Ushering in a New Republic: Theologies of Arrival at Rome in the First Century BCE

Citation preview

Page xi →

Abbreviations Abbreviations of Latin authors and their works follow the conventions of the Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1982), ix–xx. Those of Greek authors and their works follow the conventions of Liddell, Scott, and Jones' A Greek–English Lexicon (Oxford, 1948), xvi–xxxviii. The abbreviation of scholarly journals follows the conventions found in L'Année Philologique. Other abbreviations of modern collections and other works cited in the notes are listed here for your convenience:

BMC Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. Ed. H. Mattingly. 6 vols. London, 1923–. BMCR Bryn Mawr Classical Review. Ed. R. Hamilton, J. J. O'Donnell, C. MacKay, and R. Ferri. Bryn Mawr, 1990–. CAH Cambridge Ancient History. 12 vols. Cambridge, 1923–39. 2nd ed. 1970–. CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. 2 vols. Berlin, 1863–. Dittenberger Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. Ed. W. Dittenberger. 4 vols. Leipzig, 1915–24. FGrH Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Ed. F. Jacoby. 3 vols. Berlin and Leiden, 1923–58. FUR Forma Urbis Romae. Ed. R. A. Lanciani, L. Salomone, and E. Hoepli. Mediolani, 1893–1901. ILLRP Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae. Ed. Attilio Degrassi. 2 vols. Florence, 1957–72. ILS Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. Ed. H. Dessau. 3 vols. Berlin, 1892–1916. Inscr. Ital. Inscriptiones Italiae. Ed. Atillio Degrassi. Vol. 13. Rome, 1947. Page xii → LSJ A Greek–English Lexicon. Ed. H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. S. Jones. Oxford, 1948. LTUR Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae. Ed. E. M. Steinby. 5 vols. Rome, 1993–2000. MAR Mapping Augustan Rome. Ed. L. Haselberger, D. Romano, et al. Portsmouth, RI, 2002. MRR Magistrates of the Roman Republic. By T. Robert S. Broughton. 3 vols. New York, 1951–60. NTDAR A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. By J. S. Richardson. Baltimore, 1992. OGIS Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae. Ed. W. Dittenberger. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1903–5. OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary. Ed. P. G. W. Glare. Oxford, 1968–82. RIC The Roman Imperial Coinage. Ed. C. H. V. Sutherland and R. A. G. Carson. 10 vols. London, 1972. RIC2 The Roman Imperial Coinage. Ed. J. Kent, P. Bruun, and H. Mattingly et al. Rev. ed. 10 vols. London, 1984–2003. RRC Roman Republican Coinage. Ed. M. H. Crawford. 2 vols. Cambridge, 1974.

SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Ed. A. Chaniotis, T. Corsten, et al. 45 vols. Amsterdam, 1923–. Syd. The Coinage of the Roman Republic. Ed. E. A. Sydenham. London, 1952. TDAR Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. By S. Platner and B. Ashby. London, 1929.

Page 1 →

Introduction Performance, Political Theology, and Arrival This monograph explores how some of the principal figures of the Late Republic behaved as religious performers in their departures from and returns to the city of Rome and how they constructed personal political theologies around those events. Its central claim is that the religious performances and narratives associated with certain departures and arrivals contributed to the evolution of the Republic in the period from the Social War to the death of Augustus. This span of time is often identified as the period in which the Republic ended. The present examination was inspired by the idea that such junctures of great constitutional change might instead be identified as the advent of a distinct Republic, hence the title, Ushering in a New Republic.1 New constitutions were not isolated from the performances and ideological statements that helped bring them into being.2 This monograph focuses on the latter elements more than on details of law and reform. After interpreting important arrivals and departures of certain major players of the Late Republic, the discussion concludes by proposing that the interaction between the Res Gestae, the Forum of Augustus, and Augustus' funeral instantiated a theology of the Principate that had a substantive impact on the beginning of Tiberius' reign. The words religion and theology figure prominently in this discussion, so it is necessary to spend a moment at the outset to define how they will be used. For the purposes of the present discussion of late-republican Rome, Page 2 → religion is defined as those activities that relate to both individuals' and collectives' interactions with gods, whether through rituals or in claims of divine manifestations. Roman religion was a complex collection of phenomena that could be instrumental in organizing opinion and collective action, articulating identity, and distributing prestige and power.3 Although the present discussion centers on the activities of individuals of the elite and their impact on the Roman state, the model of Roman religion here adopted is Bendlin's market model.4 According to this model, Rome's religious environment was characterized by a plurality of choices that competed to attract the devotion, participation, and contributions (stipes) of the city's inhabitants. Some of these choices had the advantage of hoary tradition and elite support, but this did not prevent new gods, cults, and religious activities from developing and taking hold. The great figures of the Late Republic who are the subject of this study were big players in this complex religious market, and they creatively crafted religious performances and narratives with the aim of competing with other Roman elites both in establishing and maintaining their own social and political preeminence and also in addressing the crises of their times. Such religious activities could form a personal political theology. Such a theology constituted an elite Roman's efforts at rationally arranging and deploying a particular constellation of religious claims and activities in response both to personal and collective needs of the time and also to the interests of historical legacy.5 Individual creativity in religious expression had a substantive impact on the shape of Roman society and politics. Potentially coherent and comprehensive, personal political theologies could significantly shape the ruling ideology or even effectively constitute such an ideology, at least in Page 3 → part.6 The personal political theology of Augustus, for example, represented a large part of the ruling ideology of the Julio-Claudian Principate. A brief overview of the significance of religion both as an elite endeavor and as a means of governing and preserving the state is provided in this introduction, in order to proffer the existence of a perceived relationship between religious self-representation, rituals of departure and return, and the welfare of Rome. The balance of the introduction lays out the basic parameters of the discussion and elucidates the salience of the relationship between religious thought and performance for understanding how elite Romans negotiated cultural, social, and political change. This introduction also makes the case for the prominent place of the ceremonies of departure and arrival in articulating the relationship between the individual Roman magistrate and the city, as well as for the significance of these processes in reflecting on the constitutional makeup of Rome. The main chapters of this book then proceed to examine the significant instances of civic arrival and, to a lesser extent, departure and their representation in the careers of some of the pivotal figures of the Late Republic.

The Elite Roman as Religious Performer At the end of his life, Rome's first emperor, Augustus, reportedly asked those around him to applaud if they felt he had played his part well.7 We Page 4 → do not know whether Augustus actually spoke these words, but they would have been entirely appropriate, since the life of the elite Roman male was a type of performance. One notes the effort that Cicero and Quintilian put into fashioning and teaching the art of performing through oratory. The right turn of phrase and the proper gesture were not viewed as ancillary but, instead, as vital to expressing the inner nobility of the speaker and thus persuading the listener.8 Competency in performance and uprightness in character went hand in hand. The most persuasive speaker was the vir bonus dicendi peritus, whose inner character could find optimal expression thanks to the instruction offered by such experts as Quintilian. Religion was similar to oratory as an area of elite expression in ancient Rome, though the connection between performance and character therein has elicited less comment. A Roman man's mastery of relations with the gods was a mark of his suitability to obtain the highest honores (magistracies) in the state.9 In Roman religion, mastery of divine-human relations was demonstrated through religious expertise and virtue.10 Written religious law and historical anecdotes (exempla) were available to provide guidance to the elite man seeking such mastery. Ancient exempla even suggested that incompetence in dealing with divine matters, as in the case of the Alban king Romulus Silvius or Rome's own Tullus Hostilius, could prove deadly.11 Page 5 → According to legend, both of these kings botched their ritual interactions with the god Jupiter and were destroyed by lightning. Canny and competent interactions with the gods led some of Rome's greatest rulers and heroes, men like Numa and Camillus, to become masters of divine things through founding, embellishing, and preserving religious institutions that established and maintained peace with the gods (pax deorum) and, therefore, preserved Rome's imperium.12 Despite the fact that some Romans embraced the political philosophy of the Hellenistic period, they never separated the proper working of the urbs and its empire from the religious activities of the state and the favor of the gods who were believed to sustain it.13 Indeed, Romans turned to religion to bring about success in their endeavors, particularly when normal human agency and other tools were perceived to be at their limits.14 The logic at work in cults associated anciently with technologies seemingly driven by mysterious forces—technologies such as smelting or seafaring—was also applied to the city, an incredible technological feat in its own right. As Blakely has argued regarding the cultic aspects of metallurgy, “ritual and symbol bridge social need and practical action, and thus contribute to the survival of the technology; in the indigenous perspective, they are inseparable.”15 The welfare and success of something as complex as the ancient city was subject to countless forces and vicissitudes that human beings sought to master with the assistance of the gods. The ritual and ceremonial Page 6 → performances through which Romans attempted to do so contributed both to the city's survival and to its negotiation of the tensions between tradition and change. Considered crucial to the welfare of the state, religious responsibilities were an indispensable part of the city's highest political offices.16 Even areas of endeavor usually considered entirely political in nature by modern students of Roman history were steeped in important religious responsibilities. Pina Polo has shown how Rome's highest magistracy, the consulship, involved vital religious duties in Rome's ritual and ceremonial cycle, in which official departures and arrivals featured prominently.17 In other words, the senatorial career was as religious in its nature as it was civic and martial; ceremonial departures and arrivals were a natural part of its rhythmic structure—and of the city's rhythmic structure too. A magistrate's travels, including his departures and arrivals, involved consultations and manifestations of the divine will. Divine-human communication was, after all, one of the key areas of concern in Roman religion as practiced by its elite on behalf of the interests of the state (and the elite's own interests also). This took various forms, including prayer, divination, and epiphanic encounters. The discussion here will focus on that side of the communication process traditionally attributed to the agency of the gods. Romans were especially dedicated to the expert cultivation of religious technologies whereby they could accurately interpret messages from the gods and act on those messages with properly conducted rites. This divinatory system was intended to preserve the pax deorum and Rome's continued possession of the power to command (imperium).18 The complexity of the Roman system of rites and divination and the state's reliance on certain Page 7 → boards of experts therein (augurs, haruspices, quindecemviri), as well as the habit of carefully observing the conduct of rituals to prevent errors that

might offend the gods, demonstrate a devotion to expert administration of technically elaborate religious processes.19 Epiphanies and wonders represent another form of Roman relations with the divine community.20 Unfortunately, ritual and ceremonial action have long dominated perceptions of Roman religion, to the near exclusion of consideration of experiential narratives such as divine epiphanies.21 Roman literature, however, abounds in stories of miraculous manifestations. A number of these miraculous experiences belong to the stories of the foundations of various Roman cults. These narratives of wonders may be viewed as belonging to the body of Rome's myths.22 Many of these myths took the form of exempla—anecdotes about ancient Romans that provided a lens through which Romans could reflect on issues of identity, character, values, and the institutions and constitution of Rome.23 Numerous exempla show heroic Romans demonstrating uprightness of character and mastery Page 8 → of divine things in their interaction with the community of the gods—gods who allow these heroes to prevail against enemies of Rome or to compete with their fellow Romans. Consider the story of the miracle experienced by Quinta Claudia, a noblewoman despised on account of accusations of sexual immorality.24 In proof of her virtue, she alone was able to guide the ship bearing the goddess Cybele, with almost no effort, to the goddess' new seat at Rome. The story of Claudia adorned the history of the Claudian gens with prestige, but it also reminded Romans of the importance of successful dealings with the gods in matters concerning the welfare and success of the state as a whole. The Sibylline Books had tied victory in the war against Hannibal to the Great Mother. Negative exempla of wonders could convey a similar lesson. Tullus Hostilius botched the ritual to expiate a prodigy of stones raining on the Alban Mount, with the result that the god sent lightning to kill Hostilius and burn down his palace.25 Failure to expiate the bad omen of raining stones on the site of the recently conquered Alba Longa would mean a rupture in the pax deorum, perhaps endangering the city at a time when Rome was vulnerable to attacks from its neighbors. One figure embodies more than any other the ideal of proper relations with the gods: Rome's second king, Numa Pompilius. His deftness in divine relations and his piety made him the perfect prototype for the Roman priestmagistrate.26 As a result, his creative use of religion informed the construction of the personal political theologies of a number of elite Romans.27 A person of exceeding piety in the private sphere, Numa was elected by the Senate and acclaimed by the people to serve as Rome's second king and then, upon his arrival at Rome, was inaugurated as such with the approval of Jupiter.28 As king, he single-handedly established and systematized Page 9 → many of the city's religious institutions, including colleges of priests, rites and festivals, religious law, and the calendar. He also interacted with the gods on a personal level in the interests of the state. Different versions of Numa's story depict him either sleeping with the nymph Egeria to procure instructions for Rome's rites or, in the rationalizing version, pretending he had received from the nymph ritual procedures that he himself had invented.29 He captured the gods Picus and Faunus to experience a manifestation of Jupiter and talk with the god.30 In the subsequent exchange, Numa was able to sidestep the god's apparent demand for human sacrifice through creative reinterpretation and thus secured from the god a pledge of empire (pignus imperii) in the form of the divinely crafted shield (ancile) that fell from heaven.31 This portrait of Numa, which has roots at least as deep as the Middle Republic and continued to develop through the Late Empire, illustrates well the ambiguity regarding the priority between technological mastery, shamanic ability, and even pious fraud in establishing the state's cultic apparatus for navigating relations with divine powers.32 The persistence of a portrait of Numa that combines both artifice and charisma suggests that the Romans held both qualities to be consistent with the behavior of a great statesman. While it appears extraordinary, almost to the point of being sui generis, the myth of Numa's personal interaction with Jupiter bears on the way some Romans conceived of the interactions of their leaders with divine powers. The myth has its historical counterpart in the religious claims of Scipio Africanus. Indeed, that Numa's popularity was on the rise following the period when Scipio Africanus was at the peak of his career is probably not coincidental. During Scipio's bid for the aedileship, rumors spread of Scipio's private Page 10 → conversations with Jupiter in the Capitoline Temple.33 Later, during his siege on Carthago Nova, Scipio claimed that Neptune had appeared to him in his dreams to tell him how to cross the city's bay and attack the walls at a place where the defenses were weak.34 Polybius presented Scipio's dream as canny artifice, reminiscent of Numa's art, crafted to inspire

confidence in his soldiers.35 These aspects of Scipio's biography show how interactions with the gods, even dubious ones, were deemed worthy material for constructing one's public image. Such interactions worked hand in hand with technical, cultic competence to establish a reputation for mastery of divine things, for the purposes of obtaining higher honors and furthering the interests of Rome. Livy, in fact, saw these dubious tales of divine activity as justified, if not demanded, in certain circumstances.36 A divine aura, even a dubious one, lent great institutions and achievements the appropriate auctoritas. The applicability of this principle to Augustus' religious profile could not be clearer. As the example of Scipio Africanus suggests, the cultivation of a reputation for competence in dealing with the gods might serve to advance one's political ambitions. In the competitive arena of politics, any attribute that promised to benefit Rome might help one's prospects for success. Such a reputation might also be cultivated through the scrupulous observance of cults, the proper and reverent execution of religious responsibilities attached Page 11 → to magistracies, and membership in a major priestly college.37 In an effective captatio benevolentiae offered in his prosecution of Verres, Cicero made much of his eagerness to put on the games during his term as aedile.

Nunc sum designatus aedilis; habeo rationem quid a populo Romano acceperim; mihi ludos sanctissimos maxima cum cura et caerimonia Cereri Libero Liberaeque faciundos, mihi Floram matrem populo plebique Romanae ludorum celebritate placandam, mihi ludos antiquissimos qui primi Romani appellati sunt, cum dignitate maxima et religione Iovi Iunoni Minervaeque esse faciundos, mihi sacrarum aedium procurationem, mihi totam urbem tuendam esse commissam; ob earum rerum laborem et sollicitudinem fructus illos datos, antiquiorem in senatu sententiae dicendae locum, togam praetextam, sellam curulem, ius imaginis ad memoriam posteritatemque prodendae.38

[Now I am aedile designate; I take stock of what I have received from the Roman people: it is my duty to put on the most sacred games of Ceres, Liber, and Libera, with the greatest care and reverence; by me Mother Flora must be appeased for the Roman people and plebs through the celebration of games; by me those most ancient games of Jove, Juno, and Minerva, which were the first called “Roman,” must be celebrated with the greatest dignity and piety; my duty it is to watch over the sacred temples of the gods and guard the entire city; in return for my effort and pains in these duties, the following benefits have been given: a more honorable place for speaking my opinion in the Senate, the toga praetexta, a curule chair, and, for my legacy and my posterity, the right of exhibiting my image.]

Page 12 → Cicero expressed such piety in court because he thought it would be effective. His speech also shows the connection Romans made between pious action and magisterial honors. According to Cicero's own formulation, honors carrying real political clout and lasting prestige were due him because he would piously execute the religious duties with which he had been entrusted.39 Moreover, his acquisition of the ius imaginis points to the development of his religio-political persona, which belonged in both the private and public spheres and was potentially subject to state injunction.40 When considering the religious significance of Cicero's ius imaginis, it is useful to recall the placement of Scipio Africanus' imago in the Capitoline Temple and to consider its role in either commemorating or inspiring stories of Scipio's intimacy with Jupiter Optimus Maximus.41 As Flower hypothesizes, the location of Africanus' mask allowed his family to incorporate the Capitoline in its funeral processions, creating a stunning effect when these processions descended the Capitoline through Africanus' arch.42

The behaviors of both Cicero and Scipio Africanus, though different, belonged to the practice of establishing personal political theologies to obtain political advantage, construct a distinctive personal legacy, and promote the interests of the state.43 Such personal theologies combined both private and civic expressions of religious identity and were assembled, magpie-like, from family history, ancient exempla, personal omens and epiphanies, ritual participation, priestly and magisterial ceremonial roles, and relationships to sacred sites and structures. An individual's unique combination of these and similar elements made his personal theology distinctive in a competitive Page 13 → field. Elements could be emphasized or elided as needed44—for example, Julius Caesar could easily emphasize his descent from Iulus of Troy, while Cicero, a new man from Arpinum, would rarely, if ever, mention his royal Italian ancestry.45 In all of this variety, however, the personal political theologies of the Late Republic consistently connected self-aggrandizement with the aggrandizement or welfare of the state—a standard Roman cultural theme.46 Due to modern views about skepticism, belief, and concepts of the self, the complexity and contradictions of the religious activities and expressions of elite Romans such as Scipio and Cicero have given rise to numerous questions and uncertainties. The Roman elites' personal political theologies, as conceived for the present discussion, were not static or even necessarily internally consistent. Such theologies were ever evolving. Furthermore, since Roman elites were comfortable with the notion of adopting personae suitable for a particular performative context or genre, one cannot expect complete consistency (or anything close to it) in all religious expressions and in every performative context or text. This untidy richness has been noted particularly in the tumultuous life and vast corpus of Cicero.47 Behaviors and statements of the Roman elite shift according to situation, Page 14 → despite the fact that qualities like constantia were certainly revered. Thus the present discussion is concerned not with such questions as what Sulla or Octavian “believed,” an issue Feeney has addressed elsewhere, but with how religious personae were constructed in performance and text to meet the challenges of the late-republican crisis.48 Because such theological personae evolved, this discussion is historical. At the same time, this discussion treats the specific events as shaped by a culturally determined narrative arc that the Romans themselves found “good to think with”—that of departure and arrival.49 These events belonged to the realm of Roman ceremony and public spectacle, through which Romans took part in the broader ongoing cultural discourse regarding Roman memory, identity, and the negotiation of power.

Theologies of Arrival, Salvation, and Restoration The political theologies of the Late Republic spoke to the problems of the day: disorder in Italy, a crumbling Republic, and foreign threats to Rome's empire. A common theme of the theological arguments the major historical figures of the Late Republic crafted in text and performance was that of the leader as a divinely appointed savior of Rome. The ceremonial and theological elements that some of these leaders employed in crafting their autobiographical narratives prompted this monograph's investigation and inspired its organization. The memoir of Sulla and the Res Gestae of Augustus share the use of departure and arrival ceremonies as both programmatic devices and focal points for articulating the distinctive political theologies of each man. Sulla arguably gave birth to monarchy at Rome when, independent of Page 15 → any external authority and as an exile and enemy of the state, he portrayed himself to be the embodiment of Republican legitimacy and took it on himself to march on Rome to restore order.50 In doing so, Sulla became a sovereign, or as Schmitt put it, “he who decides on the exception,” the exception being “any kind of severe economic or political disturbance that requires the application of extraordinary measures.”51 Sulla implicitly abdicated this monarchy when his position was legalized via the dictatorship.52 Still, from the time he was declared a hostis until his dictatorship, he held an unusual position that demanded an apologetic. He provided one in his autobiography, which offered an argument of divine legitimization for his actions, or a political theology. In doing so, he set a dangerous precedent. Subsequent appeals to the chaotic state of the Republic would be used by Cicero, Pompey, Caesar, Antony, and Augustus to justify the extreme measures they took on behalf of the state, all the while calling into question the very basis of the Republic and requiring creative religious rhetoric and performances to maintain the credibility of the idea of the Republic's continuity. Sulla's theological self-presentation was highly influential on subsequent political theologies, through the prominent role it allotted to Sulla's departure and arrival and the connection of those events with a divinely

mandated time frame. In the dedication of his autobiography to his friend Lucullus, Sulla described a remarkable prodigy of fire erupting at Laverna, which haruspices, speaking in a context abounding in signs of a change in saecula, had said heralded the appearance of a new ruler of the coming age, Page 16 → which Sulla then interpreted as a sign that he would save Rome.53 According to the Etruscan concept of saecula, each city or people was allotted a fixed number of saecula (periods identified, by prophecy, as equal to the lifetime of the longest living person of a generation), after which the city or people would end.54 The haruspices reported this omen near or during the time of Sulla's departure (profectio) for his command during the Social War. Thus, in his memoir, Sulla connected his departure for war to a contemporary divine narrative regarding the saecula. Thein has argued that Sulla's memoir ended with his triumph.55 If this is true, Sulla's memoir, though it encompassed the bulk of his life, began in the same manner as the opening of a Roman magistrate's campaign, in a profectio, and ended in a military ceremony of civic entry, the triumph.56 Since the traditional triumphal procession ended at the Temple of Capitoline Jupiter, it is possible that Sulla's memoir ended in front of the charred remains of that edifice, which symbolized, in so many ways, the existence and security of the city.57 If so, Sulla may have used the destroyed temple to point to the transition from the last age (saeculum) to a new beginning, thereby connecting the fire that consumed the temple with the Lavernan prodigy.58 Divine signs and ceremonies potentially served as the bookends Page 17 → of Sulla's heavily theological account of his life. Blending Etruscan secular doctrine with the magistrate's departure and arrival appears to have been Sulla's own innovation.59 His theological argument combined the familiar patterns of Roman government with a larger cosmic framework at a time when Rome's imperial horizons had greatly expanded while its governmental structures remained fundamentally those of a classical city-state. As a result, whether intentionally or not, he expanded the possibilities of personal leadership at Rome to include the notion that one could be not only the savior of Rome but also the savior of the empire and the inaugurator of a new age. Sulla thus stands at the head of a list of men in the first century BCE—including Pompey, Cicero, Caesar, P. Lentulus Sura, and Augustus—who either would claim to be or would be considered by others as the “man of the saeculum,” a savior figure who was appointed by the gods and could bring an end to the great struggles of the age.60 Augustus built on Sulla's theological foundation. In his career retrospective, the Res Gestae, Augustus used his ceremonial arrivals at Rome to depict his evolution from dynast during civil war to princeps.61 Allusions, in two successive sections of the document, to Rome's two founding kings, Romulus and Numa, imbued the process with a certain sense of historical logic. At the outset of his work, Augustus recounted his arrival to free the city from the domination of a faction using Caesarian and Romulean allusions.62 As Augustus' account progresses, the character of his arrivals shifts from one of martial celebration to one of cultic foundation, and allusions Page 18 → to the figure of Numa come to the foreground.63 Not only did Augustus' use of ceremony and exempla in crafting his own personal career justify his actions through ancient precedents, but, more importantly, his narrative articulated the emergence of a new, revolutionary Augustan religious order, which was nevertheless built on a traditional foundation. Like Sulla's narrative, Augustus' account of the ceremonial performance of the Roman elite man in the Res Gestae becomes the means of re-establishing the state anew at the dawn of a new era. The choice of Sulla and Augustus to use ceremonies of departure and arrival to express their unique political theologies was not arbitrary. Centuries of Hellenic cultural tradition regarding remarkable arrivals stood behind them, informing their choices both directly and indirectly.64 Numerous anecdotes dating as early as Homer attest to a widespread belief in the power of timely, epiphanic arrivals of individuals or groups at the city as a solution to stasis.65 Undoubtedly the most famous of these stories was the divinely aided return of Odysseus to Ithaca, which brought an end to the societal and political chaos reigning in the form of the suitors. Herodotus recounted the story of Peisistratus' arrival at Athens in the company of Athena in a time when the city was split into three competing factions.66 For a time, the arrival of Peisistratus in the company of the goddess seemed to resolve the issue, and Peisistratus was established as the tyrant of the city. Other stories in Greek literature portray the arrival of a priest or religiously charismatic individual as bringing an end to stasis.67 After Alexander the Page 19 → Great, the solution to local problems would be the arrival of the king (parousia, epidêmia), who would be looked to as the benefactor (euergetês) and savior (sotêr) of the polis and would receive divine honors in return.68 In the Hellenistic period, the epiphanic arrival also pertained to the construction of a great empire. Arrian's account of

the arrival of Alexander the Great at Gordium, wherein Alexander demonstrates his destiny to rule over Asia by cutting the Gordian knot, shows how the old myths of arrival resolving civic stasis were reworked to lay claim to a divine sanction for empire.69 Midas had ridden a wagon to Gordium to become its king and thus fulfill an oracle to end stasis in the city; Alexander cut the knot on the same wagon and thereby signaled that he would rule Asia. Romans had firsthand experience dealing with stasis in the Greek polis. Roman patrons had intervened in stasis in Greek poleis through the application of law and Roman authority.70 Some Romans were even greeted as the divinely appointed savior who would bring an end to the problems of the polis.71 The same concept of the positive effects of an epiphanic arrival would exert its influence on Latin historiography. In imagining Rome's early history, Romans inserted the figure of Numa, who combined technical adeptness with shamanic abilities, to constrain the rabble of Romulus—a group that threatened to fly apart into multiple factions.72 Numa's arrival resulted in the creation of a religious system that would hold Rome together on an enduring basis. This vision of Numa's role is especially apparent in Livy's account, in which disputes between rival parties followed the departure of Romulus as king: patrum interim animos certamen regni ac cupido versabat; necdum ad singulos, quia nemo magno opere eminebat in novo populo, pervenerat: factionibus inter ordines certabatur (“A desire for and dispute over kingship was agitating the minds of the senators. It had not yet arisen among individual citizens, because no one in this young citizenry Page 20 → stood out exceedingly; instead factions among the different orders of society were vying with each other”).73 The accession of Numa to the throne resolved these disputes. Plutarch would later marvel at the fact that there had been no factional strife during the reign of Numa.74 One of the practical causes of civil unrest in antiquity was the departure and lengthy absence of a large portion of the adult male populace for military campaigns. This problem was treated in the nostos tales of the Greek epic cycle, as in the story of Penelope's suitors disrupting the house of Odysseus during his absence.75 The chaos that ensued in the absence of the warrior required a type of refoundation of the community upon his return. Tales of domestic disorder during the campaigning season were also present in the Roman tradition. For example, Sextus Tarquin's early return from battle to rape Lucretia brought a premature end to the dynasty of the Tarquins.76 Rome's campaigning season shaped its culture of departure and arrival in distinctive ways.77 Consider the ritual cycle of the consulship. At the beginning of the consular year, the consuls were granted imperium by a lex curiata.78 The consuls were then inaugurated, took their vows on the Capitoline, and met with the Senate in the same temple. Humm has remarked on the symbolism of refoundation associated with the inauguration of the consuls as a kind of renewal of city, or inauguratio urbis, commenting that it is “as if the foundation of the city was symbolically renewed each time the imperium passed into other hands.”79 In the consuls' first meeting with the Senate, the great issues of the year were set out and discussed; appropriate provinciae were identified, and assignments were made by sortition. The Page 21 → consuls then had the duty of expiating the prodigies of the previous year, officiating at the Feriae Latinae, and perhaps also sacrificing at Lavinium before they left for their provinciae. As they prepared to leave for their provinciae, they would perhaps take new vows and the auspices,80 they would don the paludamentum, and their lictors would fix the axes on the fasces.81 Upon returning to the city, the magistrate would change back into the toga, dismiss his lictors, and thus end his command by crossing over the pomerium.82 If the magistrate sought a triumph, he would linger outside the pomerium until the Senate granted or refused him the honor.83 If the honor were granted, the triumphator could cross the pomerium with all of the accoutrements of a magistrate exercising imperium militiae. Only when he mounted the Capitoline at the end of the triumphal procession would he deliver up his triumphal garb to the god and thus end his command. The religious significance of this cycle is apparent. Livy was attuned to the fact that the return completed a process that the departure initiated and that both were part of a religious cycle: consul proficiscens praetorve paludatis lictoribus in provinciam et ad bellum vota in Capitolio nuncupat: victor perpetrato bello eodem in Capitolium triumphans ad eosdem deos quibus vota nuncupavit, merita dona portans redit (“The consul or praetor departing for his province and war, and accompanied by lictors wearing the paludamentum, takes vows on the Capitoline; after he has finished the same war, the victor returns in a triumphal procession to the Capitoline and the same gods to whom he made his vows, bearing them the gifts they earned”).84 Even the magistrate who did not triumph would fulfill his vows at the Capitoline Temple.

The magisterial cycle, with its clear beginnings and endings, also readily lent itself to narrative and was thus easily relatable to other stories. Roman myths concerning the departure and arrival of great leaders show how Romans Page 22 → used such narratives to grapple theologically with issues regarding the nature of the city and the interaction between gods and humans in constructing the urbs, its power, and the power of individuals within it. One readily notes the miracle-laden stories of foundation and arrival among the stories of Rome's kings, beginning with Romulus.85 The arrival of one monarch marked the foundation of the city; the departure of another marked the beginning of the Republic.86 In the latter case, Romans related the myth of Tarquin's departure to the celebration of Regifugium on February 24, the day after Terminalia.87 Thus an archaic ritual in which the rex sacrorum fled after sacrificing in the Comitium was related to the mythical event of Tarquin's departure as well as to the constitutional shift from monarchy to the Republic. None of these relationships likely has a basis in historical events.88 The connection between the myth, the ritual, and the political transformation from monarchy to Republic constitutes a political theology in the form of an exemplum. As an exemplum, the story of the flight of Tarquin cultivated an emotional attachment to a Republic under consuls as a system superior to regnum. The commemoration of the event in the annual celebration of the Regifugium (as well as numerous other devices) inculcated an aversion toward reges. The relationship between departure, entry, and Rome's political constitution is also explored in the exemplum of Genucius Cipus. This anecdote provides an excellent demonstration of the theological reasoning that might be established and transmitted through exempla, as Rüpke has elsewhere shown regarding the exemplum of Horatius.89 When the praetor Genucius Page 23 → Cipus departed for a campaign and went through the Porta Raudusculana while wearing the paludamentum, horns sprouted from his forehead.90 In Ovid's version, a haruspex interpreted this sign to indicate that Cipus would become king if he should reenter the city.91 Cipus instead chose self-exile to prevent the return of monarchy at Rome. In this way, he demonstrated supreme regard for the Republic. To commemorate his piety and patriotism in perpetuity, his bronze effigies was placed on the Porta Raudusculana. While the story of Cipus may have earlier origins (specifically, the promotion of the gens Genucia, a plebeian clan of Etruscan origins, in the fourth century BCE), the extant versions date to the Early Empire and demonstrate the story's applicability to interlocking issues regarding the role of magistrates, their presence and absence from the city, and the constitution of Rome.92 The Cipus story is particularly striking in the way it supports the current challenge to numerous modern assumptions regarding Roman institutions. First, a close examination of the story reveals the surprising fact that therein the pomerium does not appear as the boundary traditionally assumed to distinguish the city from its surroundings. In modern scholarship, the pomerium features prominently in any discussion of the departure and return of imperium-bearing magistrates and promagistrates. In the Cipus story, the important passageway between city and territory, ritually speaking, is the porta, not the pomerium.93 Recent discussion of the pomerium and imperium supports the idea that the pomerium does not represent the stable and clear marker that it was once assumed to be.94 Of course, given the name Page 24 → of the hero Cipus, which is so close to the word for boundary stone (cippus), some version of the Genucius Cipus story may have concerned the origins of the pomerium. In that hypothetical version, perhaps Cipus gave his name to the markers of the boundary he laid to prevent others from re-entering the city with a regal imperium militiae, as he might have done had the horns not warned him. In any case, the Cipus story suggests that the will of Fate, the intervention of gods, and human decisions and actions could all contribute to the definition and identity of the city in its monuments, landscape features, boundaries, and political constitution. Sulla's extension of the pomerium and Tacitus' claim that this was the traditional ritual action of those who extended Rome's imperium do not settle the question of its significance.95 The story of Cipus and that of Sulla's extension of the pomerium each represent different data points revealing the power of performances, as well as of narratives about those performances, in molding, reinterpreting, and constructing Roman space, power, and landscape. Recent scholarship has also highlighted the degree to which individual commanders might improvise in a ceremonial context to construct their own religious statements. Among ceremonies of return, the most obvious Page 25 → example to cite is the triumph, a topic that has been extensively interrogated in the work of Beard. One of Beard's most important conclusions is that the modern portrait of the triumph as a static, rule-bound ceremony is problematic.96 While it would be equally problematic to claim—and Beard does not—that the triumph had no

traditions or boundaries that made it distinctive from other victory celebrations, the history of the triumph provides plentiful evidence of individual expression in the spectacle, including its religious aspects. During his celebration of a triumph, Claudius Marcellus, departing from tradition, dedicated the only firmly historical spolia opima to Jupiter Feretrius. Marcellus' dedication of the spolia opima in the context of his triumph attests to the legitimizing power of religion in constructing an individualized ceremonial performance.97 When the Senate refused a triumph for Appius Claudius Pulcher (cos. 143 BCE), he celebrated one at his own expense. His daughter Claudia, a Vestal priestess, walked by his side up the Capitoline and thus prevented a tribune from obstructing his procession. The reader is perhaps to understand that the sanctitas of the Vestal trumped the tribune's sacrosanctitas.98 As in the case of Marcellus, Pulcher's strategic deployment of religious institutions (even a family member's priestly office) demonstrates the latitude one might exercise in religious expression in order to bolster one's image and navigate competition. The choice of patron gods was no less important an element of theological choice than the details of the performance of ceremonies and rituals. Noteworthy is the relationship between the imperium-bearing magistrate and Jupiter, since this god was cast as the guarantor of Roman imperium in Roman myth.99 The consul-elect (or praetor-elect) received imperium with Jupiter's approval, and he would make his vows as commander and magistrate to Jupiter. He discussed the pressing issues of the day with the Senate in Jupiter's presence on the Capitoline, and he received his provincial command before the god. The consul was required to officiate at a banquet of Jupiter Latiaris on the Alban Mount before he could head out for his campaign. When the campaign was finished, he fulfilled his vows to Jupiter, and if he was both successful and politically fortunate, he might celebrate a triumphal procession that mounted the Capitoline Hill and there perform Page 26 → sacrifices to Jupiter costumed in the Jovian fashion (ornatus Iovis). Although the precise meaning of the phrase ornatus Iovis is unknown, it is clear that some relationship with Jupiter is denoted thereby.100 Even if the magistrate were not granted a Roman triumph, he might decide to triumph on the Alban Mount, before Jupiter Latiaris.101 Even after a triumph in monte Albano, the commander would fulfill his vows on the Capitoline, albeit not as a triumphator. While the primary rituals and ceremonies of the consular cycle revolved around Jupiter, individual consuls and other bearers of imperium militiae could, of course, invoke, receive, and celebrate the help of other gods. Commanders often made vows to other deities before they departed for a campaign, or they might make a vow to a deity while on a campaign. If the god granted his petition during the campaign, the commander was bound by religious obligation to fulfill that vow upon his return. During the Middle Republic, the fulfillment of such vows sometimes led to the construction of votive temples, which increasingly crowded the city of Rome as reminders (monumenta) to the city's inhabitants of the successes and piety of particular commanders, as well as the beneficence of the gods.102 Interactions with the gods during warfare manifestly and permanently changed the religious landscape of Rome. The choice of deity contributed to the distinctiveness of the individual commander and his achievements. One commander might owe his victory to Salus, another to Minerva. Immediate or more general circumstances in the campaign might drive the decision to seek a particular god's assistance. In the Late Republic, the personal religious claims of the commander became more consequential, since his army, increasingly dependent Page 27 → on and thus loyal to him, sought and relied on signs of his divine favor.103 These claims sometimes involved a commander and a particular deity in a special, ongoing relationship that was not limited to a particular vow or campaign. Victorious arrival at the city was nevertheless a particularly appropriate time for commemorating the deity to whom the victor owed his success. In the late Hellenistic period, it was also a time for performing one's own divine identity.104

Structure of the Argument As the preceding discussion has sought to show, the Romans had a rich repertoire of practices and narratives from which to draw in constructing their arrivals at Rome in such a way as to maximize the sense that an arrival would have the greatest positive impact on the city. In the last century of the Republic, when the continued existence of the city and the Republic was in doubt, the prolonged sense of crisis plaguing Rome presented an unusual opportunity to the great commanders to represent themselves as city saviors and refounders who, like the founders of the regal period, partnered with the gods in setting up the city on an enduring basis or even in transforming it into something markedly new. As already noted at the outset, the personal political theologies that these men

constructed through performance and narrative are the subject of the present monograph. In particular, this discussion will look at significant arrivals in the careers of Sulla, Pompey, Cicero, Caesar, and Augustus. While it is true that the personal theologies of other political players (e.g., Sextus Pompey and Antony) played a crucial role in the events of that time period, a wealth of evidence Page 28 → attests to the efforts of the men discussed in this book to style themselves as divinely chosen refounders and saviors of the city through their arrivals at Rome. For these same men, there is also plentiful evidence of what they did to follow through on their promises to reform or refound Rome after that arrival and, thus, evidence of how their subsequent actions (and, in some cases, writings) continued to shape perceptions of their arrivals. Particularly in Augustus' career, one sees how a ruler might continue to revisit his earlier arrivals over the course of his career and reshape them to suit his purposes. As this monograph will seek to show, Augustus' theological representation of his arrivals in the Res Gestae played a substantive role in the creation of the Principate. This monograph is divided into three parts. Part I covers the Sullan Republic. The first chapter looks at Sulla's self-representation as savior and refounder of the city in response to Marius and to the challenges of the decade of the eighties. Chapter 2 argues that Pompey and Crassus set out to reform the Sullan constitution, not only to address continuing problems in Rome, but also to accommodate Italians who had long waited to obtain the privileges Rome had promised in pursuit of an end to war in Italy. The prominence of Hercules in Pompey and Crassus' religious activities gave cultic expression to such aims. Chapter 3 examines Cicero's different methods for theologizing his exile and return to Rome both as a confirmation of a divine mandate for his acts as consul of 63 and also as a divine plan that he serve as censor to save the Republic from its (his) enemies. Part II covers the period from the fall of the Sullan Republic to the end of the Sicilian War. Chapter 4 argues that Caesar's ovatio in late January 44 should be interpreted as a response to the challenge to Caesar that Cicero issued in his Pro Marcello. Cicero argued that Caesar's one purpose was to restore the Republic, but he also seemed to suggest that doing so would make Caesar's own position obsolete. Caesar answered this challenge by presenting, in the Feriae Latinae and his ovation, his own vision of a Republic with himself as master of ceremonies. Chapter 5 interprets Octavian's return from the Sicilian War in 36 as his attempt to frame the event as the triumph of Apollo over Neptune and the end of civil war between Pompeians and Caesarians. The religious honors Octavian received at the time, which emphasized the commemoration of his victorious return and asserted that he had replaced Sextus Pompey as champion of the plebs, laid the initial groundwork for the Principate. Page 29 → Part III reinterprets Augustus' Res Gestae and its political theology through the lens of arrival practices. Chapter 6 looks at the form and placement of the inscription in comparison with a handful of other documents, including Pompey's inscription in front of the delubrum Minervae, Caesar's silver tablets, the bronze tablet of Capys, the lost books of Numa, and the fictional golden stele of Zeus Triphylius. Chapter 7 examines the inscription's use of the metaphor of arrival to provide a theological rationale for the Principate. While Octavian's early arrivals are depicted in language reminiscent of Romulus and Caesar, his arrivals after Actium conform to the model of Numa, Rome's peaceful king. Augustus' itinerum Numae in chapters 9 through 13 of the Res Gestae is the subject of chapter 8. Despite his emulation of others, Augustus staged, performed, and subsequently wrote about ceremonial arrivals that were both innovative and distinctive. As a new kind of ruler over a new Republic in Rome, Augustus necessarily arrived at the city in a different way and thus set precedents for the practices of subsequent emperors. The discussion in this monograph concludes with a brief look at the theology of the Forum of Augustus and how the Res Gestae read the Forum to construct Augustus as a unique deity whom, it is suggested, his successors were not intended to attempt to equal. 1. Flower 2010. 2. The present argument thus seeks to contribute to our understanding of how so-called symbolic capital translated into structural change. See Hölkeskamp 2010, 107–24. 3. For an accessible overview of Roman religion in the Republic, see Rüpke 2007, 3–38. 4. Bendlin 2000, 134. 5. For a literary example of the rational arrangement of religious ideas and divine personalities to create a

certain effect, see the discussion of Hor. Carm. 1.30 in Rüpke 2007, 3–5. Rüpke (5) writes, “[T]he divinities are invoked in deliberate combinations, some of them, such as the pairing of Venus and Amor, familiar, others, such as Iuventas and Mercury, unusual, indeed unique. In such contexts, the speaker (or poet)…is evidently free to make his or her own decisions. He or she knows, or claims to know, how to match deities in particular ways for particular ends, and thus bring them to bear on this situation now.” Roman authors writing on religious subjects could thus be said to be theologizing, albeit not in the systematic mode traditionally associated with Christianity. See Beard 1987 for the idea that Rome's philosophical and scholarly literature on religious topics was a form of genuine religious expression. 6. This view of the intersection between theology and ruling ideology is informed by Sourvinou-Inwood's 2000 discussion of religion as polis ideology and Shaw's 1985 discussion of Stoicism as imperial ideology. Of polis religion, Sourvinou-Inwood (22) wrote, “The Greek polis articulated religion and was articulated by it; religion became the polis' central ideology, structuring, and giving meaning to, all the elements that made of the identity of the polis, its past, its physical landscape, the relationship between its constituent parts. Ritual reinforces group solidarity, and this process is of fundamental importance in establishing and perpetuating civic and cultural, as well as religious identities.” Writing of Stoicism under the empire, Shaw (52) observed, “Stoicism, much more than merely justifying or underpinning new social relations, was one of the signposts on the road to the exercise of novel forms of political power and the social relations inherent in them. To continue the metaphor, members of a ruling class do not require such obvious signposts during all their social existence,…[b]ut in moments of doubt,…Stoic philosophy was one consistent means of obtaining a sign.” The personal political theologies of the figures discussed in this book served ideological functions similar to those proposed for polis religion and philosophy by SourvinouInwood and Shaw, respectively. 7. Suet. Aug. 99.1; D.C. 56.30.4; Swan 2004, 304; Breebaart 1987, 89–91; Kessissoglu 1988, 385–88. 8. Quint. Inst. 1. pr. 9: oratorem autem instituimus illum perfectum, qui esse nisi vir bonus non potest, ideoque non dicendi modo eximiam in eo facultatem, sed omnis animi virtutes exigimus. On the relationship between performance, training, and character, see Gunderson 2000, 7–8, 15, 59–86. 9. The close relationship between magistracy and priesthood has been dubbed the “civic compromise.” See Gordon 1990, 194–97. According to this model, the elite exploit the slippage between priestly and political roles in order to achieve “ideological domination.” The present discussion adopts the central observations of this position, viewing the elite's use of religion not as completely determinative of Rome's religious system but, rather, as a way of exercising great influence and persuasion in the “religious market” of Rome. See Bendlin 2000. 10. Such a relationship between oratory and religion is unsurprising, since rhetoric was thought to have sprung from magical enchantments. See DeRomilly 1975, 11–20. A similar display of prowess in divine affairs is mixed with wisdom in the performances of the Seven Sages. See Martin 1998, 115–28. Cicero placed great emphasis on the importance of virtue in carrying out religious acts, in Leg. 2.15, 19–22. See also Dyck 2004, 283; Wiseman 1994; Tatum 1993. The expertise of sacerdotes is an important part of this formula for proper religious observance. Cf. Cic. Leg. 2.20–21. 11. Both Silvius and Hostilius were killed by lightning for offending Jupiter in the way they conducted his rites. On the death of Silvius, see Liv. 1.3; D.H. 1.71.3; D.S. 7.5.10; Zonaras 7.1D; Ogilvie 1965, 45; Smith 1895, 203–10. On the death of Hostilius, see Liv. 1.31; D.H. 3.35.2; Plin. Nat. 2.140, 28.14; Zonaras 7.6; Ogilvie 1965, 124–25. 12. On the centrality of preserving the pax deorum in Roman religion, see Wissowa 1912, 390–94; Latte 1960, 40–41; Bayet 1969, 58–60. This would remain true throughout the course of the empire, even when the god in question was the Christian one. On the pax Dei, see Tabbernee 2007, 309 n. 6. 13. Cic. Catil. 2.13.19; Dom. 56.143; Sest. 23.53; N.D. 2.3.8; Sal. Jug. 14.19; Hor. Carm. 6.1–6; Liv. 5.51.9–10; Prop. 3.21–22. Polybius (6.56) views religiosity as one area in which Roman political society is superior to all others. Posidonius expresses a similar view. Cf. Ath. 6.274; D.S. 36.13.3. 14. Malinowski 1948, 8–15. Malinowski writes about magic as a tool employed alongside technical expertise in so-called primitive societies to address problems that cannot be controlled by technical expertise alone. He distinguishes between magic and religion in a manner that no longer has general scholarly support. Some Roman religious activities could perform a function similar to the one Malinowski attributes to magic.

15. Blakely 2006, 69–71. 16. Holders and former holders of high office populated the Roman Senate. Beard (1990, 30–34) has argued that the Senate, in fact, “mediated” between the citizens and gods in Roman religion. Brennan (BMCR 02.02.01) and Thomas (2005, 130–31) argue against this view. Nevertheless, the priests of the state religion were drawn exclusively from the senatorial order. The state cult belonged to that “political center” where, in the words of Geertz (1983, 124), “there is both a governing elite and a set of symbolic forms expressing the fact that it is the truth governing.” There, he continues, “[the elite] justify their existence and order their actions in terms of a collection of stories, ceremonies, insignia, formalities, and appurtenances that they have either inherited or, in more revolutionary situations, invented.” Rome's crisis-filled first century BCE saw an explosion in the creative adaptation and deployment of these things. 17. Pina Polo 2011a, 21–57. 18. Brent 1999, 17–54. 19. On ritual error as a cause of rupture in the pax deorum and, thus, military defeat for Rome, see Rosenstein 1990, 54–91. 20. Platt 2011, 1–24; Feeney 1999, 104–7; Versnel 1987; Lane Fox 1986, 102–67. 21. Smith (1990, 34 n. 58; 1992, 96–103) explains how the characterization of classical pagan religion as empty ritual results from Protestant bias against the Catholic Mass. See also Phillips 2011, 18. 22. Traditionally, Rome has been thought to lack myth because Greek mythology has been taken as normative. See Bremmer and Horsfall 1987, 1–11. Recently, views have begun to shift, thanks to increasing acknowledgment of the mythological function of Roman historical narrative. See Wiseman 2008, 10–12. As Wiseman (11) explains, “The Romans were not a people without myths. They too had stories to tell about their gods, their forefathers and the achievements of their city. They were indeed profoundly influenced by Greek ideas, but not just in the artificial, antiquarian sense that Wissowa had in mind.” See also Feeney 1999, 27–28. 23. Rüpke (1992, 71–72) discusses the use of religion in exempla that establish and transmit a “hierarchy of norms.” Using the story of the duel of the Horatii and the subsequent murder of Horatius' sister, Rüpke notes that “the people acquit the son by referring to his bravery (virtus), not law.” According to the reasoning implicit in the exemplum, ritual purification substitutes for punishment or acquittal in resolving the conflicts presented by the murder, because such purification is in the interest of the community at large and reflects the priority it gives to virtus demonstrated on its behalf. Rüpke sees the period of the Gracchi and Sulla as two chronological settings in which this particular exemplum would have been most salient in dealing with extraordinary extrajudicial murders of citizens. See also Mueller 2002, 1–21, on religious exempla. On the role of miracles in Ovid's exemplum of Philemon and Baucis, see Fabre-Serris 2009. For the power of exemplarity in constructing Roman identity and rooting that identity in the city's landscape, see Roller 2004. 24. Ov. Fast. 4.300–28; Liv. 29.10.4–11.8, 14.5–14. On Claudia and Cybele, see Scheid 2001; Borgeaud 2004, 59–71. 25. Liv. 1.31. 26. Liv. 1.18–21; D.H. 2.58–76; Plu. Num. Levene (1993, 134) argues that it is only in Livy that Numa's piety is a central feature of his character. 27. Among them, naturally, were those Romans who claimed descent from Numa, such as the Aemilii, Calpurnii Pisones, Marcii, and Pomponii. See Farney 2007, 22–25, 79, 112–14. 28. According to Livy (1.18.1), Numa was chosen because of his inclita iustitia religioque. On the election of Numa, see D.H. 2.57–58; Liv. 1.17–18; Ov. Met. 15.1–4, 479–81; Plu. Num. 2–6. For Numa's inauguration, cf. Liv. 1.18. For discussion of the inauguration, see Linderski 1986, 2256–96. 29. Liv. 1.19; D.H. 2.60.5–61.1; Ov. Met. 15.482–84; Plu. Num. 4, 13, 15. 30. Ov. Fast. 3.297–322; Plu. Num. 15.3–4. See Ov. Fast. 4.649–70 for Numa's sacrifice to Faunus and the god's subsequent epiphany in a wood sacred to Pan. Pasco-Pranger (2002, 304–8) proposes Varro as the source of Ovid and Plutarch's accounts of Numa's encounters with Picus and Faunus and with Jupiter. 31. Ov. Fast. 3.323–80; Plu. Num. 15.5–6. 32. On Numa as pious fraud, see Lee-Stecum 2010, 257–62; Breebaart 1987, 91–92. Of the three types of theology (poetic, philosophical, and civic) of which Q. Mucius Scaevola (cos. 95) wrote, the civic, in his view, was sometimes false but was expedient for ordinary people to believe: expedire igitur existimat falli

in religione civitates (August. C.D. 4.27). Penwill (2004) argues that Livy highlights Numa's religious deception in order to address the issue of Augustus' manipulations. On the term shaman in modern scholarship, see Hutton 2007. 33. Liv. 26.19.3–9; Gel. 6.1; De vir. ill. 49. On Scipio's claims to special divine communications, see Walbank 1985. 34. Liv. 26.45.6–9. 35. Plb. 10.11.7–8. Livy, too, was cognizant of the ruses and saw in them Scipio's similarity to Numa. See Feldherr 1998, 66–76. 36. Liv. pr. 6–9. See Feeney 2006, 14–16. Feeney notes that Livy consigns these myths to the realm of the poetic. Livy cites them without personal endorsement, so that he can establish the auctoritas of Rome while avoiding compromising his own auctoritas as an historian. In doing so, he employs the traditional historiographical trope of dividing myth from history according to chronology. At the same time, his language at pr. 7 raises questions: datur haec venia antiquitati ut miscendo humana divinis primordia urbium augustiora faciat (“an allowance is made for antiquity in order to make the human origins of the city more august by mixing them with the divine”). The bolded allusion to Augustus leaves open the possibility that the determinant of where such allowances are acceptable is not chronology but, rather, the nature of the acts and actors involved. The polyvalence of the word antiquitas allows for this play. It refers not only to ancient times, which are constantly being re-presented in Rome through various narratives and performances, but also to the conditions that prevailed and the character of the people who inhabited that past. In other words, antiquitas always had the potential of being contemporary, particularly in the Augustan restoration. 37. Of the usual advantage of religious observance, Yakobson (1999, 198) writes: “The prestige of the nobles was enhanced by the ceremonies and rituals of the state religion.” See also Jocelyn 1966. Jocelyn (93) points out the tendency for promising scions of the great families to enter priesthoods early in life as a first stage in their march to political prominence. The appearance of major priesthoods in elogia inscriptions stands as strong evidence of the importance of priesthoods for family prestige. See ILS 886 = CIL X.6087. The elogium of L. Munatius Plancus (cos. 42 BCE) mentions his membership in the VIIviri epulonum. The position of pontifex maximus was among those honors considered greatest. The elogium of P. Cornelius Scapula (ILLRP 1274a) lists this as the man's sole honor, doubtless for effect. See Flower 2000a, 181; Sempronius Asellio fr. 8 P: Is Crassus a Sempronio Asellione et plerisque aliis historiae Romanae scriptoribus traditur habuisse quinque rerum bonarum maxima et praecipua: quod esset ditissimus, quod nobolissimus, quod eloquentissimus, quod iuris consultissimus, quod pontifex maximus. 38. Cic. Ver. 2.5.36. For discussion, see Taylor 1939 and Spaeth 1996, 89. 39. On the significance of Cicero's antiquiorem in senatu sententiae dicendae locum as aedile designate, see Ryan 1998, 249–50. 40. On the significance of the ius imaginis in this passage, see Flower 2000a, 53–59. Flower argues that this is a custom and not a legal right as such. The issues surrounding ancestral imagines are complex and cannot be thoroughly explored here. There were imagines that would be displayed in the funeral and the atrium of a Roman house, but there were also imagines that served as objects of familial cult, such as the wooden busts of the Casa del Menandro. Cf. ibid., 42–46. 41. V. Max. 8.15.1–2; App. Hisp. 89; Flower 2000a, 48–52. Valerius goes so far as to suggest that the Capitoline Temple was a kind of atrium for the living Africanus. 42. Flower 2000a, 48–49. 43. Every appeal to divine legitimization of power contributed to the evolution of political theologies at Rome. Feeney (as quoted in Lowrie 2005, 43) has said regarding cultural systems, “Every intervention reconfigures the matrix.” 44. One is reminded of the instructions from Menander Rhetor (378.31–379.2) to orators speaking at the arrival of a governor. Menander explains how an array of accomplishments, heroic ancestry, or favorable comparisons with others could be emphasized or ignored according to the strengths and weaknesses of the person addressed. 45. On Caesar's public recital of his illustrious ancestry at his aunt Julia's funeral, see Suet. Jul. 6.1. The funeral was, of course, the proper public context for such references. See Flower 2000a. Plutarch (Cic. 1.2) mentions that some traced Cicero's ancestry to the Volscian king Tullus Attius. Cicero evidently did not do

so. 46. Batstone 2011, 554–55. 47. The richness of the Ciceronian concept of the persona is useful for coming to terms with the apparent contradictions in our evidence regarding the religiosity of leading Romans of the first century. Among the leaders displaying these contradictions are Caesar, who places little divine activity in his commentaries but was given and accepted divine honors, and Cicero, who gave voice to apparent religious skepticism in his writings but built a temple for his deceased daughter. Bartsch (2006, 220) argues that one must “understan[d persona] in terms of propriety and impropriety, or in terms of Roman civic performativity” (emphasis added). Burchell (1998, 107–8) writes, “Cicero's image of this second persona is not that of the interior personality of modern psychological common-sense, an integrated selfhood from which one becomes dissociated by traumatic forces bearing from the outside. Rather it is of a finished artifact which has to be deliberately fashioned out of the uneven raw material of our impulses…and capacities (Off. 1.111).” 48. Since there is no ancient discussion of such a persona, the term theological persona has been coined for the purposes of the present discussion. Arguably, the non-unitary concept of the ancient self, when taken in conjunction with the formal philosophical discourse on personae, makes the construct of a theological persona both justifiable and useful for discussing the personal political theologies of the Late Republic. Mauss (1985, 15–16) proposes a history of the concept of the persona that includes cultic identities (Hirpi Sorani etc.) and the use of masks, leading him to coin the term religious personae. On religious belief, see Feeney 1999, 12–46. 49. This phrase is borrowed from the discussion of totems. See Levi-Strauss 1963, 89; Hamnet 2000, 54–55. 50. For the declaration of Sulla as hostis, see App. BC 1.73, 77, 81. On Sulla's pose of Republican legitimacy, see Keaveny 2005b, 98–99. On the notion of Sulla's theology, see Fears 1981c, 790–96. Fears (796) explains, “[I]t is no exaggeration to state that in ideological terms charismatic monarchy at Rome became a reality under Sulla. The well-being of the state, its political order, and the seminal virtue of victory were seen to be concentrated in the figure of the dictator.” Of course, Sulla would only become dictator after he took the city for the second time, upon his return from the East. The signs and wonders that Sulla used to supply credence to his theological vision reached back to the time of the Social War. 51. Schmitt 1985, 5, with translator's explication of the term exception in n. 1. See also Lowrie 2005, 44–46. 52. In Schmitt's theory regarding sovereignty and law, law replaced the miracle as the basis for sovereignty. See Schmitt 1985, 36. In Sulla's case, an account of miracles was provided to defend against the conclusion that his constitution was divorced from the recognized foundations of the legitimate Roman Republic. The alternative was to accept the possibility that the Republic had ended. 53. Plu. Sull. 6.6–7. Valgiglio (1960, 29) compares this prodigy to Sulla's oracle and dream about Aphrodite. Cf. App. BC 1.97. 54. On secular doctrine in the first century BCE, see Weinstock 1971, 191–97; Du Quesnay 1999, 296–97. On the length of a saeculum, Censorinus (DN 17.1) writes, saeculum autem est spatium vitae humanae longissimum, partu et morte definitum. See also ibid. 17.5: initia sic poni saeculorum; quo die urbes atque civitates constituerentur: de his, qui eo die nati essent, eum, qui diutissime vixisset, die mortis suae primi saeculi modulum finire. eoque die, qui essent reliqui in civitate, de his rursum eius mortem, qui longissimam aetatem egisset, finem esse saeculi secundi. Sic deinceps tempus reliquorum terminari. 55. Thein 2009, 100–101. 56. As Pittenger (2008, 283) notes regarding the profectio and triumph, “Triumphal ritual perfectly mirrored the profectio imperatoris,…because the power of an imperator emanated from the center, precisely so that he could take it out across the sacred boundary to the periphery, use it well in his provincia on behalf of the whole SPQR, and then return to the point of origin on the day of his triumph to lay down his arms, proudly and patriotically vouchsafing the glorious benefits of his res gestae, both material and symbolic, for the community that had sent him out as its champion in the first place.” For profectio as a literary device, see Feldherr 1998, 77–78. 57. Flower 2008, 84; Mastrocinque 2005, 141. See map 1 in the present book for the location of the Capitoline Temple. 58. See Flower 2008, 80–83, for the idea that the destruction of the temple represented the end of an age or

the possible fall of Rome. 59. For the significance of the saeculum in connection with the Social War, the First Mithradatic War, and the civil war between Marius and Sulla, see Mastrocinque 2005. 60. Du Quesnay (1999, 297) uses the categorization “man of the saeculum” and offers this list, excepting, oddly, Sulla. Du Quesnay identifies this concept as a Roman innovation to the traditional idea regarding the end of the saeculum, transmitted by Censorinus (see n. 54 in the present chapter), that the death of the oldest individual of a generation marked the end of this period. The association of the saeculum with a particular leader may be correlated with the increasing popularity of astrology, dreams, and personal omens, such as we encounter in Sulla. Barton (1996, 149–51) provides a useful, brief description of the shift from state prodigies to omens concerning individual leaders. Although the Roman saeculum became a fixed number of years, this did not end the fascination with identifying its end with a particular man's death. In 49 BCE, M. Perperna (cos. 92) was identified as the last man of his generation (D.C. 41.14.5). 61. RG 4, 11–12. 62. RG 1.1: annos deviginti natus exercitum privato consilio et privata impensa comparavi, per quem rem publicam a dominatione factionis oppressam in liberatem vindicavi. 63. See chapter 8. 64. Dufraigne (1994, 30–32) draws attention to the experience of Roman commanders abroad, beginning with Scipio Africanus, in being treated like divine beings and Hellenistic monarchs. In his Pro lege Manilia, Cicero draws on this tradition in describing Pompey descending from heaven like a deity. 65. On stasis in the classical polis, see Gehrke 1985. A study of examples closer to Rome in Magna Graecia and South Italy can be found in Berger 1992. For a recent discussion of images of stasis in Greek literature, see Fisher 2000. 66. Hdt. 1.59.3–60.5. See Sinos 1993; Lavelle 1991. 67. Herodotus (7.153) also recounted the story of Telines, who obtained a priesthood of Demeter and Persephone in Syracuse by returning exiles to the city. He accomplished this feat through the use of sacred objects of the goddess, which, according to a scholiast to Pindar Pythian 2.27, were brought to Sicily from Triopium. On this episode, see Munn 2006, 91–92. In other stories, the gods brought a new ruler to the city to end stasis or bring about synoecism. See Pausanias' account (7.19.1–10) of how the arrival of Eurypylus at Patras effected synoecism and Arrian's account (An. 2.3.1–6) of how Midas' arrival at Gordium ended stasis. 68. Strootman 2007, 289–305. 69. Arrian (An. 2.3.1–8) places the arrivals of Midas and Alexander back to back. The arrival of Midas ended stasis at Gordium, while the arrival of Alexander and his severing of the Gordian knot was interpreted as predicting his rule over Asia. 70. Covino 2013. 71. Plu. Ant. 24.3–4. Antony would be hailed as a beneficent New Dionysus and then, later, regretted as a malignant one. 72. Of course, religion was not the sole means of preventing stasis. In covering secessions of the plebs, Dionysius of Halicarnassus (7.66) credited Roman oratory in preventing the kind of harm that occurred in Greek revolutions. On this point, see Pelling 2009, 255. 73. Liv. 1.17.1. 74. Plu. Num. 20.5. 75. Nagy 2008, 79–80. 76. Liv. 1.57–59. 77. On the profectio, Livy (42.49.1) writes, consul votis in Capitolio nuncupatis, paludatus ab urbe profectus est. See Sumi 2005, 35–41. On the religious aspects of the profectio, see Rüpke 1990, 125–43, 242–43. On the adventus, see Benoist 2005, 27–35; Dufraigne 1994, 35–39; Halfmann 1986, 113; Weinstock 1971, 289–90. On the imperial adventus, see Benoist 2005, 36–101; Lehnen 1997; Dufraigne 1994, 41–92; Halfmann 1986, 111–56; MacCormack 1981; Koeppel 1969. 78. On the ceremony and cult associated with the consul's assumption of office and departure for the provinces, see Pina Polo 2011a, 17–35. 79. Humm 2012, 77; Magedelain 1968, 67–69; 1977, 16–22. 80. See Fest. 276 L on the auspices associated with the profectio. In this case, interestingly, this was a

praetor taking auspices before departure to assume leadership of the Latin League. As Orlin (1997, 39–40) notes, the vows associated with the profectio are to be distinguished from the vows taken upon entering office. Cf. Liv. 21.63.7–9. 81. Rüpke 1990, 125–43, 242–43; Humm 2012, 79–80. 82. On the cessation of the command (imperium militiae) upon crossing the pomerium, cf. Cic. Ver. 2.5.34. 83. Beard 2007, 202–5. The triumph has been the subject of numerous studies. Noteworthy recent contributions are Pittenger 2008, 127–43, 275–98; Beard 2007; Versnel 1970. 84. Liv. 45.39.11. 85. Liv. 1.4–7; D.H. 1.77–88; Plu. Rom. 3–12. 86. Liv. 1.57–60; D.H. 4.64–85. 87. Ov. Fast. 2.685–856; Plu. Q.R. 63; Fest. 347 L: Regifugium sacrum dicebant, quo die rex Tarquinius fugerit a Roma. 88. Fowler 1899, 327–30; Scullard 1981, 81–82. Forsythe (2012, 17–18) considers it an end-of-year rite. If the suggestion of Merrill (1924, 37–38) regarding the origin of the five-day interregnum in the period between Regifugium and March 1 is correct, perhaps the rite instead marked the end of the supreme magistrate's term of office. Forsythe (18) finds merit in Merrill's view. Clearly, however, many Romans accepted the myth and associated it with the February 24 rite. Lipka (2009, 33 n. 96) notes, “Whatever its actual origin, I cannot imagine that it ever meant anything else to a Roman, despite the fact that modern scholars, perhaps in order to save the purely ‘religious’ character of the feriale, have tried to discard this ‘political’ interpretation.” 89. As Rüpke (1992) argues, including religion in exempla could serve to establish a hierarchy of norms when normal legal or constitutional criteria did not suffice. Such creative use of religion in exempla to reason through difficult issues of norms, power, and the organization of the state are the essence of what is meant by theology in the present discussion. As in the Cipus story, the Horatius tale Rüpke discusses involves the reditus of an important Roman who had been recently been in the field of imperium militiae. 90. V. Max. 5.6.3; Ov. Met. 15.565–621; Plin. Nat. 11.123.45. The present discussion is concerned mostly with Valerius' version, which is an exemplum of pietas erga patriam. See Galinsky 1967, 183; Guillaumin 2008, 168. 91. Ov. Met. 15.581–85. The salutation of the haruspex (“Rex”, ait, “o! salve! Tibi enim, tibi, Cipe…namque urbe receptus rex eris et sceptro tutus potiere perenni.”) purposely recalls the royal acclamations addressed to Caesar as he returned to Rome in ovation from the Alban Mount in January 44. 92. Wiseman 1995, 109–10. 93. Guillaumin 2008, 169: “La porte est alors emblématique du passage de l'état de guerrier à celiu de civis et inversement.” 94. Beard 2007, 202–5; Pina Polo 2011a, 4–5. Recently, two scholars in particular, Giovanni and Drogula, have challenged Mommsen's formulation of two kinds of imperium—militiae and domi—and the significance of the pomerium as the dividing line between them. According to Giovanni (1983), the distinction between domi and militiae involved the nature of the task, not the location of the person exercising it. Drogula (2007) argues that the magistrates exercised potestas within the pomerium and exercised imperium outside it. The only time the pomerium served as a crucial boundary for the traveling magistrate was when he was petitioning for a triumph. Reentry before the granting of a triumph voided the opportunity to celebrate one, most likely because of the ceremony's significance as a reentry ritual. Pittenger (2008, 283) notes that the defining moment of the ritual was always, particularly according to the formulaic language of Livy, the moment of entry: “triumphans urbem inire or invehi, or triumphans in urbem regredi or redire.” See also Versnel 1970, 384–88; Phillips 1974a and 1974b; Richardson 1975, 59–60; Plattus 1983; Beard 2007, 204–5. 95. Cato (Orig. 1.18a) reported the ritual for laying down a pomerium in the founding of a city. It is not clear, however, that Roman tradition credited Romulus with establishing Rome's pomerium, as Cornell (1995, 203) points out. Instead, Servius Tullius was thought to have established Rome's pomerium, and Sulla extended it. One reason Sulla did so was perhaps to imitate Servius Tullius. Keaveny 2005b, 159; Santangelo 2007b, 221. The idea that the right to extend the pomerium fell to those who expanded Rome's imperium is attested only in Tacitus. Hinard (2008, 69–70) argues the appealing and probably correct position that the scholarly emperor Claudius is responsible for this fiction. Hinard proposes that Sulla

extended the pomerium in connection with the extension of Roman citizenship to Transpadane Italy. To this proposal, one could add that Sulla may also have sought to stress his role as a refounder by carrying out a ritual action normally undertaken during the founding of a colony. 96. Beard 2007, 187–218. 97. Plu. Marc. 8; Flower 2000b, 35–41. 98. Cic. Cael. 14; Suet. Tib. 2. 99. On Jupiter and the Roman state, see Stewart 2013, 30–32; Fears 1981, 3–55. 100. Liv. 10.7.10: Iovis optimi maximi ornatu decoratus. Versnel (1970, 56–93) proposed to resolve the dispute over whether the triumphator in his costume was supposed to represent the rex or Jupiter by arguing that he was both. See also Pittenger 2008, 277 n. 8. Beard (2007, 219–38) found the evidence for the triumphator's Jovian pose unpersuasive. Rüpke (2012, 62–75) has proposed that the triumphator's redpainted face is meant to assimilate him to his honorific statue. The present argument does not adopt or propose any particular origins for the costume but instead assumes its visual polysemy, which allowed people, from antiquity to the present, to interpret the vestis triumphalis as Jovian in appearance. 101. On the Alban triumph, see Brennan 1996. 102. On votive temples, see Weigel 1998, 119–42; Orlin 1997; Ziolkowski 1992. Orlin demonstrates the involvement of the Senate in votive temples, thus tempering Ziolkowski's (235) view that, “a temple could be founded without the state's participation,” but the role of individual initiative was still significant. 103. Late-republican commanders not only cultivated evidence of their felicitas but also employed new sources of divine knowledge. Marius took the exotically costumed Syrian prophetess Martha on campaign (cf. Plu. Mar. 17.1–3), and Sertorius kept an oracular doe (cf. Plu. Sert. 11). Upon learning of a victory, Sertorius would garland the doe and produce it as a sign of a victory as yet unannounced by a human messenger. 104. The earliest noteworthy Roman example is perhaps Marius, who took up drinking from the cantharus of Dionysus during his return to Rome. Cf. V. Max. 3.6.6; Plin. Nat. 3.11. Perhaps the most dramatic early Hellenistic example is the hymn to Demetrius, wherein he is called a theos epiphanês. The hymn was sung at the welcoming reception of Demetrius Poliorcetes at Athens in 290 BCE. See Ath. 7.253c–e. In the first century BCE, Mithradates Eupator was welcomed as a savior god. Cf. D.S. 37.26. Page 30 →

Page 31 →

PART I The Sullan Republic Page 32 →

Page 33 →

CHAPTER 1 The Theology of Departure and Arrival in Sulla's Memoir The victory of L. Cornelius Sulla in his civil war against Marius and Cinna was a watershed moment in Roman history. Certainly Sulla saw it that way; in his memoir, he depicted himself as a divinely appointed savior of the state inaugurating a new age for Rome.1 His memoir, rich in political theology, was his response to a shared sense of crisis at Rome; and his depiction of his role in that crisis built on a foundation of narrative and performative acts pioneered by other Romans before him. Principal among these forerunners was his opponent Marius, whose propaganda Sulla would seek to overturn.2 Sulla rose to prominence at a time when Rome was in the midst of a bitter war with the Italians. The war had a strongly religious component, and there were assassinations of Roman magistrates, as well as unsuccessful Page 34 → plots against them, at festivals in Italian towns.3 Prophecies of a change in saecula circulated, and prodigies were seen in great number.4 To hopeful Italians, the situation portended an eclipse of Roman power and the rise of a new hegemon in Italy. In the East, Mithradates flooded Asia with a vision of himself as a messianic figure who would rid the East of Roman oppression and usher in a new age.5 The slaughter of thousands of Italians at the hands of Greeks must have seemed to many Romans to be further evidence that the cosmos was in disarray. The people of Rome may have looked for a savior who would turn aside the chaos and bring the city and its empire a new lease on life. This chapter examines the theological self-fashioning and performances through which Sulla sought to prevail against the various challenges that threatened Rome and his own position therein. To show himself able to meet the challenges at hand, Sulla presented himself as favored by the gods. Anointing himself as the favored champion of Rome necessarily required distinguishing himself from competitors, particularly Marius. The present discussion begins with an examination of the theological and performative portrait of Marius that is preserved in the extant sources. Although the nature of the sources makes it more difficult to distinguish confidently between Marius' own efforts at self-fashioning and his legend, anecdotes about Marius' arrivals and departures illustrate what Sulla may have been responding to in constructing his own theological position. After all, for some time before the death of Marius, the two sides had been competing with each other in presenting their respective leaders as men favored of the gods.6

Marius: Reditus cum Felicitate Gaius Marius rose to prominence through his military leadership in the Jugurthine War and his rescue of the city from the Cimbri and Teutones, who threatened to invade Italy. Thanks to victories over enemies who conjured Page 35 → memories of such past existential threats to the city as the Gauls and Hannibal, Marius held a string of consulships, many of which he obtained from the people.7 Marius' felicitas, that quality that seems to bring abundance and success to its bearer, was evocative of the memory of Scipio Africanus' charisma.8 It inspired jealousy among the members of the old nobility, whose collective incompetence in meeting the same threats had inspired the people of Rome to look elsewhere for leadership.9 Marius' competitors within that nobility, including Sulla, were thus forced to adapt by forwarding their own personal theologies of power, which drew on preexisting family lore but also included the emergence of novel theological expressions. In monument and text, one of Marius' competitors, Q. Lutatius Catulus, who fought alongside Marius at Vercellae, promoted a view of his role in the Battle of Vercellae that emphasized the role of a special Fortuna in his victory.10 Catulus built a dazzling and innovative temple to this god, Fortuna Huiusce Diei, who had manifested on the battlefield to give him victory, and he wrote of the events in his autobiography.11 Clearly Marius' popularity and achievements were prompting his peers to invent new ways of promoting themselves as charismatic leaders. In examining Marius, the present task is to consider the theological portrait that he and his followers constructed to explain his success and to demonstrate how he was the right man to meet the challenges of his time, since his competitors necessarily engaged this theology. Central to understanding the emergence of the new performative and theological model of Roman leadership is Marius' self-presentation as Rome and Italy's savior.12 Because of

difficulties with the sources, the subject can only be discussed in terms of a Marian tradition preserved in a variety of sources through which the material is refracted in the service of each author's own agenda. For the purposes of the present argument, however, the positive representation of Page 36 → Marius, as it exists or can reasonably be extrapolated from the negative portrait, will be accepted provisionally as at least generally accurate in reflecting efforts to fashion a pro-Marian myth. That myth began to take shape in Marius' lifetime, through his efforts and with his approval. Marius' success in war elevated him in the eyes of Romans to a mythic level that placed him on par with Romulus and Camillus as a founder of the city and that made him the first attested example of a living Roman who received unofficial cult in Rome.13 According to the pro-Marian tradition, the first intimation of Marius' special fortune occurred after the siege of Numantia. When the younger Scipio Africanus was asked who would succeed him as leader in the next generation, Africanus tapped Marius on the shoulder and said that young warrior would perhaps be the one.14 The story is highly significant because it uses, much in the manner of the stories of the close association of the Diadochoi with Alexander the Great, the personal intimacy of two successive generations of leaders to symbolize the transfer of leadership and its Page 37 → attendant charisma.15 Here, Marius, although not of the family of Cornelius Scipio, is marked out as the successor to the special mystique of the two Africani (perhaps in specific response to Sullan claims to be the heir of the Cornelian mystique). In Aemilianus' case, this mystique may have included a prophecy of world rule, if one accepts the authenticity of the Clunia oracle reported by Suetonius.16 The tap on Marius' shoulder is reminiscent of the scene in which Valeria plucks cloth from the mantle of Sulla and explains that she wanted a piece of his felicitas.17 Scipio's gesture of tapping Marius may also signify a special endowment of felicitas.18 Plutarch remarks that Marius viewed the incident as prophetic. It is also interesting that the event occurs in connection with the successful end of the long siege of Numantia, a city that had been a thorn in the side of the Romans for years during the war in Spain. One of the crowning expressions of a leader's felicitas was his ability to conquer a city successfully. The conquest of Numantia, having been particularly difficult, was further evidence of the surpassing felicitas of Scipio, the man who destroyed the ancient city of Carthage. The setting of this symbolic transfer of charisma seems to have been calculated to indicate the promise of Marius as a leader of similar ability and divine felicity. The consultation of the gods before departing on an important journey was a standard feature of Roman military practices, but remarkable examples marked out men destined for greatness. When Marius was serving under Metellus in Africa, a haruspex, reading the entrails of the sacrifices made to the gods of Utica, told Marius that he should test his fortune (fortuna) as often as possible, since everything he set out to do would turn out well (cuncta prospere eventura).19 This consultation parallels scenes in Page 38 → the life of Sulla on the eve of Sulla's marches on Rome, as will be shown later in this chapter. Marius, greatly desiring to be consul, decided to return to Rome to seek the office, which he did despite Metellus' resistance.20 The declaration of the haruspex directly before Marius' successful bid for the consulship perhaps addressed the sense that Marius lacked either the noble heritage or extraordinary success that Rome expected in their highest magistrates.21 Furthermore, the special emphasis on the declaration of the haruspex may address theologically a perceived disparity between Marius' lowly background and his remarkable success. Even though he lacked the noble background of men like Metellus or even a distinguishing achievement, Marius was shown to possess a divine gift of fortune or endowment of felicitas that compensated, allowing him to obtain not just one consulship but, eventually, a total of seven. Elected consul, Marius returned to Africa as commander in Metellus' place. After Marius' victory in the Jugurthine War, Marius put on a triumphal performance that was as transgressive as it was unique. Returning to Rome, he took to drinking from a cantharus cup in imitation of the god Dionysus, conqueror of the East.22 He further timed his triumph to land on the Kalends of January, the same day he would assume the consulship for the third time. When Marius called the Senate into session for the first meeting of the year, he appeared in triumphal robes, thus offending his fellow senators.23 Marius was then called on to face the threat of the Cimbri and Teutones, Page 39 → after the catastrophe at Arausio—which had been the worst Roman defeat since Cannae and had awakened memories of invading Gauls and Hannibal. The end of Rome seemed to be a real possibility. Marius availed himself of all forms of divine

guidance that he thought might help him in the campaign and instill confidence in his men. He kept an exotically costumed Syrian prophetess named Martha in his train, on whose orders he would offer sacrifice.24 This prophetess was perhaps a devotee of Atargatis, the divine patron of the rebel Eunus. Other evidence suggests that Marius favored the eastern Great Mother of the gods. A priest of Cybele from Pessinus, Battaces, came to Rome to announce that the goddess had declared that the Romans would be victorious against the invaders.25 Subsequently, Marius effectively destroyed the northern threat and was widely regarded as Rome's savior. As he returned to Rome, Marius played the role of world conqueror by again drinking from a cantharus as though he were Dionysus or perhaps the god's most famous protégé, Alexander the Great.26 Fittingly, the people hailed Marius as third founder of Rome and brought food and drink offerings to the victor and the gods from their homes, where they were celebrating their salvation.27 Although Marius had won the ultimate victory at Vercellae with the proconsul Catulus, the people credited Marius alone, perhaps since he was consul and the more militarily successful man. The people went so far as to demand that Marius celebrate the triumph by himself, something he wisely declined to do. Extant accounts of Marius' returns to Rome reveal a man innovatively styling himself as a charismatic conqueror who enjoyed divine favor.28 Of particular interest here is his strategic use of the triumph as a tool for amplifying his charisma. While it was customary to use the laureled letter and adventus speech to advertise one's martial successes, in hopes of gaining a triumph and obtaining subsequent election to high office, Marius went further by adopting a Dionysiac pose and timing his triumph to coincide with the first day of his next term as consul.29 Although it is not explicitly Page 40 → stated, the timing of his triumph would have allowed him to process up the Capitoline as a triumphator and then immediately make the New Year's vows of the consul before proceeding to his first meeting with the Senate.30 None of this would have necessarily been problematic, if Marius had not decided that, instead of delivering his triumphal robes to Jupiter as was customary, he would continue to wear the vestis triumphalis during his first meeting with the Senate.31 This gesture was offensive in that, first, Marius appeared to be exercising his imperium militiae in carrying out his domestic duties and, second, his triumphal costume had both regal and divine associations.32 Perhaps it appeared to Marius' peers that he was presenting himself as a king or even Jupiter in the Curia, just as he had taken on Dionysiac trappings on his journey to Rome. It is also likely that Marius never dismissed his lictors—such dismissal being the traditional act symbolizing the end of one's imperium—since he went straight from triumph to inauguration.33

Sulla: A New Theology of Power Marius' success as both commander and self-promoter excited envy in others and inspired attempts to outdo him. This sparked even more emphasis on an already existing tradition of theological self-promotion and competition among members of the Roman elite. Marius' colleague at Vercellae, the proconsul Catulus, made every effort to capture some of the credit for the Page 41 → victory against the Cimbri, both by carefully tallying his army's successes in the aftermath of the battle and by promoting his role in the victory once he was back at Rome.34 It was, however, Sulla, lieutenant of both Marius in Africa and Catulus on the day of victory over the Cimbri, who most effectively exploited the lessons of theological representation that he learned from his former commanders, to fashion a portrait of himself as the savior of Rome in a time of national crisis. Sulla's theology of power can be accessed principally through Plutarch's use of Sulla's memoir.35 When Sulla set out to write his memoir, he faced the challenge of providing for posterity a justification of the war he had waged against Rome. In nearly five centuries of the history of the Republic, he had been the first and only commander to cross the pomerium with Roman soldiers and fight a pitched battle within the city. Although he subsequently reformed the Roman constitution through the special legal authority he obtained as dictator, the manner in which he had seized power threatened to undermine the legitimacy of his actions.36 Historians and scholars have drawn attention to this contradiction, yet the slender remnants of anti-Sullan propaganda in antiquity may suggest that the dictator's self-justification was remarkably successful, at least among those authors whose work remains. Cicero does not directly speak of Sulla's rise to power in negative terms until the time of the conflict between Pompey and Caesar.37 After the death of Caesar, Sallust wrote his speech of Lepidus in which he implicitly compared Sulla's march on Rome with Peisistratus' conquest of Athens and disparagingly called Sulla iste Romulus.38

Doubtless, Sulla's detractors were not in short supply, but the minimal extant criticism of his early career suggests, at the very least, that Sulla's legacy and the Sullan Republic's ruling class were deeply intertwined and that this post-Sullan ruling class generally upheld the legacy of the man to whom it owed so much. Among the factors that contributed to the pervasive influence of Sulla's Page 42 → political theology over the rest of the first century, two in particular bear on the current discussion. First, Sulla rose to political prominence during a conflict that was already viewed as having epoch-changing significance: the Social War. Second, Sulla successfully presented himself to others as a person whose divine favor and destiny qualified him to save Rome and its empire at a time of chaos and calamity. The shared sense among Romans and Italians that there was indeed a great historical change in the offing afforded Sulla the opportunity to make a case that he was the destined savior that Rome needed at that critical juncture. This section of this chapter will elucidate the circumstances that gave Sulla an opening to make his unusual case justifying his ruthless acts and then will look more closely at the details of the theological argument Sulla presents through the wonders that occurred as he set out for war and returned to liberate Rome from the Cinnan faction. Sulla's budding reputation got a big boost from Bocchus of Mauretania when Bocchus built a monument depicting himself handing over Jugurtha to Sulla to bring an end to the drawn-out and embarrassing Jugurthine War.39 One might argue that Sulla's role in securing Jugurtha was, in a sense, the beginning of the Sullan myth, but there was another event that, though less tangible, Sulla chose to signify as the first in a chain of events that led ultimately to Sulla's victory at the Battle of the Colline Gate and his subsequent dictatorship. That event was the Lavernan prodigy. Near the time that Sulla set out to fight in the Social War, a chasm opened near Laverna, and fire shot heavenward out of the earth.40 Plutarch's account of the prodigy is taken from Sulla's dedication of his memoir to Lucullus, or, in other words, the opening of the memoir.41 The haruspices interpreted this sign as indicating Page 43 → that a man of virtus with a striking appearance would take control of the government and free the city from its current woes.42 Sulla, with his mottled complexion, gleaming gray eyes, and record of brave deeds, believed the omen applied to him.43 It appears almost as though the haruspices tailored their interpretation so that one would hardly have thought of anyone else. Of course, this sense of inevitability is likely the product of Sulla's own, ex eventu fashioning of the story. The Lavernan prodigy occurred during Sulla's profectio, a time when Romans customarily looked out for omens.44 Commanders and governors setting off on assignment sacrificed and sought signs indicating divine approval for their exodus from the city. Those who set out after having failed to obtain the right signs or to carry out the right rituals risked the anger of the gods—and future failure. Consider the account of Flaminius, who failed to attend to the cycle of rituals through which a man entered his consulship and prepared to leave on campaign. Flaminius instead secretly departed the city to take up his command and was, unsurprisingly, then defeated at the Battle of Lake Trasimene.45 Cicero wrote of the horrible signs that attended the departure of Crassus for the East; Crassus was defeated, and both he and his son were brutally tortured and killed by the Parthians.46 In comparison, promising signs observed before a properly conducted departure portended great success. Looking back on his career after retiring to Cumae, Sulla saw in the Lavernan prodigy an excellent point of departure for the story of how he came to control the government and settle affairs for both Rome and Italy. The significance of the location of the omen is fairly obvious. The grove of Laverna was located on the Via Salaria, which branched out from Rome at the Porta Collina.47 It was, in other words, located near the place where Sulla's forces would clash with and defeat the Samnites in the Battle of the Colline Gate. This battle was Sulla's last struggle before he gained control of Rome; the defeat of the Samnites was, according Page 44 → to Sulla's reckoning, the final clash of the Social War. Sulla's report of the Lavernan prodigy at the opening of his memoir therefore points forward to his victorious reditus in defeating the Samnites at the Porta Collina and to his subsequent triumph.48 Lucullus, who was perhaps present for Sulla's departure and the prodigy but only heard of the Battle of the Colline Gate from Asia, would have immediately grasped the significance of placing the Lavernan prodigy at the opening of Sulla's memoir. Modern readers who approach an understanding of the Lavernan prodigy through the brief account in Plutarch's biography of Sulla may easily miss the prodigy's larger significance. But Sulla would have expected his readers to

understand it in the context of other prodigies and wonders at that time, concerning the eruption of the Social War and the advent of a new saeculum.49 Plutarch may have followed Sulla in folding the declaration of a new saeculum into the conflict between Marius and Sulla, when its historical Page 45 → significance initially concerned the Social War.50 The secular prophecy of Vegoia—which addressed Italian anxieties concerning property rights, a prevalent concern in the relations between Rome and the Italians since the time of the Gracchi—likewise looked forward to the imminent end of the saeculum. The prophecy of Vegoia was probably circulated before 88 BCE and thus forms part of the context in which Plutarch, following Sulla, placed the declaration of the new saeculum's advent.51 Sulla took hold of the related Lavernan prophecy and applied it to himself perhaps as early as the time of the Social War, and it would continue to inform his self-presentation as the divinely chosen savior of the city during the civil war and all the way up to the end of his life.52 Indeed, the connection between the Lavernan prodigy and the declaration of a new saeculum in 88 was likely even clearer in Sulla's memoir than it is in Plutarch's account. To modern readers, Sulla's manipulation of a prophecy related to Italian unrest in order to connect his advent to the opening of a new saeculum may seem ridiculously self-aggrandizing. Yet the struggle between Marius and Sulla was ultimately played out, at least in part, through exploiting the continuing grievances of the Italians.53 After Sulla's departure to fight Mithradates, Octavius expelled Cinna from Rome for trying to distribute the new Italian citizens throughout the thirty-five tribes, and Cinna and his allies stirred up Italian cities to revolution.54 Marius promised to grant the Samnites everything they could not get from Caecilius Metellus, in order Page 46 → to end their hostilities against Rome.55 According to Dio Cassius, the Samnites wanted citizenship.56 Although Dio's account looks suspiciously like an interpolation added at a much later date, it provides a rationale for the otherwise unusual brutality of Sulla's slaughter of Samnites in the Villa Publica after his victory in the Battle of the Colline Gate.57 The census was conducted in the Villa Publica, and, according to the fragmentary version of Dio, Sulla reportedly stated his intention to gather the prisoners as if they were going to be enrolled as citizens.58 Sulla's brutal execution of Samnites was an inversion of what Marius had promised to give them. Instead of becoming Roman citizens, they were cut down in the very place where men were enrolled as such. While this slaughter was being perpetrated, Sulla addressed the Senate in the Temple of Bellona.59 The senators could hear the cries of the Samnites being butchered as Sulla calmly addressed them. Those senators who had been Cinna's allies would have found this spectacle especially chilling. Soon they would experience their own horrific “enrollment” in the proscriptions.60 Sulla's decision to weave his own career into the grand tapestry of secular time had an impact every bit as profound as his decision to march across the pomerium with his legions. In fact, one might argue that Sulla drew a connection between his march on Rome and the opening of a new saeculum in such a way that advancing on Rome was rendered a more attractive strategy for subsequent revolutionaries. The breaking of such a taboo required a powerful rationale, and one could hardly provide one stronger than a divine destiny to take up the government of Rome and inaugurate a new age. The act of breaking the taboo readily lent itself to being understood as a sign Page 47 → indicating a monumental turning point in history. After all, the founding of Rome was indelibly connected with Romulus' first wall on the Palatine and Remus' death. Sulla would break the taboo against crossing the pomerium under arms, but then he would extend the pomerium as an act of refoundation.61 The refoundation of the city may be interpreted as implying that the city was in a dilapidated state prior to Sulla's intervention, thereby further suggesting that the crossed pomerium was not intact in the first place. The transgression thus anticipated the act of salvation and therefore provided a contradictory but compelling form of justification. Furthermore, since various concepts of time were malleable—birth, death, saeculum, and aetas were subject to human perception and acts of signification—the profectio and adventus, in which concepts of space and time were closely wedded together in a living performance, served as fitting strategies for demarcating the passage from one age to another.62 In Sulla's memoir, by the careful design of the dictator, the eschatological ideas contained in the saeculum were joined to the departure and arrival of one man, the secular savior and refounder of the city. The success of Sulla's strategy as an apologetic for the acquisition and exercise of supreme power can be measured by the extent to which subsequent dynasts and would-be dynasts utilized the same narrative of a

prophesied leader and savior of Rome who would inaugurate a new age. When Marius and Cinna marched on Rome, the prophecies of Cornelius Culleolus were circulating in the city, probably in support of the Sullan cause.63 Page 48 → The Culleolus in question may have been an ancient prophet of the gens Cornelia, whose predictions were called into service at a time when divine support for a Cornelius was desired.64 One of these prophecies may have predicted the rise of a “Third Cornelius” to rule in Rome, such as the prophecy that surfaced two decades later in support of the claims of Cornelius Lentulus Sura during the so-called Catilinarian conspiracy.65 Events of the sixties may shed more light on the eighties. According to Cicero's account of the Catilinarian conspiracy of which Sura was allegedly a part, the plot to take over Rome involved an act of arson that was billed as a kind of ekpyrosis, a cosmic conflagration that would bring about a renewal of things.66 In 88, a time of great anxiety about the saeculum's end, Sulla, who had identified himself as the savior figure portended by fire coming out of the earth, threatened to use fire on private houses during his own invasion of the city, to chase citizens off the roofs from which they had been throwing projectiles at his men.67 Sura thus seems to have drawn on the savior images pioneered by Sulla, to promise the building of a new age after the destruction of the old world. Indeed, Cicero's account of the Catilinarian conspiracy, with its negative allusions to prophecy and eschatological ideas, may be a continuation of the theological competition that occurred in the eighties. In styling himself as the Third Cornelius of prophecy, Sura viewed both Cinna and Sulla as his predecessors.68 Page 49 → In the war of competing images and invective between the factions of civil war in the eighties, Cinna and Marius, the ultimate losers, came off worse, as one might expect. Although they, too, made claims to being saviors of Rome and Italy, the extant ancient sources depict the two men as sacrilegious murderers instead of divinely appointed saviors. By contrast, one of their victims is fairly described as a holy man. After the ejection of Cinna, the Senate elected the flamen Dialis, Lucius Cornelius Merula, to take Cinna's place.69 One is prompted to ask whether the Romans were convinced by the circulating Cornelian prophecies that Rome needed a Cornelius in the consulship at this time.70 When Cinna returned, the Senate hesitated to depose Merula on account of his priestly office, and although Cinna had promised not to harm Merula, he brought up charges against him.71 Merula, driven by this persecution to commit suicide by opening his veins over the altar of Capitoline Jupiter, called curses down on the heads of Marius and Cinna as his life slipped away.72 He piously removed his flamen's cap before doing so.

