Vigiles in 6 C.E. as a permanent city-wide fire brigade divided according to the city’s regions, not neighborhoods (cf. Reynolds 1926). The magistri and the neighborhoods evidently did retain some of their fire fighting responsibilities even after the foundation of the vigiles since we meet them still functioning in this capacity in the reign of Claudius.

CONCLUSION

The triumph of the Augustan regime led to the creation across Italy and the western Empire of a set of common types of buildings, a “monumental vocabulary” that included, for example, Augustan style arches, porticoes, fora, markets, altars, and temples in the public sphere

and houses and tombs in the private. All but the lowest levels of imperial society utilized this new vocabulary. In particular, the adaptation of imperial building types and urban plans outside of Rome, where both local inhabitants and Roman patrons controlled construction, is 168

THE

ARTIFACTS

OF

NEIGHBORHOOD

CULTURE

one metric used to gauge both the “Romanization” of local communities and their local political vitality. However, since construction at Rome — where monumental public building came to be monopolized by the imperial family — was not a response to the imperial regime, the civic monuments ofthe capital itself cannot be subjected to similar interpretation. Indeed it is the uniformity of their message, in contrast with the Republican past, that is stressed. However, this uniformity existed only at the highest levels of monumental construction and urban planning. This chapter has uncovered at Rome a similar “‘dialogue” between imperial monuments and local monuments, between imperial loyalty and local constituencies. The monuments freedmen magistri vicorum erected in their local neighborhoods were not simply perfect echoes of imperial ideology; they were the manifestations of local identities, local concerns, and local ambitions as well as of loyalty

to the emperor. In short, the urban fabric of Rome was not a homogeneous whole, unaffected by residential, occupational, and social differentiation, and the communities of the capital’s vici were one result

of such differentiation. I have in this chapter emphasized a reciprocal relationship between the neighborhood officers and neighborhood residents in contrast to the last chapter’s scrutiny of the relationship between the emperor and the neighborhoods. This new relationship was unlike that between emperor and vicus in a very important way. Augustus suppressed all competition with his dominant position over city and empire. Possible threats to the princeps’ singular patronage of Rome’s urban populace, like that of the unfortunate Egnatius Rufus, were dealt with quickly and severely. The magistri of the Augustan neighborhoods acted as freely as they did in part because they could not politically or socially threaten the emperor. Unlike the link between princeps and vicus, the relationship between magistri and vicus was an agonistic one in which officers competed with one another for the rewards ofstatus and prestige that the neighborhood could offer. Several important characteristics of this competition can be reiterated. First, it was carried out in the physical spaces of the neighborhood, and the monumentalization of these same spaces was an important device of the competitors. Second, although the new monuments drew on a visual vocabulary borrowed from imperial ideology, they were personalized to magister 169

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

and vicus and designed to appeal equally to local residents. Third, within the confined space of vicus and compitum, monuments drew meaning from, and competed against, the entire corpus of neighborhood monuments, past and present. A neighborhood’ shrines, altars, statues, dedications, calendars, administrative buildings, and so on, all

drew meaning from one another as well as competing with one another. Finally, the reward for winning was prestige, represented in such familiar ways as reelection or the receipt of an honorific name. It is easy to see how such prestige could be algorithmically translated into other desirables, like wealth or power. An analogy of this competition to that waged by the civic elites of Pompeii or Republican Rome seems very apt. I do not intend to deny or devalue the importance of imperial honorific to the monuments of the Augustan neighborhoods. Rather I want to suggest that these monuments were a complex amalgam of imperial and local concerns. Indeed the magistri vici showed in their monuments a sophisticated ability to speak equally and successfully to two unequal constituencies, one imperial and one local. We can end by asking a general question: How did neighborhood reform affect neighborhood communities qua local communities? In other words, how did the articulation of local relationships within the vicus change, or remain the same, as a result of the emperor’s reforms? A number of important fundamentals of neighborhood society in Rome did not change, even though we might have expected the largely “constructed” rather than “natural” neighborhood communities to have been both malleable and sensitive to changing political circumstances. Those who participated and succeeded (using selection as magister vici as a metric of success) in the Augustan neighborhoods did so not as a result of their imperial connections. Rather, residential

and occupational differentiation, long recognized in modern discussions as the driving force behind small neighborhoods in large urban environments, was the determining factor in ancient Rome as well. If the modern issues of ethnic ghettos and socioeconomic segregation are less evident in ancient Rome, this chapter has pointed out other, more Roman factors. For example, in the neighborhood of the FMV Sulpicit Galbae were especially successful in achieving the office of magister because the area of the city below the Aventine in which the vicus fell also held the home and property of the noble Sulpicii Galbae. 170

THE

ARTIFACTS

OF NEIGHBORHOOD

CULTURE

Their freedmen both held numerical advantages in the neighborhood and benefited from on-the-spot support from the noble clan. Nevertheless, if the local articulation of power in the neighborhoods did not change in kind as a result of the Augustan reforms, it was certainly affected by imperial issues and actions. The rise of the L. Cornificius led to the success of his freedmen and extended familia in the neighborhoods. The means by which the neighborhood of Numerius

Lucius Hermeros

honored their local benefactor, with

a new honorific name, surely depended on the development of the emperor’s own honorific name Augustus. Importantly, neighborhood reform consolidated all the neighborhoods politically behind a single patron, the emperor. The earlier active political relationship between neighborhoods and aediles and praetors was replaced with a symbolic relationship between vicus and princeps. Within the neighborhood communities themselves this allowed a new local voice to emerge as magistri vicl were afforded the opportunity to build monuments in their own name rather than to demonstrate support for their noble patrons. Statues of Marius Gratidianus and Sulla were replaced not with statues of Augustus but with monuments of local (and imperial) resonance inscribed with the names oflocal benefactors.

V7

CONCESSION

few brief comments looking forward in time and outward in space are appropriate before concluding, although neither in later Rome nor in other cities of the Empire was the complex mix of neighborhood community, imperial attention, and urban administration that we find in Augustan Rome ever replicated. Just as Rome’s neighborhoods and compital cults existed before the reign of Augustus, they continued

to exist after his death until at least the fourth

century C.E. Following the initial spate of beneficence, the construction of new neighborhood monuments slows, if we can judge from our surviving evidence, for the remainder of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Nevertheless, we do still meet magistri vici fighting fires under Claudius and sponsoring local gladiatorial combats under Vitellius (fires: Suet. Cla. 18.1; combats: Tac. His. 2.95.1). Tiberius bequeathed monies to

the city’s magistri vicorum, and Gaius paid them (Suet. Tib. 76, Gaius 16). Moreover John the Lydian points to a celebration established on October 5 when the regionary magistrates and the magistri vici came together to dance in the “Augusteum” (Joh. Lyd. De Men. 4.138). October § was the dies natalis of the temple of Divus Augustus begun by Tiberius and dedicated by Gaius in 37 c.g. and the first day of the

Ludi Augustales, games first regularized under Tiberius.'?* This would be the first instance known when the magistri vici (and regionary magistrates) from around the city came together to celebrate their imperial patron. The so-called Cancellaria reliefs (ara magistrorum vici) now in the Vatican, on which both magistri and ministri carrying Lares Augusti and a Genius figure prominently, probably represent some part of the celebrations of October 5 (Number 67). 172

CONCLUSION

The massive Flavian construction projects to repair the damage from war and fire and to reuse the land seized for Nero’s Domus Aurea necessitated new imperial attention to Rome’s neighborhoods. Construction in this period both removed some old neighborhoods like the Vicus Compiti Acili and created new ones like the Vicus Statuae Verris.'?* The census carried out by Vespasian and Titus in 73 C.E. re-

certified the physical divisions ofthe city including the neighborhoods (Pliny NH 3.66). We receive the figure of 265 compita Larum in the city as well as other statistics like those found later in the Regionaries from this census. A new round of compital construction ensued, as inscriptions attesting to the rebuilding of neighborhood aediculae show (Numbers 36-47), highlighting the connection between urban

census/recensus and the neighborhoods. Unlike the earlier Augustan dedications, these later inscriptions regularly name the regionary magistrate who approved the work and perhaps also supplied some of the funding, a physical manifestation of the fact that the magistri were being drawn away from their role as leaders of local communities into a position on the bottom rung of the imperial urban bureaucracy. Indeed the transformation of the urban administration to a professional bureaucracy, including the neighborhood officers, led by the urban praetor continues throughout the Empire (Palmer 1974b). Some-

time before the reign of Hadrian, the oversight of the regions was transferred from the Augustan regionary magistrates to professional curators regionum. Later men of consular rank held the cura regionis, but it remained an administrative position subordinate to the urban prefect rather than a political magistracy. In 136 c.k. the collective magistri vicorum urbis regionum XIII together placed a dedication to Hadrian and inscribed their names region by region on the base (CIL 6.975 = ILS 6073). A dossier of inscriptions from the reign of Commodus reports the successful attempt of a man to avoid performing the duties of magister vici, which had evidently become a burden rather than an honor (CIL 6.31420; cf. Palmer 1974b). Eventually the office of

magister vici was completely separated from individual neighborhoods, with forty-eight officers serving as subordinates to the curator for each region. The reign of Septimius Severus (193-211 C.£.) saw another spate of administrative reforms and rebuilding at Rome, which was re-envisioned as the Urbs Sacra. A cluster of neighborhood restorations 173

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

again followed the imperial attention to the capital (Numbers 43-46). Finally, the two Regionary Catalogues (the Notitia and Curiosum) composed in the fourth century continued to organize the city according to the Augustan regions and neighborhoods.'?? They invariably listed the number of neighborhoods, neighborhood shrines, and neighborhood officers to be found in each region, showing that the Augustan system, though modified, survived as an administrative structure and a conception of the urban form until the very end of the Western Empire. The division ofthe city into vici was not unique to Rome. I pointed out in the introduction that Pompeii provides numerous examples of what may be street corner compital shrines, though the city’s cults were evidently never converted to the worship of the Lares Augusti. The colony of Ariminium was also certainly divided into at least seven urban vici, though here too the worship of Lares Augusti was absent (CIL 11.379; cf. Camodeca 1977: 85). At the colony of Verona in Cisalpine Gaul there were magistri and ministri vici (CIL 5.3257 = ILS 3610); mag-

istri vici are also found at the colony of Spoletium in Umbria.'?* The emperor Claudius divided both Puteoli and Ostia into regions and vici and assigned new cohorts of the vigiles to look after those cities (Suet. Cla: 25.23, cf. Pétronius Sat78.7;, Camodeca

10772 92-03) In Ostia

at least, Claudius’ vici were led by freedmen magistri in the worship of Lares Augusti (Bloch 1962; Bakker 1994). Nevertheless, the division of

the urban space into neighborhoods, centering on a compitum where the local community worshipped Lares (Augusti), does not seem to have ever been standard in Roman Italy or the provinces. Indeed only the largest of urban centers would have benefited from the division into smaller units for purposes of urban administration and imperial honorific. In most cases, even in large cities like Tarraco in Spain, civic

cults and civic officials could and did serve entire cities. On the other hand, early in the Principate magistri worshipping Lares Augusti are attested in Italy and particularly in Spain. Although these officers and cults clearly depended in some way on the Roman model, they were not analogous to the magistri vici of Rome’s neighborhoods, since they were not attached to the central feature of the Roman system, an urban neighborhood. Where we find more complete titles for magistri serving Lares Augusti outside Rome, the most common

174

CONCLUSION

form is magister Larum Aug(ustorum), attested in six Spanish cities, once in Italy, and once on Sardinia.'?> The related minister Larum Augustorum is also found once in Italy, at Grumentum.'° The best evidence comes from the capital of the Augustan province of Hispania Tarraconensis, Tarraco. Conquered and refortified in the second Punic War, the city became the Roman center of operations for campaigns against the Carthaginians and then Iberian tribes. Julius Caesar settled a nonveteran colony on the city. Under Augustus’ division of Spain, the city became the capital of Hispania Citerior, often now called Hispania Tarraconensis. However, the city’s true claim to fame was the fact that Augustus recuperated there from an illness in 26-25 B.C.E. Perhaps as a result of the emperors’ presence, the city founded an early, important civic cult of Augustus watched over by people of higher social standing than those who looked after Lares. In addition, funerary epigraphy attests to six men at Tarraco who bore the title “magister Larum Aug” (CIL 2.4293, 4297, 4304, RIT 425, 429). Five of the six went on to hold the evidently more advanced post of sevir (which was evidently separate in the city from the office of VIvir Augustalis). There is no mention of neighborhood by these magistri at Tarraco, who seem to have served a single, centralized civic cult of

the Lares Augusti rather than a number of neighborhood cults. (The position ofsevir was certainly a civic rather than neighborhood office.) The worship of Lares Augusti outside of Rome by magistri Larum Augustorum was, therefore, separated from some of the most important aspects of compital cult at Rome, including the celebration of Compitalia itself, the attachment to local neighborhoods and communities within an urban populace, and the responsibility for parts of the urban administration within the neighborhood. CONCLUSION

What then ofthe two broad hopes set out in the introduction, to better understand the place of Rome’s lower classes in the governance and ideology of the Augustan revolution and to reveal something about the lives of Rome’s nonelite residents? We can now see how in one way the imperial system reached not just out from Rome on a horizontal social axis but also down a vertical social axis into Rome’s local 175

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

communities. The consensus universorum that underpinned Augustan ideology included the provision of opportunities for acceptable social advancement to what had been a problematic portion of the urban populace. Even before the Late Republic, tensions between elite and nonelite residents had been played out in the neighborhoods. Augustus took control and defused these tensions by prescribing neighborhood actions within the limits of loyalty ritual and urban administration. However, despite these limitations, vigorously enforced as the case of Egnatius Rufus shows, neighborhood reform did broaden the prospects for public service and recognition available to Rome’s freedman residents. From these prospects, a competitive culture of public display, so often recognized in elite culture, emerged in the local streets and crossroads of the capital. Under Augustus, freedmen like the long-serving Numerius Lucius Hermeros Aequitas from the Forum Boarium could publicly woo their neighbors with valuable gifts in the hope of recognition and leave permanent marks on the urban landscape declaring their official participation in the new imperial city and imperial society. The window for such activity between Republic and Empire, when Republican independence and imperial recognition were both available, was brief, but it provides us with an important glimpse into the public lives lived along Rome’s streets and neighborhoods rather than in imperial posts across the Empire. Four central conclusions of ancient history can be summarized from the preceding chapters: First, neither the Augustan neighborhoods nor their cults were new creations in 7 B.c.E. Rather they were the continuators of a long history of organized neighborhoods with official standing and official duties. If Rome’s neighborhood structure did not date from the reign of Servius Tullius, it was nevertheless an old and

ingrained part of Rome’s city form and urban culture, and although neighborhoods were never static entities at Rome, in some — we can

infer most — cases the Augustan neighborhoods corresponded spatially with their Republican counterparts. Beginning at least as early as the end of the Second Punic War, officers (magistri) drawn mostly from the city’s resident population of freedmen oversaw in their neighborhoods facets of the provision and distribution of food and water, fire protection, and public order — duties which the Augustan magistri continued to perform. Indeed these officers were always integrated into the city’s 176

CONCLUSION

administration to such a degree that they could be mistaken for civic magistrates on a par with the noble officials who filled the senatorial cursus. The supposed suppression of neighborhoods and Compitalia the last years of the Republic and in the Triumviral period have been greatly overstated. The celebration of Ludi Compitalicii was evidently discouraged at times, though both Caesar and Augustus may have personally sponsored them, but the state holiday of Compitalia could not have been ignored. The public spaces of some neighborhoods were diminished or lost, but neighborhoods themselves and presumably magistri never ceased to exist. Therefore, like so many other aspects of Augustan ideology, culture, and governance, the emperor’s attention to the neighborhoods must be judged as both an affirmation and an adjustment of earlier practices. Second, neighborhood reform was certainly a project designed to embed the loyalty rituals of imperial honorific into the lives of Rome’s lowest classes. This was accomplished through the projection of an imperial presence into pre-existing local communities. However, neighborhood cults were not created or adjusted to practice remotely the family cults of the Domus Augusta, which were properly situated in the emperor’s house on the Palatine. As they had been before, after the Augustan reforms, the religious rites of Compitalia were concerned with the local spaces ofthe vicus, the civic space ofthe city as a whole, and the celebration of the New Year. Augustus reinforced the second connection with the addition to neighborhood cult of other old civic holidays for Lares who protected the city and the third with an emphasis on New Year’s ritual in his relationship with the neighborhoods. Third, the Augustan vici were more than symbols of imperial concern with the urban population and, reciprocally, the loyalty of the plebs for the emperor; they were vibrant and unique local communities within the greater community of Rome, Italy, and the Empire. Far from being disconnected, these two facets of the vici are so closely intertwined and interdependent that they cannot be separated from one another. Neighborhoods are local communities and spaces, but are permeable and extensible ones that naturally interact closely with the entire urban space and broader community of which they are a subset. Neighborhood officers had administrative duties important to the city, and important imperial celebrations and monuments related 177

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

to specific neighborhoods had more than local significance. Factors such as common ethnicity, language, religion, and business interests both tied neighborhood communities together and linked them to diverse groups throughout the Empire. While Augustus himself donated some new neighborhood monuments, most were erected by neighborhood residents themselves participating in a competitive culture of civic improvement encouraged by the new regime. The new monuments that neighborhood leaders erected communicated through an intricately encoded ideological fusion oflocal, civic, and imperial concerns both the neighborhood’s loyalty to the new imperial regime and the officers’ own newly legitimized authority and social clout within the local community. Fourth, neighborhood reform was part of an ongoing effort to improve urban planning and urban administration in the capital. It is important to note that contrary to current thought, the Augustan regime did not just concern itself with the massive monuments of the city’s most important public spaces, but also planned and improved the smaller public and private spaces of individual streets and neighborhoods. In particular, neighborhoods played an important and regulated part in the administration of the city, performing vital public services under the guidance of local magistri, regionary magistrates, and the urban praetor. The Augustan neighborhoods participated in fire prevention and suppression, police protection, food and water distribution, and census taking. Neighborhood reform was just one part of larger reforms designed to create a bureaucracy led by the urban praetor that eventually supplanted old methods of administering the city. Indeed it is not surprising to find that the Augustan vici stood as a liminal stage between the more independent vici of the Republic, which could be mobilized by individual aediles and praetors in support of personal political programs, and the bureaucratized vici of the later Empire, which were completely restricted from urban and local activism. Finally and more generally, we have found that the vici exemplify two important themes in the study of the urban community. First, common location creates a special collective interest. For urban neighborhoods, this common interest functions both internally (neighbors might share common

services, administrative units, and, in the case of Augustan 178

CONCLUSION

Rome, political and religious rituals signaling the neighborhood’ collective willingness to participate in the political order of the day) and externally (a neighborhood’ standing vis-a-vis other neighborhoods and its relationship with the overall civic administration could affect the lives of individual residents). Second, political actions create and maintain places, in this case neighborhoods. Such politics includes the activities of individuals, local associations, and the institutions of

government (cf. Logan and Molotch 1987). The reality of the vici as places was created, reinforced, and adjusted through the actions ofthe emperor, who effected their systemic reform and regulation and who directly helped to guide their activities, through the actions of the neighborhood associations and through the actions ofindividuals like Numerius Hermeros. All three must be considered together to understand the functions and identity of the vici as a whole and individually, as places and as political and social communities.

179

APPENDIX

COMPITAL

DEDICATION:

By YEA

his Appendix lists individually the physical evidence for neighborhoods and neighborhood officers in Augustan Rome. The testimonia are arranged chronologically, according to conventional dates and the era of the Augustan neighborhoods, which began in most cases on August I, 7 B.c.E. I have included all evidence up to year $2 (44 C.E.) of the new era. Each entry contains a complete text of

any inscription, a brief commentary, a bibliography, and where possible the present location of the artifact. Since the magistri and ministri vici continue to date their years in office by the eras of their vici, we can infer from inscriptions telling oflater restorations of compital aediculae the existence of a shrine under Augustus. I have very briefly listed such restorations as Numbers

36-47. Numbers

48-54 list testimonia that almost certainly relate to the

Augustan neighborhoods, but whose exact date is unsure. Numbers 55-64 list testumonia that likely relate to the Augustan neighborhoods, but are dated only by the unsure criteria of style and workmanship or lack a secure connection with compital worship. Because of their unsure provenance, dating, or compital nature, I have not made extensive use of these in my arguments. Numbers 65—68 are included for reference.

180

APPENDIX:

COMPITAL

AUGUSTAN

DEDICATIONS

BY YEAR

DEDICATIONS

33 B.C.E. 1. Restoration of a monument for the Vicus Salutaris (or Salutis) by M. Agrippa. M(arcus) Ag[rippa L(uci) f(ilius)] aed(ilis) [iussu] Imp(eratoris) Cae[saris Divi f(ilii)] [II ]Ivir(@) r(ei) [p(ublicae) c(onstituendae) II aediculam(?)] [vijci Salu[taris(?) reficiund(am) cur(avit) (?)]

The text presented is that of Géza Alfoldy in CIL 6.40319. A great deal of the restoration is unsure. (Compare the slightly different texts of ILS and ILLRP.) The inscription, which is a tablet removed from a base or wall, records the rebuilding of some neighborhood monument or perhaps the restoration of a neighborhood’s compitum to public use (cf. Number 2). It is the earliest evidence for direct imperial interest in one of Rome’s vici. The phrase “iussu Imperatoris Caesaris” is otherwise attested for constructions at Rome under the auspices of the future Augustus before 27 B.c.z. The inscription comes from the Collis Salutaris near the Porta Salutaris, where today the Via della Consulta meets the Via Quirinale. F Coarelli (LTUR sv. Salus, aedes) suggests the vicus followed the course of the Via della Consulta. PRESENT LOCATION: Rome, Antiquarium comunale del Celio, inv. 4076. BIBLIOGRAPHY: CIL 6.40319 = 31270; ILS 128; ILLRP 434; NS 1890 81.

ORB Can.

2. Base from a statue of Mercurius donated to a neighborhood on the Esquiline by Augustus.

181

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS OF AUGUSTAN ROME

Imp(erator) Caes[ar] Divi f(ilius) August(us) pontif(ex) maximus, co(n)s(ul) XI tribunicia potes(tate) XIII] ex stipe quam populus Romanus k(alendis) Ianuariis apsenti ei contulit Iullo Antonio Africano Fabio co(n)s(ulibus). Mercurio sacrum.

The date is secured from the names of the consuls. This is the earliest known physical remains of the extremely valuable statues (pretiosissima simulacra) that Augustus commissioned using monies given to him by the urban populace for good luck every New Year and then donated to individual neighborhoods. (The other known examples are Numbers 3, 4, 16, 29.) Dio (54.35.2) and Suetonius

(Aug. 57) report the ex-

change. The base was found in 1888 and was left in situ in the basement of an apartment house on the northeast side of Torre Cantarelli on the Esquiline. For the location of the statue in antiquity, see Figure 6. PRESENT LOCATION: Rome, in situ Via S. Martino ai Monti no. 8. BIBLIOGRAPHY: CIL 6.30974; ILS 92; NS 1888 224-225; Gatti 1888a; Panciera 1980: 205-206.

9 B.C.E. 3. Inscribed tablet cut from the base for a statue of Volcanus

that Augustus donated to a neighborhood near the Forum Romanum. Imp(erator) Caesar Divi f(ilius) Augustus pontifex maximus imp(erator) XIII, co(n)s(ul) XI, trib(unicia) potes(tate) XV ex stipe quam populus Romanus anno novi apsenti contulit Nerone Claudio Druso T. Quinctio Crispino co(n)s(ulibus). Volcano.

The date is secured from the names of the consuls. For Augustus’ donation ofvaluable statues to individual neighborhoods, see Number 2. The tablet (106 x 133 x 30 cm.) was reportedly found at the edge of the Forum Romanum ad aedem Saturni lacamque Curtium. The statue 182

APPENDIX:

COMPITAL

DEDICATIONS

BY YEAR

may have been associated with the nearby Volcanal (Area Volcani). It

is perhaps more pertinent to Rome’s neighborhoods Tullius and because of his by magistri vici to Volcanus associated with fire, Stata PRESENT

LOCATION:

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

to note that Volcanus was an important god both because ofhis association with Servius association with fire. For a dedication made Quietus Augustus along with another deity Mater Augusta, see Number 19.

Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, inv. 2596.

CIL 6.457, 30771; ILS 93; ILMN

11; Panciera

1980: 205-206;

Bakker 1994: 124.

8 B.C.E.

4. Base for a statue of a god that Augustus donated to a neighborhood.

[Imp(erator) Caesar Divi f(ilius) Augustus] [pontifex maximus] imp(erator) XIIII, co(n)s(ul) XI, [trib(unicia) potes(tate) XV or XVI] ex stipe quam po[pulus Romanus] Calendis Ianuar[iis contulit] C. Marcio Censorino C. Asinio Gallo co(n)s(ulibus).

The date is secured from the names of the consuls. For Augustus’ donation ofvaluable statues to individual neighborhoods, see Number 2. The base was reportedly found on the Sacra Via near the arch of Septimius. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

CIL 6.458, 30772; Panciera 1980: 205—206.

7—6 B.C.E.: YEAR

I

5. Inscription from a dedication to Diana Augusta given to a neighborhood by a magister vici primus. [D]ianae August(ae) sacrum

Q. Avillius Adaeus 183

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

magister Vici qui k(alendis) Augustis primus magisterium init.

The inscription, now lost, perhaps came from the Capitol, but its provenance is otherwise unknown. The date is secured from the era of the unnamed neighborhood. One manuscript records Aquillius rather than Avillius. For other dedications to Diana, see Numbers

24 and

49. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

CIL 6.128.

6. Base for a statue of Mercurius Augustus given to a neighborhood in the Forum Boarium by three magistri vici primi. [Mercuri]o Augusto sacrum mag(istri) vici [qui k(alendis)] Aug(ustis) primi magister(ium) inier(unt) N. Lucius N. l(ibertus) Hermeros L. Sutorius L. l(ibertus) Antiochus Q. Clodius Q. Q. l(ibertus) Nicanor.

The reverse of the base is inscribed with the same text, including the entire word Mercurio and the names of the same three magistri in a different order. The date is secured from the era of the unnamed neighborhood. Lucius Hermeros appears in two other dedications from the same neighborhood, an altar to Hercules and a statue of Venus Augusta, as magister vici iterum and tertium (Numbers 28, 48; cf. also Number 31).

The inscription was found near S. Maria in Cosmedin in the Forum Boarium. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

CIL 6.283; AE 1980 54; Panciera 1978, 1980: 203-204, 206.

7. Altar for the Lares Augusti and Genii Caesarum given to a neighborhood by four magistri vici primi (see Figure 12). Laribus Augustis G[eniis Caesaru|]m sacr[um] Q. Rubrius Sp. f(ilius) Col(lina tribu) Pollio L Aufidius Felix GaslpA pep Ad 184

APPENDIX:

COMPITAL

DEDICATIONS

BY YEAR

[...] Diciniu[s...P]hileros [mJagistri qui k. Augustis primi mag[isterium inJierunt

Henzen restored the first line to read G/eniis Caesaru]m following later examples (e.g., CIL 6.449, 451), none earlier than the reign of Ves-

pasian. The date is secured from the era of the unnamed neighborhood. The names of the four magistri are inscribed side by side in letters smaller than the heading of the inscription. The front of the altar shows one Genius, presumably standing in for the Genii of the Caesars, standing besides two Lares. Two laurel branches also appear on the front. Both sides show two men sacrificing at an altar. Altogether these must be the four magistri vici who dedicated the altar. The reverse of the altar shows the corona civica. The provenance of the altar is unknown. PRESENT Inv. 311.

LOCATION:

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bowerman

Rome,

Vatican, Museo

Pio-Clementino,

Salle delle Muse,

CIL 6.445; ILS 3613; Helbig*+ 1 no. 83; Altmann

1913: no. 61; Hermann

1961: no. 13; Hano

1905: no. 234;

1986: 2338 no. r.

8. Pair of bases for the Lares Augusti given to a neighborhood on the Tiber Island by four ministri vici primi (see Figure 4). Larib(us) Aug(ustis) ministri qui k(alendis) Aug(ustis) primi inierunt Antigonus (servus) M. [uni Erotis Anteros (servus) D. Poblici Barnai Eros (servus) A. Poblici Damae Iucundus (servus) M. Ploti Anterotis.

The inscriptions on the two bases are identical, except the order of

the four names is changed. (The text above is CIL 6.446.) The date

is secured from the era of the neighborhood. Ministri vici were always slaves. These bases may be either small altars or statue bases, perhaps donated to hold the neighborhood’s two Lares Augusti. The bases are decorated only with the ubiquitous laurel branches and the names of the ministri. The bases must have belonged to the Vicus Censori, which is known from the Capitoline Base and from two inscriptions found onitheasiand (CL 6.075 = ILS 6073561451; 3610: = ILS: 6073). It is 185

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

the only neighborhood known from the Tiber Island. A dedication to Aesclepius Augustus by a minister anni XXXI also survives from the same neighborhood, and the compital shrine for the neighborhood was restored in 100 c.E. (Numbers 32, 39). PRESENT

LOCATION:

Rome,

Museo

Nazionale

Romano

(delle Terme),

inv.

47808.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: CIL 6.446—7; ILS 3612-36127; Helbig* 2380; Bowerman 30; Hermann 1961: 14; Hano 1986: 2342 no. 7; Candida 1979: no. 43.

1913:

9. Aedicula from the Vicus Aesculeti dedicated by “magistri vici primi.” Laribu[s Aug(ustis) mag(istri) qui k(alendis) Augu]stiis primi inier(unt) [T] erentius A. A. l(ibertus) Bithus At[... ] [. ee |ntonius |.....| [abestus) Eros

eee

The existence of this shrine depends on the joined reconstruction of two epigraphic fragments by S. Panciera. The fragments of Panciera’s suggested restoration reads: “Laribu[s Aug(ustis) Mag(astr1) qui k(alendis) Augu]stiis pri[mi inier(unt)]” with four names arranged side by side in the same style as those on the architrave of the Vicus Compiti Acili (Number 12). Only two of the names can be partially recovered using Panciera’s reconstruction: Terentius Bithus and Antonius Eros, both freedmen. Panciera judged the fragment to have belonged to the architrave of a small shrine similar to that of the Vicus Compiti Acili. The restoration ofthe inscription and the identification with a compital aedicula 1s very unsure. The Soprintendenza Archeologica uncovered the two fragments near the Via di S. Bartolomeo de’ Vaccinari sometime during the construction of the Ministero di Grazia e Giustizia, which began in 1916. The connection between the proposed aedicula and the Vicus Aesculeti comes from the nearness of its location on the Via Arulena to that of the altar of the Vicus Aesculeti dedicated in 2/3 B.c.£. (Number 26). The date derives from Panciera’s reconstruction of the era of the neighborhood. 9

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Panciera 1987: 62-78. 186

APPENDIX:

COMPITAL

DEDICATIONS

BY

YEAR

10. Fragment of an altar from the same neighborhood as the Fasti Magistrorum

Vici (FMV, Number 22).

mag(istri) vici qui k(alendis) Au[g(ustis) | [ma]gisteru[m primi inier(unt)].

The small fragment comes from the top of a base or altar. The date is secured from the era of the neighborhood. Comparison with the formula used by other magistri primi (see Numbers

5, 6, 7, 8, 9) con-

firms that this restoration and dating, rather than those suggested by Mancini, are undoubtedly correct. The fragment was found with the “schola” where the FMV was displayed. For other dedications from the neighborhood of the FMV, see Numbers

10, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22,

35, 49, SO, SI, $2, S3BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Mancini 1935: 78 no. 2.

O-BIGE

11. Parvus cippus inscribed to Stata Mater given to a neighborhood by a magister vici. Statae Matri sac(rum) Q. Coelius Q. l(ibertus) Apollonides mag(ister) vici D. Laelio Balb(o) C. Antistio Vet(o) co(n)s(ulibus).

The date is secured from of the base is unknown. prevention, was the most besides the Lares Augusti Mater, see Numbers PRESENT

LOCATION:

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

the names of the consuls. The provenance Stata Mater, who was concerned with fire popular recipient of compital dedications themselves. For other dedications to Stata

11, 13, 19, 30, 34.

Rome, Museo Vaticano.

CIL 6.763; ILS 3307. 187

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

6—§)BiC.EX YEAR 2

12. Aedicula for the Lares Augusti of the Vicus Compiti Acili donated by the four magistri secundi. [imp(eratore) Caes]are Augusto, pontif(ici) maxs(imo), trib(unicia) potes(tate) XVIII, [imp(eratore) XIV, L. Cor]nelio Sulla co(n)s(ulibus), mag(istri) secun(d1) vici compiti Acili [M.] Licinius M. Sextiliae l(ibertus) Diogenes L. Aelius L. l(ibertus) Hilarus M. Tillius M. l(ibertus) Silo

The podium, the steps, and portions of the architrave of a small rect-

angular shrine raised slightly above street level were found on the northern spur of the Velia at the intersection of the modern-day Via del Colosseo and Via della Polveriera during construction for the Via dei Fori Imperiali. A fragmentary inscription from the architrave provides the identity of the dedicators and the date of the shrine (from the consuls and the era of the neighborhood). The names of the four magistri are arranged side by side. In antiquity the shrine stood at the intersection of the Vicus Cuprius with another street that led up the Carinae. Presumably this shrine held the neighborhood’s statues of the Lares Augusti. A portion of the neighborhood’ altar dedicated in 3—4 C.E. also survives (Number 27).

PRESENT LOCATION: Podium destroyed in construction; inscription from the architrave: Rome, Museo Capitolino. BIBLIOGRAPHY: AE 1964 74a; Hano 1986: 2341 no. 5; KA 398-400 no. 225; Colini 1961-1962; Tamasia 1961-1962; Coarelli 1985: 38-41, 108-112; Dondin-

Payre 1987; LTUR sv. Compitum Acilium (Pisani Sartorio).

13. Base for a statue of Stata Mater Augusta given to a neighborhood by four magistri vici secundi. Statae Matri August(ae) magistri anni secundi C. Duronius Saturninus 188

APPENDIX:

COMPITAL

DEDICATIONS

BY YEAR

Cn. Campanius Longus Q. Licinius Tychius Q. Cafatius Diadumenus.

The base was found outside the city on the Via Nomentana, but must have originally been placed somewhere within the walls. The date is secured from the era of the neighborhood. The names Duronius, Campanius, and Cafatius are poorly attested as Latin names at all. Stata Mater, who was concerned with fire prevention, was the most popular recipient of compital dedications besides the Lares Augusti themselves. For other dedications to Stata Mater, see Numbers BIBLIOGRAPHY:

11, 13, 19, 30, 34.

CIL 6.764; NS 1906 179; Colini 1944: 44-45.

5-4 B.C.E.: YEAR 3 14. Small fragment of a stele from the neighborhood of the Fasti Magistrorum Vici (FMV, Number 22).

Two names appear on one side of the surviving fragment: P. Titinius Hil{arus] and M. Antonius D[onatus]. We learn from the FMV (Number 22) that these were two of the magistri of year 3 from the neighborhood of the FMV. The date is secured from the era of the neighborhood. The names ofthe other two magistri were probably inscribed somewhere on the lost portion ofthe stele. Whether the stele was dedicated to some divinity as Mancini suggests is unclear. The fragment was found at the “schola” where the FMV was displayed. (For other dedications from the neighborhood of the FMV, see Numbers ro, 14,

17 00,21 12251195,140) 450, Sin S25 Se) BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Mancini 1935: 78 no. I.

BETWEEN

AND I

B.C.E.

15. Fragments of a marble tablet that records a gift erected to Augustus’ elder adopted son Gaius Caesar by the urban populace of Region XIII along with the officers of the region’s vici. 189

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

[Plleps urbana quae hab[itat] [iJn regione [u]rbis X[III] [magistr]i vicorum [... ] [C.] Caesari [Augusti f(ilio)] principi iu[ventutis] pontifi(ici) co(n)s(uli) [designato]} aere c[onlato].

The inscription is known from two fragments both discovered at S. Alessio on the northwestern slope of the Aventine, which would place it within region XII of the Augustan city. The date range is secured from the reference to Gaius as princeps iuventutis and consul designatus. The dedication likely dates from 2 B.c.E. when a number of compital inscriptions associated with the emperor’s son and the dedication of Augustus’ temple of Mars Ultor were made. We should expect that the tablet reported a statue of Gaius bought with the collected monies. It is unclear what location would have been appropriate for a dedication by the people and magistri vicorum from a whole region. PRESENT LOCATION: Fragment a: Rome, S. Alessio, affixum in parieti ecclesiae S. Alessio; Fragment b: lost. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

CIL 6.40323 = 899; AE

1949 176; NS 1914 222; Nicolet 1985:

823.

A B.C.E. 16. Inscribed base for statues of the Lares Publici that Augustus donated to a neighborhood on the Palatine near the summit of the Sacra Via. Laribus Publicis sacrum. Imp(erator) Caesar Augustus,

pontifex maximus, tribunic(ia) potestat(e) XVIIII, ex stipe quam populus ei contulit k(alendis) Ianuar(iis) apsenti, C. Calvisio Sabino Passieno Rufo co(n)s(ulibus).

190

APPENDIX:

COMPITAL

DEDICATIONS

BY YEAR

The date is secured from the names of the consuls. For Augustus’ donation of valuable statues to individual neighborhoods,

see Number

2. The tablet (115 < 89 X 10 cm.) was found in summa sacra via on the slope of the Palatine near the Arch of Titus. The dedication may be associated both with the vicus in which Augustus’ dwelling on the Palatine fell and with the state temple of Lares restored by Augustus (Res Gestae 19). This is the only example of one of Augustus’ gifts perhaps being given to a state cult rather than to an individual neighborhood. PRESENT LOCATION:

Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, inv. 2606.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

6.456,

CIL

30770;

ILS 99;

ILMN

10; Panciera

1980:

205—

206.

3-2 B.C.E.: YEAR § 17. Base for a statue of Mercurius Augustus given to the neighborhood of the Fasti Magistrorum Vici (FMV, Number 22) by four magistri anni V. Mercurio Aug. sac(rum) mag(istri) anni V d(ono) d(ederunt) M. Milionius M. l(ibertus) Auctus P. Cornificius P. P. l(ibertus) Eros M. Pontius M. l(ibertus) Eros P. Sulpicius P. l(ibertus) Felix.

This base was found along with two others dedicated to Apollo Augustus (Numbers 21, 35). The names ofthe four officers appear under year 5 on FMV and so this dedication belongs to the same neighborhood as the FMV. For the provenance ofthe base, see Number 21. For other dedications from the neighborhood of the FMV, see Numbers

EO. TA, 17.) 109 21, 22503530493, SO ode S250 95 PRESENT LOCATION: Listed in CIL as Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, but not in ILMN. BIBLIOGRAPHY: CIL 6.34.

I9I

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

18. Inscribed fragment from a donation given to the neighborhood of the Fasti Magistrorum Vici (FMV, Number 22) by at least one of the magistri anni V. The fragment is inscribed “M. Pontius,” who appears as M. Pontius M. l(ibertus) Eros both in the FMV and in Number 17. For other dedications from the neighborhood of the FMV, see Numbers 10, 14,

17, 18, 21, 22, 35, 49, $0, $I, 52, 53. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Mancini

1935: 75—76.

19. Inscribed tablet from a base for statues of Volcanus Quietus Augustus and Stata Mater Augusta given to the Vicus Armilustri by two magistri vici anni V. Volcano Quieto Augusto et State Matri Augustae sacrum. P. Pinarius Thiasus et M. Rabutius Berullus mag(istri) Vici Armilustri anni V.

The date of the base is secured from the era of the neighborhood. This neighborhood on the northwestern slope of the Aventine must have taken its name from the Armilustrium (LTUR sv. Armilustrium [Andreussi]). Stata Mater, who was concerned with fire prevention, was the most popular recipient of compital dedications besides the Lares Augusti themselves. For other dedications to Stata Mater see Numbers

11, 13, 19, 30, 34. Volcanus too was concerned with urban

fires (see Number 3). PRESENT LOCATION: Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, inv. 2597. BIBLIOGRAPHY: CIL 6.802; ILS 3306; ILMN 18.

Pay Ah Elie

20. Altar for the Lares Augusti given to the Vicus Sandaliarius by four magistri vici (see Figure 14). 192

APPENDIX:

COMPITAL

DEDICATIONS

BY YEAR

front: imp(eratore) Caesare Augusto XIII, M. Plautio Silvan(o) co(n)s(ulibus) D. Oppius C. I(ibertus) Iaso, D. Lucilius D. l(ibertus) Salvius, L. Brinnius C. labertus) Princeps, L. Furius L. l(ibertus) Salvius mag(istri) Vici Sandaliari right side: Laribus Augustis

The date is secured from the names of the consuls and the era of the neighborhood. The front of the altar shows three figures, two males and a female. The central figure holds a lituus while a chicken feeds at his feet; the lituus and chicken are both augural symbols. All three figures must be members of the imperial family. The right side of the altar is decorated with the figures of two Lares. The reverse shows the corona civica and two laurel branches and the left side Victoria carrying the clupeus virtutis. The circumstances and place of the altar’s discovery are unknown, but the Vicus Sandaliarius was northeast of Augustus’ Forum and later ran along the northeast side of Flavian Temple of Pax. A dedication to Stata Fortuna by the magistri of 12 C.E. also survives from this neighborhood (Number 30). PRESENT LOCATION: Florence, Uffizi, inv. 972. BIBLIOGRAPHY: CIL 6.448; Altmann 1905: no. 231; Hermann 1961: 15; Hano 1986: 2338 no 2; Ryberg 1955: 60-61; Mansuelli 1958: 204-205 no. 205; Zanker 1970-1971:

ISI—155; Pollini 1987: 30-37.

2—I B.C.E.: YEAR 6

21. Base for a statue of Apollo Augustus given to the neighborhood of the Fasti Magistrorum Vici (FMV, Number 22) by four magistri vici anni VI. Apollini Aug(usto) sacrum. magistri anni VI d(onum) d(ederunt) Sex. Trebonius Sex. I(ibertus) Philemo A. Cornelius A. l(ibertus) Nysus Q. Fufius Q. l(ibertus) Epaphroditus C. Sulpicius Galb(ae) I(bertus) Ragia.

193

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

The base was found along with another later dedication to Apollo and an earlier one to Mercurius Augustus (Numbers 17, 35). The four

freedman magistri listed were also those responsible for the FMV and are listed there under year six, so this base belongs to the same neighborhood as the FMV. The inscriptions were found together in vinea Tarquinii Securi inter colles Aventinum et Testaceum. The ancient location ofthe finds was along a street leading off the Via Ostiensis between the Horrea Galbae (Sulpicia) and the Porticus Aemilia. The intersection of the Via Ostiensis and this unnamed street was probably the compitum for this neighborhood.

The three dedications, however, were found

up the road closer to the Monumentum Galbae in front of the Horrea Galbae (Sulpicia). For other dedications from the neighborhood ofthe FMV .,.see Numiberss10, BIBLIOGRAPHY:

14,17, 1d. 21, 22635,040,. 50m sll 5253

CIL 6.33; LFUR tav. 40.

22. Fasti from a vicus below the southwest slope of the Aventine (see Figure 8). imp(erator) Caesar August[us, pontif(ex) maxim(us)], co(n)s(ul) XI, tribun(icia) potes[t(ate) X] VII Lares Aug(ustos) mag(istris) vici dedit.

Ti. Claudio Nerone iter(um) Cn. Calpurnio Pisone, co(n)[s(ulibus)]

magistri primi {7 B.c.z.} M. Caecilius M. f(ilius) Pal(atina tribu) Opta[tus] C. Clodius A. [f(ilius)] Pal(atina tribu) Assus via[tor?] Cy SulpreimsiG: lGbertus): Chrysieas| [M. Va]lerius M. I(ibertus) [Fe?]lix C. An[ti]stio, D. Laelio co(n)s(ulibus) mag(istri) II ad pr(idie) k(alendas) Aug(ustas) {6 B.c.E.} M. Caesonius M. l(ibertus) Menophil(us) P. Annius P. l(ibertus) Apollonius L. Cornificius L. l(ibertus) Fortunat(us) A. Considius A. l(ibertus) Princeps Imp(eratori) Caesare XII, L. Sulla co(n)s(ulibus)

mag(istri) terti {5 B.c.z.} C. Satrius L. f(ilius) Ter(entina tribu) 194

APPENDIX:

COMPITAL

DEDICATIONS

BY YEAR

P. Titinius P. l(ibertus) Hilarus Q. Vibius Q. l(ibertus) H[i}larus M. Antonius Donatus mag(istr1) inierunt k(alendis) Aug(ustis)

[mag(istri) quarti] {4 B.c.g.} lisdoak jebce [ «ay fis fic a Aucata,

ee

[mag(istri) M. M{ilionius P. Cornifficius M. Pontfius P. Sulpic[ius

quinti] {3 B.c.E.} M. l(ibertus) Auct]us P. P. l(ibertus) Er]os M. l(ibertus) Ero|s P. l(ibertus) Felix]

ma[g(istri) sexti] {2 B.c.E.} A. Corneliu[s A. lGibertus) Nysus] Sex. Treboniu[s Sex. I(ibertus) Phi]lemo C. Sulpicius Galb(ae) l(ibertus) [Ragl]ia Q. Fufius Q. l(ibertus) Epaphr[od]itus mag(istri) VII {1 B.c.£.} Cn. Domitius Cn. et C. l(ibertus) Nicomedes L. Arruntius L. l(ibertus) Philomusus [L.] Salvius L. l(ibertus) Primus L. Otacilius L. l(ibertus) Cinnamus mag(istri) VHI {1 c.e.} M’. Sorilius M’. l(ibertus) Menander P. Servilius P. l(ibertus) R[u]fio C. Annius C. l(ibertus) Ap[el]lla L. Opsilius L. l(ibertus) Pa{mp]hilus

mag(istri) I[X] {2 c.z.} M. Iunius C. l(ibertus) Log[i]us P. Curtius P. l(ibertus) Anteros C. Veveius C. l(ibertus) Pamphilus P. Carvilius P. l(ibertus) Syrus Sex. Appuleio, Sex. Pompeio co(n)s(ulibus)

mag(istri) anni XXI {13 c.g.} M. Marcius M. I(ibertus) Hilarus P. Lacutanius P. l(ibertus) Demost(h)e(nes) 195

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

vacat.