The Conquest of Athens and the New Age As depicted in his memoir, divine signs of success and the inauguration of a new epoch attended both of Sulla's marches on Rome. On his first return, organized to chase off Sulpicius and Marius for trying to steal his campaign against Mithradates, Sulla hesitated to lead his men on Rome, until the haruspex Postumius read the omens and agreed to undergo any punishment at Sulla's hands if the attack did not come off successfully.73 Sulla also had a dream in which he saw the goddess Bellona handing him thunderbolts to strike down his enemies.74 Predictions by a haruspex and a slave ecstatically prophesying again pointed to victory in Sulla's return and war against the Page 50 → Cinnans. These were not, however, the only city conquests that Sulla framed as epoch-making events. Sulla later saw divine significance in the timing of his conquest of Athens: the Kalends of March.75 Before the shift of the inauguration of new consuls to the Kalends of January, the Kalends of March had marked the beginning of the ancient Roman New Year. Plutarch's biography contains the further observation that Athens had fallen at the time of the Chytroi ritual in the month of Anthesterion, when Athenians celebrated the receding of the waters of the flood sent by Zeus that destroyed all but Deucalion and his wife.76 Whether this fact was mentioned by Sulla or originated in Plutarch is unclear. The tyrant Aristion had held out on the Acropolis up until that day, but thirst finally forced him to surrender. Plutarch remarks that as soon as Aristion was brought down from the Acropolis, the god sent rain that fell on the Acropolis and filled it with water.77 Even if Plutarch provided a Greek interpretation of the significance of this rain miracle based on his knowledge as a religious expert and scholar, miraculous weather manifestations of this kind appeared numerous times in Roman

military narratives. More specifically, it is reminiscent of the divine aid that P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus received from Neptune during the siege of Carthago Nova, wherein the god lowered the tides so that his soldiers could cross through the shallows to attack the city at a vulnerable point.78 Aemilianus, Sulla, Cinna, and, later, Sura all seem to have appealed to the memory of the mystique surrounding Africanus. If Sulla did not associate the rainstorm after the surrender of Aristion with Chytroi, he most likely still offered his own testimony of the miracle that Jupiter performed in withholding rain until the surrender of Aristion, which Plutarch then reinterpreted in his own Hellenic terms. Similar miracles are later attributed to Titus in the Jewish War, to Hadrian during his visit to Africa, and to Marcus Aurelius when he was campaigning in Dacia.79 Page 51 → There is, however, some reason to think that the detail of the Chytroi was contained in Sulla's own memoir.80 The flood was, like the trumpet blast announcing the end of the eighth saeculum, an epoch-marking event, here specifically the cataclysm that signaled the conclusion of the Age of Bronze. Since Sulla opened his memoir with the programmatic gesture of referring to the sign that indicated his role in inaugurating a new age, he may have continued the theme of axial shifts as he recounted the story of his siege of Athens. Sulla may also have been responding to Mithradates' self-styling as a messianic savior of the East from the power of Rome. Sulla would steal Mithradates' thunder as the true savior and allow Mithradates to fulfill his role as the new King Xerxes I.81 Accordingly, he would lay the blame for the destruction of Athens at the feet of this most recent Xerxes through the irresponsible and blasphemous actions of his puppet Aristion, while he depicted the support he received from the gods Apollo and Zeus in securing safety for the West from the threat of the new Persian king.82 On his second visit to Athens, Sulla would receive pledges of loyalty from the Athenian elite and go through initiation in the Eleusinian Mysteries.83 The Athenians, in return, honored him with a statue and games in his honor, the Sylleia. Santangelo suggests that these games, which were strikingly similar in form to the Theseian games honoring Athens' founder-hero, were actually celebrated in conjunction with the Theseia.84 Once the Athenians had celebrated Sulla as a new founder, he was perhaps inspired to recontextualize his conquest of the city in light of such an honor. Returning to Rome, Sulla re-centered world empire at its new seat on the Tiber. There he instituted Ludi Victoriae Sullanae, which would bear a striking resemblance Page 52 → to the Theseia.85 It is possible that when the Athenians celebrated Sulla as a new founder, it inspired him to continue to present himself as such in Rome.86

The Invasion of Italy Important prodigies pointing to Sulla's ultimate success marked the path of his campaign against his Roman and Italian enemies. Sulla's interactions with the gods in this narrative point toward the effort he invested in representing his invasion of Italy as divinely ordained and supported. When Sulla landed near Tarentum, a haruspex examined the liver of the sacrificial victim and found a laurel wreath with two fillets on it, signifying victory.87 At Silvium, an Apulian town on the Via Appia, the slave of the Samnite commander Pontius Telesinus fell into a prophetic trance and reported to Sulla that Bellona had foretold his victory and triumph but that the Capitoline Temple would burn down on the sixth of July if Sulla did not hasten to Rome.88 The army of Sulla's lieutenant Lucullus was miraculously showered by flowers in such a way that it appeared to be crowned with garlands.89 The night before Sulla encountered the young Marius at Signia, he had a dream in which the older Marius told the younger Marius that he would experience a calamity on the following day.90 When Marius attacked Sulla's men as they were pitching camp on the next day, Sulla and his men warded him off, and Marius fled to Praeneste, where he later committed suicide. During the Battle of the Colline Gate, Sulla took out a little statue of Apollo that he carried with him, kissed it, and prayed to it in desperation over his flagging fortunes in the battle.91 Upon taking Rome, Sulla met with the Senate in the Temple of Bellona, while his men slaughtered Samnite prisoners in the Villa Publica.92 Page 53 → An examination of the struggle between Sulla and Marius (and Sulla and Cinna) in terms of the performance and

representation of a theology of power yields a number of interesting insights that greatly enhance one's understanding of how these Roman leaders used the relationship between gods and men to think through imperial power relationships in Rome, Italy, and the Mediterranean. Both Marius and Sulla sought to carve out a unique position for themselves in domestic and broader imperial politics through performances and representations of their relationships with the gods. What particularly set the careers of these two men apart from their predecessors was the fortuitous conjunction of their mutual competition in the Social War and the threat of Mithradates during the momentous transition from one saeculum to another. Both Marius and Sulla were probably aware of the significance of this timing, although the extant evidence explicitly attests only to Sulla's conscious use of the theme. By his own testimony, Sulla saw the turning of saecula as a crucial juncture for settling issues of power and the relationship between Rome and its empire. According to this view, a special leader would be able to inaugurate a new age by weaving together an empire out of the diversity of the Mediterranean world, with Rome as its head. This kind of theology found its most successful proponent in Sulla.93 The most crucial theological relationship in the city of Rome was between the city and its tutelary deity Jupiter Optimus Maximus. The triumph offered a unique opportunity for a leader to demonstrate his special relationship with the god who conferred imperium, by displaying his surpassing success to the city, by performing an identity that likened the triumphator to the god, and by both sacrificing and dedicating offerings to Rome's chief tutelary deity. Both sides of the civil war between Sulla, on the one hand, and Marius and Cinna, on the other, seem to have realized the importance of showing a special relationship between the leading faction and Rome's chief patron deity. Marius had attempted to express his special claim Page 54 → to imperium and his unique relationship with Jupiter by joining his triumph directly to his inauguration as consul and his first meeting with the Senate. What appears to be an unwitting gaffe was actually a provocative assertion of a preeminence over his peers, which they sternly rejected. As a Cornelius, Sulla exploited the legacy of Scipio Africanus' special relationship with Jupiter. The god had delivered his thunderbolts to Sulla through the agency of Bellona, and she had warned him that unless he hastened to Rome, the Capitoline Temple would burn down, which it did. In Sulla's absence, there was a struggle between Cornelii over the consulship. What catches one's attention and makes this struggle pertinent to the present discussion is that, in the absence of Cornelius Sulla, the consul who agitated for the enrollment of Italian citizens in the thirty-five tribes was Cornelius Cinna. When the other consul, Octavius, ejected Cinna, the Senate replaced Cinna with Cornelius Merula, who also happened to be the flamen Dialis. Because of the restrictions of his priesthood, Merula was of limited value as consul under normal circumstances, but he was thought to be particularly suitable at a time of chaos in Rome's leadership.94 As consul, he brought together the Jupiterian mystique of the Cornelian name, the unique access to the god that only a flamen Dialis had, and the exercise of an imperium that would be safely anchored in Rome. Merula's curse in the Capitoline Temple may very well have been one explanation provided for the structure's destruction in 83 BCE.95 If so, such an explanation would have been most useful to Sulla in the way it laid the blame for the destruction of the temple on the Cinnan faction. When Sulla returned to Rome and took the city, he celebrated a triumph. The returning exiles hailed him as savior and father in the triumphal procession, which took the traditional route up the Capitoline Hill, even though Jupiter's temple was conspicuously in ruins.96 Sulla's partisan Q. Lutatius Catulus, son of Marius' co-commander at Vercellae and rival, would rebuild the temple, but the loss of this great edifice was surely one of the key calamities of the civil war that inspired fear that Rome might possibly come to an end. The loss of the temple of Rome's patron deity, a structure that was built at the beginning of the Republic, could easily be taken as an omen of the Republic's end and Rome's fall.97 Page 55 →

Sulla and the Gods of Italy There is some evidence to suggest that Sulla cultivated associations with Italian gods as he sought to portray himself as the savior of all of Italy, not just Rome. In doing so, he may have been responding to a pre-existing Marian claim to the title of savior of Italy, which is mentioned in the story of Marius' flight from Rome. According to the anecdote recounted by Plutarch, as Marius departed into exile, he was allowed to pass through a sacred grove of the goddess Marica, where an old man serendipitously declared that Marica would not deny

passage to Marius, the man the locals viewed as the savior of Italy.98 It should be recalled that the first divine sign of Sulla's memoir, the fire that issued forth from the chasm, occurred at the grove of an Italian goddess. Laverna, a goddess of thieves, may have been considered a fitting deity to point forward to Sulla's defeat of those Samnites who had sought, with the help of Marius and Cinna, to usurp the rights of Roman citizenry.99 The haruspices' interpretation of the prodigy, which mentioned Rome's troubles, would have been viewed as pertaining to the exercise of Roman power over Italy and, perhaps retrospectively, to the troubled issue regarding Italians and Roman citizenship. Laverna's sign of Sulla's role as a savior, as interpreted by Sulla in his memoir, thus answers and improves on the similar Marian claim. Although Sulla's first sign came through Laverna, Bellona most clearly played the role of divine benefactor to Sulla, especially in his return to Rome. Most modern discussion about Bellona emphasizes her assimilation to the eastern goddess Ma, noted by Plutarch, whom Sulla supposedly encountered during his mission to the East in the nineties.100 The suggestion is attractive, but it is not at all clear why Ma-Bellona should have appeared to Sulla in connection with his march on Rome. Appius Claudius Caecus built Rome's first Temple of Bellona in fulfillment of a vow made while fighting Page 56 → the Etruscans and Samnites.101 That Sulla first referred to Bellona close to the aftermath of his campaign against the Samnites in the Social War suggests that Sulla followed the precedent of Caecus in seeking the aid of the Italian Bellona, not the Cappadocian Ma he encountered in his eastern journey of 96. The references to Bellona in Plutarch's biography of Sulla support the idea that Italian Bellona, rather than Ma, was the deity Sulla depicted as his patroness in his memoir. During Sulla's consulship in 88, when the haruspices interpreted the trumpet blast as the opening of the new saeculum, they met with the Senate in the Temple of Bellona to discuss this prodigy and others.102 During the meeting, a sparrow flew in with a grasshopper in its mouth. It dropped part of the grasshopper in the temple and left with the rest of it. According to Plutarch, the diviners interpreted this to refer to a conflict between the city and the country, or between the plebs and the wealthy landholders. Regardless of the particulars of the interpretation reported by Plutarch, the passage demonstrates that Sulla established Bellona's significance to the relationship between Rome and Italy at the time of the Social War and the changing of saecula. Over the course of Sulla's memoir, Bellona would continue to surface in relation to Italian and Roman issues. When Bellona appeared to Sulla in a dream and handed him the thunderbolt of Jupiter to knock down his enemies, Sulla was near Nola, a city that was in the sphere of the Samnites, who continued to resist Rome and who would side with Marius against Sulla.103 Given this background, Sulla's meeting with the Senate in the Temple of Bellona, although in accordance with the usual traditions for generals returning in victory, would have taken on new significance as his men simultaneously slaughtered Samnites in the Villa Publica in fulfillment of Bellona's commission, thereby completing a circle in Sulla's narrative that began with the report of the secular prodigy during his earlier profectio. Having conquered the forces of chaos threatening Italy and Rome, Sulla set about the refoundation of the city by becoming Page 57 → a radical “censor” who killed all those undermining the city by usurping citizenship or betraying it.

Sulla's Theology and Empire As the discussion of Sulla's conquest of Athens has shown, Sulla's political theology included parts of the empire beyond Italy and Rome. The pieces of Sulla's memoir that are preserved in Plutarch accordingly suggest that Sulla conceived of his Mithradatic campaign in theological terms that were an extension of what one would expect of a Roman commander operating in Italy. In advance of his departure for the East, Sulla dedicated an ax to the divine ancestress of the Romans, Aphrodite. While traveling in the East, he styled himself “Epaphroditus,” a name that both suggested the favor of Aphrodite and alluded to Roman descent from the goddess.104 As previously argued, Sulla saw the circumstances of his conquest of Athens as evidence of the favor of Jupiter that was characteristic of the Cornelii, whose relationship with the god was evident not only in the Africanus mystique but also in the clan's regular occupation of the flamonium Diale. In crossing the major boundaries of the empire, Sulla behaved as one would expect of any Roman commander operating in Italy. He sought divine direction as he crossed major natural boundaries. He consulted the oracle near Apollonia before he crossed back to Italy.105 Upon landing near Tarentum, he sacrificed and had his haruspex read the entrails.106 Favorable signs indicated his imminent success at fulfilling the destiny about which he had learned when he set off for the Social War. The circle was completed

upon his return to Rome, and Sulla thus redrew the map of Roman power through divinely assisted conquests that took in the vast expanse from Rome to Asia. Scholars have long considered Sulla to have been an unusually superstitious person. Such a judgment is almost impossible to prove. Thus it is probably not worth engaging the question of Sulla's relative credulity in the first place. The evidence does support that, in his memoir, Sulla proffered a religious argument to justify what he had done in taking Rome by force Page 58 → and in substantially altering its constitution. The theological framework of that argument was built around the traditional magisterial cycle: Sulla's departure (profectio) from Rome and return (reditus/triumphus) provided the structure for explaining how his felicitas and divine support eventually brought about the salvation of Rome as had been predicted during his initial embarkation on campaign in the Social War. What made Sulla's theology distinctive was his use of secular doctrine to tie the events of his career to a broader cosmological vision in which Rome played a central role. Sulla was not simply saving the city from extinction; in his view, he was saving the cosmos from chaos, by ensuring the continuation of Roman hegemony. The latter view is suggested in his use of a similar axial narrative in connection with his conquest of Athens, wherein Sulla presented himself as a force for order, acting in concert with Zeus-Jupiter against Aristion and the destructive forces of chaos. In doing so, he may have been prompted by Mithradates' claims to be a cosmic savior. The view that the world was on the brink of collapse and needed a divinely appointed savior to prevent disaster provided a dangerous precedent for the justification of subsequent revolutions at Rome. This framework would open up the possibility that others would seek to repeat Sulla's attack on the city and employ similar justification—something that happened almost immediately after his death, in Lepidus' march on the city. Not all would attempt to follow the Sullan model to the same extent. As will be discussed in the next chapter, Pompey would be the first successful heir to the Sullan legacy of combining aggressive action to reform/refound the state and a theological articulation of that action, but he did so without even threatening violence. 1. On the idea of Sulla as a savior (salus rerum), see Sumi 2002b, 422–25. The exiles Sulla marched in his triumph hailed him as savior and father. Cf. Plu. Sull. 34.1. Lucan (2.221) refers to Sulla as the salus rerum. Although Lucan is a relatively late source, this title is consistent with Sulla's propaganda. 2. Scipio Aemilianus is another possible forerunner of Sulla in the claim to be a divinely appointed ruler. The Clunia prophecy (Suet. Gal. 9.2), which predicted the rise of a world ruler in Spain two hundred years before Galba, quite possibly indicated Aemilianus: virginis honestae vaticatione, tanto magis quod eadem illa carmina sacerdos Iovis Cluniae ex penetrali somnio monitus eruerat ante ducenos annos similiter fatidica puella pronuntiata (see Hillard 2005). If so, it would render the stories connecting Aemilianus and Marius, as well as those about Marius' Dionysiac pose, more intelligible (see discussion later in this chapter). 3. On a Latin plot to assassinate Roman consuls during the Feriae Latinae, see D.C. 28.96.4; Flor. Epit. 2.6.8; De vir. ill. 66.12. For the murder of the praetor at a festival in Asculum, see D.S. 37.12. 4. Plu. Sull. 7. 5. McGing 1986, 102–5. Lincoln (1983, 143–53) provides insight into the Persian apocalyptic elements of the construction of Mithradates as a messianic figure. 6. Keaveney 2005b, 36–38; Luce 1968; Frier 1967; 1971. On Marian and Sullan propaganda concerning Victoria in particular, see Fears 1981c, 786–96. 7. Sal. Jug. 73, 84; Plu. Mar. 11.1, 12.1, 14.7, 28.1. On Marius' popular politics, see Yakobson 1999, 13–19. 8. On felicitas, see Versnel 1970, 361–71; Wagenwoort 1954; 1947; Erkell 1952, 50–66; Ericsson 1943, 89. 9. On Marius' mystique, see Gilbert 1973; Avery 1967. On Sulla's mystique, see Thein 2009; Wiseman 2009a; Keaveney 1983. 10. Plu. Mar. 26.3; Inscr. Ital. 2.179, 488. See Flower 2006, cxii; Evans 1994, 88–90. 11. On the memoir of Catulus, see Candau 2011, 147–54; Marasco 1984. On the temple, see NTDAR s.v. Fortuna Huiusce Diei, Aedes. 12. On Marius as savior of Rome (implicit in the notion of Marius as Third Founder of Rome) and savior of

Italy, see, respectively, Plu. Mar. 27.5–6, 39.3–4. 13. Ibid. 27.4–5. This is to except, of course, Romulus. Plutarch states that Marius was hailed as third founder of the city. On Camillus as second founder, see Plu. Cam. 31.2. The historical authenticity of this identification of Marius as third founder has been rejected by Classen (1962, 182), Muccioli (1994), and Miles (1997, 104–5) but accepted by Alföldi (1952, 205), Carney (1970, 39 n. 109), and Gabba (1972, 801). Liv. Per. 68.8 attests to the fact that the primores civitatis confessed that he had saved the state (conservatam ab eo rem. p.). According to Santanglo (2007b, 216 n. 8), this passage may indicate a decree of the Senate granting Marius the title of servator r. p. Muccioli (202–5) argues that Plutarch relies on Posidonius for the reference to Marius as founder, but that Plutarch is both critiquing his source and using the designation of third founder to emphasize how Marius ultimately fell short of the title. Regardless of Plutarch's own designs, it is possible that Marius was popularly acclaimed a new conditor of Rome on his return from defeating the Cimbri and Teutones. It should not be forgotten that the idea of being reputed a founder is known to Plautus (Epid. 523: legum atque iurum fictor, conditor cluet). Cicero (Catil. 3.2) refers to Romulus as qui hanc urbem condidit. Sallust (J. 89.4), writing in the late forties BCE, refers to the Libyan Hercules as the conditor of Capsa. Finally, Marius' self-styling as a Dionysiac conqueror, which Muccioli also attributes to Posidonius, is consistent with other Hellenistic practices such as hailing the ruler as founder (ktistês). See n. 22 in the present chapter. In this author's view, however, there is no compelling reason to discount Plutarch's account of popular acclamations of Marius as conditor on his return to Rome after defeating the Cimbri and Teutones or to attribute all Hellenistic elements of different accounts of Marius to a single historian. 14. Plu. Mar. 3.3. Evans (1994), 28: “Thus the story of Scipio's commendation of Marius (Plu. Mar. 3.3) may simply be a topos, which is found elsewhere, but possibly preserves a memory of sterling deeds by the young Arpinate.” Cf. V. Max. 8.15.7. 15. Palagia 2000; Sawada 2010, 400–401. 16. Suet. Gal. 9.2. 17. Plu. Sull. 35.4. For Sulla's felicitas, cf. Cic. S. Rosc. 22; Plu. Sull. 6.8–9, 19.8–10, 27.12. For modern scholarship, see Carcopino 1932, 108–13; Alföldi 1976b; Sumi 2002, 415–16. 18. The presence of elements of the felicitas theme here in Plutarch's biography contradicts a suggestion by Avery (1967), who views Sallust's portrait of Marius as a possessor of felicitas as the author's own creation, designed to point toward Marius' future eclipse by Sulla. 19. Sal. Jug. 63: per idem tempus Uticae forte C. Mario per hostias dis supplicanti magna atque mirabilia portendi haruspex dixerat: proinde quae animo agitabat, fretus dis ageret, fortunam quam saepissume experiretur; cuncta prospere eventura. [2] at illum iam antea consulatus ingens cupido exagitabat, ad quem capiundum praeter vetustatem familiae alia omnia abunde erant: industria, probitas, militiae magna scientia, animus belli ingens domi modicus, lubidinis et divitiarum victor, tantummodo gloriae avidus. The scene will later serve as the model for Tacitus' account of Vespasian in Alexandria (see Hist. 2.8). Marius' fortuna has been identified also in a fragment of the Histories, a passage that Konrad interprets as a description of Marius' landing at Sicily on his return journey to Rome. See Konrad 1997. 20. Evans (1994), 63–66. Farney (1997) argues that it was actually the conviction of C. Galba that gave Marius hope that he could obtain the consulship, since the conviction marred Galba's chances for obtaining it. 21. For the funeral's role in building a family's fama, see Plb. 6.53.2, 53.4, 53.7–8. Flower (2000a, 16–31) discusses the importance of illustrious ancestors in political campaigning, with particular reference to a campaign speech of Marius at Sal. Jug. 85. She (19) suggests that Sallust may have consulted an actual Marian speech in crafting his version. 22. V. Max. 3.6.6: iam C. Marii paene insolens factum; nam post Iugurthinum Cimbricumque et Teutonicum triumphum cantharo semper potavit, quod Liber pater Indicum ex Asia deducens triumphum hoc usus poculi genere ferebatur, ut inter ipsum haustum vini victoriae eius suas victorias compararet. Cf. Plin. Nat. 3.11. 23. Plu. Mar. 12.2.5. 24. Ibid. 17.1–3. 25. Ibid. 17.5–6; D.S. 36.13; Rawson 1974, 201–2. 26. Plin. Nat. 33, 11, 53, 150; V. Max. 3.6.6.

27. Plu. Mar. 27.5–6. See n. 13 in the present chapter. 28. See n. 9. 29. Beard 2007, 201–2. On laurelled letters, see Liv. 5.28.13, 45.1.6; Cic. Pis. 39; Plin. Nat. 15.133; App. Mith. 77. On Marius' speech to the Senate and the Senate's deliberations, see Bonnefond-Coudry 1989, 143–49, 269–74. On his Dionysiac affectations, see n. 22 in the present chapter. 30. Beard (2007, 280) explains, “The connection—however it was originally formed—between triumph and the consulship went back into the Republic. It points to the Janus-like face of the ceremony, not only a backward-looking commemoration of past success but an inaugural moment in the political order.” 31. Liv. Per. 67; Plu. Mar. 12.5. Beard (2007, 230) asks, “If the general's costume was properly returned to the god's statue at the end of the parade, then what did Marius wear to give offense in the senate?” 32. On the Jovian associations of the triumphator's costume and ancient testimonia, see Versnel 1970, 56–62. Beard (2007, 225–38) has questioned the degree to which one can know how literally to take the regal and divine associations of the vestis triumphalis, but she maintains that the Romans still saw regal and divine associations in the garb. 33. On the dismissing of lictors as symbolic of laying down imperium, see Cic. Att. 3.9.1; Plu. Fab. 4.2. 34. Plu. Mar. 27.4. Catulus had his name carved on the spears of his soldiers so that, after the battle, he could count the number of enemy soldiers slain by his men. Arbitrators were called in from Parma to settle the dispute between the two armies over who contributed most to the victory. 35. Thein 2009, 91–92; Valgiglio 1975. 36. On the legal process to make Sulla dictator through the lex Valeria, see App. BC 1.98–99; Plu. Sull. 33.1; Vell. 2.28.2. For discussion, see Vervaet 2004. 37. Dowling 2000, 306–13; Ridley 1975. 38. Sal. Hist. 1.55. 39. Plu. Sull. 6.1; Sal. Jug. 105–13; Flor. Epit. 36.16–18. Dio's text (26.89.5–6) is very fragmentary at this point and does not mention Sulla's role. 40. Plu. 6.6–7; cf. App. BC 1.97. See Valgiglio 1960, 29; Keaveney 2005b, 39. 41. The choice to begin with the Lavernan prodigy also made sense in the context of a dedication to Lucullus, since Lucullus, depending on the date of the Lavernan sign (90 or 89), either was under Sulla's command at the time the sign occurred or joined Sulla the following year. Cf. Plu. Luc. 2.1. Lewis (1991, 515) places Sulla's statement about his concordia with his consular colleague Metellus, which precedes the report of the Lavernan prodigy in Plutarch, in Sulla's preface as well. The entire text of Plu. 6.5–7 is, perhaps, a compressed version of the preface of Sulla's memoir. Livy (pr. 13) would later employ the profectio theme at the beginning of his work: cum bonis potius ominibus votisque et precationisbus deorum dearumque, si, ut poetis, nobis quoque mos esset, libentius inciperemus, ut orsis tantum operis successus prosperos darent. For the profectio as a programmatic device, see Feldherr 1998, 77–78. Thein (2009, 101) suggests that early memoirs, such as that of Catulus, might have ended with the author's triumph, thereby showing the positive outcome of a journey that began under favorable auspices. 42. Plu. Sull. 6.7.12–13: εἰπεῖν δὴ καὶ τοὺς μάντεις ὡς ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς ὄψει διάφορος καὶ περιττὸς ἄρξας ἀπαλλάξει τῇ πόλει ταραχὰς τὰς παρούσας. 43. See Plu. Sull. 2.1 for the author's description of Sulla. 44. Cic. Div. 1. 29–30; Sumi 2005, 37–38. 45. Liv. 21.63.5–9. Simón 2011. 46. Sumi 2005, 37. 47. Var. L. 5.163–64; Hor. Ep. 1.16.10; Fest. 104–5 L; NTDAR s.v. Porta Lavernalis; Lintott 1986, 217. Cf. TDAR s.v. Porta Lavernalis. 48. Sulla's description of his participation in the Social War appeared in a later book of his memoir than his instructions to Lucullus. This monograph follows the hypothetical structure that Lewis (1991, 515–16) proposed for the memoir, in which the first books cover Sulla's instructions to Lucullus and his family background. Naturally, a detailed account of the Social War would not be possible in those first books. The Laverna episode belongs in the first book, with Sulla's instructions to Lucullus, because the episode sets up the importance of felicitas to his life and is the pivotal event for establishing a divine commission for Sulla's leadership. On the place of felicitas in his instructions to Lucullus, Lewis (515) writes, “Felicitas, in fact, was clearly one of the dominant and recurrent themes of the whole work, and there is no difficulty in

supposing that in Book I Sulla gave it considerable emphasis and elaboration, with a suitable array of examples, not least by way of advice to Lucullus never to ignore divine presages of all kinds, but most of all to heed those conveyed in dreams.” For discussion and bibliography on Sulla's felicitas, see Sumi 2002b, 414–16. 49. Plu. Sull. 7. Other lists of prodigies announcing the coming war appear in Cic. Har. 18; Div. 1.99; Plin. Nat. 2.199, 7.34–35, 8.221; Obseq. 54; Oros. 5.18.3–9; August. C.D. 3.23. The transition from one saeculum to another was announced by ostenta saecularia, which had to be interpreted by priests. See Van Son 1963, 272; Serv. ad Buc. 9.46; A. 8.526; Plu. Sull. 7; Censorinus DN 17.5–6; Thulin 1909, 67–68. The dream of Caecilia Metella (Cic. Div. 1.4), daughter of Balearicus, which prompted the Romans to restore the sanctuary of Juno Sospita in response to anxieties over Latium during the Social War, occurred in 90 BCE. See Schultz 2006a, 207–27. The suggestion of Poe (1984, 61–64) that expiatory rites to Juno may have influenced the Secular Games may indicate a more direct connection between Caecilia's dream and the opening of a new saeculum. In these rites, however, Regina was the Juno to whom matrons appealed. The preference for Sospita of Lanuvium over Regina on the Aventine in this circumstance had to do with the need to appeal to the Latins, whose defection from the Italians would prove a decisive factor in the outcome of the war. 50. The obscuring of the significance of the saeculum for the Social War may be due partly to Appian's lack of interest in religious matters during that period, a point that is noted by Schultz (2006a, 207): “[U]nlike the prominence accorded religious events in some treatments of the Hannibalic War, divine matters in general are outside the scope of treatments of the Social War—in all likelihood a reflection of the absence of religious themes from Appian BC 1.150–231, our most important source for the war.” 51. Heurgon 1959; Jannot 2005, 13; Valvo 1988. Adams (2003, 182) dates the prophecy to the imperial period, but that dating does not exclude the possibility that the imperial version was based on an earlier Republican-era tradition. 52. Turfa (2006, 82) writes, “Likewise, the temporal quanta of Etruscan belief, the saecula, must have been discussed with a sharp eye to their applicability to current political changes—certainly they were published (or outright manipulated) by Sulla as announcing a regime change for the better (Plu. Sull. VII.6–9; Censorinus DN XVII.6).” 53. The Italian context of the fight between Marius and Sulla is emphasized by Gabba (1972, 805). 54. App. BC 1.64–65. 55. Ibid. 1.68. Plutarch (Mar. 41) briefly recounts Marius' efforts to draw Italians to his cause in Etruria and elsewhere. 56. D.C. 31.102.8. 57. Str. 5.249; V. Max. 9.2.1; De vir. ill. 75; Luc. 2.197; Sen. Cl. 1.12.2; Liv. Per. 88.2; Flor. Epit. 2.9.24; D.C. 33 fr. 109.5. Plutarch (Sull. 30.2–3) sets the slaughter in the Circus Flaminius. 58. Var. R. 2.4; Apul. Apol. 1; D.C. 33 fr. 109.5. On this fragment of Dio, see Urso 2010,158–61. 59. Plu. Sull. 30.2–3. 60. Passed in the Assembly, the lex Cornelia de proscriptione gave Sulla a power akin to that of a censor in that he had the ability to divorce people of citizenship, life, and property, merely by placing a nota next to a person's name. On the lex, see Hinard 1985, 67–74. Flower (2006, 91–92) compares the proscription lists with public auctions but then speaks in more general terms not only of the loss of life and citizenship but also of the family's loss of status. All of this suggests something rather like a perverse census. 61. Sen. Dial. 10.13.8; Tac. Ann. 12.23; Gel. 13.4.4; D.C. 43.50.1, 44.49.1. Cf. Sordi 1987; Gros 1990, 843–44; Ramage 1991, 119–20; Giardina 1995, 135–36; Sumi 2002b, 425–28; Santangelo 2007b, 221–22; Hinard 2008, 69–70. Tacitus (Ann. 12.23) notes that the only two Romans to extend the pomerium before Claudius were Sulla and Augustus. If Hinard (2008, 69–70) is correct about Claudius being the originator of the idea that the right to extend the pomerium followed upon conquest, Sulla and Augustus would fit those criteria. Hinard argues that Sulla extended the pomerium in response to the extension of Roman citizenship up to the Transpadane region of Italy. All three men, however, also inaugurated a new age for Rome. Augustus and Claudius both celebrated the Secular Games. Sulla exploited secular prophecy to promote the view that, as refounder, he would secure Rome's empire in the transition to a new saeculum. 62. The symbolic connection between arrival and departure with the passage of time is built into the expulsion of Mamurius Veturius, or “Old Man Mars,” who represented the passing year, to make way for

New Mars, whose birthday the Salii celebrated at the opening of the New Year. See Versnel 1993, 297–98; Loicq 1964; Illuminati 1961. 63. One cannot, however, exclude the possibility that the prophecy supported the cause of Cornelius Cinna. Sulla is the likely intended beneficiary of the prophecy because of his established predilection for exploiting divine signs and prophecies. Cf. Cic. Div. 1.2: ex quo genere saepe hariolorum etiam et vatum furibundas praedictiones, ut Octaviano bello Cornelii Culleoli audiendas putaverunt. For a brief discussion on Culleolus as a hariolus, see Wiseman 1994, 58–59. For a recent discussion of harioli, see Santangelo 2013, 151–85. On known harioli, see Montero 1993. 64. Such a prophecy at the time of the Octavian War would have followed the precedent of the ancient prophet speaking of contemporary events in the conveniently discovered prophecy of Marcius after the devastating defeat at Cannae during the Second Punic War. See Liv. 25.12.2–15; Macr. 1.17.27–28. The name Culleolus is suggestive of the punishment visited on parricides, the poena cullei, the brutality and bizarreness of which had an ominously archaizing character. The appearance of the name L. Culleolus in Cicero's correspondence is interesting but not necessarily evidence that the prophet Culleolus was alive and active in the eighties (pace Wiseman 1994, 58–59). See Shackleton-Bailey 2004, 353. 65. Cic. Catil. 3.9; Plu. Cic. 17.5. Surely the idea of a Third Cornelius was a creative variation on the praise of Marius as Third Founder of Rome. 66. On ekpyrosis in Stoicism, see Mansfeld 1979. 67. App. BC 1.58. 68. Cic. Catil. 3.4.9: Cinnam ante se et Sullam fuisse. 69. App. BC 1.65. To construct an image of the pious Merula, Appian mentions that Merula wore the flamen's cap at all times, whereas other flamines only wore it at sacrifices. 70. Katz (1979, 164–65) suggests that the election was motivated by the need to choose an innocuous person and thereby prevent the election of another candidate. The choice of another Cornelius with a particularly special connection to Jupiter, however, is suggestive of a religious consideration as well. 71. App. BC 1.70. 72. Ibid. 1.74. On the cursing, see Vell. 2.22. 73. Plu. Sull. 9.3. 74. Ibid. 9.4. 75. Ibid. 14.6. On Sulla and the Athenians, see Santangelo 2007b, 35–45. 76. Theopompus FGrH F 347b; Paus. 1.18.7–8; Riu 1999, 81–82. Robertson (1993, 199–203) argues that mistaken association of Chytroi with the Anthesteria festival is an error propagated in the scholia. Most scholars attribute the observation concerning the coincidence of the Athenian date of Sulla's conquest of Athens to Plutarch. See ibid., 201 n. 6. See also Burkert 1972a, 268 n. 16; Nilsson 1900, 137. 77. Plu. Sull. 14.7. 78. Plb. 8.6–9.2, 11.7, 14.11–13. 79. On Titus, see J. BJ 5.409–11; on Hadrian, SHA Hadr. 22.14; on Marcus Aurelius, D.C. 71.8.10; SHA Marc. 24.4. 80. On Romans' long-standing, nuanced engagement with Hellenic religion, see Feeney 1999, 25–28. Feeney (27) writes, “Our earliest [Roman] texts show a delight in juxtaposing religious ideas from different registers, combining Homeric and cult epithets for Jupiter, or turning the epic hero Anchises into a protodecemvir who consults sacred books.” 81. On Darius, see App. Mith. 112; Just. Epit. 38.7.1; on Cyrus, Just. Epit. 38.7.1. On the descent from Achaemenes, see Tac. Ann. 12.18.4; on the descent from one of the “Seven Persians” who destroyed the Magus, Plb. 5.43.2; Flor. Epit. 1.40.1. On Mithradates' legendary genealogy, see Meyer 1925, 31–38; McGing 1986, 13, 95. 82. According to Sulla's reckoning, Apollo allowed Sulla access to the god's treasures at Delphi. Cf. Plu. Sull. 12.5. Sulla consecrated half of the territory of the Thebans to Apollo and Zeus, a strong indication that he felt he owed his success in Greece to these two gods. Cf. ibid. 19.6. 83. On the second trip to Athens, see Santangelo 2007b, 214–16. 84. Santangelo 2007b, 215–16 n. 6. On the Sylleia, see Raubitschek 1951. 85. Vell. 2.27.6; [Asc.] Cic. Ver. 1.10.13. See Bernstein 1998, 313–50; Behr 1993, 136–43; Keaveney 2005b, 156–57; Latte 1960, 38.

86. Santangelo 2007b, 216. 87. Plu. Sull. 27.4. 88. Ibid. 27.6. 89. Ibid. 27.7. 90. Ibid. 28.4. 91. Ibid. 29.6. 92. Ibid. 30.2–3. 93. The timing during a festival of the initial uprising that became the Social War suggests that there was a religious component to the motivation behind this rebellion. Not only had the Latins planned to assassinate the consuls during the Feriae Latinae in 91 (D.C. 28.96.4; Flor. Epit. 2.6.8; De vir. ill. 66.12), prior to the war, but the murder of a Roman praetor and other Roman citizens in Asculum that sparked the war also took place during a festival. See D.S. 37.12. As such, the initial attack's timing during a festival might fall into the pattern of providing a rebellion theological justification, similar to Mithradates Eupator's use of prophecy in the East. 94. There was, however, no prohibition against the flamen Dialis being a magistrate. See Vanggaard 1988, 59–69. For an opposing view, see Ryan 1998, 164–67. 95. Flower 2008, 80–81. 96. For the acclamation of savior and father, see Plu. Sull. 34.1. 97. Flower (2008, 92) writes, “[The Capitoline Temple's] destruction mirrored the Romans' deepest fears about the loss of the Republic and of their historical identity.” 98. Plu. Mar. 39.3–4. 99. For Laverna as a goddess of thieves, cf. Hor. Ep. 1.16.60–62; Fest. 104 L: Laverniones: fures antiqui dicebant. quod sub tutela deae Lavernae essent, in cuius luco obscruo abditoque solitos furta praedamque inter se luere. Hinc et Lavernalis porta vocata est. 100. Plu. Sull. 9.4: λέγεται δὲ καὶ κατὰ τοὺς ὕπνους αὑτῷ Σύλλᾳ φανῆναι θεὸν ἣν τιμῶσι ῾Ρωμαῖοι παρὰ Καππαδόκων μαθόντες. Plutarch's interpretation is generally accepted as accurate. Orlin (2010, 168–69) notes that there is no evidence that Sulla ever attempted to incorporate Ma into Rome's state religion. No specific shrine to Ma was built in Rome, and no festival to Ma was added to the Roman calendar. 101. On Claudius' vow of a temple to Bellona, see Liv. 10.19.17; Plin. Nat. 35.12; Ov. Fast. 6.205. On the dedication of the temple, see Ov. Fast. 6.201. 102. Plu. Sull. 7.6. 103. Ibid. 9.3. Nola was also the place where Sulla claimed to have won the corona graminea, a fact recounted in Sulla's memoir and preserved in Pliny (Nat. 22.12). Sulla's dream of Bellona is perfectly suited to this context and also suggests that the enemies to whom she referred were not simply Roman ones but also Samnites. 104. Plu. Sull. 34.2; De fort. Rom. 318D; App. BC 1.97. For an examination of Sulla's use of the name Epaphroditus in his dealings with the East, see Santangelo 2007b, 206–13. 105. Plu. Sull. 27.1–2. 106. Ibid. 27.4.

Page 59 →

CHAPTER 2 Pompey's Recognitio Equitum Historians have generally underestimated the importance of the consulship of Pompey and Crassus in the year 70 BCE. The year 71 was significant because the victory of Crassus and Pompey over Spartacus at that time marked the end of the anxiety that had gripped Rome since the uprising's outbreak. At that time, two Vestals, Fabia and Licinia, were accused of having broken their vow of chastity with Catiline and Crassus, respectively.1 Such accusations sometimes followed catastrophes, as the terrible events prompted the Romans to suspect that unusual wickedness had disturbed the pax deorum.2 The Spartacan rebellion was just such an event, and a number of other problems at the time only compounded the sense that the gods were angry. So bad was the state of affairs, in fact, that the crises of the year 73 were considered signs of Rome's impending end.3 Although the Vestals and their lovers were acquitted, the Roman people were not satisfied that justice had been done.4 Subsequent victories over Sertorius and Spartacus in quick succession were perhaps harbingers of an end to divine anger and, for Crassus in particular, a divine acquittal. The victors were presented Page 60 → with an unusual opportunity to complete the process of restoration by addressing the problems of the decade following Sulla's death through reforms and through holding a census. The present discussion of their consulship thus begins with the view that Pompey and Crassus had a definite program to reform the Sullan constitution, enroll thousands of Italian citizens, and use the same census to purge the state of immoral elements—something left undone thanks to the Vestals' acquittal. The consular pair's celebration of the god Hercules is then contextualized within their program. The significance of Hercules within a larger Italian milieu fits the content of the reforms these consuls undertook, and their use of the god points to a deliberate plan to enlist his divine assistance in supporting their reforms and securing Rome after a period of crisis and marked religious anxiety. Over the course of the seventies BCE, Pompey emerged as the charismatic leader to fill the vacuum that the death of Sulla had created, and although he clearly relied on his military success in promoting himself, he did not follow the precedents of Sulla and Lepidus in turning his soldiers on the city.5 Pompey was thus not a revolutionary in that particular mold, as is evident in his later decision to disband his troops after he landed in Italy in 62. Often employing a variety of political strategies, some arguably reckless, in obtaining what he felt was his due, Pompey was, nevertheless, comfortably ensconced within the group of leading aristocrats in the seventies. His efforts during his consulship in 70 seem to reflect trends that were brewing over that period.6 Still, Pompey was of an independent mind, and early in his political career, he undertook a course that undermined the measures Sulla had instituted for the protection of the Republic from individual revolutionaries.7 Page 61 → A careful examination of Pompey's public performances in 70 clearly shows his use of ceremony and cult in articulating changes in the conception of Rome's relationship with Italy as it was realized under his leadership. Although the Social War had ended in Sulla's victory at the Colline Gate over a decade earlier, Italian interests would continue to be an important consideration in almost every civil war or threat thereof down to the victory of Augustus. Pompey and Crassus were attuned to the opportunity presented to them in continuing Italian discontent. Both men had recently fought with Italians against Italians in putting down the forces of Spartacus. Furthermore, Pompey in particular was cognizant of these issues, thanks partly to his family's Italian connections and his own participation in the Social War. The Pompeii entered the Roman nobility through Pompey's father's consulship. Pompey's ancestors belonged to the tribe of Clustumina, located northeast of Rome in the Tiber valley.8 The family had land interests and ties in a number of places in Italy. They seem to have had particularly strong connections with Picenum, as suggested by Pompey Strabo's military assignment to Asculum during the Social War and by the appearance of names from the tribe Velina (to which many Picenes belonged) on the lex Pompeia.9 The family's involvement in the broader Italian milieu without correspondingly deep roots in the Roman nobility likely led to Pompey's greater awareness of, if not sympathy toward, the perspectives of nonRoman Italians. Unfortunately, Pompey Strabo's reputation was marred by treachery and cruelty, so the young Pompey found it

necessary to be creative in order to obtain the consulship and thereby achieve the pinnacle of Rome's political and social orders.10 He took an excellent gamble in throwing his support behind Sulla when he raised Picene legions and placed himself at the future Page 62 → dictator's disposal.11 This was the first instance of what would develop into a pattern for Pompey: the exploitation of a crisis to further his personal career. Undoubtedly, the careers of Marius and Sulla served as models for such a strategy. In achieving his goals, Pompey not only acquitted himself well but also demonstrated that he more or less understood and was committed to working with established members of Rome's senatorial aristocracy.12 The facts of his strong Italian connections and his ability to work with Roman aristocrats are indispensable for understanding Pompey's role in the reforms of the Sullan system in 70 and the ceremonial performances through which he sought to shape perceptions of his efforts. After defeating the Sertorians, settling Spain, and then cleaning up the remnants of Spartacus' followers, Pompey returned to Rome to stand for election to the consulship.13 Spartacus' campaign across the length and breadth of Italy had had a highly destructive impact on much of the peninsula. It had required cooperation from Italian communities to put the rebellion down, since a number of poor Italians of non-servile origins were to be found in Spartacus' ranks.14 Rome's ultimate success against Spartacus, Page 63 → achieved with important Italian assistance but also over some Italian resistance in the form of a percentage of the rebels themselves, again brought to the fore the issue of the registration of Italians as citizens of Rome. Pompey emphasized the cooperation of Rome and Italy in securing these victories, as a coin minted to celebrate his triumph in 70 attests.15 On its reverse, Roma and Italia clasp hands. The last significant independent Italian resistance to Rome had ended at the Battle of the Colline Gate, and many Italians had legally obtained Roman citizenship, but most of them did not effectively possess or exercise that citizenship, because they had not been enrolled in a Roman census and had not been assigned to one of Rome's thirty-five tribes.16 Continuing Italian discontentment about their relationship with Rome can be seen in the role Italians played in various Roman crises down to the so-called Catilinarian conspiracy.17 As a leader with strong Italian connections, Pompey must have been aware of the opportunities that Italian discontentment over issues regarding Roman citizenship might present to the shrewd politician, and he likely had the backing of aristocrats with considerably greater influence.18 So, defying factional resistance from some quarters, Pompey, with the cooperation of his consular colleague Crassus, determined to hold a census and thus boost his own following by acting as the patron of nearly half a million Italians who would claim Roman citizenship.19 Page 64 →

Pompey and Crassus: Exaggerated Enmity Before addressing the issue of the reforms themselves, a word needs to be said about the relationship between Crassus and Pompey. Too much has been made of the tension between Crassus and Pompey, based on sparse evidence in an inconsistent portrait of the relationship.20 There can be no doubt that tension did exist. Still, Plutarch at one point wildly exaggerates the problem, writing of their complete inability to cooperate for the balance of their consulship.21 Elsewhere, however, Plutarch refers to the various accomplishments that occurred in the same period, which he then appears to attribute mostly to Pompey.22 The most solid evidence of a rift between the two men is the reconciliation gesture that was arranged toward the end of their consular term, in which Crassus made the first move by complimenting Pompey for his achievements and then extending his hand as a conciliatory gesture.23 Aside from this scene of reconciliation, little militates against a portrait of consistent cooperation between the two men until late in the year 70. Evidence for conflict over Pompey's presumption during the final stages of the struggle against Spartacus is lacking. Crassus called for the assistance of Pompey and Lucullus as he sought to wipe up the remnants of the Spartacan uprising.24 While many would stress the obvious anger Crassus must have Page 65 → felt for being upstaged by Pompey in the latter's report to the Senate (in which Pompey appeared to take credit for ending the revolt), Crassus' overtures to Pompey in seeking leave from a junior privatus to run for consul betray insufficient ill feelings to argue that Crassus would compromise his larger political self-interest on that account.25 Crassus would have had no reason to be sour about his ovation for defeating Spartacus, since he

could not have expected more than that honor for victory over a servile insurrection.26 Besides, Crassus received the unusual honor of a laurel crown for his victory over Spartacus.27 The two men thus campaigned cooperatively on a promise to restore the powers of the tribune, and they worked together in following through on that promise.28 They also cooperated in choosing censors and holding the census.29 These are not minor issues, and they probably carried the cooperation of the two men well into the late summer of 70. In fact, the precise issue of conflict between them is altogether unclear.30 Whatever it was, Crassus, in praising the younger man and offering him his hand, did not appear too opposed to Pompey to seek reconciliation.31

The Consulship of 70: Reforming the Sullan Constitution Crassus had every reason to support Pompey's political program, since he stood to benefit thereby and since there was no love lost between Crassus and a number of other Roman aristocrats who opposed Pompey's initiatives. Page 66 → The census was part of a larger program designed not only to welcome thousands of Italians into Rome as citizens but also to give these new citizens almost immediate clout once they arrived.32 While consul designate, Pompey delivered a speech that revealed his plan to reform the Sullan constitution.33 He intended to reform the tribunate, the courts, and the governing of the provinces.34 All three items would have immediate impact on the newly enrolled citizens. The purpose of Pompey and Crassus' reform package was naturally not only to empower Italians but also to expand their own clientele thereby. The heart of the program was the census, which allowed scores of thousands of Italians to participate in the Roman state on significantly more equal footing for the first time.35 Among those who were able to come to Rome were men who would directly benefit from Pompey's reform of the courts.36 The lex Aurelia of 70 changed the composition of Roman juries such that the equites and tribuni aerarii joined in.37 These new jurists undoubtedly included a number of the men who were enrolled as citizens in the census of 70. Given that Italians comprised a large percentage of those negotiatores who were involved in provincial business, this was no small change.38 Now these men would have the ability to judge the guilt or innocence of Roman governors who were charged with crimes in the provinces—crimes Page 67 → that could and did impact business. Cicero's prosecution of Verres reflected the spirit of these reforms. Cicero, a rising novus homo from Arpinum, was the perfect prosecutor to demonstrate the kind of power that inclusion in Roman courts endowed on new Italian citizens of Rome.39 The resuscitation of the tribunate was another important peg in Pompey and Crassus' program.40 While there were a good number of relatively wealthy Italians who traveled to Rome for the census of 70, many poorer Italian men were already on site, poised to lay claim to the privileges in Roman politics that had supposedly been their right for close to two decades.41 Some had fought alongside Pompey and Crassus against Spartacan rebels.42 Some of the Italian residents of Rome had watched in horror while Sulla slaughtered his Samnite foes in the very place, the Villa Publica, where they hoped to be enrolled in the list of Rome's citizens.43 This demonstration undoubtedly made a terrifying impression on them. Now, thanks to Pompey and Crassus, not only would these men be citizens, but the traditional protections of the tribunes' full powers would be extended to them. More importantly, they would be able to vote in the Concilium Plebis on legislation that would be binding on all Romans, including their senatorial superiors. Arguing that Pompey and Crassus took substantive steps to reform the Sullan constitution is not to suggest either that the Sullan constitution was a dead letter or that Pompey and Crassus intended to overthrow all of Sulla's work. Rather, Pompey and Crassus sought to ameliorate problems brought on by the continued deferral of the extension of active citizenship to the Italians—and also, of course, to advance their own careers. As concerns the tribunate, it has rightly been noted that prominent members of the Cotta family had already started to restore the tribunate some years before.44 It is Page 68 → true that Pompey and Crassus were not independent radicals and that their actions were in line with initiatives already in motion. At the same time, it is important not to underestimate the significance of Pompey entering on this course of reforms at this particular time. The Republic continued to be fundamentally the one that Sulla established, but that fact does not diminish the impact of Pompey and Crassus' reforms. In short, what matters for the individual politician's construction of his legacy is not the fact that he is the literal mastermind and cause of all of the initiatives that occur during his consulship but that his is the name and his the

visage (imago) that is associated with these accomplishments. It is a way of conceiving of the magistracy that is fully in line with the way that military command brought glory to the possessor of supreme imperium militiae on the battlefield. Whereas the modern historian instinctively strives to identify the precise causes of the victory or law in precise detail, the Roman magistrate wanted the credit that was his due as a function of his role as the holder of imperium under whose aegis the act was accomplished. Naturally, he would use his public performances to emphasize his role and articulate his vision of its significance.

The Recognitio Equitum The preceding explication of Pompey and Crassus' reforms provides crucial context enabling one to interpret more accurately Pompey's dramatic appearance before the censors of 70.45 History has not been kind to Pompey as a public performer. His most infamous public performance—the triumphal gaffe early in his career in which his elephants proved too large Page 69 → to fit through the triumphal gate, forcing Pompey to dismount—has left the distinct impression of Pompey as a bumbler.46 The preservation of this episode as worthy of commemoration is interesting in itself because the anecdote serves well the purpose of reminding readers that Pompey's imposing presence, which approached Alexander-like proportions, did not fit comfortably within the city.47 Indeed, some may view it as a visual parable much like the well-known example of the camel fitting through the eye of the needle.48 The embarrassing scene of Pompey's triumphal gaffe is one of those moments that seems to stand as a symbol for the man as a whole. Pompey's achievements outside of Rome consistently appeared formidable, but in retrospect, his achievements at home, taken in toto, seem much less so, particularly in comparison with Caesar, Pompey's successor as Rome's leading man. The temptation, which has proven almost irresistible, is to underestimate the importance of what Pompey did accomplish in Rome, partly because of the power of anecdotes like the triumphal gaffe. The truth was obviously much more complicated, and Pompey's career was replete with moments of highly effective maneuvering, which also included his use of public spectacle. In 70, Pompey ostentatiously participated in the review of knights (recognitio equitum), which was associated with the census he had brought to pass. In this review, knights presented themselves with their horses before the censors and were there adjudged worthy or unworthy of the privilege of the public horse.49 The participation of the consul in this review was undoubtedly a rare, if not unprecedented, event. The fact that the consulship was Pompey's first magistracy is what made this possible. Page 70 → After dismounting, Pompey led his mount down into the Forum to present himself for judgment before the censors at the Temple of Castor, the climactic moment of the review.50 As Pompey drew within sight of the crowd gathered around the censor's tribunal in the Forum, he told his lictors to allow him through, thus effectively dismissing them.51 When Pompey took his place before the tribunal, the senior censor, in accordance with custom, said, “Pompeius Magnus, I ask you whether you have performed all of the military services required by law.” To this, Pompey replied, “I have performed them all, and all under my own command.”52 The crowd erupted in enthusiastic cheers, undoubtedly struck by the novelty of the spectacle and Pompey's words. Plutarch calls it the most agreeable of all the spectacles Pompey offered the people.53 This event has been dismissed as being apocryphal.54 At first glance, it appears to be a little too staged to be credible. But the fact that it is so typical of Pompey's brash flair arguably supports its authenticity. Surely it is no less believable than some of the stories about Pompey and Sulla, such as Sulla hailing Pompey as imperator when, as a young privatus, the latter offered himself and the legions he had raised from his clients to the returning commander;55 or Pompey's chutzpah in demanding a triumph by telling the dictator Sulla that people cared more about the rising than the setting sun.56 Page 71 → These stories are usually accepted as factual, and Pompey's performance in the recognitio equitum fits well with such a portrait. Pompey was the Young Turk who had risen from a background of familial disgrace to consular prominence through his ambition, daring, ability, and talent for self-promotion. Pompey's performance on the occasion of his appearance before the censors simply underscores the unusual nature of his career—a career in which he held imperium without ever having been elected to a magistracy and, in contravention of the law, skipped all of the lower rungs of the Sullan cursus honorum to become consul, albeit with senatorial approval.57 If one considers Pompey's performance in the review of knights in terms of its visual and verbal symbolism within

a Roman social and political context, some interesting insights emerge. At the beginning of the scene, one sees Pompey leading his horse but preceded by lictors, the traditional ceremonial guard of consuls. He was no doubt dressed in his consular regalia as well.58 His appearance at the time may have approached that of a commander in triumph or ovation, since a man on horseback with lictors would have combined elements of both rituals, with the crucial difference being that Pompey was not mounted for the review. As McDonnell has shown, there was a remarkable ambivalence toward the image of the mounted warrior in the Late Republic.59 To allow oneself to be depicted as a mounted warrior was taken as a sign of great arrogance, while appearing on foot was viewed as a sign of civilitas. Thus the depiction of the consul Pompey submitting to the authority of the censors by approaching them at the Temple of Castor while leading his horse rather than mounted on it is a striking expression of civilitas in contrast with the gilded equestrian statue of Sulla that stood by the Rostra.60 This image of civilitas is amplified by Pompey's dismissal of his lictors when he comes into the presence of the censors, a highly symbolic show of respect and deference to these officials, Page 72 → who, unlike Pompey, did not hold imperium and thus did not have lictors.61 The overall symbolic message and effect of this gesture was almost exactly the opposite of Marius' appearance before the Senate in his triumphal costume, a fact that is all the more interesting since Pompey had celebrated his triumph of 71 the day before he entered his consulship, in a manner that came close to repeating Marius' back-to-back triumph and inauguration as consul.62 According to Plutarch, the initial response of the crowd to Pompey's appearance before the censors was a stunned silence, while the magistrates were struck with awe and delight. As Vergil illustrates in his famous epic simile involving the man of gravitas, the silence of the crowd can represent the respect a great Roman man commands in others.63 When the censor addressed Pompey, he employed the controversial cognomen Magnus, which harked back to Pompey's military achievements in Africa and evoked the image of Alexander the Great—a combination of associations that is reminiscent of Marius' self-representation as a Dionysiac victor after his successes in Africa. The censor's use of Magnus arguably conferred on the name a quasi-official force. The two censors then accompanied Pompey to his home as though they were his clientes.64 Since the occasion of this intriguing display was essentially Pompey's own census, there can be no question regarding Pompey's hand in orchestrating this scene, from his role in arranging for the recognitio equitum to the departure of the censors in his company. Pompey planned to derive maximum benefit from the opportunity to associate himself with the first census to occur in over a decade—one through which Pompey triumphed as a privatus in his twenties and now, for a second time, as consul-elect.65 After celebrating this second triumph, Pompey could participate in the census' recognitio equitum not only as a knight among his fellow knights but also as a triumphator and consul. Page 73 → There was more at stake, however, than perceptions of Pompey's personal career. Since the end of the Social War, Italians, many of whom were eligible by wealth to be equites, had been stuck in a citizenship limbo thanks to elite Roman opposition against registering new Italian citizens. Perhaps the lack of a census after Sulla also reflected something of the perceived finality of the dictator's arrangement of affairs. If the Sullan constitution, in the broad sense, was to be viewed as an ideal arrangement, there was no need to hold a census. Those equites who had been deemed worthy of joining the Senate had already been welcomed into it by Sulla.66 It is important to remember that the meaning of the census was not restricted to assigning people a place in accordance with their property but also included scrutiny of the moral standing of Rome's elite orders: the knights and the senators.67 Sulla's proscriptions represented a kind of radical census carried out under the authority of the dictator.68 What need could there be of holding a census when the ranks of Roman society had been cleansed and rearranged by Sulla, the agent of the gods and savior of Rome? In other words, the failure to hold a census between the civil war and the consulship of Pompey and Crassus was not simply a way of deferring the incorporation of Italians into the body of the citizenry or protecting the elite from censure; it grew out of the logic of the implicitly utopian ideology of Sulla's dictatorship. The severe measures of Sulla's regime had been justified on the grounds that the gods had given Sulla the power to do as he had done. Bellona had placed a thunderbolt in the dictator's hands and given him both the power and permission to

strike his enemies down.69 Sulla did this in the civil war struggle, but the attendant sense of divine backing also extended into the execution of the proscriptions. The slaughter of Samnites in the Villa Publica, the writing of the names of the proscribed on white boards placed out in public view (which represented a kind of reversal of the enrollment of citizens), and the elevation of select knights into the Senate all involved the Page 74 → symbols, power, and purview of the censorship. After having witnessed such an extreme example of censure, it would seem a challenge to Sulla's memory even to raise the possibility of a new census. Finally, Sulla did not allow censors to be elected for 81, a choice that sent a strong enough message about the census that it ended the practice until 70.70 The dangers of the late seventies, the trial of the Vestals, and a growing perception of senatorial corruption opened the door for Pompey and Crassus to support holding a new census in 70.71 This census resulted in the expulsion of an unprecedentedly large number of senators: sixty-four—a number to rival the number of senators who fell victim to Sulla's proscriptions.72 There can be little doubt that these expulsions represented a political struggle within the aristocracy. Although some of the expelled were undoubtedly new senators who had been incapable of keeping up with the financial demands of the senatorial lifestyle, this would not have been true of all sixty-four men. The expulsion of men like the consular Lentulus Sura, later a major player in the so-called Catilinarian conspiracy, is solid evidence that prominent men from old aristocratic families fell victim to the power of Pompey's censors. If the lectio senatus of 70 occurred prior to Pompey's appearance before the censors, the symbolism of his show of deference to their authority would have been all the more powerful, especially to those who rejoiced in the comeuppance that certain corrupt senatorial aristocrats had received in their ejection from the Senate. Pompey's gesture would have been a way of signaling his respect for the very same authority that had dealt his opponents a sharp blow. Pompey's appearance before the censors occurred during a ritual associated Page 75 → with the census known as the recognitio equitum. This review of the knights, which took place in connection with the yearly transvectio equitum during the festival of Castor and Pollux, served a purpose similar to the lectio senatus in that those who did not meet the qualifications of the order in question were relieved of the public horse and thus removed from the eighteen centuries of knights that stood at the top of the Centuriate Assembly.73 These centuries were vitally important for the privileged place they had in the voting order of the Assembly, which ensured their influence on the votes of other, lower-ranked centuries. The grounds for dismissal were based on both wealth and morality.74 When knights in these centuries led their horses before the censors, the censors could either tell them to walk on or command them to sell the public horse. The command to sell the public horse was effectively a dismissal from the equestrian order in the more restrictive sense—that is, from the elite eighteen centuries. The timing of Pompey's appearance in such a morally charged ceremony may have helped to remind Romans of the upcoming trial of Verres by raising an unfavorable memory. Verres had performed some restorations on the Temple of Castor—the location of the censors during the review—in 74 BCE.75 With the trial less than three weeks away, a pious display that would contrast with the sacrilegious behavior imputed to Verres may have suggested to others something of Pompey's opinion regarding Verres' guilt. The exchange between Pompey and the censors was, in many ways, Page 76 → typical of the interaction between knights and censors in the review. The censors asked the knights whether they had faithfully fulfilled their decade of service, and the knights responded accordingly. This ritual not only indicated the completion of required military service by the knight in question but also carried the positive implication that he had never been found unworthy of his place. Furthermore, it provided proof that the knight was eligible to stand for election to a magistracy, something that, in Pompey's case, was a foregone conclusion, given that he was already serving his term as consul at the time of the recognitio.76 The review of knights was an ideal showcase in that it allowed Pompey to appear as an upright and dutiful commander in stark contrast with those who fell to his census or would, soon, in the courts. It also allowed him to highlight the fact that he had attained the highest honors at precisely that moment when most knights would have only begun to mount the cursus honorum. Finally, as will be shown shortly, the review allowed him to combine the symbols of the consulship and the celebration of victory in a manner that practically inverted Marius' earlier triumphal gaffe. Since the review of knights took place as part of the transvectio equitum, the review allowed Pompey to exploit the latter's associations with victory in ways that were reminiscent of the ovation and the triumph. In the

transvectio, the knights gathered outside Rome at the Temple of Mars on the Via Appia on the day of the festival of Castor and Pollux, the heroes who had saved Rome at the Battle of Lake Regillus and who then rode to Rome to announce the victory over those who had sought to reinstall Tarquin as Rome's king.77 During the transvectio's procession, which stopped at the Temple of Honos and Virtus on its way into the city through the Porta Capena, the knights, riding on horseback, clad in the toga trabea, and decorated with the olive crown, filed past the censors, who were seated on the platform of the Temple of Castor in the Forum; the knights then sacrificed Page 77 → before they made their way up the Capitoline Hill.78 This destination made the transvectio similar to the triumph, as did the special garb of the participants. Cavalry dressed in this costume also participated in ovations.79 The transvectio was, in short, an event that yearly commemorated Roman victory and the triumph of the young Republic over monarchy, through the parading of its knights, whose divine patrons, Castor and Pollux, had secured the freedom of Rome from tyranny at Regillus. Pompey's participation in the recognitio equitum thus allowed him to repeat, in a sense, his triumph from roughly six months before (December 29, 71). This time, instead of entering the porta triumphalis on a chariot, he entered the Porta Capena on horseback with companions wearing regalia evocative of an ovation. His declaration before the censors that he had served faithfully in all of his campaigns and all under his own command gave Pompey an opportunity to intone loudly that explosive word imperator. Indeed, his resounding declaration may have had the sound of a soldier's acclamation of imperator on the battlefield. The situation is even more suggestive considering the fact that the censor addressed him as Pompeius Magnus, a name that evoked the memory of Pompey's triumph over Africa. After Pompey's appearance before them, the censors accompanied Pompey to his house.80 This would seem to present a problem, since the transvectio proceeded up the Capitoline. If the knights' review did occur during the transvectio, it would seem either that Pompey did not proceed up the Capitoline because he headed home with the censors or that Plutarch left out a step. Perhaps Pompey did forgo the sacrifice. He was, after all, no Page 78 → longer an eques, and his appearance before the censors at this time had allowed him to resign formally. It may not have been appropriate for him to continue on to sacrifice with those who continued to serve in the eighteen centuries. Yet it seems unlikely that Pompey would have missed the opportunity to make the parallel with the triumph more complete. Nothing would have prevented him from attending the sacrifice, even after retirement, and it is unknown whether retired knights did or did not participate. Surely only those who had been stripped of their public horse would have been barred from further participation in the event. Plutarch may simply have neglected to mention the trip to the Capitoline. In any case, Pompey's journey home with the censors after the transvectio is consistent with the commander's final destination after the triumph. Pompey no doubt banqueted with his friends in his house. It is worth pausing to consider how much more adept Pompey proved himself to be in this performance than Marius had been when he entered the Senate wearing the garb of the triumphator.81 Indeed, Pompey may have purposely set out to show how superior to Marius he could be in navigating such displays. After all, he, like Marius, was entering his consulship directly after a triumph celebrated over a northern enemy. However, Pompey did not move straight from the triumph to his inauguration, vows, and first meeting with the Senate. He entered his consulship the day after the triumph. His appearance as consul before the censors in the transvectio allowed him, as civil magistrate, to exploit the victorious symbolism of the ceremony, but the statement was almost exactly the opposite of Marius'. As a consul wearing triumphal robes in the Senate, Marius was introducing martial and regal images into a special civic space in a manner that approached sacrilege. Pompey's gesture, rather, showed his deference both to the order he was leaving, which was now below him on the hierarchy of prestige, and also to the censors who were his seniors in age and in political experience. The finesse with which he was able to declare himself imperator in front of the censors without causing offense (or, rather, with their willing collusion) was supremely artful. Not only was Pompey's decision to exploit the victorious associations of the transvectio clever, it also may have had a further ideological purpose. Pompey had recently celebrated a triumph for his victory over the forces of Page 79 → Sertorius, and Crassus also celebrated an ovation, with the added honor of the right to wear a laurel crown, for his victory over Spartacus. Pompey's participation in the review as one of the knights would have

allowed him to celebrate his victories of the past decade in quite a different way—not simply as the imperator who led his men into battle (although he was careful to draw attention to the fact that he had been precisely that), but also as a fellow eques, whose rise signaled quite dramatically how far the new Italian knights might go in their careers or witness their descendants going in theirs: the pinnacle of the consulship.82 This kind of advancement need not have been a likely scenario in the near term for it to send an encouraging message.83 For men of equestrian or soon-to-be-equestrian status, such a demonstration would have been heartening indeed. Also interesting is the way the memory of Italian conflict with Rome at Regillus was overwritten by a new narrative of Italian incorporation into Roman citizenship and Roman honors. Castor and Pollux were naturally involved in the equestrian ideology of Pompey, but there is little evidence that Pompey otherwise paid them special tribute in 70.84 The twins' identification with the Penates Publici would have rendered them a particularly suitable pair of gods to reference in connection with this census, when so many new Italian citizens were entering the Penates' protection as well as Page 80 → that of Vesta.85 In a sense, by becoming citizens, these Italians would, as adopted “sons of Aeneas,” have come to have a whole new relationship with the Dioscuri in their guise of Trojan Penates. Still, at the time, Pompey and Crassus clearly paid more explicit attention to Hercules than to Vesta, the Penates, or the Dioscuri.

Hercules, Rome, and Italy in Pompey's Political Theology The symbolism of the recognitio of 70, with its message of social mobility for newly enfranchised Italians, reflected Pompey and Crassus' purpose to advance Italian interests. The recognition of the existence of such a coherent program aimed at Italians—a program that included not only legislation but also games, ritual, and spectacle—casts a new light on other aspects of Pompey and Crassus' activities of the year 70. That Pompey and Crassus were aware that their religious gestures had a large Italian audience is evident in the fact that many came to be enlisted in the census, and it is also directly attested by Cicero in his first Verrine oration, in which Cicero refers to the fact that he wants to proceed with the prosecution before the departure of the crowd collected from all Italy for elections, games, and the census.86 The consuls had clear motivation to tailor their religious activities accordingly. Both Pompey and Crassus paid a great deal of attention to the celebration of Hercules, a figure of wide popularity throughout central Italy.87 Crassus decided to pay the tithe to Hercules and then to host a public banquet, which Ward attributes to Crassus' desire to compete with Pompey, who had also paid the tithe to Hercules and who had been associated with the god through a triumph in that year.88 Ward argues that Crassus was striving to make his ovation as close to Pompey's greater honor as possible. Thus Crassus pushed to get the novel honor in his ovation of wearing a laurel crown (the crown worn in the cult of the Ara Maxima and thus suggestive of a Herculean pose), and he voluntarily paid a tithe of his entire Page 81 → fortune to Hercules, a gesture of special piety that was perhaps part of his larger campaign to restore his good name after the scandal with the Vestals in 73.89 Overemphasis on the competition and conflict between Pompey and Crassus has, however, distorted interpretations of the evidence for their cooperation on important issues. The two men's use of Hercules, while competitive, may also have had an ideologically synergistic aspect that aligned with their efforts to promote the interests of Italians, an initiative that was ultimately to their shared political benefit. Just as Marius and Sulla had used overlapping religious symbolism to forward themselves and their agendas, so did Pompey and Crassus, but more cooperatively. In the case of Hercules, this meant taking a Sullan symbol and turning it to different associations and uses.90 Sulla had amplified the cult of Hercules by being the first in recent memory to dedicate a tithe to the god, the polluctum, and by founding or expanding the Games of Hercules.91 Sulla restored the Temple of Hercules Custos and installed something called “Hercules Sullanus” on the Esquiline Hill.92 It is also reported that Sulla kept on his table a statuette of Hercules, which had belonged to Alexander and Hannibal.93 Clearly Hercules was important to Sulla, although it would be difficult, given the available sources, to define the god's precise significance in the dictator's mind. Among the more likely reasons Hercules may have been important to Sulla is that Hercules symbolized hegemony over Italy. The Greek Heracles was one of the two great travelers of myth—the other being, of course,

Dionysus—whom Hellenistic rulers had adopted as a symbol of their own Page 82 → prowess as conquerors and civilizers.94 Marius seems to have been partial to Dionysus, as one can infer from his use of the cantharus in connection with his African victory.95 Sulla, seeking to strike quite a different pose and perhaps even seeing in Hercules a way of stealing more of Marius' thunder in Africa, chose the traveling Greek hero who was also identified with the Punic Melqart.96 Moreover, Hercules was a popular deity throughout Italy, among the Greeks, naturally, and such peoples as the Etruscans, Sabines, Latins, and Campanians.97 In appropriating Hercules for his own purposes, Sulla employed a widely understood theological symbol of Italian conquest to represent his victories over other Italians, from the Social War down to the defeat of Samnites at the Porta Collina. The man whom Laverna, goddess of thieves, predicted would be a great leader defeated his Italian enemies just as Hercules defeated Cacus, the Italian cattle thief.98 Pompey may have connected his success in Spain and return to Italy with Hercules' theft of the cattle of Geryon and visit to the future site of Rome.99 The association could only have been strengthened by Pompey's defeat of Spartacan stragglers, which is, in its own way, also reminiscent of Hercules' defeat of Cacus. Among the Italians of the Central Appennines, Hercules was strongly associated with pastoralism and transhumance. Romans had a habit of associating various forms of resistance with banditry and herders, of whom Cacus, the servus of Evander in Cassius Hemina, was a powerful symbol.100 Rome's founding myth also included the cattle Page 83 → rustling of Romulus and Remus. Some of the same elements of Italian society were likely involved in Spartacus' revolt; slaves had assumed the post of shepherds for large landowners in not only Sicily but also South Italy. Pompey and Crassus' interest in Hercules was a reflection of both Pompey's success in Spain and the duo's success against Spartacus, who was implicated in the broader context of the Italian issues the two consuls sought to address in 70. Thus, in addition to advertising their victory and Roman hegemony in Italy and the West, the consuls' celebration of Hercules before Italian spectators communicated the pair's benefactions to Italy. These benefactions, previously discussed, were substantial for the hundreds of thousands of Italians who gathered to Rome to enroll in the body of Roman citizens. The celebration of Hercules by Pompey and Crassus, each in his own way, can thus be seen as synergistic rather than simply competitive. This is not to dismiss the very real urge of Roman aristocrats to outdo their fellow Romans in achievement and its celebration, but the present reading opens up a way of contextualizing the Hercules-associated activities of both men in relation to each other: Pompey's Temple of Hercules and games dedicated to the god, on the one hand, and Crassus' tithe and its accompanying public banquet, on the other.101 These different gestures worked together to celebrate a god whose popularity with Italians would now include new associations with the achievements of Pompey and Crassus, including their reform of the Sullan constitution. Under Sulla, it would have been appropriate to see Hercules Sullanus as a figure that potentially divided Romans and Italians in both an oppositional and hierarchical arrangement (with Romans clearly on top). Postulating a “Hercules Pompeianus” figure—one that is inflected by Pompey's unique engagement with the god—does not altogether erase the hierarchical nature of the relationship Page 84 → between Romans and Italians, but it goes a long way toward expressing the relationship in terms that are uniting and that show the possibility of social and political advancement through services to Rome. The latter idea is consistent with the image of Hercules as the visiting benefactor and savior of Rome, who, as a result of his contributions, subsequently receives cult.102

Conclusion This chapter has sought to place Pompey's performance in the recognitio of 70 and his religious offerings to Hercules in a perspective whereby they can be seen as part of a coherent political-theological program for incorporating, rather than excluding, a large number of Italians and, at the same time, preserving and amplifying Rome's status as Italian hegemon. It would be incorrect to see Pompey as a renegade aristocrat and revolutionary who sought utterly to overturn Sulla's system by resuscitating the tribunate, changing the composition of the juries, and enrolling thousands of Italians on the citizen rolls. Gruen and others are correct in observing that Sulla's constitution remained fundamentally intact despite these changes.103 Furthermore, it is clear that others, like the Cottas, who were of the old Roman nobility, had already started making moves in this direction. Pompey was, rather, an ally and emerging leader of aristocrats who were already seeking to tweak Sulla's constitution in much-needed ways. Pompey further represents a potent example of the talented up-and-coming leader who Page

85 → succeeds at the Roman game where it counts, working more or less within the system and with the approval and cooperation of Rome's elites. Unlike Marius, Pompey was able to perform his role with sufficient deftness not to run afoul of the very men whom he sought as peers.104 Pompey's success brought the tide that future Italians and provincials—men like Cicero and Balbus—would ride to prominence in the Late Republic and Early Empire.105 Without Pompey's initial foray in uniting Italian interests with those of the aristocracy (and thereby recognizing Italy's crucial role in securing Rome's future stability and world leadership), Cicero could not have evoked cuncta Italia as his patroness in bearing him triumphantly back from exile, and Augustus could never have invoked tota Italia as he set out to defeat the forces of Antony in the final civil war of Rome's Republic. It is worthwhile to consider the experiences that impressed on Pompey the usefulness of initiating a significant reformulation of the Sullan constitution. The human composition of the city-state was always among the foremost considerations in constructing civic identity. Although Romans did not conceive of citizenship primarily in ethnic terms (as, say, in many of the Hellenic poleis), the question of one's appropriateness for Roman citizenship was a serious concern. Sometimes citizenship was extended as a reward for signal services to Rome on the battlefield. At other times, the local aristocracy of a municipality was deemed worthy of Roman citizenship when it was diplomatically and politically useful to extend the privilege. Roman citizenship was not for just anyone, and extensions of the citizenship were a point of contention. Pompey saw the expansion of the body of citizens as a useful way of vastly multiplying the number his own clients. The census provided the means for Rome to revisit the issue of the composition of its citizen body on a regular basis, both by inviting new citizens and by reevaluating the allocation of citizen status, prestige, and political power. Pompey maximized the census as a way of expanding and reordering Rome. For this reason, Pompey should be viewed as striving to imitate no less a figure than a Servius Tullius, a gesture that followed Sulla's use of Page 86 → Servius Tullius as a model for his own constitutional reforms and extension of the pomerium.106 Pompey's motivation for reimagining Rome as the integration of Italians and Romans included not only a need to reinvigorate the legislation regarding Italian citizenship that had languished since at least 86 but also Pompey's encounter with Sertorian Spain. Sertorius had been successful at forging a counter-Rome by bringing together Spaniards and the disaffected from Sulla's Rome.107 As a result, Pompey cut the path of his success in the provinces by organizing Spain not only formally, in terms of provincial apparatus and extending citizenship strategically and selectively, but also informally, in terms of personal alliances, such that Spain continued to be a Pompeian stronghold into the period of the Second Triumvirate.108 Having set the pattern for expanding his clientele in Spain, Pompey added to the roll of Roman citizens in Gaul and Italy too. One should not, however, underestimate, on the grounds of practical utility, the ideological significance of what Pompey was doing. Pompey likely saw his own return to Rome in the role of victor over Sertorius (and, to a lesser extent, Spartacus) as the triumph of a new Pompeian order—an order that used the lessons of recent conflicts and the opportunity of a consulship shared with Crassus to address issues of Roman identity and citizenship in ways that the aristocracy had theretofore failed to do. The result was a Pompeian age that would endure down to the civil war with Caesar. In the fifties, Caesar started to present a substantive challenge to this Pompeian order, but up to Pompey's flight from Italy in 49, there was never any real question who was the first man in Rome. Indeed, every significant Roman crisis from 70 forward would be turned over to Pompey's care, because Pompey's leadership was seen, even outside Rome, as the source of felicitas that ensured the general salus.109 In the eyes of some, Pompey's success in 70, which rejuvenated Rome in a time of anxiety regarding the possible end of the city, even rendered him a Sullan-style savior who would inaugurate a Page 87 → new saeculum, as Cicero's Pro lege Manilia attests.110 There, Pompey appears as one sent down from heaven to meet Rome's crises. Pompey's appearance before the censors of 70 also reveals what a deft showman he could be in performing this role. In holding a census, enrolling Italians, and personally appearing before the censors in the recognitio equitum, Pompey may also be viewed as one who deliberately struck a significantly different note from Sulla. This may have extended to his reformulation of Hercules as a god of Roman-Italian unity and cooperation rather than one of strictly Roman hegemony. 1. 2.

Sal. Cat. 15.1; Asc. 91.19–23; Plu. Crass. 1.4–5; Oros. 6.3.1. Cadoux 2005; Wildfang 2006, 96–97. Staples 1998, 132–35; Takács 2008, 87–89; Cornell 1981.

3. Cic. Catil. 3.9: eundemque dixisse fatalem hunc annum esse ad interitum huius urbis atque imperi, qui esset annus decimus post virginum absolutionem, post Capitoli autem incensionem vicesimus. 4. Cadoux 2005, 177–78. Contra Wildfang (2006, 97), who sees the acquittal of the priestesses as the result of changing attitudes among Romans regarding the charge of incestum and the increased social power and sophistication of the Vestals themselves. 5. Vervaet (2009, 423–30) accepts Appian's (1.121) account as generally accurate and argues that Pompey extorted his first consulship by threat of armed force. Sherwin-White (1956, 6) argued that the notion of Pompey's army parked outside Rome past his triumph was the result of Appian stitching together the triumph of 71 and the reconciliation of late 70. Bucher (2000) has shown that Appian, aiming at showing the inevitability of monarchy, deliberately exaggerated instances of conflict between major Republican figures. Vervaet supports his position by appealing to Plu. Pomp. 21.3–4, in which many people expressed their fear that Pompey might not disband his army and might instead attack the city. In response, Pompey promised to disband the army after his triumph. Appian appears to have embellished Plutarch's scenario in order to create a greater threat, which is otherwise unattested. For Appian's reliance on Plutarch as a source, see Pelling 1979, 84. 6. Seager 2002, 32, 199 n. 30, 202 n. 84. 7. On Sulla's reregulation of the cursus honorum, see Brennan 2000, 2:392–94. On his new arrangements for provincial commands, see ibid., 394–96. 8. On Clustumina, see Taylor 1960, 246; on Pompey and Picenum, [Caes.] B Afr. 22.2; V. Max. 5.2.9; Gelzer 1963, 111; Badian 1958, 228–29. 9. For the significance of the names appearing on the lex Pompeia, see Leach 1978, 14. Leach identifies twelve of the tirones on the list as Picentines. On Strabo at Asculum, see App. BC 1.47–48; Vell. 2.21.1; Flor. Epit. 2.6.14; ILLRP 1092. See also Taylor 1960, 177; Criniti 1970. 10. For Strabo's murder of Pompeius Rufus, see Vell. 2.20.1; Liv. Per. 77. On Strabo playing both sides in the war with Cinna, see Vell. 2.21.1; Liv. Per. 79. 11. Cic. Man. 61; App. BC 1.80.366. 12. Note Pompey's show of deference to Metellus in writing to him to request the consular's permission to assist him in the fight in Gaul, although Sulla had already assigned Pompey the task. See Plu. Pomp. 8.4–5. 13. Vervaet 2009, 412–23. 14. Because of the rhetorical potency of terms like servus and latro, one must be wary of overly neat assumptions regarding the social image of Spartacus' following. See Habinek 2001, 69–87; Shaw 1984. Brown (1990) explores the opportunistic use of the label “bandit” as a mechanism for extending state power. Appian (BC 1.116) states explicitly that free farmhands were in the number of Spartacus' followers. The Periochae of Livy (95) uses the expression congregata servitiorum ergastulorumque multitudo to describe the rebels. The ergastula might house debtors as well as kidnapped free persons and those shirking military service. See Suet. Tib. 8.1. Plutarch's (Crass. 9.3) πολλοὶ τῶν αὐτόθι βοτήρων καὶ ποιμένων does not preclude the presence of non-servile members in the group. Augustus' father, according to Suetonius (Aug. 3.1), was sent in 61 BCE to mop up the brigands who were remnants of the followings of Spartacus and Catiline. Patterson (2010, 615–16) summarizes the situation nicely: “A series of problems continued to affect the Italian countryside in the years following Sulla's dictatorship: the revolt of M. Aemilius Lepidus in 78, which culminated in a march on Rome; attacks by pirates, who raided the coast by attacking the ports of Ostia and Caieta and even abducted two praetors (Plu. Pomp. 24; Cic. Man. 33). In 73 and 72, Spartacus' rebel slaves caused destruction across Italy, especially in the south…. Indeed, Italy in the first century BC, with its displaced peasantry and military veterans, provides a classic illustration of the conditions in which rural banditry typically tends to flourish.” 15. RRC 257; Howgego (2013, 83) says the coin “commemorated the eventual enfranchisement of the Italians after the Social War.” 16. The census figure of 463,000 for 86/85 BCE is too low to believe that many Italians, who were, thanks to the lex Julia, eligible for Roman citizenship, had been enrolled in that census. Cf. Hier. Chron. P. 151, (Helm, 1926): descriptione Romae facta inventa sunt hominum CCCCLXIII milia. The figure for 115/114, as given by Livy's epitomator, is 394,336. See Liv. Per. 63; Mouritsen 1998, 168. For a discussion of the confusion surrounding the census of 86/85 and of competing theories, see de Ligt 2012, 112–16. The question of whether the census was still centralized or conducted by local officials in municipia bears on the

issue, but it has not been satisfactorily resolved. See ibid., 115–16. 17. For the relationship between Italian unrest and the so-called Catilinarian conspiracy, see Stewart 1995. 18. Davies, Jackson, Marshall, et al. 1978, 165. Paterson (ibid.) argues that most of the consuls' reforms followed pre-existing trends and, thus, that we should see their work as the continuation of an existing movement. 19. CAH IX2 225, 327–29. Wiseman (ibid.) observes that the lustrum had a religious function as a response to the disasters of the preceding sixteen years. Among the problems addressed was the perception of elite sacrilege such as the alleged affairs of Crassus and Catiline with Vestals. 20. While one cannot dismiss the existence of tension between Pompey and Crassus, which is clearly attested in the sources (Sal. Hist. 4.51; Suet. Jul. 19.2; Plu. Crass. 12.2–3; Pomp. 23.1–2; App. BC 1.121), it is difficult to trace its origins or gauge its seriousness in the years 71 and 70. Appian's account implausibly appears to place the conflict before their entry into Rome (see n. 5 in the present chapter). Like Vervaet, Seager (2002, 36) seems to find Appian credible: “But [Crassus] was jealous, however unjustly, of Pompeius' Spanish triumph, and his resentment was deep and enduring: despite periods of uneasy cooperation there was from this point on no love lost between the two men.” Ward (1977, 105–8) speculates, on no clear evidence, that the fallout had to do with jury reform. His general characterization of the relationship (99) is somewhat more believable: “Despite temporary truces, rivalry always colored Crassus's relationship with Pompey.” Crassus likely took an active role in bringing about his own reconciliation with Pompey through the help of a group both men had benefited, the equites. Cf. Ward 1977, 108–9. 21. Plu. Crass. 12.2. 22. Plu. Pomp. 21.4–5. 23. Plu. Pomp. 23.1–2; Crass. 12.3–4. 24. Plu. Crass. 11.2. 25. Plu. Pomp. 22.1–2; Crass. 12.1. 26. Plu. Crass. 11.8. For a list of ovations awarded for putting down a slave revolt, see Marshall 1972, 672. Plutarch (Marc. 22) elsewhere comments on the distinction between the ovation and the triumph. Marshall (669–73) argues that Crassus' ovation was the customary honor and that the Senate added distinction to him by allowing him to wear the laurel crown. It is difficult to see how the ovation can be used as evidence of Crassus' anger toward Pompey. 27. Cic. Pis. 58; Plin. Nat. 15.125; Gel. 5.6.23. 28. Ward (1977, 102–3) notes, “Most modern scholars accept the view that they did cooperate in the restoration of tribunician powers and then fell into constant disagreement.” Cf. Gelzer 1959, 64–65. 29. See Cic. Att. 4.2.6 for the necessity of consular cooperation in holding a census. Plutarch (Pomp. 22.4–6) describes Pompey's participation in the recognitio equitum that occurred in connection with the census that year. 30. Pompey's grandiosity during the recognitio equitum may have sparked jealousy in Crassus. See Plu. Pomp. 22.5–6 and the discussion that follows in the present chapter. 31. See n. 20 in the present chapter. 32. On Sulla, the Italians, and the decision not to hold a census, see Santangelo 2007b, 67; Coskun 2004. Those who possessed citizenship and had been enrolled in the thirty-five tribes but had not been enrolled in a census could not vote in the Comitia Centuriata. The latter body elected the consuls, praetors, and curule aediles. See Wiseman 1969, 61–62, 65–66. 33. For a discussion of the range of legislative measures that might be considered a part of this reform package, see Dzino 2002. 34. Sal. Hist. 4.45, 47 Maur.; Plu. Pomp. 21.4; App. BC 1.121. On the tribunate in particular, see Cic. Ver. 44–45. 35. Ward (1977, 104) sees the census as another area where Crassus and Pompey cooperated. See n. 20 in the present chapter. 36. Gruen (1974, 30) argues that the reform was not aimed at judicial corruption, since it placed men poorer than senators on the juries who were free from prosecution for bribery. Ergo, there were other reasons for including these men—equites and tribuni aerarii—on juries. 37. Gruen 1974, 29. Seager (2002, 37) opines that the fact that the court legislation was not passed until the fall suggests that this was of less interest to Pompey. To the contrary, Pompey may have waited on this

legislation until the census had been conducted, when its actual impact on Italian political power in Rome could be fully appreciated. L. Cotta, brother of the consuls of 74 and 75, passed the law. The bill divided the juries between the Senate and the other two groups. Cf. Cic. Phil. 1.20; Vell. 2.32.3. 38. Many thousands of Italian negotiatores fell victim to Mithradates' Asian Vespers. Amiotti (1980, 132–39) has argued that many of the victims were clients of Marius. 39. Seager (2002, 37–38) shows how Pompey's personal ties with Sicily would have involved him in Verres' prosecution behind the scenes, even if he did not participate openly. For the political importance of Cicero's role in the prosecution, see Vasaly 2009. Cicero's prosecution was tied up in the debate about the composition of juries. 40. Cic. Ver. 5.163, ap. Asc. 76; Vell. 2.30.4; Plu. Pomp. 22; [Asc.] 189 St. Cf. Plu. Pomp. 23.1–2. 41. The lex Iunia of 126, which sought to expel Italians from Rome, attests to the presence of a sizable number of Italians in Rome in the Late Republic. See Cic. Brut. 109; Off. 11.47; Fest. 388 L; Kaster 2006, 187. 42. Perhaps the presence of Italian allied soldiers outside Rome gave rise to the accusation that Pompey and Crassus failed to dismiss their armies. 43. Plu. Sull. 30. 2–3; Sen. Cl. 1.12.2; D.C. 33 fr. 109.5. 44. Sal. Hist. 3.38.8 Maur.; Asc. 67, 78; [Asc.] 255. Kelley (2006, 183) proposes that C. Cotta, who accompanied Sulla on his return to Italy, was one of the restitui who took part in Sulla's triumph (Plu. Sull. 34.1). Cotta's political alignment makes less tenable the contention that supporting the restoration of the tribunate was anti-Sullan or revolutionary. On Cotta and the restoration of the tribunate, see also CAH IX2 211; Gruen 1974, 26–27; Seager 2002, 33. 45. Plu. Pomp. 22.5–6. Of the political significance of the census, Seager (2002, 39) writes that “conduct of the census may well have fostered his clientelae, especially in the Transpadane region.” This statement serves as a fine example of the underestimation of the significance of the census. As Ward (1977, 25) points out, “The holding of a new census was part of growing popular demands (Cic. Div. Caec. 8), and the successful completion of this first census since 86 resulted in just what the optimates feared, the enrollment of large numbers of new voters owing debts to Pompey and his supporters.” Cf. Taylor 1960, 120; Wiseman 1969, 65. 46. Plin. Nat. 8.2; Plu. Pomp. 14.4. This stumble occurred during his first triumph, when he was a young man in his twenties. The year was 81 or 80. Cf. Seager 2002, 29. Pliny (8.2) cites Dionysus' triumph over India as the precedent for using elephants this way. Note that, like Marius, who had also engaged in an unusual Hellenistic performance in using Dionysus' cantharus (V. Max. 3.6.6), Pompey had defeated enemies in Africa. His troops had there declared him imperator and called him Magnus. This might suggest that the Romans made some association between victory in Africa (or on a foreign continent in general) and Alexander the Great's conquests. 47. Sulla accorded Pompey the unusual honor of coming out to greet the young victor as he returned to Rome (adventus), and on a subsequent occasion, he addressed Pompey as Magnus. See Plu. Pomp. 8.2, 13.4. Thus the Alexander association was firmly in place before the elephant incident. See Greenhalgh 1980, 27–28. 48. Matt. 19.24. 49. Mommsen 1887, 397–400; Nicolet 1966, 71–73; Demougin 1988, 150–56. 50. Plu. Pomp. 22.5–6. On the significance of the Temple of Castor in the Late Republic, see Sumi 2009, 169–73. See map 1 in the present book. 51. Plutarch (Pomp. 19.5) mentions that Pompey earlier had his lictors lower their fasces when approaching Metellus after an engagement with Sertorius near the river Sucro. Pliny (Nat. 7.30.112) reports that Pompey also had his lictors lower their fasces when he entered the home of Posidonius. Cinna lowered his consular fasces when making his appeal to the army at Capua. See App. BC 1.65. On the symbolic authority of the lictors, see Nippel 1984, 22–23. On lictors and their organization more generally, see Purcell 1983, 148–52; Jones 1949. 52. Plu. Pomp. 22.6: εἶθ ὁ μὲν πρεσβύτερος ἠρώτησε: “Πυνθάνομαί σου, ὦ Πομπήϊε Μάγνε, εἰ πάσας ἐστράτευσαι τὰς κατὰ νόμον στρατείας;” Πομπήϊος δὲ μεγάλῃ φωνῇ, “Πάσας,” εἶπεν, “ἐστράτευμαι, καὶ πάσας ὑπ᾽ἐμαυτῷ αὐτοκράτορι.” 53. Ibid. 22.3. Hillman (1992, 130) argues persuasively that, in this instance, Plutarch intended to depict

Pompey as a man who was much more effective as a general than as a politician, by contrasting his effectiveness in this display with his inability to work with Crassus. This highlights the historiographical distortion at work regarding both the political relationship between the two consuls and the significance of Pompey's behavior in the recognitio equitum. 54. Henderson (1963, 62) considers Plutarch's account apocryphal because these knights are elsewhere referred to as youth. 55. On the raising of the legions, see Plu. Pomp. 6. On the greeting, see ibid. 8.2. 56. Ibid. 14.3. 57. On the lex annalis, see App. BC 1.100; Fraccaro 1956–57, 225ff. 58. Nicolet (1966) contradicts himself by saying, first, that Pompey was “consul designé” on this occasion (71) and, later, that Pompey “vint revêtu de ses insignes consulaires” (72). Since Pompey entered the consulship the day after he triumphed (December 29), he was consul, not consul designate, when he participated in the recognitio equitum. On the timing of the triumph, see Vell. 2.30.2: sed Pompeius, hoc quoque triumpho adhuc eques Romanus, ante diem quam consulatum iniret, curru urbem invectus est. 59. McDonnell 2006, 151–58. 60. For the equestrian statue of Sulla, see RRC 401; Cic. Phil. 9.6.13; App. BC 1.97. 61. See n. 51 on the dismissal of lictors. 62. Plu. Mar. 12.2, 5. 63. Verg. A. 1.148–53. 64. Both men, L. Gellius Publicola and Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus, fielded legions against Spartacus. Cf. Gruen 1974, 44; MRR 2.126–27. 65. Pompey could boast of the unprecedented distinction of having triumphed twice as an eques, a fact that his participation in the recognitio as consul only further emphasized. On the unusual nature of the honor of triumphing as an eques, see Cic. Man. 62; V. Max. 8.15.8; Vell. 2.30.2; Plin. Nat. 7.96; Plu. Pomp. 23.2. 66. App. BC 1.100; Liv. Per. 89.3. See Hill 1932. 67. Nicolet 1980, 50–52. Nicolet (50) quotes Dumézil's (1943, 188) insightful description of the census as “siting a man, an act or an opinion etc. in his or its correct place in the hierarchy, with all the practical consequences this entails, and doing so by a just public assessment, by a solemn act of praise or blame” (trans. Falla). As Nicolet (52) states, “Moral character played a part in admission to the privileged orders of the equites and senators, from which one might be expelled by the censor's opprobrious nota.” 68. See chapter 1, n. 60. 69. Plu. Sull. 9.4. 70. On Sulla and the census proper, see Williamson 2005, 342–43. 71. On the calamities and the trial of the Vestals, see the discussion at the beginning of this chapter. The notorious bribery of jurors during the trial of Oppianicus, who stood accused of attempting to murder his stepson by poison, is one particularly egregious example. The opportunistic tribune L. Quinctius initiated proceedings against the iudex Junius as his first step in exploiting anti-senatorial sentiment. See Cic. Clu. 77; Gruen 1974, 33–34; Riggsby 1999, 77–78. Clearly, though, the abuses of the proscriptions fostered and encouraged an element of lawlessness among the Sullan elite. The sordid reputations and crimes of men like Oppianicus and Lentulus Sura have been preserved in the historical record, but there were undoubtedly more. 72. MRR 2.126–27. Cicero (Clu. 127) mentions that only two of these men were expelled for judicial bribery. The censors of 117 ejected thirty-two men from the Senate, exactly half the number Pompey's censors threw out. See Liv. Per. 62. 73. See n. 49. On the holding of the recognitio during the transvectio, see McDonnell 2006, 188. Suetonius (Aug. 38.3) thus got it correct: equitum turmas frequenter recognovit, post longam intercapedinem reducto more transvectionis. On the confusion surrounding the two ceremonies, see Swan 2004, 205–6. For the view that the two ceremonies were separate but later combined by Augustus, see Demougin 1988, 150–156. Weinstock (1937, 10–24) argued that the previously religious ceremony of the transvectio was brought under the authority of the censors in 304. Elsewhere, Weinstock (1957, 215–16 n. 23) notes that one of those censors, Fabius, later vowed a temple to Jupiter Victor in connection with the Battle of Sentinum in 295. Fabius' interest in displays of victory in the context of Italian conflicts suggests the possibility that his efforts to refashion the transvectio belong in the same context. According to Livy (10.23.12), the curule

aediles Cnaeus and Quintus Ogulnius had a stone footpath placed to run from the Porta Capena to the Temple of Mars, which, as Muccigrosso (2006, 199) notes, “covered exactly the distance along the Via Appia…as did Fabius' transvectio equitum.” The Ogulnii were political allies of the Fabii. 74. For the moral dimension of the recognitio, see Astin 1988, 14–34. 75. Cic. Ver. 1.129–54. According to Cicero, Verres had falsely found fault with the contractor's work in order to extort money from him. 76. Greenridge (1894, 94–95) notes, “When further we remember that, at least as late as the period of the Gracchi, military service, in the camp or the province, was a necessary qualification for a magistracy, and that this service, which for the cavalry was ten years, had to be proved before the censors, we see how the military discharge granted by these officials became of political importance.” If the requirement of a decade of military service were indeed moribund by 70, Pompey's display would have appealed especially to the conservative sensibilities of some Romans. 77. D.H. 6.13. 78. Scullard 1981, 164–65. 79. D.H. 6.13.4; Plin. Nat. 15.19; McDonnell 2006, 317 n. 68. The ceremonial costume of the knights who participated in the transvectio was similar to the garb of the triumphator. The triumphator wore the toga picta and tunica palmata, while the knights in the transvectio wore the toga trabea. The triumphator wore a laurel crown, the commander celebrating an ovatio wore a myrtle crown, and the knight in the transvectio wore a crown of olive. The triumphing general was drawn into the city in a chariot drawn by four white horses, while the knight in the transvectio rode his warhorse. There are even parallels in the symbolism of the geographical itinerary. The triumph started in the Campus Martius, Mars' Field, while the transvectio equitum began at the Temple of Mars on the Appian Way. While the triumph passed through the porta triumphalis, the transvectio passed through the Porta Capena. Both processions passed through the Forum and made their way up to the Capitoline. 80. Plu. Pomp. 22.6. 81. Plu. Mar. 12.2.5. 82. Rawson (1970, 33), notes, “He used the censor's review of members of the equestrian order as an occasion to advertise both his military record and his meteoric rise from equestrian to consul.” 83. It is important to stipulate that the new Italian equites would not have been equites equo publico but equites in the broader sense, whom Wiseman calls “quasi-equites.” Wiseman (1970, 79) states, “At the lustrum held by the censors who were finally elected in 70, the great increase in the number of citizens enrolled by them must imply at least a proportional increase in the number of quasi-equites with more than 400,000 sesterces. Perhaps something was done for their aspirations to prestige by the lex Aurelia passed in that year, if the introduction of the judicial panel of tribuni aerarii supports such an interpretation. It is clear from the sources that these men had the equestrian census, but were legally distinct from the equites proper…; it may be inferred, from Cicero's remarks on the large number of Atinate tribuni aerarii who supported Cn. Plancius at his trial, that the term applied not just to men on the Aurelian juries but denoted a large ordo analogous to the equestrian order, from which the jurors were to be drawn.” 84. Later, Pompeian allusions to the divine twins would be more apparent in the Argonautic associations of the Mithradatic spoils in the Theater of Pompey. On Argonautic allusions in the Theater of Pompey, see Murray 2011, 58–67; Braund 1994, 12–13. The strength of Pompey's later association with the Dioscuri may be attested by the Caesarian propaganda that made the twins announce Caesar's victory at Pharsalus. See D.C. 41.61.4; Sumi 2009, 175. 85. Sumi 2009, 177. 86. Cic. Ver. 54: non committam ut tum haec res iudicetur, cum haec frequentia totius Italiae Roma discesserit, quae convenit uno tempore undique comitiorum ludorum censendique causa. 87. Rawson 1970, 30–37. 88. Ward 1977, 101–2. On the banquet and tithe, see Plu. Crass. 2.3. 89. On the ovation, see Marshall 1972, 671–73. On the use of laurel wreaths in the Ara Maxima cult and when paying the tithe to Hercules, see Macr. 3.12.1; Serv. A. 8.276. On the use of laurel wreaths at the rites of the Ara Maxima as part of ritus Graecus, see Scheid 1995. 90. On Sulla and Hercules, see Keaveney 1983, 67, 78; Ramage 1991, 118–19; Sumi 2002b, 418–19. 91. On Sulla's polluctum, see Plu. Sull. 35.1. Wiseman (2000, 108–14) argues that Sulla established Games

of Hercules, which were celebrated in 78, evidence for which appears in a series of denarii produced by the moneyer M. Volteius (RRC 385). Keaveney (2005a, 217–23) disagrees with much about Wiseman's thesis but still concludes (223), “Games that were lowly fell into the hands of Sulla, the great devotee of Hercules, and it was he who gave them their enhanced standing.” 92. On the restoration of the Temple of Hercules Custos, see Ov. Fast. 6.212; Wissowa 1912, 276. For Hercules Sullanus, see TDAR s.v. Hercules Sullanus; NTDAR s.v. Hercules Sullanus. 93. Stat. Silv. 4.6.85–86; Mart. 9.43. 94. According to Strabo (17.1.43), Alexander the Great desired to visit Siwah in emulation of Heracles. For the association of Alexander with Heracles during the king's lifetime, see Bosworth 1996, 98–102, 116–19, 164–69, 182–83. 95. V. Max. 3.6.6. 96. Crawford speculates that in Sullan family lore Hercules helped Sulla capture Jugurtha. See RRC 426/2 and 4a, along with discussion on p. 450. 97. See Orlin (2010, 42) for Tusculan Hercules. On the history, diffusion, and popularity of Hercules in Italy, see Bradley 2005, 129–51; Wonterghem 1992; 1999. On Horace's use of Hercules as a symbol of Italian unity, see Morgan 2005. 98. Hem. Origo Gentis Romae 6.7; D.H. 1.33; Liv. 1.7; Verg. A. 8.184–305; Ov. Fast. 1.543–86; Prop. 4.9; Plu. Q.R. 60; Macr. 1.12.28. For discussion of the story in its different versions, see Winter 1910, 193–270; Bayet 1926, 98–102; Staples 1998, 17–24. 99. Rawson 1970, 32–33. 100. On the association of the Appennine cult of Hercules with pastoralism and transhumance, see Bradley 2005, 138–40. See Small (1982, 24–29) for Cacus as cattle thief. Cassius Hemina's version of the myth of Hercules in Rome features Cacus as a cattle thief. This Cacus is not, however, a monster. See Origo Gentis Romae 6.7. 101. On the polluctum of Crassus, see Plu. Crass. 2. Pompey continued to associate himself with Hercules later in his career. He erected in his theater a colossal bronze statue of Hercules holding the apples of the Hesperides. On the bronze Hercules, see Köhler 1864, 227–30; Pellegrini 1865, 201–3. The retrieval of the apples was the second-to-last labor of Hercules. The Hesperides were located, according to Strabo (3.2.13), at or near the Iberian Peninsula. Thus the statue may be taken as an allusion to Pompey's accomplishments in the West. At the same time, the labor suggests the triumph of Pompey, as Hercules, over death. See Davies 1988, 278–79. Sertorius supposedly visited the Isles of the Blest during his travels, so Pompey may be recalling his victory over Sertorian forces in particular. On this journey, see Plu. Sert. 8–9; Sal. Hist. 1.100. Plutarch places the journey near Libya, while Sallust places it near Gades. The islands in question may have been Madeira and Porto. See Konrad 1994, 106–7. 102. Pliny (NH 34.57) refers to Pompey's temple of Hercules ad Circum Maximum as the aedes Pompei Magni, while Vitruvius (3.3.5) employs the term Hercules Pompeianus. It is possible that the Hercules of Pompey's temple was Hercules Pompeianus. TDAR s.v. Hercules Pompeianus, Aedes; NTDAR s.v. Hercules Pompeianus, Aedes. The most famous illustration of this conception of the relationship between Hercules and Rome is, of course, that found in book 8 of the Aeneid, where, in honor of Hercules' defeat of Cacus, the people of Evander's Pallanteum establish cult for Hercules at the Ara Maxima. 103. Gruen (1974, 46) notes, “The size and disposition of the senate, the cursus honorum, the system of criminal courts and legislation, civilian control over provincial commands—all the fundamental pillars of the aristocratic system remained intact. By 70 the senatorial leadership was more secure and firmly in control than ever before. The Sullan constitution had been altered only slightly in form, not at all in intent.” 104. Marius' ham-handed use of radical tribunes such as Saturninus and Sulpicius Rufus amply demonstrated his limitations as a politician. 105. Cicero would become consul in 63 BCE, while Balbus, from Gades, would eventually become a partisan of Rome's first emperor Augustus and celebrate the final triumph of the Republican era, in 19 BCE. 106. On Sulla as a new Servius Tullius, see Keaveny 2005b, 159. See App. BC 1.266. Servius Tullius was credited with establishing the census. See D.H. 4.16–22. 107. Plu. Sert. 22.3–4. 108. Weigel 1992, 50. 109. Fears 1981b, 882–83. See Cic. Att. 8.16.1; Tusc. 1.86; Vell. 2.48.2; Plu. Pomp. 57.1–3; D.C. 41.6.3–4.

110. Cic. Man. 13–16.

Page 88 →

CHAPTER 3 Cicero's Epic and Civic Theologies of Departure and Return The focus of this chapter is Cicero's departure for exile, his return, and the performances and literary depictions through which he theologized both. Because of Cicero's influence on the political theologies of Caesar and Augustus, it is important to understand the post-consulship phase of Cicero's version of the theology of Rome's returning savior. Like his contemporary Pompey, Cicero was an eyewitness to the events of the Social War and the civil war between Marius and Sulla. He also followed Pompey's meteoric rise in the decades after Sulla, observing up close such events as Pompey's return in 71 and consulship in 70. Cicero was therefore very familiar with the evolution of personal political theology in this period. It is also clear from Cicero's writings that Marius and Sulla both loomed large in his imagination over the course of his career and also informed his selfrepresentation.1 As mentioned in the first chapter, it was Cicero who reported the fact that Lentulus Sura tried to exploit an oracle concerning the “Third Cornelius.”2 Cicero lionized the memory of his fellow Arpinan Marius in terms consistent with the most positive Marian propaganda.3 In making his argument in favor of Pompey's command against Mithradates, Cicero adopted Sulla's Page 89 → theology of the secular savior and applied it to Pompey.4 Then, during his consulship, Cicero presented himself as the “man of the saeculum” who saved Rome from destruction. It is thus clear that Cicero both was aware of the memory of Sulla and Marius' personal theologies and employed it for his own ends.

Catiline and Pater Patriae In his rhetoric, Cicero exploited themes of secular crisis and the darker side of the Sullan legacy, with the aim of both casting a pall on the reputations of his enemies and also inflating his own importance as a savior of the Republic. He first utilized the negative side of Sulla's legacy when he prosecuted Verres in 70.5 Cicero later reached his apex of honor during his consulship in 63, when he revealed and then quashed the so-called Catilinarian conspiracy and was awarded the honorific title pater patriae. The rhetorical pyrotechnics that made his attack on Catiline so successful involved drawing on the memory of Sullan violence to paint a horrific image of the conspiracy and its plans—a connection that was easy to exploit thanks to Catiline's involvement in the Sullan cause.6 Prompted by secular omens in 65 that haruspices interpreted as portending the end of Rome and its empire, Cicero represented the year of his consulship as a fatalis annus Page 90 → and perhaps promulgated the story, reminiscent of the Lavernan prodigy, of fire leaping up at the altar when his wife was celebrating the rites of Bona Dea—a sign she allegedly interpreted as urging him to take the extreme measure of executing the conspirators.7 In his view, Rome was now reborn thanks to him.8 It was fitting, then, that Cicero's suppression of the so-called Catilinarian conspiracy, although not uncontroversial, won him sincere appreciation and lofty honors. People may have genuinely believed that Rome had been on the brink of annihilation and that it would have fallen but for Cicero's suppression of the conspiracy. Crassus delivered a glowing speech praising Cicero's salvation of Rome; and Q. Lutatius Catulus, rebuilder of the Temple of Capitoline Jupiter, successfully moved that Cicero be given the title pater patriae, an honor of more than blandly metaphorical significance.9 Cicero was, in fact, the first Roman to be thus honored officially. The title pater patriae carried not only the cultural respect accorded to fatherhood and thus a recognition of Cicero's paternal care for the state but also a symbolic kinship with Rome's founder Romulus and those Roman deities that bore the epithet pater.10 As a way of signaling his new prestige, Cicero purchased a house on the Palatine, the hill on which Romulus first founded the city.11 Page 91 → Cicero's new lofty position, when added to the questionable legality of Cicero's execution of Catiline's co-conspirators, made him an easy target for accusations of tyranny, which his enemy Clodius would later exploit to the fullest. Nevertheless, Cicero's consulship and handling of the Catilinarian conspiracy provided Cicero an opportunity, unique given his status as a novus homo lacking any serious military accomplishment, to present himself as a savior and father of Rome.

Theology and Performance in the Exile of Cicero

The way in which Cicero became a savior and father of the city during his consulship was revolutionary, inasmuch as it did not involve violent civil war or any military achievement. Thus Cicero expanded the possibilities for how one could play this role, beyond the models of Sulla and Pompey. At times, his selfpromotion strikes one as overreaching, such as when he sought to ride on the coattails of Marius' legacy or Pompey's successes.12 Nevertheless, Cicero's self-representation had important ramifications for the future ideology of the Principate and is thus worthy of careful examination. A key aspect of Cicero's self-representation was his theological construction of his departure into and return from exile. Cicero's exile at the hands of his bitter enemy Clodius was a humiliating experience that drove him to suicidal despair. As this chapter seeks to show, Cicero nonetheless deftly employed a wide variety of theological gestures in order to reshape perceptions of his exile and continue his fight against his enemies upon his return. Cicero's theological efforts can be seen in his public performances, oratory, epic poetry, and personal letters in this period and later. A large part of the value of Cicero's case, then, is in the fulsome nature of the evidence. While Cicero's theologization of his exile would not have the same immediate historical impact as the civil war victories of Sulla, Caesar, or Octavian, Cicero's intellectual stature provided him a kind of auctoritas in his dealings with Caesar and in his postmortem intellectual influence on Augustan Rome. Cicero was forced into exile in February of 58, when his enemy, the Page 92 → tribune Clodius, passed a law reaffirming and expanding the lex Sempronia against capital punishment without a trial before the people. Without naming names, the law effectively targeted Cicero—the man who had executed co-conspirators of Catiline on the authority of the senatus consultum ultimum, or Ultimate Decree.13 Having failed to find a defender (even in his old ally Pompey), Cicero prepared to flee from the city into exile, to avoid prosecution under the law. His initial departure from the city took the form of a solemn profectio. He and a group of friends and family assumed mourning dress and ascended the Capitoline Hill, where the once savior of the Republic dedicated to Capitoline Jupiter a small statue of Minerva taken from his home and called her the “protector of the city.”14 He departed for Sicily and then Greece, where he remained until Clodius' reign of terror on the streets of Rome reached such a pitch that pleas for Cicero's return found willing ears. Subsequent to Cicero's departure into exile, Clodius passed legislation to make Cicero's exile official, which enabled Clodius to seize and dispose of the exile's property. Under the questionable cover of this law, Clodius either destroyed or greatly defaced Cicero's home and proceeded to build a shrine to Libertas over part of the space it had occupied, in a gesture evoking the memory of the destruction of the homes of Spurius Maelius, Spurius Cassius, and Manlius Capitolinus on the grounds that they were aiming at kingship.15 Both the demolition and construction were in keeping with Clodius' argument that Cicero was a tyrant from whom Clodius sought to free the people. These acts may also suggest that Cicero's home was imbued with an unusual significance. Located next to the Porticus Catuli, which Q. Lutatius Catulus had built to commemorate his victory over the Cimbri, Cicero's home had been a monument to Cicero's role in saving the city from Catiline, an act that Cicero intended to liken to Catulus' military achievement Page 93 → by associating the two structures with each other.16 After receiving the title pater patriae, Cicero's house might be looked upon as a lesser reflection of another Palatine residence of a pater patriae, the hut of Romulus.17 Clodius' shrine of Libertas, which was probably a renovation and repurposing of the Porticus Catuli, took in part of Cicero's former property and was attached to Clodius' own house, in a manner that prefigured the Temple of Palatine Apollo and the house of Augustus.18 One must therefore read Clodius' treatment of Cicero's house in light of the significance Cicero attached to his house. Clodius' transmogrification of Cicero's house stood as a symbol of personal freedom and the political power of the plebs, in direct challenge to Cicero's own suggestion that his personal residence, the home of a pater patriae and his gods, was worthy of reverence.19

Theology in Ciceronian Epic One of the principal means through which Cicero theologized the events of his consulship and exile was epic poetry. When Cicero was dissatisfied with his friends' efforts to memorialize in literature his achievement in suppressing the conspiracy, he undertook to write about the events in the form of an epic poem entitled De Consulatu Suo. In this poem, Cicero depicted himself as standing in the presence of the gods and receiving there a commission Page 94 → from Jupiter to guard the city of Rome.20 Extant testimony of the poem's contents also

helps elucidate the significance of Cicero's dedication of Minerva on the Capitoline. After his return from exile, Cicero, speaking to the Senate in order to obtain the right to rebuild his house, mentioned that Clodius was in the habit of poking fun at Cicero for calling himself Jupiter and claiming that Minerva was his sister, an accusation that may have been intended in part to liken Cicero to Demetrius Poliorcetes, who actually did claim that Athena was his elder sister.21 Cicero turned the joke on Clodius by observing that Clodius' infamous relationship with his own sister gave him a clearer right to the name Jove. While it is doubtful that Clodius' accusations were accurate, they suggest that Cicero sought to associate himself closely with these gods in his De Consulatu Suo, rendering him vulnerable to Clodius' wit.22 Indeed, it is possible that Clodius' charge that Cicero affected a divine identity may have derived from Cicero's own use of the title pater patriae in De Consulatu Suo. References to the De Consulatu Suo in pseudo-Sallust's Invectiva in Ciceronem and Quintilian provide more detail regarding Cicero's personal theologization in this epic.23 In the Invectiva, the author quoted Cicero reporting being sent down to Rome from a council of the gods with the commission of serving as the city's guardian.24 Quintilian referred to the council but not Page 95 → to the commission.25 Both pseudo-Sallust and Quintilian also alluded to Cicero's claim that Minerva taught him the orator's art.26 This reference can be anchored to another fragment of the second book of De Consulatu Suo, in which the Muse Urania mentioned Cicero's education in Athens, a natural context or foundation for Cicero's reference to the oratorical education Minerva provided him.27 As Harrison has persuasively argued, the references to Cicero's poetry in both pseudo-Sallust and Quintilian are drawn from the De Consulatu Suo, which was composed by Cicero before his exile, and not from the De Temporibus Suis, which was never published.28 The timing of these epic references to Cicero's interactions with the gods is important because it bears on the issue of Cicero's departure from Rome as a theological performance. It is surely not a coincidence that Cicero staged a pre-exilic profectio in which Jupiter and Minerva figured prominently. Cicero's purpose in including these gods in his profectio was to allude to the divine supporters who had appeared in his De Consulatu Suo in such a way that it might shame the friends and associates who had either abandoned or betrayed him. It seems highly likely that Pompey and Caesar would have been among those who had read Cicero's epic about his consulship. They would have been treated therein to the poet's description of his visit to the council of the gods, with the attendant claims that Jupiter gave him a mandate to be the guardian of the city and that Minerva identified herself as Cicero's patron. That Cicero would take time in his departure from the city to allude to De Consulatu Suo, wherein he recounted his salvation of the state, is not at all surprising, since the legislation Clodius used to drive Cicero out of the city concerned the same events. By dedicating his private image of Minerva as custos urbis on the Capitoline, it was as though Cicero were returning to the divine council to resign the gods' commission. Since he was no longer able to use the arts Minerva had taught him to perform the mission that Jupiter had entrusted to him, Minerva would Page 96 → have to guard the city herself. As Bodel has observed, Minerva must have agreed to the move.29 Her evocatio out of Cicero's home eerily foreshadowed the structure's destruction, in a manner that likened it to the transfer of the Palladium, also an image of Minerva, from fallen Troy to Italy.

The Dream of Marius As Cicero journeyed through Italy into exile, he had a dream en route to Brundisium.30 He reported this dream in the De Divinatione, written in 44 BCE.31 In the dream, Cicero encountered his fellow Arpinan Marius, who, accompanied by lictors bearing fasces wreathed in laurel, asked Cicero why he was so downtrodden. Cicero responded that he had been driven into exile by his enemies, at which point Marius took him by the hand, told him to take courage, and then ordered his senior lictor to lead Cicero into the Temple of Honos and Virtus, where he should find safety (salus).32 Upon hearing the dream, Cicero's freedman Sallustius cried out that Cicero would have a swift and glorious return. As it turned out, the Senate later passed the decree for Cicero's recall from exile while meeting in the same temple that appeared in his dream. One cannot easily dismiss the strong possibility that Cicero's recollection of the dream was transformed, if even unconsciously, in light of later events. It is therefore difficult to ascertain the reliability of Page 97 → Cicero's later report of a dream he had many years before. It could be that Marius appeared in the initial dream as one who, like Cicero, had fled Rome to escape his personal enemies. As a young man, Cicero had listened to Marius describe his personal misery as an exile, and upon Cicero's own return, Cicero would speak of the deep impression Marius' speech had made on him.33 There can be

no doubt, then, that the exile's mind had turned to the memory of Marius' speech. Cicero might also have taken comfort in the realization that Marius had returned from exile, although the elder consular died not two years later. Another possibility, however, is that Cicero recounted the dream accurately and that his friends, who had heard him talk about it before, purposely arranged the vote for his recall to take place in the Temple of Honos and Virtus in fulfillment of it. The overwhelmingly positive tenor of the dream, however, raises suspicions. It is difficult to believe that Cicero—a man who was devastated by the abandonment of friends, including Pompey; who was driven out of the city in an act of repudiation of the heroism on which he founded his reputation; and who claimed to have considered suicide—dreamed of a triumphal Marius guiding him into the Temple of Honos and Virtus so soon after leaving Rome to go into exile. Yet possibly as early as 59, Cicero had written an epic poem about Marius in which he referred to the divine signs Jupiter sent Marius, as Rome's savior, foretelling a triumphal reditus.34 Perhaps Cicero's poem about Marius had offered an epic version of an event that Marius had recounted in his speech of 88 concerning his exile. This possibility seems more likely given the resonance between Cicero's reference to the fausta signa suae laudis reditusque that his epic Marius witnessed, on the one hand, and Marius' appearance as a triumphator in Cicero's exilic dream, on the other. Already identifying with Marius as a conservator of Rome, Cicero appears to have closely identified with his exilic experience too, perhaps to the point that he had a dream of Marius in which his deceased fellow Page 98 → countryman served as an omen of his eventual return and vindication.35 Accurately or not, Cicero viewed his own career and travails as comparable to those of Marius, and his depiction of the gods' involvement in his exilic departure and return well reflect that. One is also struck by the Sullan nature of Cicero's gesture of using a divinely sent dream to construct a type of epic narrative, ending in Cicero's ultimate vindication and triumph. That Sullan element is also present in Cicero's poem Marius, in which the phrase fausta signa suggests Marius' possession of a felicitas similar to that of Sulla, which, as mentioned in chapter 1 of this book, was in evidence not only in Sulla's dreams but also in the favorable divine signs that appeared to Sulla before he attacked cities.36 As discussed in chapter 1, the felicitas of Marius was also a feature of Sallust's portrait of Marius. There is, thus, an appropriately ambiguous overlapping of the figures of Marius and Sulla in Cicero's thought, and that overlap raises very unpleasant associations concerning a prototypical great man who, ejected from the city, returns to visit a bloody revenge on his opponents. During the Sullan civil war, both Marius and Sulla had returned to Rome and mercilessly slaughtered their enemies. Thus, while Marius' return from exile could be some comfort to Cicero, these darker associations suggest something of Cicero's own fierce anger and desire for revenge. Indeed, the combination of the dream visitation of Marius and the implicit reference to Sulla, who had once dreamed of Bellona giving him the power to strike down his enemies, leaves an unsettling impression.37 What is most striking about Cicero's dream of return is its triumphal imagery. Marius appeared with his lictors bearing fasces wrapped in laurel, as they would on the day of a triumph. One imagines Marius and his army gathered outside of Rome, preparing to cross the pomerium when the Senate has given permission for a triumph. The triumphal imagery is crucially important to the interpretation of Cicero's report of his dream, because it Page 99 → foreshadowed not only that Cicero's return would be decreed by the Senate but also that his homecoming would be triumphal in spirit. The oldest Temple of Honos and Virtus located outside of the Porta Capena had strong triumphal associations.38 Marius also built a Temple of Honos and Virtus from the spoils of his victory over the Cimbri and Teutones and in commemoration of both that victory and the related triumph.39 It was a moment, however, that was not untouched by the jealousy of others. Q. Lutatius Catulus sought to overshadow Marius' achievements and monuments with his own triumph, Temple of Fortuna Huiusce Diei, and memoir.40 Marius' triumphs and subsequent struggles provided Cicero a model for his own shifting fortunes. Ultimately, Marius returned to Rome and had his prophesied seventh consulship. This parallel hints at the future vindication of Cicero's legacy as conservator of Rome during the Catilinarian affair—a legacy that was under attack from Clodius, a man who sought to associate himself with Catulus.41 The triumphal component of the dream of Marius also touches on issues of the relationship between private and public space that were raised by Cicero's departure into exile. Cicero's dedication of the statue of Minerva on the Capitoline had involved transporting a private statue of the goddess from his house on the Palatine to the

Capitolium, translating it from private to public space and thereby changing the image's function and significance. The typical triumph traveled in the opposite direction of Cicero's profectio, drawing its participants from outside the city within the pomerium, then up the Capitoline, and finally back to the house of the triumphator. The Temple of Honos and Virtus, located near Marius' house, raised the issue of the relationship between public and private space in a manner that was applicable to Cicero's own experience during his departure from Rome, the subsequent destruction of his house, and the erection of a shrine of Libertas on the site. The destruction of Cicero's home effectively removed his ritual Page 100 → presence in the city, in that the aedes in which his household gods had resided was now gone. The dream thus provided Cicero new divine patrons in the deceased Marius and the gods Honos and Virtus.42 The importance of Honos and Virtus in this context reminds Cicero's reader that novi homines such as Marius and Cicero might lay claim to deities that highlighted their personal history and merits; in contrast, members of the old Roman nobility could exploit claims of divine and heroic ancestors.43 Upon returning to the city, Cicero could not return to a home laden with the associations that Cicero's achievements and those of its previous owners conferred on it, because it was demolished. Marius' Temple of Honos and Virtus served as a substitute for such a refuge in the dream, but its Marian associations also strongly highlighted the difference between these men and other nobles, in that these Arpinans depended on their own achievements, not an illustrious ancestry, for their claim to honor in Rome. It seems likely, then, that Cicero's dream of Marius, as reported in the De Divinatione, is the product of years of Cicero's rumination on different aspects of his experience of exile. Cicero depicted this experience as a theological narrative, drawn from epic, to explain, justify, and provide shape and purpose to the major events of his life, during which his geographical and legal relationship with the city was in flux. In this narrative, Cicero emerges as a kind of Odysseus figure, who, buffeted by his enemies and feeling abandoned, is rescued by the gods and returned to his home to exact vengeance on his enemies and to restore order in his homeland.44 That Cicero saw himself in this way is strongly suggested by the little we know about his post-exilic epic poem about his life, De Temporibus Suis, which once again featured a divine council, though one at which, unlike the council Page 101 → of the De Consulatu Suo, the author himself was not depicted as present. Of the council in De Temporibus Suis, Harrison hypothesizes that Jupiter, considering the sufferings of Cicero in exile, prepared the way for the consular hero's return to Rome but advised the orator to avoid coming to the immediate attention of his enemies.45 Harrison also suggests that Minerva may have appeared in the council to argue Cicero's case, just as she did for Odysseus in the Odyssey.46 Cicero used a variety of strategies to theologize various events in his career, including both public and private performances and literary self-representations. That his literary productions were clearly related to his public performances raises important questions about the distinction between religious expression and literary form. While it would be fairly easy to dismiss the divine machinery of Cicero's epic poetry as mere literary convention, it is much more difficult to dismiss the influence of the divine councils described in Cicero's autobiographical epic on Cicero's dramatic profectio into exile. The epic's divine council scene provides Cicero's departure with a clear context that is indispensable for a full appreciation of the meaning he intended to convey when he dedicated his personal Minerva on the Capitoline as he departed. Not only is it difficult to imagine Cicero being unaware of the implications, in the context of his epic poem, of his Page 102 → dedication of Minerva as the custos urbis, but it is also difficult to imagine Cicero peevishly and cynically dedicating the statue of Minerva without any intention of leaving his fellow Romans in the goddess' care. Thus one is left with the somewhat uncomfortable realization that Cicero saw his epic, private, and civic theologies, in their interaction with each other, as a form of serious religious expression.47 While he doubtless did not view them as being interchangeable, it was nevertheless the case that they interacted substantively for Cicero in ways that we might not have previously imagined. At one point, Cicero considered revising his divine council in the De Temporibus Suis to include a prophecy of Apollo regarding the disreputable reditus of Gabinius and Piso.48 One is struck by how readily the historical reditus ceremony is fit into an epic apparatus. The religious implications of such returns for the city are one of the most powerful reasons why this should be the case. Cicero meant to contrast the salutary effects of his own reditus from exile with the baleful effects of the returns of Piso and Gabinius. The depictions of those reditus in epic did not detract from their religious significance; epic instead added another dimension to their religious significance.

While Cicero's dream of Marius did not, so far as we know, find its way into De Temporibus Suis, it similarly partakes of an ambiguity involving likely literary artifice and historical personal experience. This personal prophetic experience provided a different theological and narrative framework from that provided later in the De Temporibus Suis, but one that is concerned with similar issues. This suggests that, much as public divine epiphanies and omens contributed to the production of authority and meaning as expressions of the partnership of the gods and humans in the unfolding Page 103 → of history, different media and messages were brought to bear on the same events in Cicero's life in ways that were mutually reinforcing, if not always logically consistent. Cicero saw his return to Rome as divine providence, and he used a variety of evidences and modes of expression to drive that point home. This suggestion is affirmed by other representations of Cicero's return from exile, in which, through a variety of different legal, religious, and narrative tools, Cicero sought to cast the event as triumphal and recover his lost place among the senatorial elite as well as his house, even though it had been demolished by Clodius.49

A Divine Republic? Through his epic poetry and his dream of Marius, Cicero represented his own journey into exile and return in strongly theological terms that assimilated him to the status of both an epic hero and a Republican hero. His profectio performance in dedicating a statue of Minerva as custos urbis was perhaps the most public reference to that epic theme outside of his writings. In his Post Reditum speeches, however, Cicero's self-presentation, while equally dramatic, cut a more traditionally magisterial pose, albeit one that was no less theologically rich and significant.50 In the opening of Ad Quirites, Cicero characterized his departure as an act of devotio, wherein he dedicated himself and his fortune to Jupiter for the safety of the city, as a commander would for his imperiled army.51 Indeed, in the Post Reditum speeches, he set himself in a civic theological context, through which he took on traditional civic roles while the personified Res Publica and Italia eclipsed other gods as the most important figures to share the stage with him.52 Cicero closely identified his own safety with the welfare of the Republic in these speeches.53 He further amplified the pathos by personifying Page 104 → Res Publica and speaking of its death and funeral. In the Pro Sestio in particular, he spoke of a wounded Republic being plundered while it drew its final breaths.54 Cicero's personification of the Republic evokes the Greek and Hellenistic practice of representing cities as goddesses or of identifying tutelary goddesses with their cities.55 Stone carvings in Athens show the city in female anthropomorphic form, extending her hand to visiting embassies. Tutelary goddess figures such as Tyche and Magna Mater were often depicted with mural crowns, a symbol that spoke both to the function of the goddess as a protector of the city and to the strong identification of deity and polis. Greeks worshiped the goddess Roma in the East, whereas the term Roma had a primarily geographic significance at Rome.56 Romans of the Late Republic cast no single goddess in the role of civic guardian, but instead depicted various goddesses as fulfilling that role. Two popular choices were Venus and Magna Mater, but others could fill the role as well. The bloodied and gasping image of Cicero's Res Publica was not explicitly a goddess, but an allusion to such a divine figure could not have been far away from Cicero's and his listeners' minds. Romans did not generally personify Res Publica, and they did not pay her divine cult. This is not to say, however, that the Republic could not be imagined in such a way. Neither does Cicero's representation of Res Publica as mortally wounded and near death strongly militate against the association. After all, Aphrodite herself was wounded in the Iliad, and she was not the only deity who suffered injury.57 Hephaestus, too, was injured when he was cast from Olympus, with the result that he suffered a permanent limp.58 Cicero's strongest indication of the divine status of his personified Res Publica is in her departure from and return to Rome.59 In her departure, Res Page 105 → Publica is reminiscent of the departure of Aidos and Nemesis in Hesiod's Works and Days or Aratus' account of the departure of Dikê.60 Upon the departure of these deities, the world descended into a final nadir of evil and sorrow in the Iron Age, from which there was seemingly no respite or salvation. Res Publica, in Cicero's view, could only reside where the conditions for her existence were favorable, or perhaps she was a gift that only went to those deserving of her. Cicero wanted to stress the relationship between his presence or absence and the location of Res Publica. Where Cicero was absent, Res Publica would be absent also. When Cicero returned, the conditions were once again favorable for the presence of

Res Publica in Rome. Well over a decade after Cicero's exile, his Pro Marcello would build on this association of the state of the Republic with the presence or absence of key individuals. The Pro Marcello, in which Cicero marked the dual returns of himself and Marcellus as a hopeful harbinger of the state of the Republic's return, will be explored in greater detail in the next chapter. In 57, Cicero says that when Res Publica, an exile herself, was restored to Rome, she carried Cicero back along with her.61 Ironically, one is reminded of the return of the tyrant Peisistratus to Athens in the company of his “Athena.”62 It is important to remember, however, that Peisistratus was building on the tradition of Athena's care for heroes like Heracles and Odysseus. Athena not only assisted heroes in battle but accompanied them as they made their way up to the heights of Olympus. Res Publica took on the role of Athena as companion and protector of her hero, Cicero. Like Odysseus returning to a chaotic Ithaca to reclaim his wife, home, and kingdom with the assistance of Athena, Cicero returned to Rome with the support of the Res Publica in order to rejoin his family, reclaim his home, and set Rome aright. Cicero's use of the topos of Athena as the hero's companion is thus consistent with Cicero's theological representation of himself in other contexts, although Res Publica here takes the role of Athena. There is an apparent Page 106 → contradiction here, since Minerva cannot be the custos urbis left on the Capitolium to guard the city in Cicero's absence at the same time that she is Res Publica in exile with Cicero. Cicero's use of Minerva as a model for his Res Publica in the Post Reditum speeches does not, however, make her Minerva. Nevertheless, like Athena-Minerva, she can be viewed as a divine protector.

Cicero, Salus, and the Censorship In addition to theologizing his return from exile through treating Res Publica as his divine patroness in his Post Reditum speeches, Cicero provided a more straightforwardly factual account of his return journey to Rome in an epistle to Atticus.63 One is glad to have the letter inasmuch as it provides elements of historical fact in its description of the events of Cicero's return from exile. Nevertheless, one must imagine that in preparing his letters for publication, Cicero took appropriate care in crafting a literary production that was every bit as artfully crafted as any of his other works.64 Given its acknowledged literary nature, the letter to Atticus may also contain a theological angle worthy of exploration. Did Cicero inject a particular theological message in his depiction of his own arrival in his letter to Atticus? The evidence is sufficiently strong as to be unambiguous. Having left Dyrrachium on the fourth of August in the year 57, Cicero arrived at Brundisium on the fifth. He was there greeted by the sight of his beloved daughter Tullia, whose birthday it happened to be. As chance would have it, the day also marked the dies natalis of the colony of Brundisium, as well as that of the Temple of Salus in Rome, which was located next to Atticus' house.65 Of course, this fortuitous circumstance is perhaps not a coincidence at all. Although it is doubtful that Cicero would have extended his exile in order to time his arrival at Brundisium so significantly, one need not doubt that he, upon finding that a felicitous date was approaching, timed his arrival and coordinated the celebration in such a way as to have Page 107 → the greatest possible impact. Indeed, Kaster suggests that Cicero and his friends, especially Lentulus, coordinated the timing of Cicero's arrival to fall on this significant date.66 At the very least, one can be confident that, after the fact, Cicero saw great significance in the “coincidences” involved in his return to Italy and deliberately drew attention to them in order to make the case that divine providence had a hand in all of it. In his letter to Atticus describing his reditus, Cicero brought together three overlapping spheres of primary concern for the Republican statesman (domus, Roma, and Italia), in a theological framework centering on the topos of birth. Cicero's landing at Brundisium occurred on the birthday of his daughter, the birthday of Brundisium, and the birthday of the Temple of Salus in Rome. By noting this fortuitous coincidence, Cicero was prompting his reader to think of Cicero's return as a divinely appointed day of rebirth for his family, for Rome, and for Italy. The first sphere is the domus. Tullia's presence represented not only the re-gathering of loved ones to the home but also the reconstruction of the domus, which included the reacquisition of the site of the structure on the Palatine and the rebuilding of the residence itself. The second sphere is Italia. As noted before, Brundisium was an important destination on the itinerary of a general or governor returning from the East, and so it had acquired a strong association with great triumphs. Doubtless, Cicero was raising that image here. At the same time, the timing of the arrival on the dies natalis of the colony had even deeper and more powerful resonance with

Roman colonization ritual and the founding of a new city. The final sphere is Roma: Cicero's reference to the dies natalis of the aedes Salutis symbolized a new birth of the welfare of the Republic. It is noteworthy that construction on this temple, vowed by the consul C. Junius Bubulcus in 311 BCE in connection with the Second Samnite War, began during Bubulcus' censorship.67 Furthermore, in this temple, the Senate set up a statue in honor of Cato Censorius, the most iconic of Roman censors.68 Inscribed on this statue was the following tribute to the censor: “When the Roman state was in decline and inclining to a worse condition, he was appointed censor and by useful guidance and wise practices and teachings set Page 108 → it right again.”69 This inscription thus related the office of censor with the healing power of the god Salus in restoring a sickly Republic. Educated Romans who read Cicero's letter, such as Atticus, would have therefore thought of the censorship in connection with this Temple of Salus and considered the example of Cato in rescuing a tottering Republic. In the letter, Cicero made special mention of the fact that it was the people of Brundisium who had taken note of the coincidence of his arrival with the dies natalis of the Temple of Salus. The most likely occasion in which such information would have been conveyed was during a speech given in honor of Cicero's arrival at the city (logos epibaterios), wherein the coincidence of his arrival's timing may have been described as an omen pointing to the salvation of Rome and Italy from its troubles. Cicero's arrival had been timed to fall on the foundation date of the colony, which the people of the colony were already celebrating on that day. Cicero would have appeared as an honored visitor, and he would have been given special recognition in the festivities of that day. As the Brundisians addressed their special guest upon his arrival, they took note of the connection between their city's foundation, the birthday of the temple, and the fortuitous circumstance of the visit of the two Tullii. Cicero's purpose in reporting this coincidence to Atticus probably goes beyond a trivial observation. Cicero both sees and wants Atticus to see a good omen in these circumstances—perhaps one that points to Cicero receiving a greater honor of some kind in connection with his return to the city. The nature of that honor is suggested by the censorial associations of the Temple of Salus. A subsequent letter to Atticus confirms that the desired honor was election to the office of censor, which Pompey had helped other friends acquire in 70.70 Cicero may have hoped that Pompey, seeing his error in allowing Cicero to go into exile and desiring to make some recompense in their reconciliation, would support Cicero's bid for the censorship to help him regain his place of honor among the boni. If that had been Cicero's Page 109 → hope, it did not materialize. Cicero was instead appointed a legate to assist Pompey in his curatorship over the grain supply, with the stipulation that Cicero was to stay in Rome.71 Cicero's interest in the censorship was perhaps inspired by his desire to repeal Clodius' lex Clodia de censoria notione, which limited the power of the censors in the lectio senatus.72 The law “prevented the censors from excluding anyone from the album senatorum, or from punishing them with any sort of ignominia, unless both censors agreed on the punishment and only after the individual had been accused in their presence.”73 Soon after his return, Cicero set about attacking his enemy's law, on the grounds that it fatally compromised the power of the censor. It is hard not to see an element of revenge in Cicero's motivations. Whatever his larger aims were, he seemed, in the shorter term, to have considered a revitalized censorship a useful weapon that he could wield against Clodius and his allies to get them thrown out of the Senate. It would have been a housecleaning reminiscent of the mass expulsion of 70, in which the censors ejected sixty-four senators from the Senate. Cicero, however, would never be censor, and the lex Clodia de censoria notione would not be reversed until 52.74 Metellus Scipio was the one to accomplish this reversal. The rest of Cicero's description to Atticus of his time in Brundisium and his journey to Rome was devoted to projecting an image of broad and miraculous consensus for his return.75 He recounted how, on the eighth of August, a letter arrived informing him that, filled with marvelous enthusiasm (mirifico studio), an unbelievable gathering (incredibili concursu) of voters came from all over Italy to vote in the comitia for his return. Cicero's language implies that divine inspiration motivated the voters.76 The cream of Brundisium's local elite sent Cicero off on his journey, and he was greeted along the way by embassies from various communities. As Cicero drew near Rome, a flood of people of all orders issued forth to welcome him. In Page 110 → his speech In Pisonem (52), Cicero depicted Rome as a goddess who nearly pulled herself out of her foundations to embrace her savior: cum mihi ipsa Roma prope convolsa sedibus suis ad complectendum conservatorem suum progredi visa est.77

According to his letter to Atticus, Cicero entered the city through the Porta Capena. People crowded the steps of the Temple of Honos and Virtus, located just outside the gate, to applaud his arrival and shout their congratulations.78 The importance of the Velian Temple of Honos and Virtus as a triumphal symbol in Cicero's dream of Marius suddenly took on a new layer of significance, especially when one remembers that the work in which the extant report of it appears, De Divinatione, was written over a decade after these events. A wondrous crowd (miranda multitudo) gathered in the Forum and on the Capitoline to watch him as he mounted the hill, in the company of another throng, to pay his respect to Jupiter. Later in the same letter to Atticus, Cicero connected Pompey's success in obtaining the task of managing the corn supply to his own popularity at the time of his return to Rome. He spoke in favor of the proposal, at the instigation of a crowd's applause. It was not any ordinary command. As Cicero related in the same letter, the commission was similar to Pompey's command against the pirates, in that it took in the breadth of the empire and had a duration of five years. Also, Pompey was allowed fifteen legates for the grain commission, on the list of whom Cicero held the place of honor. Cicero further bragged that Pompey said he would regard Cicero as a second self in his execution of the responsibility. Another law was also proposed that would have granted Pompey money, a fleet, an army, and maius imperium in the provinces to execute his task. Cicero told Atticus that he refrained from comment in the controversy over the two bills, since the pontifices had not yet decided on the matter of his house. As Cicero closed the letter, he remarked that he was on the threshold of a second life. This second life was surely related, in his eyes, to his reconnection with Pompey, who, in the discussion of the cura annonae as just reported by Cicero, had called Cicero a second self (me alterum se fore dixit). Page 111 → Cicero's letter to Atticus concerning his return from exile therefore has elements of a ring composition. His landing at Brundisium was filled with birth and foundation days, and the letter ended by referring to his “second life.” Cicero thus used his adventus, which followed the path of great victors returning from the East, to lay out a path to his rebirth and political rejuvenation as Pompey's right-hand man. As he depicted it, his entry into Rome was like the reditus of a victorious general; in this way, he harked back to and, in a sense, fulfilled his dream of a triumphing Marius welcoming him into the Temple of Honos and Virtus to secure his welfare (salus). Like a triumphing general, Cicero was greeted enthusiastically and made a procession to the Capitoline. The victorious display of his adventus, facilitated and attended by wondrous occurrences, led, at least in his own estimation, to the political success of procuring a grain assignment of sweeping scope for his ally and friend Pompey, in which Cicero occupied a symbolic position of honor. Although he did not explicitly mention it in the letter, he alluded to hopes of a censorship in the positive signs attending his arrival at Brundisium. Cicero remained in Rome in the hope of securing election to the position, but an election for censorship was not held.

Conclusion Although Cicero's career scarcely resembles those of men like Marius, Sulla, and Pompey, Cicero exploited the themes of departure and arrival within his own sphere and in his own way, in his theologization of his rescue of the state from Catiline and Clodius. His representation of the Catilinarian affair even hit on themes of secular crisis, such as those discussed in the first chapter of this book, taking the form of prodigies and prophecies in the time of Sulla's conflict with Marius. The dire pronouncements of the haruspices in 65 and the claims of Lentulus Sura were ample material for Cicero to turn to his own purposes.79 In any case, he was able to secure the honor of being officially declared pater patriae, thanks, in no small part, to the exaggerated sense of crisis at the time. As pater patriae, Cicero was assimilated to Rome's founder Romulus.80 Furthermore, according to Cicero's Page 112 → own theology, Jupiter had appointed him the task of saving Rome from Catiline, and Minerva's arts had enabled him to pull it off. The differences between Sulla's and Cicero's strategies reflected not only the different scope of their respective actions and methods but also their respective origins. As a member of Rome's ancient patrician nobility, Sulla would appeal more emphatically to symbols and narratives of Rome's ethnic origins, regal past, and priestly power. A Cornelius such as Sulla could credibly do so. Cicero turned to the crafting of a memoir in epic form,

wherein he was commissioned by the gods to be Rome's savior. The orator from Arpinum also took comfort in his providential dream about Rome's other savior from Arpinum, Marius. The report of the dream was a more private expression of his theology, but it still related to his public performances. In his public performances, Cicero presented himself very much in the tradition of Roman commanders and magistrates. Here his theological framework was more civic in its orientation. The personified Res Publica was the goddess who carried him home from exile. Thus he did not emulate Marius' Dionysiac pretensions or Sulla's special relationship with Bellona. Yet the use of a theological framework in lending meaning, justification, and purpose to the significant departures and arrivals in his career is undeniable. 1. On Marius, see Gnauck 1936; Carney 1960; Santangelo 2008. On Sulla, see Ridley 1975; Diehl 1988; Dowling 2000. 2. Cic. Catil. 3.9–10. 3. Carney 1960. 4. Cic. Man. 41–42. Cicero speaks of Pompey as one sent down from heaven: itaque omnes nunc in eis locis Cn. Pompeium sicut aliquem non ex hac urbe missum, sed de caelo delapsum intuentur. He also suggests the possibility that Pompey was born according to divine plan to wage the wars he prevailed in: ad omnia nostrae memoriae bella conficienda divino quodam consilio natus esse videatur. Cicero's use of this theology in connection with a command against Mithradates was fitting, since Mithradates exploited messianic and apocalyptic prophecies in his own propaganda. See chapter 1, n. 5. 5. Cic. Ver. 3.81–82; Ridley 1975, 91–92. Although Sulla is unnamed, Cicero refers to him as one who auctioned off the property of Roman citizens as though it were his own booty. 6. On Catiline, see Dowling 2000, 307–8. Even in drawing this connection between Sulla and Catiline, however, Cicero went out of his way to point out Sulla's initial justification for his acts. Cicero alleged that Catiline murdered M. Marius Gratidianus before the tomb of the Lutatii. See Q. Cic. Pet. 10; Sal. Hist. 1.44 M; Asc. 83.26–84, 87.16–18, 89.25–27, 90.3–5; V. Max. 9.2.1; Plu. Sull. 32.2. Marshall (1985a, 132–33) suggests that it was not Catiline but Q. Catulus who executed Gratidianus before the tomb of the Lutatii, as an act of revenge for the murder of his father. Cicero blamed Catiline in his speech In toga candida because it suited his purposes, while charging the powerful Catulus would have been unwise. 7. On the omens of 65 and the haruspices' interpretation, see Cic. Catil. 3.19. See Plu. Cic. 19.4–20.3 for the Bona Dea prodigy. The Invectiva of pseudo-Sallust (3) credits the influence of Terentia for helping Cicero with the decisions that raised him to a higher status (sed, ut opinor, illa te magis extollunt, quae post consulatum cum Terentia uxore de re publica consuluisti), although these occur after his consulship. For a discussion of Cicero exploiting the theme of the fatalis annus, see Havas 2000. 8. Cic. fr. 8 Courtney: O fortunatam natam me consule Romam. Considered in the context of the prediction by the haruspices of the end of Rome and its empire in 65, this claim looks less ridiculous. 9. Plin. Nat. 7.117. Appian (BC 2.7) credits Cato with proposing the honor. In Pliny, the term used is parens patriae. On pater patriae, see Weinstock 1971, 175–228; Miles 1997, 99–100. The most complete discussion of the concept of the father of the country in Rome is Alföldi 1978. 10. Ennius (Ann. fr. 113 Vahlen) addresses Romulus as follows: o pater, o genitor, o sanguen dis oriundum. The names of certain deities sometimes have the word pater appended to them, a practice that sometimes takes the form -piter directly attached to the end of the name, hence Marspiter, Iuppiter, and so forth. See Gel. 5.12.5. For Marspiter, see CIL I2.970; Var. L. 8.49, 10.65; Cato Agr. 141; Gel. 5.12.5; Macr. 1.19.3. Aeneas bore the name Indiges Pater in an elogium at Pompeii (CIL X.808). 11. Cicero had purchased the house, built for M. Livius Drusus (trib. 91) and situated on a slope of the Palatine overlooking the Forum, from a Crassus in 62 (Cic. Fam. 5.6.2; Vell. 2.14.3; Gel. 12.12; Allen 1939–40a, 134–43; 1939–40b, 291–95). 12. Cicero generally idolized his fellow Arpinan, going so far as to refer to Marius as “divine” (Cic. Rab. Perd. 10.29). See Carney 1960, 121–22 n. 13. 13. Vell. 2.45.1; Tatum 1999, 153–56; Lintott 1967, 163–64. 14. Cic. Fam. 12.25.1; Leg. 2.42; Plu. Cic. 31.5; App. BC 2.15; D.C. 38.17.5. 15. The destruction of one's house was part of the official declaration of a man as a hostis. See Varner 2004, 16–17. Bodel (1997, 7–9) discusses how the early victims of this form of damnatio had aimed at

regnum and how temples were later built on the cleared sites. On the destruction of Cicero's house in particular, see LTUR 2.202–4; LTUR 5.255; Flower 2006, 101–2; Tatum 1999, 157–65; Berg 1997, 122–35; Nippel 1988, 116–23. Originally, hostis meant “stranger,” so the declaration that one was a hostis was a form of exclusion from the community, not simply an identification of a citizen as an enemy. On the significance of the word hostis, see Cic. Off. 37. 16. Allen 1944, 3; Carandini 1986, 264; Berg 1997, 125–26. As Berg (127–28) points out, Cicero felt a sense of strong connection to the Porticus Catuli (which stood next to his house) and to the Catulus family. 17. On the casa Romuli, see D.H. 1.79.11; Plu. Rom. 20.4; NTDAR s.v. Casa Romuli. On Cicero's selfstyling as Romulus and on the role of the Palatine in that connection, see Havas 2000, 71–88. Havas (81) observes: “Den Staate hätte auf die Weise des Romulus ein Neuankömmling und zugleich potentieller neuer Bewohner des Palatium, der in Arpinum geborene Cicero wieder festigen sollen, seinen eigenen romulusartigen Ritus vollbringend, den neuen Remus: Catilina bzw. Lentulus Sura aufopfernd.” Cicero is called Romulus Arpinas in [Sal.] Inv. 4.7. The homes of famous men could acquire a kind of sacred aura. Cicero (Phil. 2.68) characterized Antony's use of Pompey's home, which Cicero likened to a temple, as a kind of sacrilege: o audaciam immanem! tu etiam ingredi illam domum ausus es, tu illud sanctissimum limen intrare, tu illarum aedium dis penatibus os impurissimum ostendere? For the religious aura of the house of Scipio Africanus, see V. Max. 2.10.2. 18. Tatum 1999, 166; Berg 1997, 130; Cic. Dom. 137; Har. 33, 58. 19. Berg 1997, 139–41. 20. Quint. Inst. 11.1.23–24; [Sal.] Inv. 2.3, 4.7. 21. Cic. Dom. 92: hic tu me etiam gloriari vetas; negas esse ferenda quae soleam de me praedicare, et homo facetus inducis etiam sermonem urbanum ac venustum, me dicere solere esse me Iovem, eundemque dictitare Minervam esse sororem meam. On Demetrius as brother of Athena, see Plu. Demetr. 24.1. 22. Harrison 1990, 462: “[T]hat Clodius produces a more distorted version than the author of the ‘Invectiva’ merely confirms that real political rhetoric was more animatedly unscrupulous than the invective of declamation, no surprise to anyone who has read Cicero's own ‘In Pisonem.’” 23. On the authorship of the Invectiva and its allusions to Cicero's poetry, see Canfora 1984, 101–9. 24. [Sal.] Inv. 2.3: atque haec cum ita sint, tamen se Cicero dicit in concilio deorum inmortalium fuisse, inde missum huic urbi civibusque custodem absque carnificis nomine, qui civitatis incommodum in gloriam suam ponit. Quasi vero non illius coniurationis causa fuerit consulatus tuus et idcirco res publica disiecta eo tempore, quo te custodem habebat. Sed, ut opinor, illa te magis extollunt, quae post consulatum cum Terentia uxore de re publica consuluisti; 4.7: sed quid ego plura de tua insolentia commemorem, quem Minerva omnis artis edocuit, Iuppiter Optimus Maximus in concilio deorum admisit, Italia exulem umeris suis reportavit? 25. Quint. Inst. 11.1.24: et ‘Iovem illum a quo in concilium deorum advocatur’, et ‘Minervam quae artes eum edocuit’: quae sibi ille secutus quaedam Graecorum exempla permiserat. 26. See nn. 24 and 25. 27. Harrison 1990, 461. Harrison (n. 21) speculates that Minerva may have addressed Cicero as frater in the poem, which prompted Clodius' accusation that the orator claimed to have Minerva for his sister. 28. Ibid., 462–63. 29. Bodel 2008, 253. 30. Cic. Div. 1.28. See Santangelo 2008, 602; Wardle 2006, 252–56. Cf. V. Max. 1.7. 31. Cic. Div. 1.28.59: Venio nunc ad tuum. Audivi equidem ex te ipso, sed mihi saepius noster Sallustius narravit, cum in illa fuga nobis gloriosa, patriae calamitosa in villa quadam campi Atinatis maneres magnamque partem noctis vigilasses, ad lucem denique arte [te] et graviter dormitare coepisse; itaque, quamquam iter instaret, tamen silentium fieri iussisse [se] neque esse passum te excitari; cum autem experrectus esses hora secunda fere, te sibi somnium narravisse: visum tibi esse, cum in locis solis maestus errares, C. Marium cum fascibus laureatis quaerere ex te quid tristis esses, cumque te tu patria vi pulsum esse dixisses, prehendisse eum dextram tuam et bono animo te iussisse esse lictorique proxumo tradidisse ut te in monumentum suum deduceret, et dixisse in eo tibi salutem fore. Tum et se exclamasse Sallustius narrat reditum tibi celerem et gloriosum paratum, et te ipsum visum somnio delectari. Nam illud mihi ipsi celeriter nuntiatum est, ut audivisses in monumento Mari de tuo reditu magnificentissumum illud senatus consultum esse factum, referente optumo et clarissumo viro consule, idque frequentissimo theatro incredibili clamore

et plausu comprobatum, dixisse te nihil illo Atinati somnio fieri posse divinius. 32. Marius constructed this temple, located near his own house, with the spoils of the Cimbri and Teutones. See LTUR 3.33–35. 33. Cic. Red. Pop. 20. The image of Marius describing his exilic sufferings in 88 BCE provides an interesting contrast with the taciturn figure one encounters in Plutarch in the narrative of Marius' invasion of Rome during the Octavian War. 34. Cic. Div. 1.47.106: conspexit Marius, divini numinis augur, / faustaque signa suae laudis reditusque notavit, / partibus intonuit caeli pater ipse sinistris. See Wardle 2006, 79–80, 362–65. For the date of the poem, see Benario 1957, 177–81. Dyck (2004, 57–58) sees the date as uncertain. Wardle (363) argues that 57 is the most likely date. Santangelo (2008, 598–601) dates the poem to the period shortly after Cicero's return from exile. See also Courtney 1993, 178. 35. On Cicero's identification with Marius in the experience of exile, see Santangelo 2008, 589–601. Cicero repeatedly called Marius the savior of Rome. Cf. Cic. Catil. 3.10, 4.21; Sull. 7.22–23; Sest. 16.37, 22.50; Pis. 19.43. 36. Cic. Div. 1.47. Marius interprets this omen to predict the praise he will receive upon his reditus. On the felicitas of Marius, see Avery 1967. 37. In other words, the very fact that both Sulla and Cicero report auspicious dreams predicting a successful return to Rome recommends interpreting Cicero's dream as an allusion to Sulla's. Even if the dream of Cicero actually happened, it is no less, in his report of it, amenable to interpretation as an allusion to Sulla's dream. 38. See map 1. Honos and Virtus appear, in fact, on the obverse of a coin Pompey minted to commemorate his triumph in 70. Cf. RRC 257. On the reverse, Roma and Italia clasp hands. Roma is wearing a diadem, holding fasces, and resting her foot on a globe. On the association of Honos, Virtus, and Victoria, see also Fears 1981b, 883–84. 39. Plu. Mar. 27. 40. Flower 2012. 41. Worth noting in this context is Caesar's resuscitation of the memory of Marius by restoring Marius' trophies commemorating his victories over Jugurtha and the Cimbri and Teutones. Sulla had demolished these trophies. See Suet. Jul. 11. 42. The presence of Honos and Virtus is also interesting because of their place in the processional route of the equestrians during the transvectio equitum, which Pompey had celebrated in 70/69. See chapter 2. Cicero often looked to the equestrians as a source of personal political support. See McDonnell 2006, 328. 43. Cicero did not refer to his own mythological ancestors, which, according to Plutarch (Cic. 1.2), may have included Tullus Attius, king of the Volscians. The emperor Vespasian derided attempts to give himself a Herculean ancestry, although one might expect a Sabine to feel comfortable doing so. See Suet. Ves. 12. Contrast this with Galba, who, in the aftermath of a century of Julio-Claudian ruling theology, did not hesitate to advertise his own descent from Jupiter and Pasiphaë in the hall of the palace. See Suet. Gal. 2. 44. Odyssean themes are also present in Plutarch's account of Marius' exile. See Nerdahl 2007, 169–90. 45. Cic. Q. fr. 2.7.1: placiturum tibi esse librum II suspicabar, tam valde placuisse scribis se quam valde gaudeo. quod me admones de non curantia suadesque ut meminerim Iovis orationem quae est in extremo illo libro, ego vero memini et illa omnia mihi magis scripsi quam ceteris. Harrison (1990, 456–57) notes, “The oration of Jupiter referred to surely took place in the divine council in the second book of ‘De Temporibus Suis’ referred to in [Q. fr. 3.1.24]; we do not need to postulate a separate epiphany of Jupiter, and the fact that his speech is called an oratio suggests that it was addressed to an Olympian audience rather than Cicero alone…. [T]he context of the letter to Quintus…makes it clear that Jupiter advised Cicero to keep a low political profile, and the most convincing emendations of the crux of non curantia confirm this. The fact that this speech occurred at the end of the second book…gives us some idea of the function it fulfilled in the plot of the poem. Those who have attempted to reconstruct the ‘De Temporibus Suis’ usually suggest that Book 1 contained the struggle with Clodius and Cicero's departure from Rome, Book 2 the sufferings of exile and Book 3 the triumphant return…. [The] divine council of Book 2 is likely to have been an assembly called to sanction the proposed return of Cicero to Rome, rather like the divine council in the first book of the Odyssey where the gods set Odysseus' return under way; Jupiter probably approved Cicero's return and gave him words of advice on how to behave when back in Rome, following Zeus' assent

to the return of Odysseus (Odyssey 1.63–79).” 46. Harrison (1990, 457) writes, “[I]t may even have been that Minerva…appeared to argue the case for Cicero's return as she had done for that of Odysseus in ‘Odyssey’ 1.” 47. Feeney (1999, 19) comments on the contradictory elements of Cicero's religious thought and behavior, writing that Cicero is “possessed of a ‘religiously cold temperament’, according to Veyne, and someone who speaks to his wife as if the cult of the gods were more her responsibility than his; yet ostentatious in his cultivation of Minerva in times of personal crisis, and, most strikingly, obsessed for months with the private project of a fanum, ‘shrine,’ for his dead daughter, one which could achieve ‘apotheosis’ for her.” 48. Q. fr. 3.1.24: Itaque mirificum embolium cogito in secundum librum meorum temporum includere, dicentem Apollinem in concilio deorum qualis reditus duorum imperatorum futurus esset, quorum alter exercitum perdidisset, alter vendidisset. The triumphator brought home his armies to the city intact, having brought an end to hostilities. By contrast, Piso and Gabinius have either lost or sold their armies. 49. These other representations are in Cicero's post-exile speeches. 50. For a discussion of Cicero's representation of his own exile in general, see Kelley 2006, 152–55. 51. Cic. Red. Pop. 1. 52. This follows Varro's distinction of the three different theologies, which included the poetic and the civic. See Var. Ant. rer. div. fr. 10. 53. Nicholson 1992, 35; Glucker 1988, 6–9. 54. Cic. Sest. 54: et spirante etiam re publica ad eius spolia detrahenda advolaverunt. 55. The divine protectress of the city was a common concept in classical and Hellenistic Greece. In the Hellenistic period, such goddesses were often depicted wearing a mural crown. Cicero would also have known Cybele, wearing the crenelated crown, as a protector of Rome. His contemporary, Lucretius (2.606–7), wrote of her wearing her muralis corona and sustaining cities (sustinet urbes). Even Jerusalem was represented as a goddess with a mural crown. See Biddle 1991, 173–94. 56. Mellor 1981, 972–73. 57. Hom. Il. 5.330–43. 58. Ibid. 1.586–94; Apollod. 1.3.5. 59. At Red. Pop. 14, Cicero expressed his confidence that the Republic would bring him back with her when she returned. At Red. Sen. 34, he described the Republic bringing him back with her in a kind of triumphal procession: et illa, simul atque revocata est, me secum pariter reportavit. Cic. Red. Sen. 39 and [Sal.] Inv. 4.7 refer to Italia carrying Cicero home, a reference to the greetings he received from communities along his homeward journey across Italy from Brundisium. 60. Hes. Op. 200–201; Arat. Phaen. 96–136. 61. See n. 59. 62. Hdt. 1.59–62; Ath. Pol. 14.4. 63. Cic. Att. 4.1.4–6. 64. Hutchinson 1998, 1–24. 65. Cic. Att. 4.1.4: Brundisium veni Non. Sext. ibi mihi Tulliola mea fuit praesto natali suo ipso die, qui casu idem natalis erat et Brundisinae coloniae et tuae vicinae Salutis; quae res animadversa a multitudine summa Brundisinorum gratulatione celebrata est. 66. Kaster 2006, 371. 67. Liv. 9.43.25, 10.1.9. See also Oakley 2005, 53–54. Var. L. 5.74 identified the cult of Salus on the Quirinal as Sabine in origin. On the temple, see LTUR 4.229–30. 68. Plu. Cat. Ma. 19.3. 69. Ibid. 19.4 (trans. Astin p. 103): ὅτι τὴν Ῥωμαίων πολιτείαν ἐγκεκλιμένην καὶ ῥέπουσαν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον τιμητὴς γενόμενος χρησταῖς ἀγωγαῖς καὶ σώφροσιν ἐθισμοῖς καὶ διδασκαλίαις εἰς ὀρθὸν αὖθις ἀποκατέστησε. 70. Cic. Att. 4.2.6: ego me a Pompeio legari ita sum passus ut nulla re impedirer. quod nisi vellem mihi esset integrum ut, si comitia censorum proximi consules haberent, petere possem, votivam legationem sumpsissem prope omnium fanorum, lucorum (“I have allowed myself to be appointed a legate by Pompey in such a way that I not be impeded by any means if I desire to be at liberty to campaign—if the next consuls should hold censorial elections—or free to take up a votive commission over nearly any shrine and sacred grove”).

71. Ibid. 72. D.C. 40.57.1–58.1. See Tatum 1999, 133–34. 73. Tatum 1999, 133. 74. D.C. 40.57.1–3. See Tatum 1999, 135. 75. See Cic. Pis. 51–52; Dom. 75–76. 76. For noteworthy comparanda, see Josephus' descriptions of the enthusiasm attending the arrival of the false Herodian Alexander at Rome (BJ 2.105; AJ 17.330–31). For a discussion of the process that led to Cicero's return, see Gelzer 1959, 145–50; Tatum 1999, 176–85. 77. In Dom. 75, Cicero mentions how, during his adventus and introitus, the people welcomed him as their lucem salutemque redditam (“light and salvation come back”). 78. Cic. Att. 4.1.4. Cicero does not name the temples, but the location of the Temple of Honos and Virtus and its association with the triumph make this an attractive suggestion. On the location of the temple outside the Porta Capena, see MAR s.v. Honos et Virtus, Aedes (Ad Portam Capenam); LTUR 3.31–33; Ziolkowski 1992, 58–60. See map 1 in the present book. 79. See n. 7. 80. As Beard, North, and Price (1998, 1:138–39) argue, Cicero's allusions to Romulus through the cult of Jupiter Stator liken him to the founder. Cf. Vasaly 1993, 49–87.

Page 113 →

PART II The Civil War Page 114 →

Page 115 →

CHAPTER 4 Julius Caesar as Rex? The Ovatio of January 44 As discussed in the previous chapter, the Sullan approach to political theology was quite different from the Ciceronian approach. The Sullan approach was rooted deeply in the ancient aristocratic traditions of the Cornelian gens as refracted through the historical and spiritual developments of the crisis of the late Hellenistic period. Although subject to the same historical forces, the novus homo Cicero was not equipped to employ convincingly some of the rhetorical and performative tools available to a patrician or nobilis. Of necessity and also in accordance with his personality and training, Cicero constructed a personal theology that was more literary and tied to recent history. In doing so, he drew on Hellenic epic and the careers of close predecessors; and he was given to conceptualizing the Republic in more philosophical and symbolic terms. One cannot conceive of Sulla describing Res Publica bearing him back to the city; one cannot imagine Cicero doing anything else. A crucial difference between the mind-sets of Sulla and Cicero that shaped their respective approaches to constructing theologies of arrival might be succinctly expressed as follows: for Sulla, the Republic was something that could be entirely contingent on him, if only temporarily; for Cicero, the Republic represented something larger than him, which he nevertheless saved. Caesar's way of relating to the Republic was perhaps a more extreme form of the Sullan perspective. This is not to say that men like Sulla and Caesar were incapable of viewing the Republic in abstract terms or of attempting to address its problems Page 116 → through systematic reforms. Sulla's constitution represented the first real attempt in Rome's historical period to remake the Republic as a system that might be called rational. At the same time, however, Sulla and Caesar operated in a highly localized and particularized system of personal prestige that conflicted with the practical and rational nature, such that it was, of their reforms. Militating against the possibility of a satisfactory discussion is the conceptual predominance of the individual actor as the force of change in the Late Republic, on the one hand, and a lack of evidence of philosophical or abstract discussion of the Republic between Polybius and Cicero, on the other.1 To cite an example that illustrates the combined impact of these problems, there is no detailed account of the relationship between the Gracchi and men like Blossius of Cumae and Diophanes of Mitylene and, thus, of the influence of such a relationship on their reforms.2 The scholarly discussion therefore tends to focus on the Gracchi themselves. By contrast, one is fortunate to have in the writings of Cicero abundant evidence of the philosophical discussion of the Republic. Furthermore, the extant evidence shows that Cicero and Caesar engaged intellectually on the subject of the Republic. The exchange between Cicero and Caesar on Cato the Younger is one example of their engagement on the subject.3 From this evidence it is clear that the two had very different approaches to the problems of their time. This chapter concerns how that clash found expression in a proposed dialectical exchange between Cicero and Caesar as realized through arrival rhetoric and performance. The proposed dialectical exchange is as follows: in his Pro Marcello, Cicero presented to Caesar his vision of the Republic as the collegial gathering of the Senate and charged Caesar to restore that Republic; Page 117 → Caesar, in his turn, performed his vision of the Republic in the Feriae Latinae and subsequent ovation of January 44 BCE. In the process, this chapter seeks to shed greater light on the unusual ovatio of January 26, 44 BCE.

Caesar the King? The ovatio of January 44 is one of the most tantalizing problems of Caesar's self-representation. In the course of engaging in ceremonies of a securely traditional Republican pedigree, Caesar appears to be hailed as king.

nam cum in sacrificio Latinarum reuertente eo inter immodicas ac nouas populi acclamationes quidam e turba statuae eius coronam lauream candida fascia praeligata imposuisset et tribuni plebis Epidius Marullus Caesetiusque Flauus coronae fasciam detrahi hominemque duci in uincula iussissent, dolens seu parum prospere motam regni mentionem siue, ut ferebat, ereptam sibi gloriam recusandi, tribunos grauiter increpitos potestate priuauit. neque ex eo infamiam affectati etiam regii nominis discutere ualuit, quamquam et plebei regem se salutanti Caesarem se, non regem esse responderit.4

[For at the Latin Festival, as he was returning to the city, amid the extravagant and unprecedented acclamations of the people, someone from the crowd placed a laurel crown with a white fillet tied to it on his statue; and when Epidius Marullus and Caesetius Flavius, tribunes of the plebs, ordered that the band be removed from the crown and the man led off in bonds, Caesar smarting either because the suggestion of kingship had gone over poorly or, as he claimed, he had been robbed of the glory of refusing it, rebuked the tribunes harshly and then removed them from office. And from that time on he could not dispel the charge of aspiring to the title of king, although he responded to the plebs, when they hailed him as king, “I am Caesar, not king.”]

Caesar is here shown returning from the Feriae Latinae (which consuls traditionally celebrated before heading out on campaign) and being received during his reditus to the city, with two unusual demonstrations suggesting Page 118 → a royal, rather than magisterial, status: first, the addition of a diadem, a symbol of Hellenistic kingship, to the victor's laurel crown on his statue and, second, the acclamation of rex. Not only did unusual gestures take place during the procession, but the event had also been unique in its conception, in that the Senate had voted to allow Caesar to ride into Rome on horseback in his return procession after the Latin Festival.5 Perhaps partly because Suetonius grouped this event with other items that he interpreted as indicating Caesar's royal pretensions, the discussion of this event has been dominated by the question of whether Caesar had in fact desired to establish himself as king.6 The modern discussion of Caesar's aims extends a debate that began in Caesar's lifetime. It is useful to gather together the various evidences from the ancient sources that are generally invoked in the modern discussion: 1. Caesar failed to rise to greet the senators who brought him a list of the honors voted him.7 2. Wreaths with white fillets were placed on statues of Caesar, probably during the same reception in which Caesar was hailed as rex.8 3. During the Lupercalia, Antony thrice placed on Caesar a diadem, which Caesar removed and dedicated to Jupiter Optimus Maximus.9 4. As Caesar prepared to leave for his Parthian campaign, a circulating Sibylline Oracle claimed that only a king could defeat the Parthians.10 On the basis of these anecdotes, Stefan Weinstock built his frequently cited case that Caesar was attempting to establish himself as king of Rome;11 the Page 119 → case was strengthened by Bruce Lincoln, who placed most emphasis on the fourth-listed anecdote.12 In the course of making the case for the proposed interaction between Cicero and Caesar through the construction of arrivals at Rome in a restored Republic, this chapter works to reassess critically the evidence for Caesar's supposed aspirations to kingship. Some general considerations will precede an examination of the historical context and circumstances of these anecdotes. This chapter shall argue that Caesar's ovatio in particular, if correctly understood, controverts the view of Weinstock and Lincoln and also points the way to an interpretation of the other incidents that confirms that Caesar's aims were more complex than has generally been realized. The five anecdotes (including the ovation itself) are transmitted by sources that are mostly in agreement. But the events themselves are highly ambiguous in nature. This makes it all the more important to scrutinize the interpretations the sources impose on them, especially since the overall tradition of these narratives seems to have

been and probably was deliberately directed toward justifying the assassination of Caesar and depicting Augustus as being more politically adept than his adoptive father.13 This makes it very difficult to deduce confidently from these incidents what Caesar really intended, although, as the present argument contends, not one single incident, when stripped of the source materials' interpretive glosses, factually indicates that Caesar personally intended to establish himself as king. In addition, the very concept of “king” is highly problematic in relation to Caesar.14 The claim that Caesar sought to be king immediately raises Page 120 → the question of what sort of king he might have conceived of becoming. It cannot be assumed that he wanted to institute a Successor-style Hellenistic monarchy at Rome any more than that he wanted to be the next Tarquin.15 Rome eventually embraced a form of monarchy in Augustus' Principate. That arrangement did not emerge fully formed but came about through trial and error in response to the vicissitudes of relations between Augustus and the Senate.16 In a situation where the abiding preeminence of one man seemed almost inevitable, it was necessary to work out the mechanics of the system, while ensuring that it would be sustainable and would not lead inexorably to an outcome similar to Caesar's assassination. It seems attractive to assume that, from Caesar's return to Rome in October 46 to the Ides of March of 44, Caesar was trying to carve out a position of permanent supremacy in the state and that these “royal” episodes represented, at least in part, the struggle between Caesar and the Roman aristocracy as they tried to come to terms with a new order. A specific, assumed definition of the word rex should not be read back into the historical events. Like Augustus, Caesar probably did not initially have a clear vision of how his position would ultimately be defined.

Caesar's Unusual Ovation Concerning the issue of the ovation of late January 44, it is again essential to avoid rash assumptions about what the ovation was meant to convey.17 To Page 121 → understand this event, its concomitant acclamations of Caesar as rex at the gates of Rome, and his demurral at that term, one must go back to Caesar's earlier return to Rome in 46 and his subsequent triumphs. The reason for doing so is that, by 44, Caesar must have been conscious of the importance of framing his arrival at the city correctly. The returns of Sulla to Rome in 88 and 82 would have cast a long shadow: they reverberated in the subsequent threats of Lepidus and Catiline and in the anxiety over Pompey's return from the East.18 Like Sulla's return in 82, Caesar's arrival in Rome in 46 took place after a victory in a civil war, and it had considerably less cover from accusations of fratricide than did Sulla's victory at the Porta Collina over the Samnites—longtime, bitter enemies of Rome. Caesar had made the mistake of parading depictions of the deaths of Pompeians in his triumph of 46: M. Petreius, M. Porcius Cato, and Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica were all represented in scenes of suicide on floats in the pompa triumphalis.19 This gave deep offense not only to surviving Pompeians but also to those of Caesar's own senatorial supporters whose sense of propriety extended beyond partisanship. Caesar would again be criticized for celebrating a triumph after Munda in 45, since that victory, too, was patently over fellow citizens.20 Caesar's lapses of judgment in appearing to triumph over Romans in 46 and 45 should not be downplayed. A man's performance in public ceremonies was both the expression and the construction of his place and power in the political and social orders.21 Triumphs were traditionally regarded as celebrations of victory over non-Roman foes for the protection of Rome. To enter Rome in a celebration of the defeat of Romans might be interpreted as celebrating the conquest of Rome. Rome was foremost not an aggregate of buildings but, rather, a gathering of people, with special importance given to the most prominent members of the gathering, Rome's senators. As a group, the senators identified with the men who had founded the Republic by ejecting and defeating kings. This attitude was at the root of the problem that Caesar had, probably unwittingly, created for himself. Any Roman who Page 122 → defeated senators could not help but appear to be taking on a royal role, thus reversing the progression of the city's development from monarchy to the res publica.