C. Coelius C. l(ibertus) Pamphilus

mag(istri) XII {4 c.e.} Cn. Cretarius Cn. l(ibertus) Philogen(es) M. Cornelius C. I(ibertus) Eutychus C. lulius C. C. L. l(ibertus) Donatus M. Milionius M. l(ibertus) Aeschinus [Ti.] Caesare, Germanico Caesare II co(n)s(ulibus) ma[g(istri)] anni XXIIII {16 c.s.}

P. Sulpicius P. l(ibertus) Optatus M. Milionius Ancialus Ti. Caesare III], Druso Caesar(e) II co(n)s(ulibus), mag(istri) anni XXVII {19 c.e.} M. Marcius M. l(ibertus) Hilarus P. Lacutanus P. l(ibertus) Demosthenes C. Coelius C. l(ibertus) Pamphilus M. Fulvius M. l(ibertus) Auctus

The text given above is that of Degrassi in Ins. Ital. 13.1 published in 1947, which is at present the best text of this important inscription.

The FMV is a tablet discovered in four fragments at the intersection of the Via Marmorata and the Via Giovanni Branca very near the remains of the “schola” of the neighborhood where many other fragments pertaining to the same neighborhood were discovered. Degrassi joins a fifth fragment, now lost, to the inscription as well. The FMV was inscribed on both sides, and thus was displayed where both sides could be read. The two faces were divided into upper and lower registers. In the upper registers on both sides was a copy of the Roman festival calendar, six months on each side. The lower registers displayed on one side a list of consuls and censors and on the other the names ofthe magistri of the vicus from the years 7 B.C.E. to 2 B.C.E. with additional boards of magistri added sporadically up to 21 c.E. However, all of the magistri up to those entering office in 2 B.C.E. were carved at the same time and in the same hand and thus 2 B.c.£. must be the year the calendar was initially inscribed. I have quoted above the entire list of magistri vici from the FMV along with the heading. For other dedications from the neighborhood of the FMV, sée Numbers 10), 1451717, 18, 2 196

19200395,.49, $0, SIs 52.553.

APPENDIX:

PRESENT

LOCATION:

COMPITAL

Rome,

Museo

DEDICATIONS

Nazionale

BY YEAR

Romano

(delle

Terme)

inv.

121558.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Insc. Ital. 13.1 279-289 no. 20; Insc. Ital. 13.2 90-98 no. 12; AE 1935 p. 173; AE 1937 62; AE 1938 66; Mancini 1935; Degrassi 1935; Gordon 1958: no,

32.

23. Altar for the Lares Augusti given to the Vicus Statae Matris by four ministri vici anni VI (see Figure 11). front: Laribus Augustiis (sic!). ministri anni VI Felix (servus) L. Crautani Florus (servus) Sex. Avieni

Eudoxsus (servus) C. Caesi Polyclitus (servus) Sex. Anchari. L. Caninio Gallo, C. Fufio Gemino

co(n)s(ulibus) XIII k. Octobr(is). rear. [LaJribus Aug(ustis) Vicei Statae Matris. ministri anni VI L. et N. Savoni Felix (servus) L. Crautani Eudoxsus (servus) C. Caesi vacat. Polyclitus (servus) Sex. Anchari.

L. Caninio Gallo, C. Fufio Gemino co(n)s(ulibus) XIV k(alendis) Octobr(is).

The altar is inscribed with two slightly different texts on front and rear. On the front four servile ministri are named. On the rear, one,

Florus, is omitted, though a blank space was left for his name. Two further individuals, Lucius and

Numerius Savonus, or Lucius and Nu-

merius slave of Savonus, were added of the two Savoni is unclear. Then istri are repeated with a blank space The date of the dedication of the 197

in small letters. The significance the names of three of the minleft for Florus, who is omitted. altar can be fixed at September

AMeus NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

18, 2 B.c.E. The front of the altar shows a corona civica; the rear a

patera. PRESENT LOCATION: Rome, Musei Capitolini, Museo Nuovo, sale 7, inv. 2144. BIBLIOGRAPHY: CIL 6.36809a-b; ILS 9250; Hermann 1961: no. 16; Hano 1986: 2341 no. 6; KA 392 no. 220; Helbig* 2 no. 1750; Gatti 1906; Colini 1944: 43-4,

288-289; Gordon 1958: no. 33.

I B.C.E.—I C.E.: YEAR 7 24. Dedication of unknown provenience to Diana Augusta by eight magistri vici anni septumi. Dianae Augustae sacrum. mag(istri) anni septumi Gn. Coruncanius Gn. f(ilius) Co[l](lina tribu) Rufus A. [S]ervilius Onesimus Q. Marius Demetrius M. Carsenus Nasta M. Lurius Maritumus A. Rubrius Sestini I(ibertus) Anteros Sex. [P]lotius Iucundus L. Appuleius Iun[c]us. The first three lines of the inscription, along with Coruncanius’ name,

are carved in much larger letters than the remaining seven names. The significance of the freeborn Coruncanius receiving a more prominent position than the other seven magistri is unclear. The dedication appears to have been made by the magistri of two adjoining neighborhoods, a unique example among our evidence for the neighborhoods. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

CIL 6.129.

I C{E2

IRREGULARLY

YEAR

9

25. Inscribed tablet recording an August Altar from a vicus in the northern Campus Martius dedicated by an L. Lucretius Zethus with the ninth year ending well (“anno novo eunte feliciter”) (see Figure 15). 198

APPENDIX:

COMPITAL

DEDICATIONS

BY YEAR

Mercurio, Aeterno Deo Io|[vi], [IJunoni Regin(ae), Min[ervae], [Solji, Lunae, Apol[lini], [Dia]nae, Fortunaf[e, Iunoni], [LuciJnae, Opi, Isi Pe[lagiae], [-7—] v. Fati(i)s D[ivinis] [quod bo]num [faustum] [feli]xque [siet v.] imp(eratori) Caesari August[to, Genio| eius, Senati populi[q(ue) Romani] et gentibus, nono [anno] intro eunte felic[iter v.] C. Caesare L. v. Pau[llo co(n)s(ulibus) } L. Lucretius L. l(ibertus) Zethus iussu lovis aram augustam Salum Semonia posuit populi Victoria.

The inscription was found in 1890 near the bank of the Tiber north of

the Pons Aelius where the Lungotevere Marzio meets the Via di Monte Brianzo. The three divinities in italics were added to the inscription some time after its initial production. Palmer correctly identifies this inscription as belonging to a neighborhood whose era began in 8 B.C.E. The inscription 1s unique among compital dedications for the sheer number of gods honored and the complex devotional phrasing. Both recall Augustus’ earlier celebration of the Ludi Saeculares. I have used Palmer’s text here. PRESENT

LOCATION:

Rome,

Museo

Nazionale

Romano

(delle Terme),

inv.

72473. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

CIL 6.30975; ILS 3090; NS 1890 388; CAR 1958: no. 35; Palmer 1990: 18-28; Cavallaro 1975-1976.

1.1.47; Gordon

2-3 C.E.: YEAR 9

26. Altar for the Lares Augusti given to the Vicus Aesculeti by the magistri vici anni noni (see Figure 13). Front:

Larib(us) August(is). 199

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

Rear: mag(istri) vici anni noni. Pavement: [Ma]g[i]stri vici Aescleti anni VIIII

This altar was recomposed after excavation in 1887 from fragments, not all of which were uncovered. It is clear that the names of the four magistri responsible for the altar were inscribed on the front and both sides of the altar, but they are now so fragmentary as to be undecipherable. S. Panciera has shown that the reconstruction in CIL must be incorrect. The altar was uncovered in situ in a patch of tessellated pavement in which was represented “Officers of the Vicus Aesculeti of year 9.” The sides of the altar each show a Lar and the back shows a sacrifice scene. The altar was uncovered on the westernmost edge of the Campus Martius on the present-day Via Arenula near the Ponte Nuovo Garibaldi. S. Panciera suggests that this neighborhood also received a new aedicula in 7 B.c.B. (Number 9). PRESENT

LOCATION:

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Rome, Musei Capitolini, Museo Nuovo, salle 6, inv. 855.

CIL 6.30957; ILS 3615; NS

1888 498-499; Altmann

190s: no.

232; Bowerman 1913: no. 14; Hano 1986: 2339 no. 3; KA 390 no. 217; Helbig* 2 no. 1741; Ryberg 1955: 5; Alfoldi 1973: 33; Panciera 1987: 68—70.

3-4 C.E.: YEAR IO 27. Altar of the Vicus Compiti Acili. Mag(istri) vici comp (iti) Aciltvannd >< [——| [—] M(arcus) An[t]onius [—]rionis l(ibertus) Felix, L(ucius) Venuleiu[s] Turanni l(ibertus) Buccifo].

The altar was uncovered, in very fragmentary condition, in the excavations that revealed the Augustan aedicula from the same neighborhood (Number 12). It was decorated on the front with a large corona civica. The date is secured from the era of the neighborhood. For the location of the compitum and neighborhood, see above Number 12. 200

APPENDIX:

PRESENT LOCATION: BIBLIOGRAPHY:

COMPITAL

DEDICATIONS

BY YEAR

Rome, Museo Capitolino.

AE 1964 74b, Tamasia 1961-1962; LTUR

sv. Compitum Acili

(Pisani Sartorio) with further bibliography.

4—S C.E.: YEAR II 28. Cippus dedicated to Hercules by three magistri vici anni XI. Sacrum Hercul(i) mag(istri) vici anni XI A. A. (= Auli) Marcii Athenodor(i) lib(erti) Hilarus et Bello N(umerius) Lucius Hermeros Aequitas mag(ister) iter(um) pondera auraria et argentaria viciniae posuerunt idem tuentur anno XIX pro parte in vigul(antes) pro vicin(ia) una cum magistr(is) contulerunt.

The base was found in the area of S. Maria in Cosmedin in the Forum Boarium. Evidently the magistri gave a set of commercial scale weights to the neighborhood and promised to look after them. Hercules was a natural choice to look after such business items. Two other dedications made by the magister Hermeros survive (Numbers 48, 6). The text in italics was added in year 19 ofthe neighborhood’s era when the weights were checked and adjusted by the original dedicators and the officers of that year (Number 31). S. Panciera suggests that Augustus gave a precious statue to this neighborhood in 10 c.z. (Number 29). BIBLIOGRAPHY:

CIL 6.282; ILS 5615; AE

1978

13; Panciera

1978,

1980: 204,

200.

NORCAE:

29. Inscription from the base of a statue of an unknown god that Augustus gave to an unknown vicus. 201

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

[Imp(erator) Caesar Augustus] [pontifex maximus] [tribunic(ia) potest(ate) XXXII] [ex] stipe quam [populus] [k(alendis)] Ianuariis ei [contulit] [P. DJolabella C.[Silano co(n)s(ulibus)].

The date is secured from the names ofthe consuls. The inscription was uncovered somewhere on the Via della Greca. Panciera suggests that it came from near S. Maria in Cosmedin and belonged to the same neighborhood as three other dedications made by Numerius Lucius Hermeros

(Numbers 6, 28, 48). For Augustus’ donation of valuable

statues to individual neighborhoods, see Number 2. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

AE 1980 56; Panciera 1980: 205-206 no. 10.

II—12 C.E.: YEAR

I8

30. Marble tablet dedicated on January I, 12 CE. to Stata Fortuna Augusta by two magistri of the Vicus Sandaliarius. Germanico Caesare C. Fonteio [Capi]tone co(n)s(ulibus) k(alendis) anuaris Statae Fortunae Aug. sacr(um) Sex. Fonteius C. l(ibertus) Trophimus Cn. Pompeius Cn. I(ibertus) Nicephor(us) mag(istri) vici Sandaliari reg(ionis) III] anni XVIII d(ono) d(ederunt).

The tablet is decorated with two laurel branches, a patera, and an urceus. Stata Fortuna 1s in all likelihood Stata Mater. The original provenance of the inscription is unknown, but it must have originally stood somewhere in the Vicus Sandaliarius. The altar of the Vicus Sandaliarius, 202

APPENDIX:

COMPITAL

DEDICATIONS

BY YEAR

dedicated in 2 B.c.z., also survives (Number 20). Stata Mater, who was concerned with fire prevention, was the most popular recipient of compital dedications besides the Lares Augusti themselves. For other dedications to Stata Mater, see Numbers BIBLIOGRAPHY:

11, 13, 19, 30, 34.

CIL 6.761; ILS 3308.

I2—I3 C.E.: YEAR I9 31. Adjustment and verification of scale weights in a neighborhood in the Forum Boarium. The magistri vici anni XIX readjusted and verified a set of scale weights donated to the vicus by the magistri of year 11 and housed in a shrine of Hercules. On the original donation, see Number 28. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

CIL 6.282; ILS 5615; AE 1978 13; Panciera 1978.

POST-=AUGUSTAN

DEDICATIONS

YEAR 31 32. Altar from the Insula Tiberina dedicated to Aesculapius Augustus by Probus, minister iterum anni XXXI. Aisculapio Augusto sacrum Probus M. Fictori Fausti minister iterum anni XXXI.

The only temple of Aesculapius known in Rome was located on the island; however, there is no evidence of ministri connected with the

temple. Therefore Probus was probably a minister vici. There was evidently only a single vicus on the island, the vicus Censori. Two altars to the Lares Augusti put up by ministri of the same vicus survive (Number 8). The aedicula for the neighborhood was restored in 100 C.E. (Number 39). Probus, like all ministri vici at Rome, was a slave. PRESENT

LOCATION:

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Rome, Museo Vaticano.

CIL 6.12; ILS 3837; Bomer 1954-1955: 252-253.

203

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

YEAR 32 33. Dedication of unknown provenance to Hercules Tutor

Augustus by two magistri anni XXXII. [He]rculi Tut[ori] [Au]g(usto) sacr[um?] [...]terus Epaph[roditus] [...]eronius C. [f(ilius)?] Varus [mag(istri)] anni XXXII [vici...] reg(ionis) X [iussu eJius VI k. I[...] [Cn. Lent]ulo Gaetu[lico] [C. Cal]visio Sabino [co(n)s(ulibus).

The inscription was found reused in a wall between the Palatine and Caelian. No vicus known in Region X could be restored here. The day of the dedication must be either 26 June or 27 May. June 26 was the day of Tiberius’ adoption in 4 c.£. and the anniversary date of the altar of Providentia Augusta. The year is secured from the names of the consuls. PRESENT LOCATION: Rome, Museo Capitolino. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

CIL 6.343 = 30743.

42 C.E.: YEAR 50 34. Plaque recording a dedication to Stata Mater Augusta given to the Vicus Minervi by four magistri vici. Statae Matri Aug(ustae) sacrum mag(istr1) reg(ione) VII Vico Minervi anni L Ap. Arrenus Appianus

C. Cornelius Eutychus Sex. Plotius Quartio 204

APPENDIX:

COMPITAL

DEDICATIONS

BY YEAR

C. Vibius Phylades. Dedicata est (ante diem) XVII k(alendis) Sept(embris) lustratione.

The inscription was found in a cemetery outside the city’s walls, but it must have originally stood inside the walls, as Palmer shows. On the Vicus Minervi, see Palmer. The reference to region as well as neighborhood foreshadows the close relationship between regionary magistrates and the neighborhoods evident in inscriptions from the Flavian dynasty. The performance of a [ustratio was evidently a standard part of compital worship. Stata Mater, who was concerned with fire prevention, was the most popular recipient of compital dedications besides the Lares Augusti themselves. For other dedications to Stata Mater, see Numbers

I1, 13, 19, 30, 34. What exactly was dedicated in

this case (a statue?) is unclear. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

CIL 766; ILS 3309; Palmer 1990: 9-10.

A4 C.E.: YEAR $2 35. Altar or base for a statue of Apollo Augustus. Apollini Augusto sacrum magister et minister anni LII d(onum) d(ederunt) L. Laberius L. l(ibertus) Felix Tertius (servus) Q. Q. Nunniorum Lunesis et Montani

This dedication was found along with Numbers 17 and 21. We can conclude that it, like these earlier bases, belonged to the neighborhood of the FMV. This is the only compital inscription to mention both a magister and a minister. For other dedications from the neighborhood of the FMV, see Numbers 10, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 35, 49, 50, SI, 52, 53.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

CIL 6.35.

205

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

RESTORATIONS

OF AUGUSTAN

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

COMPITAL

SHRINES

53 C.E.: YEAR OI

36. Aedicula of the Vicus Corniculari (or Cornicularius?) restored by the magistri anni LXI.

The inscription was found in Regio HI near the Ludus Magnus toward the present-day S. John Lateran. The fragmentary consular date could be either 53 or 59 C.E.; however, the era of the vicus secures the date

ASS 3)3 BIBLIOGRAPHY:

AE 1960 §9.

83 C.E.: YEAR 92 (ABNORMALLY) 37. Aedicula of the Vicus Honoris et Virtutis restored by the magistri anni LX XXXII.

The era of the magistri Vici Honoris et Virtutis seems to have begun in 9 B.c.E. The original provenance of the inscription is unknown. The vicus is known from the Capitoline base in Region I and must be associated with the temple of Honos and Virtus just inside the porta Capena on the Caelian. The date is calculated from the titles of Domitian. The aedicula was restored a second time in the early third century (Number 44). BIBLIOGRAPHY:

CIL 6.449; ILS 3617.

98 OR 99 C.E.: YEAR 106

38. Aedicula of the Vicus Portae Collinae restored by the magistri of at least year 102 (The inscription is broken: anni CI[..]), probably year 107 or 106. The vicus was in Region VI and must have been just inside the porta Collina. The inscription contains a consular date. If the era of this

206

APPENDIX:

COMPITAL

DEDICATIONS

BY YEAR

neighborhood began in 7 B.c.k., then the restoration was accomplished in the year 106 or 107 of the neighborhood’s local era. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

CIL 6.450 = 30768; ILS 3618.

LOO

7G{E:

39. The aedicula of the Vicus Censori was restored in 100 cB. by the magistri of at least year 106 (the inscription is incomplete: anni CVI[... J).

The inscription comes from the Insula Tiberina in Region XIV. The inscription contains a consular date. Two earlier dedications by ministri vici from the Vicus Censori survive (Numbers 8, 32). BIBLIOGRAPHY:

CIL 6.451 = 30769; ILS 3619.

109 C.E.: YEAR I21 (ABNORMALLY) 40. The aedicula of the Vicus Iovis Fagutalis was restored in 109

c.E. by the magistri anni CXXI. The era of the vicus evidently began in 12 B.c.E., which is the est known date for the organization of a compital cult of the Augusti. The vicus was in Region III and must take its name the Sacellum Iovis Fagutalis that was probably on the Oppius. inscription contains a consular date. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

earliLares from The

CIL 6.452.

TIOICE: 41. Aedicula rebuilt in this year. The inscription from the architrave of this restored compital shrine is recomposed from three fragments. Neither the name of the neighborhood nor the year of its era are extant. 207,

THE

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

CIL 6.30958; NS 1887 72.

TOL Gye

42. An aedicula of the Vicus Statuae Verris was built in 161 CE.

by the magistri of an unknown year. The vicus is known only from a very fragmentary inscription of unknown provenance. The date is calculated from the titles of Marcus Aurelius. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

AE 1971 34; AE 1972 48; Palmer 1978-1980.

203 C.E. 43. Aedicula rebuilt in this year.

The inscription from the architrave of this restored compital shrine is recomposed from two fragments. Neither the name of the neighborhood nor the year ofits era are extant. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

CIL 6.30959; NS 1888 389.

205 OR 208 C.E:

44. The aedicula of the Vicus Honoris et Virtutis was restored a second time in 205 or 208 C.E.

The inscription is very fragmentary and the year of the magistri, if it was listed, is lost. The aedicula had been restored in 83 C.E. as well (Number 37). BIBLIOGRAPHY:

AE 1946: 189; AE 1948 170; AE 1949: 170.

222-235 C.E. 45. Aedicula of some neighborhood restored during the reign of Alexander Severus. 208

APPENDIX:

COMPITAL

DEDICATIONS

BY YEAR

The extremely fragmentary inscription records the restoration of a compital aedicula. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

CIL 6.30961; NS 1878 236.

32318 46. The aedicula of the Vicus Vestae in Region VIII was restored 1-223 CE.

The vicus is probably connected with the atrium Vestae, where the Vestal Virgins lived or perhaps with the Aedes Vestae near the Forum Romanum. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

CIL 6.30960; ILS 3621.

47. The aedicula of the Vicus III Ararum was restored (or built!) in an unknown year by the magistri of an unknown year. The inscription was found in front of the present-day church of S. Gregory the Great near the Porta Capena at the base of the Caelian. The vicus appears on the Capitoline base under Region I. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

CIL 6.453; ILS 3616; Colini 1944: 45, 72, 199.

UNKNOWN

DATE

BUT

AND

CERTAINLY

AUGUSTAN

COMPITAL

48. Base found in the Forum Boarium dedicated to Venus Augusta by N(umerius) L. Hermeros Aequitas magister vici tertium. Veneri August(ae) sacr(um) N(umerius) L. Hermeros Aequitas mag(ister) ter(tium).

Dedications from Hermeros’ first and second terms as magister vici in 7-6 B.C.E. and 4—5 C.E. also survive (Numbers 6, 28; Cf. also Number 209

THE

NEIGHBORHOODS

OF AUGUSTAN

ROME

31). It seems likely that his third term as magister should fall in the reign

of Augustus and certainly before the death of Tiberius. Because of the awkward nature of the text, Panciera suggests that the title “mag. ter.” was added after the original inscription was carved. He posits that Hermeros gave the statue earlier than his third term as magister and the title was added later when Hermeros did in fact serve his third term. This seems unlikely, since most magistri gave dedications during their year in office. Perhaps the title was omitted from the original inscription and was fit in when the stonecutter realized his mistake. The base was discovered in the fill used to construct S. Stefano Rotondo on the Caelian. It must have originally stood somewhere in Hermeros’ neighborhood in the Forum Boarium. The font face shows a pair ofdoves drinking from a bow]; one side face shows a dove feeding her young. PRESENT LOCATION: Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano (delle Terme). BIBLIOGRAPHY: AE 1980 $4; Panciera 1980: 203 no. 7 and tav. 48; Zanker 1988a: 134-136 and fig. 112.

49. Fragment of an inscription from the neighborhood of the Fasti Magistrorum Vici (FMV, Number 22). The small fragment of a base, presumably for a statue, is inscribed simply “Diana.” Neither the date of the dedication nor the names of the magister or magistri who paid for the statue are known. The compital nature of the dedication seems secure from the context of its excavation along with the FMV. For other dedications from the neighborhood of the FMV, see Numbers

10, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 35,

49, $0, SI, $2, $3.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Mancini 1935: 79 no. 4.

50. Small fragment of the stele from the neighborhood of the Fasti Magistrorum Vici (FMV, Number 22). The fragment bears no inscription, but is decorated with the common compital tokens of oak and laurel branches. Neither the date of production nor the names of the magister or magistri who paid for it are 210

APPENDIX:

COMPITAL

DEDICATIONS

BY YEAR

known. The compital nature of the dedication seems secure from the context of its excavation along with the FMV. For other dedications from the neighborhood of the FMV, see Numbers

10, Py 1978; Ses

22, 35, 49, 50, SI, $2, $3. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Mancini

1935: 79 no. 8.

51. Two small fragments of a stele from the neighborhood of the Fasti Magistrorum Vici (FMV, Number 22). One ofthe two fragments bears the partial name “Felix” which could relate to a magister of year 4 or 5 on the FMV

or to an officer from

some year for which the magistri are unknown. The compital nature of the dedication seems secure from the context ofits excavation along with the FMV. For other dedications from the neighborhood of the PMN

see Dlumbens-10,.14..