Cicero's Pro Marcello At roughly this same time and perhaps to make atonement for his astounding gaffe of parading images of defeated Romans,22 Caesar extended amnesty to his bitter foe Marcellus. The act was in keeping with his clementia, but it was particularly striking in this case because of the bad blood between the two men.23 Marcellus had led the effort

to terminate Caesar's Gallic command and had opposed allowing Caesar to stand for consul in absentia.24 Marcellus had also whipped a citizen of Novum Comum and returned him to Caesar to show his contempt for Caesar's grant of citizenship to the colonists.25 Cicero, a longtime friend and ally of Marcellus, was ostensibly overcome by Caesar's gesture and felt prompted to deliver a spontaneous actio gratiarum, which would later be published as the Pro Marcello. In this speech, Cicero opens by identifying as the reason for Cicero's own return from a self-imposed exile Caesar's unexpected act of clemency in allowing Marcellus to return: this speech, Cicero said, marked his resumption of public life and the end of his silence.26 These sentiments were intended to recall Cicero's earlier triumphant return from involuntary exile in 57. The linking of Marcellus' absence with the silence of Cicero is reminiscent of imagery used by Cicero to powerful effect in the Post Reditum speeches, in which he associated his own absence with the absence of the Republic itself and thus identified himself with the state.27 In returning from exile, Marcellus would rejoin Cicero, another returned exile, in the happy yoke they had earlier shared.28 Such images powerfully evoked a vision of Page 123 → the Republic before the chaos and dislocation of civil war—as it might have been remembered nostalgically in the mid-forties. The images also continued Cicero's selfidentification with the state and, this time, equated the reuniting of Marcellus and Cicero with the return of the Republic. An equally important theme of the Pro Marcello is that Marcellus would also return to the seat of his ancestors and the bosom of his family.29 The interests of the Senate and of the families of Rome are closely connected in Cicero's language at this point. He continued shortly thereafter, omnium Marcellorum meum pectus memoria offudit, quibus tu etiam mortuis M. Marcello conservato dignitatem suam reddisti, nobilissimamque familiam iam ad paucos redactam paene ab interitu vindicasti (“My breast overflows with the memory of all the Marcelli, to whose members, even those who are dead, you have returned their dignity by saving Marcus, and you have rescued a most noble family, which had been reduced to a few members, from near destruction”).30 Cicero here expanded on the boon that Marcellus' anticipated return was to his family, simultaneously raising the memory of his illustrious ancestors and commenting on how the great line was near extinction. In short, Cicero looked to Marcellus' return as a token of the restoration of Rome as a Republic, implicitly stressing that all of these elements—Senate, family, tradition, and Republic—naturally flowed together. Cicero went on to compare Caesar's fortune favorably with that of Sulla: there is an implicit comparison with Sulla in the discussion of Fortuna, in which Caesar's superiority over Sulla Felix is apparent in that Caesar, unlike Sulla, was not dependent on luck.31 Cicero ultimately urged Caesar to take up the restoration of the Republic as the duty to which his success called him.32 In issuing this call to Caesar, Cicero once again theomorphized the Page 124 → Republic, as he had in the past. Cicero defined that restoration in terms of the twin returns of himself and Marcellus as brought about by Caesar's clementia; this, according to Cicero, was Caesar's true success, a triumph that conquered victory itself: ipsam victoriam vicisse videris.33 The intent of Cicero's Pro Marcello has remained a point of contention. On the one hand, it has been seen as a reflection of Cicero's genuine gratitude to Caesar in the first blush of a rekindled hope that the Republic might return through Caesar's agency.34 At the other extreme, one scholar has gone so far as to argue that Cicero was subtly enjoining tyrannicide upon the senators in the audience.35 It is not necessary to conclude that Cicero disingenuously sought to criticize Caesar by praising him in a way that suggested the fundamental incompatibility of a living Caesar and the restored Republic; that would have forced Caesar into an untenable position. Rather, contrasting images of collegiality, as expressed in the symbolic yoking of Marcellus and Cicero, and of fratricidal competition, as made apparent in Cicero's resurrection of Sulla's memory and the contemporary circumstances of the ongoing civil war, presented Caesar with a conundrum for which he was forced to seek a solution: how can the murderous competition of civil war that leads to the preeminence of a single man bring about the return to a Republic as traditionally expressed in the collegial sharing of power by the magistrates and the Senate? Cicero himself suggested that Caesar's role could build on the wise application of clementia, through which he brought not only liberty but also a transformation of status to the beneficiaries of his mercy.36 In this, Caesar is assimilated to the gods: non ego eum cum summis viris comparo, sed simillimum deo iudico.37 What was to follow Caesar's restoration of the Republic, however, was less clear. Page 125 →

A Caesarian Solution to the Crisis? Caesar's assassination reveals Caesar's ultimate failure to find a solution that would allow his coexistence with a restored Republic. The assumption that he was seeking a solution has to stand up to the contrary view that Caesar was trapped in a state of aporia, which could be resolved temporarily by his Parthian campaign or permanently by his death. C. Matius was to write, “If he [Caesar], with his genius, could find no solution, who is to find one now? ”38 Matius' words imply that Caesar was seriously seeking a solution, presumably one that would establish Caesar's own lasting preeminence in a Roman order that was at the same time a Republic. Matius was an intimate and fervent partisan of Caesar, whose continued devotion to his dead friend was evident in his role in putting on the Ludi Victoriae Caesaris after the assassination.39 Matius' testimony should therefore be respected, although Caesar's behavior in early 44 could easily seem to be that of a man who had no intention of restoring the Republic in a form acceptable to the senatorial aristocracy. In the Pro Marcello, Cicero imagined Caesar as a godlike figure with specific regard to his use of clementia to restore the Republic. Not long thereafter, however, Caesar rapidly scaled the heights of prestige and approached the vicinity of deity and monarchy. Caesar was indeed dangerously close to becoming a Roman Alexander. Once Caesar had been elevated to the position of dictator perpetuo in early February, the assassins saw an urgent need to rid themselves of the tyrant before he could elude their grasp and again place himself at the head of a large army. Caesar's lofty position in 44 BCE does not, however, preclude the possibility that he did attempt to formulate a vision of the Republic that could accommodate his own surpassing preeminence and power. Caesar's ovatio of late January 44 actually provides a powerful argument that he was seeking a solution to the problem of how to achieve the coexistence of a man with honors such as his and a restored Republic. Indeed, it suggests in outline what that solution might have been. The ovation was the final stage of Caesar's celebration of the Feriae Latinae. These were feriae conceptivae, Page 126 → celebrated in honor of Jupiter Latiaris on the Alban Mount. In the period of the Republic, the festival fell under the authority of the consuls. At the beginning of each year, the consuls appointed a date for the feast and then held it on that date, which had to precede the consuls' departure on campaign. It was one of those religious observances that Rome maintained in continuation of the practices of its conquered neighbors.40 According to tradition, Tullus Hostilius, third king of Rome, conquered Alba Longa, and a number of that defeated city's aristocratic families then migrated to Rome and were welcomed into the patriciate.41 As the old patrician families vanished, new families from the senatorial aristocracy participated in the Feriae Latinae at Alba Longa in lieu of the absent patrician families.42 After the celebration of the festival, the participants would return to Rome from Alba Longa in procession, thus commemorating Alba Longa's fall to Hostilius and the families' migration to Rome. As the conqueror of Alba Longa, Tullus Hostilius was credited with bringing this large influx of patrician families into the Roman Senate, and he was also given credit for the construction of Rome's first Senate house, the Curia Hostilia, which bore his name.43 This same king was slain by Jupiter's thunderbolt when he improperly performed rites to the god, as set out in Numa's commentarii, but he nevertheless made crucial contributions to the expansion and institutionalization of the Senate.44 Furthermore, with the benefit of Augustan hindsight, the migration of Alban families to Rome can be seen as a return of descendants of Venus, the Julii, to the city that their cousin Romulus had founded. The Julii, who considered themselves a Trojan family, had framed their legendary entry into the Roman aristocracy in these self-servingly flattering terms long before Julius Caesar;45 and in January of 44 BCE, Julius Caesar had been granted the privilege of building a new Senate house to replace the Curia Cornelia, which had been restored Page 127 → by Faustus Sulla, son of the dictator, only to be destroyed.46 This grant provided Caesar a unique opportunity to exploit the annual Feriae Latinae, such that the festival could be connected symbolically to the anticipated construction of the new Curia Julia through the procession back to Rome at its conclusion.47 The symbolic significance of the Feriae Latinae thus offered Caesar a means of articulating in ceremony the power relationships of the new regime:48 not only Roman-Italian unity and internal senatorial unity, but also hierarchy justified on the basis of observed relative merits. The last factor was inherent in the ritual of the Feriae: each city brought to the feast a contribution of food measured according to ability to contribute, and each received a commensurate portion of meat from the bulls sacrificed to Jupiter Latiaris. A city that had declined to the point

of political insignificance could be denied a portion altogether.49 The historical symbolism of the Feriae Latinae will thus have communicated Caesar's status as a preeminent peer in the Republic. Moreover, since the Feriae Latinae commemorated a king, Tullus, bringing to Rome Caesar's conquered royal ancestors (along with those of other senatorial patricians) from Alba Longa, the Feriae also brought to mind the Julian family's transition from royalty to the patriciate. This, then, was not the event one would choose to signal a bid for monarchy but, rather, one that reaffirmed Caesar's collegiality with other senators. At the same time, it is clear that Caesar's role in the proceedings as consul and dictator, as well as his place as the lone horseman on the return procession to Rome, will have served to underline his place at the top of Rome's political order. By capping off the celebration of the Feriae Latinae with an ovatio at Rome, Caesar could present himself as the master of ceremonies of an event that invoked the memory of a gathering of Roman families; the event was akin more to Cicero's image of Cicero's and Marcellus' return to the fold of Page 128 → senators in Rome as depicted in the Pro Marcello (previously discussed) than to the picture of fratricidal competition displayed in Caesar's Munda triumph. The ovatio thus, so it has been suggested,50 addressed the issues raised by that criticized triumph, particularly since the ovatio was associated with bloodless victory.51 Romans who gathered to celebrate the god Jupiter Latiaris in January 44 would have included Caesarians and Pompeians, members of ancient patrician and recently elevated families alike.52 Newly minted patricians would have had special cause to celebrate, since this was an opportunity to show off their new status in a ritual that purportedly predated Rome. Caesar may well have hoped that the participants would see in this festival a vision of the restored, peaceful, and concordant Republic, headed by a dictator who was not a militaristic tyrant but an officiator in traditional rituals—a perfectly valid way of viewing the dictatorship.53 Cicero should have been attuned to Caesar's use of the Feriae Latinae as a context in which one could explore and perform alternative visions of the Republic. In transforming citizens into patricians, Caesar was, after all, performing the very kind of status elevation that Cicero had praised as near divine. Furthermore, Cicero could not have missed the possible allusion to his own De Republica, where a theoretical discussion of the form of the Republic was set on the estate of Scipio Aemilianus during the Feriae Latinae.54 Much uncertainty has surrounded the pretext for Caesar's ovatio. What did it celebrate? If it was a victory celebration, which victory did it honor?55 One suggestion, close to the truth but still vague, is that Caesar was celebrating victory in a general sense.56 But what prompted such a gesture at that time? Caesar had already celebrated a quadruple triumph in 46 and a further triumph in 45, and he was soon to depart for future conquests Page 129 → that would probably result in yet more triumphs. A victory celebration in the midst of these past and anticipated accomplishments and honors would seem rather like overkill.57 Was Caesar so insatiable of honors that he could not pass up even the most insignificant opportunity for an addition to them?58 The solution is to be found partly in the later ovations of Antony and Octavian, which were also unconnected to any military victory but, rather, celebrated the pact of Brundisium.59 These ovations celebrated pax between the members of the Triumvirate, as is attested in the Fasti.60 The two triumvirs seem to have been harking back to Caesar's nonmilitary ovatio when celebrating their reconciliation. However, it is one thing to establish Antony and Octavian's use of Caesar's precedent in their own ovations, but it is a more difficult task to arrive at a precise understanding of Caesar's original purpose in 44 through the later ovations. Two factors already discussed provide the best solution. On the one hand, Cicero's Pro Marcello raised the necessity of a reconciliation of Caesar's victory and a restored Republic in which Caesar could stake out a tenable position as its leading figure. In the year between the delivery of Cicero's speech and Caesar's ovation, the speech would have been published, allowing it to continue to shape opinions about Caesar. Further, the Pro Deiotaro, which Cicero delivered at Caesar's home in 45, picked up themes in the Pro Marcello and would have brought the contents of the earlier speech Page 130 → to Caesar's mind.61 Indeed, the Pro Deiotaro moved more specifically in the direction of warning Caesar of the problematic nature of his position: in it, Cicero enumerated grievances against Caesar that raised the specter of a Caesarian tyranny. This warning was timely, considering the misstep of the Munda triumph. While Caesar had taken a promising step toward reconciliation by recalling Marcellus, the procession from the Alban Mount provided Caesar with another opportunity to gain goodwill by commemorating the expansion of the Senate and the arrival of the Julian family at Rome under Tullus Hostilius. It also harked back to the participation of returning exiles in the triumph of Sulla.62 Had Marcellus not been murdered in 45, he

might have participated in the Feriae Latinae of 44. Caesar's ovatio was thus intended to underline Caesar's preeminence, but in a peaceful, concordant, and religious context. On the other hand, these suggestions might, at first blush, seem controverted by the shouts of “Rex” that attended the ovatio and that look like powerful evidence that Caesar did desire to be king.63 In fact, Caesar's response to these shouts provides insight into what he had intended all along. When Caesar heard the shouts, he responded that he was not Rex but Caesar. The interpretation of Caesar's quip has a long and varied history.64 Sihler interpreted it as containing a political message: Caesar wanted to proclaim that he viewed the word rex as an inaccurate characterization of his new collection of powers and honors.65 Caspari saw that the statement played on the fact that both Rex and Caesar were cognomens;66 the suggestion may have been anticipated less directly by Drumann.67 Deutsch improved on it by noting that Rex not only was a cognomen but was the cognomen of Caesar's own ancestors, whom Caesar referenced at his aunt's funeral.68 Deutsch also Page 131 → demonstrated the popularity of this particular pun on rex.69 Building on Deutsch, this argument suggests that the pun is effective because it references both the kingship and Caesar's ancestors in a way that modifies the statement he had made at Julia's funeral. There, Caesar spoke of how he had sprung from the royal Marcii Reges and the divinely descended Julii. Having already drawn this rhetorical distinction between the different sides of his potent double inheritance, his statement at his ovatio—that he was not Rex but Caesar—should be taken as a more pointed rejection of such royal associations. In making this correction, Caesar was providing an interpretive key to his ovatio as he wanted others to see it. He was reminding onlookers that he was arriving at Rome not as a king or as a descendant of the Marcii Reges but as one of the Julii, a family that had sought refuge in Rome after a king had destroyed their home in Alba Longa. As a Julius, Caesar was of royal and divine ancestry and thus certainly fit for monarchy; but his role in the procession showed him acting out his family's immigration and integration into the city of Rome as a patrician gens that took its place alongside other patrician families in the Senate. Admittedly, the fact that Caesar held the dictatorship and was in control of the event cannot be overlooked—but many other prominent Roman senators had held similar, albeit not identical, positions over the course of Rome's history as a Republic. The historical background to Caesar's ovatio might be another obstacle to the interpretation offered here. It is described by the sources in terms reminiscent of Hellenistic royal parousia rituals.70 Roman welcoming practices could certainly appear strikingly similar to their Hellenistic counterparts, but, as when Roman triumphs are compared with Hellenistic victory celebrations, the similarities should not occlude the overwhelmingly Roman character of the events. The ovatio of 44 indeed unfolded in an atmosphere heavily influenced by Hellenistic modes of representation: there was a marked Roman tendency to appropriate such modes, but they were directed at making uniquely Roman statements.71 The celebration of Caesar's ovatio took place in the context of a particular Roman festival; that fact is far more salient than any Hellenistic parallels when it comes to interpreting Page 132 → its meaning. Nevertheless, “Rex” was shouted at Caesar's ovatio, and this demands explanation. Hellenistic kingship was a powerful rhetorical tool in the political conflicts of the Late Republic,72 and it was inevitable that, whatever Caesar's motives, some would present his ovation in that light. But the practice of casting political opponents as Hellenistic kings in order to marginalize them reveals more about the charged nature of the contemporary political environment than about the hopes of the citizens of Rome or of Caesar himself. Could Caesar seriously have entertained the prospect of a monarchy substantially identical with Hellenistic kingship, even if such a thing had appeared possible? It seems much more likely that Caesar was exploring possible formulations of a secure, enduring, and supreme place for himself within the Republic, while concomitantly engaging in recusatio regni.73 The outcome of the ovatio revealed, much to Caesar's chagrin, the inability of others to make such fine distinctions.74 When some of his partisans (or enemies) shouted acclamations of “Rex” and decorated his statues with royal headgear, he turned the difficult situation into an opportunity to deny the royal identification. The tribunes L. Caesetius Flavius and C. Epidius Marullus then took action against those who had crowned the statues, and Caesar had the tribunes deposed.75 What Caesar could not abide was the suggestion that the tribunes needed to intercede because Caesar could not be trusted to refuse the kingship. The tribunes had further robbed him of the glory of the Page 133 → recusatio. Unfortunately, his move against the tribunes did nothing to allay and probably only deepened suspicions that he desired to be king.76 These events thus compelled Caesar to stage a more dramatic and explicit

recusatio to make his position clearer, one over which he could maintain tighter control: the coronation at the Lupercalia.77 On that occasion, he publicly rejected the diadem offered to him and dedicated it to Jupiter Optimus Maximus. The diadem scene has plausibly been explained as pre-arranged between Caesar and Antony.78 That Caesar was privy to these antics can hardly be doubted: Antony could not have set a diadem on Caesar's head if Caesar had not sat still for it.79 If the ancient sources are to be trusted about public reaction to the placing of the diadem on Caesar at the Lupercalia, this image of Hellenistic royalty was not a welcome sight. Ultimately, Caesar's efforts at staging these recusationes regni were a failure. The textual tradition has left open the possibility that he was seeking kingship, and it is even perhaps slightly tilted in favor of that view. Although the questions surrounding Caesar's failure and the bias of the ancient tradition are complex and ultimately insoluble matters, a hypothesis will be ventured here. The specter of a virtual Caesarian monarchy may have arisen in the retrospective consideration of this combination of the Feriae Latinae and ovation after Caesar became dictator perpetuo. If one views the combination of the Feriae Latinae and the ovatio as a concomitant constitution of a Caesarian Republic and celebration of that event, Caesar's ascent to Page 134 → the position of dictator perpetuo solidified, on a more enduring basis, the comprehensive control he exercised in establishing and maintaining Rome's social and political hierarchy, which those ceremonies had dramatized in a grand spectacle. Perhaps more salient in the moment was the fact that Caesar failed to see how his protestations that he did not want to be king engendered public perception that Caesar believed the decision to be entirely within his discretion; that is, Caesar's peers could not have helped but realize that a man who is able to determine unilaterally whether or not he is to be a considered king is functionally as good as a monarch, no matter what he says or does to deny it. One of the supreme ironies of this state of affairs is that Cicero arguably contributed to the problem through his depiction of Caesar's position in the Pro Marcello, where Cicero seemed to place the power to restore the Republic entirely in Caesar's hands. Caesar might have believed that, in following Cicero's cues, he was working within boundaries defined as acceptable by one of the Republic's greatest champions.

Rumors of Oracles Something remains to be said about the rumored Sibylline Oracle warning that only a king could defeat the Parthians, since that issue also bears on perceptions of Caesar's intentions in the ovatio episode. In view of the fact that the Feriae Latinae was a stage in the consuls' preparations for the campaigning season, the ovation must be considered alongside the oracle in any hypothesis regarding Caesar's further plans in the upcoming campaign.80 Supposedly, Caesar's relative L. Cotta, who had been appointed by Caesar as a quindecemvir sacris faciundis, was to present this oracle to the Senate during their meeting on the Ides of March—the same meeting at which Caesar was assassinated.81 Surely, if Caesar had intended to press hard for the monarchy at that point, one could not argue that he had gone out of his way to reject it just weeks earlier. Lincoln constructs an apparently appealing case in support of the view that Caesar had been repeatedly, albeit unsuccessfully, Page 135 → testing the waters about a possible monarchy.82 As a last resort, Caesar promulgated a persuasive rumor about monarchy before his departure for Parthia: if the Romans wanted to erase the shame of Crassus' defeat at the hands of the Parthians, it was necessary to make Caesar a king so as to overcome them; this plan was anticipated by the assassins' daggers. In the aftermath of Caesar's murder, Cotta retired from public life, depressed over the assassination of Caesar and presumably fearful that his former support for Caesar in the bid for the monarchy could cost him his life; and Cicero conveniently offered his advice that the Sibylline Oracles should be guarded by the Senate lest anyone use them to manipulate the Roman people into accepting a king.83 This is the essence of Lincoln's argument, which obviously cannot be repeated in toto here. However, Lincoln's interpretation of Cicero's recommendation to the Senate runs up against Cicero's own testimony about Cotta: Cicero denied that Cotta had intended to present the oracle to the Senate.84 Lincoln implicitly argues the contrary. His argument not only contradicts Cicero, where he might claim support from Cicero's well-documented habit of speaking out of both sides of his mouth; it also fails to consider further problems about the process of presenting an oracle to the Senate.85 Sibylline Oracles were not normally introduced into senatorial discussion without certain preliminaries. Ordinarily, a prodigy occasioned a deliberation in the Senate over whether the quindecemviri should consult the oracles. Presumably, they did so by meeting as a college, having brought forth the oracles from their repository in the Capitoline Temple, with some ceremony. What, Page 136 → then, is one

supposed to think Cotta was going to do? Would he suddenly produce a Sibylline Oracle from nowhere and without the support of his quindecemviral colleagues, who would undoubtedly have denounced him for this breach of procedure? Or was he to follow procedure, in which case all Cotta could have achieved at the Ides Senate meeting (if he were so minded) would have been to report a prodigy in the hope of triggering a consultation of the Sibylline Oracles? How could he have guaranteed that an oracle regarding kingship would have been the result? Moreover, to judge by the trouble suffered by Caesar over speculations about kingship, generated with or without his collusion, before the Ides of March, it is difficult to imagine that having Caesar's quindecemviral appointee and relative, Cotta, foist on the Senate an oracle intended to prod them into declaring Caesar king would have benefited Caesar in any way. The sources imply that no one besides Caesar's most besotted admirers would have been moved by the idea, and the events at the Lupercalia suggest that the notion of a Caesarian monarchy was odious to the Roman people at large.86 Lincoln speculates that the rumor came from Caesarian sources, since, as Lincoln correctly points out, Caesar was an unscrupulous manipulator of religion and rumor for his own purposes. But Caesar would not have been so inept as to spread such a self-defeating rumor. Rather, an enemy of Caesar designed and promulgated the rumor to excite Caesar's most committed opponents to do away with him. As already noted, C. Matius later lamented that even a genius like Caesar had been unable to solve the problems of the Republic. The present interpretation of the ovation of January 26 has hopefully illustrated something of Caesar's creativity in the use of public ceremonial to move in the direction of a solution. The staging point of the procession not only raised memories of Rome's origins and of Julian origins; it also recalled the setting of Cicero's philosophical dialogue on the Republic. Caesar's ovatio was thus not simply the usual spectacle; it was a rhetorical presentation in the form of a spectacle. It may not have been a systematic proposal addressing the mechanics of the issues regarding the future of the Republic, but it did offer a model image of the Republic with Caesar at its head—as a first man who, although fully worthy of kingship by ancestry and personal accomplishment, would nevertheless forgo for the Republic's sake what he felt he could rightly claim. But Page 137 → the presentation was flawed: Caesar's display of kingly authority in claiming the power to make such a decision contributed to the effectiveness of the charge that he desired kingship, and his assassination left as an open question whether he had aimed at kingship. The career of Augustus serves as a useful counterpoint. Augustus would enjoy the good fortune of having significantly more time than Caesar had to arrive at a solution. Rome's first emperor judged the culmination of the process of cementing his position in the Roman political and social orders to be the point at which he was voted the title pater patriae, by universal consensus and under circumstances that were reasonably secure.87 This occurred nearly three decades after Augustus' victory over the forces of Antony and Cleopatra at Actium, a victory that marked the termination of more than a decade of civil war, including proscriptions, in the aftermath of Caesar's death. Caesar can hardly be faulted for failing to have achieved similar success in the few months separating his triumphs and his assassination on the Ides of March.

Conclusion Caesar's returns to Rome served as a locus in which Cicero, Caesar, and other contemporaries contended over and sought to define the future of the Republic and Caesar's place in it. At first, Caesar conceived of his returns through the models of Sulla and Pompey. His primary interest in his triumphs was to portray himself as a world conqueror and civil war victor in order to accrue maximal glory and prestige. His misstep in parading in triumph depictions of the suicides of senators demonstrates that, in celebrating his victories, Caesar did not always have the long view of the future of the Republic that one would expect from a savvy statesman. In his triumph, Sulla had paraded those men who had been forced into exile by the Cinnan regime. While this was still clearly a partisan statement, this image of restoration from exile sent a positive message. Paintings of the deaths of fellow senators were not amenable to such a positive reading. The backlash from this terrible misstep, it has been argued here, may have prompted conciliatory measures in the recall of Pompeian exiles, a gesture that exceeded Sulla's partisan display and was in line with Caesar's characteristic clementia. Page 138 → In response to the recall of Marcellus, one of Caesar's bitterest enemies, Cicero engaged Caesar on the subject of

return to Rome in a way that impressed on Caesar not only the opportunity but also the wisdom of putting careful thought into the mode of Caesar's return to the city. Cicero deftly contrasted his vision of the return of the Republic as the gathering of all senators back to Rome, the home of their ancestors and seat of their ancestor gods, with the internecine competition of fratricidal warfare represented by the return of the Caesar as a civil war victor who surpassed the felicitas of Sulla. Cicero's argument was inherently theological in that Cicero defined Caesar's act of recalling the exile as an act that conquered the Roman goddess Victoria herself. If conquest proved that one's gods had prevailed, one might say that the divine Clementia of Caesar had prevailed over Victoria, but this is not what Caesar chose to emphasize. In Cicero's view, if Caesar continued to live for any purpose, that purpose was to bring about the return of the Republic through acts like his clemency to Marcellus. The return of the Republic constituted the most important of all returns. If the return of the Republic were to follow the same trajectory it had taken in the days of Sulla, the restitutor, after the return was accomplished, would leave the city as his final act to preserve the Republic, perhaps following the exemplum of Genucius Cipus.88 This chapter has argued that the ovatio of January 44 was, at least in part, an attempt to meet the rhetorical challenge that the Pro Marcello had presented to Caesar on Caesar's terms instead of Cicero's. Caesar's response to Cicero was to return to a gentilician theology rooted in the regal period and to assert that Cicero's vision of the Republic as a gathering of senators, while compelling, had a history that allowed him to propose for himself a continuing role in that senatorial gathering, as an officiator in Rome, with the city being conceived in ritual terms, rather than the abstract, philosophical terms of a Cicero. To that end Caesar reenacted the migration of the Julii to Rome through his celebration of the Feriae Latinae and subsequent ovation. Alluding to that historical event affirmed the importance of the institution of the Senate and articulated Caesar's conception of himself as a senator among senators, yet one who had a special role based on his ancestral background and personal merits. As fortune would have it, Cicero survived Caesar and participated in the effort to recast the meaning of Page 139 → Caesar's final aims. As one who still hoped for the restoration of a Republic, Cicero was able to add something to the interpretation of Caesar's ovation and imminent departure for the Parthian campaign by “revealing” Caesar's intention to use that string of events to catapult himself into a new Roman monarchy. Cicero did so to achieve his own purposes, which were to discourage the threat of monarchy as represented by future men in the mold of Caesar. This post-assassination vision of Caesar's final procession into the city has permeated and perhaps distorted the historiography of Caesar ever after. 1. Philodemus' On the Good King, which was perhaps written in 58 BCE for his patron L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus to celebrate the latter's consulship, does relate Roman nobles to Homeric kings, but it is not a treatise on the Republic as a system of government. See Murray 1965; Gigante 2002, 75–78. On Caesoninus as the patron of the work, see ibid., 1–13. 2. Cic. Lael. 37; V. Max. 4.7.1; Plu. TG 8.4–5, 17.4, 20.3–4. Plutarch (TG 8.4–5) claims that Blossius and Diophanes of Mitylene incited Tiberius to undertake his land legislation. Blossius also allegedly advised Tiberius to ignore a negative bird omen. See Plu. TG 17.4. Dudley (1941, 96–97) argued against the intellectual significance of Blossius' influence, preferring to see the relationship as political. Brown (1947, 472–73) and others are more positive about the influence. Some point to a strain of thought in Stoicism that allowed for a more democratic ideology (Smuts 1958, 106–16; Hadot 1970, 133–79). See also Africa 1961, 110–24. 3. See Pelling 2011, 407–8. Cicero wrote a laudatio of Cato Uticensis, and Caesar wrote his anti-Cato in response in 45. Cicero's Cato may have been written in dialogue form. See Jones 1970, 194–96. For a discussion of the contents of Caesar's anti-Cato, see Tschiedel 1981. 4. Suet. Jul. 79. Cf. App. BC 2.108–9; Plu. Caes. 60.2; D.C. 44.4.3, 10.1. A brief composite description is offered by Meier 1995, 476. 5. D.C. 44.4.3. 6. Interpretations of Caesar's position on the kingship generally fall into one of three groups: (1) that Caesar aspired to a Hellenistic-style kingship (Meyer 1978; Taylor 1931; Dobesch 1966; Weinstock 1971); (2) that he sought, instead, a Roman-style kingship (Alföldi 1953); and (3) that he was not aiming to be king (Fishwick 1987, 70–71). 7. Plu. Caes. 60.3; Suet. Jul. 78.1; App. BC 2.107; D.C. 44.8.1–4.

8. Nic. Dam. Vit. Caes. 20; App. BC 2.108; Plu. Caes. 61.4; D.C. 44.9.2–3. Cf. Weinstock 1971, 319–20. 9. Nic. Dam. Vit. Caes. 21; Vell. 2.56.4; App. BC 2.109; Suet. Jul. 79.2–3; Plu. Caes. 61.3–4; D.C. 44.11.2–3. 10. Suet. Jul. 79.3; Plu. Caes. 60.1; D.C. 44.15.3. 11. Weinstock 1971, 318–41 = chapter XV (“Investiture”). 12. Lincoln 1990, 59–73. 13. The influence of Augustan propaganda on post-Augustan sources is to be expected. Of Augustus' handling of Caesar's image, Ramage (1985, 223) says that “the emperor from the beginning of his rise to power carried out a subtle program of propaganda designed to suppress Caesar and to put a distance between himself and his father.” Ramage (n. 4) sees the roots of this in the tendency to denigrate one's predecessor, which is also observable in the rhetoric of the Early Empire. Such rhetorical maneuvers were usually nuanced, however, and did not allow for overt criticism. In this case, Caesar comes off worse because the possibility that he sought monarchy is left open. 14. Gradel (2002, 60) observes, “As there was no standard and authoritative definition of what a god was, so it was with a king. Many of Caesar's honours had clear connotations of kingship, both that of ancient Rome and the different version of the Eastern, Hellenistic world, but there was no standard recipe for what a king really was.” 15. Ehrenberg (1964, 149) writes, “Let me say at once that such labels as Hellenistic or Roman kingship, though they may be sometimes necessary, are not without danger. They may cover too much or too little; they can even distort the facts.” Ehrenberg goes on to argue that Caesar was fashioning a new kind of imperial monarchy. Rawson (1975, 148) makes the insightful observation that “he did not need the name of king, for he had the essence.” Sordi (2003, 192–98) argues that Caesar transformed the dictatorship in such a way that he was able to hold near-monarchical power in a diarchy shared with the people. At the same time, writes Sordi, the choice of the dictatorship was an assertive rejection of kingship. 16. For a succinct historical synopsis of the evolution of the Principate, see Lacey 1996b, 132–53. 17. For the nature of the ovation, see Beard 2007, 62–63; Brennan 1996. The ovatio, sometimes known as the lesser triumph, could be regarded as a lesser honor than the triumph: cf. Plin. Nat. 15.19; D.H. 5.47.2–4, 8.67.10. It was also associated with victory without bloodshed: see Gel. 5.6.20; Plu. Marc. 22.5. 18. Salmon 1935, 304–5. 19. Cf. App. BC 2.101; Suet. Jul. 37; Flor. Epit. 2.13.88–89; McDermott 1970, 318–19. For the timing of the triumphs and games, see Ramsey and Licht 1997, 183–84. 20. Plu. Caes. 56.7–9; D.C. 43.42.1. 21. Sumi 2005, 12. 22. For this view, see McDermott 1970, 319. 23. That Cicero (Fam. 4.4.3) truly saw Caesar's clemency on this occasion as both profound and surprising is evident in his words to Sulpicius on the matter: accusata acerbitate Marcelli (sic enim appellabat) laudataque honorificentissime et aequitate tua et prudentia. 24. Cf. Suet. Jul. 28.2. 25. Cf. Cic. Att. 5.11.2; Plu. Caes. 29.2; App. BC 2.98; Gotoff 1993, xxxi. 26. Cic. Marc. 1–2. 27. Cic. Red. Sen. 34. See pp. 103–5. 28. This friendship is evident in the Brutus (249–50), written in 46, where a flattering comparison of Caesar's and Marcellus' oratorical styles is made. Caesar's style is genuinely praised, but Marcellus' style is compared to Cicero's own, implying a greater bond between these two men through the likeness of their rhetorical styles. See Winterbottom 2002, 25–26. 29. Cic. Marc. 10: parietes, me dius fidius, ut mihi videtur, huius curiae tibi gratias agere gestiunt, quod brevi tempore futura sit illa auctoritas in his maiorum suorum et suis sedibus. 30. Ibid. 31. For comparison of Caesar and Sulla, see Cic. Marc. 6–7. Grillo (2012, 151–57) demonstrates the lengths that Caesar went to in the Bellum Civile to compare himself favorably with Sulla and the Sullan model of victory, including Sulla's famous felicitas. Cicero's decision to focus on a comparison with Sulla was well aimed. 32. Cic. Marc. 25–27.

33. Ibid. 12. 34. Both McDermott (1970, 319) and Tyrrell and Purser (1915, lviii–lx; 1918, ix–xiii) hold that the surprise and positive reaction were genuine. Winterbottom (2002, 30), who sees the possibility of foreknowledge on Cicero's part (“the scene in the Senate might have been stage-managed or at least foreseen: both Caesar and Cicero playing out the parts of sudden changes of mind”), still views its sentiments and praise as genuine. 35. Dyer 1990, 17–30. 36. Krostenko 2005, 279–83. 37. Cic. Marc. 8. Weinstock (1971, 322–43) suggested that it was Cicero who first connected Caesar and the divine quality of clementia. Várhelyi (2011, 118–19) sees this discussion of clementia as part of a larger discussion: “the interest in Clementia as a divine quality was produced in a wider context, including political discussions among the elite and, to some extent, even the wider public.” 38. Cic. Att. 14.1.1: etenim si ille tali ingenio exitum non reperiebat, quis nunc reperiet? 39. On the friendship between Matius and Caesar, see Cic. Fam. 11.28: neque enim Caesarem in dissensione civili sum secutus, sed amicum, quamquam re offendebar, tamen non deserui. Matius refers to his role in putting on the Ludi Victoriae Caesaris at 11.28.6. Cf. Kienast 1982, 16–17. 40. Wissowa 1912, 40, 125–26; Latte 1960, 144–46; Scullard 1981, 111–15; Lincoln 1985, 15–16; Orlin 2010, 44–49; Smith 2012, 267–88. I thank Prof. Christopher Smith for providing me an advance copy of his chapter on the Feriae Latinae. 41. Liv. 1.28–29. 42. Sumi 2005, 67. 43. Liv. 1.30.2. 44. Ibid. 1.31.8: the two events are connected, in that it was a sign of divine displeasure on the Alban Mount that led to the problems Tullus sought divine assistance to address. 45. For a recent discussion of the Julian family myth, see Badian 2009, 11–22. 46. Cic. Mil. 90; D.C. 40.50.2. 47. Weinstock (1971, 319–20) notes, “It is equally possible that acclamation and decoration (of the statues) took place the same day, during the ovatio.” 48. Sumi (2005, 65) brought together several elements crucial to the present argument. Chiefly, he recognized that the Feriae Latinae was of particular significance to Roman patrician families and that it would have allowed Caesar to gather with them in a show of unity. For his remarks on the ovatio, see ibid. 65–68. 49. Donahue (2003, 430) discusses the hierarchical significance of the apportionment strategy. 50. Sumi 2005, 65. 51. See Gel. 5.6.20; Plu. Marc. 22.5. 52. Sumi 2005, 66–67. 53. For a succinct discussion of religious dictatorships, see Kaplan 1973, 172–75. During the Hannibalic War, Q. Ogulnius Gallus was, due to the absence of the consuls, appointed dictator for the purpose of holding the Feriae Latinae. This happened after, stones having rained on the Alban Mount, the Senate ordered the Feriae to be repeated. See Liv. 17.28. 54. Zetzel 1995, 6–8, 14–15, 111. De natura deorum, written in 45, is also set at the time of the Feriae Latinae. 55. Weinstock (1971, 326) notes, “There was no war and no victory, not even a ‘mild’ victory.” 56. Sumi 2005, 68. 57. Ibid., 65. 58. McDonnell (2006, 317–18) does raise the possible parallel of Caesar's grant to dedicate the spolia opima, which was supposedly extended although Caesar had not slain an enemy leader in battle. See D.C. 44.4.3; Gelzer 1968, 315; Weinstock 1971, 232–33. There is no record, however, that Caesar ever availed himself of the privilege of dedicating the spolia opima. McDonnell further points to suggestive parallels between Caesar's celebration of these honors with the career of M. Claudius Marcellus during the Hannibalic War. Marcellus celebrated a triumph on the Alban Mount followed by an ovation. See Liv. 26.21.6. Stewart (2013, 87 n. 98) adduces a coin of M. Claudius Marcellinus (RRC 439) as evidence of the topicality of the spolia opima in the early forties and relates the subject to Caesar's grant of amnesty to Marcellus. The precise nature of the connection, however, is left unclear. It is possible that both honors

were a kind of recognition of Caesar's clemency to Marcellus and that the honor of the spolia opima was not celebrated because of the murder of Marcellus in 45. Unfortunately, the evidence is too tenuous to conclude anything with confidence. 59. For ancient testimony, see Tr. Cap. for 40 BCE; Suet. Aug. 22; App. BC 5.66, 130; Plu. Ant. 31; D.C. 48.31.3. See Sumi 2005, 196; Osgood 2006, 191. 60. Inscr. Ital. 1.87:…quod pacem cum M. Antonio fecit. 61. On the setting of the speech's delivery, see Gotoff 1993, xxxvii. 62. Plu. Sull. 34.1. 63. Weinstock (1971, 330–31) sees the ovation as a royal advent; Beacham (1999, 85–86) points out that the ovation allowed him to stay on horseback while remaining in the garb of the Alban kings. McDonnell (2006, 317–18) focuses on Caesar's effort to portray himself as the ideal man of virtus in a performance filled with martial and equestrian associations. His analysis is compelling. 64. Discussion of the early scholarship on the question follows Deutsch 1928, 394. 65. Sihler 1911, 255. 66. Caspari 1909, 189. 67. Drumann 1837, 689. 68. Deutsch 1928, 394–98. 69. Cf. Cic. Att. 1.16.10; Hor. S. 7.1. 70. Strootman 2007, 289–305. 71. An inverse parallel would be Antiochus IV Epiphanes' adoption of the trappings of Roman magistracy and the arming of his soldiers as legionaries (cf. Ath. 5.193e–194d). It could hardly be argued that Antiochus intended to turn his kingdom into a Republic. 72. Cf. Rossi 2000, 239–56. Grillo (2012, 106–30) discusses Caesar's “barbarianization” of the enemy in his Bellum Civile. This not infrequently takes the form of attributing negative stereotypes of Hellenistic kingship to Pompey's men. Grillo (160–67) proffers the attractive theory that Caesar ends the first two books with contrasting conflicts showing two possible futures for Rome. The second, a Caesarian defeat at Bagradas, shows the petty barbarian king Juba bossing around the Pompeian commander Varus. The point is to suggest that a Pompeian victory would spell the end for Roman libertas and respublica. 73. Suetonius (Jul. 79.1) claims that, with regard to kingship, Caesar sought gloriam recusandi. Cf. Rawson 1975, 149. 74. When the people cheered the tribunes Flavius and Marullus, calling them “Brutuses” for punishing those who crowned Caesar's statues with diadems, Caesar called the tribunes “Brutes and Cymaeans,” thereby impugning their intelligence and that of the people who praised them. According to Strabo (13.3.6), the people of Cyme were reputedly dull-witted. Plutarch (Publ. 3.4) connects the name Brutus with slow wits in the person of the famous Brutus who expelled the Tarquins. Cf. the observations of Weinstock (1971, 319) and Perrin (1919) on Plu. Caes. 61.5. 75. Suet. Jul. 79.1. On the deposition of the tribunes, see Kloft 1980, 315–44. 76. Plu. Caes. 62. Plutarch comments that after the deposition of the tribunes, the people turned their thoughts to M. Brutus and his descent from the Brutus who had abolished Rome's monarchy. 77. The argument that Caesar was looking for an opportunity to stage a public recusatio regni is strongly supported by the fact that he caused the Lupercalia refusal to be recorded. D.C. 44.11.3 reports that Caesar caused these events to be recorded as Caesar having refused the diadem that the people had offered him through the consul. Nicolaus of Damascus (Vit. Caes. 21) also calls the diadem the τήν τοῦ δήμου χάριν. See Zecchini 2001, 11–34. 78. Cf. Carson (1957, 51) for Caesar and Antony's pre-arranged cooperation in the recusatio. Welwei (1967, 68–69) preferred to see the diadem scene as a species of ruler cult, not a bid for kingship. Both Marius and Marius Gratidianus had been living recipients of cult in the city of Rome before this time, so the insertion of elements of Caesar cult into the Lupercalia is not unthinkable as a further step in the development of cult to prominent Romans. The use of a diadem in Roman ruler cult, however, seems somewhat unlikely. On divine honors for Marius, see Plu. Mar. 27.5–6. On the cult of Gratidianus, see Cic. Off. 3.80; Sen. Ira 3.18.1; Plin. Nat. 33.132, 34.27; Weinstock 1971, 295 n. 7. 79. Nic. Dam. Vit. Caes. 21. 80. On the significance of this campaign to the Senate and Caesar, respectively, see Zecchini 2001, 89–104.

Zecchini does not interpret the campaign as Caesar's escape from the problems of the Republic. 81. Suet. Jul. 79.3. 82. See n. 12. 83. Cic. Div. 2.112. 84. Ibid. 2.110. To provide some context for unusual practices with regard to the oracles in the Late Republic, Pelling (2011, 446) raises the case of the tribune C. Cato's unauthorized announcement of an oracle regarding the king of Egypt. See Dio 39.15. The differences between this event and the rumor regarding Cotta are not insignificant. First, as Dio depicts the circumstances, lightning striking a statue of Jupiter on the Alban Mount precipitated Cato's bold act. Furthermore, he draggged the quindecemviri before the people to compel them to announce it in the Senate. In other words, although unusual, Cato acted through his authority as tribune, which he used to compel the college of quindecemviri to present the oracle to the Senate. 85. Santangelo (2013, 147–48) sees Cotta using his authority as quindecemvir to interpret a genuine Sibylline Oracle in the course of proposing the kingship for Caesar. He refers to Suetonius' report (Jul. 79.3) that Cotta's announcement was to be presented as the sententiam of the quindecemviri. Suetonius, however, presents this as one of several rumors of the time (varia fama), and he offers no indication of what prompted the putative consultation. 86. Nic. Dam. Vit. Caes. 21; Plu. Caes. 61.5–6; App. BC 2.109. 87. RG 35. 88. See pp. 22–24.

Page 140 →

CHAPTER 5 Octavian's Return in 36 Achieving His Father's Honors The previous chapter proffered the idea that assessments of Caesar relative to the achievements of Augustus are unfairly distorted by a failure to appreciate the comparatively brief amount of time Caesar had to adjust to the new social and political circumstances his victory created. The state of Rome's Republic at Caesar's death was unsustainable. It remained for those Caesar left behind to fumble in the dark toward a reconstitution of the Republic that could endure. As it turned out, time was on the young Octavian's side. After overcoming successive challenges, Octavian won the breathing space he needed to fashion a sustainable position of preeminence and work out the manner in which he would publicly present himself in that role. Octavian's defeat of Sextus Pompey in 36 BCE in the Battle of Naulochus and subsequent celebration of that victory are important landmarks on that journey. The period between Philippi and Naulochus was crucial to the development of Octavian's image and theology. During that time, Octavian's identity as the divine Caesar's heir and Sextus Pompey's rival compelled Octavian to strike a balance between following Caesar's example and winning over those plebs who viewed Sextus Pompey as their hero. Young Pompey had cultivated a personal association, of a frankly Hellenistic flavor, with Neptune. This divine association served as a rallying point for Pompey's supporters among the plebs. After Naulochus, Octavian attempted to present himself as a New Apollo who in defeating Pompey, the favorite of Neptune, brought an end to civil war. Octavian's declaration of the end of civil Page 141 → war proved to be premature; the comcomitant divine pose of Octavian in 36 provided Antony ammunition in the subsequent clash between the two triumvirs. Regardless of the fact that Octavian's self-representation missed the mark in certain respects, one can see in Octavian's triumphal reditus in 36 BCE the foundations of important elements of the Principate, including its ceremonial and theological aspects.1 Following Actium, these elements and others like them would coalesce into the honors, ceremonial, and cult of a new political order, the Principate. While the year 36 BCE has been the subject of a wealth of scholarly discussion, much about Octavian's return and about his ovation of that year remains only partially understood.2 Octavian's celebration of his victory over Sextus Pompey shows the triumvir's first steps in a long process that would lead eventually to the conflation of adventus and triumphus in the empire.3 Furthermore, the celebrations and honors of 36 BCE set important precedents for the construction of the Principate during the aftermath of civil war. Indeed, it was in 36 that Octavian first declared an end to Rome's civil war (Octavian appears to have viewed the end of his war with Sextus Pompey as the conclusion of a much longer conflict, beginning with the conflict between Caesar and Pompey the Great).4 Just as Caesar received honors that brought him closer to divinity following his defeat of Pompey the Great, Octavian, the young Caesar, was received at Rome like a deity in 36, as is attested both in the honors extended to him and in the criticism the honors provoked. The present discussion examines the victorious Octavian's reditus and ovatio in 36 in terms of the evolution of a theology of a Roman savior. The current chapter also seeks to explain the significance of the timing of the ovatio and to shed new light on the problem of the cena dodekatheos. Page 142 → Pompey's interference in the grain supply constituted the greatest threat to Octavian's position in Italy after Octavian's victory in the Perusine War. The situation was exacerbated by the public agitation of Pompeian partisans in Rome. These partisans openly celebrated Sextus as the son of Neptune.5 As the son of Pompey the Great, Sextus embodied an alternative to the divided Caesarian party and could plausibly claim to represent the last hope of the Republic after Philippi.6 Welch has made a strong case for Pompey having been one of the three protectors of the Republic after Mutina (Brutus and Cassius were the other two).7 It was therefore imperative that Octavian defeat and delegitimize Pompey. Octavian cast Pompey as a pirate after the breakdown of the pact of

Misenum, through which Pompey had joined the triumvirate and obtained the augural priesthood, a consulship in absentia, and a large provincia.8 Maneuvering to reverse Pompey's political gains, Octavian took advantage of the opportunity presented to him by the capture of pirates, by claiming that they were taking orders from Pompey.9 Although a brilliant tactic on Octavian's part, this ruse had the downside of limiting the honors that Octavian could then receive in recognition of the subsequent victory over Pompey; Roman generals did not triumph over Page 143 → slaves or pirates.10 Still, the defeat of Pompey was a watershed moment in Octavian's triumviral career and prompted Octavian to maximize its potential to boost his reputation. Up to the defeat of Pompey, various complications had overshadowed the celebration and commemoration of Octavian's military accomplishments. After Mutina, Octavian, denied a triumph or any suitable reward for his defense of the Republic against Antony, marched on Rome to force his way into the consulship.11 The proscriptions soon followed, and Octavian's relatively insignificant role in the victory at Philippi took the shine off of that achievement.12 The circumstances surrounding the victory over Pompey were much more favorable: Octavian was already an established consular, and he held extraordinary, yet legal, authority as a triumvir. Relieving Italy from Sextus Pompey's blockade unquestionably fell within his official purview, and, indeed, Octavian's victory ended the threat of starvation that had plagued the city.13 In comparison with earlier events, the defeat of Sextus Pompey afforded Octavian much greater latitude in how he presented himself—including providing space to frame himself as the savior of the Republic.

Victory over Sextus as the Dawn of a New Age for Italy Not surprisingly, Octavian's victory over Sextus in the Sicilian War yielded an outpouring of divine signs. These signs and the attending activities of diviners are reminiscent of events in the careers of Marius and Sulla, suggesting a return to a narrative about the change of saecula such as emerged in the context of the Social War and the related Roman civil war. According to Pliny the Elder, Suetonius, and Dio, a fish leaped out of the sea and landed at Octavian's feet shortly before the Battle of Naulochus. The haruspices in Octavian's entourage interpreted this as a sign of victory.14 Other Page 144 → omens followed the victory. If Dio and Appian's accounts can be trusted, these omens suggested that Octavian's victory had a sweeping, even cosmic significance.15 One of the more important, if not immediately striking, indicators of the significance attributed to Octavian's victory is the appearance in our ancient sources of references to Italian unrest at the time of the Sicilian War. Italian discontent, which had manifested powerfully in the Perusine War, continued during the Sicilian War. In the Perusine War, Etruscans, Umbrians, and the Sabines had risen up against Octavian and joined the cause of Lucius Antonius. Syme has even characterized this phenomenon as the final manifestation of the Italian resistance of the Social War.16 Although we are not privy to many of the specifics, Dio wrote of unrest in Etruria during the Sicilian War.17 Appian described bands of robbers infesting Italy.18 After his victory over Pompey, Octavian assigned Sabinus to address this bandit problem. It is thus not difficult to see how the theme of Italian unrest attached itself to the Sicilian War too. The quieting of this unrest was cast in terms suggesting divine intervention. As discussed in chapter 1, Sulla had received a sign of his divinely appointed role as savior of Rome and Italy as he embarked on campaign in the Social War.19 Sulla based his interpretation of this sign on the declaration of the haruspices. According to their interpretation of the Lavernan prodigy, a person of striking appearance would bring an end to Rome's troubles both in the city and elsewhere—the reference to troubles being a thinly veiled allusion to the Social War. Any subsequent leader who wanted to lay claim to the fulfillment of this prophecy would thus have to bring an end not only to civil war but also to disturbances in wider Italy. News that Octavian's victory purportedly quieted parts of Etruria that had been in rebellion could have been read in terms of this tradition, which included the prophecy of Page 145 → Vegoia.20 Since Italian unrest, which had resurfaced repeatedly in the first half of the first century, was already interpreted in light of secular prophecy, it would be surprising if the same were not true in regard to Octavian's victory. At Rome, too, divine signs pointed to an end of civil war. As one would expect, Capitoline Jupiter played a

prominent role in the divine manifestations, just as he had during the war between Marius and Sulla. Dio related an anecdote about a Roman soldier who, possessed by a god, “said and did many strange things” that culminated in the soldier running to the Capitoline and placing his sword at the feet of Jupiter.21 Dio interpreted this sign to indicate that the sword could be given away, as there would be no further use for it, because war would be at an end. Dio's interpretation is consistent with Octavian's own declaration of the end of civil war after his return. Another interesting sign was manifested: a god's lightning struck Octavian's property on the Palatine, which Octavian had recently expanded by buying out some of his neighbors. The haruspices interpreted this as the god indicating his desire that a Temple of Apollo be built on the spot.22 The other appearance of haruspices in this period related to victory at the Battle of Naulochus. On this occasion the haruspices interpreted the sign of a fish jumping out of the sea and landing at Octavian's feet.23 It is unlikely to be coincidental that two references to the haruspices occur within such a brief period of time. They evoke the memoir of Sulla, in which repeated references to the activities of haruspices were intended to show divine involvement in a predicted victory for Sulla and his restoration of both Rome and its empire. Page 146 → The consistency between the reports of divine manifestations in Rome and in the broader Italian context suggest that Octavian was casting himself in the role of savior of Rome and Italy in a manner similar to the role Sulla had earlier carved out for himself in his own memoir.24 Following this model, the propaganda of the Sicilian War laid part of the foundation for what would evolve into the princeps' depiction of a unified Italy (cuncta Italia) during his election to the pontificate in 12 BCE—an election for which Italians flocked to the city.25 The forced retirement of Lepidus, who had attempted to steal Octavian's legions on Sicily in 36, led to the call for Octavian to replace Lepidus as pontifex maximus, but Octavian refrained from doing so.26 The Res Gestae's account of Augustus' election to the supreme pontificate in 12 BCE and the role of cuncta Italia's vote in making that happen are thus ultimately rooted in the events of 36, when Octavian's defeat of Sextus Pompey brought an end to Italian famine and unrest.

Celebrating Victory over Sextus Pompey As noted earlier, once Octavian promoted the idea that Pompey was a pirate, he could not then celebrate this significant victory with a triumph. At the same time, Octavian would not forgo the opportunity to maximize the victory's potential to transform his image and improve his political position. Fortunately for Octavian, the period of the Late Republic was replete with examples, other than the triumph, of honors that could be valuable in forwarding such an agenda; Octavian was well aware of such possibilities, thanks, in no small part, to the example of his adoptive father. Many people at Rome were cooperative in extending Octavian extraordinary honors in 36, because many were genuinely relieved that the grain blockade was over. Therefore, in response to the news of Octavian's victory, the Senate began to vote him numerous honors, including “praise, statues, the right to the front seat, an arch surmounted by trophies, the privilege of riding into the city on horseback, of wearing the laurel crown on all occasions, and of holding an annual banquet with his wife and children in the Temple of Capitoline Jupiter on the anniversary of his victory.”27 Page 147 → This list of honors provides some clues regarding the form that the celebration of the victor's initial advent took. The Senate voted Octavian “praise” (ἐπαίνους). The voting of ἐπαίνους probably concerned the preparations for the acclamations and speeches that would be offered on Octavian's arrival. The provision for statues (εἰκόνας) may have applied to the display of statues for the occasion of Octavian's entry and ovation as well as to a permanent display of images. A plentiful supply of images of the triumvir already existed, but further images would be fashioned to commemorate the event.28 In addition to statues of Octavian, the people of Rome may have displayed images of Julius Caesar to show their loyalty and support for the divi filius.29 Also among Octavian's honors was the privilege to ride into the city on horseback (τὸ ἐφ᾽ ἵππου ἐσελάσαι). In 44, Caesar had entered the city on horseback during his ovation; so, too, did Octavian and Antony in 40.30 Although

the precise context for exercising the honor of riding into the city in horseback is not specified, it likely applied to both his initial advent and also the subsequent ovation. The right to wear the laurel crown (τό τε στεφάνῳ δαφνίνῳ ἀεὶ χρῆσθαι) also may have applied to both the advent and ovation.31 The arch (ἁψῖδά τε τροπαιοφόρον) would serve to mark and thus Page 148 → commemorate the victor's processional route. The right to the front seat (προεδρίαν) provided Octavian a place of honor at the games celebrated in connection with his return and ovation, the latter of which would occur during the Ludi Plebeii.32 Finally, the honor of celebrating a private banquet on the Capitoline on the anniversary of the victory was likely designed to commemorate his cena adventicia (homecoming banquet), the anticipated banquet after the ovation's procession, or both.33 Many of the details concerning his arrival are similar to the grand civic receptions that cities accorded to Hellenistic kings and their representatives in the East. The people proceeded out a great distance from the city to meet Octavian as he started his final advance toward Rome.34 In celebrations of arrival, the degree of honor was measured by the status of the most prestigious participants, the sheer number of participants, and the distance they traveled to meet the person arriving.35 To provide some perspective, Antony traveled all the way from Rome to Spain to meet Caesar as Caesar started his return journey to Rome.36 Later, in the Res Gestae, Augustus made much of the fact that the Senate decreed an embassy—including praetors, tribunes, and a consul—to go as far as Campania to welcome Augustus on the occasion of his return to Rome from Syria in 19 BCE.37 When Octavian arrived at the city in 36, the people escorted him to temples and then finally to his own house.38 On the following day, Octavian assembled the people outside the pomerium (as was traditional for the pretriumphal contio) and addressed them. There “he proclaimed peace and goodwill, and said that the civil wars were ended.”39 Octavian then discussed Page 149 → both the honors extended to him and the benefactions he would bestow on Rome. Among his benefactions, he included the bestowal of citizenship on Utica, a city that figured prominently in fight between Caesar and the Pompeians; this was surely a gesture symbolizing reconciliation at the end of a civil war Octavian was framing as a continuation of that earlier conflict.40 This event provides clear evidence that Octavian appealed to the memory of the divine Julius in the way he envisioned the significance of his war with Sextus Pompey.41 Octavian also emulated Caesar in the way he exercised discretion in accepting some honors and refusing others.42 Indeed, when the people urged Octavian to replace Lepidus as pontifex maximus, Octavian declined to do so.43 More striking is the mention of Octavian's pronouncement of benefactions, which conforms to the model of Hellenistic royal parousia. During a royal parousia, appropriately flowery communication concerning honors and benefactions would take place between the king and the government of the polis. It could occur during a meeting of the king with the city council.44 In such an exchange, the king would detail his gifts to the city, including such benefactions as the right of self-government, freedom from tribute, and grain. Although most instances of adventus at Rome in this period evoke the image of Hellenistic royal parousia to some degree, this instance of Octavian announcing his benefactions to Rome constitutes a particularly striking parallel to Hellenistic royal visitations. Indeed, it suggests a relationship between ruler and city that is quite different from the traditional mold of a victorious commander-magistrate returning in triumph to Rome. In the traditional relationship, the magistrate goes forward as an elected representative, bearing a grant of imperium assented to by the god Jupiter. Page 150 → The grant of a triumph gives the magistrate a surpassing, if temporary, preeminence, but it remains the Senate's gift to give. Octavian's approach to his advent in 36 suggests a degree of role reversal, with the benefactions of the victor threatening to overshadow the honors extended to him by the Senate and people. The Senate in particular may have felt pressure to inflate the honors extended to Octavian in return, if only to forestall the inevitable realization of the Senate's collective inadequacy and dependence on the warlords who had effectively hijacked the Republic. Octavian's honors of 36 followed the precedent set during the last two years of Caesar's life, when civil war victories led to the extension of honors that raised the prestige and status of the honorand above his peers on a more enduring basis.45 The list of honors for Octavian was not as long as Caesar's, nor were the individual honors as ostentatious; but in some respects, they arguably exceeded the Caesarian forerunners. After Octavian arrived and addressed the Romans, it was further decided that at least one of the statues voted for him would be gold—a clear symbol of divinity—and that the statue would appear in the garb Octavian wore as he entered the city.46 This

statue would stand in the Forum Romanum, on the apex of a column covered with the beaks of ships, a monument in the tradition of the column honoring Duilius.47 On this monument would be a plaque bearing the inscription “Peace, long disturbed, he re-established on land and sea.”48 The claim of conquering on both land and sea had its roots in the propaganda of Hellenistic rulers and in the claims to world rule by both Pompey and Caesar.49 Augustus incorporated the same claim into his Res Gestae.50 Aspects of this list of honors clearly imbued Octavian with an aura of divinity. Indeed, the elevation of Octavian to a semi-divine status is perhaps the most innovative aspect of the honors extended in 36 in connection Page 151 → with Octavian's victory over Sextus Pompey. The honors of 36 lent greater weight to Octavian's connections to divinity as the son of the divine Caesar (divi filius) and the son of Apollo, but they also served to broaden the appeal of this divinity. In addition to the gold statue, he received tribunician sanctitas—inviolability secured by an oath of the plebs—perhaps in lieu of the supreme pontificate.51 Now associated with the tribunate through this honor, Octavian appeared to be a champion of the plebs, a group that had recently held Pompey to be their man.52 The entire list of divine honors was in keeping with the spirit of the times during the conflict with Sextus Pompey. Indeed, one might say that there had been a kind of “arms race” in divine propaganda, since Sextus Pompey's association with Neptune surely had developed in response to the cachet that Octavian possessed by being the divi filius.53 For his part, Octavian likely then started to promote the story that his father was Apollo. Although logically inconsistent, the claim to dual paternity was precisely the same one Sextus Pompey made.54

Banquet of the Gods Although generally not viewed in the same light as other divine honors, the annual banquet on the anniversary of the victory over Pompey merits Page 152 → closer examination as an honor adding to the divine luster surrounding Octavian.55 Private banqueting in association with state festivals was a feature of the Ludi Cereales, Ludi Megalenses, and Saturnalia.56 Such banquets, however, usually took place at the family's private residence, rather than in the temple of Rome's patron deity. The honor of the private use of the Temple of Capitoline Jupiter for a banquet thus stands out as unique. It is, in fact, reminiscent of Demetrius Poliorcetes' use of the opisthodomos of the Temple of Athena Parthenos as his private residence in Athens and of the private consultations that Scipio Africanus purportedly had with Jupiter in the god's sacrarium at the Capitoline Temple.57 The honor of this annual banquet with Jupiter was not simply a voluntary act of private devotion, however; it was decreed by the Senate. This melding of the public and private under official auspices is characteristic of the Principate and should be viewed as an early step in its development. Furthermore, the extension of this honor to the family of the triumvir meant that Octavian's entire family attained a species of official status and a divine aura. This anniversary victory banquet is also interesting in light of the charge leveled by Antony against Octavian that the triumvir had participated in a scandalous banquet, which Suetonius dubbed the cena dodekatheos, or “banquet of the twelve gods.”58 The episode is related in a complicated account of Suetonius. Page 153 →

Cena quoque eius secretior in fabulis fuit, quae vulgo δωδεκάθεος vocabatur; in qua deorum dearumque habitu discubuisse convivas et ipsum pro Apolline ornatum non Antoni modo epistulae singulorum nomina amarissime enumerantis exprobant, sed et sine auctore notissimi versus:

Cum primum istorum conduxit mensa choragum, Sexque deos vidit Mallia sexque deas, Impia dum Phoebi Caesar mendacia ludit,

Dum nova divorum cenat adulteria: Omnia se a terris tunc numina declinarunt, Fugit et auratos Iuppiter ipse thronos.

Auxit cenae rumorem summa tunc in civitate penuria ac fames, adclamatumque est postridie: omne frumentum deos comedisse et Caesarem esse plane Apollinem, sed Tortorem, quo cognomine is deus quadam in parte urbis colebatur.59

[There were also rumors that he held a private banquet, which was commonly referred to as the twelve gods, in which the banqueters reclined in the guise of gods and goddesses; Caesar himself was arrayed as Apollo. Not only does a letter of Antony bitingly counting off the names of each of the banqueters put forth the accusation, but also notorious verses of unknown authorship:

‘When first the table of that infamous host united together, Mallia saw six gods here, six goddesses there, While Caesar Apollo mimed a blasphemous fable, And represented new heavenly indiscretions at table, All the heavenly powers turned away from the earth, And Jove himself fled his golden throne.’

Extreme scarcity and famine in the city at the time fed the rumor of the banquet. The next day the cry rang out: “The gods have devoured all the stores, and Caesar is surely Apollo, but the Tormenting One”—the god was worshiped by that name in a certain part of the city.]

In this scandalous banquet, Octavian allegedly dressed as Apollo, while famine raged in the city. For this reason, the people of Rome called Octavian Page 154 → Apollo the Tormentor. One wit wrote a poem on the topic in which the banquet was described in terms reminiscent of the rite of lectisternium, a banquet of the gods offered as expiation at times of pestilence and military disaster.60 In the poem, Jupiter, disgusted at the sight of recent lewdness (nova adulteria) at the banquet, is described as fleeing his throne. The precise inspiration for the accusation is difficult to pin down, although the lewd behavior of Demetrius Poliorcetes on the Athenian Acropolis and in the Parthenon, where he had taken up residence, would be an obvious non-Roman source of inspiration.61 Some scholars argue that one particular historical banquet or another was the inspiration for Suetonius' cena dodekatheos, while others argue that such a banquet never occurred.62 Indeed, it may not have, although Antony's accusation, complete with a roster of names of the banquet's participants, would seem to indicate quite the opposite.63 One must be conscious of the possibility that Suetonius' portrayal of the event could be the product of his own scholarship, cobbled together from various strands of evidence. The cena dodekatheos is compelling, in either case, because of what it may reveal about contemporary tensions

regarding the increasingly permeable Page 155 → boundaries between humanity and divinity. The divine claims and honors of the day broke new ground in closing the gap between the mortal and divine realms. Notice the juxtaposition of the words nova and deorum in the poem, which not only suggests novelties involving the gods but perhaps also hints at “new gods.” It was one thing for someone to claim intimate association with divinities in the mode of a Numa or Scipio Africanus, but it was altogether another thing to assume the guise of one of the heavenly gods. The latter surely challenged the Romans' theological sensibilities. The right to hold an annual private banquet in the Capitoline Temple was a unique honor that pushed the boundaries of traditional relations between Rome's human and divine communities. Perhaps it was deemed offensive that Livia, who was assumed by many to have committed adultery with Octavian, attended a state-sanctioned banquet held in the presence of Jupiter. It may also be the case that mendacia and nova adulteria refer to a dramatic reenactment of the story of the miraculous conception of Octavian in the Temple of Apollo. Certainly men like the purportedly pious Q. Lutatius Catulus would have been aghast in either case.64 The story of the cena dodekatheos is powerful in the way that it gives expression to contemporary discomfort with the novel honors extended to Octavian and his family, people of arguably questionable morals. The cena dodekatheos anecdote thus serves as a kind of narrative theological argument that would have been particularly applicable to the circumstances of 36, a year in which the informal touting of divine parentage during conditions of civil war was translated into unprecedented official honors that substantively cemented these divine claims. For those who witnessed Octavian's return in 36, the myth of the cena dodekatheos would have resonated powerfully with reflections on the novelty, contradictions, Page 156 → transgressions, and hopes attached to this remarkable shift in Roman religious practice. It is therefore useful to explore the ways in which the story of the cena dodekatheos would have been applicable in this historical context, regardless of whether an actual, historical banquet matching Suetonius' description occurred during that year. In this examination, the events of 36 will be treated both as a viable historical context for the cena dodekatheos, albeit cautiously and tentatively, and as representative of the developments in Rome's religious culture that informed the story and its particular concerns. It is important to note that it was not unusual for elite feasting to occur in connection with advents, triumphs, and ovations. Appian relates an account of the triumphing Scipio Africanus banqueting with his friends at the Capitoline Temple “in accordance with custom.”65 During Aemilius Paullus' triumph in 167, the Senate held a feast on the Capitol. Livy raises the question of whether such a feast is for the pleasure of men or the gods.66 In the poem that Suetonius transmits regarding the banquet of the twelve gods, Jupiter fled from his golden throne at the sight of the impious banquet. As Miller astutely observes, the reference to the throne suggests the Jupiter of the Capitoline Temple in particular.67 The setting of the cena dodekatheos, as imagined by Suetonius' poet, was thus probably the Capitoline Temple, which was the traditional setting of a triumphal banquet. Suetonius' description of this cena as secretior may reflect contemporary concerns about the relative inaccessibility of Octavian's unique community with Jupiter.68 A victory banquet in the Capitoline Temple would have been inaccessible to most of the city populace because of space limitations. Like the cena dodekatheos, a private cena adventicia such as friends of a victorious general would offer in honor of his success was also cut off from Page 157 → public view and participation.69 The honor of an annual private yet state-sanctioned banquet in the presence of Jupiter Optimus Maximus combined such traditions, but it did so in a way that was novel. One might expect annual private banqueting of elites during festivals, as in the case of the festival of the Great Mother, or the use of a magistrate's home for state rites, such as happened in the observance of the rites of Bona Dea. Extraordinary here was the celebration of an official but private banquet in a state temple of such singular significance. Those who officially celebrate lectisternia in private with the gods must be, by inference, gods themselves. The novelty of this private lectisternium of state gods together with Octavian and his family resonates with the sense of outrage in Suetonius' depiction of the secretior cena. One might object that the cena dodekatheos does not match the conditions of 36, since Suetonius describes the former as having occurred at a time of severe hardship and famine (summa tunc in civitate penuria ac fames).70 Suetonius relates that, on the following day, a cry was raised that the gods had eaten all the food and that Octavian was Apollo the Tortor (the Tormentor)—one of the god's cult epithets in the city.71 Caution about the credibility of this description is in order. It is important to recall the highly rhetorical nature of the war of words between the

different factions in general and in representations of advents and triumphs in particular.72 Historical reports of departures, advents, and triumphs may include mention of the misstep, embarrassing moment, or bad omen that marred the occasion.73 Indeed, it was de rigueur for the political opponents of any arriving Page 158 → elite to paint his arrival in terms that inverted the panegyrics of those who praised him. Plutarch recounts a story closely similar to the cena dodekatheos and its accompanying public outcry. His biography of Antony describes the triumvir's much-celebrated arrival at Ephesus as the New Dionysus.74 After a Dionysiac welcome in which the inhabitants of Ephesus, dressed as maenads, satyrs, and pans poured out of the city to greet him as “Dionysus the Beneficent and Mild” (Xαριδότην καὶ Mειλίχιον), Antony settled in for an extended stay in the city, during which, according to his enemies, he partied with disreputable people and distributed largesse to them.75 These enemies retaliated against his misbehavior by twisting his new Dionysiac identity into a malignant form of the god, “Dionysus the Cannibal and Savage” (Ὠμηστὴς καὶ Ἀγριώνιος). The inversion of the divine epithet so soon after the arrival of the leader is reminiscent of the acclamation of Octavian as Apollo Tortor and of the offensive image of the cena dodekatheos. Furthermore, in both accounts, the transformation of an image of generous benefaction to one of monstrous consumption violates the ideal economy of honors and benefactions appropriate for ruler-city relations.76 The existence of two narratives of such close similarity that concern each of the two sides of a well-known propaganda war should, at the very least, raise suspicions about their factual accuracy.77 It may be that these charges were manufactured after the fact, as part of the war of words between the two sides in the run-up to Actium. However, if such complaints and insults really were voiced at the time of the described events, it is possible that the partisans of the particular triumvir's enemy played the part of anti-claque to mar the festivities. Partisans of Antony or the refugee Sextus Pompey might have aimed anti-acclamations of Apollo Tortor at Octavian in 36. Suetonius' description of the negative reaction to the banquet of the twelve gods Page 159 → includes the verb adclamare, the standard language of a welcome chant at an advent, triumph, or similar arrival ceremony.78 This suggests that, at the very least, his source was playing with conventional rhetoric associated with the adventus and triumphus. The Roman people may have greeted Octavian as the New Apollo when he arrived in Rome after defeating Sextus Pompey, just as the Athenians and Ephesians hailed Antony as a New Dionysus. “New Apollo” was a fitting greeting for the man who had defeated the son of Neptune.79 The cry of Apollo Tortor would thus have represented an inversion of the welcoming acclamation, precisely in the same terms as the cry of Dionysus the Cannibal against Antony in Ephesus. Whether either rhetorical inversion actually took place in the historical setting described, it is clear that the Hellenistic royal welcoming ritual was the lens through which these episodes were interpreted. The clash between this Mediterranean cultural phenomenon and traditional Roman arrival practices gave rise to anecdotes like that of the cena dodekatheos. In this case, the incongruity of seeing Octavian enter Rome in ovation to acclamations as the New Apollo, perhaps even dressed as the god, provides the specific point of tension.80 The adoption of an explicitly divine identity that was not set aside at the climax of the ritual (as the triumphal costume traditionally Page 160 → was) but, rather, persisted on into the banquet with Jupiter would be yet another point of controversy. As a transgression of Roman tradition, it was perhaps more grievous than Marius' misstep in wearing his triumphal garb to his first meeting with the Senate as consul.81 The difference in Octavian's case was that the Senate and People legitimized the divine association by granting the honor of an annual banquet with Jupiter. With partisans of other leaders still around, however, the novelty of the situation readily lent itself to invective. The likelihood that Octavian was identified as Apollo in the context of his victorious return or during his ovation and then during his victory banquet on the Capitoline depends on the degree to which Octavian did, in fact, promote his connection with Apollo at such an early stage of his career.82 Numismatic evidence for such an early connection is admittedly sparse, with most depictions of Apollo on Octavian's coinage following the victory at Actium. Gurval in particular has argued at some length against the position that Octavian played up his associations with Apollo before Actium.83 While it is likely that the myth of the Augustus-Apollo connection took time to develop, there is sufficient cause to consider an early date for the identification of Octavian with Apollo, leading to acclamations of Octavian as the New Apollo in 36.84 As mentioned earlier, Pompey's use of Neptune would have provided a strong inducement for Octavian to respond by adopting the story that Apollo was his

father. The claim to be divi filius was, at that point, probably no longer sufficient to compete with Sextus. Although the relationship between the divine claims of Pompey and Octavian may be difficult to prove, the evidence strongly supports such an inference. The evidence that Pompey promoted himself as the son of Neptune is, of course, stronger than the evidence of Octavian's promotion of Apollo as his father. Sextus' coins proudly display Neptune and marine symbols.85 Octavian's Apolline references on coinage are much subtler: a Page 161 → tripod with a cauldron and laurel.86 If the cena dodekatheos does not pertain to 36, the evidence appears even sparser.

Palatine Apollo and the New Age One important piece of evidence from 36 has not yet been taken sufficiently into account. Upon his return to Rome, Octavian vowed a temple to Apollo, which was to be placed next to his own house on the Palatine.87 Gurval discounts this as any kind of public statement about Apollo, but taken in the context of the honors extended to Octavian that year, such a position hardly seems tenable.88 This was, after all, precisely the time when the public and private religious spheres were colliding for the young triumvir. The honor of banqueting with his family in the Capitoline Temple shows the same blurring of boundaries from the other direction. Indeed, the circumstances of the construction of his house and the vowing of the Temple of Apollo strongly suggest that Octavian intended for the temple to serve as a very public statement regarding his religiosity. Octavian probably started to acquire property to expand his house on the Palatine before his victory over Pompey.89 Dio's account seems to indicate that the people's vote to build Octavian's house at public expense occurred at a meeting of the Assembly after Octavian's victory contio outside the pomerium. A thunderbolt had struck the property, leading Octavian to call in haruspices, who declared that the god had claimed the spot; thus Octavian vowed to build the temple.90 We are not privy to the amount of Page 162 → time that passed between the contio and the meeting of the Assembly, but it would very likely have been sufficient time for discussion of the disposition of Octavian's property in light of the implications of the divine manifestation through lightning. The process whereby the new Palatine residence of Octavian became a matter of public concern should be viewed as part of the negotiation of Octavian's honors in 36.91 Once the god had claimed the spot by means of his lightning, Augustus and those honoring him arranged for the state to pay to build his house and the temple as part of the package of honors he was to receive. Thus the claim that this temple was merely a private expression of devotion does not bear close scrutiny. Hekster and Rich have discussed the lightning strike on Octavian's Palatine property in great detail.92 According to their reading of the evidence, after lightning struck Octavian's Palatine property, the haruspices were called in to examine the event, and they concluded, doubtless to Octavian's delight, that Apollo had thereby indicated his desire to have a temple on the spot. In the present argument, it has been proposed that the appearance of the haruspices in this event follows in the tradition of Sulla's claim to be the Republic's savior at the arrival of a new saeculum. The identification of Apollo as one who hurls thunderbolts to indicate his will is, as Hekster and Rich acknowledge, not unproblematic. Apollo had, up to that time, never been credited with a lightning prodigy of any kind in Rome. There is no clear evidence that Etruscans ever attributed this power to their god Apulu such that the haruspices would have concluded that Apollo had indicated his desire for a temple on that spot, unless, of course, Octavian pressed them to do so. We have no evidence that he did. The problem of Apollo and the thunderbolt can be overcome, however, if we suppose that Octavian and others were identifying the god with Veiovis, Page 163 → as Cinnan moneyers did earlier in the same century.93 This “youthful Jupiter” was depicted as an Apolline youth bearing arrows or thunderbolts. Veiovis was a Julian family god, who was also connected to Romulus' asylum on the Capitol.94 Veiovis was considered a god of asylum, an attribute that may have been considered appropriate in light of the circumstances of the migration of the Julian clan to Rome after the fall of Alba Longa to Tullus Hostilius.95 His association with the Julian clan can be dated at least as far back as the late second century, as is attested in an inscribed altar at Bovillae, the traditional seat of the Julians.96 Weinstock suggests the association of Veiovis and Iulus, ancestor of the Julians, as that of two youthful males who employ the bow.97 Servius relates a legend, which he attributes to L. Caesar, that Iulus used his bow to avenge the death of his father, Aeneas, who had been slain at the hands of Mezentius. The identification of

Apollo, another Julian deity, with Veiovis—a natural association since both figures are youthful, arrow-slinging deities—would have been most useful for Octavian at a moment in time when Octavian was once again avenging Caesar by defeating the remnants of his father's Pompeian enemies in Sicily and bringing an end to new unrest in Italy. The lightning strike of “Apollo” on the Palatine would make perfect sense if that Apollo were also seen as Veiovis. If correct, this proposed association of Apollo with Veiovis on the Palatine would also hark back to events at Rome earlier in the first century. It is perhaps more than an interesting coincidence that in order to enlarge his residence on the Palatine, Octavian purchased the home of Q. Lutatius Catulus Capitolinus, the Sullan consular who had rebuilt a Capitoline Temple destroyed in civil war and who had been defeated by Caesar in the election for pontifex maximus.98 Licinius Macer, a triumvir monetalis who put Veiovis on his coins during the dominatio Cinnae, was an ideological Page 164 → foe of Catulus.99 Sallust has the tribune (73 BCE) Licinius describe Catulus as saevior in comparison with Sulla.100 Catulus' building projects on the Capitoline had the effect of crowding the Temple of Veiovis and the Asylum of Romulus to the point that they were practically obscured, a gesture that was intended to communicate his partisan sentiments about the ill-reputed Asylum of Romulus and the Temple of Veiovis, which Romulus had instituted to provide refuge for Italians fleeing tyranny.101 Licinius Macer and Catulus thus represented two sides of an ideological conflict that was expressed in political action, historical representation, coinage, and monuments. The two men also reflected two different postures toward the issue of the citizenship of the Italians, as their respective treatments of the Asylum of Romulus would suggest.102 Elements of that conflict carried through into the triumviral period, as should be apparent in the lore about Catulus and Octavian. At least two of the dreams that Suetonius reports as foretelling Octavian's imperial future were purportedly sent to Catulus, who dreamed of Jupiter and the child Octavian interacting in the Capitoline Temple.103 In these dreams, Catulus' anger toward the young Octavian for violating the sanctity of Jupiter's temple is quelled by the command of Jupiter. Since Catulus died shortly after 61, his life had overlapped briefly with Octavian's. The dreams that bring the two together in this way are reminiscent of the tale of Scipio passing the torch of martial charisma to Marius. Taken together, however, Catulus' dreams and the claim of a lightning strike on Octavian's recently acquired property on the Palatine might reflect tensions over the sale of Catulus' home to Octavian. Octavian may have chosen to buy this property as a political statement. If so, it would not be the last time that Octavian would use a house to make a statement. Consider his demolition of the house of his own partisan Vedius Pollio, which may have been intended as a repudiation of the man's lavish lifestyle and cruelty, both evidently abhorrent to Augustus.104 On this Page 165 → occasion, the statement may have involved reversing Catulus' slight against Veiovis and Romulus by appropriating Catulus' home, covering it with his own new villa, and establishing a giant temple to Apollo-Veiovis on part of the site or, at least, directly adjacent to it. Such a gesture would be oddly reminiscent of Clodius' treatment of Cicero's Palatine residence. Since a Roman's personal residence might be seen as both an extension of the man and also as a kind of sacred structure, it was entirely appropriate to envision such a conflict in mythological terms, which is what Catulus' dreams do. The lightning authorizing the establishment of the Temple of Apollo in connection with the triumvir's Palatine residence, when read through the lens of Catulus' dreams, can be seen as an authorization by Jupiter of the prodigious activities of his new favorite, the New Apollo or Young Jupiter, which happened to disturb Catulus. That Palatine Apollo is not explicitly identified as Veiovis does not militate against this reading.105 Obviously, in the intervening years between the vow of the temple and its post-Actian completion, the more obscure Veiovis had fallen into oblivion, in favor of the more famous Apollo. The virtues of identifying the god who struck Octavian's property as Veiovis are that (1) it handily explains why Apollo indicates his will with lightning, something that is no obstacle for Veiovis; (2) Veiovis and Apollo are both appropriate gods for a Julian, but Veiovis has both an archaizing flavor and also strong ancestral ties to the Julian family; (3) Veiovis combines the attributes of Apollo and Jupiter in a manner that is distinctly Augustan (in this regard, one notes the dream attributed to Octavian's father in which Octavian, riding in a triumphal quadriga, exhibits characteristics of both Jupiter and Apollo [Suet. Aug. 94.6]); and (4) it was perhaps fitting for Octavian to associate himself with the ancient Italian roots of the Julii and to have that identification sanctioned by the haruspices at this time, when there had been recent unrest in

Italy. If Veiovis or Jupiter sent the lightning that struck Octavian's Palatine property, this event may have been interpreted in conjunction with the possessed Page 166 → soldier's gesture of placing a sword before the feet of Capitoline Jove and thus as providing divine affirmation that Octavian's victory was the end of civil war, an idea that Octavian himself promoted shortly thereafter. This conjunction of miracles involving Jupiter, Apollo-Veiovis, and Octavian points strongly to the possibility that, as in other victory epiphanies, Octavian and his supporters engaged in a deliberate campaign to show the role of the gods in their success.106 In this case, the victory was given broad significance. Octavian seems to have hoped that his victory would mark the end of civil war, the restoration of the Republic, and the pacification of Italy. In short, it would be the dawning of a new age, and what deity would better represent the arrival of this new age than a young Jupiter—Veiovis-Apollo?107 Octavian would also combine the attributes of Jupiter and Apollo in his ovation, when he entered the city in procession wearing a laurel crown just as Crassus had in 71.108 Of course, Crassus' reason for donning the laurel may have included assimilation to another son of Jupiter, Hercules.109 As part of Octavian's returning honors, he had been granted an ovation on the Ides of November. This ovation was part of a recent trend of innovative Page 167 → ovations. It was preceded by the double ovation with Antony in 40 to celebrate the peace resulting from the pact of Brundisium.110 The double ovation of the triumvirs was modeled on Caesar's ovation of January 44 in that it was not in celebration of a military victory. Like Caesar's, it was also intended, in a sense, to be a celebration of the end of civil war and of reconciliation.111 Octavian's ovation of 36, although it celebrated the victory over Sextus Pompey, also marked the end of civil war. This is not to say that the defeat of Sextus was not an important aspect of the proceedings. Octavian orchestrated the timing of his ovation to send clear messages about his own rise and honors and about the enemy he had overcome. The timing of Octavian's victory and the celebrations upon his return to Rome were rich in significance. His defeat of Sextus and quashing of Lepidus' abortive coup occurred in his natal month, and he might have seen the victory as another new birth, just as he had construed the appearance of the astrum Caesaris. Although Octavian had returned to the city in September, he timed his ovation to coincide with the Ludi Plebeii.112 The choice of date looked back to Octavian's adventus at Rome in November of 44 during the Ludi Plebeii. On that occasion, a tribune, Cannutius, went out to meet Octavian and his soldiers, who were encamped at the Temple of Mars on the Via Appia. Octavian then entered the city through the Porta Capena and held a contio at the Temple of Castor and Pollux,113 where he addressed a crowd consisting of his soldiers, the plebs, and undoubtedly some members of the Roman elite. Stretching his hand toward a statue of Caesar, he stated his intention to seek the same honors that his adoptive father, Caesar, had acquired.114 Even a cursory comparison of the honors extended to Octavian in 36 with those extended to Caesar in 46 and 45, also for civil war victories, reveals the significant overlap. By celebrating his ovation during the Ludi Plebeii, Octavian was thus able to evoke the memory of his arrival in the city in November of 44 in such a way as to show that he had achieved what he had then said he would do. Drawing people's minds back to 44 was yet another means of marking this victory as an end to a civil war that was Page 168 → only prolonged by the assassination of Caesar in the Curia Pompeia. Furthermore, during the Ludi Plebeii of 40, Pompeian partisans had cheered a statue of Neptune both in support of their leader Sextus, the selfstyled “son of Neptune,” and in opposition to Octavian, who had recently celebrated his victory in the Perusine War.115 At the time, Octavian responded to the provocation by forbidding statues of Neptune from being displayed at the games.116 The timing of these earlier demonstrations on Sextus Pompey's behalf adds to the significance of the ovation of 36. Octavian had stressed his connection to Apollo as an answer to Pompey's claim that Neptune was his father. Both of these claims to divine identity also tied the men to their fathers. Apollo was a patron of the Julii, while Sextus saw his father, who had swept the pirates from the Mediterranean, as a favorite of Neptune. After he defeated Pompey and put him on the run, Octavian timed his victory celebration during the Ludi Plebeii to fall on the date of the prior conflict with Pompey's partisans over their Neptune. He did so in order to place a highly symbolic final terminus on the civil war conflict between Pompeii and Julii and their divine patrons. That the ovating commander was not dressed in the customary vestis triumphalis would have given him greater leeway in his mode of self-presentation. During his ovation, Octavian entered the city as the New Apollo and then banqueted

on the Capitoline with the god in whose honor the games were conducted. November 13 was a feast day for Jupiter (epulum Iovis) after the ludi.117 During this feast, senators dined at public expense on the Capitoline, while the people dined in the Forum Romanum. Octavian also may have sought to capitalize on the possible symbolism of libertas associated with both the Ludi Plebeii and other cult celebrations dated to the Ides of November. Several ancient authors place the origins of these games in the early years of the Republic, after the expulsion and defeat of the Tarquins.118 Other deities celebrated on the Ides of November, as attested Page 169 → in the Fasti Antiates and the calendar of the Arval Brethren, included Feronia, Fortuna Primigenia, and Pietas.119 In Servius, one finds evidence of the significance of the cult of Feronia for freedwomen, as well as Varro's comment to the effect that her name was the equivalent of Libertas.120 Since November 27 would mark the seventh anniversary of the passing of the lex Titia, which gave a legal basis to the Second Triumvirate, the celebration of Octavian's return as the end of civil war in a time when people's thoughts turned to libertas may have suggested the possibility of an end to the Triumvirate. Accordingly, Octavian promised the restoration of the Republican constitution upon Antony's return.121 An ovation on the Ides of November was thus an appropriate way to celebrate the anticipated return of the Republic that Octavian announced at a contio during his initial advent that year. Just as Caesar had done in his ovation of 44, Octavian timed his ovation to coincide with a major feast of Jupiter, in a way that was designed to symbolize the dawning of a new age for the Republic. The different ways in which Octavian was identified with Apollo gave Pompey's remaining supporters in the city ammunition for criticizing him. At his cena adventicia or the epulum Iovis, Octavian may have dressed as Apollo, just as Sextus Pompey had played the part of son of Neptune in donning a sea-blue chlamys and sacrificing horses by throwing them in the sea.122 Dressing the part of Apollo would have been one more way of presenting himself as a formidable opponent of the son of Neptune. Partisans of Pompey would have found in that gesture a convenient opportunity to aim rather pointed abuse at Octavian. That the worst privations of the Sicilian War had passed will not have prevented them from characterizing the celebration in November of 36 as heartless. After all, hunger at Rome may not have ended completely, and any lavish celebration at a time when some were going hungry could easily be made to appear cruel. Those of Pompey's supporters among the urban plebs who were not reconciled to Octavian as soon as their patron had been defeated would have been happy to raise Page 170 → the cry against his celebrations. Indeed, Pompey was still at large.123 These partisans were probably the ones responsible for the mock acclamations of Octavian as Apollo Tortor in response to Octavian, the New Apollo banqueting on the Capitoline. The honor allowing Octavian and his family to banquet in the Capitoline Temple on the anniversary of his victory was designed as a perpetual commemoration of both his victory and also this special iteration of the epulum Iovis.124 Indeed, like the extraordinary honors extended to Caesar in the last two years of his life, many of the honors accorded to Octavian in 36 were designed to grant him a more sanctified status. The interesting difference is that these honors followed not a triumph but an ovation, a ceremony that, in recent memory, had celebrated peace and unity. This will have worked in Octavian's favor, inasmuch as it allowed him to place greater emphasis on the benefits of having restored order, in lieu of the more unsavory image of victory in civil war. The incorporation of Octavian's family into the banquet honor is one of the ways that the celebration of victory was altered not only to perpetuate the memory but also to highlight the benefits of peace through victory. Thus, on the anniversary of the games during which he stated his intention to seek his father's honors, Octavian would celebrate the conclusion of his father's war and his attainment of those honors. Octavian and his partisans hoped to capitalize on their victory in the Sicilian War by proclaiming an end to civil war and the beginning of a new era. Both claims would prove premature, and it is a challenge to see, from our vantage point, how they could have been credible at the time. The omens preserved in Dio give us some indication of the conditions that gave rise to Octavian's claims, or had been designed to pave the way for him to make those claims. Octavian's success in Sicily ended any immediate threat to his position in Italy and the West. Those people in Italy and the western provinces who might have agitated for the cause of Sextus Pompey or even Page 171 → Lepidus were now left without a nearby alternative to Octavian. The young triumvir represented this end to western strife as a fulfillment of oracles similar to the one that Sulla had exploited in his memoir. The Perusine

War had shown that Italy was still in a state of unrest. In capitalizing on the cessation of this unrest, Octavian and his partisans were laying claim to Sulla's legacy as savior of Rome and Italy. One ought to view this not as merely premature but, instead, as a subtle challenge to Antony and a signal that Octavian anticipated prevailing in any subsequent conflict with his sole remaining triumviral colleague in the East. In its adaptation of elements of the careers of Sulla and Caesar, Octavian's return in 36 represents a kind of culmination of different strands of the theology of Rome's savior, but the circumstances of the time lent themselves to the further amplification of the ruler's informal deification, on the one hand, and a species of official sacralization, on the other. Competition with Sextus Pompey, who asserted a filial relationship with Neptune, resulted in a frank and assertive assumption of an Apolline identity, either as the god's son or as his avatar. The evidence presented here suggests that Octavian entered Rome as a New Apollo, but subsequent developments in the conflict with Antony would show the wisdom of suppressing such a dramatic divine self-representation. More lasting was the use of honors to bring about the lasting sacralization of the ruler and his family. The honors extended to Caesar provided a kind of model for this, but in the honor of a commemorative banquet on the anniversary of the victory over Pompey, Octavian and his household were endowed with a permanent, statesanctioned sacral status as a family worthy of dining in the presence of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the latter being precisely the sore point that prompted the poem on the cena dodekatheos. 1. Benoist 2005, 39–40. 2. Syme 1939, 233–34; Zanker 1990, 39–42; Kienast 1982, 55–57; Lacey 1996a, 33–34; CAH X2 37; Southern 1998, 85–86; Sumi 2005, 205–7. 3. The overlap was natural, since a grand adventus could be a step in the process of lobbying for a triumph as well as contain its own triumphal elements. See Sumi 2005, 35–36; Benoist 2005, 39–40; Ando 2000, 257; Beard 2007, 323–24. Beard (324) writes, “For in some sense, the triumph always had been, in essence, the arrival of the successful general and his re-entry into the city—and it was certainly cast in those terms by writers of the Augustan period, looking back to the ritual's early history.” 4. As Zanker (1990, 39–42) demonstrates, both Octavian and Pompey employed competing images that evoked the memory of their fathers and civil war. 5. On Pompey as the son of Neptune, see Hor. Epod. 9.7–8; Plin. Nat. 9.55; De vir. ill. 84.2; Flor. Epit. 2.18.3; App. BC 5.100; D.C. 48.19.2, 48.48; Gowing 1992, 309–10; Wallmann 1989, 167–72; Evans 1987, 97–157. Sextus started to style himself the “son of Neptune” after Munda. Welch (2012, 184–86) demonstrates that all coin types categorized under RRC 51, including those bearing images of Neptune, were minted before Misenum. During the Sicilian War in 38 BCE, another denarius (RRC 483) bears Pompey the Great's portrait with a dolphin and a trident on the obverse and the legend “NEPTUNI.” Toynbee (1970, 83) suggested that here Pompey is being identified as Neptune. Thus the identity “son of Neptune” would be the equivalent of saying “son of Pompey” and perhaps indicate a divine PompeyNeptune. On sons of Neptune in general, see Pease 1943, 69–82. According to Wallmann (1989, 171–72), the Neptunian aspect of Pompey's Sicilian coinage comes increasingly to identify with Sextus, his own naval prowess, and his aspirations to personal power. Welch (2012, 188) takes a conservative approach to Pompey's relationship with Neptune, seeing the numismatic evidence as consistent with Republican coinage in general. A late witness to the association of a single commander with Neptune is Lactantius (Inst. Div. 1.11) who writes of how Marcus Antonius' command against the pirates was likened to the assignment of Neptune (Neptunii sorte). 6. Cf. App. BC 4.25 for Vetulinus taking refugees from proscriptions and confiscations to Sextus Pompey in Sicily. See also ibid. 4.36. 7. Welch 2012, 163–97. 8. For the pact of Misenum, see CAHX2 20–21; Vell. 2.77.2; App. BC 5.72; D.C. 48.36.4–5. 9. App. BC 5.77. 10. Gel. 5.6.21–23; Beard 2007, 63. 11. App. BC 3.88–94; D.C. 46.43–45. 12. Philippi, see Suet. Aug. 13.1, 91.1; App. BC 4.108; D.C. 47.46.2–3. 13. Although the pact at Misenum had ended the blockade, Antony's failure to turn over the Peloponnesus

to Sextus as agreed and the defection of Sextus' admiral Menodorus to Octavian led to a renewal of hostilities and the return of Sextus' grain blockade. Cf. CAH X2 24. 14. Plin. Nat. 9.55; Suet. Aug. 96.2; D.C. 49.5.5. Hekster and Rich (2006, 160 n. 54) point out that the words used by Pliny and Dio—vates and μάντεις, respectively—stand in for haruspices, which, given Suetonius' (Aug. 96.2) report of another such pre-battle omen interpretation, is likely. Suetonius, however, does not specifically mention haruspices in connection with the Sicilian prodigy. Sulla, too, marked his path to victory at Rome with similar haruspical predictions of success. 15. D.C. 49.15. 16. Sumi 2005, 193. See Syme 1939, 208; E. Gabba 1971, 139–60. 17. D.C. 49.15.1. 18. App. BC 5.132. 19. Plu. Sull. 6.6–7. 20. Ibid. On Vegoia, see de Grummond 2006, 30–31. Heurgon (1959, 42–43) places the famous prophecy of Vegoia, which warns of calamities at the end of a saeculum, at the time of the Social War. See also Pfiffig 1961, 60. On signs of the transition from one saeculum to another, see chapter 1, n. 49, in the present book. 21. D.C. 49.15.2: ταῦτα μὲν εὐθύς σφισι μετὰ τὴν νίκην ἔδοξεν, ἤγγειλαν δὲ αὐτὴν πρῶτον μὲν στρατιώτης τις τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει τότε ὄντων, κάτοχος ἐν αὐτῇ ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκ θεοῦ δή τινος γενόμενος, καὶ ἄλλα τε πολλὰ καὶ εἰπὼν καὶ πράξας, καὶ τέλος ἔς τε τὸ Καπιτώλιον ἀναδραμὼν καὶ τὸ ξίφος πρὸς τοὺς τοῦ Διὸς πόδας ὡς μηκέτ᾽ αὐτοῦ χρείας οὔσης θείς, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι οἱ παραγενόμενοί τε ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ πεμφθέντες ἐς τὴν Ῥώμην ὑπὸ τοῦ Καίσαρος. For the Capitolium, see map 1 in the present book. 22. See map 1. Suetonius (Aug. 29.3) reported, templum Apollonis in ea parte Palatinae domus excitavit, quam fulmine ictam desiderari a deo haruspices pronuntiarant. For the most recent detailed discussion of this temple foundation, see Hekster and Rich 2006, 149–68. 23. D.C. 49.5.5. 24. Plu. Sull. 6.6–7. 25. RG 10.2. 26. App. BC 5.131.1; D.C. 49.15.3. 27. D.C. 49.15.1 (trans. E. Cary): καὶ οἱ ἐν τῷ ἄστει ἐπαίνους τε αὐτῷ ὁμοθυμαδὸν καὶ εἰκόνας καὶ προεδρίαν ἁψῖδά τε τροπαιοφόρον, καὶ τὸ ἐφ᾽ ἵππου ἐσελάσαι τό τε στεφάνῳ δαφνίνῳ ἀεὶ χρῆσθαι, καὶ τὸ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐν ᾗ ἐνενικήκει, ἱερομηνίᾳ ἀιδίῳ οὔσῃ, ἐν τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ Καπιτωλίου μετά τε τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ μετὰ τῶν παίδων ἑστιᾶσθαι ἔδωκαν. Note the difference between Appian's (5.130) specific reference to the Senate and Dio's vague οἱ ἐν τῷ ἄστει. Appian's version is to be preferred not only because of its specificity but also because the Senate's role in conferring these honors is consistent with its role in conferring extraordinary honors on Caesar after his civil war victories. Cf. D.C. 43.14.4–6, 44.4–7. 28. Dio (48.31.5) mentions statues of Octavian that were toppled by Pompey's partisans in 40 BCE. One of the statues voted on for Octavian's arrival in 36 was crafted to match his appearance during his entry into the city. 29. The display of particular images was a political statement indicating one's personal and factional loyalties. Caesar brought out images of Marius at the funeral of his aunt Julia. Cf. Plu. Caes. 5.2. 30. On Caesar's ovation, see Plu. Caes. 60.3; Suet. Jul. 79.1–2; App. BC 2.108. On the ovations of Antony and Octavian, see D.C. 48.31.2–3. Humphrey and Reinhold (1984, 62) restored RG 4.1 on the Monumentum Ancyranum to read, Δὶς ἐφ᾽ ἴππου ἐθριάμβευσα καὶ τρὶς ἐφ᾽ ἅρματος. Gellius (5.6.27) noted that authors disagreed on the issue of whether Augustus was on foot or horseback when he celebrated these ovations. See Reinhold 1988, 35–36. 31. Interestingly, the Romans had already extended Octavian a similar honor for his victory in the Perusine War. Cf. D.C. 48.16.1–2. Dio specifies that Octavian could wear the laurel crown on occasions when tradition allowed triumphators the privilege. Thus the honor in 36 may have expanded the initial grant to cover any occasion. Caesar, too, was extended the honor of wearing the laurel crown. Cf. D.C. 43.43.1; Suet. Jul. 45.2. 32. Caesar received the same honor. Cf. D.C. 42.19.3. 33. On the cena adventicia, see Pl. Bac. 94, 185–86, 536; Hor. Carm. 1.36; Suet. Vit. 13; Philarg. ad Verg. Ecl. 5.74; Versnel 1970, 119–20; Donahue 2004, 9.