17,409, 2102235540)

50s

ee

we AMP

;

as

wan =

ee

; ~~

: tw’

“AON

eat rae

j

Ra

a sags A

4 WF pair é hr =

;

=p!

i.«

6

.

@

6611.5

Te

oul \ [ase17 ern gan

-

Je

i ot

ie

A grain eat

pay iynm ieRee a Nite * xe

Br nieve i

eh by

- i

ville,

if)

“ae ibeul

ae

Wirt Sayan

ave or

a

ii

Lae

-

¢

ath gees GT e-08 OO) (oii yt a Ge = 28;

=r

|

ia

a rune ae

fo

ontnic

ware

‘wit : ioe re

wi or

tl

a

MNO y=)

outro

Baas BI

as.

‘a

li

GUE S

I. INTRODUCING

NEIGHBORHOODS

AT

ROME

AND

ELSEWHERE

For a summary ofthe physical development of Augustan Rome, see Purcell 1996; 1988: 48-66. L. Richardson sets out the source materials available for studying the topography of Rome in the introduction to NTDAR xv—xxvi. La Gory and Pipkin 1981: 3. This argument should not be taken too far. The organization of space does not directly determine social behavior. For a critique of “architectural determinism,” see Broady 1966. For an in-depth discussion ofthe role ofpolitics in urban planning, and vice versa, Stambaugh

we

see Johnson 1989. For a comparative treatment of the relationship between city

governance and urban society, see DiGaetano and Klemanski 1999.

Sometimes vicus in the sense of urban subdivision is translated into English as “ward” rather than “neighborhood.” However, ward in English implies a purely institutional political entity without any of the organic cultural and physical components that, as we shall see, were also prominent aspects of Rome’s vici. an

LL 5.159: “vicus constat ex domibus.”

L. L. 5.145: “In oppido vici a via, quod ex (u) traque parte viae sunt aedificia.”

Festus 502, 508L: “(Vici) ... cipiunt ex agris, qui ibi villas non habent, ut Marsi aut Peligni. Sed ex vic[t]is partim habent rempublicam et ius dicitur, partim nihil eorum et tamen ibi nundinae aguntur negoti gerendi causa, et magistri vici, item

magistri pagi quotannis fiunt. Altero, cum id genus aedificio(rum defi)nitur, quae continentia sunt his oppidis quae . . . itineribus regionibusque distributa inter se distant, nominibusque

dissimilibus discriminis causa sunt dispartita. Tertio,

cum id genus aedificiorum definitur, quae in oppido privi in suo quisque loco proprio ita aedifica(a)nt, ut in eo aedificio pervium sit, quo itinere habitatores ad suam quisque habitationem habeant accessum. Qui non dicuntur vicani, sicut hi, qui aut in oppidi vicis, aut hi, qui in agris sunt, vicani appellantur.” The text presents great difficulties, especially the vacat (“quae .. . itineribus”) recorded in one manuscript, but the sense is clear. 15.2.11—12: “licet et vici dicantur ipsae habitationes urbis.”

221

IN©@ TES! TOPAGESmA=22

Io

Il

Isidorus Etym. 15.2.22: “Vicus, ut praedictum est, ipsae habitationes urbis sunt; unde et vicini dicti. Viae ipsa spatia angusta quae inter vicos sunt.” Schol. Ad. Pers. 4.28: “compita dicuntur, ad quae plura itinera competent”; Servius ad. Georg. 2.382: “compita appellantur ab eo, quod multae viae in unam confluent”; Isidorus Etym. 15.16.12: “conpeta quia plures in ea conpetunt viae, quasi triviae, quadriviae.” For an example of aneighborhood probably created under the Flavians, see AE 1971: 34 (Vicus Statuae Verris).

Both the Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae and the New Topoographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome list around 120 vici known by name. This is surely less than the actual total. An important inscription from the reign of Hadrian, the socalled Capitoline base (Number 68), lists sixty-five vici divided among five of the fourteen Augustan regions. This would lead to a bad approximation of only 182 vici, though this number is fairly worthless since the number of vici per region

varies greatly. The Regionaries both list over 400 vici in the city (Notitia: Valentini and Zucchetti 1940-1953: vol. 1, 161; Curiosum: Valentini and Zucchetti 1940— 1953: vol. 1,187).

13

See the valuable comments

of Lo Cascio 2000: 17-70, who discusses the various

methods for estimating the city’s population over time. Lo Cascio makes clear the extreme difficulties of the project.

14 15

For 750,000, Brunt 1971: 383; for 1,000,000, Hopkins 1978: 96-98. On

the

Marble

Plan

in

general,

see

FUM;

FUR;

Reynolds

1996.

The Stanford Digital Forma Urbis project (http://formaurbis.stanford. edu./) promises to add greatly to our knowledge of the map. 16 FUM tav. 1: “[Vicus] Summi Ch[oragi],” “V...,” tav. ro: “[Vicus] Patricius,” ia, 232 | MGUS Selloleranns,” wae Rae WA.

17

|”

The best available text and commentary for the Regionaries is given by Valentini and Zucchetti 1940-1953:

1.63—258. For other texts and commentary, see Jor-

dan 1871-1907: 2.1-316; Hermansen 1978; Reynolds 1996: 209-250. Reynolds’

discussion first suggested to me the importance of the statistical lists in the Regionaries for this work. 18 For historical discussions of neighborhoods in urban America, see Berry, Portney and Thomson 1993: 166-191; Crenson 1983: 3-20; Downs Schwirian 1977; Keller 1968.

1981; Miller 1981;

19 For example, the Vicus Lorarius, the Vicus Pulverarius, and the Vicus Materiariorum, all known to us from the Capitoline Base (CIL 6.975) inscribed in the

second century B.C.E.

See, for example, a fragment of the marble plan pointed out by Stambaugh 1988: 186 showing various types of urban housing side by side in the city. There were communities in Rome that maintained their ethnic identities. Suetonius Cae. 84.5 reports that they grieved for the death ofJulius Caesar according to their ancestral manner. On the ethnic mix of Rome’s population, see Duff 1928.

222

NOTES

22

TO PAGES

22-32

For a vivid picture of the city’s population at the end ofthe first century C.k., see Martial Epi. 9.3.

The value of “voluntary association” as a category for a particular class of ancient associations (collegium, secta, factio, thiasos, eranos) was first recognized in print, as far as I know, in a volume ofcollected essays by members of the Canadian Society for Biblical Literature (Kloppenborg and Wilson 1996). My understanding and

use of the term has been greatly influenced by these excellent essays. S. Wilson’s introduction to the volume (Wilson 1996) is a valuable introduction to the issues

and problems of understanding clubs in the ancient Mediterranean as “voluntary associations” as the term is used in scholarship and theory today. Wilson

1996:1

points to Banton

1968 and Sills 1968-1979

as general intro-

ductions to voluntary associations. I would add Caulkins 1996; Haggerty 1992; Krysan and D’Antonio 1992. Pugliese 1986 collects an enormous bibliography of the topic. Finally, the term “voluntary association” has been in some scholarship connected with the ideal of “voluntarism” as a desirable aspect of both democracy and political resistance. I do not mean to connect this understanding, used by both Weber and de Toqueville, with Roman neighborhoods. 25 Wirth 1938. This connection is not limited to Western urbanism; see, for example, Meillassoux 1968. 26 Topographical dictionaries and the like have a long history in the study of ancient Rome, beginning from Platner and Ashby (1929), Nash (1961-1962), Richardson (NTDAR), and the now complete Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae (LTUR). Wallace-Hadrill has recently pointed out some ofthe benefits and drawbacks of these works (2001).

2.

NEIGHBORHOODS

IN

THE

ROMAN

REPUBLIC

27 Livy 4.20.7; Dio 51.24.4. See Olgilvie 1965: 563-564. 28

FIRA

1.13 =

ILS 6085. On

the inscription and its contents,

see Lo Cascio

1975-1976; Seston 1978; Nicolet 1987, 1991: 127.

29

Livy 1.43.13; Dio. Hal. 4.14.4; Aur. Vic. 7.7; Festus 506 L. See Thomsen

1980:

212-218. The particulars and even reality of the so-called city of four regions is a vexed problem. Nevertheless it seems to have been accepted as fact by Varro and Dionysius. See LTUR sv. Regiones Quattuor (Fraschetti) with bibliography. 30 Cf. Livy 1.42-43; Pliny N. H. 36.204; Festus 506 L. See Gabba 1961: 102, 1991:179—-185; Fraschetti 1994: 204-210. 31

Dio. Hal. 4.14.2—4. Translation is that of E. Cary in the Loeb Classical Library

32

Recognizing that Servius did not create the vici, A. Fraschetti 1994: 217 denies

(Cambridge

1939) 313-314.

that the link between the two in Dionysius’ account reflects anything other than the stylistic organization of the work. This seems a difficult position to defend, given the clear connection between vici and regiones evident in later times. Contra Fraschetti, see Mastrocinque 1988:159.

aa

NOMES

TO) PNGES

33 =37

33 Aulus Gellius (10.24.30) records the praetor’s formula for announcing the festival, “dienoni populo Romano

Quiritibus Compitalia erunt; quando concepta

fuerint, nefas.” Cf. Macrobius Sat. 1.4.27. Dionysius says simply that the holiday fell a few days after the Saturnalia. 34 E.g., Cicero twice refers to the holding ofthe rural Compitalia, once in $9 B.C.E.

at his villa in Antium (ad Aft. 2.3) and once in $0 B.c.£. at a villa of Pompey (ad LA Wa a\c 35 Cicero, Tim. 68: “Quos Graeci Saipoves appellant, nostri, opinor, Lares.” 36 The epithet used by modern

3

writers, compitales, has no ancient standing at all apart from a single passage of Suetonius (Aug. 31.4), “[sc. Augustus] Compitales Lares ornari bis anno instituit vernis floribus et aestivis.” Suetonius adds the epithet compitales to identify which kind of Lares Augustus ordered to receive garlands, since flowers were already a regular gift for various sorts of public and private Lares long before the reign of Augustus (Pliny N. H. 21.11; Festus 60 L). Suetonius here emphasizes the place where the Lares were garlanded. Even Cicero (Tim. 68) was at a loss as to how to categorize the multitude of Lares: “Quos Graeci Salyoves appellant, nostri, opinor, Lares, si modo hoc recte conversum videri potest, et nosse et enuntiare ortum eorum maius est, quam ut profiteri nos scribere audeamus.”

38 The argument

goes back to Wissowa

1902:

166-174 and Sampter 1901:105—

108. The bibliography on the subject since then is huge. See in particular now Scheid 1990: 587—598 with bibliography in n. 63; Coarelli 1983: 270-280; Orr

1978: 1563-1564; Holleman

1976; Radke 1972. In most attested cults of Lares

the geographical aspect of the gods seems their primary characteristic. 39 See in particular the comments of Varro (in Arnobius, Adv. Nat. 3.41); Festus 114 L, 115 L (Paulus); Arnobius, Adv. Nat. 3.41. Cf. Scheid 1990: $92 esp. n. 74.

40 This is best demonstrated by the toponymous epithets regularly applied to Lares, e.g., Semitales, Curiales, Viales (CIL 6.368 10—36812 = ILS 9251a—c), Permarini

(Livy 40.52.5), Querquetalani (Plut. Quae. 5r). AI Linderski (1968: 107 n. 49) reminds us ofthis important point. See Festus 298 L.

42 There are several close affinities besides closeness of date between the midwinter holidays of Saturnalia and Compitalia. Slaves and freedmen primarily celebrated both. Both involved the violation of normal social roles. At Saturnalia masters served slaves and at Compitalia slaves dressed as free men and, as we shall see, freedmen officers (magistri) dressed as free-born civic magistrates. For these two holidays alone Cato (Agr. 57.1) recommended liberality toward slaves. 43

Cato, Agr. §7.1. Cf. Persius’ (4.26—32) caricature of amiserly Sabine landowner

who begrudged his slaves wine and food on the Compitalia.

44 45

See Palmer 1976: 168-170.

Suet. Cae. 39, Aug. 63. On the theatrical nature of the ludi Compitalicii, see Mastrocinque 1988: 147.

46 On the life of Dionysius, see OCD? sv. Dionysius (7) with bib. 47 On Augustus’ revival of the ludi Compitalicii, see Suet. Aug. 43.2.

224

NOTES

TO

PAGES

38-46

48 The Republican

calendar from Antium is of no help to this question since Compitalia did not fall on the same day each year and thus does not appear on this earliest calendar of fixed holidays.

49

Inscriptions from Cales report a Vicus Esquelinus and Vicus Palatius at that colony as early as 300 B.C.E. (CIL 10.4641; ILS 8567 = ILLRP 1217). At Ariminum there

was a group of septem vici with Roman toponymous names (CIL XI 379, 419, 6378). The names of the vici at Cales and the number at Ariminum suggest a connection between Roman neighborhoods and another set of geographical and religious divisions of the city, the seven hills. Indeed the historical traditions suggest a strong association among Rome’s hills, regions, and neighborhoods. See Palmer 1970: 129-130.

$0 Naevius, Titnicularia quoted in Festus 260 L. See text and translation by E. Warmington in the Loeb Classical Library. Remains of Old Latin 2 page 106. The Lucilius fragment is 6.228—229 Marx and 6.252—253 Warmington. On the clear identification of the slaves’ holiday that cannot be written in hexameter with Compitalia, see Palmer 1976: 167-168 with discussion of earlier interpretations of the line. SI

CRF’ 198-199, 344-345.

§2

Livy 4.30.7—11. Translation is based on that of B. O. Foster in the Loeb Classical

Library, Livy vol. 2. 53 There were only two “plebeian” aediles in 428; the two curule aediles were not first chosen until 367 B.C.E. $4 On some ofthe specifics ofthe aediles’ cura urbis, see the Tabula Heracleensis (FIRA 1.13 = ILS 6085) vv. 20-82.

58) Scene Op uiviva LOuleO we te 4 tere Or Os003 8235e5. 56 Livy tells us that during the uncertainties of the Second Punic War, many re-

spectable women in Rome had begun to practice foreign religions and rituals. In 212 B.c.£. these rituals moved out of private homes and into the public spaces of the city and crowds of devotees clogged the Forum and on the Capital. The Senate reacted by ordering the aediles and, when they were unsuccessful, the urban praetor to ensure that no sacrifices were conducted in public for new or foreign religions (Livy 25.1.6—-12). See Palmer 1997: 120-129; Beard, North, and Price 1998: 91. Cf. also the well-known case of the repression of the Bacchic congregations throughout Italy in 186 B.c.B. (Livy 39.8-19; ILLRP

s11 = ILS

18; see Beard, North, and Price 1998: 92-96). Si] Lines 31-35. Translation is that ofS.Burstein 1985: 87. 58 Quote from Burstein 1985: 88 n. 4. See also Kern in IG 9.2.517, Dessau in ILS 8763 n. §, Dittenberger n. 25.

59 See Létroublon

1974, Favory 1976, 1978-1979.

Cf. Fraschetti 1994: 223 and

especially n. 17. 60 For this debate, see the excellent overview and synthesis of Zukin 199s. 61 Millar 1998. Millar produced a number of framing articles in preparation for The Crowd. See the bibliography collected in Jehne 1995: 1-9. Other important

225

NOTES

TO PAGES

46-52

works include Pina Polo: 1996; Nicolet: 1980; Brunt: 1972. My own thinking here has also been affected by Vanderbroek: 1987 and Lintott: 1999. 62

On the coinage, see Crawford 1974: 614. Cic. de Off: 3.80: “omnibus vicis statuae, ad eas tus, cerei; quid multa? Nemo

umquam multidini fuit carior.” Sen. De Ira 3.18 tells the same story: “M. Mario cui vicatim populus statuas posuerat, cui ture ac vino supplicabat.” See also Pliny N. H. 33.132: “Mari Gratidiano vicatim tota statuas dicaverit.”” On Gratidianus,

see MRR 2.87. Taylor (1931: 48, 56) interprets these events as precedents of the ruler cult of the Roman emperors in later times. Seneca De Ira 3.18 tells the story of Gratidianus’ death in gory detail to demon64 strate the cruelty of which powerful men were capable. 65 CIL 6.1297 = ILS 872 = ILLRP 352: “L. Cornelio L. f(ilio) | Sulla Felici | dictatori | Vicus Laci Fund(ani).” 66 On Manilius see Asconius 45C, 65C; Dio 36.42—43. See Vanderbroeck 1987: 227; Lintott 1999: 81.

67 Fraschetti 1994: 220 points out that the beginning of the conspiracy of Catiline burst forth the next year either on December 31, 66 B.C.£. or January 1, 65 B.C.E. It is quite possible that this was coincident with the Compitalia for that winter. Sal @arais2s Ciem Cai anasy,

68 The primary actions are Mommsen De Robertis 1938: 65-162; Accame

1843: 73-76; Waltzing 1895-1896: 1.90-111;

1942: 13-49; Linderski 1968; de Robertis

1971: 1.83115; Flambard 1977, 1981. Treggiari (1969: 168-177) offers a brief

English overview up to that date. See also in English, Vanderbroeck 1987: passim;

69 7O

Millar 1998: 94-166; Lintott 1999: passim.

Nisbet (1961: v—xvi) offers a good historical introduction to the events described in the texts. Cic. In Pis. 8: “cuius fuit inittum ludi Compitalicii, tum primum facti post L. Tulium et C. Marcium consules, contra auctoritatem huius ordinis: quos Q. Metellus — facio iniuriam fortissimo viro mortuo, qui illum, cuius paucos paris haec civitas tulit, cum hac importuna belua conferam — sed ille designatus consul, cum quidam tribunus plebes suo auxilio magistros ludos contra senatus consultum facere iussisset, privates fieri vetuit, atque id, quod nondum potestate poterat, obtinuit auctoritate: tu, cum in Kalendas Ianuarias Compitalorum dies incidisset,

Sex. Cloelium, qui numquam antea praetextatus fuisset, ludos facere et praetextatum volitare passus es.” Translation is heavily adapted from that of H. Watts in the Loeb Classical Library. 7A Asc. In Pis. 6-7 C: “L. Iulio C. Marcio consulibus quos et ipse Cicero supra memoravit senatus consulto collegia sublata sunt quae adversus rem publicam videbantur esse (constituta). Solebant autem magistri collegiorum ludos facere, sicut magistri vicorum faciebant, Compitalicios praetextati, qui ludi sublatis collegiis discussi sunt. Post vi deinde annos quam sublata erant P. Clodius tr. pl. lege lata restituit collegia. Invidiam ergo et crimen restitutorum confert in Pisonem, quod, cum consul esset, passus sit ante quam lex ferretur facere (Kal. Ianuar.) 226

NOTES

TO

PAGES

52-62

praetextatum ludos Sex. Clodium. Is fuit familiarissimus Clodii et operarum Clodianarum dux, quo auctore postea illato ab eis corpore Clodii curia cum eo incensa est. Quos ludos tune quoque fieri prohibere temptavit L. Ninnius tr. pl. Ante biennium autem quam restituerentur collegia, Q. Metellus Celer consul designatus magistros vicorum ludos Compitalicios facere prohibuerat, ut Cicero tradit, quamvis auctore tribuno plebis fierent ludi; cuius tribuni nomen adhuc non inveni.” Translation is my own. Like the vici, collegia were thought to have originated by regal decree before the foundation of the Republic. Plutarch (Numa 17) assigned the creation of collegia to King Numa, Florus (1.6.3) ascribed it to King Servius. See Gabba 1984. The

right of collegia to regulate their own membership is recognized in the XII Tables. On collegia, see Waltzing 1895-1896; de Robertis 1938, 1971.

UB See Fraschetti 1994: 252: “The sources reserve so small a space for them [the

magistri vici] that one is astonished at the many debates they have engendered in modern writers, Mommsen

with Cohn, Waltzing with Robertis, Accame with

Bomer, Linderski with Flambard.”

74 The issue of the magistri from Capua, Minturnae, and Delos is still controversial to say the least. See the comments of Linderski 1993: 646-647.

WS Suet. Nero 12.8, Dom. 4.11. Cf. Fraschetti 1994: 248. 70 Flambard 1981: 153: “les jeux ont disparu parce que les colléges ont été dissous,

et non les colléges parce que les jeux ont été interdits. I] n’est jamais question, dans nos sources, d’une interdiction des jeux, mais de celle des organisms charges des les organizer.” Other instances where an aristocrat’s prestige proved similarly effective are not EG rare (Plut. Cic. 13, Cato Minor 44; Dio 39.27-28.). 78

Asconius says he could not discover the tribune’s name. On Herennius see Cic. AdAti1.18:4—5,

1.19.5, 2.1.5; Dio37.51.1:

79 The form of Cloelius’ name has engendered some controversy. See the summaries of Linderski 1993: 645-646 with bibliography; Fraschetti 1994: 234-236; Flambard 1977: 126-128. 80 Cicero (In Pis. 23) returns to emphasize this point later in the speech. 81

Cic. Ses. 34, 95, De Domo Sua 54, Post Red. in Sen. 33, Pis. 11, 23, in Mil.26, 36,

37, 73. The evidence is collected by Flambard

1977: 123. Cf. Treggiari 1969:

L7B%

3. REPUBLIC

TO

EMPIRE

Suet. Aug. 32.1. It is unclear when Augustus took this action. It was perhaps at late as 22 B.c.£., when Dio $4.2.3 reports that he dissolved sussitia (dining clubs) in the city. Suet. Cae. 39: “Edidit spectacula varii generis: munus gladiatorium, ludos etiam 83 regionatim urbe tota et quidem per omnium linguarum histriones, item circenses 82

athletas naumachiam.”

225)

NOTES

TO PAGES

63-74

84 Suet. Cae. 41: “Recensum populi nec more nec loco solito, sed vicatim per dominos insularum egit atque ex viginti trecentisque milibus accipientium frumentum e publico ad centum quinquaginta retraxit.” 85 For asummary of grain distribution at Rome in the Late Republic, see Virvlouvet 1995; Rickman

1980: 158-175.

86 The ancient sources for Clodius’ law are Cicero Pro Sest. 55, De Domo Suo 25; Dio 38.13.1-2; Plutarch Cic. 30.1; Asconius In Pis. 8 C; Schol. Bob 132 Stangl. See Flambard 1977: 145-148; Nicolet 1977: 43-46.

87 Dio 39.24.1. See Nicolet 1976: 46. 88 Nicolet 1976. The ancient sources are Cicero Pro Cael. 78, De Har. Resp. $7, Pro Mil. 73, Parad. Stoic. 4.31. Cicero refers to the records destoyed in the fire as

follows: Pro Mil. 73: memoria publica recensionis tabulis publicis impressa; Pro Caelio 78: census populi Romani, memoria.

89 Suet. Aug. 40: “populi recensus vicatim egit.” go FIRA 1.13 v. 13-16 = ILS 6085: “idque apud Forum et quom frumentum populo dabitur, ibei ubei frumentum populo dabitur cottidie maiorem diei propositum habeto.” QI

Velleius 2.91.3-2.92; Dio 53.24.4—6. See Raaflaub and Samons 1990: 427.

For an overview of building in the period, see Shipley 1931. 93 On the temple and its holiday, see LTUR sv. Diana Aventina, aedes (L. Vindittelli); Degrassi 13.2.494-496. 94 On Agrippa’ activities as aedile, see Rheinhold 1933: 46—52; Shipley 1933: 13-14, 92

19-34. 95 For the sources, see Rheinhold 1933: so. 96 Dio 49.43.2—3. For Scipio’s aedileship, see Livy 25.2. 97

Dio 49.43.5. Quote is from Rheinhold

1933: 51. For the events of 428 B.C.E.,

see Livy 4.30.7—I1. 98

Pliny N. H. 36.121. See also Frontinus De Aquis 1.9; Strabo 5.3.8. Festus (290

L) says that Agrippa decorated the Lacus Servilius with a statue of hydra. 99

Bakker 1994: 118-120, 242-243

with bib. The inscription on the altar is CIL

14.4298. 100

As with most things Augustan, the role of tribunicia potestas in imperial ideology evolved over time rather than appearing full-blown in 23 B.c.£. or any other date. See Lacey 1979. On the evolutionary nature of Augustan governance, see the introductory comments to Chapter 4 and Galinsky 1996: 9.

IOI

“Omnes ordines in lacum Curti quotannis ex voto pro salute eius stipem iaciebant, item Kal. Ian. strenam in Capitolio etiam absenti, ex qua summa pretiosissiuma deorum simulacra mercatus vicatim dedicabat, ut Apollinem Sandaliarium

et lovem Tragoedum aliaque.” 102

“éqrerdt)

Te

apyvpiov

OUVEOTIVEYKaV,

EXUTOU

avOis

és eikOvas avTOU Kal

éKkeivn

HEV OUSEIay, ‘Yyielas d€ SNYoolas

Kal

6

StYOS

Kal TPooETI Kal 5

Ouovoias Eipnvns te totnoev. der Te yap as eitreiv Kal él TaoN TPOPAao€l TOUT’ éTrolouv, Kal TEAOs Kal év GUTT) TH TE©TH 228

TOU ETOUS TECH OUKETI

NOTES

TO PAGES

74-84

idiqa Trou KaTEBaAAoV AUTO, GAN ava éxeiveo TEOGIOVTES Of LEV TrAEIoV Of BE EAaTtTov étSoaav. kai Ss rpoobels dv EtEpov ToooUTOV 7} Kal TAgov dvTES{S0u, OUX OTTws TOIs BoUAEUTAIS AAA

Kal Tois GAAOIS.”

103 The suggestion of D. Palombi that the statue of Concordia donated by Augustus should be equated with a statue base and altar found in situ at the Piazza Bocca della Verita (Number $4) is certainly incorrect. 104 The inclusion of [anus in Ovid's list is explained by the fact that Augustus intended to close the temple of Ianus at the end of 11 B.c.£. but was prevented by an incursion of the Dacians (Dio $4.36.2). Based on a questionable identification of the Mercury of this shrine with Mercurius Sobrius, Jordan 1871-1907:

334-335 identified the unknown

street and

thus the neighborhood as the Vicus Sobrius, known from Festus 382L. Palmer (1997: 80-103) rightly shows that the Vicus Sobrius and the cult of Mercurius Sobrius must lie elsewhere in the city. See also NTDAR sv. Vicus Sobrius. 106

On the Subura, see LTUR

sv. Subura

(Welch). Quote is from LTUR. 4.379.

Juvenal (11.51, 11.141) and Martial (5.22, 12.18, 7.31, 10, 94, 2.17, 6.66, 9.37)

provide a lively picture of the district as a noisy community of houses and insulae, businesses and brothels. 107 CIL 6.31572: “[Imp(erator) Caesar Augustus] | [ex pri]vat{o] in [publicum] | restitui[t] |in partem sinistram rec[ta] |regione ad proxim(um) cipp[um] |ped(es) CXLIVS | [et in part]em dextram recta [regione] | ad proxim(um) cipp[um] | ped(es) LX XVII.” This heavily damaged inscription can be restored with confidence based on comparison with CIL 6.1262. 108

109

On the Porticus Liviae, see Richardson 1978, Panella 1987. Ovid

Fasti 6.637-648,

esp.639—-642:

“Disce

tamen,

veniens

aetas:

ubi Livia

nunc est | porticus, immensae tecta fuere domus; | urbis opus domus una fuit,

spatiumque tenebat, | quo brevius muris oppida multa tenent.”

4. THE IIo

REFORMS

OF

AUGUSTUS

On the divisions of the city in general, see Robinson 1992: 9-13. It is unclear what connection if any we should see between Augustus’ reorganization of the city into new regions and vici and his division of Italy into new administrative districts. On the division ofItaly, see Pliny N. H. 3.5.46. Galinsky 1996: 9: “Not only the Augustan state but Augustan culture in general was characterized by a dynamic, evolving process.” An organic understanding of Augustan motifs has been implicit in a number of recent studies of the princeps’

reign. Suet. Aug. 30.2: “Spatium urbis in regiones vicosque divisit instituitque, ut illas annui magistratus sortito tuerentur, hos magistri e plebe cuiusque viciniae lecti.” 113 Dio 55.8.6-7: “étuxov Sé éxeivol yev OUSevos, of SE ST) OTEVoTTO! ETrIMEATTOOV

Ii2

Tiveov ék TOU SHOU OUs Kal OTEVOTTAPKOUS KAAOUUEV’ Kal oOgiol kal TH EoOTTI

TH) APXIKT) Kal AaBSovyors SUo, év avTOIS TOIs YwpPloIs dv av APKwolv, NuEPAIS

229

NOTES

Tol

TO PAGES

84-102

yptjo0an é5d60n, 7) Te SovAcia T) Toiskyopavouols TOV EUTTIUTTPAUEVOOV

éveka ouvotoa émeTopaTIN KaiTol. TE OTPATHYAV Taoav Thv TAI, TpooTayXPevtwv’ 6 Kal ylyveTar.”

Kai exelveov Kal Tdv SnuaPXav Tov SekaTteooapa Yeon veunPeloav, KAT|PO

114 In Number 40 the compital year CXXI is amended to CXVI. For 6.449 the traditional dates of Domitian’s ninth and tenth consulships are questioned. IIS Following Taylor are Fraschetti 1994: 277-280, 371-374; Galinsky 1996: 300. Favro 1996: 135-138 takes a position closer to the one espoused here. 116

The new signum of Vesta was dedicated on April 28, 12 B.c.E. (Insc. Ital. 13.2 452;

Dio 54.27.3; Ovid Fasti 4.949-954, Met. 15.864—865). 117

Cf. Ovid, Fasti 4.949-955; Dio §4.27.2; Insc. Ital. 13.2 452.

118

On the shrine of Vesta on the Palatine see Kienast 1982: 196-197 esp. n. 105.

11g Pliny NH 3.66: “Moenia eius collegere ambitu imperatoribus censoribusque Vespasianis anno conditae DCCCXXVI m. p. XIII CC, conplexa montes septem. Ipsa dividitur in regiones quattuordecim, compita Larum CCLXV.” 120 On the new regions see LTUR sv. Regiones Quattuordecim (storia) (A. Fraschetti) and Regiones Quattuordecim (topografia) (D. Palombi). I21I

Regionary magistrates on compital dedications: CIL 6.449-453. The Capitoline base: CIL 6.975. See Palmer 1974b.

Favro (1996: 137-138) suggests that the regionary magistrates then selected the magistri from a slate of candidates presented by the neighborhood. As far as I know there is no evidence for this unwieldy solution. 122 On city services, see Stambaugh 1988: 1oI—-141. 124 Fire: Dio 55.8.6—7; census: Suet. Aug. 40; water supply: Vitruvius 2.96. 125 Res Gestae 20.4: “Duo et octoginta templa deum in urbe consul sextum ex auctoritate senatus refeci nullo praetermisso quod eo tempore refici debebat.” 126 Suet. Aug. 31.4: “Non nulla etiam ex antiquis caerimoniis paulatim abolita resti122

tuit, ut Salutis augurium, Diale flamonium, sacrum Lupercale, ludos Saeculares

et Compitalicios.” 127 R. Laurence (1994: 39-40) suggests that the old cults of the Lares Compitales

continued to exist alongside the new Augustan Lares Augusti. There is, however, no epigraphic evidence for the worship of Lares Compitales at Rome after the reign of Augustus. It is clear that the new Augustan vici were coterminous with their Republican counterparts. Finally, it is unlikely that Augustus would create a new set of cults from scratch when the revival and adjustment of a traditional cult was a possibility. 8 For the name Augustus awarded on January 16, 27 B.C.E., see Suet. Aug. 7.2; Res Gestae 34; Dio $3.16.7; Vel. Pat. 2.91.1; Ovid Fasti 1.609-616.

129 The most complete is Erkell 1952: 1-39 esp. 36-38 with bibliography. After Erkell, see Ramage

1987:

100-107;

Kienast

1982: 79-81

esp. 79 n. 45 with

recent bibliography. 130 Cicero applied augustus to places or objects associated with religion such as temples or cult statues; for example, the temple of Magna Mater on Sicily is

230

NOTES

TO

PAGES

102-107

augustissimum et religiosissimum, and sacred representations of the gods are augusta et sancta. In Ver. 2.5.186, de Nat. Deo. 1.119.11, Bru. 83.6, 295.8.

CIL 5.4087 = ILLRP 200: “[A]ug(ustis) Laribus.” Pax: Res Gestae

12.2; Degrassi, Insc. Ital. 13.2 404-405,

496; Concordia:

Dio

55.8.1; Providentia: Lott 1995: 273; Lustitia: Insc. Ital. 13.2 192, 392; Lott 1996a.

For these cults and the divine epithet augustus in general, see Lott 1995; Nock 1928; Fishwick 1987-1991: vol. 2; Fears 1981a.

133 Augustus’ titulature on the Belvedere altar tells us that it was inscribed sometime

between 12 and 2 B.C.E.

134 Price in Beard, North, and Price 1998: 186 offers the suggestion, I believe for the first time, that the altar belongs to some particular vicus rather than to a state cult. I discuss my disagreements with their conclusion at Number 6s. 135 The identification of the figures in the scene is, as with every other aspect of the Belvedere altar, a matter of contention. The presence of two Lares Augusti and the composition of the panel (compared with other compital altars) seem to ensure the compital nature of the relief, and probably the altar. The figures receiving the statuettes have sometimes been interpreted as female. Most recently, K. Galinsky (1996:319-320) argues that Augustus is handing the Lares over to a trio of Vestal Virgins rather than to neighborhood officials. This seems unlikely, both because at least one of the (damaged) figures receiving the Lares seems undoubtedly male to me and because there is no connection between the Vestal Virgins and the worship ofLares. See Ryberg 1955: 56-58. Their identification as

ministri vici, servile attendants for the magistri, depends largely on their dress. The togate figures behind Augustus are dressed in the togae praetextae that magistri vici wore in their neighborhoods. Price (Beard, Price, and North 1998: 186) suggests that all three togate figures are just magistri vici, and that the Belvedere altar does not show Augustus at all. Two points argue against this conclusion. First, the figure identified as Augustus is much larger and more prominent than the other figures. Manipulating scale was a common strategy in Roman historical reliefs for distinguishing the most important parts of acomposition. It is unlikely that one magister would be so singled out from his colleagues. Second, though sacrifice scenes showing the magistri vici are commonplace on compital altars, none of them involve the statuettes of the Lares Augusti. Furthermore, if a sacrifice was taking

place rather than a gift visit, as Price suggests, then there should be a flute player,

who is the regular token to signal that a sacrifice is under way, in the scene. 136 There are obvious connections between the decorations of the Belevedere altar

and the Ara Pacis, which also combined scenes ofideological significance to the new regime with a historical relief of the cult’s foundation. 137 Ovid Fasti 5.145-146: “Mille Lares geniusque ducis qui tradidit illos |urbs habet et vici numina tria colunt.” 138 Lares and Genius appear together in epigraphic dedications as well: e.g., CIL 2.1980, 2.4082, 4.1679,

10.861,

10.1235. See Diz. Ep. sv. Genius (L. Cesano)

PP. 453-454. Aes

NOTES

TO PAGES

107-109

139 Fraschetti 1994: 374: “...toujours a partir de 12 av. J.-C., le Lares de la maison d’Auguste avaient été invites 4 se répandre dans le ((spatium urbis)); ils en devinrent, avec le genius d’ Auguste vivant, le divinities tutélaires; il quittérent sa maison du Palatin pour protéger la cite toute entiére.” See also Fraschetti 1994: 274-276. For other recent discussions, all in agreement more or less with Tay-

lor and Fraschetti, see Galinsky 1996: 300-310; Zanker 1988a: 129-134; Kienast 1982: 164; bib. in Hano 1986.

140 Wissowa argues, “dass man die betreffende Gottheit in demselben Sinn verehre, wie es der Kaiser in seinem Hauskulte tue,” and so concludes that the august gods functioned as tutelary deities of the gens Augusta, that is, that they were concerned with the protection of Augustus and his family. 141 E.g., the sacrifices of Fabii mentioned in Livy 5.46.2. Macrobius (Satires 1.16.7) mentions private feriae of the Claudii, Aemilii, Iulii, and Cornelii. The Servilii performed sacrifices to a coin whose size foretold the future success of the family; Pliny N. H. 34.173. Nock (1925: 91 [Stewart 41]) collects several examples of gentilician epithets: Diana Valeriana, Diana Cariciana, Hercules Aelianus, Hercules

Iulianus, and Iovis Optimus Maximus Purpuris. See also Fishwick 1987-1991: 2.1.447 and Fears 1981a: 886.

142 On “august” gods in general, see Lott 1995, which I follow closely here.

143

IG XII.2.526 = OGIS

8 = IJG 2.27 = Tod 191 and most recently Heisserer

1980: 27-78. Cf. Habicht 1970: 14 note 2.

144

Die Inschriften von Smyrna (Bonn 1982) nos. $73.12, 70, 83, $74.21, 23-24, $78,

723 (with bibliography), 751.4—5; Tacitus Ann. 3.63; Habicht 1970: 100-101. Cf. Magie 1950: 97-98, 933.

145 146

Nock 1928: 42-43 (Stewart 156-157). The connection of the epithet with the

Seleucid Habicht evidence altars of

dynasty is not secure. (1970: 4-5) thought these to be altars of Philip himselfasZeus, but the

that Philip ever received cult is slim, and it is probable that the altars were “Philippean Zeus” rather than Philip who is Zeus. Cf. Fredricksmeyer

1979; Lott 1996a. For a full treatment of Philip’s divine honors, see Badian 1981: o7=7ie

147

On honors granted Republican nobles in the Greek east in general, see Tuchelt

148

Coins minted in 44 by P. Sepullius Macer (RRC 480.21) show a temple inscribed CLEMENTIA CAESARIS; this temple appears in three literary sources, where

1979.

it is sometimes confused with a shrine of Caesar himself. The coins, however,

certify that the temple was to be dedicated to Clementia Caesaris. Appian (BC 2.106.443) speaks of several temples of Caesar voted by the Senate, one of which was also a temple of Clementia (Epieikeia). Dio (44.6.4) reports only a single temple shared by Iuppiter Iulius (Zeus Iulios) and his Clementia (Epieikeia autou) decreed in 44. Plutarch (Cae. 57.4) says the temple was simply a temple of Clementia (Epieikeia). The confusion over a cult of Caesar in the temple may

A)

NOTES

TO

PAGES

109-116

arise from the cult statue, which was to be of Caesar and Clementia shaking hands.

149

Dio 41.15.4, 41.16.4, 42.23.1; Appian BC 2.43.174, 2.74.309,

2.80.336, Suet. Cae. 75.2; Velleius 2.52.6; Caesar BC 1.72.3, 1.74.7. See Weinstock 1971: 235ff.

150 The Ludi Victoriae Caesaris are first clearly attested in 44 B.C.B. after Caesar’s death (Cic. Fam 11.28.6). However, it has been assumed that they were first held in 45 since, in a letter dated to July 20, 45 B.c.£., Cicero mentions Caesar’s statue

being carried alongside Victoria’s in a pompa in the circus (Att. 13.44). According to the fasti, the Iudi were held from 20-30 July. ISI Horace (Odes 4.5.29-34) mentions a farmer making this special libation and one /ararium from Pompeii even shows the emperor’s Genius, identified by the inscription ex s. c. (by decree of the senate) in addition to the Genius of the paterfamilias (Boyce 1937: 93 no. 466; cf. Taylor 1931: 181-182).

The inscription is a dossier of four documents concerning the imperial cult that was collected and published in 18 c.k. The provisions concerning the Genii of Augustus and Tiberius certainly pre-date the death ofthe first emperor because Augustus is not styled divus and Tiberius is not called Augustus. Cf. CIL 12.4333 = ILS 112 from Narbo. It is usually argued on the basis of areconstructed inscription that the imperial cult building on the forum in Pompeii was a shrine to the Genius Augusti. However, J. J. Dobbins (1992) has shown this to be incorrect or at least unlikely. TS3 E.g., CIL 5.5892, 5.7468, 5.4449, 5.5869, 13.4291. See Diz. Ep. sv. Genius (L. Cesano) vol. 3 pp. 456-457.

154

The final “m”

on the stone has been questioned, but to this author it seems

clearly visible even in photographs. In CIL Henzen restored the text to read “Geniis Caesarum” (to the Geniuses of the Caesars) on the basis of later examples of this phrase on Flavian compital monuments. A newly published inscription from the island of Lipara where there were evidently imperial estates suggests another possible restoration. Sometime probably in the reign of Augustus or soon afterwards, the sevir primus et prior, C. Publilius, donated a dedication which reads, “to the Lares Augusti and the Genius of Caesar and the Genii of his children” ({(LarJibus Augusteis et Genio Caesa[ris]|[lib]erorumque eius). Manganaro (1989: 191 no. 81 = AE (1989) 346a) dates the inscription to the reign of Augustus. The identity of the Caesar and his children is questionable. Are Augustus and his sons Gaius and Lucius Caesar meant, or is it Augustus and his adopted son Tiberius, or Tiberius Caesar and his sons Germanicus Caesar and Drusus Caesar? 155 Suet. Aug. 31.4: “Compitales Lares ornari bis anno (sc. Augustus) instituit vernis floribus et aestivis.” 156 Ovid, Fasti 6.791-792: “Lucifero subeunte Lares delubra tulerunt | hic, ubi fit docta multa corona manu.” The temple first appears in 106 BCE: Obseq. 41. Cf. Cic. De Nat. Deo. 3.63; 1$7 Pliny N. H. 2.16. Augustus’ restoration: Res Gestae 19.

233

NOTES

158 For comparison

see CIL

TO PAGES

14.4297;

AE

117-125

1945

56. Latte (1960: 93 note 4, 416

n. 7) suggests V(ialibus), and Degrassi (Insc. Ital. 13.2 28) believes the V began the name of a second divinity now lost. Taylor 1960 is still the best treatment of Rome’s tribes. See also the more recent IS9 comments of Millar (1998:35—36). Although freedmen were all enrolled in four “urban” tribes, by the late Republic migration to the city ensured the city’s population was mixed among all thirty-five tribes. 160 Augustus reports both honors in his Res Gestae (34). Besides the Res Gestae, the calendar from Praeneste also records the Senate’s award of the oak wreath to Augustus under January 13: “Corona querc[ea, uti semper ianuam domus Imp(eratoris) Caesaris] |Augusti poner[etur senatus decrevit quod rem publicam] | P(opulo) R(omano) rest[it}u[it]” (Insc. Ital. 13.2 396). For a description of Augustus’ house decorated

with laurels and oak, see Ovid,

Tristia 3.1. See also

Valerius Maximus 3.8.7; Dio 56.16.4. Alféldi (1973) has closely studied the sig-

nificance of the pair of laurels in Augustan iconography. See his remarks on compital altars at 31ff. For laurel as a symbol of both peace and victory, see Pliny IN Eis 21338 161

By the time of Pliny the Elder, a variety of laurel was even named augusta, presumably because ofits use to decorate the emperor’s house (N. H. 15.129).

162

BMCRE

1 Augustus 23 B.C.E.: 134, 139, 147, 157, 165, I71; 21 B.C.B.: 175, 178,

181: 18 BC.

6, 354.17 BCE:

191,195,

1083 12 B.C:Bal26— Dneuwomany

mint

remained under the supervision ofsenatorial tresviri during the period in question. The oak wreath flanked by two laurels is the regular obverse for both the sestertius and dupondius from 23 B.C.E on. The type was also struck occasionally in gold and silver. Imperial mints in Spain struck aurei between 20-16 B.c.E. showing the laurels: RIC

12 Augustus 26, 33, 36 (with the clupeus virtutis), 50, 52 (with

the clupeus virtutis). Cf. also 549. All show Augustus wearing an oak wreath

on the obverse. The type was not struck at the imperial mint at Lugdunum at all. Perhaps it was considered more appropriate for the senatorial mint to publish honors granted by the Senate. Also perhaps the type was intended mainly for the urban populace at Rome, where traditional Republican honors would have meaning. This would help explain the popularity of the wreath and laurels with the compital cults. The original consuls for the year, A. Hirtius and C. Vibius Pansa, both died on campaign against M. Antonius. The young Octavianus compelled his own election along with his cousin Q. Pedius to replace the dead consuls. On this altar, see most recently Pollini 1987:30-37. For earlier discussion of the figures’ identities, see Mansuelli 1958: 204-205. Pollini (1987: 35) identifies the figure as an eastern goddess or the personification of an eastern land. The dynastic overtones of the monument make this unlikely. 166

The Senate was to hold debates concerning wars and the grants of triumphs in the new temple. Those taking up military commands with imperium abroad

234

NOTES

TO PAGES

125-140

were to depart from the temple. The triumphal route was to end at the temple. Triumphatores were to deposit their tokens in the temple. All standards recovered from the enemy were to be dedicated in it.

§. THE

Numbers

ARTIFACTS

2, 3, 16. Numbers

OF

NEIGHBORHOOD

CULTURE

4 and 29 do not record Augustus’ absence when

the gift was given. Eck 1984 treats the changing opportunities for senatorial self-display in the Augustan period. It should be stressed that the loss of opportunities did not occur all at once. Rather we should envision a gradual process of deprivation over the first decade of Augustus’ rule if not over a longer period of time. The last triumph held by a senator who was not a member of the imperial family was that ofL.Cornelius Balbus in 19 B.c.k. (Insc. Ital. XIII.1 86). As far as we know, no senator erected a monumental

public building at Rome

after 27 B.c.z, but

see Eck 1984: 139-141 for senatorial building in the Triumviral period. Cf. also Suet. Aug. 29.4. 169

On the following discussion, see Zanker 1998. On the building of Eumachia in particular see D’Arms 1988; Richardson 1988:194-198 with bibliography; Dobbins 1994; Spano 1961.

I70 CIL 10.810 = ILS 3785: “Eumachia L. f(ilia) sacerd(os) publ(ica) nomine suo et | M. Numistri Frontonis fili chalcidicum cryptam porticus Concordiae |Augustae Pietati sua pequnia fecit eademque dedicavit.” I7I On the Porticus Liviae, see Richardson 1978, Panella 1987, LTUR sv. Porticus Liviae (C. Panella). 172 CIL 10.808—809. On the elogia from Augustus’ Forum, see Insc. Ital. XIII.3 9-36. 173 For a more complete list and discussion, see Zanker 1988a: 78-123. Naevius, Tinicularia quoted in Festus 260 L. See text and translation by E. Warmington in the Loeb Classical Library. Remains of Old Latin 2 page 106.