34. App. BC 5.130: καὶ ὑπήντων ὅτι πορρωτάτω καὶ αὐτοὶ καὶ ὁ δῆμος ἐστεφανωμένοι, ἔς τε τὰ ἱερὰ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἱερῶν ἐς τὴν οἰκίαν ἀπιόντα παρέπεμπον. 35. The people of Athens sailed out to Carystus in large warships to bear Athenion, representative of king Mithradates, back to the city on a silver-footed litter. Cf. Posidon. F253 35–36. 36. Plu. Ant. 11.1. 37. RG 12.1: ex senatus auctoritate pars praetorum et tribunorum plebis cum consule Q. Lucretio et principibus viris obviam mihi missa est in Campaniam, qui honos ad hoc tempus nemini praeter me est decretus. 38. See n. 34. In Hellenistic parousia, the distinguished visitor was often extended the privilege of residing in the most luxurious house in the city. The Athenians put up Athenion in the home of the wealthy Diês. Cf. Posidon. F253 53. 39. App. BC 5.130: κατήγγελλέ τε εἰρήνην καὶ εὐθυμίαν, ἐς τέλος τῶν ἐμφυλίων ἀνῃρημένων. 40. D.C. 49.16.1. 41. Welch (2012, 163–97) argues persuasively that Pompey increasingly came to represent the Republican cause after Mutina. 42. Reinhold 1988, 36–37. 43. See n. 26. 44. There was no uniform protocol for meetings between the king and the people and the city's governing councils, but the king usually met with the populace of the city, and benefactions and honors were exchanged in the course of the king's visit. Cf. Plb. 16.25–26 for the visit of Attalus at Athens. After Attalus sacrifices, the city votes him honors (25.8) and invites him to an assembly to recite the list of his benefactions to the city, but he demurs (26.1). For interactions between Demetrius and Athens, see D.S. 20.46.1–4; Plu. Demetr. 10. On exchanges of honors and benefactions involving cities in the Roman Empire, see Lendon 1997, 73–89. 45. Caesar's honors for civil war victories, see Suet. Jul. 76; App. BC 2.106–7; D.C. 43.14.3–6, 44.4–7. 46. Scott 1931, 101–23. Gold and silver were generally reserved for statues of divinities, and many emperors would turn down the honor of such images as inappropriate for a mortal ruler. 47. Kondratieff 2004, 10–26. Cf. Zanker 1990, 41–42. Hekster and Rich (2006, 150 n. 8) suggest that RIC2 I Augustus 271 may show this column. 48. App. BC 5.130: τὴν εἰρήνην ἐστασιασμένην ἐκ πολλοῦ συνέστησε κατά τε γῆν καὶ θάλασσαν. Reinhold (1988, 37) suggests the following Latin translation: pacem diu turbatam terra marique restituit. 49. Momigliano 1942, 63–64; Nicolet 1991, 31–37. 50. RG 4.2. 51. This award of tribunician sacrosanctitas has been the subject of intense debate. See Bauman 1981, 166–83. For a more recent survey of the scholarship on the evolution of Octavian's tribunician powers, see CAH X2 68–69. Dio (49.15.5) seems to connect it to the lightning that struck Octavian's property during the Sicilian War, which prompted Augustus to vow to build the Temple of Palatine Apollo. The religious nature of this sacrosanctitas is attested in the Senate's mission to appease Ceres at Henna in Sicily for its violation in connection with the career of Tiberius Gracchus. Spaeth (1990, 182–95) argues that the Senate was attempting to expiate Gracchus' offense in removing the tribune Octavius, whereas other scholars had argued, less plausibly, that the Senate was expiating the murder of Gracchus. For the latter view, see Gagé 1955, 389; McBain 1982, 38–39. 52. On Pompey's popularity among the people of Rome, see Welch 2012, 272–73. Pompeian ally M. Oppius received donations from lowly quarters when he was too poor to fulfill his duties as aedile. See Powell 1992, 153–54; Vio 1998, 31–34. App. BC 5.99 shows Octavian sending Maecenas to Rome to deal with the popular backlash in opposition to his expedition against Pompey in 36. 53. For Pompey as son of Neptune, see Powell, Welch, Gowing, et al. 2002, 19, 121, 123. On this “arms race” of divine associations, see Zanker 1990, 39–42. 54. Miller 2009, 19. 55. Reinhold (1988, 36) notes, “Extraordinary indeed was the honour he accepted of a banquet with his wife and children on the Capitolium annually on 3 September, as a day of thanksgiving.” 56. Donahue 2005, 102. For the Ludi Megalenses, noble Romans set up exclusive sodalitates to dine in honor of the Great Mother. Cf. Cic. Red. Sen. 45; Gel. 2.24.2; Versnel 1980, 108–11.

57. On Demetrius in the Parthenon, see Plu. Demetr. 23.3. Livy (26.19.5) describes Scipio as sitting in seclusion in the Capitoline Temple as though conferring with Jupiter before transacting any private or public business. For Scipio and Jupiter, see V. Max. 1.2.2; Liv. 26.19.3–8; Gel. 6.1.6; Walbank 1985, 120–37. Similar to Scipio, Augustus frequently visited the temple of Jupiter Tonans. See Suet. Aug. 91.2. 58. Pike 1920; Scott 1929, 140; 1933, 30–32; Taylor 1931, 118–121; Eitrem 1932, 42–43; Weinreich 1924–37, 804; Carter (1982), 92; Flory 1988, 352–57; Pollini 1990, 345; Bauman 1992, 95–96, 124; Gurval 1998, 94–98; Miller 2009, 30–39. On the use of this event in propaganda, see Scott 1933, 30–32. Scott (1933, 31) dates the banquet to the marriage of Octavian and Livia in 39, based on the line dum nova divorum cenat adulteria in Suetonius, and he dates the poem quoted by Suetonius to 38 BCE. Flory (1988, 353–57) pursues this line of argument further. The rumor and scandal surrounding the wedding, however, would still have been fodder for amusement in 36 BCE, Bauman's preferred date. Nothing in the poem (including the phrase nova adulteria) constrains the timing of the poem to the period during or directly after the marriage. An apt comparison would be Octavian's accusations against Antony regarding Cleopatra, which proved useful long after Octavian first became aware of the affair. 59. Suet. Aug. 70. 60. Miller (2009, 33–34) points to the parallels between Octavian's cena dodekatheos and the lectisternium held for the twelve Olympian gods after the disaster at Trasimene. See Liv. 22.10.9. The taint of religious impropriety attached to both Flaminius' defeat and the cena dodekatheos. In Livy, the dictator Fabius Maximus attributes the defeat to neglegentia caerimoniarum et auspiciorumque. Interestingly, the postTrasimene lectisternium featured the Pompeian deities Neptune and Minerva sharing one of the six couches. Ludi Magni, similar in form to the Ludi Romani celebrated in connection with Octavian's ovation, were vowed at the same time (Liv. 22.10.8). The dictator Fabius Maximus vowed a temple to Sicily's Venus Erycina (Liv. 22.10.10). It is possible that the author of this poem about the cena dodekatheos sought specifically to recast the victory in the Sicilian War as a disaster on the order of the Trasimene defeat because, as a partisan of Pompey, he viewed the victory of Octavian as a similar blow to the Republic. On the lectisternium, see Latte 1960, 242–44; Beard, North, and Price 1998, 1:63; Liv. 5.13.6–8, 7.2.2, 7.27.1, 8.25.1; Macr. 1.6.13. Eitrem (1932, 42) prefers the model of the Hellenistic royal banquet over the lectisternium for the cena dodekatheos, but one might counter that there is no reason to exclude one option in preference of the other in a satirical poem. 61. Plu. Demetr. 23.3–24.1. 62. Slater (2012) has suggested that the poem was the product of an oral tradition. 63. Suet. Aug. 70.1: non Antoni modo epistulae singulorum nomina amarissime enumerantis exprobant. Of course, since we do not have Antony's letter, it is impossible to know whether Antony referred to this particular event or whether Suetonius drew an inference based on an allusion to another allegedly scandalous banquet. 64. Scott (1929, 140) opines that the cena would have been “exceptionally shocking to conservative Romans.” According to Suetonius, Catulus dreamed that he saw the child Octavian in the lap of Jupiter and commanded Octavian to be removed, only to have his order countermanded by Jupiter himself. See Suet. Aug. 94.8. One imagines the Catulus conjured in such anecdotes would have been outraged over Octavian and Livia dining with Jupiter. More disturbing by far, however, is the possible implication of incest between Apollo-Octavian and his mother Atia. Depending on how much creative license one is willing to grant to Suetonius, the mendacia in the poem at Aug. 70.1 may allude to Asclepiades of Mendes whom Suetonius cites at Aug. 94.4 as his source for the story of Atia copulating with Apollo in the form of a snake: In Asclepiadis Mendetis Theologumenon libris lego. In this reading, the adulteria are nova because the tale of Apollo fathering Octavian is of recent vintage. Cf. D.C. 45.1.2. 65. App. Pun. 66: εἱστία δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ὥσπερ ἔθος ἐστίν, ἐς τὸ ἱερόν. 66. Liv. 45.39.13: omnis illas victimas, quas traducendo in triumpho vindicavit, alias alios dente mactati. quid? illae epulae senatus, quae nec privato loco nec publico profano, sed in Capitolio eduntur, utrum hominum voluptatis causa an deorum…hominumque auctore Servio Galba turbaturi est? L. Pauli triumpho portae claudentur? 67. Miller 2009, 37. 68. Italian inscriptions identify the cena as a public banquet, but one usually given to members of the elite. The term epulum was used for public banquets given to the broader public. See Dunbabin 2003, 79, 82–82.

In this instance, cena identifies the banquet as one restricted to elites, while secretior indicates its seclusion. 69. Suet. Vit. 13.2 depicts the excesses of the cena adventicia given to celebrate Vitellius' arrival at Rome. Vitellius was given a giant platter of food that he called the “Shield of Minerva, Defender of the Polis” (clipeum Minervae πολιούχου). This anecdote demonstrates Suetonius' appreciation of the shock value of transgressive religious imagery used in a cena adventicia in a manner that is parallel to the transgression perceived in the cena dodekatheos. 70. Speyer (1986, 1794–95) offers 40, 39, or 38/37 as possible dates. Barrett (2002, 26) includes 36 as a possible date for the banquet, because famine reportedly occurred that year. 71. Suet. Aug. 70.2; NTDAR s.v. Apollo Tortor. 72. Cicero (Att. 5.16) describes the contrast between his warm welcome in Cilicia and the locals' disparagement of his predecessor. Tacitus (Ann. 6.42) reports the praise heaped on Tiridates during his arrival at Seleucia as new king of Armenia and the insults slung at his predecessor. Menandor Rhetor's (378.13–26) instructions on arrival speeches include guidance on subtly disparaging predecessors of the new imperial governor. 73. Two such unflattering triumphal anecdotes are Pompey's problem with elephants (Plu. Pomp. 14.4) and the witty barbs of Caesar's soldiers (Suet. Jul. 51). 74. Plu. Ant. 24. Velleius (2.82.4) also describes a procession in Alexandria in which Antony dressed as Dionysus and rode in a Bacchic chariot. 75. Cf. Plu. Ant. 24.3 for the costumed greeters. For his low company and misdirected largesse, cf. ibid. 24.1–2, 4–5. 76. Lendon 1997. 77. Scott (1933, 32) comments on the parallels between the propaganda from the two sides as being “too striking to be accidental.” Not only is there a parallel in the twisting of divine identities in advent acclamations, but there is also a parallel in scandalous banquets. Velleius (2.83.2) comments that Plancus appeared at one of Antony's banquets as Glaucus the Nereid, naked but for blue paint and a reed crown. 78. On acclamations, see Roueché 1984, 182–83. The returning exiles who were paraded in Sulla's triumph acclaimed him “savior” and “father.” The acclamations discussed in chapter 4 of the present book were the source of tensions during Caesar's ovation of January 44. On that occasion, Caesar was hailed as rex. Of particular interest in the time of Augustus is Livy's account (5.49.7) of the triumphing Camillus being greeted as Romulus ac parens patriae, conditorque. This acclamation fits post-Actium Augustan ideology, wherein divine associations were sublimated and wherein emphasis was placed on likening the princeps to Rome's founders and Republican heroes, Camillus being prominent among them, particularly in Livy. Later, Nero's Augustiani hailed him as the New Apollo (Suet. Nero 25, 53; D.C. 62.20). Nero may not have been an innovator in this to the degree that one might suppose. As Miller (2000, 409–22) has shown, the last Julio-Claudian emperor was consciously, albeit creatively, imitating Augustus during this most unusual of triumphs. 79. Scott 1933, 30. 80. In the cena dodekatheos, Augustus is pro Apolline ornatum, a phrase that recalls the ornatus Iovis of the triumphator. The traditional modern scholarly assumption has been that the triumphator's garb assimilated him to Jupiter. See Fowler 1916, 153–57. Livy (10.7.10) described the triumphator as ornatus Iovis. Beard (2007, 229–32) points to the tenuousness of the evidence supporting these assumptions and raises important doubts. Her salutary deconstruction of them does not, however, entirely preclude the possible identification of the triumphator with Jupiter. Beard's critique aims at assumptions regarding the origins of the triumph. 81. Plu. Mar. 12.5. 82. Miller (2009, 18) describes the evidence as “equivocal.” 83. Gurval 1998, 87–110. 84. Although the myth of Apollo's relationship with Augustus grew over time, there is no reason to suppose that earlier versions were less fantastic. The willingness of Sextus Pompey's partisans to use a statue of Neptune as part of a demonstration against Octavian shows the broad appeal and utility of such identifications, making a conservative position, such as Gowing's (1992, 309–10) cautious take on Pompey and Neptune, less attractive. 85. RRC 511/2, 511/4. See n. 5.

86. RRC 537/2, 538/2. For discussion, see Miller 2009, 19. 87. Vell. 2.81.3; Suet. Aug. 29.1, 3; D.C. 49.15.5; NTDAR s.v. Apollo Palatinus, Aedes; TDAR s.v. Apollo Palatinus, Aedes. 88. Gurval (1995, 15) calls it “a public expression of Octavian's personal devotion to the god.” Gowing (1997, 638–40) cautions against Gurval's minimalist view regarding the role of Actium in Augustan ideology, by pointing out that the poets had Augustus in mind as primary reader when they wrote of Actium. 89. The timing of the acquisition of the property is unclear, but Velleius' account (2.81.3), which refers to contractas emptionibus complures domos, seems, through use of the perfect passive participle, to indicate a time before the announcement (professus est) and possibly, although admittedly less securely, before his return (Caesar reversus). Hekster and Rich (2006, 150–51) view the lightning strike and consultation of the haruspices, which most likely followed the purchase of the property, as possibly having occurred while Octavian was still in Sicily. 90. Suet. Aug. 29.3; D.C. 49.15.5. Hekster and Rich (2006, 151–52, 155–60) disassociate the temple vow from the victory by pinning the reason for the temple entirely on the lightning strike. Miller (2009, 23) argues that the tradition of the temple built from manubiae is still being evoked here. Santangelo (2013, 140) sums up well the open questions regarding the haruspices: “It is unclear whether the consultation happened in a public or private framework and whether the advice to dedicate a temple to Apollo was given by the haruspices or was Octavian's idea.” On the lightning strike, see Rüpke 2010, 217: “Only a public space could be made sacer, that is, turned into divine property, by the rite of consecratio (consecration).” Scheid (2003, 25), on the authority of Fest. 257 L, defines this space as religiosus. See also Rives 2011, 175–80. 91. See n. 27 on the Senate's role in this process. 92. Hekster and Rich 2006, 155–62. 93. See Wiseman 2009, 72–78. Gellius (5.12.11–12) comments on Apollo's resemblance to Veiovis. 94. On the Asylum of Romulus, see LTUR 1.130; Cic. Div. 2.40; Liv. 1.8.5; D.H. 2.14.4; Str. 5.3.2; Vell. 1.8.5; Plu. Rom. 9.3. 95. Ov. Fast. 3.429–34. 96. See Weinstock 1971, pl. 2.1–2; ILS 2988 = ILLRP 270. 97. Weinstock 1971, 8–11. Serv. A. 1.267 derives Iulus' name from both ἰοβόλος and ἴουλος. 98. Suetonius (Gram. 17) refers to the tutor Marcus Verrius Flaccus teaching Gaius and Lucius Caesar in the hall of the house of Catulus, which is identified as part of Augustus' residence (MAR s.v. Domus: Augustus, 104). 99. Rowland 1966, 410–11; Syd. 732–33. 100. Sal. Hist. 3.48.9M. 101. Wiseman 2009b, 69–72, 77–78. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (2.15.3–4) reports that Romulus established his asylum in honor of “some god” as a specious pretext for gathering the refugees from other Italian communities. The most likely candidate for that god is Veiovis. See also Ogilvie 1965, 8; Altheim 1938, 255–63; Koch 1937, 82–85. 102. Rowland 1966, 407–8. 103. Suet. Aug. 94. 104. On Augustus’ demolition of Pollio's villa at Rome, see Ov. Fast. 6.645–48. On Pollio's cruelty in feeding slaves to his lampreys at his villa near Naples, see Plin. Nat. 9.39; Sen. Cl. 1.18.2; D.C. 52.23.2. For a discussion of the cultural meaning of the demolition of prominent Romans' homes, see Roller 2010, 117–80. 105. Miller (2009, 23–24) doubts that Octavian's appropriation of Apollo was a conscious continuation of Julius Caesar's own promotion of the god, arguing that the evidence for the latter is weak. Caesar's theological choices, however, do not necessarily constrain Octavian's construction of his own Julian theology. 106. According to Caesar (Civ. 3.105) divine manifestations heralded his victory over Pompey. Bowersock (1965, 9) attributes these to Caesarian partisans in the East. See D.C. 41.61. 107. Alföldi (1972, 215–30) argued for the identification of Veiovis and Jupiter-Apollo as a symbol of the new saeculum from the late second century into the first century, including on Marian coinage. The

fragmentary statue of Veiovis excavated from the site of the temple of the god at the corner of the Tabularium has been described as Apolline in appearance. See Holland 1961, 188; Colini 1942. Ovid (Fast. 3.429–48) emphasizes the youth of the god in his description. His Veiovis is a Jupiter iuvenis. The association with a new age is appropriate given the feast day of the god on January 1. See Scullard 1981, 56, for the feriae of Veiovis. 108. Wiseman 2009b, 79. Wiseman, following Walt (1997, 236), sees Licinius Macer's account of the first ovatio as the precedent for Crassus' honor of wearing the laurel in his own ovation in 71. Wiseman attributes Licinius Macer's decision to put a laurel on Postumius (D.H. 5.47.3) to his independent spirit, but it is also possible that Macer made his celebrator of the little triumph wear the crown of the little Jupiter (Veiovis-Apollo) because of Macer's interest in Veiovis. Coins minted by L. Julius Bursio in 85 BCE depict Veiovis wearing a laurel crown. See Syd. 728a–e. Alföldi (1997, 55), however, questions identifying Veiovis with the god on the Bursio denarii, which he characterizes as “pantheistic.” The iconography of Veiovis—which included curly locks, arrows, a traveler's cloak, and a female goat—lent itself easily to identification with other deities. Augustus' honor of wearing the laurel crown on the occasion of his return in 36 could follow this proposed tradition of association with Veiovis-Apollo in the ovation. 109. On laurel and Hercules, see Macr. 3.12.1–4; Serv. A. 2.276. 110. On the double ovation of Antony and Octavian, see ILLRP 562a = CIL X.5159; Sumi 2005, 196; Osgood 2006, 191. See also chapter 4 n. 59 of this book. 111. See chapter 4. 112. Sumi 2005, 207. 113. App. BC 3.41; Lacey 1996a, 29–30. 114. Sumi 2005, 161–68. 115. D.C. 48.31.5, 48.48.5; Suet. Aug. 16.2; App. BC 5.100.416–17; Hor. Epod. 9.7. See Sumi 2005, 197, 315 n. 39. 116. The people retaliated by toppling images of Octavian and Antony. Cf. D.C. 48.31.5. 117. Scullard 1981, 196–97; Liv. 25.2.10. 118. Cic. Ver. 5.36; [Asc.] ad Ver. 1 p. 143 Orelli; V. Max. 17.4; Taylor 1939, 195–97. Wiseman (2005, 51–53) argues for an origin of the games in the fifth century BCE, against the third century date assigned by Bernstein (1998, 79–80, 158–63). 119. Scullard 1981, 197–98. 120. Serv. A. 8.564: in huius templo Tarracinae sedile lapideum fuit, in quo hic versus incisus erat: ‘Bene meriti servi sedeant, surgant liberi’; quam Varro Libertatem deam dicit, Feroniam quasi Fidoniam. 121. App. BC 5.132. 122. For the sea-blue chlamys, see D.C. 48.48.5. Dio also relates the rumor that Sextus may have engaged in human sacrifice, just as Octavian supposedly did after the defeat of Perusia. 123. The ovation was held in November of 36, and Pompey met his end in Miletus in 35. On the latter, see App. BC 5.144. 124. After Octavian learned of the execution of Sextus Pompey, he extended to Antony and his family the honor of banqueting in the Temple of Concord, a gesture that simultaneously recognized the accomplishment while expressing a desire, however real, for peace between the remaining two triumvirs. It was also clearly an inferior honor to the one extended to Octavian and his family. See D.C. 49.18.6. As Reinhold (1988, 36) notes, Octavian's annual banquet and the epulum Iovis were separate events. The former was held on September 3, the date of the victory. Page 172 →

Page 173 →

PART III The Res Gestae and the Advent of the Princeps Page 174 →

Page 175 →

CHAPTER 6 The Res Gestae as Divine Relic The third part of this book argues that Augustus constructed the first thirteen chapters of his Res Gestae (RG) as an extended arrival narrative. These thirteen chapters serve as an ideological framework for Augustus' arrivals up to 13 BCE, offer a reworking of the memory of Caesar, and provide an interpretive key for select Augustan monuments. Furthermore, the narrative of these chapters alludes to different chronological strata of Roman history—including the regal period, the recent civil war past, and Augustus' own story—in a kind of palimpsest. Augustus uses allusions to Romulus and Numa to thematize the civic arrivals of this passage in two phases. The arrival events are also connected to a group of predominantly Augustan monuments that form an itinerary ending at the Forum of Augustus. There in the Forum, one sees the culmination of Augustus' career in the image of the triumphal quadriga inscribed with his honorific title pater patriae.1 Through these different devices, the RG presents a unique theological case for deifying Augustus.2 Augustus' decision to allude to Romulus and Numa in the depiction of his arrivals is noteworthy because, in doing so, he largely bypassed recent Page 176 → precedents for associating one's self with peripatetic Greek deities in one's arrival at the city to return to more traditionally Roman models.3 As argued in the last chapter, Augustus became the New Apollo in his return to Rome after his victory in the Sicilian War. Antony fashioned himself as a New Dionysus, particularly in his interactions with eastern cities. Rome had its own tradition of identifying arriving victors with the founders and heroes of the past. Marius was called a founder of the city (perhaps specifically a third founder) upon his triumphal return from his victory over the Cimbri and Teutones. In this way the arriving Marius was connected to the memories of men like Romulus and Camillus. Sulla's arrival and refounding activities were so influential that they subsequently became a model for the arriving savior. Lentulus Sura thus depicted himself as the “Third Cornelius” in 63. The RG combines this uniquely Roman tradition with an implicitly euhemeristic argument for the deification of Augustus. The synthesis of these elements is reflected in the final stage of the narrative's itinerary in the Forum of Augustus.4 At the Forum, the emperor's deification is strongly hinted at in the form of a visual theology in which Augustus' quadriga, having reached this final stage of the journey, strategically situates him in a hierarchically arranged gathering of founders, heroes, and gods wherein Augustus is assimilated to the latter. Moreover, the RG induces its reader to re-perform an ideal, imperial arrival at Rome of a divine Augustus, and in doing so, it implicates that reader in an identity shaped by the princeps' historical, political, and theological vision.

Res Gestae: Form and Theology Bosworth elucidated the theological nature of the Res Gestae over a decade ago, but much remains to be said regarding the particular form of theological expression constituted both in its physical form and in its text.5 On the one hand, the RG belongs in the tradition of elogia inscriptions, which graced the tombs of prominent Romans going back to the Middle Page 177 → Republic.6 At the same time, the RG departs from this tradition in its overall length, its narrative passages, and its grand monumental context.7 To elucidate the theological nature of the RG, the present chapter examines it in the context of a handful of other documents that will be treated, in a broad sense, as forerunners of the RG: Pompey's inscription before the Temple of Minerva, the text of which is preserved in Pliny (Nat. 7.97–98); the silver tablets (στήλας ἀργυρᾶς) recording Caesar's honors, which were deposited at the feet of Capitoline Jupiter; the bronze tablet of Capys; the books of Numa that miraculously appeared and were ceremonially destroyed in 181 BCE; and the fictional golden stele of Zeus Triphylius in Euhemerus' Hiera Anagraphê.8

The Honorific Inscription of Pompey Pompey's inscription related directly to his celebration of a triumph and the fulfillment of a vow to Minerva.9 The

inscription was erected at Pompey's delubrum Minervae, which was located in the northeastern Campus Martius.10 Pompey's inscription was set up in a grand monumental context, but its content was not as innovative as the text of the RG. As a dedication to Minerva (Athena) in celebration of eastern victories, it was reminiscent of the feats of Alexander, who considered Athena his patron.11 Augustus' RG emulated Pompey's inscription in several respects. The RG owes a clear debt to Pompey's inscription in terms of substantive content, in that both documents recount the campaigns of their respective subjects. More interesting are the shared references to Alexander the Great, but these are far more Page 178 → extensive in the RG.12 The more striking parallels between the two documents are to be recognized in their monumental context and location in the northern Campus Martius. Travelers approaching Rome on the Via Flaminia would have seen the monuments of Augustus and Pompey and may have stopped to read the prominent inscriptions. Significant differences between the two documents highlight the novel nature of the RG. Pompey's inscription is more limited in scope than the RG, in that it concerns the fulfillment of a single vow in connection with one campaign. The RG, in keeping with the elogiastic tradition, provides a retrospective of Augustus' career up to the year 2 BCE. Pompey's inscription, aside from its obvious debt to the memory of Alexander the Great, contains nothing of the complex allusions to heroes and historical figures that one finds in the RG.13

Silver Tablets at the Feet of Jove Another possible influence on the RG was the silver tablets of Caesar located at the feet of Jupiter in the Capitoline Temple. Caesar's silver tablets, like the RG, provided a public list of officially decreed honors. These tablets, however, were far more provocative in their uniqueness than Pompey's inscription and thus provided the princeps a more problematic but seductive precedent. In the final months of Caesar's life, the Senate voted Caesar a series of heroic and divine honors, including burial within the pomerium and silver tablets listing, in gold lettering, the senatorial decrees honoring Caesar. The tablets were to be deposited at the feet of Capitoline Jupiter.14 Page 179 → The symbolism of tablets with gilded lettering may relate to the frightening prodigy of bronze tablets being effaced in 65, which was among signs the haruspices interpreted as signaling the fall of Rome.15 Lightning had struck a statue of Jupiter at the same time as the destruction of these bronze tablets. As Rome's savior, Caesar had prevented the very disaster these signs had predicted. Dio reports Caesar's honors of burial within the pomerium and the silver tablets in the same passage. In doing so, Dio's report may simply reflect his sources. It may, however, also indicate that Dio's organizational scheme was influenced by the apparent contrast between Caesar's honors and Augustus' RG. Caesar's burial within the pomerium may have been interpreted as religiously significant given the general ban on burial within the city included in the Twelve Tables.16 The Vestals were excepted from the ban, as were the families of the Republican heroes P. Valerius Publicola and C. Fabricius Luscinus.17 Another noteworthy exception was Romulus, whose tomb was believed to be located in the Comitium.18 The honor of burial within the pomerium may have been conferred on Caesar to liken him to the deified Romulus.19 In contrast, Augustus instructed that his Res Gestae be placed before his Mausoleum, located outside the pomerium.20 Caesar's silver tablets belong at the peak of a collection of ascending honors that culminated in the dictator's close association with the state gods. Dio reports three groups of honors coming to Caesar after the victory at Thapsus. The sequence is as follows: (1) after Thapsus, the Senate decreed a chariot and statue on the Capitol; the statue had the inscription hêmitheos upon it;21 (2) after Munda, his statue inscribed with the inscription deo invicto was placed Page 180 → in the Temple of Quirinus;22 (3) in 44, the Senate decreed a long list of honors for Caesar, including the cult title Divus Iulius, a flamen, a state temple, and a pulvinar for his image.23 These final honors placed Caesar on par with the gods of the state, and they were fittingly recorded on the silver tablets.24 Dio, however, interpreted their significance quite differently. According to him, by placing the decrees on silver and depositing them under the feet of Jupiter, the Senate was indicating its view that Caesar was mortal.25 Dio's interpretation is puzzling, since it cuts against the character of many of the other honors he listed, as well as the method of the tablets' inscription and place of deposition. The tablets' placement may indicate a subordinate position relative to Jupiter, but it does not necessarily point to the distinction between mortality and divinity.26 Caesar's honors instead strongly suggest his divine status. The specifics regarding the honors recorded on the silver tablets also point in the direction of Caesar's official deification.27

Taken as a whole, the inscribing of decrees in silver and gold and their deposition in the temple of Rome's chief divine patron were a highly marked religious process. The Capitoline Hill was the home to numerous bronze Page 181 → tablets recording senatorial decrees and plebiscites concerning foreign alliances, treaties with foreign cities, and honors for individuals.28 It has been argued that the reason for erecting bronze inscriptions in and around the Capitoline Temple was primarily religious.29 Bronze was nevertheless not marked with the same clear divine associations as silver and gold. Caesar's tablets are, in comparison with the bronze tablets on the Capitoline, senatorial decrees of Caesar's personal honors inscribed on precious metal and deposited right at the feet of the statue of Capitoline Jupiter. As such, they would have stood out brilliantly in the field of bronze tablets. Their location at the feet of the god's statue may have been solitary too. No other Roman had received an honor quite like it. Indeed, the uniquely brilliant silver tablets at the feet of Jupiter call to mind the words of Cicero in the Pro Marcello: non ego eum cum summis viris comparo, sed simillimum deo iudico.30 Summi viri get tablets of bronze. Caesar's silver tablets were clearly a divine honor in themselves. The story of these honors, including their inscription in gold letters on silver tablets and the deposition of those tablets under the feet of the statue of Jupiter, serves as an excellent example of the theological performances of the Late Republic. The physical process of placing the honors of Caesar on precious metals associated with divine images and then placing the tablets at the feet of Rome's chief patron deity served as a spectacle expressing Caesar's unique status and assimilation to the company of the gods. If the process of honoring Caesar in this way signaled his subservience to Jupiter in the divine order, it also arguably placed him on a plane higher than everyone else—one that gods alone ordinarily occupied.31 By contrast, Pompey's Page 182 → inscription may have implicitly likened him to Alexander the Great, but it was situated outside the pomerium in front of the delubrum Minervae. To which mortal might the silver tablets deposited at the feet of Jupiter within his own temple liken Caesar? Several of Caesar's honors would have invited an increasing identification of the dictator with Jupiter. Dio seemed to intuit this despite himself. The historian had, after all, just reported that the Senate was addressing Caesar as Jupiter Julius and that the Senate had provided him a flamen on the model of Jupiter's flamen Dialis.32 It seems likely that the honors on these tablets were voted sometime before the controversial Lupercalia in which Antony attempted to crown Caesar with a diadem. They are likely the honors that an embassy of senators, led by the consul Marc Antony, brought to Caesar as he sat on the Rostra or in front of the Temple of Venus.33 Caesar neglected to rise to receive the honors and caused great offense thereby.34 If the honors brought to Caesar on this occasion were the same as those inscribed on silver tablets, the parallels between this event and the Lupercalia crowning are most interesting. In both cases, the consul Antony brings Caesar excessive honors that he refuses, and those honors are placed in the Temple of Jupiter. Indeed, once the Lupercalia crown had joined Caesar's tablets at the god's Capitoline image, Jupiter may have come to appear ever more Julian. The deposition of certain honorific items in the vicinity of the statue of Jupiter is reminiscent of the act of dedicating one's triumphal costume to the god. This is not a coincidence; the highest honors of the state were associated with the exercise of imperium, which came ultimately from Jupiter. A magistrate bearing this imperium went out to meet the city's enemies in battle, and when he attained a certain level of success in wielding that power, that success was recognized by the further honor of a procession up to the Capitoline in a costume that evoked the image of the god himself.35 Page 183 → Placing his laurel wreath in gremio Iovis (“in the lap of Jupiter”) and then banqueting in the presence of the god brought the triumphator into closer proximity and a more intimate relationship with Rome's chief deity.36 In the Late Republic, those triumphal honors were extended beyond the celebration of the triumph itself. Whereas Marius was criticized for continuing to wear the triumphal costume in his first meeting with the Senate, subsequent dynasts, including Caesar, were voted the privilege of continuing to wear triumphal garb well past the day of the ceremony.37 The right to wear the triumphal costume on public occasions would have facilitated continuing identification with Jupiter. Silver tablets recording the honors of a new state god and deposited right under the feet of Jove in the Temple of Capitoline Jupiter evoked, appropriately enough, Euhemerus' utopian tale of Panchaea, wherein the sanctuary of the cult of Zeus Triphylius housed a golden tablet on which were inscribed the achievements of the itinerant king Zeus, who united the three ethnically diverse tribes of the island and whose postmortem worship formed the basis

of the community's continuing peace and prosperity.38 Diodorus Siculus describes the golden stele on the god's couch (κατὰ μέσην δὲ τὴν κλίνην ἕστηκε στήλη χρυσῆ μεγάλη), a location not all that different from the placement of Caesar's silver tablet beneath the feet of Capitoline Jupiter.39 A euhemeristic interpretation of the silver tablets would fit the unusual contention of Dio that by placing the tablet at the feet of Capitoline Jupiter, the Senate made it clear that Caesar was a man. In first-century euhemerism, there was no necessary contradiction between the simultaneous existence of mortal ruler gods and higher divine powers. Diodorus Page 184 → distinguishes between celestial and terrestrial deities in his description of euhemerism.40 The placement of Caesar's tablet at the feet of Jupiter would be an apt expression of such a hierarchy.

The Bronze Tablet of Capys Dio views the silver tablets as one of the excessive honors through which Caesar's enemies made him more vulnerable to assassination. The bronze tablet of the Trojan hero Capys, which was unearthed during Caesar's consulship, also contributed to the cultural discourse on inscribed monumenta out of which Augustus' RG emerged, partly because the tablet of Capys had become part of the lore surrounding Caesar's assassination. In 59, Caesar passed legislation to send a commission down to Campania to distribute land to poor citizens.41 Pompey was the most prominent member of this board of commissioners. Allegedly, at Capua, the colonists came upon the tomb of the Trojan hero Capys, founder of the city, in the process of clearing old tombs in order to build new country houses. Inside was a bronze tablet with a curse inscribed in Greek, saying that a son of Ilium (or of Iulus) would be slain by his kin when the bones of Capys were uncovered and that his death would be avenged at a great cost to Italy.42 Suetonius offers the testimony of Cornelius Balbus as proof that the story is true. Page 185 → Farney has suggested that the convenient discovery of the tablet had to do with Capuan resistance to Roman colonization.43 In other words, through the prodigy, the Capuans were warning Caesar's colonists and, therefore, Caesar, Pompey, or both men not to settle the area if they did not want a dead leader and subsequent cataclysmic upheaval in Italy.44 Already possessed of a perfectly good founder in Capys, Capua did not need another. The disturbance of the tomb of the founder presented a religious problem that might recommend scuttling the colony.45 The Capuan threat against Caesar and Pompey seems risky but not outside of the realm of possibility. Its reasoning was well targeted at Caesar, a son of Ilium who was not above the creative use of religion to achieve his ends, but it is also possible that the immediate target audience was Pompey, since he was likely on-site when the inscription was “discovered.”46 In any case, the tablet placed the burden of responsibility for dealing with this religious problem on the colonists who discovered it, shifting risk from the Capuans themselves. If historically accurate, these events at Capua represent one more piece of evidence supporting the continued belief and exploitation of the secular doctrine of the connection between the life of a prominent Roman leader (e.g., Sulla, Pompey), on the one hand, and both the balance of power and the Page 186 → welfare of Italy, on the other. In this case, the people of Capua were utilizing this secular script to warn off Roman intruders. At the same time, it is difficult not to see in the Capuan tablet a deliberately fabricated ex eventu prophecy about Caesar's assassination. After all, the man who colonized Capua in the Sullan era was M. Junius Brutus, the father of one of Caesar's principal assassins.47 Cicero had formerly spoken passionately on the dangers of Rullus' plan to colonize Campania, making particular reference to the former wickedness of Brutus in colonizing Capua.48 In that speech, Cicero reported that Rullus and Brutus were the only men who had ever planned to move the Republic to Capua.49 The act of setting up a colony in Capua was, according to Cicero's argument, nothing less than an act of treason, since it would lead to a Capua that was a prideful rival of Rome.50 The specter of Capuan tyranny was perhaps aggravated by the false etymology connecting Capys and Capua with caput, something Vergil would later exploit to fine effect in the Aeneid.51 Cicero implied that the colonists' impiety in seeking to obtain a new caput rerum further resulted in their deaths.52 Caesar's colonists in the story Suetonius credits to Balbus lived up to Cicero's past warning: in their eagerness to acquire easily large homes and great wealth, they impiously demolished and plundered the tombs of those who were cousins of their own ancestors. One plank of Cicero's rhetorical strategy was to accuse the colonial commissioners of aiming to acquire a royal power that could be used against Rome—the very same case that was constructed against Caesar with regard to the Republic.53 Seen in this

light, it is difficult not to interpret the assassination of Caesar as an appropriate response to actions that carried such dire implications for the Republic. After the murder of Caesar, subsequent interpretation of the discovery of the Capuan inscription would have rendered it prophetic.54 Page 187 → The outcome it predicted did indeed come to pass. Aside from the murder of Caesar at the hands of a Brutus, Italian unrest erupted during the Perusine War and the Sicilian War, with the attendant suffering arguably constituting a kind of vengeance for Caesar's death. Certainly Suetonius cast Octavian's alleged human sacrifice of Perusians as an offering to the Divus Iulius in an act of revenge that clearly alludes to Achilles' sacrifice of twelve Trojan prisoners at the funeral pyre of Patroclus at Iliad 23.170–76.55 The Capuan inscription as Suetonius reports it seems a little too conveniently prescient to be faithful to the original events. A garbled version of the anecdote preserved in Servius points to the existence of another tradition about the discovery of a bronze calf inscribed with a dire prediction about the death of a descendant of Capys: nam his temporibus, quibus Caesar occidi habuit (occisus est?), Capuae iuvencae aeneae dicitur inscriptum fuisse, isdem temporibus unum de genere conditoris periturum.56 Given the problematic nature of Servius' text at that locus, one hesitates to be confident about the precise details, but the bronze calf is difference enough to raise suspicions about the neat fit presented in Suetonius' version of the inscription. At the very least, it could be that more than one version of the incident was handed down and that Servius reported one, while Suetonius reported the version transmitted by Cornelius Balbus. The description of the Capuan tablet (tabula aenea in monimento) provides a fitting model for the bronze tablets of the Res Gestae set before the Mausoleum of Augustus. Indeed, looking back at the events of the Ides of March with the benefit of hindsight and with the Capys tablet in mind, one notes the manner in which Capys, founder of Capua, differs from Caesar, founder of the Capuan colony, in the very way that the former resembles Augustus more closely. The mausoleum of Capys must have occupied a site in a suburban necropolis outside of the city Capua proper, since the colonists broke into it while looting tombs in the process of clearing space for their country villas. This contrasts very directly with Caesar's honor of being buried within the pomerium at Rome. Furthermore, the tablet of Capys is bronze and predicts the death of Julius Caesar, while Caesar's tablets were silver, inscribed with gold letters, and constructed to intimate strongly the Page 188 → dictator's divinity. It is possible that Cornelius Balbus and other contemporaries recalled the Capuan incident through the eyes of associates of Caesar (not all friendly) who knew the consequences of the honors that he had received in early 44. Augustus' RG would hew closer to the model of Capys' bronze tablet than to that of Caesar's silver tablets, in that the RG was made of bronze and adorned the Mausoleum of Augustus outside the city proper—a fitting emulation of the Trojan founder-hero Capys.

The Books of Numa Another historical incident that should be mentioned in a discussion of the form and placement of the Res Gestae is the discovery of the books of Numa.57 Livy's interest in the topic is consistent with the Roman intellectual community's fascination with Pythagoreanism in the first century BCE.58 In the year 181 BCE, a pair of boxes was either excavated from the Janiculum or uncovered by a torrential rain.59 One of the boxes, which had been intended to house the body of king Numa, was empty; the other box contained two texts, carefully sealed up to be preserved from weather damage. One text, written in Latin, contained the details of pontifical law, while the other, written in Greek, contained Pythagorean philosophy.60 When the texts were brought to the attention of the Senate, the Senate decreed that the urban praetor should see to their sacrificial destruction by fire at the hands of victimarii in the Comitium.61 The site was appropriate: the Comitium was the Page 189 → home of a statue of Pythagoras, which was erected in accordance with the advice of the Oracle at Delphi during the Third Samnite War (298–290).62 Some of the details regarding the discovery of the books of Numa suggest a parallel with the discovery of the bronze tablet of Capys. The years 182 and 181 were marked by a terrible epidemic that took the lives of numerous prominent Romans and may have sparked fears for the future of the city. Livy mentions one or more epidemics and their victims several times in book 40.63 Obsequens reports a consultation of the Sibylline Books, which resulted in a supplicatio of the gods, in response to an epidemic.64 Evidently, the number of the epidemic's victims

prompted a consultation of the Sibylline Oracles, and then the consuls were ordered to celebrate games to the healing gods Apollo, Aesculapius, and Salus.65 In a gesture that was reminiscent of Roman religious intervention in Italy during the Suppression of the Bacchanals, supplications were ordered for all of the markets and local places of assembly (fora conciliabulaque) in Italy. Livy's account places the discovery of the books directly after a brief mention of the settlement of a colony on Etruscan territory, formerly owned by Tarquinii, at Graviscae, under the direction of a commission of three men.66 This pairing of the foundation of the new colony at Graviscae with the unearthing of Numa's books is parallel to the discovery of the bronze tablet of Capys in the context of the foundation of the land commission that founded Caesar's colony at Capua. One can infer from the reference Page 190 → to the six-month-long drought that strikes Rome in 181 BCE, causing crops to fail, that the foundation of the colony at Graviscae resulted in divine displeasure.67 It is possible that there was also an outbreak of malaria among the colonists.68 The wonder of rain unearthing books written by the king who had established Rome's cult of Jupiter Elicius, a deity concerned with lightning and rain, could have been seen as evidence of the abatement of the gods' anger.69 If the colony, the drought, and the discovery are to be seen as related to each other, it may be that the proper sacrificial disposal of the dangerous books of Numa was intended to avert a tragedy such as occurred to Tullus Hostilius, who was killed for improperly carrying out a ritual to expiate the prodigy of stones raining on the Alban Mount. The books of Numa were discovered on a hill associated with Janus and Numa, two figures featured in the Res Gestae (see the next two chapters). The location of the tomb of Numa on a hill on the edge of the city is parallel in a couple of different ways to Augustus' Mausoleum. Both are on the edge of the city, and both are tombs connected to elevated land; the Mausoleum is in the form of a tumulus, and the tomb of Numa is on the incline of a hill.70 After the body of Numa had vanished, either by decay or by apotheosis, the text remained as a testament to the special knowledge Page 191 → that Numa had to impart regarding Roman religion and Pythagorean philosophy.71 Similarly, the Res Gestae combines on two tablets elements of Roman cult established during the life of Augustus with an underlying euhemerism that drives the theological logic of the text.72 In other words, the RG, which documents Augustus' cultic honors, seeks to persuade its reader that the man in the Mausoleum deserves official deification. Finally, Livy's account of the discovery of the books of Numa suggests that some version of the story related the discovery to the end of divine anger in the form of drought and pestilence caused, perhaps, by the colonization of Graviscae. The RG presents Augustus as a god who has brought peace and salvation to Rome and Italy at the end of a period of upheaval and natural disaster reminiscent of the troubles of 181. The similarity of this new god Augustus to Numa will be discussed at greater length in the next two chapters.

The Res Gestae and the Golden Stele of Zeus Triphylius The final textual artifact to be compared here to the RG is the golden stele of Zeus Triphylius from Euhemerus' Hiera Anagraphê. Unlike the other artifacts discussed thus far, the golden stele is most certainly fictional. Nevertheless, as a well-known image of a document that stands as a monument to the divinity of an extraordinary ruler and predates the RG, it belongs in this discussion. Furthermore, it was an influential literary source of the idea that human rulers could attain a form of deification based on the merits of their achievements in life. Bosworth's argument regarding the theological aims of the RG hinges on the influence of Euhemerus' ideas on Augustus. A final interesting possibility, but one that remains uncertain, is that the author Page 192 → had Sicilian origins, which perhaps inspired Ennius and later Italians to take special interest in his work.73 The relationship between the RG and the stele is perhaps more compelling than even Bosworth recognized. The parallels between the golden stele and Caesar's silver tablets have already been noted. Augustus could have easily noted those similarities and considered them as he decided how he wanted to memorialize his achievements for posterity. The relationship between the RG and the golden stele, however, may have been more direct. An obvious parallel between the RG and the golden stele is the fact that Zeus Triphylius himself authored the inscription on the stele.74 Augustus makes a point of stressing his authorship of the RG in chapters 7 and 35.75 Similar to the RG, Euhemerus' golden stele in the Temple of Zeus Triphylius draws from both the mythological travel narrative and Hellenistic practices of parousia and ruler cult.76

In his Hiera Anagraphê, Euhemerus offers a fictional account of the origins of ruler cult by describing the process through which Zeus came to be recognized as a god.77 The author writes of his journey to an island called Panchaea, where he finds a multi-ethnic, ideal society that is bound together by its piety in the observance of the cult of Zeus Triphylius, the great king who discovered the island, founded a city there, and was worshiped by its inhabitants after his death. The Temple of Zeus Triphylius linked together the initial arrival of the god, his foundation of the city, and his perpetual cult, inasmuch as the god founded his own temple upon his arrival. It appears as though Zeus' Panchaean temple was envisioned to be the god's palace in life, perhaps combining domestic, governmental, and religious Page 193 → functions much like Latinus' palace in the Aeneid and, it should be added, Augustus' Palatine palace.78 The RG likely draws on Euhemerus for inspiration, whether directly or indirectly through Ennius' translation, in that the implicit argument of its narrative, which, like the golden stele, includes the career, travels, and accomplishments of the ruler, is the recognition of the deity and state cult of a mortal founder, benefactor, and ruler.79 Many of these ideas originated in the interactions of Hellenistic kings with poleis. In the Hellenistic period, the arrival of the king was a foundational event in the establishment of his local ruler cult, with altars set up for special sacrifices on the occasion of his arrival and, in one famous case, marking the place where the ruler first alighted on the ground from his chariot.80 The incorporation of the ruler in the sacrifices, calendar, and political divisions of the city would follow.81 Through these honors, the polis incorporated the king as a member of the community and showed its commitment to him as its benefactor and protector. In return, it was expected that the city would remain loyal to the king and send him support whenever he might request it. Such support could take the form of soldiers, provisions, or money. Although this exchange of honors and benefactions had material impact on both king and city, it would be a mistake to discount the theological significance of the relationship. Ruler cult was not a cynical exchange tarted up with phony trappings of cult. Rather, cultic honors were thought appropriate for the nature of the exchange and the status of the parties involved.82 A person of the magnitude of a Hellenistic king was, Page 194 → by virtue of his surpassing influence on the fortunes of the city, godlike.83 It was only proper to give him the honors that reflected this fact. Indeed, the Hellenistic king deemed savior of the city could also be a refounder, a model that seems to have influenced Romans like Sulla, Cicero, Caesar, and Augustus in conceiving the restoration of the Republic.84 Roman imperial cult differed from Hellenistic ruler cult, but Romans long understood the significance of arrival in Hellenistic royal culture, including its cultic aspects, and came to see their own distinctive arrival practices through a lens that was partially shaped by that understanding.85 Thanks to the deification of Caesar, the topic of apotheosis was of special interest in the last years of the Republic. The fragments of Varro, for example, attest to a Roman understanding of the relationship between the performance of great deeds and deification, albeit a postmortem one.86 The Res Gestae is an example of that engagement, not only in its use of benefaction as the justification for the state cult of Augustus, but also in the structure of the narrative. The RG can be interpreted as a meta-parousia text, which, like many Hellenistic parousia narratives, opens with the liberation of the city and ends in the honors conferred on the royal benefactor.87 In the RG, the honor of the title pater patriae corresponds structurally with the climax Page 195 → of such a parousia event, with the interesting innovation being that Augustus received his crowning honor during his thirteenth term as consul, not during his initial arrival or after his return as ruler.88 Nevertheless, the honor's context within an arrival is confirmed by the account of Suetonius, who reports that the people first sent a deputation to Augustus at Antium to offer him the title pater patriae but that he only accepted it after he had returned to Rome and entered the theater, where “[the people] attended in throngs, all wearing laurel wreaths.”89 Such scenes were indeed common in the celebration of a ruler's arrival. The princeps ends the grand arrival narrative of his RG with an iconic image of foundation and triumph—the title pater patriae is described as being inscribed under his triumphal chariot in the Forum Augustum.90 In this way, triumphal, royal, and divine themes are seamlessly combined in the RG so that Augustus' career appears at once both as the fullest expression of a Republican statesman's achievement and as a powerful implicit argument for official ruler cult.91

Conclusion The relationship between the Res Gestae and the other documents discussed in this chapter was likely the result, at

least to some degree, of the deliberate design of Augustus, acting as one who was aware of the rich polysemy of these artifacts, their contents, and associated narratives. Augustus' RG sought to advertise his honors in a manner that evoked not only Pompey's commemoration of his Alexander-like achievements on the dedicatory inscription before his delubrum Minervae but also Caesar's honors inscribed on silver tablets and placed at the feet of Capitoline Jupiter. Euhemerus' utopian tale brings together the two sides of this vision quite nicely. The silver Page 196 → tablets were also remarkable for the way they translated their honorand from the company of mortal men to the realm of the gods. This crossing of existential boundaries is a quality shared by the discovery of the tablet of Capys and the unearthing of the books of Numa. The translation of these documents across different realms (underworld, mortal, and divine) conferred on them an authority that was difficult to ignore, because it attested to the involvement of superhuman agency in the messages therein.92 In the three cases under discussion, the translation was arguably effective in that regard. The Res Gestae stands out from this group of texts in its deliberate but misleading evasion of the question of existential translation. It steps right up to the threshold of such a translation from mortality to divinity, by inviting comparison with these other texts and making a theological argument for the deification of Augustus, but it places the responsibility for crossing the threshold on others. First, the text never explicitly refers to Augustus as a god; it only implies such. Second, the Senate would ultimately be responsible for officially deifying Augustus as it had done for Caesar before him. At the same time, the RG recounts a series of arrivals that ultimately lead the reader on a journey to a place where the apotheosis of Augustus is very strongly suggested, the Forum of Augustus. 1. RG 35. The unique form of civic-paternal deity that Augustus fashions is perhaps anticipated in Horace's pater urbium in Carm. 3.24.25. On Horace's formulation of Augustus' divinity, see Cole 2001, 85–88. See figure 1 in the present book for the Forum of Augustus. 2. Bosworth (1999, 9–18) demonstrated how the RG makes the case for Augustus' deification. Gradel (2002, 271–82) has added new insights. Particularly ingenious is the argument that the RG sought to show that Augustus' benefactions had so far outstripped his honors that only deification could make up the deficit. 3. On assimilation to the gods in the Late Republic, see Tondriau 1949; Pollini 1990. 4. See figure 1. 5. For Bosworth, see n. 2. 6. Sandys 1927, 93–104; Flower 2000a, 160–84. 7. For a discussion of the unique nature of the text of the RG, see Cooley 2009, 30–41. 8. NTDAR s.v. Minerva, Delubrum; LTUR 3.253–54. On Pompey and Minerva, see Santangelo 2007a, 232–33. On the silver tablets, see D.C. 44.7.1. On the bronze tablet of Capys, see Suet. Jul. 81.1–2. On the books of Numa, see Liv. 40.29.3–14; V. Max. 1.1.12; Plin. Nat. 27.87; Plu. Num. 22.4. On the golden stele, see D.S. 5.42.4–46.7; Lact. Inst. Div. 1.11. 9. Plin. Nat. 7.97. 10. Palmer 1990, 2–11. 11. According to Palmer (1990, 13), Pompey erected this temple in emulation of Alexander the Great. The RG, by contrast, implicitly compares Augustus to Alexander as a world conqueror in chapters 26–33. See Cooley 2009, 36–37, 218, 221, 249–51. 12. Galinsky (2012, 31) notes how even Augustus' reference to his age at the opening of the RG would have put him in the company of Alexander. There is an implicit comparison with a thirty-three-year-old Caesar bemoaning his late start in the pursuit of world conquest while reading a history of Alexander in Spain. See Plu. Caes. 11.5. In Suetonius, Caesar is not reading a history of Alexander but standing before a statue of Alexander in the Temple of Hercules in Gades. Cf. Suet. Jul. 7; D.C. 37.52.2. In its chapters on Augustus' conquests, the RG's implicit comparison with Alexander is pervasive. One of the highlights is the embassy from India, where the people whom Alexander had formerly fought voluntarily presented themselves to Augustus as a world ruler. Cf. RG 31. 13. Pliny the Elder (Nat. 7.27) does liken Pompey to Hercules and Dionysus when he introduces the inscription. 14. Dio Cassius (44.1–11) provides a catalog of Caesar's honors. The lettering on metal tablets was probably painted or gilded. On painted letters, see Viola 1895, cols. 407–8; Adamesteanu and Torelli 1969, 1–17; Williamson 1987, 166 n. 23.

15. Cic. Catil. 3.19; D.C. 37.9. Dio refers to the blurring (συνεχύθη) of the characters on the tablets. The gilded letters on Caesar's tablets could be a response to that kind of baleful omen. 16. Cic. Leg. 2.58. 17. Serv. A. 11.206. On the Valerii Publicolae, see LTUR 4.301. On the Fabricii, see LTUR 4.288–89. 18. Gantz 1974, 350–61; Frischer 1982–83, 61–62. According to Fraschetti (2005, 92–93), the tomb of Romulus should not be identified with the shrine of Vulcan, which was discovered by Giacomo Boni at the end of the nineteenth century. 19. Weinstock 1971, 175–77. 20. D.C. 44.7.1. Suetonius (Jul. 84) also records the honor of burial within the pomerium. See map 1 in the present book for the location of the Mausoleum of Augustus. 21. D.C. 43.14.6; Weinstock 1971, 40–59; Gradel 2002, 54–55. 22. D.C. 43.45.3; Weinstock 1971, 133–52, 175–88. 23. D.C. 44.4–7; Cic. Phil. 2.43.110; App. BC 2.106; Suet. Jul. 76.1, 84.2; Weinstock 1971, 270–310. 24. See Scott (1931) for the use of precious metals in statues of the gods. 25. D.C. 44.7.1: καὶ ἅ γε μάλιστα τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν ἐξέφηνεν, ἅμα τε ταῦτα ἐψηφίζοντο καὶ τάφον αὐτῷ ἐντὸς τοῦ πωμηρίου ποιήσασθαι ἔδοσαν: τά τε δόγματα τὰ περὶ τούτων γιγνόμενα ἐς μὲν στήλας ἀργυρᾶς χρυσοῖς γράμμασιν ἐνέγραψαν, ὑπὸ δὲ δὴ τοὺς πόδας τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ Καπιτωλίου ὑπέθεσαν, δηλοῦντές οἱ καὶ μάλα ἐναργῶς ὅτι ἄνθρωπος εἴη. 26. The confusion arises from failing to grasp Dio's purpose in this passage, which is to show how Caesar's honors were calculated to lead to his assassination. Dio tells us he is revealing the senators' mind-set (τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν) as expressed in their decrees, which consist of voting Caesar the right to a tomb or funeral rites (τάφον) within the pomerium, inscribing his honors on στήλας ἀργυρᾶς, and depositing those tablets under the feet of Capitoline Jove, to show very clearly that he was mortal. The word στήλη indicates the kind of tablet inscribed with treaties that Romans displayed in the Temple of Jupiter but can also refer to a grave marker. See LSJ s.v. στήλη. At 44.7.3, Dio explicitly states many senators vote Caesar honors with the intent to make him hated and thus to precipitate his swift demise. 27. Meier (1995, 474) recognizes that the honors pertained to Caesar's divinity, but he offers no argument to support his position. See also Gelzer 1968, 317. Scott (1931, 114 n. 49) notes, “We need not accept Dio's interpretation of the matter, and it seems rather that the inscription in gold letters on a silver tablet was one not fitting a mortal, and it must not be forgotten that Tiberius branded the proposition of a similar inscription as insolentia and designated gold letters contra patrium morem.” 28. Suet. Ves. 8.5: aerarumque tabularum tria milia, quae simul conflagraverant, restituenda suscepit undique investigatis exemplaribus: instrumentum imperii pulcherrimum ac vetustissimum, quo continebantur paene ab exordio urbis senatus consulta, plebiscita de societate et foedere ac privilegio cuicumque concessis. On such tablets, see Williamson 1987, 160–83. 29. Williamson 1987, 174–79. Williamson (179–80) also argues that the increasing significance of the Capitoline temple in the last two centuries BCE as the sacred center of Rome's empire rendered the symbolism of placing bronze tablets there especially potent. 30. Cic. Marc. 8. 31. The deposition of the tablets may have looked something like the procession of priests, followed by choirs of noble boys and girls, conveying Caligula's honorific gold shield to the Capitoline. See Suet. Calig. 16.4. Williamson (1987, 175 n. 59) suggests that “[t]ablets in temples were probably directed to the gods as well as to men.” In Rome, a silver tablet with gold lettering was probably only ever, if ever, directed to a god before Caesar. 32. D.C. 44.6.4. 33. Gelzer (1968, 317) reconstructs the event in this way. 34. Plu. Caes. 60.4; Suet. Jul. 78.1; D.C. 44.8.1–2. Since Antony was the other consul of the year, he is undoubtedly the consul mentioned in this episode, even though he is not specified by name. 35. As both Rüpke (2012, 64–71) and Beard (2007, 225–33) have argued, the triumphator's resemblance to Jupiter does not necessarily indicate his identification with the god. However, it also does not prevent such an identification. A distinction must be drawn between the origins of the ceremony and the different perceptions or manipulations of it. The increasing tendency of late-republican dynasts to assume divine roles recommends the view that the association of the triumphator with Jupiter could be exploited in order

to lend a divine air to the mortal commander. Suetonius (Aug. 94.6) reports the prophetic dream of Augustus' father in which he saw his son appearing like a Helios-Jupiter figure (cum fulmine et sceptro exuviisque Iovis Optimi Maximi ac radiate corona), mounted super laureatum currum. 36. For the deposition of the laurel wreath in the lap of Jove, see Plin. Nat. 15.134; Sil. 15.118–20. Versnel (1970, 71) speculates that all the insignia triumphalia were placed in gremio Iovis. 37. Dio (37.21.4) reports that Pompey was given the honor of wearing a laurel wreath at public games, donning the paludamentum at all games, and wearing triumphal regalia at horse races. He also reports (44.4.2) that Caesar was granted the privilege of wearing triumphal garb wherever he was conveyed, whether in the city or outside it. 38. D.S. 5.42.4–46.7; Lact. Inst. Div. 1.11. 39. D.S. 5.46.7. 40. D.S. 6.1. Diodorus, relying perhaps on Hecataeus of Abdera, attributes to Euhemerus the view that there are two classes of gods: one celestial, the other terrestrial. One might argue that Dio interpreted the Senate's actions through this particular version of euhemerism. On these two classes of deities in Euhemerus, see Cole 1967, 157; Voegelin 2002, 133–34. 41. Suet. Jul. 81.1. Caesar proposed the colony at Capua during his consulship. Cf. App. BC 2.10; Gelzer 1968, 81; Meier 1995, 207. Pompey personally led the commission to found the colony. Cf. Cic. Att. 2.19.3. Two legions were stationed at Capua at an early stage of the conflict between Pompey and Caesar. See App. BC 2.29–31. Caesar (Civ. 1.14.4–5) disapprovingly reports the Pompeian Lentulus' attempt to raise soldiers from Caesar's Capuan gladiators and his colonists, although, as Gelzer points out, Pompey was one of the commissioners who established the colony and thus was equally entitled to be viewed as its patron. See Grillo 2012, 69–70. 42. Sed Caesari futura caedes euidentibus prodigiis denuntiata est. paucos ante menses, cum in colonia Capua deducti lege Iulia coloni ad extruendas uillas uetustissima sepulcra dis[s]icerent idque eo studiosius facerent, quod aliquantum uasculorum operis antiqui scrutantes reperiebant, tabula aenea in monimento, in quo dicebatur Capys conditor Capuae sepultus, inuenta est conscripta litteris uerbisque Graecis hac sententia: quandoque ossa Capyis detecta essent, fore ut illo prognatus manu consanguineorum necaretur magnisque mox Italiae cladibus uindicaretur. cuius rei, ne quis fabulosam aut commenticiam putet, auctor est Cornelius Balbus, familiarissimus Caesaris. There are various Trojan and Italian Capyses in GrecoItalian myth. See Deutsch 1922, 119–27. The precise identity of this Capys is not the crucial issue. The important points about Capys, for the purposes of this discussion, were his consanguinity with Aeneas and his status as the founder and ruler of Capua. In the first instance, the purpose of stressing this relationship was probably diplomatic. Capua presented itself to Rome as a sister city with ancient ties of kinship. 43. Farney 2007, 205–6. 44. The description of the tablet—tabula aenea in monimento—may hint at its function as a warning, or monitus. 45. The taboo against disturbing burials was strong. In general, a tomb was considered a locus religiosus that was protected by the pontifices and was not susceptible to sale or seizure as private property. See Rives 2011, 172–75. The prohibition of the sale or seizure of a tomb as property is attested in the Twelve Tables. Cf. Crook 1967, 133–38. 46. Also, Cicero had previously cast Pompey in the role of secular savior in 66. See, in the present book, chapter 3, n. 4. It seems that other Italians accepted the idea that Pompey was a uniquely significant figure, since many of them made vows for his welfare when he fell seriously ill in 50 BCE. Cf. Cic. Att. 816.1; Tusc. 1.86; Vell. 2.48.2; D.C. 41.6.3; Plu. Pomp. 57.1. Perhaps the son of Ilium targeted in the Capys tablet was originally Pompey, not Caesar. According to the De vir. ill. (66.11–12), vows of a similar kind were also taken for the recovery of M. Livius Drusus from illness in 91 BCE. For discussion, see Fears 1981b, 882–83. 47. Cic. Agr. 2.89; Harvey 1982, 145–48. Gabba (1976, 57–59) attributed Marian sympathies to the Capuans. 48. Cic. Agr. 2.88–97. For a recent discussion of this passage, see Morstein-Marx 2004, 73–76. 49. Cic. Agr. 2.89. 50. On Cicero's characterization of Capua as an altera Roma, see Vasaly 1993, 231–43. 51. Paschális 1997, 59, 102.

52. Cic. Agr. 2.92: omnis acerbissimas impiorum poenas pertulerunt. 53. Ibid. 2.33–35. 54. Suetonius (Cal. 57) reports that lightning struck the Capitolium of Capua on the Ides of March in the year of the emperor Gaius' assassination; this strongly suggests that the Capys tablet had earlier been reinterpreted as a prophecy of Caesar's assassination. 55. Suet. Aug. 15.1: scribunt quidam trecentos ex dediticiis electos utriusque ordinis ad aram Divo Iulio extructam Idibus Martis hostiarum more mactatos. See also D.C. 48.14.3–4. Appian (BC 5.48) does not represent the execution as a sacrifice. 56. Serv. A. 2.35. For discussion of this comment, see Deutsch 1922, 120–21. 57. Liv. 40.29.3–14; V. Max. 1.1.12; Plin. Nat. 27.87; Plu. Num. 22.4. 58. Livy (1.18) himself dismisses the notion that Numa was a student of Pythagoras, based on the chronological inconsistencies. Numa's reign predated Pythagoras' presence in Italy by more than a century. On Pythagoreanism at Rome, see Kahn 2001, 86–93. 59. Plutarch (Num. 22.4–5) is the only extant source to attribute the discovery to a heavy rain. Briscoe (2008, 479) believes that Plutarch was relying on a source later than Pliny. Since Plutarch cites Antias directly before discussing the rain, it is possible that Antias, who predates Pliny, was that other source. 60. Livy (40.29) specifies that it was Valerius Antias who claimed that the Greek book contained Pythagorean philosophy. He seems to dismiss this idea as part of the mistaken tradition in which Numa was anachronistically regarded as a disciple of Pythagoras. 61. Ibid. This image of sacrificial destruction militates against the view that the books were officially deemed fraudulent at the time, regardless of the fact that they were most certainly a pia fraus. On the role of the praetor, see Brennan 2000, 123. 62. Plin. Nat. 34.26. 63. Liv. 40.19, 26, 37, 42. 64. 6. 65. Liv. 40.37. 66. Ibid. 40.29.1–2: colonia Graviscae eo anno deducta est in agrum Etruscum, de Tarquiniensibus quondam captum; quina iugera agri data; triumviri deduxerunt C. Calpurnius Piso P. Claudius Pulcher C. Terentius Histra. siccitate et inopia frugum insignis annus fuit: sex menses nusquam pluvisse memoriae proditum. Cf. Briscoe 2008, 479; Torelli 1971, 44–67; 1977, 398–448. Graviscae, which Greek merchants had anciently established as an emporium, was the port of Tarquinii. Since one of the commissioners, Calpurnius Piso, may have claimed descent from Numa as other Calpurnii did, the discovery of the books after problems emerged in connection with the colony may not be a coincidence. Cf. Evans 1992, 25–26; Farney 2007, 275. On the Etruscan origins of the Calpurnii Pisones, see Schulze 1904, 137–38, 178, 211, 244, 260; Forsythe 1990, 296–97. Forsythe notes that the first two historically attested members of the family performed duties in Etruria. It seems likely that Livy derived the detail about Graviscae from the history of Piso Frugi (cos. 133). 67. See n. 42 for the expression of warning on the Capuan tablet. 68. Graviscae was known to be a malarial area. Cf. Serv. A. 10.184; Briscoe 2008, 479; Sallares 2002, 192–200. 69. On the association with lightning, see Liv. 1.20.7; 1.31.8; Ov. Fast. 3.327–92; Plin. Nat. 2.140. The association with rain is proffered in modern scholarship. See Rubins 1932, 93–102. This theory finds its best support in Fest. 115 L: Manalem vocabant lapidem etiam petram quandam, quae erat extra portam Capenam iuxta aedem Martis, quam cum propter nimiam siccitatem in urbem pertraherent, insequebatur pluvia statim, eumque, quod aquas manaret, manalem lapidem dicere. According to Servius (A. 3.175), the pontiffs brought the stone into the city to alleviate drought in a ritual called the aquaelicium. Rubins (94–95) contends that there is no explicit connection between Jupiter Elicius and rain. The prodigy that caused Tullus Hostilius to perform rites to Elicius—a shower of stones—seems to hint in that direction, however. Cf. Liv. 1.31.1: devictis Sabinis cum in magna gloria magnisque opibus regnum Tulli ac tota res Romana esset, nuntiatum regi patribusque est in monte Albano lapidibus pluvisse. Perhaps a version of this story served as an etiology for the lapis manalis. 70. Cassius Hemina described the location as in Ianiculo. Cf. Briscoe 2008, 483. NTDAR s.v. Ager L. Petilii locates the Ager Petilii and the tomb mentioned in Livy 40.29 in the area of the northwest slope of

the Janiculan Hill, where the Via Aurelia rises up the hill. Harmansah (MAR s.v. Ianiculum, 148) finds the association persuasive. For the Janiculan Hill, see map 1 in the present book. 71. Livy (40.29.5) attributes the disappearance to decay. Briscoe (2008, 482) asserts that there is “no question of a miraculous disappearance of the body.” In the present discussion, however, Livy's interpretation is not the solely relevant issue. The salient point is the likely existence of stories that attributed the body's disappearance to miraculous causes. Given the Hellenistic infatuation with Pythagorean, pre-Socratic, and shamanic heroes and their miracles, it would be surprising if some version of the discovery of Numa's books did not depict the body's disappearance as miraculous. 72. The apotheosis of certain shamanic figures was a Pythagorean preoccupation. See Kingsley 1995, 253. On euhemerism in the RG, see Bosworth 1999, 10–12. 73. For discussion of Euhemerus as a Sicilian author, see Angelis and Garstad 2006, 211–42. Known as Euhemerus of Messene, Euhemerus may have come from the Messene in Sicily instead of the Messene of the Peloponnesus. 74. Lact. Inst. Div. 1.11: antiquus auctor Euhemerus, qui fuit ex civitate Messene, res gestas Iovis, et caeterorum qui dii putantur, collegit, historiamque contexuit ex titulis, et inscriptionibus sacris, quae in antiquissimis templis habebantur, maximeque in fano Iovis Triphylii; ubi auream columnam positam esse ab ipso Iove titulus indicabat, in qua columna gesta sua perscripsit, ut monumentum esset posteris rerum suarum. 75. RG 7: usque ad eum diem quo scripseram; 35: cum scripsi haec annum agebam septuagensumum sextum. 76. D.S. 5.42.4–46.7; Lact. Inst. Div. 1.11. 77. Diodorus and Lactantius ascribe somewhat different origins to the cult. Diodorus (6.1.10) reports that Zeus was proclaimed a god by the people he visited, while Lactantius (1.11.45–46, 22.21–25) says that Jupiter established his own cult. See Sulimani 2011, 64. 78. Verg. A. 7.59–192. See Rosivach 1980, 146–51. As Rosivach argues, the distinction between the palace of Latinus and the regia Pici is unclear. The regia Pici is modeled on the Capitoline Temple. These elements point to Vergil's use of euhemerism in establishing a model in which a relationship between the founder, ruler, and ruler cult transforms into divine cult over time. 79. See D.S. 46.7 on the contents of the golden stele. Bosworth (1999, 9–18) sees the influence of Hecataeus of Abdera and Euhemerus of Messene in the divine status of the ruler who combines a career of conquest and civilization. 80. For a fairly comprehensive early example of Hellenistic ruler cult, see Mikalson's discussion (1998, 75–104) of Demetrius Poliorcetes' cult at Athens. An altar was set up for Demetrius where he alighted from his chariot, and cult was there established for Demetrius as theos Kataibates. See Plu. Mor. 338a; Demetr. 10.5; Clem. Al. Protr. 4.54.6. On the epithet itself, see Habicht 1970, 156–59. 81. For the various honors and trappings of Hellenistic ruler cult, see Habicht 1970, 138–59. See also Chaniotis 2003, 431–45; Walbank 1987, 365–82; Price 1984, 23–52. 82. Price (1984, 23–24) discusses modern dismissals of ancient ruler cult as political flattery. Ancient criticism of ruler cult was, like ruler cult itself, both a political and religious act. It is crucial to note that the complaints of the Athenian Hypereides (Epit. 6.21) were inspired, to no small degree, by his political views as an anti-Macedonian: “[we] see sacrifices accorded to men, the statues, altars, and temples of the gods disregarded, while those of men were sedulously cared for and the servants of these men honored as heroes.” Trans. Walbank 1984, 95. See Habicht (1970, 213–21) on polemics against ruler cult. 83. Price (1984, 26) persuasively lays out the conditions that gave rise to Hellenistic ruler cult, which did not exist under tyrants or the rule of the Persian king: “The crucial development was a form of autocratic rule that was both external to the institutions of the city and yet at least partially Greek.” 84. For Antiochus IV as refounder of Babylon, see OGIS 253. On this inscription, he is called the savior of Asia, the founder, and the benefactor of the city. On the topic of Hellenistic kings' refoundations of cities in general, see Cohen 1995. 85. Livy (42.1.7–12) relates an early example of a Roman magistrate demanding Hellenistic-style apantêsis, a welcoming reception outside the city, from a Latin neighbor. The consul of 173 BCE, L. Postumius Albinus, angered about a prior perceived slight, sent letters ahead to Praeneste instructing its magistrates to come out to greet him (ut…obviam exiret) and entertain him at the city's expense. It was

perhaps a predictably oppressive action on the part of a consul who was sent to police the boundaries between public and private land in Campania. Cf. Liv. 42.1.6. His assigned duties were no doubt resented. 86. Taylor 1934b; Sulimani 2011, 76–78. 87. On Hellenistic royal entry, see Strootman 2007, 289–305. 88. RG 35.1: tertium decimum consulatum cum gerebam, senatus et equester ordo populusque Romanus universus appellavit me patrem patriae, idque in vestibulo aedium mearum inscribendum et in curia Iulia et in foro Augusto sub quadrigis, quae mihi ex senatus consulto positae sunt, censuit. See also D.C. 55.10.9 89. Suet. Aug. 58.1: Patris patriae cognomen universi repentino maximoque consensu detulerunt ei: prima plebs, legatione Antium missa; dein, quia non recipiebat, ineunti Romae spectacula frequens et laureata; mox in curia senatus, neque decreto neque adclamatione, sed per Valerium Messalam. See also D.C. 55.10.9 for a cryptic reference to the honor. 90. RG 35.1. 91. Bosworth 1999, 1–18. 92. There is a long pre-existing tradition of such documents from the underworld. Diogenes Laertius (8.41) recounts Hermippus' tale of an emaciated Pythagoras emerging from an underground chamber to read an account of what had happened in the world above during his absence. He claimed to have received this information from his mother as part of the ruse. Burkert (1972b, 159) interprets the story to be about Pythagoras as the hierophant of Demeter, the earth mother. Pliny (Nat. 2.112.248) recounts the story of Dionysodorus the geometrician who allegedly sent a letter from the underworld confirming Eratosthenes' calculation of the earth's circumference.

Page 197 →

CHAPTER 7 Theologies of Arrival in the Res Gestae As discussed in the previous chapter, the form and placement of the Res Gestae strongly hint at Augustus' claims to be both a new founder of the city and a god. This chapter examines the content of that inscription more closely to show how Augustus used Rome's rich repertoire of images and ideas related to arrival to support these claims. The emphasis on Augustus' role as city refounder is combined with a programmatic use of arrival scenes to articulate the process of Rome's restoration and the evolution of his position therein. References to arrivals occur at both the opening and closing of the inscription. The inscription begins with Octavian's appearance at Rome with troops he had raised on his own initiative (RG 1) and ends with mention of his triumphal quadriga in the Forum of Augustus (RG 35). The framing of the inscription by these images of arrival suggests that the narrative structure of the whole draws on the form of a ceremonial procession of civic entry like the triumph or a Hellenistic royal parousia, which begins with an initial arrival and concludes at a destination of a significant ritual-civic space in the city. As an arrival text, the RG implicates its reader into a cultural process that unfolds in a series of arrivals culminating in the full restoration of the Republic, the birth of a new age, and the apex of Augustus' personal career.1 Page 198 → Key stages in that process are Augustus' celebrated returns to Rome and the altars voted in connection with them. The inscription reshapes the memory of these returns and thus the significance of the altars, thereby becoming a new key for reading the Augustan landscape of Rome through the lens of the inscription's extended adventus-triumphus. Thus the RG is not just a theology; it is a theology constructed around the image of arrival and written onto the landscape of the city through its textual procession. Indeed, the RG simultaneously depicts the apotheosis-epiphany of the god Augustus chronologically through the progression of his career and spatially into the heart of the city in the Forum of Augustus. In this way, the inscription is more fully parallel with Caesar's silver tablets than is first apparent. In fact, in the way the RG constructs the refounding of the city and the emergence of a new god as interrelated phenomena, it is more conceptually ambitious than Caesar's silver tablets and akin to the golden stele of Zeus Triphylius. From early on, Augustus seems to have been well aware of the immense potential of arrival ceremonies. His political career opened with his first adventus at Rome after the assassination of Caesar.2 At that time, although he was a young man of eighteen years on his way to the city to take up his inheritance, he crafted his journey to Rome so as to follow the path laid down by past successful commanders and governors who had returned to Rome from the East.3 Although he started his journey at Lupiae for security reasons, he staged his first formal arrival at Brundisium and then made his way to Rome. That arrival at Rome was the first of many. On his road to political supremacy, Augustus would engage in almost every kind of arrival practice in the late-republican repertoire. He celebrated ovations and Page 199 → triumphs and even successfully invaded the city with an army, as had Sulla and Caesar before him.4 Augustus' career was bound to be highly controversial and in need of some deft recasting in order to insure the approbation of future Romans. Fortunately for him, his final victory over Antony in the civil war and his long reign as the first princeps afforded him the opportunity to shape his arrival practices and their representations in such a way that both ritual and text might satisfy expectations concerning a restored Republic, even as it influenced those expectations. Augustus' long career also afforded him the opportunity to reshape the memory of his own arrivals so as to persuade others of the legitimacy, impact, and significance of his rule. Through these processes, Augustus played an instrumental role in laying the groundwork for an imperial ceremonial in which the arrival of Rome's leading figure, the emperor, evolved to assume greater significance and more layers of meaning.5 Octavian's adventus and ovatio of 36 laid important foundations for such future developments. Over time, the emperor's adventus would come to subsume elements of the triumph, along with its associations with Victoria,

Fortuna, and the commander's felicitas. It also incorporated the notion of the divinely appointed savior of Rome that had developed over the course of the first century BCE.6 As discussed in chapter 1, Sulla's autobiography was an important milestone in the evolution of the image of the savior traveling a path that had been cleared by the gods for the purpose of birthing a new age for Rome both at home and as imperial hegemon. Cicero later depicted his patron Pompey in similar terms and then adapted such an image to his own needs by turning himself into a civilian-statesman savior of the city in his conflict with Catiline. Augustus consciously drew on this tradition as he conceptualized his own role and mode of self-representation. This self-fashioning is evident in the composition of his own autobiography, which drew on the model of Sulla's memoir.7 The influence of Cicero's self-depiction Page 200 → as the civilian-statesman (as opposed to military commander) who returned from exile to save the city also impacted Augustus' formulation of his own image as an arriving savior. Perhaps Cicero's example as a statesman returning from exile impressed on Augustus the wisdom of looking outside of the realm of Rome's martial culture to find an appropriate mythological model for his arrival, in King Numa (a model that will be explored further in chapter 8). The composition of his Res Gestae provided Augustus one final opportunity to shape posterity's view of his earlier career and its arrival ceremonies up to 2 BCE. According to this vision, Rome, Italy, and the Roman Empire had found in its princeps a savior who set the known world, as governed from the caput rerum of Rome, on a safe, stable, and enduring course.8 The RG also presents Augustus' final vision of his advent into Roman history, which began with wresting Rome from a factio, as Caesar had before him, and which reached its apex in his acceptance of the honorific title pater patriae, which was inscribed below his triumphal quadriga in the Forum of Augustus.9

The Arrivals of the Princeps Few treat the Res Gestae as a literary text.10 Its terse language has not inspired a wealth of literary analysis. Yet the text was deliberately constructed to guide its reader through a historical and spatial tour of Augustus' career in a multi-layered narrative filled with references to Rome's history and landscape. Whether it is to be considered literature or not, the RG demands Page 201 → in-depth analysis of the kind usually reserved for literary texts. Operating on multiple levels simultaneously, the text presents the reader a princeps who emerges as the culmination of history at the time of the dedication of the Forum of Augustus.11 It will be helpful to employ the device of an imaginary traveler to envision the inscription's blend of historical and physical journeys. A traveler arriving in Rome on the north side on the Via Flaminia would have been easily induced to read the Res Gestae inscription erected before the Mausoleum of Augustus.12 Those who knew of the life of Augustus would have quickly recognized that the document begins with his arrival at Rome with two legions in the autumn of 44, when he declared his intention to achieve his father's honors.13 They would have also noticed that the text refers to a series of monuments leading into the heart of the city of Rome at the Janus Quirinus and the Forum of Augustus. This progression of monuments draws the reader into an imaginary procession into the city, where he or she can relive with the princeps the celebration of cultic honors that, in this account, greet Augustus upon his arrivals, ending in the three closings of the Gates of Janus. Having embarked on this imaginary procession, the traveler could then continue down the Via Flaminia to one of the altars mentioned in the RG, the Ara Pacis Augustae.14 There the traveler would again be drawn into a procession, this time depicted on the northern and southern faces of the outer walls surrounding the altar.15 If the traveler were to walk down to the Horologium, he or she could see two stone reliefs on the western face of the Ara Pacis, one on either side of the entrance. The northernmost of the two, facing away from the city, was a depiction of Romulus and Remus suckling at the she-wolf. The southernmost panel depicted Numa sacrificing.16 The Page 202 → stone reliefs of the Lupercal and Numa sacrificing on the western side of the Ara Pacis Augustae may have inspired the thematic organization of the first thirteen chapters of the RG, thus relating the first two stages of the career of the princeps to Rome's founder, Romulus, and second founder, Numa.17 As will be discussed shortly, the subject matter of these chapters seems to have been manipulated to form a succession of themes that matches predominant characteristics of the reigns of these two kings as elegantly contrasted by Livy:18 Ita duo deinceps reges, alius alia via, ille bello, hic pace, civitatem auxerunt. Romulus

septem et triginta regnavit annos, Numa tres et quadraginta. Cum ualida tum temperata et belli et pacis artibus erat civitas (“And thus two kings in succession, each in his respective way, the former in war, the latter in peace, increased the state. Romulus reigned thirty-seven years, while Numa reigned forty-three”).19 In using the word auxerunt, Livy has alluded to Augustus. Similar to Livy's description of the reigns of these two kings, the Res Gestae opens with chapters focused on war, victory, and its rewards (chapters 1–4) and then moves on to more peaceful and religious concerns (chapters 9–13). Ramage noticed that the development of themes in the RG corresponded well with the order of virtues in the clupeus virtutis.20 Caesarian-Romulean virtues of clementia and virtus shift to Augustan-Numan virtues of iustitia and pietas. The correspondence is not perfect. Chapter 2, after all, celebrates the pietas of Augustus in avenging Page 203 → the murder of Caesar. Still, clementia and virtus arguably predominate in the opening chapters, just as iustitia and pietas come to the fore in the later chapters of the opening sequence. Torelli noticed a similar progression in Augustus' mention of the Ara Fortunae Reducis and Ara Pacis.21 First, one reads of the Ara Fortunae Reducis, which more clearly references themes of the commander's fortune, victory, and triumphs. Then comes mention of the Ara Pacis, which appropriately ties together the reditus in 13 and the closure of the Gates of War.

Romulus and Caesar at the Opening of the Res Gestae The northernmost of the two western panels on the Ara Pacis is sometimes called the Lupercal and recalls Rome's early beginnings in the arrival of the babies Romulus and Remus, carried on the currents of the Tiber, to the Palatine Hill, where a grown Romulus, having avenged his grandfather Numitor, would found the city.22 The placement of this panel further from the city center resonates well with the fact that Rome's founding story is one of migration, which leads to revenge and liberation. Likewise, the Res Gestae opens with Augustus' account of his arrival on the scene to liberate the Republic: annos undeviginti natus exercitum privato consilio et privata impensa comparavi, per quem rem publicam a dominatione factionis oppressam in libertatem vindicavi (“At the age of nineteen, I raised an army on my own volition and at my own expense, through which I freed the Republic from the oppression of a faction”). Here Augustus alludes to Caesar's own claim to have freed the Republic (et populum Romanum factione paucorum oppressum in libertatem vindicaret), but he also appears to be alluding to Livy's account of the plight of Rhea Silvia and the twins:23 Sed nec di nec homines aut ipsam aut stirpem a crudelitate regia vindicant: sacerdos vincta in custodiam datur, pueros in profluentem aquam mitti iubet (“But neither gods nor men freed the woman herself or her offspring from kingly cruelty: the priestess, being bound, was taken into custody, and he ordered the infant boys to be sent into the river's current”). Lacking divine or human aid to free the Page 204 → twins from the royal cruelty of Amulius, the Vestal is imprisoned, and her children are thrown into the Tiber. The assistance they need, however, will come in the form of the grown twins themselves, who will avenge Numitor and lay claim to their birthright by founding Rome. Augustus' expression a dominatione factionis…vindicavi references both Caesar's language and Livy's (a crudelitate regia vindicant). If one supposes that Augustus was alluding to Livy's account of the persecution of Rhea Silvia and her children, the matter-of-fact statement regarding Augustus' age at the time of the Battle of Mutina takes on a new significance. In this light, annos undeviginti natus not only evokes the young Romulus who avenged his grandfather; it also alludes to the divine paternity of Augustus.24 Just as Romulus is the child of Mars, who is featured prominently in the Lupercal relief, Augustus is the child of a divine parent: either Caesar or Apollo or both. Interestingly, whereas Livy alludes to the future vengeance of Romulus during an account of Romulus' infancy, Augustus does precisely the opposite in alluding to the circumstances of his conception and birth while he recounts his liberation of the Republic as a continuation of Caesar's work. Chapter 2 recounts that Augustus exacted revenge of his adoptive father's murder by exiling and waging war against Caesar's murderers: qui parentem meum interfecerunt, eos in exilium expuli iudiciis legitimis ultus eorum facinus, et postea bellum inferentis rei publicae vici bis acie (“These men who murdered my father, I thrust out into exile after seeing to their punishment for this villainy in legitimate court proceedings”). This narrative of exile and revenge once again evokes the life of Romulus, but it does so in a way that emphasizes the legality and legitimacy of Augustus' actions. Amulius' exile of the infants Romulus and Remus is characterized as cruelty in Livy. Augustus' exile of Brutus and Cassius is represented as vengeance by law (expuli iudiciis legitimis ultus eorum facinus). Romulus and Remus used stealth and deception to deal with their usurping great-uncle; Augustus

twice defeated in battle the men who had attacked the Republic (bellum inferentis rei publicae vici bis acie). Finally, as one who exacts vengeance (ultus), Augustus associates himself with the deity depicted on the Lupercal relief, Mars, whom Augustus, in pursuing his own act of vengeance for the murder of his father, called Mars Ultor.25 Augustus' reading of the Lupercal Page 205 → relief therefore also points toward Rome's new center, the Forum of Augustus, with its Temple of Mars Ultor, which he later situates as the end point on the Res Gestae's itinerary, in a passage that evokes Ennius' description of Romulus as pater of Rome.26 As Augustus writes, the name pater patriae was inscribed under his quadriga in the Forum of Augustus.27 The evidence previously marshaled favors the view that in the opening two chapters of his Res Gestae, Augustus reached far back in time, beyond the historical circumstances in which he first emerged as a public figure (the freeing of the Republic and avenging of his father's death), to relate these events, by way of allusion, to the birth of Romulus and his revenge against his great-uncle Amulius for the usurpation of his grandfather's throne. The latter events in Romulus' life both occurred before the founding of Rome, and they result from those depicted in the Lupercal scene depicted on the Ara Pacis' west face. The theme of vengeance (ultus eorum facinus) in chapter 2 of the RG corresponds with the image of Mars in the Lupercal scene: there Mars, facing toward the city and dressed like a commander in his paludamentum, invites the viewer to follow him into the city all the way to the Forum of Augustus, where the Temple of Mars Ultor stands imposingly on the far end. Appropriately in keeping with this martial theme, chapter 4 of the RG recounts the ovations and triumphs of Augustus, which were voted to him for his many victories terra marique: Bis ovans triumphavi et tris egi curulis triumphos et appellatus sum viciens et semel imperator (“Twice I celebrated ovations, three times I led curule triumphs, and twenty-one times I was hailed imperator”). The reference to the triumph after the opening Romulean chapters of the RG raises in the reader's mind Romulus' role as the founder of the triumph and the first to dedicate the spolia opima.28 Page 206 → Thus far, this argument has endeavored to show that the opening four chapters of the Res Gestae evoke the career of Romulus, who appeared on the left-hand relief on the west face of the Ara Pacis. It would be easy to say that the opening of the RG is Romulean in that it deals with matters of war, but the evidence is more compelling than that. In referring to his first act of patriotism in liberating the state, Augustus alluded to Livy's account of the birth and expulsion of Romulus, which also appeared in the Lupercal scene on the Ara Pacis. His further references to Mars Ultor and allusions to Romulus draw the reader along this particular strand of Augustan theology, all the way to the journey's conclusion at the quadriga in the Forum of Augustus in the text's last chapter.29 Through such gestures, Augustus constructed an ideological itinerary that related his career with a Roman landscape of his own making, presented in chronological layers going back before the Romulean foundation of the city. He did more than that, however: his itinerary in narrative incorporated monuments that, like the RG, exploited themes of foundation and arrival. The reliefs on the north and south faces of the Ara Pacis, as viewed from the Via Flaminia, invite the traveler-viewer into its procession, while the west and east faces take this same person on a trip through Roman history and from a state of war to a state of peace—the progression that both the RG and the altar celebrate.

Numa and Janus in the Res Gestae Our imagined traveler, having read the reliefs on the Ara Pacis' west face, would start his or her journey in the time of Romulus and then continue Page 207 → into the city in the reign of Numa. The Res Gestae, too, shifts from Romulean themes to those more closely associated with Rome's second king, especially religion and peace. Chapters 9–13 in particular treat the religious honors accorded to Augustus in connection with his reditus from Syria and his reditus from Spain and Gaul. The same passage is replete with institutions established originally by Numa, which is surprising considering that, in the past, Augustus' return from Spain had been quite fittingly used to compare the emperor to Hercules.30 Hercules was once the symbol of Italian unity under Augustus; now, in the RG, Numa becomes the new symbol of unity.31 These chapters further stand out for the author's investment in narrating the returns and detailing the honors he received in connection with them. Structurally, the number of ovations (two) and triumphs (three) reported in chapter 4 balance numerically the two arrivals and three closings of the Gates of Janus in chapters 9–13.32 Consider, however, the amount of space allotted to each. The ovations

and triumphs are reported in a short period. The author provides no specific detail or narrative to help his reader contextualize them historically. Like enumerated acclamations on an imperial coin, these honors are non-descript in the brevity of their reportage. The returns of 19 and 13 and the closings of the Gates of Janus, by contrast, merit three full chapters. The reader is treated to details that provide each of the returns a historical context. The honors connected to these returns are novel, elevating the princeps to a unique status as chief priest of Italy and near deity. Why did Augustus choose to dwell on the returns of 19 and 13 BCE? There had been other magnificent returns, and these returns in the teens were, at the time they occurred, practically non-events in that Augustus stole secretly into the city instead of enjoying a hero's welcome.33 As we saw Page 208 → in the previous chapter, his return to Rome after the victory over Sextus Pompey in 36 was remarkable and far more consequential than these later examples. The return in 36 was the first occasion on which the Senate and the people of Rome paraded out of the city to escort Augustus back. On that occasion, he had entered the city as the son of Apollo, fresh from his victory over the son of Neptune. As in 19 and 13, Augustus had received new religious honors in 36, which set a precedent for the honors described in RG 9–12. In 36, Augustus had declared the end of civil war and promised the return of the Republic. Appian considered Augustus' victory in 36 sufficiently significant to end his history of the civil war there. Despite all of this, the year 36 receives minimal attention in the RG. The ovation celebrated on the occasion of the Ludi Plebeii is just a number in chapter 4—one of two ovations. The victory itself is depicted as the sweeping away of pirates, not the conclusion to civil war that it was billed as at the time.34 Likewise, in 29, the Senate decreed, in addition to a burgeoning collection of honors, an apantêsis of all the populace of Rome to greet Augustus, which he refused.35 Still, when Augustus did return to the city, all its citizens offered sacrifice, including the consul Valerius Potitus. Dio reports, οὗτος οὖν δημοσίᾳ καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπέρ τε τοῦ δήμου καὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς βουλῆς ἐπὶ τῇ τοῦ Καίσαρος ἀφίξει ἐβουθύτησεν: ὃ μήπω πρότερον ἐπὶ μηδενὸς ἄλλου ἐγεγόνει (“It was [Potitus] Page 209 → who publicly and in person offered sacrifices on behalf of the Senate and of the People upon Caesar's arrival, a thing that had never been done in the case of any other person”).36 Dio's language seems to derive from an official decree; it is echoed in the reference to the embassy of 19 BCE that Augustus cast as an apantêsis in RG 12 (qui honos ad hoc tempus nemini praeter me est decretus). His triple triumph would shortly follow. Augustus did not deem it desirable to draw attention to these civil war victories in an extended narrative. Focusing on the year 19 was a better choice for a number of reasons. First, 19 was a significant year in the history of the Roman triumph. In that year, Balbus was the first non-Italian to celebrate a triumph.37 He may also have been the last person outside of the imperial family to triumph.38 Second, Augustus was offered a triumph in 19, but he turned it down. He would instead accept other honors in place of the triumph, including the Ara Fortunae Reducis. The Senate also decreed that his return in 19 be commemorated henceforth by an annual sacrifice by the priests and Vestals. In retrospect, these honors would be seen as significant markers in the evolution of imperial ceremonial. Through the lens of the RG, which elides the military significance of the events in favor of these cultic honors, Augustus' return in 19 takes on the appearance of the dawning of a new era in which the princeps could return in peace and in which such an occasion would be celebrated by state sacrifices. The effect is one of Augustus' fashioning. The reality was far less tidy.39 At the time, the Senate and the people honored Augustus because he had brought home the legionary standards that Crassus and Antony had lost to the Parthians. While Augustus did refuse the triumph he was offered, he still promoted the feat as one of great military significance. The altar Page 210 → that honored his return in place of the triumph was dedicated to Fortuna Redux, a goddess responsible for bringing Roman commanders and troops safely back to the city.40 On coins of the year 19, Fortuna appears in her guise as Victrix; the man she brought victory, Augustus, appears on the other side, wearing a laurel crown. The slogan signis receptis graces numerous issues.41 It is understandable why the trumped-up military associations of a “victory” conjured from diplomatic hardball and posturing would later be elided. Augustus goes further in reshaping the memory of 19, however, by covering up trouble at home in the form of the illicit candidacy and death of Egnatius Rufus as well. He transformed the embassy begging him to take up the consulship and return to the city into an honorific embassy voted to him as a novel honor on the model of the Hellenistic extra-urban royal reception.42 In other words, the RG turns the return of 19, which was tangled in dubious claims of military achievement abroad and corresponding civil upheaval at home, into a stately

reception that is capped off by cultic honors. Indeed, Augustus' account of these events is an anachronistic portrait of a well-developed imperial adventus, which unfolds with grace and ease. Likewise, the return of 13, which followed military action in Gaul and Spain, is marked by the honor of the Ara Pacis and more cultic trappings.43 The emperor glosses over the messiness of military endeavors, however successful, with the stately phrase prospere gestis rebus. He focuses on the Vestals, priests, magistrates, and senators giving united thanks to the gods for his return. In this passage of the RG, the Rome to which Augustus returns is one where Pax reigns because of his presence, more than one where the martial pacification of provinces is celebrated.44 Page 211 → In this section of the RG, Augustus' artful suppression of the military actions that prompted the honors marking his returns in 19 and 13 reinforces the sense that these advents belong to a new, peaceful era.45 This reshaping of the memory of these returns was fitting for a passage of the RG that may have been inspired partly by the right-hand relief on the western face of the Ara Pacis, with its depiction of Numa sacrificing a sow to seal the first treaty struck in accordance with the Fetial Law.46 The Numa on this relief seems to be facing out away from the city and toward the Mars figure in the Lupercal relief. If treated as one continuous scene, the two figures and the altar in front of Numa recall the king's founding of the Ara Martis in the Campus Martius. In this reading, Numa is welcoming Mars to his new home in campo. The placement of Numa and the altar on the south side of the west face is perfect for evoking the founding of the Ara Martis, since this altar was located south of the Ara Pacis, near the Villa Publica, east of the Capre Palus.47 A purported law of Numa, reported in Festus, describes the purpose of the Ara Martis: to receive the sacrifice of secunda spolia before the celebration of a triumph.48 Opposite the Numa of the Ara Pacis' west face is Pax on the east face.49 Around the corner from him, on the south face, stands Augustus. This arrangement brings together Numa, Pax, and Augustus on the side of the monument that is oriented toward the city.50 Augustus capitalized on this arrangement by structuring the Res Gestae in a way that complemented this arrangement: Numan themes follow the Romulean and present an image of Augustus in a peaceful Rome of his making. After passing the Ara Pacis, our imagined traveler might be eager to see the next point on the RG's Augustan itinerary, the Janus Geminus in the Page 212 → Forum Romanum.51 Like the Ara Martis, referenced in the Numa relief of the Ara Pacis, the Janus Geminus was a Numan foundation.52 Livy's account of the latter situates Numa's closing of the Gates of Janus directly after he had formed treaties and alliances with all his neighbors. Thus the Ara Pacis' scene of Numa sacrificing the sow in conclusion of such a treaty points forward to the closing of the gates too.53 In the RG, the mention of the Ara Pacis clearly anticipated the third closure of the Gates of Janus, which perhaps occurred in 8 BCE.54 The structural form of the Ara Pacis draws on both the form of the augural tabernaculum and the shrine of Janus, which may have been viewed as a prototypical auguraculum with the god as its augur.55 Thus the Ara Pacis' very appearance pointed back to the two honors that most pleased Augustus after his conquest of Egypt: the closing of the Gates of Janus and the taking of the augurium salutis.56 Our traveler's imaginary procession through the RG, therefore, leads us from the Ara Fortunae Reducis, to the Ara Pacis, and then finally to the Janus Geminus, which, as an auguraculum and templum, represents a kind of symbolic center place from which the world is ritually and spatially organized. The progression of these three monuments may also reference the three spolia discussed by Varro and Plutarch.57 The Ara Fortuna Reducis, voted in honor of Augustus' return with the recovered legionary standards, indirectly commemorated the dedication of these standards to Jupiter in anticipation of their placement Page 213 → in a Temple of Mars Ultor to be constructed on the model of the shrine of Jupiter Feretrius, repository of the spolia optima.58 The Ara Pacis, as previously argued, alluded strongly to the Ara Martis, where the secunda spolia were, according to a lex Numae, supposed to be dedicated. The same law stipulated that the spolia tertia were to be dedicated to Janus Quirinus.59 Augustus' concern with numerical balance in the RG is evident in the balance between the number of ovations and triumphs, on the one hand, and the combined number of events at the Ara Fortunae, Ara Pacis, and Janus Quirinus, on the other. By referring to the three times the Senate decreed the closing of the Gates of Janus, Augustus may have further presented himself as having achieved a numerical balance with Varro's three spolia. In addition to combining the auguraculum and templum, the Janus Geminus represents a kind of structural, ritual, and conceptual gateway. Ancient speculation made Janus a gate for profectio and adventus in early Rome.60 In

public prayer, he was the god to whom one appealed before all other gods.61 Chronologically, he came to represent the hinge of the year, while in spatial and cosmic terms, he was not only the four cardinal points but also the gateway of the rising and setting sun.62 Most interesting in a discussion concerning Augustus' selfrepresentation in the RG is the euhemeristic image of Page 214 → Janus the god-king of primeval Rome, who received Saturn when the latter sought refuge in Latium.63 This image parallels beautifully the reception of Mars by Numa as alluded to on the west face of the Ara Pacis. In Janus one can find a primeval center place, a ritual center where the will of the gods is discerned, the portal through which departures and returns occur, and the godpriest-king who officiates and participates in all of these activities, as well as being an object of cult himself. Such an image is eminently applicable to Augustus. Augustus chose to make the Janus Geminus the culmination of the series of landmarks in these chapters because, regardless of the precise outlines of his knowledge regarding this monument, he saw immense potential for working it into his own Numan theology in the RG. Indeed, the weakness of the evidence for Augustus' third closure of the Gates of Janus suggests that he stretched reality in order to make events conform to a numerically elegant and ideologically useful schema.64

Augustus Censorius The aforementioned narrative procession appropriately takes place after an account of Augustus' censorial activities—a record of the ritual actions that constitute the human community of Rome arranged in its various orders.65 The census ended with a procession into the city.66 Thus the account of Augustus' censuses is placed where one should expect it—before peaceful processions into the city. It should also be noted that, before reporting his censuses, Augustus takes three chapters to stress the fact that he did not accept any magistracy that was contra morem maiorum.67 Indeed, he reports that he declined both the dictatorship and a curatorship over laws Page 215 → and morals. After stressing this idea, he proceeds to tell us about the positions and priesthoods with which he wants to be associated. The first on that list, triumvir, is precisely the kind of magistracy he claimed he did not accept. Nevertheless, Augustus implicitly asserts that this position was not contra morem maiorum. In keeping with the progression of themes from Romulean to Numan, the list goes from the martial triumvirate to princeps senatus and a list of priesthoods. As will be argued shortly, the position of princeps and these priesthoods are the devices that mark the Numan phase of Augustus' career as presented in the RG. In terms of a political theology of arrival, Augustus wanted his reader to know, before he conducted the census and entered the city peacefully, that his position with regard to the city was neither novel nor smacking of regal power. This is a testimony to his care with regard to the legacy of Caesar, whose ovation of January 44, directly after the symbolically censorial Feriae Latinae, had been marred by perceptions of regal associations. Augustus' decision to report his recusatio of honores contra morem also evokes the Republican exemplum of Genucius Cipus, which was recounted in the introduction to this monograph.68 After his profectio from the city, Cipus discovers that horns have sprung from his forehead. When the haruspex in his retinue interprets this sign to indicate that his return to the city will result in his ascent to kingship, Cipus chooses exile instead of imposing kingship on Rome once again. One is reminded of Sulla at Tarentum, when the haruspex Postumius interpreted a crown-shaped liver as portending his success in his invasion of Italy and war against the Cinnans.69 During the ovation of 44, Caesar's statue was crowned with a diadem. In reporting the magistracies he declined, Augustus placed the word dictaturam at the very opening of the chapter, emphasizing his rejection of the legacy of Sulla and Caesar on this point. He may have even had the exemplum of Cipus in mind when he composed his account in such a way that the issue of non-traditional magistracies was raised directly before his symbolic procession into Rome as censor.70 Page 216 → Since this account of censuses was intentionally placed between the martial and peaceful arrivals of the Res Gestae, it will be useful to consider them before we proceed to a closer examination of the theological and ideological aspects of the returns of Augustus. Augustus' exercise of censorial powers to revise the senatorial roll and perform the lustrum addressed a noticeable deficiency of the civil war period—the failure to complete a census. The consulship of Pompey and Crassus in 70 had been the last time that a successful census had taken place.71 The result of the census of 70/69 was a grand swelling of the citizenship, thanks to a large influx of

Italians, some of whom had probably been waiting to be enrolled since the time of the Social War.72 When disaster struck Rome in the form of flood, famine, and pestilence in the winter of 23, Augustus responded by planning to celebrate the inauguration of the new saeculum followed by a census in 22.73 Augustus' censuses were more than just a powerful signal of the resumption of normal Republican practices in the RG. The performance of the census was symbolically related to the inauguration of a new age. As Augustus closes chapter 8, he goes so far as to identify explicitly this dawning age as his own saeculum (ex nostro saeculo). Page 217 → The rationale for associating the census with a new age is evident. The census was not a merely bureaucratic exercise. It had real impact on the apportionment of power within the state. The person responsible for the enrollment of many new citizens potentially acquired a pool of voting resources for future elections and legislation.74 A large change in the composition of the citizenship could thus greatly impact the balance of power in a highly competitive aristocratic environment. The census, however, was not just about the practicalities of political power. It was also an institution that defined Roman identity within a framework of religious ritual.75 This ritual had the basic form of a rite du passage, in that the Roman people gathered outside the sacred boundary of the city according to tribe and then, after the census and lustrum, were led back in procession into the city as citizens organized by century, with the changed composition of the Roman populace representing a kind of new identity.76 New citizens would join old in a community which was shared with Rome's gods, a development that brought these gods greater honor. The census thus not only pertained to questions about the very nature of Rome in its social and political organization; it also reflected the state of its relationship with the gods. Additionally, the healthy city was well ordered, with its citizens assigned to their proper sphere of privilege, responsibility, and moral value.77 The higher orders in particular were closely scrutinized for their moral rectitude; those who were deemed unworthy could be ejected from the Senate or the number of those knights who had the public horse.78 The logic that informed these practices included some notion of the importance of decision makers, magistrates, commanders, and key religious actors exhibiting the kind of upright behavior that would be indicative of respect for the gods on whom Rome relied for continuing success.79 Therefore, the censor, although he did not bear Page 218 → imperium, was considered to hold one of the highest honors of all, since, ostensibly, such a responsibility would only be delegated to those who were deemed to have impeccable judgment and an irreproachably upright life. It is thus not surprising that Augustus would place such a strong emphasis on his exercise of censorial powers in revising the senatorial roll and conducting several censuses. The ritual constitution of the identity and organization of the community of Roman citizens through the census process expressed precisely the kind of restoration of Rome at which Augustus had aimed. It is perhaps surprising that he should emphasize that he had done so consulari cum imperio, especially since evidence from outside the RG shows that he actually performed the first of these censuses with a grant of censorial power.80 In fact, he may have done so for all of his censuses, but he does not refer to censoria potestas in the RG. Cooley concludes that Augustus concealed his censorial power “because he felt uncomfortable being seen too openly as censor to Rome's upper classes.”81 This suggestion finds support in Augustus' increasing sensitivity regarding the perception that he was monopolizing positions of power. By the time he composed the RG, the dissatisfaction this had caused in the Senate was clear to him. At the same time, it is not clear that it was more advantageous to appear to depart from tradition, particularly in a context where Augustus was emphasizing his adherence to it. Imperium had not been the direct authority under which censuses had been conducted, since censors did not hold that power. That Augustus stresses his holding consular imperium when conducting these censuses thus appears to be a real innovation in the census, but one that was perhaps necessary under the circumstances, since both the censorship and the census had become increasingly politicized and thus contested.82 Was it, however, actually an innovation? According to Livy, the first censors were appointed in 443 BCE, yet Servius Tullius, Rome's penultimate king, had first instituted the census roughly a century before.83 After the kings, consuls Page 219 → presided over six censuses.84 The first of these men, Valerius Poplicola, participated in the banishment of the king Tarquin the Proud and replaced L. Tarquinius Collatinus in the consulship.85 He also celebrated the first Republican triumph. As Suolahti observes, the consuls of the early Republic who performed the census were all of a similar type: among their distinctions qualifying

them for the honor of holding the census were that they tended to come from prominent patrician gentes, hold the dictatorship or multiple consulships, and celebrate triumphs.86 Augustus fits comfortably in such a group, so perhaps, knowing the history of the censorship, he chose to emphasize his consular imperium in what was, after all, an archaizing gesture. He may have even meant to make a deliberate point of connecting his first census with the birth of the Republic. This idea is supported by Augustus' drawing of attention to the fact that he conducted his first census as consul when Marcus Agrippa was his colleague. Before that time, Augustus had held a sole consulship, ruling on the basis of the grant of imperium that he had received as triumvir.87 In taking a colleague in the consulship, Augustus sent a strong signal that the Republic was returning to normalcy; and by raising the memory of the first Republican census in the Res Gestae, Augustus identifies the holding of a census in a Rome where two consuls preside with the rebirth of the Republic. To do so, however, he has to massage the facts by claiming that his first census was conducted through his consular imperium instead of the censoria potestas, as had actually been the case. Still, Augustus depicts his second census as having been conducted without a colleague. The holding of the census alone evoked the monarchy, Page 220 → particularly its founder Servius Tullius. Servius' institution of the census was an act very much in the spirit of an earlier king who figures prominently in subsequent chapters of the RG, Numa Pompilius. Livy writes of Servius' conscious aim to establish the census in emulation of Numa by setting in place an institution similar to those of Numa in its salutary effects on society.

Adgrediturque inde ad pacis longe maximum opus, ut quemadmodum Numa divini auctor iuris fuisset, ita Servium conditorem omnis in civitate discriminis ordinumque quibus inter gradus dignitatis fortunaeque aliquid interlucet posteri fama ferrent. censum enim instituit, rem saluberrimam tanto futuro imperio, ex quo belli pacisque munia non viritim, ut ante, sed pro habitu pecuniarum fierent; tum classes centuriasque et hunc ordinem ex censu discripsit, vel paci decorum vel bello.88

[He then embarked on the greatest project of peace, so that as Numa had been the author of divine law, so, too, could posterity proclaim the fame of Servius as the founder of every distinction and order in the state, through which the differences in degree of dignity and wealth become manifest. For he established the census, a most salutary institution for an empire that would one day be so great, through which they would procure supplies for war and peace not one man at a time, as before, but by condition of wealth. He then assigned men to their classes, centuries, and this order by means of a census, as was fitting for either peace or war.]

The comparison goes further, since the lustrum that caps off the census is a religious institution very much in the spirit of Numa's inventions, which used fear of the gods as a tool for maintaining control. As he begins to describe the celebration of the lustrum, Livy mentions the Draconian law that scared Romans into participating in the census: censu perfecto quem maturaverat metu legis de incensis latae cum vinculorum minis mortisque, edixit ut omnes cives Romani, equites peditesque, in suis quisque centuriis, in campo Martio prima luce adessent (“The census was completed, which he hastened through fear of a law passed concerning the unregistered carrying penalties of bonds and death, and he decreed that all Roman citizens, knights and infantrymen, Page 221 → each in his own century, should come to the Campus Martius at dawn”).89 The law was designed to get all Roman citizens gathered at dawn on the field of Mars to participate in the ritual purification, or lustrum, that closed off the census. Augustus' use of the term lustrum to refer to one of his censuses evokes Numa.90 Indeed, his variatio in using censum populi…egi and lustrum…feci in that particular order is designed to evoke the two halves of the ritual separately, thereby drawing his reader's attention to the purifying aspect of the latter. His use of the first-

person singular pronoun, though typical of the inscription, takes the collegial censorship and returns it to its monarchical roots.91 It should also be recalled that as they prepared to conduct the census, the censors set down their curule chairs next to the Ara Martis, an altar with strong Numan associations referenced in the Ara Pacis.92 Augustus' performance of the census was an act of not only ritual renewal but also chronological renewal.93 The phrase ordinarily employed to express this act was lustrum condere, an archaic expression whose literal meaning is obscure but that seems to have been associated in the Late Republic with the closing out of the census period.94 Augustus here avoids the expression lustrum condere, preferring censum populi…egi and lustrum…feci. His is an interesting choice in that, by not using lustrum condere, Augustus does not associate his censuses with the end of a chronological census period, which is understandable, given the fact that his censuses occurred not every five years but, rather, in 29 and 18 BCE and 14 CE. It is Page 222 → perhaps mistaken to think that the Romans viewed either the census or the lustrum as strict chronological markers, especially in the first century BCE, when there were large gaps of time between censuses. Instead, terms like lustrum and saeculum connote time as ritual process, not strict calendrical time as moderns conceive of it. This more flexible view of time was perfectly in line with the traditional relationship between certain festivals and the Roman calendar, wherein some rituals and ceremonies were celebrated within a window of time or order of procedures according to tradition, not at precisely the same moment every year. In this category belong the feriae conceptivae.95 This is not to say that the terms lustrum and saeculum did not yet have any chronological significance. The interesting question for the Augustan Age is the implications that were bound up in these terms. Do these terms represent beginnings, endings, or both? Lucretius used the phrase condere saecula to indicate the end of a period of time: proinde licet quod vis vivendo condere saecula (“Therefore you may wish to close out generations by living on”).96 Here the poet speaks in reference to those whose deaths set the end of the saeculum. Still, saecula condere could have quite the opposite meaning in Augustan literature; it might instead be used to indicate the beginning of an age. Thomas saw in this ambiguity a possible note of subversion in Vergil's reference to the Golden Age (aurea saecula condere); in other words, according to a Lucretian-intertexual reading, Augustus would close, rather than open, a Golden Age.97 It is possible that Vergil is here playing on the slippage between the sense of condere in “founding a city” and in “completing an age,” in precisely the way that would be most advantageous to Augustus, the princeps who, by becoming a conditor, would save Rome from a possible end by establishing for it a new beginning.98 Apposite is the placement of the Res Gestae before the Mausoleum of Augustus, where it evoked the connection between tomb and founder in colonial founder cult, as did the golden stele in Euhemerus' Hiera Anagraphê.99 It is important to note that Aeneid 6 would have followed the publication, Page 223 → between 27 and 25 BCE, of Livy's first pentad, wherein the historian laid down his pioneering conception of conditores—Rome's multiple founders.100 According to this Livian concept, which includes not only the founders of the city but also the originators of institutions therein, one can yet be a founder of Rome after the initial ritual act of city foundation. A founding, as an inaugural event, opens a new age as much as or more than it closes an old one. Vergil's conflation of the two senses of condere suits the Augustan Age perfectly and thus supports a celebratory reading of Vergil's reference to the foundation of the Golden Age. The Vergilian and Livian concepts of foundation and time contributed to Augustus' representation of his censuses in the Res Gestae, which long postdated the publication of both works. Augustus' avoidance of the word condere in his reference to performing the lustrum is conspicuous. Despite the fact that the word conditor does not appear in RG 8, the chapter's contents prompt the reader to consider Augustus a founder in his restoration of the Republic and his role in passing laws and establishing exempla for posterity.101 Further chapters contain the many institutions and practices that justify considering Augustus a new founder of the city in the Livian mold.

A Conspicuous Absence: The Secular Games The same ideas of foundation and the renewal of time also emerge in the celebration of the Secular Games in 17 BCE, which Galinsky has likened to the performance of the lustrum.102 It is odd that Augustus does not mention his Secular Games in chapters 8–13 of the Res Gestae, which recount Page 224 → events that happened both before and after the celebration of these games, especially since he had called this period his own saeculum in

chapter 8. Instead, these games are reported in chapter 22, where Augustus lists other games and spectacles he offered the people: pro conlegio XV virorum magister conlegii collega M. Agrippa ludos saeculares C. Furnio C. Silano cos. feci. Reference to the lustrum may have been a way of evoking the same idea of renewal without disrupting his overall organizational schema. Obviously, as Galinsky observed, the association fits. The saeculum either was a period close to a century or was marked by the death of the oldest living person of a generation.103 According to secular doctrine, each city was allotted by the Fates a certain number of saecula—a limited life span.104 Thus, like the lustrum, the saeculum marked a greater division of time, but one that was less precise than momentous and ritually significant. During the First Punic War, the Romans conducted the Ludi Tarentini, rites of Dis and Proserpina perhaps first conducted at the time in order to cultivate ties with Magna Graecia.105 These games later came to be associated with the transition from one saeculum to another. To close out a census period with a lustrum—a purification of the people—was symbolically akin to closing out a saeculum through the celebration of the Secular Games. Augustan scholars set out a new history of the Secular Games to accommodate his design of holding the fifth iteration of them in 17 BCE.106 Augustus intended that his Secular Games should be considered as the rebirth of Rome, perhaps drawing on Varronian scholarship on palingenesis.

Marcus Varro ponit in libris, quos conscripsit de gente populi Romani, cuius putavi verba ipsa ponenda. Genethliaci quidam scripserunt, inquit, esse in renascendis hominibus quam appellant παλιγγενεσίαν Graeci; hac scripserunt confici in annis Page 225 → numero quadrigentis quadraginta, ut idem corpus et eadem anima, quae fuerint coniuncta in homine aliquando, eadem rursus redeant in coniunctionem.107

[Marcus Varro, in his work On the Origin of the Roman People, wrote words I thought ought to be quoted verbatim: “Certain astrologers,” he said, “have written that there exists a rebirth of men which the Greeks call palingenesis, which is accomplished after a period of 440 years, such that the same body and the same spirit, which were once joined together in the person, may return again into their former union.”]

This 440-year astrological period of rebirth coincides closely, though not exactly, with the Augustan calculation of the chronological space between the first celebration of the Secular Games in 456 and Augustus' planned celebration. So, although Varro himself had passed away in 27, his chronological calculations were used to set the date of the various Secular Games from their first celebration under the Republic up to the planned celebration in 17/16. Thus, particularly under Augustus, secular doctrine found ritual expression in ceremonies aimed at renewing and perpetuating the state.108 Of special interest here is the harmonization of the idea of the saecula with this Greek idea of palingenesis, here through a Pythagorean teaching concerning the cycle of the human soul that is attributed to certain astrologers.109 It may even be the case that Augustus and his scholars wanted to assert the special Page 226 → nature of these Secular Games as marking a rebirth not just of the political order but also of the very Roman people itself. According to Valerian family legend, Manius Valesius used hot water to heal his children at Tarentum in a series of events that led to the foundation of the Secular Games. As evidence of the antiquity of this Italic symbol of the renewal of time, Versnel proffers several fourth-century images showing children bearing the name Maris or Mars being immersed in boiling water.110 He argues that all of these rituals should be viewed as symbolic of rebirth or rejuvenation such as one sees in rites of passage. Certainly, this would perfectly fit the Augustan theology of the Secular Games proposed here. The year 17 BCE marked the birth of Lucius Caesar, whose father, M. Agrippa, is mentioned as Augustus' colleague in putting on the Secular Games.111 Since the oracle pointed to the celebration of the new saeculum in

16, not 17, it could be that the games were deliberately moved to coincide with Lucius Caesar's birth.112 Perhaps Lucius, according to the teachings to which Varro refers, was considered or represented to others as the reincarnation of some earlier Republican figure—an idea familiar to readers of the Aeneid.113 Hopes may have focused on Lucius as a fulfillment of the predictions of Eclogue 4, wherein the birth of a child marks the descent of a new breed of men from heaven: iam nova progenies caelo demittitur alto. / tu modo nascenti puero, quo ferrea primum / desinet ac toto surget gens aurea mundo, / casta fave Lucina (“Now a new generation is sent down from the lofty heaven. / Holy Lucina, please favor this child in his birth, by whom the Age of Iron will first come to an end and a Golden People will arise over the entire earth”).114 The notion that Augustus was opening a new saeculum that Page 227 → would usher in a new kind of Roman generation lends additional significance to his emphasis on the censuses he performed, since the citizens he would add could be deemed to belong to this Golden People. Although Augustus did not report the Secular Games in chapters 9–13 of the Res Gestae, those who knew Augustus' history would have recalled their celebration in 17 BCE. The Secular Games fit the underlying theme of Roman foundations in the early chapters of the RG, because the founding of the cult itself was deeply implicated in the lore of the city's and the Republic's beginnings. It also touched on much of the same thematic material as the legends of Numa, particularly in the story of the king's securing of imperium for himself and Rome.115 The story of the Sabine Valesius' migration to Rome and celebration of the first Secular Games, which dealt with the salvation of Valesius' children from a divinely sent pestilence through the performance of rites to Dis and Proserpina, likewise evokes Numan themes.116 According to the logic of the translation of a gentilicial cult into a state cult, the rejuvenating effect of the rites of Dis and Proserpina upon Valesius' children, which secured the continuation of his household and led to a change in his name from Valesius to Valerius (appropriately from valêre, “to be well”), translated into a cult with rejuvenating effects on Rome and its people.117 Thus, just as Varronian scholarship anticipated, the Secular Games brought about a rebirth of the people and the city. The chapter following the references to Augustus' censuses reports the Senate's institution of quinquennial vows by the consuls and priests for Augustus' health (valetudo), as well as continual private and municipal petitions to the gods for the same.118 So, even though the Secular Games do not appear in these chapters, where one would expect them according to chronology, the themes of foundation and renewal are expressed in the performance of the lustrum and in subsequent chapters, through the rites instituted to secure the valetudo of the emperor. Still, it is rather surprising that the Secular Games do not appear in this sequence of chapters but, instead, follow in chapter 22, since the rejuvenation Page 228 → of the people suggested by Augustus' use of the term lustrum is thematically connected with the vows taken for the emperor's valetudo. This absence becomes even more striking once one considers the importance of ruler cult in the chronological schema of Varro. Taylor long ago pointed out the importance of ruler cult in Varro's De gente populi Romani, which documents, in accordance with the doctrine of euhemerism, the many past monarchs who received divine cult at their tombs in recognition of their great deeds.119 These examples came in response to Cicero's complaint in the First Philippic against the mixing of divine and funerary cult in the deification of Caesar.120 The concern with chronology thus went hand in hand with the controversy over ruler cult. Varro's contribution to that discussion would also have included the timing and purpose of the Secular Games, since the events that prompted his writing also included the haruspex Vulcatius' announcement of the closing of the ninth and opening of the tenth saeculum as signaled by the appearance of the astrum Caesaris.121 Varro's scholarship obviously contributed to the calculation of the timing of Augustus' Secular Games, but so, too, may his interpretation of their origins have contributed to the Augustan understanding of the games' significance. Varro elsewhere comments that the word tarentum was used of the tomb of Acca Larentia in the Velabrum.122 Having identified the cult of Acca Larentia on the Velabrum as a funerary cult, Varro, in using the word tarentum, opens the way for interpreting the cult of Dis and Proserpina in the same way.123 While Varro's argument was initially made to support the deification of Caesar, it was later put into use for the construction of Augustus' ruler cult. This development of Varronian doctrine would bring together concepts of the renewal of time and the Roman people in the Secular Games Page 229 → with the deification of the ruler as expressed on Augustus' funerary inscription. Subsequent disappointments in the life of Augustus, like the deaths of his grandsons, the exiles of his daughter and granddaughter, and continued political intrigue, perhaps tempered the claim regarding the rejuvenation of the Roman people. The impact of these unexpected

disappointments is reflected in the final form of the RG by the reporting of his grandsons' deaths in chapter 14, directly after the closings of the Gates of Janus, and by the deferral of the Secular Games until chapter 22. The censuses of Augustus stand on the cusp of two thematically distinct units of the RG. The content of the first two chapters is reminiscent of two significant arrivals in the career of Rome's founder, Romulus, in that it alludes both to his first arrival at the Palatine as an infant exile and also to his emergence as the avenger of his grandfather Numitor, who would then return to the Palatine to found the city. The narrative of Romulus, like that of Augustus, featured miraculous birth, righteous vengeance, success in warfare, and the gathering of citizens to Rome, to name but a few similarities. While Augustus is not identical to Romulus, he certainly follows in the tradition of other late-republican dynasts, such as Sulla and Caesar, in substantively emulating the achievements of Romulus. The portrait of Augustus is yet more complex. In addition to alluding to Romulus, it also draws readers' minds back to the first census conducted in the young Republic by Valerius Publicola, a man who, like Augustus, helped to save the city from tyranny.124 This points forward to the next unit of the RG, which is characterized by numerous allusions to Rome's second king, Numa Pompilius.125 Valerius and Numa are similar figures in that both men were ethnically Sabine and were associated with important Roman religious institutions, the former through his descent from Valesius, the founder of Rome's Secular Games.126 In chapter 8 of the RG, the reader sees the full arrival of the restored Republic. The unsettled period of irregular magistracies is left behind in chapters 5 and 6. So, too, is the triumvirate of chapter 7. Augustus marks Page 230 → the date of this renewed Republic by his first post-Actian consulship with a colleague, Marcus Agrippa.127 The consulship of Augustus and Agrippa represents a return to normalcy and the opening of the Augustan age. Indeed, Augustus explicitly refers to his own time as his saeculum (ex nostro saeculo) as he closes out the chapter, thereby identifying himself as the “man of the saeculum” in the tradition of Sulla, Pompey, Cicero, and Caesar. This new age witnesses the advent of a new Augustan people (the gens aurea of Eclogue 4.9?) in the creation of new patricians, new senators in the lectiones senatus, and new citizens in the censuses reported in the same chapter.128 The arrival of this new Republic is on the pivot point between the martial arrivals of chapter 4 and the peaceful returns coming up in chapters 10–12. To leave behind the turbulent times of civil war, Augustus will now focus on the cultic aspects of his arrivals in the upcoming chapters and transition to a new emphasis on his similarity to Numa Pompilius.

Epiphany of Augustus the God In switching the association of the returns of 19 and 13 from victory and triumphal arrival to peaceful reditus, Augustus synthesized elements of Roman religion and Hellenistic ruler cult. This section and the following one will treat separately those elements of a more Hellenistic flavor and the more uniquely Roman aspects. It should be understood, however, that the Page 231 → text of the Res Gestae presents the reader one linear journey in time and space that goes through the second decade of Augustan rule after Actium and an itinerary that leads to the Janus Geminus. Presenting Augustus as a victorious liberator and grand benefactor, the RG follows the logic of Hellenistic ruler cult as it unfolds in the exchange of benefactions and honors in arrival celebrations. Beginning in chapter 9, Augustus focuses on the cultic honors the city extended to him.129 The Senate decreed that the consuls and priests should take vows for his good health every four years.130 Cicero had already drawn a connection between the salus of the ruler and that of the state in his Pro Marcello in 46 BCE.131 Here in the RG, however, the relationship is formalized in cult. In fulfillment of these vows for Augustus' health, priests and consuls celebrated games.132 Furthermore, private citizens and municipalities offered prayers for his good health, the municipalities doing so at public feasts.133 Beginning in chapter 10, Augustus' name was also incorporated into the Salian Hymn, and a law decreed that he should be permanently sacrosanct and hold the tribunician power for life. Chapter 10 closes with the election of Augustus as pontifex maximus, which brought all of Italy to Rome to vote in support of his candidacy. As has been observed elsewhere, chapter 9 of the RG includes Augustus' most explicit reference to an unprecedented form of ruler cult extended to him: the performance of games in honor of his health vivo me, that is,

during his lifetime.134 The usual pattern in Roman practice was that games might be celebrated in honor of the deceased, or a living person, like a general, might celebrate games to a god or gods in fulfillment of a vow.135 It was Page 232 → under Sulla and then Caesar that the victory games became closely associated with the person of the victor as a yearly celebration of the god who brought a particular commander his surpassing success.136 Here Augustus takes the element of a particular historical victory out of the equation and instead depicts himself as the focus of vows undertaken by officials of the state for his personal welfare, the fulfillment of which would lead to games devoted to his salus.137 This cultic arrangement was closer to Hellenistic ruler cult than any prior religious institution of the Roman state. Yet it still fell short of an explicit deification of the princeps. In the context of general Roman religious conservatism, however, it did not fall too short: by referring to games in honor of his valetudo while he was alive, Augustus was drawing attention to the similarity of this practice to (and its distinction from) the games for the departed (dis manibus), a category of divine beings in Roman religion. At the same time, the inclusion of his name in the Salian Hymn, which is reported in chapter 10 of the RG, placed Augustus on par with Hercules, a figure who was known to have joined the company of the gods and was worshiped with divine, not merely heroic, honors at the Ara Maxima.138 This form of cult is memorialized in the Aeneid, where Evander introduces Aeneas to the cult of Hercules and tells him the story of Hercules and Cacus.139 In mentioning his inclusion in the Salian Hymn, Augustus was drawing attention to a cultic honor that pointed clearly to the appropriateness of his deification in recognition of his great deeds in the very chronological context in which they occurred. Nevertheless, the deeds themselves are sublimated in these chapters. Chapter 12 of the RG recounts one of the more conspicuously Hellenistic honors accorded to Augustus. A resolution of the Senate decreed that the leading men of the city should be sent out to Campania to meet Augustus. In the Greek version of the RG, the vocabulary used to describe this group Page 233 → (ἐπέμφθησάν, ὑπαντήσοντες) is customary for the ritual surrounding the visits of Hellenistic kings and other dignitaries at poleis.140 Augustus points out that no one had been voted such an honor before him141—a significant fact in a culture where honorific ceremonial performance was so politically important that the honor of a triumph could be blocked for years by one's enemies.142 In the Late Republic, honors could concretely transform into position and power. This particular honor placed Augustus in a new relationship with Rome—one that was more akin to a monarch than a magistrate. In the Greek text of the RG, one gets the sense that Augustus' relationship with Rome is analogous to the outside ruler's (e.g., Roman governor, dynast, or king) relationship with a Hellenistic polis.143 The passage occludes the reason for the embassy, which, when considered in its full historical context, takes on quite a different cast. Far from being a simple congratulatory honor, the embassy to Augustus was sent specifically to address a crisis in the city. The consular elections for 19 BCE had been frustrated by the attempt of Egnatius Rufus to run for the consulship before he was eligible.144 Rufus and his followers rioted in opposition to the consul's decision against Rufus' candidacy, and the tumult resulted in Rufus' imprisonment and death.145 The people refused to elect a second consul, so envoys were sent to ask Augustus to take up the second consulship. Augustus refused and instead appointed one of the envoys, Quintus Lucretius, to fill the empty consulship.146 In the RG, Quintus Lucretius is identified as the consul, but no reference is made to either the crisis or Augustus' appointment of the man. By identifying Lucretius as consul without reference to the context, Augustus increased the level of honor attached to the embassy, since the rank of greeters at an adventus reflected on the prestige of the person being welcomed. Additionally, Augustus emphasized that his adventus reception met him all the way in Campania (a great honor in Page 234 → itself) and that the embassy was decreed by the Senate (an unprecedented honor). These elements added up to an adventus of the highest honor for the princeps. Had Augustus accurately described the historical context of the embassy, it would only have diminished the reader's impression of its honorific value. Furthermore, Augustus was probably not eager to advertise that there was still, at this point in his career, sufficient political instability at Rome to prompt others to seek him out to fill the consulship or to appoint someone else. A Republic without functional elections is not a respublica restituta. One of the aims of this section of the RG is to impress on the reader the settled state of the Republic under Augustus' leadership. Later in the same chapter, Augustus recounts elements of his reception at Rome upon his return from the provinces in Spain and Gaul.147 Again the military context is suppressed in favor of promoting the image of an

honored princeps in a settled empire. According to his own depiction, Augustus returned from his provinces just as any governor ideally would, having managed affairs successfully (prospere gestis rebus). In honor of Augustus' return, the Senate decreed that an Ara Pacis Augustae should be consecrated on the Campus Martius and that the magistrates, priests, and Vestal Virgins should perform annual sacrifices there on the anniversary of his return. The Ara Pacis Augustae was one of the most significant of Augustan monuments, and it has received a wealth of scholarly attention.148 Its mention at this point in the RG provides a nice geographical symmetry with the Ara Fortunae Reducis, which represented the princeps' return to Rome by way of the Via Appia from settled eastern provinces, a choice that is altogether appropriate given the prevalence of Tyche as a symbol of imperial success in the Greek East. The Ara Pacis Augustae represents the princeps' return from settled provinces in the West on the Via Flaminia. Each altar stands along the traditional entry itinerary for the commander or governor who returned from those respective regions. Represented on the Ara Pacis, closer to the center of the city than the armed Roma, is the goddess Pax, Page 235 → and Numa is her companion, on the opposite side of the altar. As the second in the pair of goddesses receiving an altar, Pax more emphatically signals Augustus' complete pacification of the entire oecumene. While it would be incorrect to say that the Ara Pacis primarily represents the pax of the civil sphere, the textual framing of the goddess Pax in the RG diminishes the military associations of the goddess. In this way, the Ara Pacis of the RG is more congenial to a Numan context and highlights the religious peace of the settled state.

Election of the Pontifex Maximus Augustus intermingled the more novel aspects of his honors with a dominant focus on Roman priesthoods and powers, including his election to the supreme pontificate and the grants of sacrosanctitas and tribunicia potestas. In the exchange of honors and benefactions between ruler and city in a Hellenistic context, the ruler could be granted citizenship as a way of honoring him and providing him a symbolic presence in local politics.149 How much practical, daily participation in the city would be expected of him is another question. Augustus' relationship with Rome was much different; honorific grants of special powers to him would have very immediate consequences. As discussed in chapter 5, Augustus was granted tribunician sacrosanctity in 36 as part of the honors he had received in recognition of his victory over Sextus Pompey and saving the city from famine.150 The grant may have come in response to calumny against him during the crisis of his conflict with Sextus, or it may have been extended in lieu of the sanctitas of the position of pontifex maximus, which he declined to take from Lepidus.151 Tribunician sacrosanctity was founded on a plebeian oath to support the inviolability of the tribune such that anyone who harmed the tribune would be considered sacer (i.e., accursed to Jupiter), meaning that anyone could slay the offender with impunity and that the offender's property would be Page 236 → confiscated and dedicated to the cult of Ceres on the Aventine.152 The princeps accepted a grant of tribunicia potestas in 23 BCE—the year he had initially planned to celebrate the Secular Games. This grant gave him all of the powers of the tribune, including, importantly, the rights to convoke the Senate, propose legislation, and protect the people from magisterial abuse. Given that these grants occurred in 36 and 23, before the advents that Augustus recounts in these chapters, one is prompted to inquire into the reasons for reporting them in this context. One possible reason is the partly religious nature of the tribunate, which is here being coupled with the pontificate as yet another way in which Augustus embodies sacred authority. Another reason may be the proposed relationship between the Ara Pacis and the tribuneship. The reach of Augustus' intercessio tribunicia was spatially symbolized by the placement of the Ara Pacis (mentioned in RG 12) one mile from the pomerium—the same place where the magistrate's military imperium terminated as he returned to the city.153 Augustus also reports his election as pontifex maximus out of chronological order. Augustus did not become pontifex maximus until 12 BCE, when the death of Lepidus had opened up the position once again.154 Augustus makes a point of describing how, although Lepidus had obtained the office illegitimately (at least in Augustus' view), Augustus had refrained from taking up the priest's office until the death of its prior occupant. More important than this display of religious scruple, however, is the description of all Italy (cuncta Italia) coming to vote for Augustus in his election as pontifex maximus. This is surely an exaggeration, although a number of prominent citizens undoubtedly made the effort to come to Rome to vote for Augustus.155 That his election to the supreme pontificate was a matter of some significance outside of Rome is

attested in the Fasti Praenestini, which records the festivities of local magistrates and citizens celebrating the event.156 One can look at this pairing of tribunician powers and the pontificate as Page 237 → representing popular support for Augustus in a sacred role in two different spatial spheres: within Rome and throughout all Italy. Viewed in this light, the tribunician role of the emperor seems to relate to his activities within Rome—the tribune's sacrosanctity and his potestas, after all, only extended to the first milestone outside the city, while the supreme pontificate, at least as Augustus constructs it in the RG, has the appearance of a kind of priesthood at large for all Italy.157 The depiction of a huge gathering from all of Italy coming to Rome to vote for Augustus complements the earlier account of censuses in chapter 8. Having enrolled millions of new citizens, many of them Italians living outside of Rome, Augustus is now recognized and thanked by these clients in his election as pontifex maximus. The princeps depiction of this gathering thus also reaches back in time to recall the census of 70 as arranged by Pompey and Crassus. There, Pompey presented himself as a champion and exemplar of the upwardly mobile Italian knight. Here Augustus appears as the chief priest of a new cuncta Italia. The gathering of cuncta Italia to Rome to vote for Augustus also evokes the image of Cicero being welcomed home from exile by all communities along his route on the return journey to Rome. There is yet something wanting in this interpretation of Augustus' organizational schema for reporting his tribunician powers and privileges and his election as pontifex maximus. One further key to understanding the schema's significance may be Augustus' reference to his father (pater meus), Caesar, as having held the priesthood before him.158 As mentioned earlier, Augustus makes this reference to indicate, not so subtly, that the position was his by right of inheritance. The Senate had decreed in 44 BCE that any son of Caesar, whether natural or adopted, should inherit the chief priesthood from him.159 Antony had instead shoehorned Lepidus into the Page 238 → position in order to gain Lepidus' loyalty.160 So perhaps one purpose for Augustus' allusion to the fact that he had every right to be pontifex maximus but had defied popular sentiment in not summarily replacing Lepidus after the triumvir's betrayal in Sicily and, even after the latter's death, had sought election to the position was to show both his patience and his extreme caution in observing all the appropriate formalities and navigating the sensibilities of the most demanding senatorial critics. But there is more to the Caesar reference than this. Caesar is brought up four times in the RG. Two of these occur in the chapters presently under discussion. The first time, in chapter 2, deals with vengeance for the crime of Caesar's murder, which was both a matter of personal obligation and state interest because of the blatant illegality of the assassination. This second reference in chapter 10 is important because it concerns a position of sacred authority that Caesar passed down to his heir by senatorial decree. By forgoing that claim of right by inheritance in favor of relying on popular vote, Augustus' deferral of entering the chief priesthood has something of the flavor of a recusatio regni, such as the one Caesar himself engaged in during the January 44 ovation. As discussed in chapter 4 of the present study, Caesar's joke to defuse the royal acclamation was founded on an earlier statement he made during his aunt Julia's funeral: Amitae meae Iuliae maternum genus ab regibus ortum, paternum cum diis inmortalibus coniunctum est. nam ab Anco Marcio sunt Marcii Reges, quo nomine fuit mater; a Venere Iulii, cuius gentis familia est nostra (“My aunt Julia's maternal line descends from kings, her paternal line mingled with the immortal gods. For the Marcii Reges, her mother's name, are descendants of Ancus Marcius; the Julii—my family is of this line—are descendants of Venus”).161 In saying that he was not Rex but Caesar, he was correcting the crowd's reading of his performance. The procession from the Alban Mount to Rome had not been intended to signal his bid for the monarchy; it had instead commemorated the original immigration of the Julii to Rome after the fall of Alba Longa by the arms of Tullus Hostilius. In RG 10, Augustus alludes to the second part of Caesar's statement about his ancestry from the laudatio of Julia: est ergo in genere et sanctitas Page 239 → regum, qui plurimum inter homines pollent, et caerimonia deorum, quorum ipsi in potestate sunt reges (“There is in this line both the sanctity of kings, who are exceedingly powerful among men, and the majesty of the gods, whose power rules the kings themselves”). Here Caesar asserts that the inheritance belonging to his aunt and, implicitly, to him is the sanctitas of the kings and the caerimonia of the gods, the latter of which seems to rival royal power. In chapter 10 of the RG, Augustus' tribunician sacrosanctitas recalls the sanctitas regum of Caesar's oration, and the election to the supreme pontificate evokes the caerimonia

deorum. While the sacrosanctitas of the tribunes is founded on an oath of the plebs, Caesar's sanctitas possesses a congenital quality—it passed down through the family. Caesar's view is unusual, however, since it was usually thought that sanctitas was bestowed by inauguratio.162 Thus things and people that were inaugurated possessed sanctitas. The Vestal Claudia was able, through her sanctitas, to prevent a sacrosanct tribune from interfering with her brother's illicit triumphal procession.163 Clearly the two qualities were similar enough that they could operate in the same sphere and with similar force, although sanctitas arguably trumped sacrosanctitas because of the assumed superiority of inauguration over the plebeian oath. By referring to his sacrosanctitas and following it up directly with reference to his tribunicia potestas, Augustus prefers the image of people's champion over the sanctitas of his Julian inheritance.164 Augustus' account of his election as pontifex maximus corresponds with Caesar's reference to the family's caerimonia deorum, or “majesty of the gods.” This correlation depends on the double sense of caerimonia, Page 240 → which not only means “majesty” but also, in a more concrete sense, refers to the sacred rites of the state, which were overseen by the pontifical college.165 Many of these rites had come to Rome from Alba Longa. Caesar's reference to these caerimonia was already freighted with both senses, in that he not only referred explicitly to the divine parentage of Aeneas but also indirectly invoked the transplantation of Trojan cult onto Latin soil through Aeneas' guardianship over the Penates. These Penates and the Palladium were entrusted to the care of the Vestal Virgins, who fell under the authority of the pontifex maximus. Timaeus is our earliest source for the presence of the cult of the Trojan Penates in Lavinium, so it is likely that Julius Caesar included their cult in the sacred inheritance of his family through his reference to the caerimonia deorum in his laudatio funebris for his aunt Julia.166 Augustus' account of his election to the supreme pontificate thus carries the sense of a rightful restoration of his Julian inheritance, no doubt partly because the Senate had decreed in 44 that any son of Caesar, whether natural or adopted, should inherit the post from him.167 That an election had made him pontifex maximus was proper, according to Augustus' argument, because the city was thus entrusting the caerimonia deorum to the care of the family whence they originated. Although Antony and Lepidus had interfered in this arrangement, Augustus now resumed the familial duty of overseeing the Trojan cults and other caerimonia of Rome in accordance with the will of the people of all Italy.168 Also, as pontifex maximus, he was inaugurated and thus possessed sanctitas in addition to his sacrosanctitas. In his name, however, Augustus already possessed an association with augury and inaugurated spaces, which provided him a unique symbolic sanctity.169 It is thus important to recognize that the references to his sacrosanctitas and the supreme pontificate are not intended to explain how it is that he came to possess holiness (although it does allude to the circumstances).170 Rather, the presentation of these facts adds to the overall Page 241 → impression of sanctity that is introduced by the first appearance of his name in the RG. At the same time, his enumeration of these attributes allowed him to allude to Julius Caesar's theology of personal power, which Caesar referenced in his aunt's funeral and his January 44 ovation. On the latter occasion, Caesar had sought to quell suspicions that he desired kingship by reenacting his family's migration to Rome at the destruction of Alba Longa. Caesar was emphasizing not his royal heritage but his patrician senatorial heritage, and he did so in a way that defined patrician identity as open-ended. Just as Caesar's own family had become patrician, so, too, others were granted patrician status by Caesar at the time. Caesar had granted Octavian's family patrician status in 45.171 Augustus eventually took up his Caesarian inheritance of pontifex maximus, but he worked more deftly in yoking together images of universal consensus and entitlement. Like Caesar, he cultivated a sense of his sanctitas, albeit through means that possessed a broader appeal, and he emphasized the broad support in Italy for his cura over the caerimonia deorum, so that his position would more clearly appear to be the will of all and not simply a familial entitlement. There is a much grander overarching schema at work here, however, than the reference to Caesar's personal theology. Augustus made use of Caesar's theology creatively and with an eye to crafting his own theological statement. The particulars of Augustus' claims depended concretely on his adoption, but in broader terms, his success hinged on his ability to justify his own position independent of Caesar. This strategy is clearly present in the Res Gestae, where Augustus briefly and unobtrusively alludes to Caesar's career and his own relationship with Caesar but stresses, above all, his individual achievements. Augustus could not simply point to Caesar as the sum

total of his own argument for legitimacy. Neither could he simply co-opt Caesar's performances. Each Roman elite male depended, in the final analysis, on his own performance as the bedrock justification for his position in Roman society and politics, as well as his legacy. Thus, in crafting his own personal theology of power, Augustus situated his deeds in a mythological framework that predated and therefore transcended Caesar. At the opening of the RG, he did this by alluding to Romulus. He connected his career after the civil war with the legend of Numa Pompilius. 1. Elsner's discussion (1991, 52) of the implication of the viewer into the cultural process of the Ara Pacis is pertinent to the reader's experience of the Res Gestae: “In looking at the altar Roman viewers did not simply see images of a sacrifice that once happened. They saw a cultural process in which they became involved.” Galinsky (1998, 35) writes of Augustan art's “intentional multiplicity of associations and their determination by the beholder who thereby becomes an active participant.” The readers of the RG became involved in the arrivals of Augustus that are described in its first thirteen chapters, which also influenced their experience of the Ara Pacis and the Forum of Augustus. 2. Suet. Aug. 8.2; D.C. 45.3; Nic. Dam. Vit. Caes. 18. For a detailed discussion of Octavian's initial arrival in 44, see Toher 2004, 174–84. 3. On commanders' returns from the East, see Sumi 2005, 35–41. Sumi notes, “On his return journey, Flamininus seems to have established what would become the traditional route of a commander returning from the east. He landed in Brundisium and marched through Italy in a manner that, Livy tells us, had the appearance of a triumphal procession (prope triumphantes), with Flamininus at the head of a column of soldiers, the spoils of war being conveyed behind.” See Liv. 34.52.2. The young Octavian took the precautionary measure of first landing at Lupiae instead of Brundisium, allowing him to gather intelligence on the prospects of an enthusiastic reception at that traditional stop on the commander's route. 4. Sumi 2005, 125–31; Southern 1998, 22–32; Gotter 1996, 56–65; Gowing 1992, 59–64; Alföldi 1976, 46–49; Syme 1939, 114–15; Becht 1911. 5. On Augustus' advents and triumphs, see Benoist 1999, 149–51; 2005, 36–49; Sumi 2005, 121–262; Lehnen 1997, 63–66; Lacey 1996a, 39–56. 6. Vows were made for the emperor's salus in anticipation of his profectio and were fulfilled upon his safe return. These practices are documented in the Acta Fratrum Arvalium. See Gradel 2002, 20–22; Henzen 1874. 7. Thein 2009, 87–109; Wiseman 2009, 111–23. 8. On the Res Gestae, see Cooley 2009; Ridley 2003; Ramage 1987; Brunt and Moore 1967. 9. Augustus' statement in RG 1 about freeing the Republic from the domination of a faction (rem publicam a dominatione factionis opressam in libertatem vindicavi) is very close to the wording of Caesar's own claim to have freed the state from a faction in Civ. 1.22.5: ut se et populum Romanum factione paucorum oppressum in libertatem vindicaret. See Rich 2010, 176. 10. The assumption that the RG is not literature is ubiquitous, but a recent example illustrates the issue. In a discussion of the structure of sovereignty in early imperial Rome, Lowrie (2005, 42), turning to the Res Gestae, remarks, “At this point, I have moved outside of literature, but not outside of representing media.” The object in raising this issue is not to argue for the literary quality of the RG but to suggest that such gestures of classification can and do impact the text's interpretation. 11. Velleius (2.100.2) describes the dedication in terms that communicate well its spectacular and commemorative nature. 12. See map 1. 13. Cic. Att. 16.15.4; App. BC 3.41–42; D.C. 45.12.4–6; Sumi 2005, 161–68. 14. RG 12. On the Ara Pacis Augustae, see LTUR 4.70–74. In the present book, see map 1 for the location of the Ara Pacis and figure 4 for a picture of the altar. 15. For a sampling of the vast bibliography on the processions depicted on the Ara Pacis, see Ryberg 1949; Kleiner 1978; Billows 1993; Stern 2006. 16. The identification of both scenes is admittedly problematic. The Lupercal is extremely fragmentary. For a discussion of the evolution of the Lupercal's identification, see Stern 2006, 172. Sieveking (1907, 187) first proposed that the bearded, togate figure identified here as Numa was, in fact, Aeneas. Pollini (2012,

242–47) argues in favor of that view. Richardson first suggested that the figure was instead Numa at the annual meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America in 1978 at Seattle, Washington. I thank Prof. Jim Anderson for the preceding information. The late Paul Rehak (2001, 190–208; 2006, 115–20) argued in favor of Richardson's hypothesis in great detail. The view of Richardson and Rehak is adopted here. Pollini's objections are substantive, but the author was unable to check those that require autopsy of the monument. Pollini's identification of the altar's temple of the Penates as proleptic and anachronistic but nonetheless consistent with a representation of Aeneas is an interesting solution but is not without its problems. Stern (2006, 406–16) follows Rehak's position on the identity of Numa but interprets the figures in the small temple as the Penates. See figure 2 for the Numa panel. 17. Suetonius (Aug. 7.2) reports that someone suggested the possibility of Octavian taking the name Romulus before he settled on Augustus. Galinsky (1998, 84) observes, “Augustus was both Numa and Romulus.” 18. Liv. 1.21. 19. Galinsky (1998, 282–83) sees the values of Livy and Augustus converging in the idea that the stable Republic required a balance of the virtues of Romulus and Numa. 20. Ramage 1987, 74–100. 21. Torelli 1982, 27–29. 22. On the childhood of the twins and founding, see Liv. 1.4–7; D.H. 2.76–87; Plu. Rom. 2–10. On the Lupercal scene, see Stern 2006, 172; Rehak 2006, 113–15. 23. Liv. 1.4. 24. Starr (2009) has made the same connection. On late-republican dynasts as the new Romulus, see Alföldi 1951, 190–215. 25. On the discovery of the head of Mars under Palazzo Fiano-Peretti in 1859, see Moretti 1939, 4; Stern 2006, 172. Roller (2007) has argued that the Mars Ultor was actually vowed by Marc Antony. 26. Enn. Ann. 2, fr. 1: O pater, o genitor, o sanguen dis oriundum…Rehak (2001, 114) identifies the Mars of the Lupercal scene as the “eponymous divinity of the Campus Martius.” This suggestion is attractive, since this Mars faces Numa, the king who dedicated the Ara Martis on the Campus Martius. The present reading approaches the problem through the RG, which takes into account the further development of the dedication of the Temple of Mars Ultor in the Forum of Augustus. 27. RG 35. 28. Plu. Rom. 16.5–8. Although he does not credit Romulus with the first triumph, Livy shows the king celebrating the first spolia opima (1.10) and later (1.16) shows him holding a review of his army at Caprae Palus on the Campus Martius after his victory of Veii: his inmortalibus editis operibus cum ad exercitum recensendum contionem in campo ad Caprae paludem haberet. The Caprae Palus was located near the Ara Martis, where, according to Varro (Fest. 204 L), the secunda spolia were to be dedicated. This location was also close to the Villa Publica, where the census would later be held. The military review, then, takes on something of the image of both a proto-triumph and a proto-census. In the midst of Romulus’ military review, a thunderstorm blows in, clouds envelop Romulus, and he disappears. Livy thus connects this Romulean proto-triumph to the founder's apotheosis. 29. Augustus refers to Mars in RG 12, 21, 29. He alludes to Romulus in RG 1 and 35 and by way of the temples of Jupiter Feretrius and Quirinus, and he lists the Lupercal among other structures he built in RG 19. On the latter, see Cooley 2009, 186–87. Cooley notes the significance of the juxtaposition of the Temple of the Divine Julius and the Lupercal in this passage. In 44, Iulii joined the Quinctilii and Fabii to make the third sodality of luperci. The honor immediately fell into abeyance. See Cic. Phil. 13.31; Suet. Jul. 76.1; D.C. 44.6.2. On the end of the luperci Iulii, see Wissowa 1912, 559; Kienast 2001, 8 n. 46. 30. Hor. Carm. 3.14. 31. As Morgan (2005) argued, Horace (Carm. 3.14) employed the image of Hercules to stress Augustus' role in uniting Italy. The comparison of Hercules and Augustus is explicit in the opening stanza: Herculis ritu modo dictus, o plebs, / morte venalem petiisse laurum / Caesar Hispana repetit Penatis / victor ab ora. See also Nisbet 1983, 112–14. 32. Ridley (2003, 97–98) notes, however, that the expression ovans triumphavi seems to be an attempt to raise the number of triumphs to five. The ovation thus becomes a form of triumph, which is not altogether inaccurate when viewed through the modern treatment of the subject. Augustus might have simply

enumerated five triumphs. This suggests that the balance of triumphal celebrations with the returns and closings of Janus was quite deliberate. 33. Dufraigne 1994, 41–42; Benoist 2005, 42. For the unceremonious, nocturnal return in 19, see D.C. 54.10.4. For Augustus' avoidance of a welcome celebration in 13, see D.C. 54.25.3–4. Suetonius (Aug. 53.2) writes of Augustus' general preference to avoid crowds sending him off or receiving him, leading him to depart and return at night. See also Lacey 1996a, 45–48. 34. RG 25.1: mare pacavi a praedonibus. eo bello servorum qui fugerant a dominis suis et arma contra rem publicam ceperant triginta fere millia capta dominis ad supplicium sumendum tradidi. The deliberate juxtaposition of bello and servorum suggests that this was a servile war like the war against Spartacus, a most insulting way to dispense with the memory of Sextus Pompey. See Cooley 2009, 214. By referring to the suppression of pirates and servile war together, Augustus implicitly compares himself with Pompey the Great and asserts his superiority. See Flugmann 1991, 311. 35. D.C. 51.19.2–21.2. Lehnen (1997, 64) attributes this refusal of the honor of the apantêsis to Augustus' desire to avoid Hellenistic royal pomp. Although culturally marked, such a welcoming embassy was not necessarily novel. Recall that L. Postumius Albinus had ordered Praeneste to provide him one in the early decades of the second century BCE. What was novel was the conferral of the honor by senatorial decree. Furthermore, since Romans had been attending the profectiones and reditus of magistrates for centuries, Lehnen must be mistaken in his interpretation of Suet. Aug. 53.2 as indicating that Augustus' general desire to avoid welcoming and departure ceremonies was evidence of the same fastidious avoidance of Hellenistic pomp. Suetonius' language does not appear to support such a reading: non temere urbe oppidove ullo egressus aut quoquam ingressus est nisi vespera aut noctu, ne quam officii causa inquietaret. See also Carter 1982, 176. 36. D.C. 51.21.2 (trans. Cary). 37. Desanges 1957, 5–43. Pliny (Nat. 5.36) calls our attention to the fact that Balbus was the first nonItalian to triumph. 38. Beard (2007, 301–2) raises Suetonius' (Aug. 38.1) reference to the fact that Augustus' reign saw more than thirty iusti triumphi to show that Balbus' triumph may not, in fact, have been the last celebrated by someone outside the imperial family. 39. Benoist (2005, 43–44) describes this difficult period: “Certes, le contexte politique de ces années 19–13 estil de nature à expliquer les embarras du prince, ou du moins sa volonté de refuser toute manifestation par trop ostentatoire de son pouvoir. Contestation des élites, comme le prouvent les difficultés de recrutement de certains magistrats, crises ponctuelles entraînant la colère populaire (famines et crues du Tibre), qui s'exprime notamment par la volonté d'obtenir du prince l'acceptation de pouvoirs exceptionnels, le régime peine encore à trouver un équilibre à la fois institutionnel et politico-social.” 40. On the Ara Fortunae Reducis, see LTUR 2.275; NTDAR s.v. Fortuna Redux, Ara; MAR s.v. Honos et Virtus, Aedes (Ad Portam Capenam), 138. 41. Van der Vin 1981, 122. 42. RG 12. For a recent discussion of the affair of Egnatius Rufus and bibliography on the issue, see Phillips 1997, 103–12. On the recasting of the embassy, see Ridley 2003, 180–81. 43. RG 12. 44. The characterization of Pax as pacification by force is, of course, the version celebrated in Verg. A. 6.852–53 and on the Ara Pacis, where armed Roma sits on a pile of weapons in the northeast panel. As will be discussed shortly, although Augustus explicitly refers to this parta victoriis pax in RG 13, he distances himself from the victoriae at that point. For the distinction between pax civilis and parta victoriis pax, see Weinstock 1950, 45–46. On pax civilis and its relationship with concordia in particular, see Jal 1961, 210–31. On martial pax, see Woolf 1993, 171–94. On Augustus' ideology of war and peace, see Gruen 1985, 51–72. 45. Benoist (2005, 45) sees the representation of these two returns as more consequential than Caesar's triple triumph in 29 in the formation of the Principate. 46. Rehak 2001, 197; 2006, 118–19. On Numa as the originator of the Fetial Law and its rites, see D.H. 2.72.1–3; Plu. Num. 12.3–7; Cam. 18.1. 47. NTDAR s.v. Mars, Ara. On the location of the Ara Martis, see Welin 1954. 48. Fest. 204 L: Pompili regis legem…secunda spolia, in Martis ara in campo solitaurilia utra voluerit

caedito. This law is also transmitted by Plutarch (Marc. 8.5). On the spolia opima, see Versnel 1971, 306–12; Flower 2000b. 49. De Grummond 1990; Claridge 1998, 187; Rehak 2001, 123. The proposed identities of this goddess are numerous. Galinsky (1992) views the image as polysemic. See figure 3 in the present book. 50. Grimal 1983, 135. 51. LTUR 3.92–93; NTDAR s.v. Ianus Geminus. For recent discussion of Augustus and Janus, see Lange 2009, 140–48. 52. Liv. 1.19.2; Plin. Nat. 34.33. 53. Liv. 1.19.4: clauso eo cum omnium circa finitimorum societate ac foederibus iunxisset animos. 54. On the three closings of the Gates of Janus, see Suet. Aug. 22. Syme (1979, 202–4) argues for a date in 8 or 7 BCE. Rich (2003, 356) has argued that there may not have been a third closing. 55. R. Taylor (2000, 8) seems to question the association of the Janus Quirinus and the Ara Pacis because of a lack of consistency in poetic representations of Janus as a custos Pacis. The Gates of War sometimes keep war out (Hor. S. 1.4.60–61; Ov. Fast. 1.279–81); at other times (Verg. A. 1.293–96; Ov. Fast. 1.121–24), they keep bloody war in the shrine, to prevent it from bursting out into the city. A lack of consensus among poets, however, would not prevent Augustus from coming down on one side of the issue. On Janus and his temple as augur and auguraculum, see Holland 1961, 24–25; Torelli 1982, 33–35; R. Taylor 2000, 11–25; Rehak 2001, 196. 56. The latter was an augural ceremony that could only be conducted when no Roman armies were fighting. Its purpose was to determine whether it was propitious to ask the gods to grant the state safety. Cf. Suet. Aug. 31.4; D.C. 51.19.2–3, 51.20.4. Beard, North, and Price (1998, 1:100 n. 145) suggest that Plu. Aem. 39.3–4 refers to the same ceremony, performed at the end of Aemilius Paullus' life. Cf. Liegle 1942. 57. Fest. 204 L; Plu. Marc. 8.5; Serv. A. 6.859. 58. In 19, Augustus ordered that a temple to Mars Ultor be built. Contemporary coins such as BMC 704, minted at Pergamon, show a small round sacellum that must have approximated the shrine of Feretrius. This temple, however, was never built. See Simpson 1977, 92–93. 59. For the places of dedication as prescribed by the commentaries of Numa, see Plu. Marc. 8.5. 60. So Ovid (Fast. 1.279–80) has his Janus claim: ut populo reditus pateant ad bella profecto, / tota patet dempta ianua nostra sera. Cf. also Serv. A. 1.294: ideo autem Ianus belli tempore patefiebat, ut eiusdem conspectus per bellum pateret, in cuius potestate esset exitus reditusque; id enim ipsa significat eius effigies praebentis se exeuntibus et redeuntibus ducem. hunc autem olim Numa Pompilius fecit, cuius portas regni tempore clausit. Rüpke (1990, 139–40) argues that the Janus Geminus was the original gate through which the army mustered in the Forum Romanum. When the gates were open, it signaled a state of war and the beginning of the muster. 61. He is invoked first in the Salian Hymn. See Var. L. 7.26. Macrobius (1.9.9) indicates that the invocation of Janus first was a regular practice: Ianum…volunt…invocari primum, cum alicui deo res divina celebratur, ut per eum pateat ad illum cui immolatur accessus, quasi preces supplicum per portas suas ad deos ipse transmittat. See Taylor 2000, 11. 62. Macrobius (1.9.9) writes of Janus as the sun, but the text he presents seems, rather, to indicate Janus' function as the portals of dawn and dusk: Ianum quidam solem demonstrari volunt, et ideo geminum quasi utriusque ianuae caelestis potentem, qui exoriens aperiat diem, occidens claudat. As portals of dawn and dusk, located presumably on the horizon, the cosmic Janus would be a gateway between worlds, an idea that is similar to the twin gates of the underworld as portrayed in Verg. A. 6.893: sunt geminae belli portae. 63. Vergil (A. 8.355–58) describes Janus as the first monarch to settle in the area of Rome on the Janiculum; Ovid (Fast. 1.235–38) recounts Janus' reception of Saturn after Jupiter had expelled Saturn from his kingdom. These views presuppose a euhemeristic understanding of the god. Macrobius (1.9.2), quoting Xenon's Italicon, preserves a much more explicitly euhemeristic account of Janus. Xenon's Janus is given divine honors because of his benefactions in protecting houses. 64. See n. 54. 65. RG 8. 66. Var. L. 6.93: censor exercitum centuriato constituit quinquennalem cum lustrare et in urbem ad vexillum ducere debet. 67. RG 5–7.

68. V. Max. 5.6.3; Ov. Met. 15.565–621; Plin. Nat. 11.123.45. 69. Plu. Sull. 27.4; August. C.D. 2.24. The location of this omen is suggestive. Tarentum, otherwise known as Taras, was a colony of Sparta. Sparta was traditionally ruled by two kings. The people of Tarentum called on Pyrrhus of Epirus to invade Italy and save them from expanding Roman power in the early third century. 70. Marks (2004, 113 n. 18), in writing of Ovid's version, has cautioned against assumptions regarding the poet's purpose and the legacy of Caesar. The present reading focuses instead on Augustus' own concern with his image as he entered the city. This concern, which is readily apparent in the RG, made the story of Cipus a timely topic for exploration as a poetic subject and an exemplum in the early Principate. Marks (108–13, 120–28) reads Ovid's Cipus as pointing to the futility of worrying about the crown or its absence, since Romulus had claimed Rome as spear-won land at the foundation of the city, rendering any attempt to avoid kingship ultimately doomed. 71. See the discussion in chapter 3. Augustus was unable to complete a census using regular censors in 22 (D.C. 54.2.1–2). 72. Livy (Per. 98) appears to have transmitted a record of nine hundred thousand citizens at the census of 70/69 BCE. 73. D.C. 53.33.4–5. [Acro.] ad Carm. Saec. 8 mentions that pestilence might prompt the celebration of the Ludi Tarentini: cum Roma pestilentia laboraret, ex libris Sibyllinis iussum est, ut Diti Patri ad Terentum stipes mitteretur. On the plans for a 23 BCE celebration of the Secular Games, see Merkelbach 1961, on Verg. A. 65–70, 791–4; Syme 1939, 339; Mattingly 1934, 162–63. Mattingly argues in favor of 22. Devices to mark the advent of the new saeculum included the so-called second settlement. See CAH X2 85–87. Augustus laid down his eleventh consulship on July 1, making it clear that he would no longer fill the office. He was invested with tribunicia potestas; his imperium became maius. He was offered the censorship for life in 22, but he declined and appointed P. Aemilius Paulus and L. Munatius Plancus to the censorship. Cf. D.C. 54.2.1. Wiseman (1969, 63) thinks it likely that tension between these censors prevented the census' completion. 74. Lintott 1999, 115–20; Drummond 1998, 197–98; Nicolet 1980, 48–88. 75. Varro (L. 6.86–87) provides an account of the commencement of the census, which involved the reading of auspices in the sacred area set aside for the ritual; the herald's pronouncement of the summons, including a prayer for the success of the census; and the anointing of censors, scribes, and magistrates with myrrh and balsams. On issues of religion and identity in the census, see Simón 2006, 157–65. 76. Var. L. 6.93: censor exercitum centuriato constituit quinquennaliem, cum lustrare et in urbem vexillum ducere debet. 77. Nicolet 1980, 51–52. 78. Baltrusch 1989. 79. Cic. Dom. 1.1–2: cum multa divinitus, pontifices, a maioribus nostris inventa atque instituta sunt, tum nihil praeclarius quam quod eosdem et religionibus deorum immortalium et summae rei publicae praeesse voluerunt, ut amplissimi et clarissimi cives rem publicam bene gerendo religiones, religiones sapienter interpretando rem publicam conservarent. 80. Inscr. Ital. 1.254–55: idem censoria potest. lustrum fecer. See Astin 1963, 226–35. Scholars dispute the precise authority by which Augustus performed the censuses reported in the RG. For discussion and bibliography, see Ferrary 2009, 105–7. 81. Cooley 2009, 140. 82. Wiseman 1969, 65–67. 83. Liv. 10.47. For Servius Tullius and the census, see D.H. 4.16.1–22.2; Liv. 42.4–43.11. 84. D.H. 5.20.1, 5.75.3, 6.96.4, 9.36.3; Liv. 3.3.9, 3.24.10. On consuls holding the census, see Suolahti 1963, 143–66. 85. Suolahti 1963, 146–47. The priority of Valerius in the number of consuls who conducted the census is also interesting because of the role that his ancestor Valesius played in instituting the Secular Games during the quest to heal his children, who had been afflicted with illness by the gods. 86. Suolahti 1963, 143. 87. Lacey (1996a, 35) argues that because Augustus never put down his imperium, this claim was legitimate: “[T]here has been an interminable debate on the date at which the triumvirate ended with a view

to establishing whether Octavian's whole position was based on an illegality or not. But the debate, I suggest, is a complete waste of time, because, though magistracies always had a terminal date attached to them, they did not terminate until the magistrate had been succeeded or brought his imperium formally to an end.” 88. Liv. 1.42.4–5. 89. Liv. 1.44.1. Cf. Cic. Caec. 99. 90. Wiseman (1969, 62–65) argues that the term lustrum was often a synonym for census. While this is obviously the case here as well, it does not fully answer the question of why both terms are used. 91. The importance of two censors is evident in the fact that the death of one censor could scuttle the entire census. See Liv. 24.43.4. The death of the censor Publius Furius prevented the completion of the lustrum. His colleague, Marcus Atilius, resigned. 92. Liv. 40.45.8: comitiis confectis ut traditum antiquitus est censores in campo ad aram Martis sellis curulibus consederunt. Interestingly, this passage was followed by the approach of an embassy of principes senatorum and a speech by Q. Caecilius Metellus beseeching the two censors to put aside a personal feud in order to conduct the census successfully. 93. By the time of Augustus, rituals like the lustrum were subjected to learned speculation. In the case of the lustrum, it has been suggested that the ritual reflected the cosmic order and the continuation of the sun's beneficial effects on the community. See Koch 1933, 23–26; Szabó 1939, 135–60; Baudy 1998, 244–46. 94. Ogilvie 1961, 32–33. 95. Var. L. 6.26; Ov. Fast. 1.659–60; Fest. 55 L; Macr. 1.16.6. 96. Lucr. Nat. 3.1090; Thomas 2001, 4–5. 97. Thomas (2001, 6) translates, “This is the man, this is he who you are frequently told is promised to you, Augustus Caesar, offspring of a god, who will again close out ages of gold in Latium” (emphasis mine). 98. Livy (4.20.7) specifically identifies Augustus as a founder: templorum omnium conditorem ac restitutorem. 99. On the role of the founder's tomb in colonial founder cult, see Malkin 1987, 189–218. 100. Miles 1997, 120 n. 35: “The term conditor in its various inflections occurs only twenty-two times in Livy's extant work. With one exception, it is used always, whether in the singular or plural, to refer either to the founder(s) of a city (most often Rome) or to the founder of one or another specifically Roman institution.” 101. RG 8.5: legibus novis me auctore latis multa exempla maiorum exolescentia iam ex nostro saeculo reduxi et ipse multarum rerum exempla imitanda posteris tradidi. 102. Galinsky 2007, 77: “The underlying idea clearly was that of a historical marker and of an extended lustrum or periodic occasion for purification; the regular Roman lustrum, which also marked the election of censors, was every five years. Accordingly, the ritual centered on the gods of the Underworld, Dis (Pluto) and Proserpina, who had to be propitiated in various ways.” Poe (1984, 59) comments, “The function of the Secular Games was lustral.” On the Secular Games, see also Pighi 1962; Weiss 1973; Brind'Amour 1978; Moretti 1982–84; Hall 1986; Zanker 1990, 167–72; Galinsky 1998, 100–106; Rehak 2001, 26–28; Miller 2009, 270–75. 103. Censorinus DN 17.5: quo die urbes atque civitates constituerentur, de iis, qui eo die nati essent, eum, qui diutissime vixisset, die mortis suae primi saeculi modulum finire, eoque die qui essent reliqui in civitate, de his rursum eius mortem, qui longissimam egisset aetatem, finem esse saeculi secundi. 104. Hall 1986, 2567–69. 105. Liv. Per. 49; [Acr.] ad Carm. Saec. 8: bellum adversus Kartaginenses prospere geri posse, si Diti et Proserpinae triduo, idest tribus diebus et tribus noctibus, ludi fuissent celebrati et carmen cantatum inter sacrificia. hoc autem accidit consulibus P. Claudio Pulchro L. Iunio Pulchro. See also Censorinus DN 17.8. 106. Schnegg-Köhler 2002, 156–64. 107. August. C.D. 22.28; Taylor 1934a, 105–6. Lipka (2009, 148) perceptively picks out Augustus' theological aims in contrast with those of Sulla and Caesar in their victory games: “While Sulla and Caesar had intended to mark their own achievements and by extension that of their gens and its foundress, Venus, Augustus wanted to signal a new era. While Sulla's and Caesar's actional frame were the Civil Wars, Augustus' perspective was Roman history in its entirety…. Augustus set out to anchor his Games deeply in the Roman past, reaching back to the beginning of Roman democracy and out to the Greek world.”

108. Hijmans' argument (2004, 201–24) that the celebration signaled aeternitas, or the perpetual continuation of saecula, does not contradict this view. Indeed, the anxiety over the end of Rome would have prompted the assertion of this aeternitas. 109. For Varro's interest in astrology and Pythagoreanism, see Sarton 1993, 311–12. According to Censorinus (DN 21), Varro proffered the idea that human time was divided into three parts: the first division spanned from the appearance of men to the first flood in the time of Ogyges, the second from the flood to the first Olympiad, and the third from the first Olympiad to his day. This system is also used in structuring De gente populi Romani, which begins with the flood. 110. Versnel 1993, 323–24. 111. RG 22. Wiseman (1987, 25) offered a number of options for the ancestry of Agrippa, including Marsic and Assisian. Cf. Cairns 1995, 215–17. 112. The oracle for the games is preserved in Zos. 2.6. See Beard, North, and Price 1998, 1:205 n. 126. 113. Verg. A. 6.724–51. A serviceable candidate for his earlier incarnation would be the consul P. Valerius Volusi Publicola, the consul of 460, whose heroic charge against Appius Herdonius and death in the vestibule of the Capitoline Temple was described in Homeric terms by Livy (3.18). As Forsythe (2006, 205) argued, the Herdonius episode was fashioned according to the more recent memory of Saturninus' seizure of the Capitoline, which ended in his surrender to the consuls Marius and L. Valerius Flaccus. 114. 7–10. Du Quesnay (1999, 297) has pointed out the similarity between Vergil's image of the new generation coming down from heaven (caelo demittitur alto) and Cicero's suggestion, at De imperio 41, that Pompey was sent down from heaven (de caelo delapsum). Cf. Clausen 1994, 120–21, 132. 115. Plutarch (Num. 20.3–6) describes the time of Numa as a veritable Golden Age. See Betz 2009, 45–46. 116. V. Max. 2.4.5; Zos. 2.1.1–3. Palmer (1990, 29 n. 87) suggests that Phlegon may be Zosimus' source. 117. Zosimus (2.1.1) sees the function of the festival as curative: συντελεῖ δὲ πρὸς λοιμῶν καὶ φθορῶν καὶ νόσων ἀκέσεις. See n. 73 on the connection between pestilence and the celebration of these ludi. 118. RG 9. 119. Taylor 1934b, 222–24. 120. Cic. Phil. 1.13; Taylor 1934b, 225. 121. Serv. ad Ecl. 9.47. 122. Var. L. 6.23–24 (Vetter, 1957): Larentinae, quem diem quidam in scribendo Larentalia appellant, ab Acca Larentia nominatus, cui sacredotes nostri publice parentant ante diem VIIII Kal. Ian. post Saturnalia sexto die, qui atra dicitur dies ad locum dictum tarentum Accas Larentinas. [24] hoc sacrificium fit in Velabro qua in Novam Viam exitur, ut aiunt quidam ad sepulcrum Accae, ut quod ibi prope: faciunt diis Manibus servilibus induti vestibus sacerdotes. See Watkins 1991. 123. Watkins 1991, 135–48. Watkins proposes ancient Indo-European roots for the association of funerary cult at the tarentum with the regeneration of time. This may or may not be true, but its truth is not necessary for Varro to formulate a similar speculation. 124. For the census conducted by Publicola in 508, see D.H. 5.20. 125. Numa's relationship to the census has been mentioned. Livy characterizes the institution of the census by Servius as a Numa-like initiative. Also, the censors set their curules sellae next to Numa's Ara Martis as they prepared to conduct the census. See pp. 220–21. 126. Valerius' son would appeal to the people's fear of the gods—a Numan device—when trying to rally them to dislodge the would-be tyrant Herdonius from the Capitoline (Liv. 3.17.3). 127. RG 8.1: in consulatu sexto censum populi conlega M. Agrippa egi. 128. Cooley 2009, 138–39. Augustus increased the number of patricians in 29 through the lex Saenia. See D.C. 52.42.5. His lectiones senatus occur in 29 (D.C. 52.42.1), 18 (54.13.1), and 13 (54.26.3). Some confusion exists over the discrepancy between the number of lectiones that Augustus and Dio enumerate. Augustus reports three, while Dio reports five. Cooley discounts the fifth on the grounds that a commission, not Augustus himself, carried it out. Concerning the lectiones of 13 and 11, Astin (1963, 227–31) has argued that Dio described a single process started in 13 and ended in 11, while Rich (1990, 205) takes the position that Dio was simply mistaken about 13. Dio's chronology seems hopelessly confused, however. His dates of lectiones, censuses, and closures of the Gates of Janus simply cannot be harmonized with the information Augustus provides us in the RG. My suggestion is to privilege Augustus over Dio and place the paired census and lectio that Dio reports under the firm date that Augustus provides for his second census, 8

BCE. These events are thematically connected to the return in 13, because of their association with the dedication of the Ara Pacis and the closure of the Gates of Janus that both Mommsen (1883, 50) and Syme (1979, 202) date to 8/7. 129. André (1993, 110) called this process the “sacralisation” of Augustus. 130. RG 9.1: Vota pro salute mea suscipi per consules et sacerdotes quinto quoque anno senatus decrevit. 131. Cic. Marc. 22; Weinstock 1971, 170–71; Winkler 1995, 42. In the Pro Balbo (16), Cicero makes a similar claim regarding Pompey, which is of further interest in its parallels with the RG. It is here that he uses the Hellenistic formula terra marique in reference to Pompey's victories. Cicero jokes in Att. 12.45.3 that he would rather have Caesar's statue reside in Quirinus' temple than that of Salus. On Salus, see also Clark 2007, 253–54, 266; Winkler 1995, 16–35. 132. RG 9.1: Ex iis votis saepe fecerunt vivo me ludos aliquotiens sacredotum quattuor amplissima collegia, aliquotiens consules. 133. RG 9.2: Privatim etiam et municipatim universi cives unanimiter continenter apud omnia pulvinaria pro valetudine mea supplicaverunt. 134. Scott 1932, 284–87. 135. For the first gladiatorial munus in honor of the deceased in 264 BCE, see Liv. Per. 16. For other instances of funeral games, see Liv. 23.30, 39.46, 41.28. See also Wiedemann 2002, 5–6. On victory games in the Middle Republic, see Plin. Nat. 8.16–17; V. Max 2.7.13–14. 136. See Bernstein 1998, 314–50. 137. On Salus and the dynast during the Late Republic, see Weinstock 1971, 166–69, 172; Winkler 1995, 16–36; Moralee 2004, 17–18; Noreña 2011, 141. 138. Cooley 2009, 147. In Livy, Romulus' role in the founding of the Ara Maxima's cult foreshadows his own deification. See Levene 1993, 131–33. 139. For a literary description of the Ara Maxima's cult, see Verg. A. 8.280–307. 140. Aug. Anc. 12.1; Cooley 2009, 71. 141. RG 12.1: qui honos ad hoc tempus nemini praeter me est decretus. 142. Pittenger 2008. 143. Aug. Anc. 12: δόγματι συνκλήτου οἱ τὰς μεγίστας ἀρχὰς ἄρξαντες σὺν μέρει στρατηγῶν καὶ δημάρχων μετὰ ὑπάτου Κοΐντου Λουκρητίου ἐπέμφθησάν μοι ὑπαντήσοντες μέχρι Καμπανίας, ἥτις τειμὴ μέχρι τούτου οὐδὲ ἑνὶ εἰ μὴ ἐμοὶ ἐψηφίσθη. 144. D.C. 54.10.1–4; Vell. 2.91.3–92.5; Badot 1973, 606–15; Phillips 1997, 103–12; de Jonquieres 2004, 273–90; Cooley 2009, 153–4. 145. Vell. 2.91.4. 146. D.C. 54.10.1–2. 147. RG 12.2: cum ex Hispania Galliaque, rebus in iis provinciis prospere gestis, Romam redi, Tiberio Nerone Publio Quinctilio consulibus, aram Pacis Augustae senatus pro reditu meo consacrandam censuit ad campum Martium, in qua magistratus et sacerdotes virginesque Vestales anniversarium sacrificium facere iussit. 148. An exhaustive bibliography will not be provided here. See, e.g., Toynbee 1961, 153–56; Holliday 1990, 542–57; de Grummond 1990, 663–77; Rose 1990, 453–67; Elsner 1991, 50–61; Galinsky 1992, 457–75; Stern 2006. 149. On honorific grants of politeia by Greek cities of the Hellenistic era, see Dmitriev 2011, 105–6. Such grants were not, of course, limited to monarchs. Lamia granted politeia to the poetess Aristodama in 218/17. See Dittenberger 532. 150. CAH X2 68–69. 151. Bauman 1981, 179–80. 152. Liv. 3.55.6–7; D.H. 6.89.; Forsythe 2006, 171. 153. On the reach of Augustus' intercessio, see D.C. 51.19.6. On the significance of the placement of the Ara Pacis, see Torelli 1982, 29–30. 154. On the significance of Augustus' restraint in taking up the position of pontifex maximus, see Ridley 2005, 275–300. 155. This expression may owe something to an earlier boast of Cicero at Pis. 3: me cuncta Italia, me omnes ordines, me universa civitas non prius tabella quam voce priorem consulem declaravit.

156. Inscr. Ital. 2.121, 420–21. 157. On the geographical reach of the tribune's sacrosanctity, see Badian 1996, 195–96. Zecchini (2001, 137–46) argues that in refounding Carthage, Caesar used his authority as pontifex maximus to overcome the religious taboo connected with the site. If so, this application of the authority of the supreme pontificate outside of Rome could have served as a precedent for Augustus' broader conception of the office here in the RG. 158. On Caesar's election as supreme pontiff, see Plu. Caes. 7.1–4; Suet. Jul. 13, 46; D.C. 37.37; Pelling 2011, 159–60; Gruen 2009, 23; Wardle 2009, 102–3. 159. D.C. 44.5.3; Cooley 2009, 149–50. Cooley (150) writes, “Augustus is clearly implying here that, in his guise as Julius Caesar's adopted son, he was the one who should have been appointed in 44 BC, not Lepidus.” 160. Lepidus had acquired the post in 44 BCE, when Antony had the election of the pontifex maximus transferred from the people's assembly to the college of pontiffs. See D.C. 44.53.6–7; Scheid 1999, 3–4. 161. Suet. Jul. 6.1; Butler and Cary 1982, 49–50. 162. Linderski 1986, 2249–50 n. 407c.: “sanctus and sanctitas were the augural concepts;…according to the augural theory the sanctitas was bestowed by the act of inauguratio: the res sanctae were the res inauguratae.” Cf. Valeton 1892, 338–54. Festus (358 L) reports that the Etruscan libri rituales provided for the sanctification of altars and temples (areae aedes sacrentur), and he mentions the sanctity of the wall (qua sanctite muri). Cf. Paul. ex. Fest. 2 L: Augustus locus sanctus ab avium gestu, id est quia ab avibus significatus est, sic dictus; Ov. Fast. 1.609–10: sancta vocant augusta patres, augusta vocantur / templa sacerdotum rite dicata manu. 163. Wildfang 2006, 91–92. Wildfang follows Bauman (1992, 47) in viewing Claudia's actions as an innovation on the passive holiness (sanctitus) of the Vestals. Thanks to Claudia, future Vestals would be more assertive in their role in a manner that approximated tribunician sacrosanctitas. Some degree of caution regarding the word sanctitas is in order. Santi (2002) discusses the linguistics of its polysemy. Cicero (Cael. 13.32) spoke figuratively of matronarum sanctitas as a kind of informal inviolability that sprang from matronly virtue. On the maiestas and sanctitas of matrons, see Boëls-Janssen 2008. 164. On the tribunicia potestas, see Jones 1951, 115; CAH X2 68–69. 165. Wagenwoort 1956, 84–101. 166. Gruen 1992, 29. 167. D.C. 44.5.3. 168. Cooley 2009, 150. 169. Festus 2 L; Ov. Fast. 1.609–10. 170. It is nevertheless interesting and no doubt intentional that the report of his sacrosanctitas precedes the supreme pontificate in correct chronological order and that the former was granted at a time when the people urged Augustus to replace Lepidus as pontifex maximus. Viewed in this light, the grant of sacrosanctitas may be interpreted as a kind of substitute for the sanctitas he implicitly refused by not replacing Lepidus. 171. Suet. Aug. 2.1.