174 175

176

177 178

179

Galinsky 1996: 302, evidently relying on Hano (1986), figures that 14 out of 265 altars survive, “slightly more than 5 percent of the total.” Neither 14 nor 265 is likely to be an accurate figure. I suspect we have significantly less than § percent of the Augustan total, since at least some of the altars accepted as Augustan and compital by Hano are probably not. On the interpretation of the altar’s two inscriptions, see Gatti 1906: 188-189. Ovid, Fasti 5.50-68. Quote, 5.67—68: “Spectat et Augusto praetextum nomine templum | et visum leto Caesare maius opus.” The serious man wearing a toga capite velato was a typical representation of the Roman Genius. On the figure of the Genius, see at length Rizzo 1932. Comparisons of the figure on this altar with painted Genii from Lararia at Pompeii are possible, though at Pompeii the Genius usually stands between the two Lares. The “dancing” Lares holding rhytons aloft and wearing short tunics were almost universally used for Lares in the Augustan age; see Roscher sv. Lares; Thomas

235

NOTES

TO PAGES

140-173

1963; Niebling 1950. The household Lararia from Pompeii provide numerous

painted examples of this type of Lar (Boyce 1937, Frohlich 1991). 180 The bull is usually interpreted as belonging to the Genius Augusti, which I have argued was not normally part of compital cult. Genii also did not normally receive animal sacrifices. On the victims here, see Hano 1986: 2361-2362. 181

On the prayers from the Secular Games known to us from long inscriptions, see Pighi 1965. Cf. the gods mentioned in Horace’s Secular Hymn.

182

For the gens Acilia, see Dondin-Payre 1987: 103-109. Pliny N. H. 29.6.12 records

that the doctor Archagathus migrated to Rome in 219 B.c.£. and practiced in a shop bought at public expense at the Compitum Acili (“tabernam in Compito Acilio emptam ob id publice’’). Pliny’s source, the second-century B.C.£. historian Cassius Hemina, confirms that the toponym was Republican. At Ostia the complex on the Piazza dei Lari at the intersection of the Via di Diana and via dei Lari, which held a compital altar and a basin, also held a small rectangular building (6.45 < 10.63 m.) of Antonine date. Also at the Bivio del Castrum, a damaged three-room structure with an interior basin may have

been associated with the compitum mentioned

in CIL 14.4710. Finally, some of a group of inscriptions at Ostia reporting the establishment of a vicus and compitum under Claudius may have come from some type of compital building. For the evidence for these buildings see Bakker

1994:118-124,

243-250.

At Pompeii, several open rooms with bench seats and compital paintings or markings may have been meeting places for compital organizations. See Bakker 1094;

126-127.

See the list in Bakker 1994: 126-127. 185 On the administrative documents of Rome’s voluntary associations, see Rtipke

1998. Riipke’s general comments focus on the FMV.

Consult the lists of surviving fasti in Insc. Ital. 13.1 and 13.2. For municipal fasti magistrorum, see Insc. Ital. 13.1 169-270 nos. 4-16. For thefasti magistrorum ofcollegia, see Insc. Ital. 13.1 271-345 nos. 17-34. For the fasti annales, see Insc. Ital. 13.2.

Number 8. The slaves were Anteros (servus) D. Poblici Barnai and Eros (servus) A. Poblici Damae. 189 I owe Barbara Kellum for valuable contributions to this section. 190 S. Panciera 1980: 203-204 notes that one of Augustus’ new year’s gifts to individual neighborhoods (Number 29) was also found under S. Maria in Cosmedin and may therefore have been given to Hermeros’ neighborhood. 6. CONCLUSION

IQI

Insc. Ital. 13.2 200, 516, 527. See Palmer 1974b: 287. On the temple see LTUR

sv. Augustus, Divus, Templum (Novum), Aedes (M. Torelli). On the games see Dio 56.46.4, Tacitus, Ann. 1.15.

Vicus Compiti Acili: Numbers

12, 27; Vicus Statuae Verris: Palmer: 1978-1980.

236

NOTES

193

PAGES

174-175

On the Regionaries see Jordan 1871-1907: 1940-1953:

194

TO

1.63258; Hermansen

2.1-316; Valentini and Zucchetti

1978; Reynolds 1996: 209-250.

CIL 11.4798, 4815, 4821. We might also cite dedications at Falerii, “voto suscepto |Laribus |Compitalibus |Vialibus |[S]emitalibus |sacrum” (CIL 11.3079 =

ILS 3634), and Mogontiacum in Germany, “Laribus | Competalilbus sive | Quadrivi” (ILS 3635), though these probably refer to compita in the countryside. L905 They are 1. Singilia Barba in Baetica: CIL 2.2013: “Marti Augusto | L. Iunius Maurus Larum Aug(ustorum) | magister dedit | Iunia Maurina f(ilia elus) dedicavit,”

2. Adamuz

del Griego

in Tarraconensis:

2.4293

ILS

=

6947:

“M.

in Baetica, 3. Cordoba: CIL

2.3113,

Fabio

CIL 2.2233, 4. Larcera

5. Tarraco

| Asiatico

in Tarraconensis:

| seviro

mag(istro)

CIL

| Larum

Aug(ustorum)...,”

6. Tarraco in Tarraconensis: CIL 2.4297 = ILS 6947a: “L. Flavio | Chrysogono | seviro mag(istro) | Larum Aug(ustorum) | L. Flavius Silvinus | lib(ertus) sevirum mag(ister) | Larum Aug(ustorum)...” (note that in Tarraco our two attested magistri were also seviri), 7. Italica in

Baetica

Cll

e213 3 —

ES

3623))

Oe

Viarciuse

Apiluss

|pimacisten eantims|

August(orum) et Genii | Caesaris Augusti,” 8. Histonium in Italy: CIL 9.2835 = ILS 6524: “L. Scantius L. l(ibertus) Modestus VIvir | Aug(ustalis), mag(ister) Lar(um) August(orum), mag(ister) | Cerialium urbanorum” (the text of ILS incorrectly reads “Augustal(ium)” for “August(orum).”, and 9. on Sardinia:CIL 10.7953 = ILS 6766. There are no examples from the Spanish province of Lusitania. 196 CIL 10.205 = ILS 3545: “Q. Vibiedius Philargurus | minist(er) Lar(um) > Aug(ustorum) et Aug(ustalis) |Merc(urialis) ...’

237

-

i

#

aes

a®rrcA

5

Ay

cae

, =

“Se

ax

Soh

Seren ai

Wien

Le dis ec

ara:

iy

iait ad

KEFERENCESRIo

Accame, Silvio. 1942. La legislazione romana intorno ai collegi nel I secolo a.C. Bulletino del Museo dell’impero romano 13:13—48.

Alfoldi, Andreas. 1966. Les cognomina des magistrats de la République romain. In Mélanges offerts a André Piganiol, edited by R. Chevallier. Paris: SEVPEN. 709-22. 1973. Die zwei Lorbeerbaume des Augustus. Bonn: R. Habelt.

Alfoldy, Geza. 1988. The Social History of Rome. Translated by D. Braund and F Pollack. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Original edition, Romische Sozialgeschichte, Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1975. Allen, K. 1922. The Fasti of Ovid and Augustan Propaganda. AJP 43:250—66. Altmann, Walter. 1905. Die romischen Grabaltare der Kaiserzeit. Berlin: Weidemann. Reprinted, New York: Arno Press, 1975. Arnstein, Sherry. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35:216-24. Axtell, Harold Lucius. 1987. The Deification of Abstract Ideas in Roman Literature

and Inscriptions. New Rochelle, NY: Aristide D. Caratzas. Original edition, University of Chicago Press, 1907. Badian, Ernst. 1981. The deification of Alexander the Great. In Ancient Macedonian

Studies in Honor of Charles E Edson. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 27-7 Bakker, Jan Theo. 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: J.C. Gieben. Banton, Michael P. 1968. Voluntary associations: Anthropological aspects. In International Encyclopedia ofSocial Sciences. Edited by David L. Stills and Robert King Merton. New York: Macmillan, 16:357—61. Beard, Mary, and Michael Crawford. 1985. Rome in the Late Republic. Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University Press. Beard, Mary, John A. North, and S. R. F Price. 1998. Religions of Rome.

Volume

I; A History. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

239

IRIS ERIN (Ce: WISE

Bellemore, Jane. 1989. When did Valerius Maximus write the Facta et Dicta Memorabilia? Antichthon 23:67—80. Béranger, Jean. 1973. La prévoyance (providentia) impériale et Tacite Annales

1.8. In Principatus: Etudes de notions et d’histoire politiques dans l’Antiquité grécoromaine. Geneva: Droz, 331—S2.

Berry, Jeffrey M., Kent E. Portney, and Ken Thomson. 1993. The Rebirth of Urban Democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Bloch, Herbert. 1962. A monument of the Lares Augusti in the Forum of Ostia. ATR 55:211—-23. Bomer, Franz. 1954-1955. CIL VI 12=Dessau 3837: Erklarung und Datierung. Historia 3:252-3. Bomer, Franz. 1990. Untersuchungen tiber die Religion der Sklaven in Griechenland

und Rom. 3 vols. Edited by Peter Herz. Stuttgart: F Steiner. Original edition, Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, 1958-1963.

Bonnefond, Marianne. 1987. Transferts de fonctions et mutation ideologique: Le Capitole et le Forum d’Auguste. In L’Urbs: espace urbain et histoire (Ier siecle av. J.-C.- Ile siecle ap. J.-C.), Collection de l’Ecole francaise de Rome, 98, Rome: Ecole francaise de Rome, Palais Farnése, 251-78.

Borza, Eugene N. 1990. In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bowerman, Helen Cox. 1913. Roman Sacrificial Altars: An Archaeological Study of Monuments in Rome. Lancaster, PA: New Era.

Bowersock, Glen. 1983. Augustus and In Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Boyce, George Kenneth. 1937. Corpus American Academy at Rome, 14.

the east: The problem of the succession. Edited by Fergus Millar and Erich Segal. 169-88. of the Lararia of Pompeti. Memoirs of the Rome: The American Academy.

Broady, M. 1966. Social theory in architectural design. Arena 81:149-54. Brunt, P. A. 1971. Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic. New York: Norton. 1987. Italian Manpower: 225 BC to AD 14. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Original edition, 1971. Brunt, P. A., and John Michael Moore. 1967. Res Gestae Divi Augusti: The Achievements of the Divine Augustus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burgess, Ernest Watson. 1925. The growth of the city. In The City. Edited by Robert Ezra Park, Ernest Watson Burgess, Roderick Duncan McKenzie, and Louis Wirth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Burstein, Stanley M. 1985. The Hellenistic Age from the Battle of Ipsus to the Death

of Kleopatra VII. Translated Documents of Greece and Rome, 3. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Camodeca, G. 1977. L’Ordinamento in regiones e i vici di Puteoli. Puteoli: Studi di storia antica t: 62-98. Candida, Bianca. 1979. Altari e cippi nel Museo Nazionale Romano. Rome: G.

Bretschneider. Caputo,

Giacomo,

and Gustavo

Traversari.

Magna. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. 240

1976. Le sculture del teatro di Leptis

REFERENCE

LIST

Carrettoni, Gianfilippo. 1960. La pianta marmorea di Roma antica (Forma Urbis Romae). Rome: Ripartizione antichita e belle arti. Castagnohi, Ferdinando. 1988. Ibam forte via Sacra (Hor. I,9,1). In Topografia romana: Ricerche e discussioni. Florence, Italy: Olschki, 99-114.

Castrén, Paavo. 1975. Ordo Populusque Pompeianorum: Polity and Society in Roman Pompei. Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae, 8. Rome: Bardi. Caulkins, David. 1996. Voluntary Associations. In Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology, edited by David Levinson and Melvin Ember. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1351-6.

Cavallaro, Maria Adele. gentes: CIL VI.30975 86.

1975-1976.

Un liberto ‘prega’ per Augusto e per le

(con inediti di Th. Mommsen).

Helikon 15-16:144-

Charles, Jeffrey A. 1993. Service Clubs in American Society: Rotary, Kiwanis, and Lions. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. 1961. M. Tulli Ciceronis in L. Calpurnium Pisonem Oratio. Edited by R. G. M. Nisbet. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Coarelli, Filippo. 1983. Il foro romano: Periodo arcaico. Rome: Edizioni Quasar. 1985. Il foro romano: Periodo repubblicano e augusteo. Rome: Edizioni Quasar. 1988. Il Foro Boario: Dalle origini alla fine della Repubblica. Rome: Edizioni Quasar. 1990. La crescita ubana di Rome. In Settis 1990.

Colini, Antonio

Maria.

1944.

Storia e topografia del Celio nell’antichita. Atti

della Pontifica accademia romana

d’archeologia, Series 3, Vol. 7. Rome:

Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana. 1961-1962. Compitum Acili. BCAR 78:147-57. 1970-1971. Ara Dedicata alla Concordia Augusta nel Foro Boario.

RPAA

43:55—70. Combet-Farnoux, Bernard. 1980. Mercure Romain: Le culte public de Mercure et la fonction mercantile 4Rome de la Republique archaiquea la epoque augustéenne. Bibliotheque des Ecoles francaises d’Athénes et de Rome, 238. Rome: Ecole francaise de Rome. Cotter, W. 1996. The collegia and Roman law. In Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World; edited by John Kloppenborg and S. Wilson. London and New York: Routledge, 74-89. Crawford, Michael H. 1974. Roman Republican Coinage. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. Crenson, Matthew A. 1983. Neighborhood Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Damon, Cynthia. 1992. Sex. Cloelius, Scriba. HSCP 94:227-50.

D’Arms, John H. 1988. Pompeii and Rome in the Augustan Age and beyond: The eminence of the Gens Holconia. In Studia Pompeiana & classica in honor of Wilhelmina F.Jashemski, edited by R. Curtis. New Rochelle, NY: A. D. (@aratzasyoi 74s De Robertis, Francesco Maria. 1938. ... Il diritto associativo romano dai collegi della

repubblica alle corporazioni del basso impero. Bari: G. Laterza and Figli. 241

REFERENCE

LIST

1971. Storia delle corporazioni e del regime associativo nel mondo romano, 2 vols. Bari: Adriatica. De Ruggiero, Ettore. 1895. Dizionario Epigrafico di Antichita Romane. 5 vols. Rome: Pasqualucci. Degrassi, Attilio. 1935. Sui fasti di magistri vici rinvenuti in Via Marmorata. BCAR 63:173-8. DiGaetano, Alan, and Klemanski, John S. 1999. Power and City Governance: Com-

parative Perspectives on Urban Development. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Dobbins, John J. 1992. The altar in the sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus in the forum at Pompeii. MDAI (R) 99:251-63. 1994. Problems of chronology, decoration, and urban design in the forum at Pompeu. AJA 98:629-94.

Dondin-Payre, Monique. 1987. Le Compitum Acilium et l’origine des Acilii Glabriones. In L’Urbs: espace urbain et histoire (Ier siecle av. J.-C.- Ile siécle ap. J.-C.). Collection de V’Ecole francaise de Rome, 98. Rome: Ecole frangaise de Rome, Palais Farnése, 87-109.

Downs, Anthony. 1981. Neighborhoods and Urban Development. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Duff, A. M. 1928. Freedmen in the Early Roman Empire. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Duthoy, Robert. 1978. Les xAugustales. ANRW 2.16.2. 1254-309.

Eck, Werner. 1984. Senatorial self-representation: Developments in the Augustan period. In Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects, edited by Fergus Millar and Erich Segal. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 129-68. Eder, Walter. 1990. Augustus and the power of tradition: The Augustan Principate as binding link between Republic and Empire. In Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate, edited by Kurt A. Raaflaub and Mark Toher. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 7I=122. Elsner, John. 1996. Inventing imperium: Texts and the propaganda of monuments in Augustan Rome. In Art and Text in Roman Culture, edited by John Elsner. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 32-53. Ericsson, H. 1943. Sulla Felix. Eranos 41:77-89. Erkell, Harry. 1952. Augustus, Felicitas, Fortuna: Lateinische Wortstudien. Géteborg:

Elanders boktryckeri aktiebolag. Etienne, Robert. 1958. Le culte impérial dans la péninsule Ibérique d’Auguste a Dioclétien. Paris: Editions E. de Boccard. Favory, Francois. 1976. Classes dangereuses et crise de I’Etat dans le discours ciceronian de $7 a 52. In Texte, politique, idéologie: Cicéron. Paris: Les Belles letters. 109-233. 1978-1979. Clodius et le peril servile: Fonction du theme servile dans le discours plémique ciceronian. Index 8:173-205. Favro, Diana G. 1996. The Urban Image ofAugustan Rome. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

242

REFERENCE

EIST

Fears,J.Rufus. 1981a. The cult of virtues and Roman imperial ideology. ANRW 2.17.2. 827-948.

1981b. The theology of victory at Rome: Approaches and problems. ANRW Qe

B0—a20.2

Fishwick, Duncan.

1969. Genius and numen. HTR 62:356—367.

1978a. The development of provincial ruler worship in the Western Roman Empire. ANRW 2.16.2. 1201-53. 1978b. Augustus Deus and Deus Augustus. In Hommages a MaartenJ.Vermaseren: Recueil d’études offert par les auteurs de la série Etudes preliminaries aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain a Maarten J. Vermaseren a l'occasion de son soixantienne anniversaire le 7 avril 1978. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 37s—80. 1987-1991. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Studies in the Ruler Cult of the

Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. 3 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Flambard, Jean-Marc. 1977. Clodius, les colléges, la plebe et les esclaves. Recherches sur la politique populaire au milieu Ier siécle. MEFRA 89:115— 56.

1981. Collegia compitalicia: Phénomeéne associatif, cadres territoriaux et cadres civiques dans la monde romain a l’époque républicaine. Ktema 6:43—-166. Fowler, W. Warde. 1899. The Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic; An Introduction to the Study ofthe Religion of the Romans. London: The Macmillan Company. Reprinted in 1969. 1914. Roman Ideas ofDeity in the Last Century before the Christian Era. London: Macmillan. Fraschetti, Augusto. 1994. Rome et le prince, translated by Vincent Jolivet. Paris: Belin. Original edition, Roma e il principe. Rome: Editori Laterza, 1994. Fredricksmeyer, E. 1979. Divine honors for Philip Hl. TAPA

109:39-61.

Fredrickson, M. 1965. The Republican municipal laws: Errors and drafts. JRS §5:183—-198.

Frohlich, Thomas. 1991. Lararien- und Fassadenbilder in den Vesuvstadten: Untersuchungen zur ‘Volksttimlichen’ pompejanischen Malerei. Mainz: P. von Zabern. Fullerton, Mark D. 1985. The Domus Augusti in imperial iconography of 13-12 BEFAIA86:A73—83

Gabba, Emilio. 1961. Studi su Dionigi da Alicarnasso. II. I regno di Servio Tullio. Athenaeum 39:98—121.

1966. Italia Augusta. In Meélanges d’archéologie, d’épigraphie et d’histoire offerts a Jér6me Carcopino. Paris: Hachette, 17-26.

1972. Urbanizazione e rinnovamenti urbanistici nell’Italia centromeridionale del 1 sec. A. C. Studi Classici & Orientali 21:106-12. 1984. The Collegia of Numa: Problems of method and political ideas. JRS 74:81—-86.

1991. Dionysius and the History of Archaic Rome. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Galinsky, Karl. 1981. Augustus’ legislation on morals and marriage. Philologus 125:126-44.

1992. Venus, polysemy and the Ara Pacis Augustae. AJA 96:457-75.

243

REFERENCE

LIST

1996. Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Garnsey, Peter. 1988. Famine and Food Supply in the Greco-Roman World: Responses to Risk and Crisis. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Gasparri, Carlo. 1979. Aedes Concordia Augustae. Rome: Istituto di studi romani. Gatti, G. 1888a. Di un sacello compitale dell’antichissima regione Esquilina. BEARTO22 1-30) 1888b. Scoperte recentissime. BCAR 16:327—34. 1906. Ara marmorea del ‘vicus Statae Matris’. BCAR 34:186—-203. 1911. Notizie di recenti travamenti di antichita in Roma e nel Suburbio. BCAR BO

lan Oee

1934. ‘“Saepta Iulia” e “Porticus Aemilia” nella “Forma”

Severiana. BCAR

O2FI22— LAO}

Gelzer, Matthias. 1949. Pompeius. Munich: F Bruckmann. Giuliani, Cairoli Fulvio. 1970. Tibur, volume 1. Rome: De Luca. Gonzalez, Julian. 1984. Tabula Siarensis, Fortunales Civium Romanorum. ZPE $5:55—100.

Siarenses,

et Municipium

Gordon, Arthur E. 1958. Album of Dated Latin Inscriptions: Rome and the Neighborhood, Augustus to Nerva. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Gottdiener, M., and Feagin,J. 1988. The paradigm shift in urban sociology. Urban Affairs Quarterly 24:163—87.

Grant, M. 1946. From Imperium to Auctoritas: A Historical Study ofAes Coinage in the Roman Empire, 49 B. C— A. D. 14. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Greer, D. 1989. Urbanism and urbanity. Urban Affairs Quarterly 24:341—52. Grether, G. 1946. Livia and the Roman Imperial Cult. AJP 67:222-52. Griffin, Jasper. 1984. Caesar qui cogere posset. In Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects,

edited by Fergus Millar and Erich Segal. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 189-218. Gros, Pierre. 1976. Aurea

Templa: Recherches sur Varchitecture religieuse de Rome a

l’époque d’ Auguste. Bibliotheque des Ecoles francaises d’Athénes et de Rome, 231. Rome: Ecole francaise de Rome. Gruen, Erich. 1966. P. Clodius Pulcher — Instrument or independent agent? Phoenix 20:120—30.

1974. The Last Generation of the Roman Republic. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 1990. The imperial policy of Augustus. In Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations ofAugustus and His Principate, edited by Kurt A. Raaflaub and Mark Toher. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 395-416. Habicht, Christian. 1970. Gottmenschentum und griechische Stadte Zetemata: Monographien zur klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, 14. Munich: Beck. Original edition, 1956. Haggerty, L. 1992. Urban sociology. In Encyclopedia of Sociology, edited by Edgar F Borgatta and Marie L. Borgatta. New York: Macmillan. 2203-8.

244

REFERENCE

Gist

Hallman, Howard W. 1984. Neighborhoods: Their Place in Urban Life. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Hanlein-Schaefer, Heidi. 1985. Veneratio Augusti: Eine Studien zu den Tempeln des ersten romischen Kaisers. Rome: G. Bretschneider. Hanell, K. 1960. Das Opfer des Augustus an der Ara Pacis. ORom 2:33-123. Hano, M. 1986. A lorigine du culte impériale: Les autels des Lares Augusti.

Recherches sur les thémes iconographiques et leur signification. ANRW 2:1623.-2333—81.

Haselberger, Lothar, and David Gilman Romano. 2002. Mapping Augustan Rome. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Supplementary series, 50. Hawley, Amos Henry. 1950. Human Ecology: A Theory of Community Structure. New York: Ronald Press Co. Heisserer, A. J. 1980. Alexander the Great and the Greeks: The Epigraphic Evidence. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Helbig, Wolfgang. 1963-1972. Fiihrer durch die offentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertiimer in Rom, vierte, vollig neu bearbeitete Auflage, herausgegeben von H. Speier. Tubingen: E. Wasmuth. Hellegouarc’h, Joseph. 1972. Le Vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la République. Paris: Les Belles letters. 276-9. Hermann, Werner.