Page 242 →

CHAPTER 8 Augustus as the New Numa Gazing up at the carved figures of the Ara Pacis, a traveler might notice that Numa and Augustus are the only male figures on the altar who appear capite velato and crowned with a garland.1 Chapters 9–13 of the Res Gestae, which include accounts of Augustus' returns from Syria in 19 BCE and from Spain and Gaul in 13 BCE, refer, in fact, to a host of institutions established by Rome's second king, Numa Pompilius.2 At the death of Romulus and partly at the urging of their fellow citizens of Sabine extraction, the Romans chose the wise Sabine Numa to be their second king and inaugurated him at his own insistence, thus establishing his legitimacy as a ruler approved by Jupiter.3 Numa brought stability to Rome by instilling in the young city a fear of the gods. Augustus had adopted Numa as one of his models long before he turned to writing the Res Gestae. When Rome's mint was reopened and the office of the tresviri monetales was revived in 23, perhaps through a decree of Calpurnius Piso (cos. 23), among the first coins minted were Page 243 → bronze asses with Augustus on the obverse and Numa on the reverse.4 Piso's son, a descendant of Numa, was one of the tresviri to mint these coins. Galinsky suggests that the issue was planned to coincide with the aborted plans to celebrate the Secular Games in 23.5 Numa was a useful model for Augustus as princeps for a variety of reasons.6 Through Augustus' adoption by Julius Caesar, whose family mythology included a claim of descent from Ancus Marcius, Augustus could claim Numa as an ancestor. More useful to Augustus than this ancestral tie was the image of Numa as elected monarch.7 As an elected king, Numa's claim to the throne was more legitimate than that of kings like Servius Tullius, whom Sulla had emulated, and Tarquinius Superbus.8 By relating his image to Numa, Augustus sought to distance his elevation to power from the civil war past. Furthermore, Numa, as the founder of much of Rome's religious system, was an alter conditor whose peaceful reign was maintained by law and religious observance. Numa was credited with many of the religious and civic institutions that Augustus had a hand in buttressing, reviving, and augmenting. After having brought an end to civil war, pacified several provinces, and concluded successful negotiations with Parthia, Augustus Page 244 → wanted to associate this last, long, and comparatively tranquil phase of his career with the reign of Rome's peaceful king. Furthermore, the legend of Numa intersected with a particular strain of Roman lore about the mysteries of imperium as worked out in rulers' interactions with Jupiter.9 The stories of these Italian rulers, both the successful and the failed ones, possess similar foci. The principal theme they share in common is an encounter with lightning in connection with the performance of special rituals. Augustus' own personal myth, which is filled with Jovian dreams and signs indicating his imperial destiny, resonates with this tradition, particularly in a close encounter with lightning in Cantabria in 26 BCE.10 The year after the first coins bearing the images of Augustus and Numa were struck (23 BCE), Augustus dedicated the Temple of Jupiter Tonans on the Capitoline, thus celebrating his escape from the fate of death by lightning of men such as Romulus Silvius and Tullus Hostilius.11 By placing Page 245 → Tonans on the Capitoline, Augustus called attention to his own brush with Jupiter's lightning, in a context that also evoked community welfare.12 He thus reintroduced the relationship between the ruler's intimate interactions with the power of the god and the community's protection and sovereignty, which is a prominent theme in the story of Numa's procurement of the pignus imperii of the ancile.13 Augustus' Temple of Jupiter Tonans was one of four sites where the quindecemviri received people's ritual offerings of grain during the Secular Games of 17 BCE.14 Augustus appealed to the figure of Numa in order to add mystique to the origins of his power and to suggest that, like Numa, he could successfully navigate his relationship with Jupiter and the god's thunderbolt for the good of Rome. The memory of Numa reverberated in Augustan readings of the Republican tradition too. Miles has argued that Livy saw Augustus as most similar to the founding figure of Camillus, who saved Rome from the Gauls and twice prevented the Romans from relocating to Veii.15 Livy called Camillus a second founder (alter conditor), a term that may refer not only to Camillus' role in preserving the city but also to his likeness in some respects to Numa, Rome's other second founder. Although Camillus was clearly a great warrior, Camillus had a strong affinity to

Numa. In his Livian speech warning against moving the Roman people to Veii, Camillus' arguments hinged on authority derived from Rome's centuries of religious traditions, many of which the city owed to Numa's ingenuity.16 Page 246 → In the same Livian speech, Camillus twice referred to the ancile, the divine shield that Numa had procured from Jupiter.17 Camillus and Numa were also indirectly connected to each other on the shield of Aeneas in the Aeneid, where Vergil described the dancing of the Salii and Luperci immediately following the shield's depiction of Camillus.18 Harrison has suggested that this passage of the Aeneid, which has otherwise baffled interpreters, makes sense in the context of Camillus' successful argument preventing the mass migration of Romans to Veii.19 Camillus' religiously based argument may have owed something to the appearance of his name, which is identical to camillus, the term used of noble youth who assisted the flamen Dialis, a priesthood created by Numa.20 Varro associated the word camillus with an alternate name of Hermes—Casmilus—while Macrobius preserved Statius Tullianus' statement that Callimachus identified Camillus as the Etruscan name for Mercury.21 These associations of Camillus and Hermes/Mercury may help us understand why Horace referred to Octavian by the name Mercury in an ode that has characteristics of a secular prophecy.22 As a Mercury/Camillus, Octavian takes on the role of assistant to the gods saving Rome from destruction, as Camillus had done before and as Mercury had done for all humanity.23 Also, like Numa, Camillus is associated with a pignus imperii, or “pledge of empire,” through his references to the Palladium and the ancilia in his speech against the migration to Veii.24 Thus, like the story of Numa and the ancile, Camillus' story is one that predicts the future greatness of Rome with reference to its deeply rooted cultic traditions. In Augustus' day, the figures of Numa, Camillus, Mercury, and the princeps were connected together in a web of associations Page 247 → that was not perfectly logical but was nevertheless symbolically potent and therefore useful. Camillus' argument against relocation bears on Augustus' imperial theology as expressed in the RG, in that the RG, like Camillus' argument, combines issues of ritual performance, the centering of that performance at Rome's traditional seat on the Tiber, and the rebirth and continuation of the city. Livy's account of Camillus' argument touched on a salient issue in the final years of the civil war between Octavian and Antony. Octavian had used Antony's deep involvement with the East and with Cleopatra as a rhetorical weapon against him.25 The smear worked well because of long-standing anxiety over Rome's survival as the city of the seven hills on the Tiber and over the possible rise of an altera Roma.26 Augustus' ostentatious devotion to Rome at its traditional seat on the Tiber was an important element in his success at shaping his own patriotic image. Whereas Antony would celebrate a quasi triumph in Alexandria and seek to be buried in the capital of the Ptolemies, Augustus would pour his efforts into sustaining the traditional connection between Rome as the city on the Tiber and its ritual and ceremonial practices.27 In striking contrast with Antony, Augustus built a mausoleum on the Campus Martius and made a point of not worshiping foreign gods.28

The Res Gestae's Itinerum Numae There were few better ways Augustus could have expressed his loyalty to the city on the Tiber as the caput rerum than to construct a history of his career Page 248 → that began with his arrival at Rome and ended with his return to Rome. The cultivation of the Roman gods in those arrivals was an especially emphatic way of making the point, especially in light of Livy's representation of Camillus' argument for not abandoning the city the gods had chosen. Augustus built on that theological foundation by turning his arrivals in chapters 9–13 of the Res Gestae into a peaceful, Numan itinerary dominated by religious imagery. That Augustus was deliberately trying to suppress the military significance of his returns in 19 and 13 BCE is suggested by the fact that the RG does not refer to the victories that preceded those returns. Nor does the RG mention that Augustus turned down the triumphs that were offered on each occasion. The decision to refuse the offered triumphs appears to have been part of a premeditated plan for Augustus to move away from the celebration of triumphs, toward other, more pacific honors and, thus, a position in the state that depended not on personal military prowess but on the possession of supreme imperium and religious authority according to the model of Numa.29 In support of this theory, one can bring forward the place that Balbus' triumph has on the Fasti Triumphales as the final entry on the inscription.30 The organization of

the Res Gestae echoes this periodization, in that a chapter (4) of triumphs is followed, several chapters later, by a passage (9–13) dominated by imperial advents and elements of ruler cult. These latter chapters abound in references to Numa. The Numan character of chapters 9–13 of the RG is not simply in the avoidance of explicitly martial subjects. These chapters are replete with references to the career and achievements of Numa Pompilius. The first possible reference to the career of Numa in RG 9–13 comes in chapter 9's bland reference to the sacerdotum quattuor amplissima collegia who threw games for Augustus. Although Numa was only credited with founding one of these colleges—the pontifices—he was famous for the sheer number of priesthoods he created.31 That the priesthoods are not named here allows an Page 249 → association with Numa that might be undermined by indicating the specific colleges. Striking is the fact that the only priesthoods mentioned by name in these chapters are those Numa created: Salii, pontifices, and Vestals.32 The RG also follows Livy's (1.20) account of Numa's reign in mentioning the pontifex maximus before referring to the pontiffs. After the sacerdotum collegia, the next allusion to Numa comes in Augustus' inclusion in the Salian Hymn.33 The Salii were, of course, the priests of Mars to whom Numa had entrusted the ancile—the pignus imperii that Jupiter had granted Numa after their encounter.34 Augustus' appearance in the Salian Hymn inserted him directly into the mythological context of primeval Rome, a time when Hercules defeated Cacus. The armed, dancing Salii also evoked the image of the Curetes who guarded the infant Jupiter from Saturn by banging their weapons together in a manner not unlike the sacred dance of the Salii.35 The Salian Hymn thus situates Augustus in a world of cosmogonic myth, dynastic patterns, heroic achievement, and apotheosis, just as the Aeneid's account of the Salian Hymn did for Hercules—in a text long available to readers of the RG.36 It did not matter so much that the bulk of the hymn's language was unintelligible to everyone, including the priests themselves.37 Indeed, its inscrutability was a positive virtue, inasmuch as this inscrutability allowed for the association of the princeps with an arcane knowledge of sacred things accessible only to an Page 250 → elite minority possessing the requisite expertise and pedigree (the Salii were a patrician priesthood).38 Augustus now stood at the pinnacle of the college of Salii but also superior to it, inasmuch as he was an object of their cultic observances. Numa's responsibility for the content of the original hymn was implicit, albeit anachronistic. The hymn, sung by Salian priests who bore a powerful talisman against the lightning of Jupiter, belonged in the category of sacred knowledge that also included the mysterious, powerful, and potentially dangerous commentarii of Numa, which, if not followed scrupulously, could lead to the ruler's destruction by lightning—as had occurred in the case of Tullus Hostilius.39 The next allusion to Numa in the RG occurs in its reference to the office of pontifex maximus. Numa established the pontificate to oversee all of Rome's cults, rituals, and sacral law, as well as the calendar. According to Plutarch (Num. 9.1), Numa himself was the first pontifex maximus. In Livy's (1.20) story of this priesthood, Numa installs Numa Marcius, the son of a senator and possessor of a name much like the king's, as the first supreme pontiff.40 Although the mechanism of electing the pontifex maximus was a late development, it recalls Numa's own election as king.41 Since Julius Caesar perhaps believed himself to be a descendant of that first pontifex maximus, his election to the position presumably returned the office to the person he believed to be the rightful possessor, himself.42 So, too, did Augustus' own election to the position in 12 BCE. The participation of cuncta Italia in the election of Augustus to the supreme pontificate constitutes an attractive parallel to the Romans' election of the Sabine Numa as their king, Page 251 → with the important distinction that Augustus chooses to emphasize priestly, rather than regal, authority. This was easy to do, of course, because the inauguration of Numa was modeled on the inauguration of a priest. Numa entrusted to the first pontifex maximus the responsibility of overseeing all of Rome's sacred caerimonia, with special attention to the Vestals and the Trojan cults. Once elected as pontifex maximus, Augustus, instead of moving to the Regia, had a shrine to Vesta attached to his own home, thus rendering his residence a public, sacred structure along the lines of the palace of Latinus as described in the Aeneid.43 Chapter 11 of the RG recounts the honors given to Augustus at his return (reditus) from Syria.44 The presence of Numa in this chapter is less obvious. Still, conspicuously absent from this account is any mention of Augustus' recovery of the legionary standards and any representation of military victory.45 Instead, the focus is on the establishment of a cult to Fortune the Home-bringer (Fortuna Redux) at the Porta Capena.46 The placement of the

altar at Porta Capena instead of at the porta triumphalis reflected the fact that Augustus had turned down the celebration of a triumph.47 Of course, the Porta Capena was the traditional entry point for commanders and governors returning from successful assignments in the East and thus had its own associations with victory.48 It was the gate through which the annual transvectio equitum passed and through which Cicero returned from exile Page 252 → in a manner he had characterized as quasi-triumphal. The Porta Capena also had associations with the regal period. First, the gate was located in the Servian Wall, thus anchoring it chronologically to the time of Servius Tullius.49 More importantly, it was situated close to the grove where Numa met with the nymph Egeria and supposedly received from her the sacred instructions that constituted much of Rome's ritual system.50 Numa was also credited with building, outside the Porta Capena, an aedicula Camenarum (the Camenae were water goddesses worshiped together with Egeria), which Fulvius later moved into his aedes Herculis Musarum.51 The final destination of Augustus' Numan itinerary is the Janus Geminus, which was located close to the place where the Argiletum entered the Forum Romanum.52 Both Livy and Pliny the Elder credited Numa Pompilius with the shrine's foundation.53 Although Augustus does not mention Numa by name in connection with the Janus Geminus, the numerous gestures toward Numa up to this point will have made the king's presence felt. Augustus stated that the ancestors intended the Gates of Janus to be closed when peace had been achieved on land and sea.54 All of the successes described in preceding RG chapters paved the way for Augustus' closings of the shrine. The landscape of chapters 9–13 is dotted with allusions to Numa, who was linked to the goddess Pax herself on the Ara Pacis. As the New Page 253 → Numa, Augustus brought Pax to the entire empire, a point his RG topography emphasizes. With the altars of Fortuna and Pax symbolizing the pacified state of the eastern and western provinces respectively, the closing of the Gates of Janus symbolized peace reigning over the whole. Augustus reported the closing of the Gates of Janus on three separate occasions during his reign, an accomplishment that far exceeded those of his two predecessors in that practice, each of whom only closed the gates a single time.55 If one views the path of Augustus' career as a convergence of space, time, and ascending achievements that carries the princeps to the heart of the city and its socio-political apex, the supremacy of the achievement of closing the Gates of Janus three times works synergistically with the destination in the heart of Rome to which Augustus has brought his reader—the Forum Romanum—to imbue it with a sense of completion. A telos has been attained. Chapter 13 of the RG also contains a significant schematization of time. The discussion of the closing of the Gates of Janus introduced the idea that Augustus' birth marked the opening of a new era. This echoed the prophecy of Jupiter to Venus in the first book of the Aeneid, in which the closing of the Gates of Janus is connected to a prophecy of the birth of Augustus.56 In the RG, the princeps divided all of the historical closings of the shrine into three periods. The first period belonged to the maiores, who intended the closing of the shrine whenever peace was achieved by victory. In the second period, which preceded Augustus' birth (priusquam nascerer),57 the gates were closed twice: Numa, the founder of the cult associated with the gates, was the first to close them;58 they were closed for the second time during the consulship of C. Atilius and T. Manlius after the First Punic War.59 The third period spans from the time of Augustus' birth to the time of his leadership (me principe), when the Senate decreed that the shrine be closed three times. The beginning and ending of this period may have been evoked in the interaction of two Augustan monuments. Some have argued that the Horologium and the Ara Pacis were arranged so as to mark the birthday of Page 254 → Augustus as the opening of an era of peace, although this theory has met with criticism.60 Augustus did promote his birthday as the opening of a new age in various other ways, including the publication of his horoscope in 11 CE.61 Starting in 9 BCE, which was, perhaps not coincidentally, the year in which the Ara Pacis was dedicated, the Koinon of Asia celebrated Augustus' birthday openly as the advent of a new age and adjusted its calendars to open the year on that anniversary.62 The overall effect of this passage of the RG is to reorient time by making the birth of Augustus a pivotal event Roman history, just as he spatially reorients the Roman map to the Janus Quirinus in the RG. In mythological terms, it is highly significant that the birth of Augustus is associated with Janus in the RG passage devoted to Augustus' advents in 19 and 13 BCE. One of the only known mythical stories featuring the god Janus is that of Janus' reception of a fleeing Saturn.63 According to this story, Janus lived in the area of the Janiculum. When Saturn came to Italy, Janus allowed him to cross the Tiber into the area of future Rome, where Saturn then

established his own settlement on the Capitoline, called Saturnia. In the historical period, the Temple of Saturn was located on the clivus Capitolinus along the Sacred Way.64 Vergil refers to the fortresses of Janus and Saturn in his account of the tour of Rome that Evander provides Aeneas in book 8 of the Aeneid.

haec duo praeterea disiectis oppida muris, reliquias veterumque vides monimenta virorum. hanc Ianus pater, hanc Saturnus condidit arcem: Ianiculum huic, illi fuerat Saturnia nomen.65

[These two other towns with fragmented walls you see are artifacts and reminders of ancient warriors. Page 255 → Janus was the founder of this citadel, Saturn of that one: Thus the name of the former was Janiculum, the latter's Saturnia.]

This story takes the reader back to the dynastic struggle that brought the Golden Age, or the Saturnia regna, to an end and that began the reign of Jupiter. After his defeat, Saturn fled to Italy (by ship, according to Ov. Fast. 1.229–35) and, after being received by Janus on the banks of the Tiber, built a settlement and taught Janus the art of agriculture.66 Thus Italy came into its own Saturnia regna, or Golden Age, which, according to Vergil's Augustan portrayal, is an age of abundance through fruitful effort.67 The mythological relationship between Janus and Saturn was reflected in their adjoining places on the Roman calendar. January followed Saturnalia in December, thus representing the renewal of time. The relationship was therefore a suitable topos to revisit in order to imagine new beginnings. By capping off his own significant arrivals at Rome in 19 and 13 BCE with the closure of Janus' Gates at the Forum Romanum, Augustus associated his own arrival-birth with a return to the Golden Age. The figurative culmination of Augustus' arrival at the three closings of the Janus Geminus is, in a sense, the return of Saturn or, at least, the return of a Saturnian Age. Chapter 13 of the RG thus lends itself to the conclusion that the birth of Augustus heralded a new age in which conditions returned to those of a more idyllic past, preceding even the time of Numa, such as the one initiated by the first arrival of Saturn on the site of future Rome. In emphasizing Janus as a god associated with Pax, Augustus continued to relate his own career to that of Numa. Numa's own reign was marked by peace, and the king was able to leave Janus' gates closed for forty-three years—a feat that Augustus alone attempted to match. Numa not only was responsible for the foundation of the cult of Janus Geminus but also made the god Janus the titular deity of the first month of Rome's calendar.68 This accorded with Janus' role as the first deity mentioned in Roman prayers.69 Page 256 → According to Festus, Numa lived on the Janiculum (the location of Janus' mythical palace), the place where tradition held that Numa was later buried and where, even later, a flood purportedly unearthed twin coffins containing Numa's remains and commentarii.70 Ancus Marcius, the grandson of Numa, was credited with bringing the Janiculum inside Rome's fortifications.71 The many connections between Numa and Janus show that in referring to Janus Augustus had not left Numa behind.

Given the fact that the Golden Age is thematically important in these chapters, the absence of Apollo is striking, and, indeed, the resonance of Janus and Numa with Augustus' Apolline theology is not obvious at first. Certainly Apollo had been associated with Numa earlier in Republican history. Apollo was associated with Numa on two coin issues of the Late Republic.72 The Pomponii Mathones, who claimed Numa as an ancestor through a legendary son of Numa named Pompon, had helped found the Ludi Apollinares in 213 BCE.73 One of these Pomponii minted a coin circa 97 BCE with Apollo on the obverse and Numa Pompilius sacrificing a goat on the reverse.74 Numa is thus depicted sacrificing according to ritus Graecus, perhaps in the same manner in which the sacrifice was conducted at the Ludi Apollinares.75 Denarii and asses of 88 BCE minted by C. Marcius Censorinus (the Marcii were, of course, another family claiming descent from Numa through his son, King Ancus Marcius) depict Numa, Ancus Marcius, and Apollo.76 Like the coin of 97, some of these coins refer to the founding of the Ludi Apollinares. The founding was prompted by the discovery of a prophecy by the seer Marcius—a connection that was undoubtedly significant given the role of Pomponius Matho in founding the games. As the adopted son of Julius Caesar, Augustus could lay claim to a similar heritage. The Julii had a special historical relationship with the cult of Apollo Medicus, while Caesar himself was the grandson of Marcia and thus a descendant of the Marcii Reges.77 The connection between Janus and Apollo is perhaps more obscure than Page 257 → the connection between Numa and Apollo, but it is nevertheless strongly attested in the work of Nigidius Figulus and has potential bearing on the decisions Augustus made as he crafted his own relationship with Apollo.78 In the first book of his Saturnalia, Macrobius transmits fragments of Nigidius Figulus' theological speculations on the god Janus.79 Figulus theorized that Janus Bifrons was actually the divine pair of Apollo and Diana. He demonstrated this by arguing that these gods, in the form of Apollo Agyieus and Diana Trivia, had power over entrances and exits and over roads, respectively, just as Janus had power over iani.80 Indeed, Figulus referred to Apollo as Ianus and to Diana as Iana.81 There is little question regarding Augustus' interest in Apollo Agyieus, since the image of this Apollo graced both his Palatine palace and the Temple of Palatine Apollo.82 Even more interesting is what the proposed familiarity of Augustus with the theology of Figulus might imply for Augustus' celebration of the Secular Games. To welcome the new saeculum, Augustus celebrated Secular Games that prominently featured Apollo and Diana.83 This innovation has often been attributed to the Hellenization of the games.84 It may instead be the Page 258 → case that Augustus adopted Figulus' identification of Apollo and Diana as Janus and Jana. The extant but fragmentary Acta of the games shows Augustus petitioning Apollo and Diana first at what may have been the opening of the games. Although the left-hand portion of the text leaves room for uncertainty, Miller observes, “It is nonetheless intriguing that the name of Apollo heads the list as we have it, and that the only two deities named here who received sacrificial honors during Augustus' ludi saeculares are Apollo and Diana.”85 Apollo and Diana likewise appear at the opening (and closing) of Horace's Carmen Saeculare. The possibility that Augustus prayed to Apollo and Diana first of all the gods as he opened his Secular Games makes sense if these gods were also interpreted to be Figulus' Ianus and Iana.86 Janus, after all, was the first god to be addressed in Roman prayers.87 The dual-gendered Janus is also reflected in the decoration of the Ara Pacis, which strikes a balance between the eastern and western sides of the Janu-form monument populated by predominantly female or male figures, respectively. As mentioned previously, Augustus and Numa are the only two male figures who appear capite velato and crowned, while Livia and Pax are the only two female figures thus attired.88 It is possible that in the polysemic symbolism of Augustan theology, Augustus and Livia were also Apollo and Diana, as well as Ianus and Iana.89 In identifying Janus with his own birth (priusquam nascerer) at chapter 13, Augustus returns to the topic he raised at the end of chapter 8—his saeculum (ex nostro saeculo). Although absent in the text, the dawn of the saeculum of Augustus as marked by the Secular Games is still very much present in chapters 8 and 13, and its presence both provides a new context for and reshapes the arrivals of 19 and 13 as symbolic of this advent of the new age. However messy the historical reality of this period was, through the theology of the Res Gestae, the arrival of Augustus as New Numa, New Apollo, and New Janus marked the transition to a new saeculum for Rome and a new lease on life for the Republic. An argument in favor of the predominance of Numan themes in RG chapters 9–13 does not utterly preclude the

presence of Romulus. Augustus Page 259 → referred to Janus as Quirinus, not Geminus, and thereby also alluded to the deified Romulus.90 When Augustus referred to pax, it was a pax produced by victories. The Romulean character of the first chapters is still present, albeit to a lesser extent, in the Numan chapters. Augustus did not construct a stark contrast between the Romulean and Numan elements of his career up to the third closing of the Gates of Janus. What one sees instead is a progression from allusions to Romulus to allusions to Numa. This shift reflects the interrelated nature of the martial and civil spheres of Roman space. Just as reminders of war were not barred from the space within the pomerium, Romulus is not exiled from the Numan chapters in Augustus' Res Gestae. Just as the figures of Romulus and Roma interact with the figures of Numa and Pax on the Ara Pacis, Quirinus finds a place in Augustus' Numan landscape in chapter 13 of the RG. Still, there is a shift of emphasis toward Numa in the textual landscape. The Janus Quirinus is not the Romulus-Quirinus heroön of the Forum Romanum. Augustus wrote of peace born of victory, but he did not explicitly take credit for the victories in RG chapter 13. Instead, the victories occur me principe, and the word that appears directly after principe is senatus.91 The princeps senatus was a leader in senatorial deliberations, not a leader on the battlefield, and Augustus' careful arrangement of these words was intended to emphasize his civil role. Augustus was rewriting old victories for the new context of his Numan peace.

Conclusion On the surface of the opening chapters of the Res Gestae, Augustus addressed issues regarding the salvation of the Republic. On a deeper level, he was engaging Rome's regal period in such a way that he could tie his own career to the founders and foundations of Rome. These allusions, which shifted from the Romulean to predominantly Numan, mirrored the organization of scenes on the Ara Pacis, suggesting that his text was constructed as an ideological map of the city for a hypothetical traveler who was proceeding from the Mausoleum of Augustus down the Via Flaminia and toward the Forum Romanum. At the outset, Augustus alluded to the memory of Romulus' arrival in infancy on the banks of the Tiber and Romulus' later Page 260 → liberation of Alba Longa and foundation of the city (as recounted in Livy) and, at the very same time, to Caesar's liberation of the Republic. The triumphal arrivals that follow in chapter 4 remind the reader of the triumphal theme on the northern half of the Ara Pacis, as well as the fact that Romulus first celebrated the triumph. Victory serves as the entrée to the censuses of chapter 8 signifying the refoundation of the city and evoking Romulus' welcoming of all comers into his nascent city. The census also, however, has Numan associations, and thus it serves as the pivot point after which allusions to Numa increase markedly. The shift to Numan allusions is strongest in Augustus' description of the returns of 19 and 13 BCE in the chapters following the censuses. Augustus refashions the memory of these returns, once replete with martial glory, to emphasize the accompanying cultic foundations. Indeed, the Ara Pacis stands in for and thus perpetually commemorates an idealized moment of return—one that never happened in reality, for Augustus had actually returned at nighttime to avoid crowds. Nevertheless, the Senate had voted Augustus an official apantêsis in 19 BCE, and envoys were sent to meet him in Campania. The state instituted ruler cult in the form of games for the living Augustus (vivo me). As novel (and Hellenizing) as these gestures were, Roman religious institutions constituted the overwhelming presence in these chapters. Specific institutions and monuments evoke the memory of King Numa and depict Augustus in his returns after civil war as a New Numa. Like Numa, Augustus receives an enthusiastic election. The princeps even outdoes the king by capturing the votes of cuncta Italia. References to Numa build over the course of these chapters, as each return and monument has a deeper connection with the king, until the climax of three closings of the Gates of Janus, which were founded by Numa and recall the first deified priest-king of Rome, Janus himself, who welcomed Saturnia Regna to Italy when the god allowed Saturn to settle on the banks of the Tiber. Finally, by including a reference to his birth in the midst of his account of the three closings of the Gates of Janus, Augustus, the New Numa, associates his lifetime with the birth of a new age of peace. 1. Grimal 1983, 135. Grimal also remarks that Livia and Pax are the only two female figures thus depicted. See figure 2 in the present book, for Numa capite velato. 2. See Hooker 1963 for a summary of Numa's religious reforms. See Levene 1993, 134–37, on Livy's portrayal of Numa.

3. On the Sabines' insistence on a Sabine king of Rome, see Liv. 1.17.2. On the election of Numa of Cures, see Liv. 1.18; D.H. 1.58.2–60.3; Plu. Num. 3.1–3, 5.1–7.3. As Levene (1993, 134–35 n. 36) points out, in Livy, “Numa insists that his election must be ratified by the gods.” Livy places great emphasis on ritual as the locus of legitimate authority in Numa's Rome. On the similarity of this ritual to the inauguration of priests, see Linderski 1986, 2256–96. Cf. Ogilvie 1965, 91–93. The ritual serves to establish Numa's identity as a priest-king. 4. RIC I Augustus 64–66; Galinsky 1998, 34; Evans 1992, 141–44. 5. Galinsky 1998, 35. See chapter 7, n. 71. 6. Galinsky (1998, 36–37) observes, “[T]he Numa bronzes look forward to two abiding qualities of the imagery of Augustus. One was a de-emphasis of rank military subjects in favor of the theme of peaceful consolidation by a civilis princeps…. The other fundamental characteristic the Numa issue shares with much Augustan coinage and art is an intentional multiplicity of associations and their determination by the beholder who thereby becomes an active participant.” Ramage's discussion (1987, 91–100) of pietas in the RG pertains, although he does not mention Numa: “Augustus' pietas erga deos takes the form of two separate, though related, ideas in the RG: the emperor's respect for the gods and his relation to them. Augustus' respect for the gods and religious tradition is manifested in a number of ways in the RG. The theme appears early when he says that he carried out his vows after each war (4.1) and continues as he describes the closing of the Gates of Janus (13), the offerings he made to the gods (21.2, 24.2, 29.2), and the restoration of plundered objects to the temples of Asia Minor (24.1).” Also intriguing in connection with Numa is Lewis' new interpretation (2008, 327) of Augustus' horoscope wherein the Midheaven in Gemini “indicated an individual who cultivated the gods and religious rites and lived an upright life in old age.” Cf. Firm. Mat. 5.1.17. Such a description matches Numa well. 7. Liv. 1.17–18, 2.57–48. 8. Servius Tullius was installed on the throne by Tanaquil, and Tarquinius Superbus usurped the throne from Servius. On the ascent of Servius, see Liv. 1.41; Ogilvie 1965, 161–65; D.H. 4.5. On Tarquin, see Liv. 1.47–48; Ogilvie 1965, 189–94; D.H. 4.29–39. 9. Numa's achievement of obtaining the ancile from Jupiter (Ov. Fast. 3.285–374) is one of the few reported successes. The story of Manius Valesius' foundation of the Secular Games has similar elements (see Zos. 2.1–2). Lightning strikes the sacred grove near Valesius' home, and his children fall ill. The god tells him to seek healing at Tarentum, where he finds that healing and founds the Secular Games. The Alban king Romulus Silvius (the name differs according to the source) emulates the thundering of Jupiter and is killed by lightning; his palace is then buried in a flood. Cf. D.H. 1.71.3 (as Allocius); Liv. 1.3; Ov. Met. 14.617–18 (as Remulus); D.S. 7 frs. 5.11 (Aramulius), 7 (Romulus Silvius). 10. This refers to the numerous anecdotes in Suetonius (Aug. 94.6, 8–9) and Dio (45.2.1–3) about certain dreams of Octavian's father, Q. Lutatius Catulus, and Cicero, in which either Jupiter is shown to authorize Octavian or Octavian is depicted as a Jupiter figure. More interesting is Augustus' own dream in which Augustus responds to Capitoline Jupiter's complaints that he was losing visitors to Jupiter Tonans by reasoning that he had installed Tonans as Capitoline Jupiter's doorman to keep away unwanted visitors. Cf. Suet. Aug. 91.2; D.C. 54.4.2–4. Such sophistry in dealing with Jupiter is reminiscent of Numa's interactions with the god. See Suet. Aug. 29.3 for the Cantabrian incident. Augustus mentions the Temple of Jupiter Tonans at RG 19. See Rea 2007, 44–54. 11. NTDAR s.v. Iuppiter Tonans, Aedes. The temple was dedicated on September 1, 22 BCE. See Inscr. Ital. 2.33, 193, 504. Ovid (Fast. 2.69–70) places Numa and Tonans together on the Kalends of February: ad penetrale Numae Capitoliumque Tontantem / inque Iovis summa caeditur arce bidens. The connection between Jupiter, Numa, and the Cantabrian incident may hark back to the theology of Scipio Aemilianus during the Spanish War. Suetonius (Gal. 9.2) refers to an incident two hundred years before Galba in which a young girl prophesied that a ruler of the world would come forth from Spain. The prophecy was kept in the inner shrine of the Temple of Jupiter at Clunia. During the Third Punic War, Scipio's soldiers came to believe that Jupiter favored Aemilianus, as he had earlier favored Africanus. When he returned to Rome, they escorted him to his ship, shouting acclamations and praying that he might return as consul, because they came to believe that only a Scipio could take Carthage. See App. Pun. 104, 109. Aemilianus, adopted out of the Aemilii, would have considered Numa his ancestor. Cicero (Rep. 2.28) places a refutation of the theory that Numa was a disciple of Pythagoras in the mouth of Aemilianus. Aemilianus' friend Laelius

appealed to the example of Numa when he spoke against the popular election of augurs in 145 BCE. On that speech, see Cic. Brut. 21; Amic. 25; Rep. 6.2; N.D. 3.2.17. 12. Rea 2007, 54. 13. The parallel with Numa is also evident in the founding of a temple of Jupiter after the encounter with Jupiter. Numa founded the cult of Elicius on the Aventine after his encounter with the god. Liv. 1.20; Ov. Fast. 3.327–28. 14. Acta 30–33; Zos. 2.5.1–2; RIC2 I Augustus 350. The other sites were the Temple of Apollo Palatinus, the Temple of Diana Aventina, and the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. See Miller 2009, 273. 15. Miles 1997, 79–97. In Numan fashion, Livy's Camillus elevates the role of religion at Rome to the level of a sine qua non for the state's success (Liv. 5.51.5): invenietis omnia prospera evenisse sequentibus deos, adversos spernentibus (“you will find that all will turn out well for those who attend upon the gods, poorly for those who reject them”). See also Littlewood 2002, 180–81. 16. Liv. 5.51–54. 17. Liv. 5.52.7, 54.7. 18. Verg. A. 8.663–66. 19. Harrison 1997, 72–73. 20. Fest. 82 L: Flaminius camillus puer dicebatur ingenuus patrimes et matrimes, qui flamini Diali ad sacrificia praeministrabat: antiqui enim ministros camillos dicebant. alii dicunt omnes pueros ab antiquis camillos appellatos, sicut habetur in antiquo carmine, cum pater filio de agricultura praeciperet (carm. ad fil. 1): “hiberno pulvere, verno luto, grandia farra, camille, metes.” See also Serv. ad Georg. 1.101; Macr. 5.20.18. Cf. Serv. A. 11.544, 588; D.H. 2.22.2; Var. L. 7.34. 21. Var. L. 7.34; Macr. 3.8.6–7. 22. Hor. Carm. 1.2.41–44. Nisbet and Hubbard (1970) stress the tradition of associating Alexander the Great with Hermes. Lyne (1995, 48 n. 25) agrees. 23. Gesztelyi 1973, 77–81. 24. Liv. 5.52.7. It should also be noted that the terracotta chariot of Veii was one of the traditional pignora imperii. See Plu. Publ. 13. 25. D.C. 50.5.3, 50.25.1–4; Scott 1929, 136–37. 26. Ceausescu 1976, 79–108. On the theme in Cicero, see Vasaly 1993, 231–43. 27. On the Alexandrian triumph, see Plu. Ant. 50.4; D.C. 49.40–41. On Antony's burial in Alexandria, see Plu. Ant. 58.2–4; D.C. 50.3.3–5. It is important to keep in mind that, as Kleiner and Buxton (2008, 78–87) have argued, Octavian does not utterly repudiate Antony's eastern image so much as reappropriate and incorporate it into his own western response. 28. Consider Augustus' behavior in Egypt, where, according to Dio (51.16.3–5), Augustus refused to worship Apis or view the remains of the Ptolemies. Cf. Suet. Aug. 93. Still, Augustus' praise of Serapis and his desire to visit the body of Alexander show that he was not repudiating Egypt so much as carefully defining his relationship, as a Roman, with the royal culture and religion of the former Ptolemaic kingdom. Serapis and Alexander were already familiar to the Romans. Cf. Reinhold 1988, 139–40. Augustus also praised his grandson Gaius for not praying at Jerusalem. See Suet. Aug. 93. 29. The Gemma Augustea, which shows an enthroned Augustus holding a lituus and a scepter as he receives a triumphing Tiberius, is a fine visual expression of this position. See Kuttner 1995, 188. 30. Hickson Hahn 1991, 124–28. 31. Numa created the college of pontifices. See Liv. 1. 20–21; D.H. 2.73; Plu. Num. 9. Livy mentions the creation of the priesthood of the pontifex maximus and then proceeds to mention the pontiffs in connection with the rites of the Argei, as if these priests were assumed to exist already or naturally followed the creation of the chief member of the college. On Livy's account, see Ogilvie 1965, 100–101. 32. On Numa's creation of the Salii, see Liv. 1.20; Ogilvie 1965, 98–101; D.H. 2.70–71; Plu. Num. 12.3, 13. On his creation of the Vestals, see Liv. 1.20; Ogilvie 1965, 97–98; D.H. 2.66–67; Plu. Num. 11. 33. On the Salian Hymn, see Beard, North, and Price 1998, 2:128; Habinek 2005, 8–33. For the esoteric and antiquarian side of Roman religious thought in the Late Republic, see Rawson 1985, 298–316; Iles Johnston 2004, 132. 34. See Barchiesi's discussion (1997, 110–12) of Ovid's account of Numa, Jupiter, the ancile, and the Salii. For Numa's creation of the Salii, see n. 32 in the present chapter.

35. Like the Curetes, the Salii were young adolescent males at the time they were enrolled in the college. Lucilius (349) describes them as having their first small beards. See D.H. 2.70.1.4, 70.3–4, and 71.4, for the requirements for enlistment into the college. The Salian ceremony occurred at the time of the year when young men donned the toga virilis in the Liberalia (i.e., in March). 36. Habinek (2005, 26) discusses the power of the hymn in bringing the gods to life through the Salian priest who addresses them in song. Of its cosmogonical character, he writes that “the singing of the song on the first day of the year…[and] ‘the hymning of Janus in accordance with the months of the Italian year’ together identify the Salian hymn as the sort of cosmogonical creation song familiar from initiatory contexts worldwide.” 37. Gordon 1990, 188–89. 38. See Hickson Hahn 2011, 236, on the implicit connection between archaic language and the necessity to repeat formulae precisely. See Liv. 41.16.1. 39. Liv. 1.31. Commentaries of Numa were unearthed in 181 BCE. See Liv. 40.29.3–14; V. Max. 1.1.12; Plin. Nat. 27.87; Plu. Num. 22.4. 40. The identity of Numa Marcius seems deliberately ambiguous. The name is a combination of Numa and the name of Numa's grandson Ancus Marcius. Livy states that the father of Numa Marcius was Marcus. Plutarch (Num. 21) claims that this Numa Marcius is a relative of Numa. The problems with Numa Marcius' identity leave open the possibility that some saw him as an ancestor of the Marcii Reges. See Marino 1999, 123. Curti (2000, 84) claims that the Marcii Censorini created this myth in honor of an ancestor who held the supreme pontificate. While she claims this Censorinus was censor in 300, he may also have been C. Marcius Rutilus Censorinus, censor in 294. Cf. Liv. 10.47.1. See RRC 346/1–4b for Censorinus' coins with Numa and Ancus Marcius. For discussion of the coins, see Farney 2007, 264. 41. See n. 3. 42. See chapter 7, n. 158. 43. On the shrine of Vesta in the palace, see D.C. 54.27.3; Inscr. Ital. 2.452; CIL I2 p. 410; MAR s.v. Domus: Augustus, 105. On Latinus' palace, see Rosivach 1980. 44. Cooley 2009, 151. 45. This silence is remarkable considering that the recovery of the standards was celebrated in numerous coin issues in 19/18 BCE and that the standards were housed in the shrine of Jupiter Feretrius until they could be moved to the Temple of Mars Ultor, which was also decreed in 19 BCE. See chapter 7, n. 58. 46. D.C. 54.10.3; Inscr. Ital. 2.195, 279, 519–20, 538; LTUR 2.275. Horace (Carm. 1.35) had written of Fortuna as the guardian of Augustus on Augustus' expeditions against the Britons, Parthians, and Arabs. This evidence may indicate an interest in Fortuna in connection with Augustus' campaigns that finds its fullest expression in the Ara Fortunae Reducis. See Weinstock 1971, 125–26. 47. Fortuna Redux had traditionally been associated with the porta triumphalis. See Torelli 1982, 29. The location of the porta triumphalis, however, is a vexing and undecided issue. For bibliography, see Pittenger 2008, 282 n. 33. 48. Morpurgo (1908, 108–50) raises the possibility that the Porta Capena was one of a handful of flexible options for the porta triumphalis. Versnel (1970, 133) rejects this as contradicting the literary evidence. 49. MAR s.v. Porta Capena; LTUR 4.325; NTDAR s.v. Porta Capena; Säflund 1932, 146–48, 199–201, 222–24. 50. See MAR s.v. Camenae, Camenarum Fons. Ancient sources regularly described its location as being ad Camenas. The sanctuary of the Camenae was also a cult site for Egeria. The associated sacred spring and grove were the location of Numa's meetings with the nymph. The Camenae themselves were water goddesses who had been assimilated to the Greek Muses. On the Camenae, see Myers 1994, 109–11. 51. Serv. A. 1.8. Servius actually describes it as an aedicula Musarum, which is a mistake. See Hinds 1998, 62 n. 23; Sciarrino 2004, 45–46. On Numa's founding of the grove cult that Egeria shared with the Camenae outside of the Porta Capena, see Liv. 1.21.3; Juv. 3.10–20. 52. This place was also called the Janus Quirinus. See NTDAR s.v. Ianus Geminus; MAR s.v. Ianus Quirinus, Sacellum. The Argiletum was the street connecting the Forum Romanum to the Subura. For the Argiletum, see MAR s.v. Argiletum. 53. Liv. 1.19.2; Plin. Nat. 34.33. For more on the Janus-Numa relationship, see Betz, 2009, 45–46. Another tradition views the foundation of the Janus Geminus as a commemoration of Janus' intervention to quash a

Sabine attack. See Ov. Fast. 1.263–76; Serv. A. 1.291, 8.361. Augustus does not mention Romulus by name either. He prefers, instead, to raise the memories of these founders by way of allusion to their careers, accomplishments, and the institutions they founded. 54. RG 13: Ianum Quirinum, quem claussum esse maiores nostri voluerunt, cum per totum imperium populi Romani terra marique esset parta victoriis pax. 55. Ibid.: cum, priusquam nascerer, a condita urbe bis omnino clausum fuisse prodatur memoriae, ter me principe senatus claudendum esse censuit. 56. Verg. A. 1.286–96. 57. Cooley 2009, 158. 58. Var. L. 5.165; Plu. Num. 20.2. 59. Var. L. 5.165; Liv. 1.19.3–4; Plu. Num. 20.2, De fort. Rom. 9. On problems in dating the second closure, see Syme 1979, 188–212. 60. Buchner 1982. The idea was rejected, however, by Schütz (1990, 444–52). Rehak (2006, 80–87) maintains that the relationship between the monuments would have nevertheless been viewed as significant (85): “[W]e can accept Buchner's basic reconstruction of the Horologium-Solarium as…constructed in such a manner as to create a programmatic relationship between itself and the Ara Pacis.” 61. D.C. 56.25.5. 62. Cooley 2009, 159; SEG 4.490. 63. Ov. Fast. 6.101–30; August. C.D. 7.4. 64. NTDAR s.v. Clivus Capitolinus. 65. Verg. A. 8.355–58. 66. In reference to this myth, Republican bronze coin issues bear the head of Saturn (as) or Janus (semis) on the obverse and the prow of a ship on the reverse. See Mattingly 1928, 50. 67. Galinsky 1998, 121–23. 68. Romulus was credited with creating the first lunar calendar. See Ov. Fast. 1.27–42. According to second-century BCE Roman Neo-Pythagorean scholarship, Numa added two months to shift to a lunisolar calendar. See Michels 1967, 123–26. 69. Fest. 52 L: fuerit omnium primus: cui primo supplicabant veluti parenti, et a quo rerum omnium factum putabant initium. Mart. 10.28.1–2: annorum nitidique sator pulcherrime mundi, / publica quem primum vota precesque vocant. Cf. Arnob. 3.29; August. C.D. 7.7. 70. Fest. 12.287.4. On the burial of Numa at the Janiculum, see Plu. Num. 22; D.H. 2.76. 71. Liv. 1.33.6; D.H. 3.45.1; De vir. ill. 5.2. Wiseman (2004, 44 n.17) attributes this story to Antias. See also Musti 1970, 80. 72. Liv. 25.12.13; Luce 1968, 29 n. 19; Gagé 1955, 89, 163–64, 297–347; Galinsky 1998, 35. 73. Farney 2007, 261–62. 74. RRC 334/1. 75. Buraselis 1976, 378. 76. RRC 346/1–4b; Farney 2007, 264. 77. See Liv. 4.29.7 for Cn. Julius' dedication of the Temple of Apollo Medicus. 78. The idea of Augustus appealing to Figulus as an authority for his theology regarding his saeculum is uncannily apt considering the story casting Figulus as the one to predict Augustus' ecumenical rule during the Senate's deliberations on the Catilinarian conspiracy. See Suet. Aug. 94.5. 79. Macr. 1.9.5–8. 80. Figulus' theology may have also been inspired by the association of Apollo and Veiovis, which Scullard (1981, 56) believed to be a “late speculation.” See Gel. 5.12.11–13. The Veiovis statue found at the Tabularium has a traveler's heavy cloak, which prompted Holland (1961, 188) to compare him to MercuryHermes, but this could assimilate him to Apollo Agyieus as well. Veiovis and Aesculapius both had temples on Tiber Island that were dedicated on January 1 (the first day, in other words, of the month of Janus). See Ov. Fast. 1.289–94; F. Praen.; Scullard 1981, 54–58. Aesculapius was the son of Apollo. Aesculapius' child Hygeia (Salus) shared his sanctuary on the island. According to Livy (40.37.2), in 180 BCE, the decemviri, upon consulting the Sibylline Oracles, ordered the consul to give gilded statues to Apollo, Aesculapius, and Salus. This was the year following the discovery and destruction of the books of Numa. 81. In Diana's case, so Figulus speculated, the letter D was simply added before the I of Iana for the sake of

beauty (Macr. 1.9.8): adposita D littera, quae saepe I litterae causa decoris adponitur: reditur redhibetur redintegratur et similia. 82. Rehak 2006, 93; Carettoni 1973, 78–80, figs. 15, 19; Simon 1986, 5; Strazzulla 1990, 22–29; Reeder 1989; Fehrentz 1991, 85–90; Kellum 1997, 158–59. 83. Apollo and Diana appear on the extant fragments of the Acta of the games. CIL VI. 30975. See also CAH X2 834–37; Hall 1986, 2583–89; and n. 85 of the present chapter. 84. For bibliography, see Hall 1986, 2570 n. 30. Lipka (2009, 159–66) argues that in the Carmen Saeculare, Horace Romanized the Hellenic elements of the games and magnified the role of Diana. 85. Miller 2009, 272. On the pertinent fragment of the Acta, see Moretti 1982–84, 370; Schnegg-Köhler 2002, 26 (fr. C.9–14). 86. Hor. Saec. 1, 75. The performance of the Secular Hymn followed a sacrifice to Diana on the third day of the games. On Apollo and Diana in the Carmen Saeculare, see Putnam 2001, 51–64; Miller 2009, 276–88. 87. See n. 69. 88. Grimal 1983, 135. 89. Galinsky (1992, 457–75) has proposed such polysemy for the Tellus figure on the Ara Pacis. 90. Fraschetti 2005, 93–96; Porte 1981, 323–24; Radke 1981, 293. 91. RG 13: ter me principe senatus claudendum esse censuit. Senatus is the subject of censuit, but its placement directly after principe is suggestive of the position of princeps senatus.

Page 261 →

Conclusion Apotheosis and Succession This monograph's argument would not be complete without discussing Augustus' masterful conclusion of the Res Gestae and its theological implications. After ten chapters devoted to affairs in the provinces, the RG ends in two chapters that draw together events from the beginning and from the apex of Augustus' Principate. These final two chapters cover his restoration of the Republic in 27 BCE and the conferral of the title pater patriae during his thirteenth consulship in 2 BCE. As he did in RG chapters 9–13, Augustus again anchors his honors in Rome's urban landscape, thereby tying this landscape to himself. The succession of honors described in the final two chapters of the RG form an itinerary in which each honor is tied to a significant place, starting with his own person. In chapter 34, the list progresses from his new name, Augustus, to the laurels and civic crown affixed to his Palatine house, and then to the golden clupeus virtutis set up in the Curia Julia.1 In chapter 35, Augustus is named pater patriae, and the title is inscribed on his Palatine house and then again in the Curia Julia.2 The chapters share a common pattern in ordering the progression of his honors: (1) bestowal of an honorific name, (2) placement of an honor on his Palatine home, and (3) placement of an honor in the Curia. While the inscription's opening chapters move from outside the city to Page 262 → its interior in triumph and adventus, the final chapters present an intra-city itinerary that begins with the emperor and then proceeds from his palace to the Curia. The two urban journeys in these last chapters are parallel but not identical. Importantly, the differences reflect the evolution of Augustus' position between the years 27 and 2 BCE, as well as the concomitant evolution of the Roman landscape. The different ways the emperor is addressed and the differences in the decoration of his home and the Curia are evidence that city and princeps were evolving together. Chapter 35 differs from chapter 34 most critically in its addition of one last destination, the Forum of Augustus, which was dedicated on February 5, the day of the festival of Concordia.3 The title pater patriae was inscribed there, below the triumphal quadriga that had been set up in accordance with a decree of the Senate. The placement of this honor at the very end of the Res Gestae imbues the title with a cumulative or climactic quality.4 Suetonius' account of the conferral of the honor and of Augustus' reaction to it indicates that Augustus saw it as the crowning honor of his career at the time he received it.

Patris patriae cognomen universi repentino maximoque consensu detulerunt ei: prima plebs, legatione Antium missa; dein, quia non recipiebat, ineunti Romae spectacula frequens et laureata; mox in curia senatus, neque decreto nequc adclamatione, sed per Valerium Messallam. Is mandantibus cunctis: “Quod bonum,” inquit, “faustumque sit tibi domuique tuae, Caesar Auguste! Sic enim nos perpetuam felicitatem rei publicae et laeta huic precari existimamus: senatus te consentiens cum populo Romano consalutat patriae patrem.” Cui lacrimans respondit Augustus his verbis (ipsa enim, sicut Messalae, posui): “Compos factus votorum meorum, patres conscripti, quid habeo aliud deos immortales precari, quam ut hunc consensum vestrum ad ultimum finem vitae mihi perferre liceat?”5 Page 263 → [Suddenly, with the greatest consensus, the entire citizenry conferred upon him the name “father of the country”: the plebs first sent an embassy to Antium; then, because he did not receive it, when he was entering the games at Rome, they, crowned in laurel, pressed around him; next, the Senate in the Curia, neither by decree, nor by acclamation, but through Valerius Messalla. He, entrusted with this responsibility by all, said: “May you and your household prosper and be lucky, Caesar Augustus! For in saying this we suppose we are praying for the never-ending felicity of the Republic and joy for this body too. The senate uniting [consentiens] with the people of Rome salutes you as father of the country.” To this Augustus tearfully responded (and I have provided the very words he spoke, just as I did those of Messalla): “My prayers have been granted, conscript fathers; what remains for me to ask of the immortal gods than that this concord [consensus]

of yours might endure to the final end of my life?”]

Suetonius claims to have drawn his account of the honor of pater patriae from a verbatim record of the exchange between Messalla and Augustus (ipsa enim, sicut Messallae, posui). The thematic continuity between these quotations and the final chapters of the RG supports the idea that Augustus deliberately emphasized consensus at the end of the RG in a way that was designed to recall the events of 2 BCE. In Suetonius, Messalla speaks of the Senate uniting (consentiens) with the people in naming Augustus pater patriae. The last chapters of the RG refer to consensus universorum and the three orders (Senate, knights, and people) together honoring Augustus with the title pater patriae. The RG closes directly after the honor of pater patriae, with a reference to the time Augustus authored the text of the inscription, his seventy-sixth year. The implicit message is that the consensus that brought about the honor of pater patriae did, in fact, endure to the end of the emperor's life, in accordance with the hope he had publicly announced in 2 BCE. Part III of this monograph interpreted chapters 1–13 of the RG through the lens of arrival ceremonies and political theology. The first arrival occurred when Augustus, a young man of eighteen years, embarked on his first act of statesmanship, by fighting Antony to frustrate the latter's attempt to seize Gallia Cisalpina from Decimus Brutus. As argued in chapter 7 of this book, the same opening of the RG also alludes to the infancy of Romulus and his subsequent act of revenge in overthrowing the usurper Amulius. In this way, although the beginning of Augustus' life is not expressly Page 264 → addressed in the inscription, the inscription implicitly connects Augustus' beginnings with his first foray into deeds of public significance. Augustus' quadriga in the Forum of Augustus, appearing in the final chapter of the inscription, should be viewed as the final destination of a journey that began in the first chapter. The apex of his honors is appropriately linked to the final year of his life. The chronological jump from the honor of pater patriae in 2 BCE to the last year of Augustus' life in 14 CE in the last two sentences of chapter 35 of the RG constitutes a very powerful statement, in that it shows how Augustus succeeded where Sulla and Caesar had failed. Both of these predecessors had not managed to birth a stable Republic with a sustainable leadership role for themselves. Sulla seems never to have intended to obtain a position of permanent political preeminence at Rome, but there is also the possibility that illness closed off any possibility of an attempt. Cicero's Caesarian speeches may be interpreted to imply the incompatibility of a stable Republic with the presence of someone occupying such an extraordinary leadership position. After all, magistracies, particularly special ones like the dictatorship, had traditionally been temporary. Of course, Caesar still attempted to forge a permanent position for himself, and he was assassinated before he could arrive at a sustainable solution. Augustus outlived both Caesar and Cicero, and he used the long years after Actium to achieve the solution that the former had failed to construct and that the latter had feared. The final chapters of the RG set out Augustus' definition of that solution: a Principate unconnected to any traditional magistracy and built on lawful powers, honors, and, above all, a surpassing influence through which the harmony of the orders was to be maintained. Augustus took the title of pater patriae as the signal that his work was effectively accomplished. The honor was not new. At the same time, the preceding grants of the honor do not completely define its significance here. The title of pater patriae evoked figures like Romulus, Camillus, Cicero, and Caesar. Ennius' Romulus was parens patriae, while Cicero had been honored with the title pater patriae by senatorial decree in recognition of his rescue of the Republic from the conspiracy of Catiline.6 Caesar would be voted the honor of parens patriae.7 Augustus, the man who had brought an Page 265 → end to a hundred-year era of civil war, was clearly worthy of the same title. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the titles of pater patriae and parens patriae were polysemic, and their meaning was evolving. Caesar had received postmortem cult as parens patriae, and thus this title took on further cultic associations.8 One must therefore examine the contextual web of significances that contributes to the honor's meaning for Augustus in order to understand its significance at a particular point in Augustus' career. Augustus last shaped the meaning of the honor of pater patriae when he wrote of the title's placement under his

triumphal quadriga in the last sentence of the RG, thus treating it as the capstone of his career. Accordingly, subsequent emperors—at least those with a positive literary legacy—tended to refuse the honor until they had reigned for some years. One of the purposes of such special honors for emperors was to provide them opportunities for distinction outside of the reach of their senatorial peers. The honor of pater patriae also signaled the lifelong nature of the princeps' position. A scion of the imperial family could easily be consul and censor (or, at least, exercise censoria potestas) before the age of fifty. The RG's depiction of pater patriae further marks the presence or place of Augustus in ways that other honors do not. Consider the contrast with the honors listed in chapter 34. That chapter lists an array of various honors that adorn the emperor, his house, and the Curia. In his person, he is Augustus; on his house, there are laurels and a civic crown; in the Curia, he is represented by the testimony of his virtues on a golden shield. Chapter 35 portrays him as pater patriae in all of these places and further adds the Forum of Augustus.9 This seems to suggest that, in place of a hodgepodge of forms of recognition, Augustus is now uniformly pater patriae in every context. One might even go so far as to say that this unity of honors and places is designed to reflect the consensus that brought about the grant of pater patriae in the first place. Rome has effectively been given a new civic landscape, organized along new lines, and the change is reflected in the new title of its ruler. Page 266 →

Imperial Theology in the Forum Augustum A thorough discussion of the Forum of Augustus is outside the scope of this book. This conclusion will nevertheless proffer a few possible reasons why Augustus arranged his account of the Forum of Augustus in the RG as he did. Exploring these reasons serves to elucidate further the potential aims of his final political theology. Recently, Strocka has argued that the first-century marble chariot housed in the Hall of the Biga at the Vatican is, in fact, the quadriga from the Forum of Augustus.10 Its decorations strikingly resemble other Augustan monuments, such as the Ara Pacis.11 Strocka further argues that the chariot was empty. In support of this, he offers the testimony of Cassiodorus, who refers to the decree of an honorific currus for Augustus in 19 BCE, which he refused to mount, and to coins contemporary to Augustus' return from Syria and depicting a triumphal chariot, sometimes empty.12 The center column on the inside of the chariot is a tapered column—the image of Apollo Agyieus (Apollo of the Ways), whom Nigidius Figulus had related to Janus.13 The same aniconic deity also appears on Augustus' Temple of Palatine Apollo and palace.14 Agyieus' form recalls the obelisk in the Horologium. The arrangement of Agyieus in the chariot at the Forum's center is also echoed in the Augustan Meta Sudans, a fountain in a shape reminiscent of the Forum of Augustus, with a sixteen-meter-high cone in the center.15 The fountain's cone has been identified as Apollo Agyieus, a suggestion that is consistent with the fountain's placement at the convergence of four of Rome's fourteen regions—a meeting of the “ways.” The presence of the image of Agyieus in the quadriga also recalls Horace Carmina 4.6, a paean to Apollo in which Apollo is addressed by this name.16 Page 267 → Carmina 4.6 is part of a series of odes that celebrate the homecoming of Augustus from Gaul in 16 BCE. The immediately preceding poem, 4.5, takes the form of a petition to Augustus that he return from Gaul. The driverless quadriga may be interpreted as the fulfillment of such a petition, in that it represents the end of the journey, when the rider has dismounted from the chariot. The quadriga may evoke not only Augustus' return from the provinces but also the patron Apollo, who guards the way, and the solar Apollo, whose path sets the days and seasons. If one accepts Strocka's identification of the Vatican chariot as the quadriga of the Forum of Augustus, then the existence of an image of Apollo Agyieus therein and the absence of a statue of Augustus are potent theological symbols. The empty chariot evokes historical instances of the establishment of cults of “descending” ruler-deities bearing the epiclesis Kataibates, on the spot where a Hellenistic king first touched the ground at the city. As discussed in chapter 6, the Ara Fortunae and Ara Pacis may be viewed in a similar light. Such an image is also particularly fitting for Apollo Agyieus because of his presence on the Palatine via both the Palatine palace and the Temple of Palatine Apollo.17 Most interesting is the dream of Augustus' father in which he saw his son Octavius in the guise of Sol-Jupiter driving a quadriga. As in that dream, the presence of Apollo Agyieus in the chariot

transcends the usual triumphal imagery and points in the direction of apotheosis. Athena was Heracles' divine escort back to Olympus, as Dionysus was for Hephaestus, after first having made the smith-god drunk.18 Perhaps Augustus envisioned Apollo Agyieus as his escort back to heaven.19 He may have also wanted others to identify him as this Apollo. During Augustus' lifetime, the empty quadriga might have underlined the end of his participation in the triumph, something that had occurred almost two decades before the Forum's dedication. Standing solitary in a Forum filled with statues, the quadriga would have been an unusual sight. Page 268 → The man who had planned the space and its interpretation of history was conspicuously absent from the quadriga standing in his own Forum. After Augustus' death, comparisons with Romulus, already in circulation during Augustus' lifetime, may have altered perceptions of the empty quadriga. One version of the end of Romulus' life has him disappear in the midst of a storm cloud as he reviewed his army near the Caprae Palus on the Campus Martius.20 At daybreak the following day, Julius Proculus conversed with the parens urbis, as Proculus called Romulus' deified form in his report.21 The absence of Romulus' body on earth signaled its presence in the heavens. Likewise, the absence of any body in the sarcophagus of Numa suggested Numa's apotheosis. It is thus altogether likely that after Augustus' death, Augustus' absence from the quadriga would have suggested his apotheosis too. The use of the empty quadriga to signify Augustus' apotheosis would have become clearer after his funeral, which had a procession of statues that eerily matched the itineraries of the last two chapters of the RG.22 As already noted, those chapters had a parallel pattern of (1) bestowal of an honorific name, (2) placement of an honor on his Palatine home, and (3) placement of an honor in the Curia. In the final chapter, the Forum of Augustus is added to this honorific itinerary. Dio's description of Augustus' funeral lists three statues of the princeps: the first, made of wax, was carried from the palace by the magistrates elected for the following year; the second, made of gold, was borne from the Curia; the third was placed on a triumphal quadriga.23 Dio does not state the place of origin of the triumphal quadriga, but the Forum of Augustus would have been a logical choice, given that it was particularly associated with the triumph and was the location of Augustus' most famous honorific quadriga.24 The body of Augustus was taken to the Campus Martius Page 269 → and placed on a pyre that was probably aligned with the Mausoleum.25 After being circled by the priests, knights, and infantry, the pyre was lit from beneath.26 As the flames consumed his body, an eagle was released, to symbolize Augustus' ascent to the divine realm.27 After five days, Livia and a handful of knights gathered Augustus' bones and interred them in the Mausoleum.28 The official deification of Augustus by the Senate followed the funeral.29 The use of the quadriga in a funeral procession that ended in the flight of an eagle bearing the emperor's spirit to heaven arguably transformed the significance of the honorific quadriga in the Forum of Augustus. A prop that had been used as part of a triumphal honor in life commemorated the apotheosis of the emperor in death. Considered in the context of the imagery of the Forum, the empty quadriga in the center of the Forum—an emphasized absence of the divine emperor—distinguished Augustus from the rest of the figures in the space. If there had been a statue in that quadriga, the effect would have been less pronounced. The absence expressed in the image of the empty quadriga arrests one's attention because it suggests that the emperor held a unique position in the panoply of honorands, human and divine. To assess fully the uniqueness of this imagery requires viewing the arrangement Page 270 → of images in the Forum as presenting a theology that was both hierarchical and narrative in nature.30 The narrative was the story of Rome's foundations in both the history of Aeneas and the line of Alban kings, on the one hand, and in the history of Romulus and the heroes of the Republic, on the other. These two narrative chains, represented by statues in opposing hemicycles, were brought together in the Temple of Mars Ultor, where a trinity of heavenly gods—Mars, Venus, and the divine Caesar—resided. Hierarchy is arguably indicated by the fact that Aeneas and Romulus, though divine, are located outside the temple, while the divine Julius is within. In other words, however heroic Aeneas and Romulus may have been, they arguably did not rise to the level of the divine Caesar. Nevertheless, occupying the center positions of their hemicycles, Aeneas and Romulus have priority over others in their respective hemicycles. The bronze statues of future triumphators would occupy the hemicycles closer to the entrance of the Forum and thus would obtain a place lower on the hierarchy.31 The path from the entrance of the Forum to the Temple of Mars Ultor may therefore be viewed as a linear journey in status to ever-loftier honorands

that ends in the celestial deities Mars, Venus, and Caesar. If one assumes that Augustus' empty quadriga stood in the center of the Forum, facing the Temple of Mars Ultor, it would have appeared like the triumphal chariot of a commander who had just completed his triumphal procession and had dismounted to perform his sacrifices before the temple.32 Thus the quadriga's image depicted a ceremonial action frozen in time. It was closer to the Temple of Mars Ultor than the triumphators of the empire and closer to the axis on which Aeneas and Romulus stood across from each other. If the quadriga was indeed in the center of the Forum, the other statues occupied hemicycles and the sides, while the chariot was symbolically on a lonely path that led toward the heavenly deities, including the Divine Julius, in the Temple of Mars Ultor. By such a scene, one is reminded Page 271 → of Apollo's words to Iulus after the latter had slain Numanus: macte nova virtute, puer: sic itur ad astra, / dis genite et geniture deos (“Well done, and with rare courage too! This is the path to the stars, child of gods and future father of gods”).33 The Jovian eagle released at Augustus' funeral was intended to dramatize Augustus' ascent heavenward on the final stretch of the journey.34 The presence of Apollo Agyieus in the quadriga drawing him onward, typical solar imagery, made the chariot's heavenward path even more explicit.35 More solar imagery is discernible in the relationship between Apollo Agyieus in the quadriga and the obelisk at the Horologium, which is similar to the image of Agyieus in shape. The cremation of the emperor occurred near the Horologium, with its central obelisk. The tapered cone of Apollo Agyieus in the quadriga of the Forum, present also at Augustus' funeral, thus formed the second part of a pair marking a solar circuit based on the visual metaphor of the Circus Maximus, with its metae at the ends of the spina. The solar circuit symbolizes the eternal regeneration of Rome and its empire through the agency of the Augustan order and its dynasty.36 The circuit of the sun repeats, but the degree to which Augustus intended his own career to be replicated is uncertain. The empty quadriga, which distinguishes Augustus' achievements from all others, perhaps militates against such repetition. That future triumphators would occupy a position in the Forum that was theologically inferior, visually speaking, supports the view that the imperial family was to hold a permanent position above other leading men in the empire. Future triumphators could not hope to equal Augustus' honors. Augustus had successfully forged a position for himself that matched Cicero's judgment of the merciful and wise statesman: non summis viris simillimum…sed deo (“not like the greatest of men, but like a god”). Augustus had previously proclaimed in an edict that he had set up the statues of the summi viri so that the Roman people could hold him up to the standard of these heroes.37 The quadriga of Augustus, Page 272 → positioned on a path toward the Temple of Mars Ultor, showed that Augustus was not similar to the summi viri of the Forum but was, instead, like the gods in the temple that his chariot faced.38 After Augustus' death and official deification, Tiberius built a colossal statue in honor of the dead emperor, housing it in the large rectangular room by the north entrance of Augustus' Forum.39 Having completed his journey, Augustus now stood adjacent to the heavenly gods in his Forum. The RG, the Forum of Augustus, and Augustus' own funeral all contributed to the emperor's final theological statement.40 It was a theology that was designed to elevate him to a level above his contemporaries and perhaps his successors too. Varro's idea that possibly only one of a succession of kings would be deified may have inspired Augustus in this regard.41 In Varro, of all the kings of Alba Longa and Rome, only Aeneas, Aventinus, and Romulus were deified after death. If Dio Cassius' version of Tiberius' funeral oration for Augustus is at all faithful to the original, it would appear that, at least according to Tiberius' understanding, no one should have imagined being capable of rising to Augustus' level of achievement.

τίς γὰρ οὐκ ἐπίσταται τοῦθ᾽, ὅτι οὔτ᾽ ἂν πάντες ἄνθρωποι συνελθόντες ἀξίους αὐτοῦ ἐπαίνους εἴποιεν, καὶ πάντες ἐθελονταὶ [6] τῶν νικητηρίων αὐτῷ παραχωρεῖτε, οὐχ ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἂν ὑμῶν ἐξισωθείη οἱ φθονοῦντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτῷ τῷ ὑπερέχοντι αὐτοῦ ἀγαλλόμενοι; ὅσῳ γὰρ ἂν οὗτος μείζων ὑμῶν φανῇ, Page 273 → τοσούτῳ μείζονα ὑμεῖς εὐηργετῆσθαι δόξετε, ὥστε μὴ ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἐλαττοῦσθε αὐτοῦ βασκανίαν ὑμῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀφ᾽ ὧν εὖ πεπόνθατε ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ σεμνότητα ἐγγενέσθαι. 42

[For who does not realize that not all mankind assembled together could worthily sound his praises, [6] and that you all of your own free will yield to him his triumphs, feeling no envy at the thought that not one of you could equal him, but rather rejoicing in the very fact of his surpassing greatness? For the greater he appears in comparison with you, the greater will seem the benefits which you have enjoyed, so that rancor will not be engendered in you because of your inferiority to him, but rather pride because of the blessings you have received at his hands.]

This formulation of Augustus' superior status in the hierarchy of achievement is directly preceded by an image of unity, a chorus in which Tiberius fills the role of chorus leader: ὥστε κοινὸν κἀν τούτῳ παρὰ πάντων τὸν ἔπαινον γενέσθαι, ἐμοῦ τε ὥσπερ ἐν χορῷ τινὶ τὰ κεφάλαια ἀποσημαίνοντος (“Hence, in this respect also, his eulogy will be a public one, rendered by us all, as I, like the leader of a chorus, merely give out the leading words, while you join in and chant the rest”).43 As chorus leader, Tiberius occupies a position somewhere between the chorus (his fellow Romans) and the man being praised. Augustus thus joins the company of heroes and gods who populated the great songs, such as the Salian Hymn depicted in Vergil's account of Aeneas' visit to Evander's Pallanteum.44 The idea that Augustan theology was designed to establish and maintain the superiority of Augustus over both other members of the senatorial order and his own imperial successors may help to explain seemingly rough patches in the transition from the reign of Augustus to the reign of Tiberius. Of course, Tacitus' depiction of Tiberius' behavior and interactions with the Senate must be read with care. His negative view of Tiberius has colored Page 274 → subsequent readings, which can be distorted as a result of readers' familiarity with Tacitus' position.45 Woodman has shown how Tiberius scrupulously observed Republican forms between the death of Augustus and his second meeting of the Senate, in which his power was formalized. Woodman further suggests that Tiberius earnestly attempted a serious recusatio in that meeting. The present reading of Augustus' political theology of the Principate suggests another possibility: that Tiberius was interpreting his role relative to the position of Augustus in the way Augustus had intended him to do. In his second meeting of the Senate, Tiberius' presentation of the figure of Augustus as supernally able deliberately conformed to the portrayal of the dead emperor in his funeral and the process of his deification.

et illa varie disserebat de magnitudine imperii, sua modestia. solam divi Augusti mentem tantae molis capacem: se in partem curarum ab illo vocatum experiendo didicisse, quam arduum, quam subiectum fortunae regendi cuncta onus.46

[He discussed in various terms, with his usual diffidence, the great burden of empire. Only the divine mind of Augustus was equal to so great a burden. He had learned, thanks to his experience in that part of the tasks he had been called to share by Augustus, how arduous, how subject to chance, was the burden of ruling all things.]

When Tiberius suggested that he and the Senate revisit the division of responsibilities that Augustus had arranged in 27 BCE, a scene of senatorial distress, eerily reminiscent of 27, erupted.47 It is usually assumed that Tacitus intended to highlight Tiberius' duplicity in this context. Yet Woodman has ably demonstrated that, contrary to this view, Tacitus here showed a Tiberius who was sincerely ambiguus imperandi.48 Yet when one considers the various indicators that are preserved not only in the structure and decoration of the Forum but also in the accounts of Augustus' funeral and Page 275 → that point to an Augustan theology in which the first emperor occupied a uniquely lofty position in respect to his peers and his successors, one can easily conclude the opposite of what Tacitus has sought to show. In consulting with the Senate about their mutual responsibilities, Tiberius was not ambiguus imperandi; he was, instead, seeking to renegotiate the position of princeps to conform to the position

that Augustus had forged for his successors, who lacked the divina mens. The empty quadriga of RG 35 comes at the end of a grand tour of the empire and hints strongly at the idea that the emperor's travels had also come to an end. In those travels, Augustus outstripped even Alexander the Great's achievements. What more was there to accomplish? Should the emperor's successor even attempt to repeat such a performance? Was it even possible? If the career of Tiberius is taken as any indicator, the answer is negative.49 Tiberius seems, instead, to have lived out the role Augustus created for him as one who would bear Augustus' titles and powers but never seek to replicate or surpass his achievements. Augustus' achievements could only be repeated if a domestic and foreign chaos similar to that of the Late Republic were to return. The Augustan order had been instituted to bring an end to Page 276 → such disorder once and for all. Tiberius' self-enforced inferiority to Augustus was necessary in order to fulfill the promise of Augustus' restoration of the Republic. Tiberius understood and accepted this role. Accordingly, he never left the vicinity of Rome to fulfill any military assignments in the provinces. In his place, he sent Germanicus, in order to groom the younger man as his successor. Still, Germanicus was sent forth to maintain the status quo, not conquer new territories. Augustus had, after all, advised that the empire should be kept within the boundaries he had set.50 Tacitus suggests that Augustus had offered this advice about the empire (which was really more of a prescription) out of fear or envy (incertum metu an per invidiam). The conclusion of this examination of late-republican political theology is that Augustus instead set these boundaries as part of his larger program to prevent the unfettered competition that had caused such chaos in Rome. Only through setting an insuperable limit to such competition could factional competition be tempered for the salvation of the Republic. A deified Augustus was intended to provide this insuperable limit and also to serve as the basis for his successor's legitimacy. The texts and images of the Res Gestae and the Forum of Augustus point, at one and the same time, to the end of the emperor's role as an itinerant military commander and to Augustus' attainment of his journey's goal of deification. With Augustus' achievement having set an impenetrable ceiling for Roman honores, there was no need for Tiberius to set out on campaign to achieve further recognition. Such a campaign would constitute an implicit admission that the task of restoring the empire had not actually been completed.51 Now the emperor would serve as the supreme commander over his heirs Page 277 → and provincial governors, who would earn honors for their achievements, albeit honors that could not equal the emperor's, much less those of the divine Augustus, who stood at the theological pinnacle of the imperial order. The political theology of Augustus, which follows in a long tradition of similar theologies but traces most clearly back to ideas set forth by Sulla in his memoir, helps explain the Principate's form. In his memoir, Sulla had cast himself as the divinely appointed savior of Rome who would rescue the city at a time when Italian secular prophecies seemed to point to a major shift in the fortune of powers in Italy and when messianic eastern prophecies predicted the East's eclipse of Rome. Sulla's departure for the Social War and eventual triumph over Mithradates (and Marians) shaped Sulla's account of his own career—an account that tied divinely aided success as a commander together with the fortune and survival of Rome. He further linked his self-presentation as a savior to his subsequent actions in refounding the city. His putative successors in claiming to have saved the Republic or undertaking major reforms of its constitution similarly used ceremonial and rhetorical devices to lay claim to the same mantle of savior of the Republic. The staging of a dramatic arrival ceremony was an effective way for the Roman commander to perform this political theology. The narrative of such an arrival could be combined with virtuoso performances of rituals and ceremonies–such as the census, lectio senatus, and recognitio equitum—to emphasize the restoration of order and virtue within the state. In constructing his personal political theology, Augustus drew on the examples of his predecessors, starting with Sulla, in the claim to be the secular savior. The fullest expression of this theology—one that would echo throughout the history of the empire—is found in the Res Gestae, where Augustus masterfully combined elements of regal and Republican history, a profound sense of space and place, and the legitimizing force of cult, in order to make himself out to be the culmination of all the Roman heroes who had gone before and the stable foundation on which the future would stand sure. In setting out this narrative theology of his life and career, Augustus followed the precedent set by Sulla and adopted the narrative and ceremonial pattern of magisterial departure and return, which not only set the rhythm of the city but had been “mystified” through its resonance with myth. Readers of his

Res Gestae, particularly those who read it at Augustus' Mausoleum before entering the city on the Via Flaminia, were implicated in this imaginary procession and, therefore, in his New Republic as well. Page 278 → Chapters 9–13 of the Res Gestae in particular become the pivot point for the advent of Augustus' saeculum, which is made to coincide with his arrivals in 19 and 13 BCE and the three closings of the Gates of Janus. The theological thought that Augustus put into this process, which included consulting the work of religious thinkers of the Late Republic, accounts for no small part of the success of his work. That forging an imperial theology subsequently became an important part of founding an imperial dynasty stands as a testament to that success. Over the course of the civil war of 68/69 CE, the different aspirants to empire sought to forge new political theologies for their regimes. Galba revived a prophecy from the second century BCE regarding the rise of a world ruler in Spain.52 He also placed a genealogy showing his divine ancestors in the vestibule of his palace.53 His entry into Rome, however, had been inauspicious; he slaughtered men in Nero's naval legion who were agitating to have their promotion to legionary status officially recognized by the new princeps.54 Tacitus singled out this event in Galba's reign for special notice, because he understood that the time of entry was crucial for the perception of a new ruler. Vespasian's long adventus was filled with supporting oracles and divine miracles, some even performed by the emperor himself.55 Pliny the Younger's description of Trajan's joyous adventus at Rome as civilis princeps and assistant of Jove was an indispensable tool for refashioning the emperor's theological status in relation to Jupiter and Rome after the hubris of the dominus et deus Domitian.56 The emperor's adventus, in fact, continued to be vital to the crafting of an emperor's theological image into the Late Empire. 1. Ridley 2003, 220–27; Cooley 2009, 256–72. For a brief summary of the bibliography and discussion of chapter 34 of the Res Gestae up to the 1980s, see Ramage 1987, 154–57. See also map 1 in the present book. 2. Ridley 2003, 157–58; Cooley 2009, 272–76. On pater patriae in this context, see Ramage 1987, 104–10. 3. Eder 2005, 29. L. Manlius dedicated a Temple of Concordia on February 5, 216 BCE, after he had quashed a mutiny of his soldiers. See Liv. 22.33.7; CIL I2 p. 233, 309. See figure 1 in the present book. 4. Salmon 1956, 477: “Readers of [the RG] are thus left with the impression that Augustus reached the culminating point, the peak and pinnacle of his career when the Senate, the Equestrian Order, and the Roman People named him Pater Patriae in 2 B.C.” 5. Suet. Aug. 58. Zanker (1990, 129) places the conferral of this honor at the same date as the dedication of the Forum. This suggestion makes sense given the language of the quoted exchange. For the Nones (the fifth) of February, Ovid (Fast. 2.127–28) writes, sancte pater patriae, tibi plebs, tibi curia nomen / hoc dedit, hoc dedimus nos tibi nomen, eques. 6. On Cicero's honor, see Cic. Pis. 6; Sest. 121; Att. 9.10.3; Phil. 2.12; Plu. Cic. 23.6. 7. On parens patriae, see Liv. Per. 116; App. BC 2.106, 144; D.C. 44.4.4; Syd. 178–79; ILS 71; Inscr. Ital. 1.182–83. On pater patriae, Degrassi ILIC no. 1 (p. 203): [C. Iulium Cae]sarem ponti[ficem maxim]um [pa]trem [patriae deum]que. Raubitschek (1954, 75 n. 31) suspects that this inscription honors Claudius, not Julius Caesar. On Caesar as parens patriae, see Weinstock 1971, 200–205. 8. Suet. Jul. 85; Luc. 9.601; ILS 72: genio deivi Iuli parentis patriae, quem senatus populusque Romanus in deorum numerum rettulit. 9. Starr 2010. 10. Strocka 2009, 21–55. See figure 5 in the present book. 11. Strocka 2009, 25–40. 12. Ibid., 48–50. The most intriguing examples are RIC2 I Augustus 107–10, which show an empty chariot on display in a round temple. Cf. Cass. Chron. a.u.c. 735: C. Sentius et Q. Lucretius. His conss. Caesari ex provinciis redeunti currus cum corona aurea decretus est, quo ascendere noluit. 13. Strocka 2009, 41–42. 14. See chapter 8, n. 82. 15. Longfellow 2010, 22–25.

16. Hor. Carm. 4.6.28: levis Agyieu. For commentary, see Thomas 2011, 170. Levis is interpreted as smooth-cheeked, a reference to the youthfulness of the deity. On the performance of Carmina 4 at the adventus of Augustus in 16, see Du Quesnay 1995, 143–45. 17. Recall that the Temple of Palatine Apollo was built in response to a lightning strike. Cf. Suet. Aug. 29.3; D.C. 49.15.5. 18. Peisistratus emulated Heracles' procession to Olympus in the company of Athena in his second bid for the tyranny. See Hdt. 1.59–62; Connor 1987, 40–50; Hedreen 2004, 38–64. 19. Interestingly, an instance of the latter image was found beneath the Lapis Niger, near the purported location of the tomb of Romulus. See Coarelli 1983, 161–78. 20. Liv. 1.16. See also Plu. Num. 2. 21. After Augustus' funeral, Numerius Atticus testified that he witnessed Augustus' spirit ascend to heaven. Cf. Suet. Aug. 100.4; D.C. 56.46.2. 22. On the funeral of Augustus, see Sumi 2005, 256–61; Swann 2004, 319–39; Toynbee 1971, 56–60; Weber 1936, 76–86; Rowell 1940, 131–43. 23. D.C. 56.34.1–2. It is important to bear in mind that Augustus left instructions for his own funeral. Cf. D.C. 56.33.1; Swan 2004, 316. This practice was not unusual in elite Roman society. See Flower 2000, 116–17. On the images, see Swan 2004, 320–22. 24. Beard 2007, 295; Dyson 2010, 131. On the Forum of Augustus as the possible starting point for the quadriga in Augustus' funeral procession, see Sumi 2005, 258. 25. Noreña 2013; Rehak 2006, 85–86: “A line extended from the Mausoleum through the obelisk intersects the site of Augustus's Ustrinum.” On Dio's account of the cremation and burial, see Swan 2004, 340–45. 26. Dio's language regarding the parade of soldiers (περιέδραμον) indicates that it was a decursio (defined in the OLD as “a military exercise organized…as a pageant on ceremonial occasions”), such as was held at the funeral of Sulla. Cf. App. BC 1.106. See Swan 2004, 341–42. One is reminded of Livy's account (1.16) of the disappearance of Romulus, wherein the king was holding a military census (cum ad exercitum recensendum contionem…haberet) on the Campus Martius at the time the storm enveloped him. 27. D.C. 56.42.2–3. Many scholars have dismissed the ritual of the eagle as an anachronism. See Swan 2004, 343–44, for discussion and bibliography. Two pieces of evidence have been adduced in favor of its historicity. First, the Belvedere Altar shows an eagle soaring above a chariot drawn by four winged horses bearing the deceased heavenward. Cf. Arce 1988, figs. 42–43. As support for the historicity of Dio's account, Gradel (2002, 293–94) offers two Tiberian bronze coin types with radiate heads of Divus Augustus on the obverse. One bears an eagle standing on a globe on the reverse (BMC 1.142.155–56), the other a winged thunderbolt (RIC I Divus Augustus.1). 28. D.C. 56.42.4. Cf. Swan 2004, 344–45. 29. Tac. Ann. 1.10.8: ceterum sepultura more perfecta templum et caelestes religiones decernuntur. Cf. D.C. 56.46–47. 30. Harrison 2011, 170–77. 31. The Forum of Augustus originally had four hemicycles but was modified during the subsequent construction of neighboring fora. See La Rocca 2001, 184; Meneghini and Santangeli Valenzani 2007, 54–57. 32. On Caesar's honorific chariot on the Capitoline, see D.C. 43.14.6, 21.2. Gradel (2002, 61) expressed uncertainty about which statue of the god Caesar's chariot faced. However, one would only expect specificity on this point if the orientation were not the most obvious choice. Strocka (2009, 53) notes that we do not know for certain where the quadriga was located in the Forum. 33. Verg. A. 9.641–42. 34. See n. 27. 35. At Verg. A. 12.161–64, the godlike Latinus drives a quadriga of massive size. Circling his brow are twelve golden rays, a symbol of Sol, his ancestor. Consider also the quadriga of the sun in the Phaethon story at Ov. Met. 2.105–10, 167–68. See Weinstock 1971, 68–75. 36. For extensive discussion of the cosmic aspects of the theology of the Augustan Principate, see Schmid 2005. 37. Suet. Aug. 31.5: commentum id se, ut ad illorum velut ad exemplar et ipse, dum viveret, et insequentium aetatium principes exigerentur a civibus.

38. The term summi viri was applied to the great men whose statues were in the Forum in antiquity. Suetonius (Aug. 31.5) writes the following of the relationship between the various figures in the Forum and their respective honors: proximum a dis immortalibus honorem memoriae ducum praestitit, qui imperium populi Romani ex minimo maximo reddidissent. The author of the Historia Augusta mentions the summorum virorum statuas in the Forum of Augustus. Cf. SHA Sev. Alex. 28.6. The summi viri appeared in Augustus' funeral procession, but Divus Julius did not, because of his divinity. Romulus, however, did. Cf. D.C. 56.34.2. Likewise, Augustus did not appear in funeral processions after his official deification. 39. Anderson 1984, 74–75. The colossus is mentioned by Martial (8.44). Suetonius (Tib. 53.2, 58.1) twice mentions the construction of an important statue of Augustus. Pliny (Nat. 35.10.27, 35.36.93–94) describes the paintings therein. One depicted War and Triumph; the other, the Castors and Victory. Servius (A. 1.294) also mentions the paintings. 40. Slater (2008), remarking on the first-person mode of the RG and its location in front of the Mausoleum, sees the inscription serving the function of a self-delivered laudatio funebris. It is logical, then, to bring the extant laudationes of Drusus and Tiberius into discourse with it. After all, the speeches Dio provides would have been composed with the RG in mind. 41. August. C.D. 18.21: post Aenean…undecim reges habuit, quorum deus factus nullus est. 42. D.C. 56.35.5–6 (trans. Cary). Emphasis added. Swan (2004, 325) views Tiberius' laudatio funebris for Augustus as entirely Dio's own creation, which he composed from his own narrative in books 45–56. I hesitate to go so far, since the themes of the speech match so well not only the rest of the funeral but the words and actions of Tiberius regarding Augustus' memory as related by Tacitus and Suetonius. 43. D.C. 56.35.4 (trans. Cary). 44. Verg. A. 8.285–305. 45. Tacitus' bias against Tiberius is well known. See Syme 1997, 345–46. For careful analysis of Tacitus' account of Tiberius' early meetings with the Senate after the death of Augustus, see Woodman 1998, 40–69. 46. Tac. Ann. 1.11.1. 47. D.C. 53.11. 48. Woodman 1998, 63–69. 49. An indirect confirmation of this hypothesis may be found in Augustus' respective treatment of the memory of Alexander the Great and the Ptolemies. After crowning the corpse of Alexander and sprinkling flowers over his body (corona aurea imposita ac floribus aspersis veneratus est), Augustus is asked whether he would like to see the Ptolemies, to which he replies, regem se voluisse ait videre, non mortuos (“I wished to see a king, not corpses”). See Suet. Aug. 18.1; D.C. 51.16.5. This story is consistent with other anecdotes about Augustus' experience in Egypt wherein he sought to define carefully his and Rome's relationship with the province. For example, he refused to worship Apis but publicly commended the god Serapis. See D.C. 51.16.4–5; Reinhold 1988, 139–40. In his veneration of Alexander, Augustus overlooks the Ptolemaic past to identify his true predecessor in ecumenical empire. At the same time, his actions may be interpreted as a statement regarding the status distinctions between the founder of the empire and his successors. Just as no Ptolemy was ever in a position to rise to the level of Alexander's achievement, so Tiberius would never be in such a position relative to Augustus. Doubly interesting is the fact that the story draws this distinction through Augustus engaging in a kind of ruler cult (veneratus) to the dead Alexander, just as he expected others would venerate him posthumously. Strabo (17.1.8), who resided in Alexandria in the twenties BCE, speaks of the mausoleum of Alexander (the Soma) as the place that formerly had been an enclosure containing the tombs of the kings and Alexander. In other words, it no longer was. Erskine (2002, 177) suggests that the Ptolemies were evicted from the Soma, an action that is reasonably attributed to Augustus at the time of his visit to Alexandria. Erskine's interpretation of the Strabo account supports the basic historical foundation of the story of Augustus' visit to the Soma or at least the rationale behind it. 50. Tac. Ann. 1.11.4: quae cuncta sua manu perscripserat Augustus addideratque consilium coercendi intra terminos imperii, incertum metu an per invidiam. 51. Consider that those Julio-Claudian emperors and heirs who did campaign sought or at least feigned to seek to outstrip the achievements of Augustus, Julius Caesar, or Alexander the Great, if only in a token and largely symbolic way. Caligula feigned an invasion of Britain and Germany. Claudius did add Britain to the empire, and Nero allegedly planned expeditions beyond the Caspian Gates and in Ethiopia. See D.C. 63.8.1. Tiberius neither campaigned nor allowed Germanicus, despite his successes, to put him in a position where

he would be forced to re-annex Germany up to the Elbe (an achievement that would only have recovered lost ground). Instead, he recalled his heir and granted him a triumph before reassigning him to another command. See Tac. Ann. 2.26. Seager (2005, 72–73) does not view this reining in of Germanicus as a refusal to get involved in Germany henceforth. Of course, it also does not suggest any intention of expanding the empire beyond its furthest extent under Augustus. 52. Suet. Gal. 9.2. 53. Ibid. 2. 54. Tac. Hist. 1.6.2: introitus in urbem trucidatis tot milibus inermium militum infaustus omine atque ipsis etiam, qui occiderant, formidolosus. 55. For a compact account of the dreams, omens, oracles, and wonders, see Suet. Ves. 4–7. 56. Plin. Pan. 23–24; Schowalter 1993, 71–75; Luke 2010, 105–6.

Page 279 →

Bibliography Primary Sources Greek Appianus Alexandrinus. 1840. Romanorum Historiarum Quae Supersunt. Ed. Ambrosius Firmin Didot. Paris. Cassius Dio Cocceianus. 1898. Historiarum Romanarum Quae Supersunt. Vol. 2. Ed. Ursulus Philippus Boissevain. Berlin: Weidmann. Diodorus Siculus. 1878. Bibliotheca. Vol. 1. Ed. Carolus Müllerus. Paris. Plutarchus. 1926. Vitae Parallelae. Vol. 3, fasc. 2. Ed. Cl. Lindskog and K. Ziegler. Leipzig: Teubner. Plutarchus. 1960. Vitae Parallelae. Vol. 1, fasc. 1. Ed. K. Ziegler. Leipzig: Teubner.

Latin Augustinus, Sanctus Aurelius. 1928. Sancti Aurelii Augustini episcopi De Civitate Dei, Libri I–XIII. Vol. 1. Ed. D. Bombart and A. Kalb. Leipzig: Teubner. Censorinus. 1843. Livre de Censorinus sur le jour natale. Ed. M. J. Mangeart. Paris: Panckoucke. Cicero, M. Tullius. 1949. In C. Verrem Actionis Secundae, Libri IV, V. Ed. Alfredus Klotz. Leipzig: Teubner. Cicero, M. Tullius. 1958–61. Orationes. Vols. 1–5. Ed. Albertus Curtis Clark and Gulielmus Peterson. Oxford: Clarendon. Cicero, M. Tullius. 1987. Epistulae ad Atticum. Vol. 1, Libri I–VIII. Ed. D. R. Shackleton Bailey. Stuttgart: Teubner. Cicero, M. Tullius. 1988. Epistulae ad Familiares, Libri I–XVI. Ed. D. R. Shackleton Bailey. Stuttgart: Teubner. Cicero, M. Tullius. 1988. Epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem, Epistulae ad M. Brutum. Ed. D. R. Shackleton Bailey. Stuttgart: Teubner. Page 280 → Fabius Quintilianus, M. 1959. Institutionis Oratoriae. 2 vols. Ed. L. Radermacher. Leipzig: Teubner. Horatius Flaccus, Q. 1912. Carmina. Ed. Fridericus Vollmer. Leipzig: Teubner. Iulius Caesar, C. 1959. Commentari de Bello Civili. Ed. F. Kraner and F. Hofmann. Berlin: Weidmann. Livius, Titus. 1974. Ab Urbe Condita. Vol. 1, Libri I–V. Ed. Robertus Maxwell Ogilvie. Oxford: Clarendon. Livius, Titus. 1986. Ab Urbe Condita, Libri XLI–XLV. Ed. John Briscoe. Stuttgart: Teubner. Livius, Titus. 1991. Ab Urbe Condita, Libri XXXI–XL. Ed. John Briscoe. Stuttgart: Teubner. Lucretius Carus, T. 1992. De Rerum Natura. Ed. J. Martin. Stuttgart: Teubner. Macrobius, Ambrosius Aurelius Theodosius. 1963. Saturnalia. Ed. Iacobus Willis. Leipzig: Teubner.

Macrobius, Ambrosius Aurelius Theodosius. 1970. Saturnalia. Vol. 1. Ed. Iacobus Willis. Leipzig: Teubner. Ovidius Naso, P. 1977. Metamorphoses. Ed. William S. Anderson. Leipzig: Teubner. Ovidius Naso, P. 1985. Fastorum Libri Sex. Ed. E. H. Alton, D. E. W. Wormell, and E. Courtney. Leipzig: Teubner. Pompeus Festus, Sextus. 1965. De Verborum Significatu Quae Supersunt Cum Pauli Epitome. Ed. Wallace M. Lindsay. Hildesheim: Georg Olms. Pseudacro. 1902–4. Acronis Quae Dicuntur Scholia in Horatium. Ed. O. Keller. Leipzig: Teubner. Pseudacro. 1967. Scholia in Horatium Vetustiora. Vol. 1. Ed. O. Keller. Stuttgart: Teubner. Sallustius Crispus, C. 1954. Catilina, Iugurtha, Fragmenta Ampliora. Ed. Alphonsus Kurfess. Leipzig: Teubner. [Sallustius Crispus, C.] 1991. Catalina, Iugurtha, Historiarum Fragmenta Selecta, Appendix Sallustiana. Ed. L. D. Reynolds. Oxford: Clarendon. Servius. 1946. Servianorum in Vergilii Carmina Commentariorum. Ed. E. K. Rand, J. J. Savage, et al. Lancaster, PA: American Philological Association. Suetonius. 1982. Divus Augustus. Ed. John M. Carter. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. Suetonius. 1993. Lives of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. Ed. D. Shotter. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. Suetonius Tranquillus, C. 1982. Divus Iulius. Ed. H. E. Butler and M. Cary. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. Tacitus, P. Cornelius. 1978. Libri Qui Supersunt. Vol. 2, no. 1, Historiarum Libri. Ed. Heinz Heubner. Stuttgart: Teubner. Tacitus, P. Cornelius. 1994. Libri Qui Supersunt. Vol. 1, Annales. Ed. Heinz Heubner. Stuttgart: Teubner. Page 281 → Valerius Maximus. 2000. Valerius Maximus: Memorable Doings and Sayings. Ed. D. R. Shackleton Bailey. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Varron. 1985. La Langue Latine, Livre VI. Ed. Pierre Flobert. Paris: Société D'ÉditionLes Belles Lettres. Velleius Paterculus, C. 1933. Historiae Romanae. Ed. C. Stegmann De Pritzwald. Leipzig: Teubner. Vergilius Maro, P. 1966. Opera. Ed. Fredericus Arturus Hirtzel. Oxford: Clarendon. Vergilius Maro, P. 2009. Aeneis. Ed. G. B. Conte. Berlin: de Gruyter. Zosimus. 1837. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae: Zosimus. Ed. Immanuel Bekker. Bonn: Weber.