1961. Rémische Gotteraltare. Kallmunz: M. Lassleben.

Hermansen, G. 1978. The population of Imperial Rome: The regionaries. Historia 27:129-68.

Herz, Peter. 1978. Kaisarfeste der Prinzipatszeit. ANRW 2.16.2. 1135-200.

Hoftman-Lewis, M. W. 1955. The Official Priests of Rome under the Julio-Claudians. Memoirs of the American Academy at Rome, 16. Rome: The American Academy at Rome. Hofter, Mathias Rene, ed. 1988. Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik: Eine

Ausstellung im Martin-Gropius-Bau, Berlin, 7 Juni-14. August 1988. Mainz: Von Zabern. Holland, Louise Adams. 1937. The shrine of the Lares Compitales.

TA PA 68:428—

4I. Holleman, Aloysius Wilhelmus Jozef. 1976. Larentia, Hercules, and Mater Matuta (Guibas) ae GAs 107-207

Holscher, Tonio. 1984. Staatsdenkmal und Publicum. bis zur Festigung des Kaisertums in Rome.

Von Untergang der Republik

Xenia, vol 9. Konstanz:

Univer-

sitatsverlag Konstanz. Hopkins, Keith. 1978. Conquerors and Slaves. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Original edition, 1977. Jehne, Martin. 1995. Demokratie in Rome? Die Rolle des Volkes in der Politik der rémischen

Republik.

Historia

Einzelschriften,

96.

Wiesbaden:

F

Steiner. Johnson, Jotham. 1933. Excavations at Minturnae 2.1. Rome and Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Johnson, William C. 1989. The Politics of Urban Planning. New York: Paragon House.

245

REFERENCE

Jordan, Henri. mannsche Judge, Edwin Imperium:

LIST

1871-1907. Topographie der Stadt Rom im Alterthum. Berlin: Weidbuchhandlung. Reprinted Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1970. A. 1974. Respublica Restituta: A modern illusion? In Polis and Studies in Honor of Edward Togo Salmon, edited by James Allan

Stewart Evans. Toronto: Hakkert, 279-312. Kajanto, liro. 1981. Fortuna. ANRW 2.17.1. 502-58. 1965. The Latin Cognomina. Helsinki.

Keaveney, Arthur. 1983. Sulla and the gods. Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History II. Collection Latomus,

180. Brussels: Latomus, 44-79.

Keller, Suzanna Infield. 1968. The Urban Neighborhood: A Sociological Perspective. New York: Random House. 1982. The Neighborhood. In Neighborhoods in Urban America, edited by Ronald H. Bayor. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 8-28. Kellum, Barbara. 1990. The city adorned: Programmatic display at the Aedes Concordiae Augustae. In Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations ofAugustus and His Principate, edited by Kurt A. Raaflaub and Mark Toher. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 276-96. Kienast, Dietmar. 1982. Augustus, Prinzeps und Monarch. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschatt. Kleiner, Diana. E. E. 1978. The great friezes of the Ara Pacis Augustae. MEFRA 80:753-85.

Kloppenborg, John S., and S. G. Wilson, eds. 1996. Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World. London and New York: Routledge. Knapp, Robert C. 1983. Roman Cordoba. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Koeppel, Gerhard M. 1969. Profectio und Adventus. BonnJahrb 164:130-94. 1987-1988. Die historischen reliefs der romischen Kaiserzeit V: Ara Pacis Augustae. BonnJahrb 187:101—87 and 188:97-106.

Koestermann, E. 1953. Der pannonisch-dalmatinische Krieg 6-9 n.Chr. Hermes 81:368-76.

Kraft, Karl-Friedrich.

1967. Der Sinn des Mausoleum

des Augustus.

Historia

16:189—206.

Krysan, M., and D’Antonio, W. 1992. Voluntary Associations. In Encyclopedia of

Sociology, edited by Edgar F Borgatta and Marie L. Borgatta. New York: Macmillan, 2231-4. Kunckel, Hille. 1974. Der rémische Genius. Heidelberg: Kerle.

La Gory, Mary, and John Pipkin. Wadsworth Publishing Co. La Rocca,

Eugenio, and Mariette

1981. de Vos.

Urban Social Space. Bellmont, 1976.

CA:

Guida archeologica di Pompei.

Milan: A. Mondatori. La Rocca, Eugenio, Vivian Ruesch, and Bruno Zanardi. 1983. Ara pacis Augustae:

In occasione del restauro della fronte orientale. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. La Rocca, Eugenio.

1987. L’adesione senatoriale al (consensus):

I modi della

propaganda augustea e tiberiana nei monumenti (in circo Flaminio). In L’ Urbs: espace urbain et histoire (Ier siecle av.J.-C.- Ie siécle ap. J.-C.). Collection 246

REFERENCE

LIST

de l’Ecole francaise de Rome, 98. Rome: Ecole francaise de Rome, Palais Farnése, 347—73. Lacey, Walter Kirkpatrick. 1974. Octavian in the Senate January, 27 B. C. JRS 69:176—-84. Revised and reprinted in Augustus and the Principate. The Evolution ofthe System. Leeds: Francis Cairns, 1996. 1979. Summi Fastigii Vocabulum: The story ofa title. JRS 69:28—34. Revised and

reprinted in Augustus and the Principate. The Evolution of the System. Leeds: Francis Cairns, 1996. Laing, G. 1921. The origin of the cult of the Lares. CP 16:124-140.

Latte, K. 1960. Romische Religionsgeschichte. Munich: Beck. Laurence, Ray. 1991. The urban Vicus: The spatial organization of power in the Roman city. In Papers of the Fourth Conference of Italian Archaeology, edited by Edward Herring, Ruth Whitehouse, and John B. Wilkins. London: Accordia Research Centre. 1994. Roman Pompeii: Space and Society. London and New York: Routledge. Le Bonniec,

Henri.

1958. Le culte de Cérés a Rome,

des origines a la fin de la

Republique. Etudes et commentaires, 27. Paris: C. Klincksieck. Lega, Claudia. 1993. Una nuova attestazione di magistri vici. Monumenti Musei e Gallerie Pontificie: Bollettino XIII 27-36. Vatican City. Létroublon, M. 1974. Les esclaves dans les bandes armies d’aprés les discours de Cicéron de $7 4 §2. In Actes du Colloque 1972 sur l’esclavage, Annales littéraires de l Université de Besancon, 163; Centre de recherche d’histoire ancienne, 11. Paris: Belles Lettres, 235 ff. Levick, Barbara. 1976. Tiberius the Politician. London: Thames and Hudson. 1978. Concordia at Rome. In Scripta Nummaria Romana: Essays Presented to

Humphrey Sutherland, edited by R. A. G. Carson and Colin M. Kraay. London: Spink and Son, 217-33.

Liebeschuetz, John Hugo Wolfgang Gideon. 1979. Continuity and Change in Roman Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1986. The settlement of 27 B. C. In Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History IV. Collection Latomus, 196. Brussels: Latomus, 45-365.

Liegle, J. 1942. L. Aemilius Paullus als Augur max‘inus in Jahre 160 und das Augurium des Heils. Hermes 77:249-312.

Linderski, Jerzy. 1968. Der Senat und die Vereine. In Gesellschaft und Recht im griechish-rémischen Altertum 1 = Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften Zu Berlin. Schriften der Sektion fiir Altertumswissenschaft 52.94—132. Reprinted in J. Linderski, Roman Questions: Selected Papers, Heidelberger althistorische Beitrige und epigraphische Studien, 20. Stuttgart: F Steiner, 1993. 165-203 with addenda 645-7.

1990a. Mommsen and Syme: Law and Power in the Principate of Augustus. In Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate, edited by Kurt A. Raaflaub and Mark Toher. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 42-53.

1990b. The surname of M. Antonius Creticus and the Cognomina ex Victis Gentibus. ZPE 80:157—64.

247

REFERENCE

LIST

1993. Roman Questions: Selected Papers. Heidelberger althistorische Beitrage und

epigraphische Studien, 20. Stuttgart: F Steiner. Lintott, Andrew William. 1999. Violence in Republican Rome.

2d ed. Oxford:

Oxford University Press. Original edition, 1968. Lo Cascio, Elio. 1975-1976. Praeconium et dissignatio nella Tabula Heracleensis. Helikon 15—16:77-107.

Lo Cascio, Elio, ed. 2000. Roma Imperiale: Una metropoli antica. Rome: Carroci. Logan, John R., and Harvey L. Molotch. 1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Lott, John Bertrand.

r995. The earliest use of the divine epithet augustus. Ph.D.

diss., University of Pennsylvania. 1996a. Philip II, Alexander and the tyrants at Eresos of IG XIJ.2.526. Phoenix §0:26—39.

1996b. An Augustan sculpture of August Justice. ZPE 113:263—70.

Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: Technology Press. 1981. Good City Form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mackie, N. M. 1986. Res Publica Restituta. A Roman myth. In Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History IV. Collection Latomus, 196. Brussels: Latomus,

302-40. Magie, David. 1950. Roman Rule in Asia Minor, to the End of the Third Century after Christ. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Mancini, Gioacchino.

1935. Fasti consolari e censorii ed elenco di vicomagistri

rinvenuit in Via Marmorata.

BCAR

63:35—79.

Manganaro, Giacomo. 1989. Inscrizione latine nuove e vechie della Sicilia. Epigraphica 51:161—96. Mansuelli, Guido Achille. 1958. Galeria degli Uffizi, Le Sculpture, I. Rome: Instituto Poligrafico dello Stato. Martin, Jean-Pierre. 1982. Providentia Deorum: Recherches sur certains aspects religieux du pouvoir impérial romain. Collection de Ecole francaise de Rome, 61. Rome: Ecole francaise de Rome, Palais Farnése.

Marwood, Martin. A. 1988. The Roman Cult of Salus. Oxford: B.A.R. Mastrocinque, Attilo. 1988. Lucio Giunio Bruto: Ricerche di storia, religione, e diritto

sulle origini della repubblica romana. Trento, Italy: Edizioni La reclame. Meier, Christian. 1990. C. Caesar Divi Filius and the formation of the Alternative

in Rome. In Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations ofAugustus and His Principate, edited by Kurt A. Raaflaub and Mark Toher. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 54-70. Meiggs, Russell T. 1973. Roman Ostia. 2d ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Meillassoux, Claude. 1968. Urbanization of an African Community: Voluntary Associations in Bamako. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Mémoire Perdue. 1998. La Mémoire Perdue: Recherches sur l’Administration Romaine. Collection de I’Ecole francaise de Rome, 243. Rome: L’Ecole francaise de Rome, Palais Farnése.

Millar, Fergus. 1993. Ovid and the Domus Augusta: Rome seen from Tomoi. JRS8351=172

248

REFERENCE

LIST

1998. The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Miller, Z. 1981. The role and concept of neighborhood

in American

cities. In

Community Organization for Urban Social Change: A Historical Perspective, edited by Robert Fisher and Peter Romanofsky. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 3-32: Mollenkopf, John H. 1992. How to study urban power. In A Phoenix in the Ashes: The Rise and Fall of the Koch Coalition in New York City Politics. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University, Press. 23-43. Momiugliano, A. 1942. Camillus and Concord.

CQ 36:111-20.

Mommsen, Theodor. 1843. De collegiis et Sodaliciis Romanorum. Kiliae: Libraria Schwersiana. 1887. Romisches Staatsrecht*. Leipzig: S. Hirzel. Nash, Ernest. 1961-1962. A Pictorial Dictionary ofAncient Rome. 2 vols. New York: Praeger. Nicolet, Claude. 1976. Le temple des Nymphes et les distributions frumentaires 4 l’époque républicaine d’aprés des découvertes récentes. CRAI 29-1. 1980. The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome, translated by P. S. Falla. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Original edition, Le métier du citoyen dans la Rome républicaine. Paris: Gallimard, 1976. 1985. Plebe et tribus: Les statues de Lucius Antonius et le testament d’Auguste. MEFRA

97:799-839.

1987. La table d’Héraclée et les origins du cadastre romain. In L’Urbs: Espace urbain et histoire (ler siecle av.J.-C.- Ile siecle ap. J.-C.), Collection de l’Ecole francaise de Rome, 98. Rome: Ecole francaise de Rome, Palais Farnése, I-25. 1991. Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early Roman Empire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Original edition, L’Inventaire du Monde: Geographie et Politique aux Origines de L’Empire Romain. Paris: Fayard, 1988. Niebling, G. 1950. Zum Kult des Genius und der Laren. FuF 26:147-50. 1956. Laribus Augustis Magistri Primi. Historia 5:303-31. Nilsson, Martin P. 1961-1967. Geschichte der griechischen Religion”. Munich: Beck. Nisbet, Robin G. M. 1961. M. Tulli Ciceronis in L. Calpurnium Pisonem Oratio.

Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nock, A. D. 1925. Studies in the Greco-Roman

beliefs of the Empire. JHS

45:84—101. Reprinted in Essays on Religion in the Ancient World, edited by

Z. Stewart. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1972.

33-48. 1928. Notes on the ruler cult I-IV. JHS 48:21-43. Reprinted in Essays on

Religion in the Ancient World, edited by Z. Stewart. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1972, 134-59. Ogilvie, Robert Maxwell. 1965. A Commentary on Livy, Books 1-5. Oxford: Ox-

ford University Press. 1969. The Romans and Their Gods in the Age ofAugustus. London: Chatto and Windus.

249

REBPERENGCEEISE

Orr, D. G. 1978. Roman domestic religion: The evidence of household shrines. ANRW 2.16.2. 1557-91.

Ostrow, Steven E. 1985. Augustales along the Bay of Naples: A case for their early growth. Historia 34:64-101.

Palmer, Robert E. A. 1970. The Archaic Community of the Romans. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1974a. Roman Religion and Roman Empire: Five Essays. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1974b. The Excusatio Magisteri and the administration of Rome under Commodus. Athenaeum 52:266-88. 1975. The neighborhood ofSullan Bellona at the Colline Gate. MEFR 87:653— 605.

1976. A poem ofall seasons: AE 1928.108. Phoenix 30:159-73. 1978. Octavian’s first attempt to restore the constitution (36 B. C.). Athenaeum ns §6:315—28.

1978-1980. C. Verres’ legacy of charm and love to the city of Rome. A new document. RPAA

$1—2:111—36.

1981. The topography and social history of Rome’s Trastevere. PAPhS 125:368—

97. 1990. Studies of the Northern Campus Martius in Ancient Rome. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. 1997. Rome and Carthage at Peace. Historia Einzelschriften, 113. Stuttgart: Ee Steimer: Panciera, Silvio. 1978. Invigulantes pro Vicinia. In Scritti storico-epigrafici in memoria di Marcello Zambelli, edited by Marcello Zambelli and L. Gasperini. Rome: Centro editoriale internazionale, 315—20.

1980. Nuovi luoghi di culto a Roma dalla testimonianze epigrafiche. In Archeologia Laziale II: terzo incontro di studio del Comitato per Varcheologia laziale. Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche, 202-13. 1987. Ancora tra epigrafia e topografia. In L’Urbs: espace urbain et histoire (Ier siecle av,J.-C.- Ie siécle ap. J.-C.). Collection de l’Ecole francaise de Rome, 98. Rome: Ecole francaise de Rome, Palais Farnése, 60-86.

Panella, Clementina. 1987. L’organizzione degli spazi sulle pendici settentrionali del colle oppio tra Augusto e i Severi. In L’Urbs: espace urbain et histoire (Ier siecle av,J.-C.- Ie siécle ap. J.-C.). Collection de l’Ecole francaise de Rome, 98. Rome: Ecole francaise de Rome, Palais Farnése, 611—s1. Park, Robert Ezra. 1952. Human Communities: The city and Human Ecologies. GlenGocwliwireerbress:

Patterson, John R. 1992. The city of Rome. JRS 82:186—215. Pekary, Thomas. 1966-1967. Tiberius und der Tempel der Concordia in Rom. MDAI (R) 74:105-33.

Perry, Clarence Arthur, Wayne Darlington Heydecker, Ernest Payson Goodrich, Shelby Millaryd Harrison, Thomas Adams, Edward M. Bassett, and Robert Harvey Whitten. 1929. The neighborhood unit. In Neighborhood and Community Planning, 7. New York: Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs. 250

REFERENCE

LIST

Pietrangeli, Carlo. 1936. L’ara dei Lari di Soriano nel Cimino. BCAR 64:13—17.

Pighi, Giovanni Battista. 1965. De Ludis Saecularibus populi Romani Quiritium libri sex. Amsterdam: P. Schnippers. Pina Polo, Francisco. 1996. Contra Arma Verbis: Der Redner vor dem Volk in der spaten

romischen Republik. Heidelberger althistorische Beitrage und epigraphische Studien, 22. Stuttgart: F Steiner. Platner, Samuel Ball, and Thomas Ashby. 1929. A Topographical Dictionary ofAncient Rome. London: Oxford University Press. Pollini, John. 1986. Ahenobarbi, Apuleii and some others on the Ara Pacis. AJA 90:453—60.

1987. The Portraiture of Gaius and Lucius Caesar. New York: Fordham University Press.

Pouthier, P. 1981. Ops et la conception divine de l’abondance dans la religion romaine jusqu’a la mort d’ Auguste. Bibliothéque des écoles frangaises d’Athénes et de Rome, 242. Paris: Ecole francaise de Rome, Palais Farnése.

Premerstein, A. von

1922. Die Tafel von Heraclea und die Acta Caesaris. ZSE

43:45—152. Price, Simon R. F 1984. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor.

Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Pugliese, Donato P. 1986. Voluntary Associations: An Annotated Bibliography. New York: Garland. Purcell, Nicholas. 1996. Rome and its development under Augustus and his successors. In Cambridge Ancient History: The Augustan Empire. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 107.782—811. Putnam, Michael. 1986. Artifices of Eternity: Horace’s Fourth Book of Odes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Raaflaub, Kurt A., and LorenJ.Samons. 1990. Opposition to Augustus. In Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate, edited by Kurt A. Raaflaub and Mark Toher. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 417-54. Radke, Gerhard. 1972. Acca Larentia und die fratres arvales. Ein Stiick romischsabinischer Friihgeschichte. ANRW 1.2:421-41. 1979. Die Gétter Altitaliens*. Minster: Aschendorft. Rakob, Friedrich. 1987. Die Urbanisierung des nordlichen Marsfeldes: neue

Forschungen in Areal des Horologium Augusti. In L’Urbs: espace urbain et histoire (ler siecle av.J.-C.- Ile siecle ap. J.-C.). Collection de l’Ecole francaise de Rome, 98. Rome: Ecole francaise de Rome, Palais Farnése, 687-712. Ramage, Edwin S. 1987. The Nature and Purpose of Augustus’ “Res Gestae.”

Stuttgart: F Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH. Rebert, H., and H. Marceau. 1925. The Temple of Concord in the Roman Forum. MAAR 5:53-78. Reynolds, David West. 1996. Forma Urbis Romae: The Severan marble plan and

the urban form of ancient Rome. Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan. Reynolds, Paul Kenneth Baillie. 1926. The Vigiles of Imperial Rome. London: Oxford University Press, H. Milford. age

REFERENCE

Lisi

Rheinhold, Meyer. 1933. Marcus Agrippa. Geneva, NY: The W. EF Humphrey Press. Richard, Jean-Claude. 1963. Pax, Concordia et la religion officielle de Janus. MEFR 75:303-86. Richardson, Lawrence. 1976. The Villa Publica and the Divorum. In Memoriam

Otto Brendel: Essays in Archaeology and the Humanities, edited by Otto Brendel, Larissa Bonfante, Helga Heintze, von Freifrau, and Carla Lord. Mainz: Von Zabern, 159-63.

1978. Concordia and Concordia Augusta: Rome and Pompeii. PP 33:260-72. 1988. Pompeii: An Architectural History. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Rickman, Geoffrey. 1980. The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rizzo, G. E. 1932. La Base di Augusto. BCAR

60:1-109.

Robinson, O. FE 1992. Ancient Rome: City Planning and Administration. London and New York: Routledge. Rodgers, Robert Samuel.

1943. Studies in the Reign of Tiberius: Some Imperial

Virtues of Tiberius and Drusus Julius Caesar. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Rome impéfriale. 1997. La Rome impeériale: Démographie et logistique. Collection de

l’Ecole francaise de Rome, 230. Rome: L’Ecole francaise de Rome, Palais Farnese. Rose, C. Brian. 1990. Barbarians and princes on the Ara Pacis. AJA 94:453-67.

Riipke, Jorge.

1998. Les archives des petits colleges. In La Mémoire Perdue:

Recherches sur Vadministration romaine, Collection de VEcole francaise de Rome, 243. Rome: Ecole francaise de Rome, 27=44.

Ryberg, Inez Scott. 1955. Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art. Rome: The American Academy in Rome. Salerno, Francesco. 1984. Collegia adversus rem publicam? In Sodalitas. Scritti in onore di Anonio Guarino 2. Naples: Jovene, 615-31. Reprinted in Index 1985 Iss Ales On

Salmon, Edward Togo. 1982. The Making of Roman Italy. London: Thames and Hudson. Sampter, Ernst. 1901. Familienfeste der Griechen und Romer. Berlin: G. Reimer. Santero, J. M. 1983. The Cultores Augusti and the private worship of the Roman emperor. Athenaeum 61:111—25. Saulnier, Christiane. 1980. Le role des prétres fétiaux et l’application du ‘ius fetiale’

Scheid, John.

a Rome. RD 58:171-99.

1978. Les prétres officials sous les empereurs julio-claudiens.

ANRW 2.16.1. 610-654.

1990. Romulus et ses freres. Le college des fréres arvales modele du culte public dans la Rome des empereurs. Bibliotheque des écoles francaises d’Athénes et de Rome, 275. Rome: Ecole francaise de Rome, Palais Farnése. Schulze, Wilhelm. 1904. Zur Geschicte lateinischer Eigennamen. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. 252

REFERENCE

LIST

Schiitz, M. 1990. Zur Sonnenuhr des Augustus auf dem Marsfeld. Gymnasium 97:232—-S7.

Schwirian,

Kent P. 1977. The internal structure of the metropolis: Neighbor-

hoods. In Topics in Contemporary Urban Sociology. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press, 199-209.

Scott, K. 1925. The identification of Augustus with Romulus-Quirinus.

74 PA

§6:82—-105.

1930. Emperor worship in Ovid. TAPA 61:43—-69. 1931. The significance of statues in precious metals. TAPA 62:101-23. Scott, Russell T. 1982. Providentia Aug. Historia 31:436—59. Scullard, H. H. 1981. Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic. London:

Thames and Hudson. Seston, W. 1978. La lex Julia de 90 av. J.-C. et l’intégration des Italiens dans la citoyenneté romaine.

Settis, Salvatore.

1990.

CRAI 529-42.

Civilta dei Romani: A citta, il territorio, Vimpero. Milan:

Electa. Shackleton Bailey, David Roy. 1988. Onomasticon to Cicero’s Speeches. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Shipley, Frederick William. 1931. Chronology of the building operations in Rome from the death of Caesar to the death of Augustus. MAAR 9:7-60.

1933. Agrippa’s Building Activities in Rome. Washington University Studies, Language and Literature, ns. 4. St. Louis, MO: Washington University Press. Sills, David L. 1959. Voluntary associations: Instruments and objects of change. Human Organizations 18:17-21. 1968-1979.

Voluntary associations: Sociological aspects. In International En-

cyclopedia of Social Sciences, edited by David L. Sills. 19 vols. New York: Macmillan, 16:362-79. Simon, Erika. 1967. Ara Pacis Augustae. Tiibingen: Wasmuth.

1986. Augustus: Kunst und Leben in Rom um die Zeitenwende. Miinchen: Hirmer. Simpson, C. J. 1977. The date of dedication of the temple of Mars Ultor? JRS O74.

r991. Livia and the constitution of the Aedes Concordia. Historia 40:449—-55. Smith, Constance, and Anne Freedman. 1972. Voluntary Associations: Perspectives

on the Literature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Spano, Giammellaro Antonella. 1961. L’edificio di Eumachia in Pompei. RAAN fISES

ORS 367.

Stambaugh, John. 1988. The Ancient Roman City. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Suttles, Gerald D. 1972. The Social Construction of Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Syme, Ronald. 1939. The Roman Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1958. Imperator Caesar: A study in nomenclature. Historia 7:172—88. 1974. The Crisis of 2 BC. Sitzungsberichte Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Jahrg. 1974, Heft 7. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 253

REFERENCE

LIST

1978. History in Ovid. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tamasia, A. M. 1961-1962. Inscrizioni del Compitum Acili. BCAR 78:158—63.

Tarpin, Michel. 1998. L’utilisation d’archives annexes pour les distributions de blé. In La Mémoire Perdue: Recherches sur l’administration romaine, Collection

de l’Ecole francaise de Rome, 243. Rome: Ecole francaise de Rome, 387—

409. Taylor, Lily Ross. 1914. Augustales, Seviri Augustales, and Seviri: A chronological study. TAPA 14:231-45. 1918. Livy and the name Augustus. CR 32:158—61. 1925. The mother ofthe Lares. AJA 29:299-313.

1929. The worship of Augustus in Italy during his lifetime. TAPA 51:116-33. 1931. The Divinity of the Roman Emperor. Middletown, CT: American Philological Association. 1960. The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic: The Thirty-Five Urban and Rural Tribes. Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome, 20. Rome: American Academy in Rome. Terrenato, Nicholas. 1992. Velia and Carinae: Some observations on an area of

archaic Rome. In Papers of the fourth conference of Italian archaeology, 4. London: Accordia Research Centre, 31-47.

Thomas, Edith B. 1963. Lar Angusti Clavi. Folia Archaeologica 15:21—42. Thomsen, Rudi. 1980. King Servius Tullius: A Historical Synthesis. Humanitas, 5. Copenhagen: Gyldendal. Timms, D. 1971. The Urban Mosaic: Toward a Theory of Residential Differentiation. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Torelli, Mario. 1982. The Typology and Structure ofRoman Historical Reliefs. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Toynbee, J. 1961. The Ara Pacis Augustae. JRS §1:153—54. Treggiari, Susan. 1969. Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1996. Social Status and Social Legislation. In Cambridge Ancient History, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 10. 873-95. Tuchelt, Klaus. 1979. Friihe Denkmdler Roms in Kleinasien:

Beitrége

zur

archdologischen Uberlieferung aus der Zeit der Republik und des Augustus. Tiibingen: E. Wasmuth. Ulrich, Theodor. 1930. Pietas (pius) als politischer Begriffim romischen Staate. Breslau: M. & H. Marcus. Urbs. 1987. L’ Urbs: Espace urbain et histoire (Ier siecle av. J.-C.- Ile siécle ap. J.-C). Collection de l’Ecole francaise de Rome, 98. Rome: Ecole francaise de Rome, Palais Farnése.

Valentini, Roberto, and Giuseppe Zucchetti. 1940-1953. Codice topografico della citta di Roma. 4 vols. Rome: Tipografia del senato. Vanderbroeck, PaulJ.J. 1987. Popular Leadership and Collective Behavior in the Late Roman Republic (ca. 80—50 BC). Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Virvlouvet, C. 1995. Tessera frumentaria: Les procédures de distribution du blé public a Rome a lafin de la République et au début de l’Empire. Bibliothéque des écoles

254

REFERENCE

LIST

francaises d’Athénes et de Rome, 286. Rome: Ecole francaise de Rome, Palais Farnése. Wackernagel, Jacob. 1957. Vorlesungen tiber Syntax mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung von

Griechisch,

Lateinisch und Deutsch.

Basel: Birkhiuser.

Original edition,

1926.

Wagenvoort, Hendrik. 1980. Pietas: Selected Studies in Roman Religion. Leiden: Brill. Waites, Margaret. 1920. The nature of the Lares and their representation in Roman art. AJA 24:241-61. Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew. 1981. The Emperor and his Virtues. Historia 30:298— 3231982. The Golden Age and sin in Augustan ideology. Past and Present 95:19—36.

2001. Review of Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae. Times Literary Supplement

5119. 3-4. Waltzing, Jean Pierre. 1895-1896. Etude historique sur les corporations professionelles chez les Romains. Brussels: F Hayez. Wardman, Alan. 1982. Religion and Statecraft among the Romans. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Weinstock, Stefan. 1960. Pax and the “Ara Pacis.” JRS 50:44-58. 1971. Divus Julius. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Weissenborn, Wilhelm. 1866-1877. Titi Livi Ab urbe condita libri. 10 volumes. Stuttgart: Teubner. Reprinted 1960-1969.

Welin, E. 1939. Die beiden Festtage der Ara Pacis Augustae. In Dragma, Martino P Nilsson, A. D. IV id. tul. MCMXXXIX

dedicatum. Lund: H. Ohlssons.

500-13. Wilson, S. 1996. Voluntary associations: An overview. In Voluntary Associations in

the Graeco-Roman World, edited by John Kloppenborg and S. Wilson. London and New York: Routledge, 1-15. Wilson, William Julius. 1996. When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Knopf. Wirth, Louis. 1938. Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology 44:1— 24. Wiseman, Timothy Peter. 1984. Cybele, Virgil and Augustus. In Poetry and Politics in the Age ofAugustus, edited by Tony Woodman and David Alexander West. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 117-28. Wissowa, Georg. 1902. Religion und Kultus der Romer. 2d ed. Munich: C. H. Beck. Woodman, Anthony John. 1983. Velleius Paterculus: The Caesarian and Augustan

Narrative. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Yavetz, Zvi. 1969. Plebs and Princeps. London: Oxford University Press.

Zanker, Paul. 1968. Forum Augustum: Das Bildprogramm. Tubingen: E. Wasmuth. 1969. Der Larenaltar in Belvedere des Vatikans. MDAI(R) 205-18. 1970-1971. Uber die Werkstitten augusteischer Larenalt’ire und damit zussamenhangende Probleme der Interpretation. BCAR 82:147-I155. 1972. Forum Romanum: Die Neugestaltung unter Augustus. Tubingen: E. Wasmuth. 255

REFERENCE

DIST

1988a. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, translated by Alan Shapiro. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Original edition, Augustus und die Macht der Bilder. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1987.

1988b. Pompeji: Stadtbilder als Spiegel von Gesellschaft und Herrschaftsform. Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern. 1998. Pompeii: Public and Private Life, translated by Deborah Lucas Schneider. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Original edition Pompeji: Stadbild und Wohngeschmack, Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern, 1994.

Ziolkowski, Adam. 1992. The Temples of Mid-Republican Rome and Their Historical and Topographical Context. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. 1996. Of streets and crossroads: The location of the Carinae. MAAR

Son Zukin, Sharon. 1995. The Cultures of Cities. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

256

61:121-—

INDEX:

NEIGHBORHOOD

OFFICERS

BY NAME

Aelius L. 1. Hilarus, L., 150, 188 Annus C. |. Apella, C., 158, 195 Annuus P. 1. Apollonius, P., 158, 194 Anteros servus D. Poblici Barnai, 185

Cornificius L. ]. Fortunatus, L., 68, 158,

Antigonus servus M. Iuni Erotis, 185 Antonius [—]rionis ]. Felix, M., 150, Isr, 200

Coruncanius Gn. f. Rufus, Gn., 198 Cretarius Cn. |. Philogenes, Cn., 157 Curtius P. |. Anteros, P., 195

160, 166, 194

Cornificius P. P. ]. Eros, P., 68, 158, 160,

191, 195

Antonius Donatus, M., 189, 195 Antonius Eros, 186

Domitius Cn. et Gaiae, 1. Nicomedes, Cn., 195 Duronius Saturninus, C., 188

Appuleius Iuncus, L., 198 Aristius, A., 215

Arrenus Appianus, Ap., 204 Arruntius L. 1. Philomusus, L., 195 Aufidius Felix, L., 184

Eros servus A. Poblici Damae, 185 Eudoxsus servus C. Caesi, 137, 197

Avillius Adaeus, Q., 183 Brinnius C. |. Princeps, L., 193

Felix servus L. Crautani, 137, 197 Florus servus Sex. Avieni, 137-138, 197

Caecilius M. f. Palatina Optatus, M., 194

Fonteius C. |. Trophimus, Sex, 202 Fufius Q. 1. Epaphroditus, Q., 193, 195

Caesonius M. |. Menophilus, M., 194 Cafatius Diadumenus, Q., 189 Campanius Logus, Cn., 189

Fulvius M. |. Auctus, M., 196

Carsenus Nasta, M., 198 Carvilius P. 1. Syrus, P., 195 Clodius A. f. Palatina Assus viator, C.,

Iucundus servus M. Ploti Anterotis,

Furius L. 1. Salvius, L., 193 185

Julius C.C.L. 1. Donatus, C., 196 Junius C. 1. Logius, D., 195

194 Clodius Q. Q. 1. Nicanor, Q., 184 Coa, Son les lee Coelius C. 1. Pamphilus, C., 196 Coelius Q. 1. Apollonides, Q., 187

Laberius L. 1. Felix, L., 205 Lacutanus P. 1. Demosthenes, P., 196 Licinius M. Sextiliae 1. Diogenes, M., 150, 188

Considius A. |. Princeps, 157, 194

Licinius Tychius, Q., 189

Cornelius A. 1. Nysus, A., 158, 193, 195 Cornelius C. ]. Eutychus, M., 158, 196

Lucilius D. |. Salvius, D., 193 Lucius N. |. Hermeros, N., 161-166, 176, 179, 184, 201, 209

Cornelius Eutychus, C., 204

257

171,

INDEX:

NEIGHBORHOOD

OFFICERS

BY NAME

Rubrius Sestini i,Anteros, A., 198

Lucretius Zethus, L., 124, 146-148, 163,

Rubrius Sp. f. Pollio, Q., 184

198 Lurius Maritumus, M., 198

Salvius L. ]. Primus, L., 195

Milionius Ancialus, M., 196

Satrius L. f., 157, 194 Servilius Onesimus, A., 198 Servilius P. 1. Rufio, P., 195 Servilius, P., 215 Sorilius M’. 1. Menander, M’., 157, 195

Milionius M. |. Aeschinus, M., 157, 158,

Sulpicius C. 1. Chrys[...], C., 158, 194

Marcius Athenodori I. Bello, A., 69, 201 Marcius Athenodori I. Hilarus, A., 69,

195, 201 Marius Demetrius, Q., 198

Sulpicius Galbae 1. Ragia, C., 158, 193, 195 Sulpicius P. |. Felix, P., 158, 191, 195

196

Milionius M. |. Auctus, M., 157, 158, 191,

195

Sulpicius P. 1. Optatus, P., 196

Milionius M. 1. Hilarus, M., 196

Sutorius L. 1. Antiochus, L., 184

Naevius, L., 215

Terentius A.A. |. Bithus, 186

Nonius Savonus, L., 137 Nonius Savonus, N., 137

Tertius servus Q. Q. Nunniorum Lunesis et Montani, 205

Tillius M. 1. Silo, M., 158, 193, 195 Titinius P. 1. Hilarus, P., 157, 189, 195 Trebonius Sex. 1. Philemo, Sex., 193, 195

Oppius C. 1. Iaso, D., 193

Opsilius L. 1. Pamphilus, L., 157, 195 Otacilius L. ]. Cinnamus, L., 195

Valerius M. |. Felix, M., 194 Pinarius Thiasus, P., 192

Venuleius Turanni |. Buccio, L., 150, 151,

Plotius Iucundus, Sex., 198 Plotius Quartio, Sex., 204 Polyclitus servus Sex. Anchari, 138, 197

200 Veveius C. 1. Pamphilus, C., 157, 195

Pompeius Cn. 1. Nicephorus, Cn., 202

Vibius Q. 1. Hilarus, Q., 195

Vibius Phylades, C., 205

Pontius M. |. Eros, M., 159, 191, 192,

195

.. | Diciniu[s.... P]hileros, 185 el pPclixesOMios .. Jeronius, 204

Probus servus M. Fictori Fausti, 162-163,

166, 203

.. ]tetus Epaphroditus, 204 .. P]lacidius, 160

Rabutius Berullus, M., 192

SS —

258

GENERAL

Aediles, 39-41, 55, 63, 66-67, 70-72, 89, 119 Aesculapius (Augustus), 162-163, 166, 203

Lares Augusti, 104-106,

130

Name, 1oI—102 New years gifts, 73-76, 79-80, 85, IIs, 121, 130—I31, 165, 181, 190-101,

Aesculapius, temple of, 163 Altars, neighborhood, 119, 136-148 Augustus, 125 Genius Caesarum, 140 Lares Augusti, 106, 114, 120, 125, 134-136,

INDEX

201-202 Pater patriae, 118, 124

Pontifex maximus, 86-87, 107-110 Reforms city, 1-2, 67-68, 98-100 Reforms neighborhoods, 2-3, 5, 37, 60,

140, 142, 193, 197, 200

Laurel branches, 120-121, 125, 136, 137,

81, 84-08, I51

193

Relationship with vici, 82, 101-106,

Livia, 125 Magistri vici, 104, 136, 140-142 Oak wreath, 120-121, 125, 136, 137,

T2O>127

30-130,

166-170,

177

Iss kSO—157,,

Religion in general, 100-101

Urban plebs, 118-120

193, 200 Sacrifice scenes, 140-144, 200 Vatican inv. 3II, I13—114, 184-185

Augustus, divine epithet, 102-103, 147 Aurelius Cotta, 167-168

Vicus Aesculeti, 142-144, 199-200

Vicus Compiti Acili, 150, 200 Vicus Sandaliarius, 114, 125-126,

Belvedere altar, 104-106, 111, 217-218 Caecilius Metellus, Q., 56

144-146, 192-193

Calpurnius Piso, 56 Campus Martius, 64, 85

Vicus Statae Matris, 137-139, 197-198

Annius Milo, T., 158-159

Cancellaria reliefs, 218—219 Carinae, 149-152 Census, 87-89, 173 Claudius, 172, 174 Clementia Caesaris, 109 Cloelius, Sextus, 56-58, 63-64 Clodius, P., 30, 47, 63-64, 67, 117, 120,

Antonius Musa, 163, 165

Aphrodite Stratonikis, 108 Apollo (Augustus), 160, 165, 166,

193-194, 205 Apollo Pasparios, 108 Apollo Sandaliarius, 74, 144, 165 Aqueducts, fountains, basins, 70-72 Asconius, 51-52

127, Collegia, 62, 154

Augustus, Caesar Divus Augustus, 172

Capua, $4

End of Republic, 131-132

Compitalicia, 50-55, 57

259

GENERAL

Collegia (cont.)

INDEX

Hercules Musarum, temple of, 68-70 Hercules Tutor, 166, 204 Herrenius, C., 56, 59

Delos, $4 Minturnae, 54 Columna Lactaria, 12 Commodus, 173 Compitalia, 14, 28, 33, 35-37, 40, 49-50,

Horrea Galbae, 153-154 Insula Tiberina, 162-163, 185-186 Justitia Augusta, 103, 108

II4—II5, 134 Compitum, 4, 14, 33, 135, 153-154 Concordia

Julims Caesar, C.; 11-12, 32, 61-65, 99,

(Augusta), 149, 166, 212

Concordia at Pompeii, 133, 134

108-109,

118, 163, 177

Jupiter Tragoedus, 74, 165

Concordia, in the Porticus Liviae, 75, 133,

152 Concordia, statue of, 74, 165 Concordia, temple of, 75, 103, 108, 133 Cornelius, Sulla, L., 49, 63, 127, I71

Lares Augusti, 101-106, 185-186, 193,

194, 199 Lares before Augustus, 33-35

Cornificius, L., 68-70, 160-161, 171 Cura regionum, 89, 173 Curatores regionum, 173

Lares Praestites, 116-117

Lares Publici, 121-122, 149, 165, I9O0—-I9I Lares, temple of, 121-122 Larissa, letter of Philip V to, 42-43 Livia, 75, 78, 125, 133-134, 152 Lucius Caesar, 114, 124, 125, 144

Diana (Augusta), 159-162, 165, 166 Diana, temple of, 68-70, 160

Divus Augustus, temple of, 172

Ludi Augustales, 172

Domus Aurea, 151, 173 Drusus Caesar, 144

Ludi Compitalicii, 23, 36-38, 40, 50,

56-59, 62, 115, 155, 177 Ludi Victoriae Caesaris, 109

Egnatius Rufus, 67, 119-120, 169, 176 Eumachia, 132-134, 148

Magistri Larum Augustorum,

175

Magistri Vici, 4, 33, 40

Administration of city, 100 at Spoletium, 174

Fasti annales et magistrorum, 15§5—IS7

Fasti Capitolini, 156 Fasti Esquilini, 217

at Verona, 174

Fasti Magistrorum Vici, 68, 91-96,

Augustan organization, 89-98

103-104, ITO, 122, 135, 149, 152-162 Fasti Vallenses, 217

Competition among, 161-165, 169— 170 Monuments, 137, 151-152, 165-168,

Fortuna Redux, altar of, 119

Fortuna (Augusta), 166 Fortuna, temple ofatPompeii, 133 Forum Augustum, I, 124, 125, 146

178

Republic, 41-44, 131 Toga Praetexta, 42, 57-58, 90, 131, 142

Forum Boarium, 69 Forum Holitorium,

Manilius, C., 49-51, 58, $9, 117, 120

Marble Plan, Severan (Forma Urbis Romae),

11

IS—17, 153-154 Gaius Caligula, 172

Marcellus, Theater of, 1, 11 Marcius Philippus, 68—70

Genius Caesarum, 107, I10—114, 140, 184

Marius Gratidianus, M., 48-49, 59, 117,

Germanicus Caesar, 144 Grain distributions, 63—65, 127

OY, TAO, TAT, sy Mars Ultor, temple of, 124-126, 138, 144,

Hadrian, 173 Hercules (Augustus), 162, 201

Mercurius (Augustus), 159, 160, 162, 165, 166, 184, I91

Gaius Caesar, 114, 124-126,

189-190

146, 163

260

GENERAL

Mercurius on the Esquiline, 73-80, 131,

Populares, 117-118 Porticus Aemulia, 153—154 Porticus Liviae, 75, 78, 133, 152 Providentia Augusta, 103, 108

149, 150, 165, 181-182

Mercurius Sobrius, 12

Mercurius, temple of, 162 Ministri Larum Augustorum, 175 Ministri Vici, 33, 91-94,

INDEX

137-139

Recensus, 63, 88, 100

Regionaries (Notitia, Curiosum), 17-18,

174

Neighborhoods (vici) Aediculae, 135, Iso—IsI, 173, 186, 188

Regions ofthe city, four, 4, 30, 89 Regions of the city, fourteen, 81, 89

New Augustan era, 84-86, 96

Augustan holidays, 98, 112, t1s—117,

134, 149

Salus (Publica), 74, 165 Sacellum Streniae, 149

Definition, 4, 12-18, 21-24, 31-32, 38, 148

Sacra Via, 149

Ethnic population > 2222—2 Firefighting, 83, 98, 100, 116, 118-119, 1272 TOS. Dye

Saecular games, 104, 124 Schola, 153-155, 211-212

Sempronius Gracchus, C., 63

17O

Grain supply, 63—65, 127, 164, 176 Local community, 128-131, 170-171,

Senatus Consultum Septimius Severus, Servius Tullius, 30, Stata Mater, 3, 79,

177-178 Monuments

134—136,

in general, TO

linOO—Ods

of 64 BCE, 52-55 173 32, 35, 68, 99, 160 98, 166, 167, 187-189,

192, 202—205

ISI—I5$2, 159-160

Policing, 127, 176

Subura, 76

Population, size, and number, 14—15, 26 Religion, 7, 101-106 Republican, 44-45, 53-55, 176-177

Sulpicius Galba, Sergius, 158 Tabula Heracleensis, 30, 32, 40, 63, 65 Tarraco, 174-175 Tiberius, 75, 78, 109, 133-134, 144, 172 Titus, 15, 173 Triumph, 131-134 Tullius Cicero, M., 30, 46, 49, 51-52,

Slaves and lower classes, 31, 38-39,

44-45, 68, 96-97 Social disaffection in Late Republic,

45-46 Water supply, 100, 127, 163, 176 Women,

55-59, 102

97-98, 218

Neighborhoods outside of Rome, 38, 174

Tullius, M., 133

Neighborhoods, modern discussion of, Urban praetor, 99, 127

12-13 Nero, 15, 151-152

Valerius, L tr. pl., 42

Nymphs, temple of, 64

Valetudo, 165

Venus (Augusta), 162-164 Venus Obsequens, temple of, 162-163

Oppius, M., 66-67

Ops Augusta, 103, 108

Vespasian, 15, 173 Vicus

Pacuvius, Sex., 73 Pax Augusta, altar of, 1, 75, 103, 108, 133 Pax, statue of, 74, 165 Philip V, king of Macedon, 42-43 Plebs of the 14 regions, I1, 190

Aesculeti,

142-144,

185-186, 199-200

Africus, 22

Armilustri, 192 Censori, 162, 163, 185—186, 203, 207 Compiti Acili, 148-152, 173, 188, 200 Cornicularius, 85, 206

Plebs of the 35 tribes, 11, 49-50, 118 Pompeii, 132-134, 152

Pompeius Magnus, Gn., 64

DOM

GENERAL

Vicus (cont.) Cyprius, 149 Honoris et Virtutis, 85, 206, 208 lovis Fagutalis, 85, 96, 207 Laci Fundani, 49 Minervi, 204 of Augustus’ house, 121-122 of Mercurius on the Esquiline, 73-80, 131, 150 of the Fasti Magistrorum Vici, 91, 152-161, 170, 194-196, 210-212 Portae Collinae, 206 Salutaris, 72, 181

INDEX

Statae Matris, 137-139, 167, 197-198 Statuae Verris, 173, 208 Tres Ararum, 209 Tuscus, 22—23 Vestae, 209 Vigiles, 168, 174 Vipsanius, Agrippa, M., 70-73, 99, 181 Vitellius, 172 Volcanus, statue of, 79, 165, 182-183 Volcanus Quietus Augustus, 166, 192 Voluntary associations, 24—25, 38, 81, 129

Sandaliarius, 22, 114, 125-126, 144-146, 163, 192-193, 202-203 Sobrius, 12

Zeus Philippios, 108 Zeus Seleukios, 108

262

JOHN BERT LOTT is assistant professor of Classics at Vassar College.

on Jacket illustration: Emperor Augustus, antique sardonyx cameo (Palatine the Cross of Lothar. Cathedral Treasury, Cathedral

NY. Chapel), Aachen Germany. Photo: Erich Lessing/Art Resource,

Jacket design by Jeffrey J. Faville Printed in the United States of America

CAMBRIDGE

CATA TINIAN KQ-192-586

UNIVERSITY PRESS ww.cambridge.org

SEN 9

o-s2t-s2ez7-9

7

805 2 Vs 8ie 8277