Commentaries by Contemporary Authors Clausen, W. 1994. A Commentary of Vergil's “Eclogues.” Oxford: Clarendon. Cooley, A. 2009. Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Text, Translation, and Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Novokhatko, A. 2009. The Invectives of Sallust and Cicero: Critical Edition with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Secondary Sources Adamesteanu, D., and Torelli, M. 1969. “Il nuovo frammento della Tabula Bantina.” Arch. Cl. 21:1–17. Adams, J. N. 2003. Bilingualism and the Latin Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. Africa, T. 1961. “Aristonicus, Blossius, and the City of the Sun.” International Review of Social History 6:110–24. Alföldi, A. A. 1935. Insignien und Tracht der römischen Kaiser. Munich: Bruckmann. Alföldi, A. A. 1951. “Die Geburt der kaiserlichen Bildsymbolik, 2: Der neue Romulus.” MH 8:190–215. Alföldi, A. A. 1952. “Die Geburt der kaiserlichen Bildsymbolik: Kleine Beiträge zu ihrer Entstehungsgeschichte, III.” MH 9:204–43. Alföldi, A. A. 1953. “Caesars Tragödie im Spiegel der Münzprägung des Jahres 44 v. Chr.” Schweiz. Münzbl. 4.13:1–11. Alföldi, A. A. 1968. “(Centuria) procum patricium.” Historia 17:444–60. Alföldi, A. A. 1972. “Redeunt Saturnia regna (L'attente du roi-sauveur à Rome): Iuppiter-Apollo und Veiovis.” Chiron 2:215–30. Alföldi, A. A. 1976a. Oktavians Aufstieg zur Macht. Bonn: R. Habelt. Alföldi, A. A. 1976b. “Redeunt Saturnia regna V: Zum Gottesgnadentum des Sulla.” Chiron 6:143–58. Alföldi, A. A. 1978. Der Vater des Vaterlandes im römischen Denken. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Page 282 → Alföldi, A. A. 1997. Redeunt Saturnia regna. Bonn: R. Habelt. Allen, W., Jr. 1939–40a. “The Location of Cicero's House,” CJ 35:134–43. Allen, W., Jr. 1939–40b. “Nisbet on the Question of the Location of Cicero's House.” CJ 35:291–95. Allen, W., Jr. 1944. “Cicero's House and Libertas.” TAPA 75:1–9. Alston, R. 1998. Aspects of Roman History, AD 14–117. London: Routledge. Altheim, F. 1938. A History of Roman Religion. London: Methuen. Amiotti, G. 1980. “I Greci ed il massacro degli Italici nell'88 a. C.” Aevum 54:132–39. Anderson, G. 1994. Sage, Saint, and Sophist: Holy Men and Their Associates in the Early Roman Empire. London: Routledge. Anderson, J. C., Jr. 1984. The Historical Topography of the Imperial Fora. Brussels: Latomus. Ando, C. 1999. “Was Rome a Polis?” CA 18:5–34. Ando, C. 2000. Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ando, C. 2003. “Introduction to Part V: Roman and Alien.” In C. Ando (ed.), Roman Religion, 193–98.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Ando, C. 2008. The Matter of the Gods: Religion and the Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press André, J.-M. 1993. “Les Res Gestae d'Auguste ou les nuances de l'égotisme politique.” In M.-F. Baslez, P. Hoffmann, and L. Pernot (eds.), L'invention de l'autobiographie, d'Hésiode à Augustin: Actes du deuxième colloque de l'Équipe de recherche sur l'hellénisme post-classique (Paris, École normale supérieure, 14–16 juin 1990), 97–114. Paris: Presses de l'École normale supérieure. Angelis, F., and Garstad, B. 2006. “Euhemerus in Context.” CA 25:211–42. Astin, A. E. 1963. “Augustus and the Censoria Potestas.” Latomus 22:226–35. Astin, A. E. 1978. Cato the Censor. New York: Oxford University Press. Astin, A. E. 1988. “Regimen Morum.” JRS 78:14–34. Austin, N. 1975. Archery at the Dark of the Moon: Poetic Problems in Homer's “Iliad.” Berkeley: University of California Press. Avery, H. C. 1967. “Marius Felix (Sallust, Jug. 92–4).” Hermes 95:324–30. Badian, E. 1958. Foreign clientelae (246–70 B.C.). Oxford: Clarendon. Badian, E. 1996. “Tribuni Plebis and Res Publica.” In J. Linderski (ed.), Imperium sine fine: T. Robert S. Broughton and the Roman Republic, 187–213. Stuttgart: Steiner. Badian, E. 2009. “From the Iulii to Caesar.” In M. T. Griffin (ed.), A Companion to Julius Caesar, 11–22. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Badot, P. 1973. “À propos de la conspiration de M. Egnatius Rufus.” Latomus 32:606–15. Baltrusch, E. 1989. Regimen morum: Die Reglementierung des Privatlebens der Senatoren und Ritter in der römischen Republik und frühen Kaiserzeit. Munich: Beck. Page 283 → Barchiesi, A. 1997. The Poet and the Prince. Berkeley: University of California Press. Barrett, A. 1996. Agrippina: Sex, Power, and Politics in the Early Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press. Barrett, A. 2002. Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome. New Haven: Yale University Press. Barton, C. 1996. “Astrology and the State in Imperial Rome.” In N. Thomas and C. Humphrey (eds.), Shamanism, History, and the State, 146–63. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Bartram, E. 1999. Portraits of Livia: Imaging the Imperial Woman in Augustan Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bartsch, S. 2006. The Mirror of the Self: Sexuality, Self-Knowledge, and the Gaze in the Early Roman Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Batstone, W. W. 2011. “Literature.” In N. Rosenstein and R. Morstein-Marx (eds.), A Companion to the Roman Republic, 543–63. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Baudy, D. 1998. Römische Umgangsriten: Eine ethologische Untersuchung der Funktion von Wiederholung für

religiöses Verhalten. Berlin: de Gruyter. Bauman, R. A. 1967. The Crimen Maiestatis in the Roman Republic and the Augustan Principate. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand. Bauman, R. A. 1981. “Tribunician Sacrosanctity in 44, 36, and 35 B.C.” RhM 124:166–83. Bauman, R. A. 1992. Women and Politics in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge. Bayet, J. 1926. Herclé, étude critique des principaux monuments relatifs à l'Hercule Étrusque.Paris: de Boccard. Bayet, J. 1960. “Les malédictions du tribun C. Ateius Capito.” In Hommages à G. Dumezil, 31–45. Brussels: Latomus. Bayet, J. 1969. Histoire politique et psychologique de la religion romaine. Paris: Payot. Beacham, R.C. 1999. Spectacle Entertainments of Early Imperial Rome. New Haven: Yale University Press. Beard, M. 1986. “Cicero and Divination: The Formation of a Latin Discourse.” JRS 76:33–46. Beard, M. 1987. “A Complex of Times: No More Sheep on Romulus' Birthday.” PCPS 33:1–15. Beard, M. 1990. “Priesthood in the Roman Republic.” In M. Beard and J. North (eds.), Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World, 17–48. London: Duckworth. Beard, M. 2003. “The Triumph of Flavius Josephus.” In A. J. Boyle and W. J. Dominik (eds.), Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text, 543–58. Leiden: Brill. Beard, M. 2006. “The Triumph of the Absurd: Roman Street Theatre.” In C. Edwards and G. Woolf (eds.), Rome the Cosmopolis, 21–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Page 284 → Beard, M. 2007. The Roman Triumph. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Beard, M., North, J., and Price, S. R. F. 1998. Religions of Rome. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Becht, E. 1911. “Regeste über die Zeit von Cäsars Ermordung bis zum Umschwung in der Politik des Antonius.” PhD diss., University of Freiburg. Behr, H. 1993. Die Selbstdarstellung Sullas: Ein aristokratischer Politiker zwischen persönlichem Führunganspruch und Standessolidarität. Europäische Hochschulschriften 3.539. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Benario, H. 1957. “Cicero's Marius and Caesar.” CPh 52:177–81. Bendlin, A. 2000. “Looking Beyond the Civic Compromise: Religious Pluralism in Late Republican Rome.” In E. Bishpam and C. Smith (eds.), Religion in Archaic and Republican Rome and Italy: Evidence and Experience, 115–35. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn. Benoist, S. 1999. “Le retour du prince dans la Cité (Juin 193–Juillet 326).” Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 10:149–75. Benoist, S. 2005. Rome, le prince, et la Cité. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Berg, B. 1997. “Cicero's Palatine Home and Clodius' Shrine of Liberty: Alternative Emblems of the Republic in Cicero's De domo sua.” In C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, 122–43. Brussels:

Latomus. Berger, S. 1992. Revolution and Society in Greek Sicily and Southern Italy. Stuttgart: Steiner. Bernstein, F. 1998. Ludi publici: Untersuchungen zur Entstehung und Entwicklung der öffentlichen Spiele im republikanischen Rom. Stuttgart: Steiner. Berve, H. 1956. Dion. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Betz, H. D. 2009. “Plutarch's Life of Numa: Some Observations on Graeco-Roman ‘Messianism.’” In M. Bockmuehl and J. C. Paget (eds.), Redemption and Resistance: The Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity, 44–61. London: Continuum. Biddle, M. E. 1991. “Lady Jerusalem: Identification, Deification, and Personification of Cities in the Ancient Near East.” In K. L. Younger, W. W. Hallo, B. F. Batto (eds.), The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective, 173–94. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen. Bidez, J., and Cumont, F. 1938. Les mages hellénisés: Zoroastre, Ostanès, et Hystaspes d'après la tradition grecque. 2 vols. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Bierl, A. 2004. “‘Turn on the Light!’ Epiphany, the God-like Hero Odysseus, and the Golden Lamp of Athena in Homer's Odyssey (Especially 19.1–43).” ICS 29:43–61. Billows, R. 1993. “The Religious Procession of the Ara Pacis Augustae: Augustus' Supplicatio in 13 B.C.” JRA 6:80–92. Page 285 → Blakely, S. 2006. Myth, Ritual, and Metallurgy in Ancient Greece and Recent Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press. Blok, J. 2000. “Phye's Procession: Culture, Politics, and Peisistratid Rule.” In H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg (ed.), Peisistratos and the Tyranny: A Reappraisal of the Evidence, 17–48. Amsterdam: Gieben. Bodel, J. P. 1997. “Monumental Villas and Villa Monuments.” JRA 10:5–35. Bodel, J. P. 2008. “Cicero's Minerva, Penates, and the Mother of the Lares: An Outline of Roman Domestic Religion.” In J. Bodel and S. M. Olyan (eds.), Household and Family Religion in Antiquity, 248–75. Oxford: Blackwell. Boëls-Janssen, N. 2008. “Maiestas matronarum.” Latomus 67:37–55. Bonnefond-Coudry, M. 1989. Le sénat de la République romaine de la guerre d'Hannibal à Auguste: Pratiques délibératives et prise de décision. Rome: École française de Rome. Borgeaud, P. 2004. Mother of the Gods: From Cybele to Virgin Mary. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Bosworth, A. B. 1996. Alexander and the East: The Tragedy of Triumph. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bosworth, A. B. 1999. “Augustus, the Res Gestae, and Hellenistic Theories of Apotheosis.” JRS 89:1–18. Bowersock, G. G. 1965. Augustus and the Greek World. Oxford: Clarendon. Bowersock, G. G. 1997. Fiction as History: Nero to Julian. Berkeley: University of California Press. Boyd, T. W. 1995. “Libri Confusi.” CJ 91:35–45.

Bradley, G. 2005. “Aspects of the Cult of Hercules in Central Italy.” In L. Rawlings and H. Bowden (eds.), Herakles and Hercules: Exploring a Graeco-Roman Divinity, 129–51. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Bradley, K. R. 1998. Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World, 140 B.C.–70 B.C. 2nd ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Braund, D. 1994. Georgia in Antiquity: A History of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia, 550 BC–AD 562. Oxford: Clarendon. Breebaart, A. B. 1987. Clio and Antiquity: History and Historiography of the Greek World. Hilversum: Verloren. Bremmer, J. N., and Horsfall, N. M. 1987. Roman Myth and Mythography. London: University of London, Institute of Classical Studies. Brennan, T. 1996. “Triumphus in Monte Albano.” In E. Harris and R. Wallace (eds.), Transitions to Empire: Essays in Greco-Roman History, 360–146 B.C., in Honor of E. Badian, 315–37. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Brenk, F. E. 1977. “Daimon and Tyche in Plutarch.” In In Mist Apparelled: Religious Themes in Plutarch's Moralia and Lives, 145–83. Leiden: Brill. Page 286 → Brenk, F. E. 1992. “Antony-Osiris, Cleopatra-Isis: The End of Plutarch's Antony.” In P. A. Stadter (ed.), Plutarch and the Historical Tradition, 159–78. London: Routledge. Brennan, T. 2000. The Praetorship of the Roman Republic. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brennan, T. 2001. Review of M. Beard and J. North (eds.), Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World. BMCR, February 2. Brent, A. 1999. The Imperial Cult and the Development of Church Order: Concepts and Images of Authority in Paganism and Early Christianity before the Age of Cyprian. Leiden: Brill. Briscoe, J. 2008. A Commentary on Livy, Books 38–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brisson, J.-P. 1959. Spartacus. Paris: Club du livre français. Brown, N. 1990. “Brigands and State Building: The Invention of Banditry in Modern Egypt.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 32:258–81. Brown, T. S. 1947. “Greek Influence on Tiberius Gracchus.” CJ 42:471–74. Brunt, P. A. 1971. Italian Manpower, 225 B.C.–A.D. 14. Oxford: Clarendon. Brunt, P. A., and Moore, J. M. 1967. Res Gestae Divi Augusti: The Achievements of the Divine Augustus. London: Oxford University Press. Bucher, G. S. 2000. “The Origins, Program, and Composition of Appian's Roman History.” TAPA 130:433–39. Buchner, E. 1982. Die Sonnenuhr des Augustus. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Buraselis, K. 1976. “Numa Pompilius und die Gens Pomponia.” Historia 25:378–80. Burchell, D. 1998. “Civic personae: McIntyre, Cicero, and Moral Personality.” HPTh 19.1:101–18. Burkert, W. 1972a. Homo Necans: Interpretationen altgriechischer Opferriten und Mythen. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Burkert, W. 1972b. Lore and Science of Pythagoreanism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Butler, H. E., and Cary, M. 1982. Suetonius: Divus Iulius. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. Cadoux, J. 2005. “Catiline and the Vestal Virgins.” Historia 54:162–79. Cairns, F. 1995. “M. Agrippa in Horace ‘Odes’ 1.6.” Hermes 123:211–17. Cairns, F. 2012. Roman Lyric: Collected Papers on Catullus and Horace. Berlin: de Gruyter. Cairns, F., and Fantham, E. 2003. (eds.) Caesar against Liberty? Perspectives on His Autocracy. Cambridge: Cairns. Candau, J. M. 2011. “Republican Rome: Autobiography and Political Struggles.” In G. Marasco (ed.), Political Autobiographies and Memoirs in Antiquity: A Brill Companion, 121–59. Leiden: Brill. Page 287 → Canfora, L. 1984. “Altri riferimenti ai poemi ciceroniani nell' Invectiva in Ciceronem.” Ciceroniana 5:101–9. Carandini, A. 1986. “Domus e insulae sulla pendice settentrionale del Palatino.” BCAR 91:263–78. Carcopino, J. E. J. 1932. Sylla, ou la monarchie manquée. Paris: L. Giraud-Badin. Cardauns, B. 1960. Varros Logistoricus über die Götterverehrung (Curio de cultu deorum): Ausgabe und Erklärung der Fragmente. Würzburg: K. Triltsch. Carettoni, G. 1973. “Nuova serie di grandi lastre fittili Campana.’” BA 58:75–87. Carney, T. F. 1960. “Cicero's Picture of Marius.” WS 73:83–122. Carney, T. F. 1970. A Biography of C. Marius. Chicago: Argonaut. Carson, R. 1957. “Caesar and the Monarchy.” G&R 4:46–53. Carter, J. M. 1982. Suetonius: Divus Augustus. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. Caspari, M. O. B. 1909. “Note on Suetonius, Divus Julius 79.2” CR 23:189. Ceausescu, P. 1976. “Altera Roma—Histoire d'une folie politique.” Historia 25:79–08. Champeaux, J. 1982. Fortuna: Le culte de la Fortune à Rome dans le monde romain des origins à la mort de César. Vol. 1, Fortuna dans la religion archaïque.Rome: de Boccard. Chaniotis, A. 2003. “The Divinity of the Hellenistic Rulers.” In A. Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic World, 431–45. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Charlesworth, M. P. 1933. “Some Fragments of the Propaganda of Mark Antony.” CJ 27:172–77. Claridge, A. 1998. Rome: An Oxford Archaeological Guide. New York: Oxford University Press. Clark, A. J. 2007. Divine Qualities: Cult and Community in Republican Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Classen, C. J. 1962. “Romulus in der römischen Republik.” Philologus 106:174–204. Clausen, W. 1994. A Commentary of Virgil, Eclogues. Oxford: Clarendon. Coarelli, F. 1983. Il foro romano: I: Periodo arcaico. Rome: Quasar.

Cohen, G. M. 1995. The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cole, S. 2001. “The Dynamics of Deification in Horace's Odes 1–3.” In S. R. Asirvatham et al. (eds.), Between Magic and Religion: Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and Society, 67–91. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Cole, T. 1967. Democritus and the Sources of Greek Anthropology. Cleveland: Press of Western Reserve University. Colini, A. M. 1942. “Aedes Veiovis inter Arcem et Capitolium.” BCAR 70:5–55. Connor, W. R. 1987. “Tribes, Festivals, and Processions: Civic Ceremonial and Political Manipulation in Archaic Greece.” JHS 107:40–50. Page 288 → Cooley, A. E. 2009. Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Text, Translation, and Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cornell, T. J. 1981. “Some Observations on the crimen incesti.” In M. Torelli, C. Guittard, et al. (eds.), Le délit religieux dans la cité antique (table ronde, Rome, 6–7 avril 1978), 27–37. Paris: de Boccard. Cornell, T. J. 1995. The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic War. London: Routledge. Coskun, A. 2004. “‘Civitas Romana’ und die Inklusion von Fremden in die römische Republik am Beispiel des Bundesgenossenkrieges.” In A. Gestrich and L. Raphael (eds.), Inklusion/Exklusion: Studien zu Fremdheit und Armut von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, 85–111. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Courtney, E. C. 1993. Fragmentary Latin Poets. Oxford: Clarendon. Covino, R. 2013. “Stasis in Roman Sicily.” Electroyne 1:18–28. Criniti, N. 1970. L'epigrafe di Asculum di Gn. Pompeo Strabone. Milan: Vita e Pensiero. Crook, J. A. 1967. Law and Life of Rome. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Curti, E. 2000. “From Concordia to the Quirinal: Notes on Religion and Politics in Mid-Republican/Hellenistic Rome.” In E. Bispham and C. J. Smith (eds.), Religion in Archaic and Republican Rome and Italy: Evidence and Experience, 77–91. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn. Damon, C., Miller, J. F., Myers, K. S., and Courtney, E. (eds.) 2002. Vertis in Usum: Studies in Honor of Edward Courtney. Munich: Saur. Davies, J. K., Jackson, J., Marshall, B. A., et al. 1978. “Discussion: Problems in the Career of Crassus.” LCM 3:165–74. Davies, M. 1988. “Stesichorus' Geryoneis and Its Folk-Tale Origins.” CQ 38:277–90. de Angelis, F., and Garstad, B. 2006. “Euhemerus in Context.” CA 25:211–42. Degrassi, A. (ed.). 1963. Fasti et Elogia. Rome: Libreria dello stato. de Grummond, N. T. 1990. “Pax Augusta and the Horae on the Ara Pacis Augustae.” AJA 94:663–77. de Grummond, N. T. 2006. “Prophets and Priests.” In N. T. de Grummond and Erika Simon (eds.), The Religion

of the Etruscans, 27–44. Austin: University of Texas Press. de Jonquieres, C. 2004. “La crise de 19 a. C. et ses conséquences.” Gerión 22.1:273–90. de Libero, L. 1994. “Die sogenannte ‘Zweite Tyrannis’ des Peisistratos.” Hermes 122:114–16. de Ligt, L. 2012. Peasants, Citizens, and Soldiers: Studies in the Demographic History of Roman Italy, 200 BC–AD 100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Demougin, S. 1988. L'ordre équestre sous les Julio-Claudiens. Rome: École française de Rome. Page 289 → DeRomilly, J. 1975. Magic and Rhetoric in Ancient Greece. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Desanges, J. 1957. “Le triomphe de Cornelius Balbus.” Revue Africaine 101:5–43. Deutsch, M. E. 1922. “A Prophecy of Caesar's Murder.” CPh 17:119–27. Deutsch, M. E. 1928. “I Am Caesar, Not Rex.” CPh 23:394–98. Diehl, H. 1988. Sulla und seine Zeit im Urteil Ciceros. Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann. Dmitriev, S. 2011. The Greek Slogan of Freedom and Early Roman Politics in Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dobesch, G. 1966. Caesars Apotheose zu Lebzeiten und sein Ringen um den Königstitel. Vienna: Im Selbstverlag. Donahue, J. F. 2003. “Toward a Typology of Roman Public Feasting.” AJPh 124:423–41. Donahue, J. F. 2004. The Roman Community at Table during the Principate. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Dougherty, C. 1993. The Poetics of Colonization: From City to Text in Archaic Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dowling, M. B. 2000. “The Clemency of Sulla.” Historia 49:303–40. Drogula, F. K. 2007. “Imperium, potestas, and the pomerium in the Roman Republic.” Historia 56:419–52. Drumann, W. 1837. Geschichte Roms in seinem Übergange von der republikanischen zur monarchischen Verfassung, oder Pompeius, Caesar, Cicero und ihre Zeitgenossen III. Königsberg: Gebrüder Bornträger. Drummond, A. 1998. “Rome in the Fifth Century II: The Citizen Community.” In CAH VII2.2, 197–98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dudley, D. R. 1941. “Blossius of Cumae.” JRS 31:94–99. Dufraigne. P. 1994. Adventus Augusti, Adventus Christi: Recherches sur exploitation idéologique et littéraire d'un cérémonial dans l'antiquité tardive. Collection des Études Augustiniennes-Série Antiquité 141. Paris: Institut d'études augustiniennes. Dumézil, G. 1943. Servius et la fortune: Essai sur la fonction sociale de louange et de blâme et sur les éléments indo-européens du cens romain. Paris: Gallimard. Dunbabin, K. M. D. 2003. The Roman Banquet: Images of Conviviality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Du Quesnay, I. M. Le M. 1995. “Horace, Odes 4, 5: Pro Reditu Imperatoris Caesaris Divi Filii Augusti.” In S. J Harrison (ed.), Homage to Horace: A Bimillenary Celebration, 128–87. Oxford: Clarendon. Du Quesnay, I. M. Le M. 1999. “Vergil's Fourth Eclogue.” In P. R. Hardie (ed.), Virgil: Critical Assessments of Classical Authors. Vol. 1, General Articles and the Eclogues, 283–350. London: Routledge. Dvorjetski, E. 2007. Leisure, Pleasure, and Healing: Spa Culture and Medicine in Ancient Eastern Mediterranean. Leiden: Brill. Page 290 → Dyck, A. R. 2004. A Commentary on Cicero De Legibus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Dyer, R.R. 1990. “Rhetoric and Intention in Cicero's Pro Marcello.” JRS 80:17–30. Dyson, S. L. 2010. Rome: A Living Portrait of an Ancient City. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Dzino, D. 2002. “Annus Mirabilis: 70 BC Re-examined.” AH 32.2:99–117. Eddy, S. K. 1961. The King Is Dead: Studies in Near Eastern Resistance to Hellenism, 334–31 B.C. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Edelstein, L., and Kidd, I. G. 1998. Posidonius. Vol. 1, The Fragments. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eder, W. 2005. “Augustus and the Power of Tradition: The Augustan Principate as Binding Link.” In K. Galinsky (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus, 13–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ehrenberg, V. 1964. “Caesar's Final Aims.” HSPh 68:149–61. Eitrem, S. 1932. “Zur Apotheose.” SO 10:31–56. Elsner, J. 1991. “Cult and Sculpture: Sacrifice in the Ara Pacis Augustae.” JRS 81:50–61. Elsner, J. 1996. “Inventing Imperium: Texts and the Propaganda of Monuments in Augustan Rome.” In J. Elsner (ed.), Art and Text in Roman Culture, 32–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ericsson, H. 1943. “Sulla Felix: Eine Wortstudie.” Eranos 41:77–89. Erkell, H. 1952. Augustus, Felicitas, Fortuna: Lateinische Wortstudien. Göteborg: Elanders boktryckeri aktiebolag. Erskine, A. 2002. “Life after Death: Alexandria and the Body of Alexander.” G&R 49:163–79. Euben, J. P. The Tragedy of Political Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990. Evans, J. D. 1987. “The Sicilian Coinage of Sextus Pompey.” ANSMN 32:97–157. Evans, J. D. 1992. The Art of Persuasion: Political Propaganda from Aeneas to Brutus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Evans, R. J. 1994. Gaius Marius: A Political Biography. Pretoria: University of South Africa. Fabre-Serris, J. 2009. “Constructing a Narrative of mira deum: The Story of Philemon and Baucis (Ovid, Metamorphoses 8).” In P. R. Hardie (ed.), Paradox and the Marvellous in Augustan Literature and Culture, 231–47. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Farney, G. D. 1997. “The Fall of the Priest C. Sulpicius Galba and the First Consulship of Marius.” MAAR 42:23–37. Farney, G. D. 2007. Ethnic Identity and Aristocratic Competition in Republican Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Page 291 → Fears, J. R. 1981a. “The Cult of Jupiter and Roman Imperial Ideology.” ANRW II.17.1:3–141. Fears, J. R. 1981b. “The Cult of Virtues and Roman Imperial Ideology.” ANRW II.17.1:827–948. Fears, J. R. 1981c. “The Theology of Victory at Rome: Approaches and Problems.” ANRW II.17.1:737–825. Feeney, D. 1999. Literature and Religion at Rome: Cultures, Contexts, and Beliefs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Feeney, D. 2006. “On Not Forgetting the ‘Literatur’ in ‘Literatur und Religion’: Representing the Mythic and the Divine in Roman Historiography.” Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics 030601. Fehrentz, V. 1991. “Der ‘Baitylos’ in der römischen Wandmalerei.” Kölner Jahrbuch für Vor und Frühgeschichte 24:85–90. Feldherr, A. 1998. Spectacle and Society in Livy's History. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ferrary, J.-L. 2009. “The Powers of Augustus.” In J. C. Edmondson (ed.), Augustus, 90–136. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Finley, J. H. 1967. “Euripides and Thucydides.” In J. H. Finley (ed.), Three Essays on Thucydides. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Finley, M. I. 1979. Ancient Sicily. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield. Fisher, N. 2000. “Hybris, Revenge, and Stasis in the Greek City-States.” In H. Van Wees (ed.), War and Violence in Ancient Greece, 83–123. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Fishwick, D. 1987. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. Leiden: Brill. Flory, M. 1988. “Abducta Neroni Uxor: The Historiographical Tradition on the Marriage of Octavian and Livia.” TAPA 118:343–59. Flower, H. I. 2000a. Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture. Oxford: Clarendon. Flower, H. I. 2000b. “The Tradition of the spolia opima: M. Claudius Marcellus and Augustus.” CA 19:34–64. Flower, H. I. 2006. The Art of Forgetting: Disgrace and Oblivion in Roman Political Culture. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Flower, H. I. 2008. “Remembering and Forgetting Temple Destruction.” In G. Gardner and K. L. Osterloh (eds.), Antiquity in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Pasts in the Greco-Roman World, 74–92. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Flower, H. I. 2010. Roman Republics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Flower, H. I. 2012. “Memory and Memoirs in Republican Rome.” Hunter Lecture at Florida State University, February 2.

Flugmann, J. 1991. “Mare a praedonibus pacavi (R.G. 25,1): Zum Gedanken der aemulatio in den Res Gestae des Augustus.” Historia 40:307–17. Page 292 → Forsythe, G. 1990. “The Tribal Membership of the Calpurnii Pisones.” ZPE 83:293–98. Forsythe, G. 2006. A Critical History of Early Rome: From Prehistory to the First Punic War. Berkeley: University of California Press. Forsythe, G. 2012. Time in Roman Religion: One Thousand Years of Religious History. New York: Routledge. Fowler, W. W. 1899. The Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic: An Introduction to the Study of the Religion of the Romans. New York: MacMillan. Fowler, W. W. 1916. “Jupiter and the Triumphator.” CR 30:153–57. Fraccaro, P. 1956–57. Opuscula. Vol. 2. Pavia: Presso la rivista “Athenaeum.” Fraschetti, A. 2005. The Foundation of Rome. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Fredricksmeyer, E. A. 1981. “On the Background of the Ruler Cult.” In H. J. Dell (ed.), Ancient Macedonian Studies in Honor of Charles F. Edson, 145–56. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies. Frier, B. W. 1967. “Augural Symbolism in Sulla's Invasion of 83.” ANS Mus. N. 13:111–18. Frier, B. W. 1971. “Sulla's Propaganda: The Collapse of the Cinnan Republic.” AJPh 92:585–604. Frischer, B. 1982–83. “Monumenta et arae honoris virtutisque causa: Evidence of Memorials for Roman Civic Heroes.” Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma 88:61–62. Fuchs, H. 1964. Der geistige Widerstand gegen Rom in der antiken Welt. 2nd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter. Gabba, E. 1971. “The Perusine War and Triumviral Italy.” HSPh 75:139–60. Gabba, E. 1972. “Mario e Silla.” ANRW I.1:765–805. Gabba, E. 1976. Republican Rome, the Army, and the Allies. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gagé, J. 1933. “La théologie de la victoire impériale.”Revue Historique 171.1:1–43. Gagé, J. 1955. Apollon romain: Essai sur le culte d'Apollon et le développement du ritus Graecus à Rome des origins à Auguste. Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome no. 182. Paris: de Boccard. Galinsky, G. K. 1967. “The Cipus Episode in Ovid's Metamorphoses (15.565–621).” TAPA 98:181–91. Galinsky, G. K. 1992. “Venus, Polysemy, and the Ara Pacis Augusti.” AJA 96:457–75. Galinsky, G. K. 1998. Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Galinsky, G. K. 2007. “Continuity and Change: Religion in the Augustan SemiCentury.” In J. Rüpke (ed.), A Companion to Roman Religion, 71–82. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Page 293 → Galinsky, G. K. 2012. Augustus: Introduction to the Life of an Emperor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gantz, T. N. 1974. “Lapis Niger: The Tomb of Romulus.” PP 29:350–61. Geertz, C. 1983. Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. New York: Basic Books. Gehrke, H.-J. 1985. Stasis: Untersuchungen zu den inneren Kriegen in den griechischen Staaten des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Munich: Beck. Gelzer, M. 1959. Pompeius. Munich: Bruckmann. Gelzer, M. 1963. Kleine Schriften. Vol. 2. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Gelzer, M. 1968. Caesar: Politician and Statesman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gesztelyi, T. 1973. “Mercury and Augustus, Horace, Odes I, 2.” ACD 9:77–81 Giardina, A. 1995. “Seneca, Claudio e il pomerio.” In “Alla Signorina”: Mélanges offerts à Noëlle de la Blanchardière, 123–40. CEFR 204. Rome: École française de Rome. Gigante, M. 2002. Philodemus in Italy: The Books from Herculaneum. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Gilbert, C. D. 1973. “Marius and Fortuna.” CQ 23:104–7. Giovanni, A. 1983. Consulare imperium. Basel: F. Reinhardt. Glucker, J. 1988. “As has been rightly said…by me.” LCM 13:6–9. Gnauk, R. 1936. Die Bedeutung des Marius und Cato Maior für Cicero. Berlin: Ebering. Goldberg, S. 1995. Epic in Republican Rome. New York: Oxford University Press. Gordon, R. L. 1990. “From Republic to Principate: Priesthood, Religion, and Theology.” In M. Beard and J. North (eds.), Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World, 177–98. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Gotoff, H. C. 1993. Cicero's Caesarian Speeches. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Gotter, U. 1996. Der Diktator ist Tot! Stuttgart: Steiner. Gowing, A. M. 1992. The Triumviral Narratives of Appian and Cassius Dio. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Gowing, A. M. 1997. Review of R. A. Gurval, Actium and Augustus: The Politics and Emotions of Civil War. AJPh 118:638–40. Gradel, I. 2002. Emperor Worship and Roman Religion. Oxford: Clarendon. Greenhalgh, P. 1980. The Roman Alexander. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Greenridge, A. H. J. 1894. Infamia: Its Place in Roman Public and Private Law. Oxford: Clarendon. Griffin, M. T. (ed.). 2009. A Companion to Julius Caesar. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Grillo, L. 2012. The Art of Caesar's “Bellum Civile”: Literature, Ideology, and Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Page 294 → Grimal, P. 1983. Roman Cities. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Gros, P. 1990. “L'urbanizzazione dopo la guerra sociale.” In A. Momigliano and A. Schiavone (eds.), Storia di Roma, 2.1, 831–55. Turin: Giulio Einaudi editore. Gruen, E. 1966. “P. Clodius: Instrument or Independent Agent?” Phoenix 20:120–30. Gruen, E. 1974. The Last Generation of the Roman Republic. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gruen, E. 1985. “Augustus and the Ideology of War and Peace.” In R. Winkes (ed.), The Age of Augustus: Interdisciplinary Conference Held at Brown University, April 30–May 2, 1982, 51–72. Providence, RI: Brown University Press. Gruen, E. 1992. Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Gruen, E. 1998. “Rome and the Myth of Alexander.” In T. W. Hillard et al. (eds.), Ancient History in a Modern University: Proceedings of a Conference Held at Macquarie University, 8–13 July, 1993, to Mark Twenty-Five Years of the Teaching of Ancient History at Macquarie University and the Retirement from the Chair of Professor Edwin Judge, 1:178–91. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans. Gruen, E. 2009. “Caesar as Politician.” In M. T. Griffin (ed.), A Companion to Julius Caesar, 23–36. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Guarducci, M. 1951–52. “La Fortuna e Servio Tullio in un'antichissima sors.” RPAA 25–26:23–32. Guillaumin, J.-Y. 2008. “Les cornes de Cipus.” In F. Galtier and Y. Perrin (eds.), Ars pictoris, ars scriptoris: Peinture, littérature, histoire; Mélanges offerts à Jean-Michel Croisille, 163–71. Clermont-Ferrand: Presses Universitaires Blaise-Pascal. Gunderson, E. 2000. Staging Masculinity: The Rhetoric of Performance in the Roman World. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Gurval, R. A. 1998. Actium and Augustus: The Politics and Emotions of Civil War. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Habicht, C. 1970. Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte. Munich: Beck. Habicht, C. 1979. Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Munich: Beck. Habinek, T. N. 2001. The Politics of Latin Literature: Writing, Identity, and Empire in Ancient Rome. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Habinek, T. N. 2005. The World of Roman Song: From Ritualized Speech to Social Order. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hadot, I. 1970. “Tradition stoïcienne et idées politiques au temps des Gracques.”REL 48:133–79. Halfmann, H. 1986. Itinera principum: Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen im Römischen Reich. Stuttgart: Steiner. Page 295 → Hall, J. F., III. 1986. “The Saeculum Novum of Augustus and Its Etruscan Antecedents.” ANRW II.16.3:2564–89. Hall, J. M. 2005. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hamnet, I. 2000. “Durkheim and the Study of Religion.” In W. S. F. Pickering (ed.), Emile Durkheim: Critical Assessments of Leading Sociologists, 2:50–73. London: Routledge.

Harrison, J. R. 2011. Paul and the Imperial Authorities at Thessalonica: A Study in the Conflict of Ideology. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Harrison, S. J. 1990. “Cicero's De Temporibus Suis: The Evidence Reconsidered.” Hermes 4:455–63. Harrison, S. J. 1997. “The Survival and Supremacy of Rome: The Unity of the Shield of Aeneas.” JRS 87:70–76. Harvey, P. B. 1982. “Cicero, Consius, and Capua: II. Cicero and M. Brutus' Colony.” Athenaeum 60:145–48. Haselberger, L., and Romano, D. (eds.) 2002. Mapping Augustan Rome. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Havas, H. L. 2000. “Romulus Arpinas: Ein wenig bekanntes Kapitel in der römischen Geschichte des SaeculumGedankens.” AC 36:71–88. Hedreen, G. M. 2004. “The Return of Hephaistos, Dionysiac Processional Ritual, and the Creation of a Visual Narrative.” JHS 124:38–64. Hekster, O., and Rich, J. 2006. “Octavian and the Thunderbolt: The Temple of Apollo Palatinus and Roman Traditions of Temple Building.” CQ 56:149–68. Hellegouarc'h, J. 1972. Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la République. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Henderson, M. I. 1963. “The Establishment of the Equester Ordo.” JRS 53:61–72. Henzen, W. 1874. Acta fratrum Arvalium quae supersunt. Berlin: G. Reimeri. Herman, G. 1987. Ritualized Friendship and the Greek City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hersch, K. K. 2010. The Roman Wedding: Ritual and Meaning in Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heurgon, J. 1959. “The Date of Vegoia's Prophecy.” JRS 49:41–45. Heuss, A. 1982. Gedanken und Vermutungen zur frühen römischen Regierungsgewalt. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Hickson Hahn, F. 1991. “Augustus Triumphator: Manipulation of the Triumphal Theme in the Political Program of Augustus.” Latomus 50:124–28. Hickson Hahn, F. 2011. “Performing the Sacred: Prayers and Hymns.” In J. Rüpke (ed.), A Companion to Roman Religion, 234–48. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Hijmans, S. 2004. “Sol and Luna in the Carmen Saeculare: An Iconographic Perspective.” Page 296 → In M. Zimmerman et al. (eds.), Metamorphic Reflections: Essays Presented to B. Hijmans, 201–24. Leuven: Peeters. Hill, H. 1932. “Sulla's New Senators in 81 B.C.” CQ 26: 170–77. Hillard, T. W. 2005. “Scipio Aemilianus and a Prophecy from Clunia.” Historia 54:344–48. Hillman, T. P. 1992. “Plutarch and the First Consulship of Pompeius and Crassus.” Phoenix 46:124–37. Hinard, F. 1985. Les proscriptions de la Rome républicaine. Rome: École française de Rome. Hinard, F. 2008. Sullana varia: Aux sources de la première guerre civile romaine. Paris: de Boccard.

Hinds, S. 1998. Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hinnells, J. R. 1973. “The Zoroastrian Doctrine of Salvation in the Roman World: A Study of the Oracle of Hystaspes.” In E. J. Sharps and J. R. Hinnells (eds.), Man and His Salvation: Studies in Memory of S. G. F. Brandon, 125–48. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Hölkeskamp, K.-J. 2010. Reconstructing the Roman Republic: An Ancient Political Culture and Modern Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Holland, L. A. 1961. Janus and the Bridge. Rome: American Academy in Rome. Holliday, J. 1990. “Time, History, and Ritual on the Ara Pacis Augustae.” Art Bulletin 72.4:542–57. Holloway, R. R. 1994. The Archaeology of Early Rome and Latium. London: Routledge. Hooker, E. M. 1963. “The Significance of Numa's Religious Reforms.” Numen 10:87–132. Howgego, C. 2013. Ancient History from Coins. London: Routledge. Humm, M. 2012. “Curiate Law, Roman Religion, and the Roman Magistrate's Power.” In O. Tellegen-Couperus (eds.), Law and Religion in the Roman Republic, 57–84. Leiden: Brill. Humphrey, J., and Reinhold, M. 1984. “Res Gestae 4.1 and the Ovations of Octavian.” ZPE 57:60–62. Hutchinson, G. O. 1998. Cicero's Correspondence: A Literary Study. Oxford: Clarendon. Hutton, R. 2007. Shamans: Siberian Spirituality and the Western Imagination. London: Continuum. Iles Johnston, S. 2004. Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Illuminati, A. 1961. “Mamurius Veturius.” SMSR 32: 41–80. Isaac, B. H. 2006. The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Page 297 → Jal, P. 1961. “Pax civilis, concordia.” REL 39:210–31. Jannot, J.-R. 2005. Religion in Ancient Etruria. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Jocelyn, H. D. 1966. “The Roman Nobility and the Religion of the Roman State.” JRH 4:89–104. Johnson, M. F. 1996. “The Mausoleum of Augustus: Etruscan and Other Influences on Its Design.” In J. F. Hall (ed.), Etruscan Italy: Etruscan Influences on the Civilizations of Italy from Antiquity to the Modern Era, 217–40. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Jones, A. H. M. 1949. “The Roman Civil Service (Clerical and Sub-Clerical Grades).” JRS 39:38–55. Jones, A. H. M. 1951. “The Imperium of Augustus.” JRS 41:112–19. Jones, C. P. 1970. “Cicero's ‘Cato.’” RhM 113:188–96. Kahn, C. H. 2001. Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans: A Brief History. Indianapolis: Hackett. Kaplan, A. 1973. “Religious Dictators of the Roman Republic.” CW 67:172–75.

Kaster, R. A. 2006. Cicero: Speech on Behalf of Publius Sestius. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Katz, B. R. 1979. “The Selection of L. Cornelius Merula.” RhM 122:162–66. Keaveney, A. 1983. “Sulla and the Gods.” In C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, 3:44–79. Brussells: Latomus. Keaveney, A. 2005a. “Sulla and the Games of Hercules.” AC 74:217–23. Keaveney, A. 2005b. Sulla: The Last Republican. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Kelley, G. P. A History of Exile in the Roman Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Kellum, B. 1997. “Concealing/Revealing: Gender and the Play of Meaning in the Monuments of Augustan Rome.” In T. Habinek and A. Barchiesi (eds.), The Roman Cultural Revolution, 158–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kessissoglu, A. I. 1988. “Mimus Vitae.” Mnemosyne 41:385–88. Kienast, D. 1982. Augustus, Prinzeps und Monarch. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Kienast, D. 2001. “Augustus und Caesar.” Chiron 31:1–26. Kingsley, P. 1995. Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and the Pythagorean Tradition. Oxford: Clarendon. Kinman, B. 2005. “Jesus' Royal Entry into Jerusalem.” BBR 15.2:223–60. Kleiner, D. E. E. 1978. “The Great Friezes of the Ara Pacis Augustae: Greek Sources, Roman Derivatives, and Augustan Social Policy.” MEFRA 90:753–85. Kleiner, D. E. E., and Buxton, B. 2008. “Pledges of Empire: The Ara Pacis and the Donations of Rome.” AJA 112:57–89. Kloft, H. 1980. “Caesar und die Amtsentsetzung der Volkstribunen im Jahre 44 v. Chr.” Historia 29:315–44. Page 298 → Koch, C. 1933. Gestirnverehrung im alten Italien: Sol Indiges und der Kreis der di indigetes. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann. Koch, C. 1937. Der römische Jupiter. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann. Koeppel, G. 1969. “Profectio und Adventus.” 169:130–94. Köhler, U. 1864. “Scavi: Statua di Ercole in bronzo scoperta nel cortile del palazzo Righetti.” BdI 227–30. Kondratieff, E. 2004. “The Column and Coinage of C. Duilius: Innovations in Iconography in Large and Small Media in the Middle Republic.” SCI 23:10–26. Konrad, C. F. 1994. Plutarch's “Sertorius”: A Historical Commentary. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Konrad, C. F. 1997. “Marius at Eryx (Sallust P. Rylands 473.1).” Historia 46:28–63. Krostenko, B. A. 2005. “Style and Ideology in the Pro Marcello.” In K. Welch and T. W. Hillard (eds.), Roman Crossings: Theory and Practice in the Roman Republic, 279–312. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales.

Kuttner, A. 1995. Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus: The Case of the Boscoreale Cups. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lacey, W. K. 1996a. Augustus and the Principate: The Evolution of a System. Leeds: Cairns. Lacey, W. K. 1996b. “The Beginning of the Principate.” In Lacey 1996a, 132–53. Lachmann, K. (ed.). 1848. Die Schriften der Römischen Feldmesser. Vol. 1. Berlin: G. Reimer. Lane Fox, R. 1986. Pagans and Christians. London: Viking. Lange, C. H. 2009. Res Publica Constituta: Actium, Apollo, and the Accomplishment of the Triumviral Assignment. Leiden: Brill. La Rocca, E. 2001. “La nuova immagine dei fori imperiali: Appunti in margine agli scavi.” MDAI(R) 108:171–213. Latte, K. 1960. Römische Religionsgeschichte. Munich: Beck. Lavelle, B. M. 1991. “The Compleat Angler: Observations on the Rise of Peisistratus in Herodotus (1.59–64).” CQ 41:317–24. Leach, J. 1978. Pompey the Great. London: Croom Helm. Lee-Stecum, P. 2010. “Mendacia maiorum: Tales of Deceit in Pre-Republican Rome.” In A. J. Turner et al. (eds.), Private and Public Lies: The Discourse of Despotism and Deceit in the Graeco-Roman World, 249–70. Leiden: Brill. Lehnen, J. 1997. Adventus principis: Untersuchungen zu Sinngehalt und Zeremoniell der Kaiserankunft in den Städten des Imperium Romanum. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Lendon, J. E. 1997. Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Levene, D. 1993. Religion in Livy. Leiden: Brill. Page 299 → Levi-Strauss, C. 1963. Totemism. Boston: Beacon. Lewis, A.-M. 2008. “Augustus and His Horoscope Reconsidered.” Phoenix 62:308–37. Lewis, R. G. 1991. “Sulla's Autobiography: Scope and Economy.” Athenaeum 79:509–19. Lewis, S. 2000. “The Tyrant's Myth.” In C. Smith and J. Serrati (eds.), Sicily from Aeneas to Augustus, 97–106. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Libero, L. de 1994. “Die sogenannte ‘Zweite Tyrannis’ des Peisistratos.” Hermes 122:114–16. Liegle, J. 1942. “L. Aemilius Paullus als Augur Maximus im Jahre 160 und das Augurium des Heils.” Hermes 77:249–312. Lincoln, B. 1983. “‘The Earth Becomes Flat’—A Study of Apocalyptic Imagery.” CSSH 25:136–53. Lincoln, B. 1985. “Of Meat and Society, Sacrifice and Creation, Butchers and Society.” L'Uomo 9:9–29. Lincoln, B. 1990. “Prophecies, Rumors, and Silence.” In Poli 1990, 59–73.

Linderski, J. 1986. “The Augural Law.” ANRW II.16.3:2146–2312. Lintott, A. 1967. “P. Clodius Pulcher—‘Felix Catilina?’” G&R 14:157–69. Lintott, A. 1986. “Acta Antiquissima: A Week in the History of the Roman Republic.” PBSR 54:213–28. Lintott, A. 1999. The Constitution of the Roman Republic. Oxford: Clarendon. Lipka, M. 2009. Roman Gods: A Conceptual Approach. Leiden: Brill. Littlewood, R. J. 2002. “Imperii pignora certa: The Role of Numa in Ovid's Fasti.” In Ovid's “Fasti”: Historical Readings at Its Bimillennium, 175–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Littlewood, R. J. 2006. A Commentary on Ovid: “Fasti,” Book 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Loicq, J. 1964. “Mamurius Veturius et l'ancienne représentation de l'année.” In M. Renard and R. Schilling (eds.), Hommages à Jean Bayet, 401–26. Brussells: Latomus. Longfellow, B. 2010. Roman Imperialism and Civic Patronage: Form, Meaning, and Ideology in Monumental Fountain Complexes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Loraux, N. 1986. The Invention of Athens: The Funeral Oration in the Classical City. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Loraux, N. 1993. The Children of Athena: Athenian Ideas about Citizenship and the Division between the Sexes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Lovano, M. 2002. The Age of Cinna: Crucible of Late Republican Rome. Stuttgart: Steiner. Lowrie, M. 2005. “Inside Out: In Defense of Form.” TAPA 135:35–48. Page 300 → Luce, T. J. 1968. “Political Propaganda on Roman Republican Coins: Circa 92–82 B.C.” AJA 72:25–39. Luke, T. S. 2010. “A Healing Touch for Empire: Vespasian's Wonders in Domitianic Rome.” G&R 57:77–106. Lyne, R. O. A. M. 1995. Horace: Behind the Public Poetry. New Haven: Yale University Press. MacCormack, S. 1981. Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press. Magdelain, A. 1968. Recherches sur l'“Imperium”: La loi curiate et les auspices d'investiture. Travaux et recherches de la Faculté de droit et des sciences économiques de Paris, Série Sciences historiques, 12. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Magdelain, A. 1977. “L'inauguration de l'urbs et l'imperium.” MEFRA 89:11–29. Malinowski, B. 1948. Magic, Science, and Religion, and Other Essays. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Malkin, I. 1987. Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece. Leiden: Brill. Mansfeld, J. 1979. “Providence and the Destruction of the Universe.” In M. J. Vermaseren (ed.), Studies in Hellenistic Religions, 136–88. Leiden: Brill. Marasco, G. 1984. “L'apologia di Q. Lutazio Catulo e la tradizione sulla guerra cimbrica.” GFF 7:75–84. Marino, A. S. 1999. Numa e Pitagora: Sapientia constituendae civitatis. Naples: Liguori Editore.

Marks, R. 2004. “Of Kings, Crowns, and Boundary Stones: Cipus and the hasta Romuli in Metamorphoses 15.” TAPA 134:107–31. Marshall, A. J. 1984. “Symbols and Showmanship in Roman Public Life: The Fasces.” Phoenix 38:120–41. Marshall, B. A. 1972. “Crassus' Ovation in 71 B.C.” Historia 21:669–73. Marshall, B. A. 1985a. “Catilina and the Execution of M. Marius Gratidianus.” CQ 35:124–33. Marshall, B. A. 1985b. A Historical Commentary on Asconius. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. Martin, R. P. 1998. “The Seven Sages as Performers of Wisdom.” In C. Dougherty and L. Kurke (eds.), Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece: Cult, Performance, Politics, 115–28. New York: Oxford University Press. Mastrocinque, A. 2005. “L'incendio del Campidoglio e la fine del saeculum etrusco.” Gerión 23.1:137–42. Mattingly, H. 1928. Roman Coins: From the Earliest Times to the Fall of the Western Empire. London: Taylor and Francis. Mattingly, H. 1934. “Virgil's Golden Age: Sixth Aeneid and Fourth Eclogue.” CR 48:161–65. Page 301 → Mauss, M. 1985. “A Category of the Human Mind: The Notion of the Person; the Notion of Self.” In M. Carrithers, S. Collins, and S. Lukes (eds.), The Category of the Person: Anthropology, Philosophy, History, 1–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McBain, B. 1982. Prodigy and Expiation: A Study in Religion and Politics in Republican Rome. Brussels: Latomus. McDermott, W. C. 1970. “In Ligarianam.” TAPA 101:317–47. McDonnell, M. A. 2006. Roman Manliness: Virtus and the Roman Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McGing, B. C. 1986. The Foreign Policy of Mithradates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden: Brill. Meier, C. 1995. Caesar: A Biography. Trans. D. McLintock. New York: Basic Books. Mellor, R. 1981. “The Goddess Roma.” ANRW II.17.2:950–1030. Meneghini, R., and Santangeli Valenzani, R. 2007. I fori imperiali: Gli scavi del Commune di Roma (1991–2007)/Roberto Meneghini e Riccardo Santangeli Valenzani; con la collaborazione di Elisabetta Bianchi. Rome: Viviani. Merkelbach, R. 1961. “Aeneas in Cumae.” MH 18:83–99. Merrill, E. T. 1924. Essays in Early Christian History. New York: MacMillan. Meyer, E. 1925. Geschichte des Königreichs Pontos. Leipzig: W. Engelmann. Meyer, E. 1978. Caesars Monarchie und das Prinzipat des Pompeius. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Michels, A. K. 1967. The Calendar of the Roman Republic. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Mikalson, J. D. 1998. Religion in Hellenistic Athens. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Miles, G. B. 1997. Livy: Reconstructing Early Rome. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Millar, F. 2002. The Crowd in the Late Roman Republic. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Miller, J. F. 2000. “Triumphus in Palatio.” AJPh 121:409–22. Miller, J. F. 2009. Apollo, Augustus, and the Poets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Momigliano, A. A. 1942. “Terra marique.” JRS 32:53–64. Momigliano, A. A. 1966. “Procum patricium.” JRS 56:16–24. Momigliano, A. A. 1987. On Pagans, Jews, and Christians. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Momigliano, A. A. 1990. The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography. Berkeley: University of California Press. Mommsen, T. 1883. Res gestae divi Augusti: Ex monumentis Ancyrano et Apolloniensi iterum. Berlin: Weidmann. Page 302 → Mommsen, T. 1887. Römisches Staatsrecht Vol. 2, pt. 1. Leipzig: S. Hirzel. Montero, S. 1993. “Mántica y demonología: Losharioli.” AC 62:115–29. Moralee, J. 2004. “For Salvation's Sake”: Provincial Loyalty, Personal Religion, and Epigraphic Production in the Roman and Late Antique Near East. London: Routledge. Moretti, G. 1939. The Ara Pacis Augustae. Trans. V. Priestley. Rome: Libreria dello Stato. Moretti, L. 1982–84. “Frammenti vecchi e nuovi del commentario dei ludi secolari del 17 a.C.” Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, Rendiconti 55–56:361–79. Morgan, L. 2005. “A Yoke Connecting Baskets: Odes 3.14, Hercules, and Italian Unity.” CQ 55.1:190–203. Morpurgo, L. 1908. “La porta trionfale e la via dei trionfi.” Bull. Com. 36:108–50. Morstein-Marx, R. 2004. Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Roman Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mossman, J. M. 1992. “Plutarch, Pyrrhus, and Alexander.” In P. A. Stadter (ed.), Plutarch and the Historical Tradition, 90–108. London: Routledge. Mouritsen, H. 1998. Italian Unification: A Study in Ancient and Modern Historiography. London: Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London. Muccigrosso, J. 2006. “Religion and Politics.” In P. B. Harvey and C. E. Schultz (eds.), Religion in Republican Italy, 199–206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Muccioli, F. 1994. “Dopo la vittoria dei Campi Raudii: Mario terzo fondatore di Roma?” A&R 39:192–205. Mueller, H.-F. 2002. Religion in Valerius Maximus. London: Routledge. Munn, M. H. 2006. The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia: A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion. Berkeley: University of California Press. Murray, J. 2011. “Shipwrecked ‘Argonauticas.’” In P. Asso (ed.), Brill's Companion to Lucan, 58–67. Leidein:

Brill,. Murray, O. 1965. “Philodemus on the Good King according to Homer.” JRS 55:161–82. Musti, D. 1970. Tendenze nella storiografia romana e greca su Roma arcaica: Studi su Livio e Dionigi d' Alicarnasso. Rome: Edizioni dell'Ateneo. Myers, K. S. 1994. Ovid's Causes: Cosmogony and Aetiology in the “Metamorphoses.” Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Nagy, G. 2008. “The Epic Hero.” In J. M. Foley (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Epic, 71–89. Oxford: WileyBlackwell. Nerdahl, M. 2007. “Homeric Models in Plutarch's Lives.” PhD diss., University of Wisconsin. Nicholson, J. 1992. Cicero's Return from Exile: The “Post Reditum” Speeches. New York: Lang. Page 303 → Nicolet, C. 1966. L'ordre équestre à l'époque républicaine (312–43) av. J. C.). Vol. 1. Paris: de Boccard. Nicolet, C. 1980. The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press Nicolet, C. 1991. Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early Roman Empire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Nilsson, M. P. 1900. Studia de Dionysiis atticis. Lund: Hjalmarum Möller. Nippel, W. 1984. “Policing Rome.” JRS 74:20–29. Nippel, W. 1988. Aufruhr und Polizei in der römischen Republik. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Nisbet, R. G. M., and Hubbard, M. 1970. A Commentary on Horace: “Odes,” Book 1. Oxford: Clarendon. Nisbet, R. G. M., and Hubbard, M. 1983. “Some Problems of Text and Interpretation in Horace Odes 3,14 (Herculis Ritu).” PLLS 4:105–19. Nock, A. D. 1957. “Deification and Julian.” JRS 47:115–23. Noreña, C. 2011. Imperial Ideals in the Roman West: Representation, Circulation, and Power. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. Noreña, C. 2013. “Locating the Ustrinum of Augustus.” MAAR. 58:51–64. Oakley, S. P. 2005. A Commentary on Livy, Books VI–X. Vol. 4. Oxford: Clarendon. Ogilvie, R. M. 1961. “Lustrum Condere.” JRS 51:31–39. Ogilvie, R. M. 1965. A Commentary on Livy, Books 1–5. Oxford: Clarendon. O'Gorman, E. 2000. Irony and Misreading in the Annals of Tacitus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Orlin, E. 1997. Temples, Religion, and Politics in the Roman Republic. Leiden: Brill. Orlin, E. 2010. Foreign Cults in Rome: Creating a Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Osgood, J. 2006. Caesar's Legacy: Civil War and the Emergence of the Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. Pais, E. 1905. Ancient Legends of Roman History. New York: Dodd, Mead. Palagia, O. 2000. “Hephaiston's Pyre and the Royal Hunt of Alexander.” In A. B. Bosworth and E. Baynham (eds.), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction, 167–206. Oxford: Oxford University Press:. Palmer, R. E. A. 1990. Studies of the Northern Campus Martius in Ancient Rome. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 80, pt. 2. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Paschális, M. 1997. Vergil's “Aeneid.” Oxford: Clarendon. Pasco-Pranger, M. 2002. “A Varronian Vatic Numa? Ovid's Fasti and Plutarch's Life of Numa.” In D. S. Levene and D. P. Nelis (eds.), Clio and the Poets: Augustan Poetry and the Traditions of Ancient Historiography, 291–312. Leiden: Brill. Passerini, A. 1971. Studi su Caio Mario. Milan: Celuc. Page 304 → Patterson, J. R. 2010. “Rome and Italy.” In N. Rosenstein and R. Morstein Marx (eds.), A Companion to the Roman Republic, 606–24. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Pease, A. S. 1943. “The Son of Neptune.” HSPh 54:69–82. Pellegrini, A. 1865. “Scavi di Roma.” BdI 201–3. Pelling, C. B. R. 1979. “Plutarch's Method of Work in the Roman Lives.” JHS 99:74–96. Pelling, C. B. R. (ed.). 1988. Plutarch, “Life of Antony.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pelling, C. B. R. 2009. “The Greek Historians of Rome.” In J. Marincola (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography, 244–58. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Pelling, C. B. R. 2011. Plutarch, “Caesar”: Translated with an Introduction and Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Penwill, J. L. 2004. “De intregro condere: Rediscovering Numa in Livy's Rome.” Scholia 13:28–55. Perrin, B. Trans. 1919. Plutarch's Lives. Vol. 7, Demosthenes and Cicero, Alexander and Caesar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Petridou, G. 2006. “On Divine Epiphanies: Contextualizing and Conceptualizing Epiphanic Narratives in Greek Literature and Culture (7th C BC–2nd C AD).” PhD diss., University of Exeter. Pfiffig, A. J. 1961. “Eine etruskische Prophezeiung.” Gymnasium 68:55–64. Phillips, C. R. 2011. “Approaching Roman Religion.” In J. Rüpke (ed.), A Companion to Roman Religion, 10–28. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Phillips, D. A. 1997. “The Conspiracy of Egnatius Rufus and the Elections of Suffect Consuls under Augustus.” Historia 46:103–12. Phillips, J. E. 1974a. “Form and Language in Livy's Triumph Notices.” CPh 69:265–73. Phillips, J. E. 1974b. “Verbs Compounded with Trans- in Livy's Triumph Reports.” CPh 69:54–55.

Piecha, R. 2003. “Wenn Frauen baden gehen…Agrippinas Ende bei Tac. Ann. 14, 1–13.” In M. Schauer and G. Thome (eds.), Altera Ratio: Klassische Philologie zwischen Subjektivität und Wissenschaft (Festschrift für Werner Suerbaum zur 70. Geburtstag), 120–35. Stuttgart: Steiner. Pighi, G. B. 1965. De ludis saecularibus populi romani Quiritum. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: P. Schippers. Pike, J. B. 1920. “Cenat Adulteria in Suetonius.” CJ 15:372–73. Pina Polo, F. 2011a. The Consul at Rome: The Civil Functions of the Consuls in the Roman Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pina Polo, F. 2011b. “Consuls as curatores pacis deorum.” In H. Beck, A. Duplá, et Page 305 → al. (eds.), Consuls and Res Publica: Holding High Office in the Roman Republic, 97–115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pittenger, M. R. P. 2008. Contested Triumphs: Politics, Pageantry, and Performance in Livy's Republican Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press. Platner, S., and Ashby, B. Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. London: Oxford University Press, 1929. Platt, V. J. 2011. Facing the Gods: Epiphany and Representation in Graeco-Roman Art, Literature, and Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Plattus, A. 1983. “Passages into the City: The Interpretive Function of the Roman Triumph.” Princeton Journal 1:93–115. Pleket, H. W. 1981. “Religious History as the History of Mentality: The ‘Believer’ as Servant of the Deity in the Ancient World.” In H. S. Versnel (ed.), Faith, Hope, and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World, 158–59. Leiden: Brill. Poe, J. P. 1984. “The Secular Games, the Aventine, and the Pomerium in the Campus Martius.” CA 3:57–81. Poli, D. (ed.). 1990. Episteme: In ricordo di Giorgio Raimondo Cardona. Rome: Herder. Pollini, J. 1990. “Man or God: Divine Assimilation and Imitation in the Late Republic and Early Empire.” In K. Raaflaub and M. Toher (eds.), Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate, 334–57. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pollini, J. 2012. From Republic to Empire: Rhetoric, Religion, and Power in the Visual Culture of Ancient Rome. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Porte, D. 1981. “Romulus-Quirinus, prince et dieu, dieu des princes: Étude sur le personnage de Quirinus et sur son évolution des origines à Auguste.” ANRW II.17.1:300–42. Powell, A. 1992. “The Aeneid and the Embarrassment of Augustus.” In A. Powell (ed.), Roman Poetry and Propaganda in the Age of Augustus, 141–74. London: Bristol Classical Press. Powell, A., Welch, K., Gowing, A. M., et al. 2002. Sextus Pompeius. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Price, S. R. F. 1984. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Purcell, N. 1983. “The Apparitores: A Study in Social Mobility.” PBSR 51:125–73. Putnam, M. J. 2001. Horace's “Carmen Saeculare”: Ritual Magic and the Poet's Art. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Radke, G. 1981. “Quirinus: Eine kritische Überprüfung der Überlieferung und ein Versuch.” ANRW II.17.1:276–99. Page 306 → Ramage, E. S. 1985. “Augustus' Treatment of Caesar.” Historia 34:223–245. Ramage, E. S. 1987. The Nature and Purpose of Augustus' “Res Gestae.” Stuttgart: Steiner. Ramage, E. S. 1991. “Sulla's Propaganda.” Klio 73:93–121. Ramsey, J., and Licht, A. 1997. The Comet of 44 B.C. and Caesar's Funeral Games. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Raubitschek, A. E. 1951. “Sylleia.” In P. R. Coleman-Norton (ed.), Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honor of Allan Chester Johnson, 49–57. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Raubitschek, A. E. 1954. “Epigraphical Notes on Julius Caesar.” JRS 44:65–75. Rawson, B. 1970. “Pompey and Hercules.” Antichthon 4:30–37. Rawson, E. 1974. “Religion and Politics in the Late Second Century B.C. at Rome.” Phoenix 28:193–212. Rawson, E. 1975. “Caesar's Heritage: Hellenistic Kings and Their Roman Equals.” JRS 65:148–59. Rawson, E. 1985. Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic. London: Duckworth. Rea, J. A. 2007. Legendary Rome: Myth, Monuments, and Memory on the Palatine and Capitoline. London: Duckworth. Reeder, J. C. 1989. “Agyieus and Baluster: Aniconic Monuments in Roman Art.” PhD diss., Brown University. Rehak, P. 2001. “Aeneas or Numa? Rethinking the Meaning of the Ara Pacis Augustae.” Art Bulletin 83:190–208. Rehak, P., and Younger, J. G. 2009. Imperium and Cosmos: Augustus and the Northern Campus Martius. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Reinhold, M. 1988. From Republic to Principate: An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio's “Roman History” Books 49–52 (36–29 B.C.). Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Rich, J. 1990. Cassius Dio: The Augustan Settlement (“Roman History” 53–55.9). Warminster: Aris and Phillips. Rich, J. 2003. “Augustus, War and Peace.” In L. De Blois, P. Erdkamp, O. Hekster, et al. (eds.), The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power: Proceedings of the Third Workshop of the International Network of Impact of Empire (Roman Empire, c. 200 B.C.–A.D. 476), 329–57. Amsterdam: Gieben. Rich, J. 2010. “Deception, Lies, and Economy with Truth.” In A. J. Turner et al. (eds.), Private and Public Lies: The Discourse of Despotism and Deceit in the Graeco-Roman World, 166–91. Leiden: Brill. Richard, J.-C. 1987. “Recherches sur l'interprétation populaire de la figure du roi Servius Tullius.” RPh 61:205–25. Richardson, J. S. 1975. “The Triumph, the Praetors, and the Senate in the Early Second Century.” JRS 65:50–63. Page 307 → Richardson, L., Jr. 1992. A New Topographical Dictionary of Rome. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Ridley, R. T. 1975. “Cicero and Sulla.” Weiner Studien 9:83–108. Ridley, R. T. 2003. The Emperor's Retrospect: Augustus' “Res Gestae” in Epigraphy, Historiography, and Commentary. Leuven: Peeters. Ridley, R. T. 2005. “The Absent Pontifex Maximus.” Historia 54:275–300. Riggsby, A. M. 1999. Crime and Community in Ciceronian Rome. Austin: University of Texas Press. Riu, X. 1999. Dionysism and Comedy. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Rives, J. 2011. “Control of the Sacred in Roman Law.” In O. Tellegen-Couperus (ed.), Law and Religion in the Roman Republic, 165–80. Leiden: Brill. Rizzolati, G. 2005. “The Mirror Neuron System and Its Function in Humans.” Anat. Embryol. 210:419–21. Robertson, N. 1993. “Athens' Festival of the New Wine.” HSPh 95:197–250. Roller, D. W. 2007. “The Lost Building Program of Marcus Antonius.” AC 76:685–86. Roller, M. B. 2004. “Exemplarity in Roman Culture: The Case of Horatius Cocles and Cloelia.” CPh 99:1–56. Roller, M. B. 2010. “Demolished Houses, Monumentality, and Memory in Roman Culture.” CA 29:117–80. Rose, C. B. 1990. “‘Princes’ and Barbarians on the Ara Pacis.” AJA 94:453–67. Rosenstein, N. S. 1990. Imperatores Victi: Defeat and Aristocratic Competition in the Middle and Late Republic. Berkeley: University of California Press. Rosivach, V. J. 1980. “Latinus' Genealogy and the Palace of Picus (Aeneid 7.45–9, 170–91).” CQ 30:140–52. Rosivach, V. J. 1987. “Autochthony and the Athenians.” CQ 37:294–306. Rossi, A. 2000. “The Camp of Pompey: Strategy of Representation in Caesar's Bellum Civile.” CJ 95:239–56. Roueché, C. 1984. “Acclamations in the Later Roman Empire: New Evidence from Aphrodisias.” JRS 74:181–99. Rowell, H. T. 1940. “The Forum and the Funeral Imagines of Augustus.” MAAR 17:131–43. Rowland, R. J., Jr. 1966. “Numismatic Propaganda under Cinna.” TAPA 97:407–19. Rubins, M. A. 1932. “A New Interpretation of Jupiter Elicius.” MAAR 10:85–102. Rundell, W. M. F. 1979. “Cicero and Clodius: The Question of Credibility.” Historia 28:301–28. Rüpke, J. 1990. Domi militiae: Die religiöse Konstruktion des Krieges in Rom. Stuttgart: Steiner. Rüpke, J. 1992. “You Shall Not Kill: Hierarchies of Norms in Ancient Rome.” Numen 39:58–79. Page 308 → Rüpke, J. 2007. Religion of the Romans. Cambridge: Polity Press. Rüpke, J. 2010. “Communicating with the Gods.” In N. Rosenstein and R. Morstein-Marx (eds.), A Companion to the Roman Republic, 215–35. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Rüpke, J. 2012. Religion in Republican Rome: Rationalization and Ritual Change. Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania.

Ryan, F. X. 1998. Rank and Participation in the Republican Senate. Stuttgart: Steiner. Ryberg, I. S. 1949. “The Procession of the Ara Pacis.” MAAR 19:79–101. Säflund, G. 1932. Le mura di Roma repubblicana. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup. Sallares, R. 2002. Malaria and Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Salmon, E.T. 1935. “Catiline, Crassus, and Caesar.” AJPh 56:302–16. Salmon, E.T. 1956. “The Evolution of Augustus' Principate.” Historia 5:456–78. Sandys, J. E. 1927. Latin Epigraphy: An Introduction to the Study of Latin Inscriptions. London: Cambridge University Press. Santangelo, F. 2007a. “Pompey and Religion.” Hermes 135:232–33. Santangelo, F. 2007b. Sulla, the Elites, and the Empire: A Study of Roman Policies in Italy and the Greek East. Leiden: Brill. Santangelo, F. 2008. “Cicero and Marius.” Athenaeum 96:597–607. Santangelo, F. 2013. Divination, Prediction, and the End of the Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Santi, C. 2002. “L'idea romana di sanctitas.” SMSR 26.2:239–64. Sarton, G. 1993. Hellenistic Science in the Last Three Centuries B.C. New York: Courier Dover. Sawada, N. 2011. “Social Customs and Institutions: Aspects of Macedonian Elite.” In J. Roisman and I. Worthington (eds.), A Companion to Ancient Macedonia, 392–408. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Scheid, J. 1990. Le collège des Frères Arvales: Étude prosopographique du recrutement(69–304). Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider. Scheid, J. 1990. Romulus et ses frères: Le collège des Frères Arvales, modèle du culte public dans la Rome des empereurs. Rome: École française de Rome. Scheid, J. 1995. “Graeco Ritu: A Typical Roman Way of Honoring the Gods.” HSPh 97:15–31. Scheid, J. 1999. “Auguste et le grand pontificat: politique et droit sacré au début du Principat. RD 77.1:1–19. Scheid, J. 2001. “Claudia the Vestal Virgin.” In A. Fraschetti (ed.), Roman Women, 23–33. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Scheid, J. 2003. An Introduction to Roman Religion. Trans. J. Lloyd. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Schmid, A. 2005. Augustus und die Macht der Sterne: Antike Astrologie und die Etablierug der Monarchie in Rom. Cologne: Böhlau. Page 309 → Schmitt, C. 1985. Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. Trans. G. Schwab. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Schnegg-Köhler, B. 2002. Die augusteischen Säkularspiele. Munich: Saur.

Schowalter, D. N. 1993. The Emperor and the Gods: Images from the Time of Trajan. Minneapolis: Fortress. Schultz, C. E. 2006a. “Juno Sospita and Roman Insecurity in the Social War.” In P. B. Harvey and C. E. Schultz (eds.), Religion in Republican Italy, 207–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schultz, C. E. 2006b. Women's Religious Activity in the Roman Republic. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Schulze, W. 1904. Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Schütz, M. 1990. “Zur Sonnenuhr des Augustus auf dem Marsfeld.” Gymnasium 97:432–57. Sciarrino, E. 2004. “A Temple for the Professional Muse: The Aedes Herculis Musarum and Cultural Shifts in Second-Century B.C. Rome.” In A. Barchiesi et al. (eds.), Rituals in Ink: A Conference on Religion and Literary Production in Ancient Rome Held at Stanford University in February 2002, 43–56. Stuttgart: Steiner. Scott, K. 1929. “Octavian's Propaganda and Antony's De Sua Ebrietate.” CPh 24:133–41. Scott, K. 1931. “The Significance of Statues in Precious Metals in Emperor Worship.” TAPA 62:101–23. Scott, K. 1932. “Chapter IX of the Res Gestae and the Ruler Cult.” CPh 27:284–87. Scott, K. 1933. “Political Propaganda of 44–30 B.C.” MAAR 11:7–49. Scullard, H. H. 1930. Scipio Africanus and the Second Punic War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scullard, H. H. 1981. Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Seager, R. 1973. “Iusta Catilinae.” Historia 22:245–47. Seager, R. 2002. Pompey the Great: A Political Biography. 2nd ed. London: Blackwell. Seager, R. 2005. Tiberius. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Sedley, D. 2002. “The Origins of the Stoic God.” In D. Frede and A. Laks (eds.), Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, Its Background and Aftermath, 41–84. Boston: Brill. Seelentag, G. 2011. “Imperial Representation and Reciprocation: The Case of Trajan.” CJ 107:73–97. Segal, E. 1976. “O Tempora, O Mos Maiorum.” In S. Bertman (ed.), The Conflict of Generations in Ancient Greece and Rome, 138–39. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner. Severy, B. 2003. Augustus and the Family at the Birth of the Roman Empire. New York: Routledge. Page 310 → Shackleton-Bailey, D. R. 2004. Marcus Cicero: “Epistulae ad Familiares.” Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shaw, B. 1984. “Bandits in the Roman Empire.” Past and Present 105:3–52. Shaw, B. 1985. “The Divine Economy: Stoicism as Ideology.” Latomus 44:16–54. Sherwin-White, A. N. 1956. “Violence in Roman Politics.” JRS 46:1–9. Sieveking, J. 1907. “Zur Ara Pacis Augustae.” ÖJh 10:175–99. Sihler, G.E. 1911. Annals of Caesar: A Critical Biography with a Survey of Sources. New York: G. E. Stechert.

Simon, E. 1986. Augustus: Kunst und Leben um die Zeitenwende. Munich: Hirmer. Simón, F. M. 2006. “Ritual Participation and Collective Identity in the Roman Republic: Censvs and Lvstrvm.” In F. M. Simón, F. Pina Polo, and J. R. Rodríguez (eds.),Repúblicas y ciudadanos: Modelos de participación cívica en el mundo antiguo, 157–65. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. Simón, F. M. 2011. “The Feriae Latinae as Religious Legitimation of the Consul's Imperium.” In H. Beck, A. Duplá, et al. (eds.), Consuls and the Res Publica: Holding High Office in the Roman Republic, 116–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Simpson, C. J. 1977. “The Date of the Dedication of the Temple of Mars Ultor.” JRS 67:91–94. Sinos, R. 1993. “Divine Selection: Epiphany and Politics in Archaic Greece.” In C. Dougherty and L. Kurke (eds.), Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece: Cult, Performance, Politics, 73–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sklenár, R. 2003. A Taste for Nothingness: A Study of Virtus and Related Themes in Lucan's “Bellum Civile.” Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Slater, N. W. 2008. “Orality and Autobiography: The Case of the Res Gestae. In E. A. Mackay (ed.), Orality, Literacy, Memory in the Ancient Greek and Roman World, 253–73. Leiden: Brill. Slater, N. W. 2012. “Speaking Verse to Power: Circulation of Oral and Written Critique in Suetonius' Lives of the Caesars.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the CAMWS–Southern Section, Florida State University. Small, J. P. 1982. Cacus and Marsyas in Etrusco-Roman Legend. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Smith, C. J. 2012. “The Feriae Latinae.” In J. R. Brandt and J. W. Iddeng (eds.), Greek and Roman Festivals: Content, Meaning, and Practice, 267–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, J. Z. 1990. Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Smith, J. Z. 1992. To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Page 311 → Smith, K. F. 1895. “On a Legend of the Alban Lake Told by Dionysius of Halicarnassus.” AJPh 16:203–10. Smuts, F. 1958. “Stoic Influences on Tiberius Gracchus.” AClass 1:106–16. Sordi, M. 1987. “Silla e lo ‘ius pomerii proferendi.’” In M. Sordi (ed.), Il confine nel mondo classico, 200–211. Contributi dell'Istituto di storia antica, 13. Milan: Vita e pensiero. Sordi, M. 2003. “Caesar's Powers in Their Last Phase.” Trans. E. Fantham. In Cairns and Fantham 2003, 192–98. Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 2000. “What Is Polis Religion?” In R. Buxton (ed.), Oxford Readings in Greek Religion, 13–37. New York: Oxford University Press. Southern, P. 1998. Augustus. London: Routledge. Spaeth, B. 1990. “The Goddess Ceres and the Death of Tiberius Gracchus.” Historia 39:182–95. Spaeth, B. 1996. The Roman Goddess Ceres. Austin: University of Texas Press. Speyer, W. 1986. “Das Verhältnis des Augustus zur Religion.” ANRW II.16.3:1777–1805.

Staples, A. 1998. From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgin: Sex and Category in Roman Religion. London: Routledge. Starr, R. J. 2009. “Annos undeviginti natus: Augustus and Romulus in Res Gestae 1.1.” Historia 58:367–69. Starr, R. J. 2010. “Augustus as Pater Patriae and Patronage Decrees.” ZPE 172:296–98. Stern, G. 2006. “Women, Children, and Senators on the Ara Pacis.” PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley. Stewart, A. F. 1993. Faces of Power: Alexander's Image and Hellenistic Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Stewart, R. 1995. “Catiline and the Crisis of 63–60 B.C.: The Italian Perspective.” Latomus 54:62–78. Stewart, R. 2013. Public Office in Early Rome: Ritual Procedure and Political Practice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Strazzulla, M. J. 1990. Il principato di Apollo: Mito e propaganda nelle lastre “Campana” dal tempio di Apollo Palatino. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider. Strocka, V. M. 2009. “Die Quadriga auf dem Augustusforum in Rom.” MDAI(R) 115:21–55. Strootman, R. 2007. “The Hellenistic Royal Court: Court Culture, Ceremonial, and Ideology in Greece, Egypt, and the Near East.” PhD diss., Utrecht University. Sulimani, I. 2011. Diodorus' Mythistory and the Pagan Mission: Historiography and Culture-Heroes in the First Pentad of the Bibliotheke. Leiden: Brill. Sumi, G. S. 2002a. “Impersonating the Dead: Mimes at Roman Funerals.” AJPh 123:559–85. Page 312 → Sumi, G. S. 2002b. “Spectacles and Sulla's Public Image.” Historia 51:414–32. Sumi, G. S. 2005. Ceremony and Power: Performing Politics in Rome between Republic and Empire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Sumi, G. S. 2009. “Monuments and Memory: The Aedes Castoris in the Formation of Augustan Ideology.” CQ 59:167–86. Suolahti, J. 1963. The Roman Censors: A Study on Social Structure. Helsinki: Annales Academiae Fennicae. Swan, P. M. 2004. The Augustan Succession. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Syme, R. 1939. The Roman Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Syme, R. 1979. “Problems about Janus.” AJPh 100:188–212. Syme, R. 1997. Tacitus. Oxford: Clarendon. Szabó, A. 1939. “Lustrum und Circus.” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 36:135–60. Tabbernee, W. 2007. Fake Prophecy and Polluted Sacraments: Ecclesiastical and Imperial Reactions to Montanism. Leiden: Brill. Takács, S. A. 2008. Vestal Virgins, Sibyls, and Matrons. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Tatum, W. J. 1990. “The Lex Clodia de censoria notione.” CPh 85:34–43. Tatum, W. J. 1993. “Ritual and Personal Morality in Roman Religion.” SyllClass 4:13–20. Tatum, W. J. 1999. The Patrician Tribune: Publius Clodius Pulcher. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Taylor, L. R. 1931. Divinity of the Roman Emperor. Middletown, CT: American Philological Association. Taylor, L. R. 1934a. “New Light on the History of the Secular Games.” AJPh 55:101–20. Taylor, L. R. 1934b. “Varro's De gente populi Romani.” CPh 29:221–29. Taylor, L. R. 1939. “Cicero's Aedileship.” AJPh 60:194–202. Taylor, L. R. 1960. The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic: The Thirty-Five Urban and Rural Tribes. Rome: American Academy in Rome. Taylor, P. M. 2003. Munitions of the Mind: A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Era. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Taylor, R. 2000. “Watching the Skies: Janus, Auspication, and the Shrine in the Forum Romanum.” MAAR 25:1–40. Thein, A. 2009. “Felicitas and the Memoirs of Sulla and Augustus.” In C. Smith and A. Powell (eds.), The Lost Memoirs of Augustus and the Development of Roman Autobiography, 87–109. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Thomas, D. F. C. 2005. “Priests and Politicians: Reflections on Livy and Cicero's De Domo Sua.” In K. Welch and T.W. Hillard (eds.), Roman Crossings: Theory and Practice in the Roman Republic, 119–40. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Page 313 → Thomas, R. F. 2001. Virgil and the Augustan Reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thomas, R. F. 2011. Horace, “Odes” Book IV and “Carmen Saeculare.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thulin, C. O. 1909. Die etruskische Disciplin. Vol. 3. Göteborg: W. Zachrissons boktryckeri a.-b. Tod, M. N. 1915. “Bibliography: Graeco-Roman Egypt. B. Inscriptions 1914.” JEA 2.2:108–12. Toher, M. 2004. “Octavian's Arrival in Rome, 44 B.C.” CQ 54:174–84. Tondriau, J. L. 1949. “Romains de la République assimilés à des divinités.”SO 27:128–40. Torelli, M. 1971. “Il santuario di Hera a Gravisca.” PP 26:44–67. Torelli, M. 1977. “Il santuario greco di Gravisca.” PP 32:398–458. Torelli, M. 1982. Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Relief. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Toynbee, A. J. 1965. Hannibal's Legacy. 2 vols. London: Oxford University Press. Toynbee, J. M. C. 1934. The Hadrianic School: A Chapter in the History of Greek Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Toynbee, J. M. C. 1961. “The ‘Ara Pacis Augustae.’” JRS 51:153–56. Toynbee, J. M. C. 1970. “Alexander as Model.” CR 20:82–84. Toynbee, J. M. C. 1971. Death and Burial in the Roman World. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Tschiedel, H. J. 1981. Caesars anticato: Eine Untersuchung der Testimonien und Fragmente. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Turcan, R. 2000. The Gods of Ancient Rome: Religion in Everyday Life from Archaic to Imperial Times. New York: Routledge. Turfa, J. M. 2006. “Etruscan Religion at the Watershed.” In C. E. Schultz and P. B. Harvey (eds.), Religion in Republican Italy, 62–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tyrrell, R. Y., and Purser, L. C. 1915. The Correspondence of M. Tullius Cicero. 2nd ed. Vol. 5. Dublin: Hodges, Figgis. Tyrrell, R. Y., and Purser, L. C. 1918. The Correspondence of M. Tullius Cicero. 2nd ed. Vol. 4. Dublin: Hodges, Figgis. Urso, G. 2010. “L'origine delle proscrizioni sillane nei frammenti di Cassio Dione.” REA 112.1:153–67. Valeton, I. M. J. 1892. “De templis Romanis.” Mnemosyne 20:338–90. Valgiglio, E. 1960. Vita di Silla. Turin: Lattes. Valgiglio, E. 1975. “L'autobiografia di Silla nelle biografie di Plutarco.” Studi Urbinati 49.1:245–81. Page 314 → Valvo, A. 1988. La “Profezia di Vegoia”: Proprietà fondiaria e aruspicina in Etruria nel I secolo a.C. Rome: Istituto italiano per la storia antica. van der Vin, J. P. A. 1981. “The Return of the Roman Ensigns from Parthia.” BABesch 56:117–40. Vanggaard, H. 1988. The Flamen: A Study in the History and Sociology of Roman Religion. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Van Son, D. W. L. 1963. “The Disturbances in Etruria during the Second Punic War.” Mnemosyne 16:267–74. Várhelyi, Z. 2011. “To Forgive Is Divine: Gods as Models of Forgiveness in Late Republican and Early Imperial Rome.” In C. L. Griswold and D. Konstan (eds.), Ancient Forgiveness: Classical, Judaic, and Christian, 115–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Varner, E. R. 2004. Mutilation and Transformation: Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture. Monumenta Graeca et Romana. Leiden: Brill. Vasaly, A. 1993. Representations: Images of the World in Ciceronian Oratory. Berkeley: University of California Press. Vasaly, A. 2009. “Cicero, Domestic Politics, and the First Action of the Verrines.” CQ 28:101–37. Versnel, H. S. 1970. Triumphus: An Inquiry into the Origin, Development, and Meaning of the Roman Triumph. Leiden: Brill. Versnel, H. S. 1980. “Historical Implications.” In C. M. Stibbe (ed.), Lapis Satricanus: Archaeological,

Epigraphical, Linguistic, and Historical Aspects of the New Inscription from Satricum, 108–11. The Hague: Ministerie van Cultuur, Recreatie en Maatschappelijk Werk. Versnel, H. S. 1987. “What Did Ancient Man See When He Saw a God? Some Reflections on Graeco-Roman Epiphany.” In D. van der Plas (ed.), Effigies Dei, 42–55. Leiden: Brill. Versnel, H. S. 1993. Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion. Vol. 2, Transition and Reversal in Myth and Ritual. Leiden: Brill. Vervaet, F. J. 2004. “The lex Valeria and Sulla's Empowerment as Dictator (82–79 BCE).” CCG 15:37–84. Vervaet, F. J. 2009. “Pompeius' Career from 79 to 70 BCE.” Klio 91.2:406–34. Vio, V. 1998. “Il ‘partito’ dei proscritti nello scontro politico del secondo triumvirato.” In Marrone G. Cresci (ed.), Temi Augustei: Atti dell'incronto di studio, Venezia, 5 giugno 1996, 21–36. Amsterdam: Hakkert. Viola, L. 1895. “Di un frammento di legge romana scoperto in Taranto.” Mon. Ant. 6: cols. 407–8. Voegelin, E. 2002. Anamnesis: On the Theory of History and Politics. Vol. 6. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. Page 315 → Wagenwoort, H. 1947. Roman Dynamism: Studies in Ancient Thought, Language, and Custom. Oxford: Blackwell. Wagenwoort, H. 1954. “Felicitas imperatoria.” Mnemosyne 4:300–22. Wagenwoort, H. 1956. Studies in Roman Literature, Culture, and Religion. Leiden: Brill. Walbank, F. W. 1984. “Monarchies and Monarchic Ideas.” In CAH VII2 1, 62–100. Walbank, F. W. 1985. “The Scipionic Legend.” In F.W. Walbank (ed.), Selected Papers: Studies in Greek and Roman History and Historiography, 120–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walbank, F. W. 1987. “Könige als Götter: Überlegungen zum Herrscherkult von Alexander bis Augustus.” Chiron 17:365–82. Wallmann, P. 1989. Triumviri Rei Publicae Constituendae: Untersuchungen zur politischen Propaganda im Zweiten Triumvirat (43–30 v. Chr.). Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Walt, S. 1997. Der Historiker C. Licinius Macer: Einleitung, Fragmente, Kommentar. Stuttgart: Teubner. Ward, A. M. 1977. Marcus Crassus and the Late Roman Republic. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. Wardle, D. 1994. Suetonius' “Life of Caligula”: A Commentary. Brussels: Latomus. Wardle, D. 2006. Cicero: “On Divination,” Book 1. Oxford: Clarendon. Wardle, D. 2009. “Caesar and Religion.” In M. T. Griffin (ed.), A Companion to Julius Caesar, 100–11. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Waters, K. H. 1970. “Cicero, Sallust, and Catiline.” Historia 19:195–215. Watkins, C. 1991. “Latin Tarentum Accas, the Ludi Saeculares, and Indo-European Eschatology.” In W. P. Lehmann and H.-J. J. Hewitt (eds.), Language Typology 1988: Typological Models in Reconstruction, 135–48.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Weber, W. 1936. Princeps: Studien zur Geschichte des Augustus. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. Weigel, R. D. 1992. Lepidus: The Tarnished Triumvir. London: Routledge. Weigel, R. D. 1998. “Roman Generals and the Vowing of Temples, 500–100 B.C.” Classica et Mediaevalia 49:119–42. Weinrich, O. 1937. “Zwölfgötter.” In W. H. Roscher (ed.), Ausfürliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, 6:764–848. Leipzig: Teubner. Weinstock, S. 1937. “Römische Reiterparade.” Studi Mat. St. Relig. 13:10–24. Weinstock, S. 1950. “Pax and the Ara Pacis.” JRS 50:44–58. Weinstock, S. 1957. “Victor and Invictus.” HThR 50.3:211–47. Weinstock, S. 1971. Divus Iulius. Oxford: Clarendon. Weiss, P. 1973. “Die ‘Säkularspiele' der Republik—eine annalistische Fiktion?” MDAIR 80:205–17. Welch, K. 2012. Magnus Pius: Sextus Pompeius and the Transformation of the Roman Republic. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Page 316 → Welin, E. 1954. “Ara Martis in Campo: Zur Frage der Bedeutung und des Umfanges des Campus Martius.” Opuscula Romana 1:166–90. Welwei, K. 1967. “Das Angebot des Diadems an Caesar und das Luperkalienproblem.” Historia 16:44–69. Wiedemann, T. E. J. 2002. Emperors and Gladiators. London: Routledge. Wildfang, R. L. 2006. Rome's Vestal Virgins: A Study of Rome's Vestal Priestesses in the Late Republic and Early Empire. London: Routledge. Williamson, C. 1987. “Monuments of Bronze: Roman Legal Documents on Bronze Tablets.” CA 16:160–83. Williamson, C. 2005. The Laws of the Roman People: Public Law in the Expansion and Decline of the Roman Republic. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Winkler, L. 1995. Salus: Vom Staatskult zur politischen Idee; Eine archäologische Untersuchung. Heidelberg: Verlag Archäologie und Geschichte. Winter, J. G. The Myth of Hercules at Rome. New York: MacMillan. Winterbottom, M. 2002. “Believing the Pro Marcello.” In Damon et al. 2002, 24–38. Wiseman, T. P. 1969. “The Census in the First Century B.C.” JRS 59:59–75. Wiseman, T. P. 1970. “The Definition of ‘Eques Romanus.’” Historia 19:67–83. Wiseman, T. P. 1974. “Legendary Genealogies in Late-Republican Rome.” G&R 21:153–64. Wiseman, T. P. 1987. Roman Studies: Literary and Historical. Liverpool: Cairns.

Wiseman, T. P. 1994. “Lucretius, Catiline, and the Survival of Prophecy.” In Historiography and Imagination: Eight Essays on Roman Culture, 49–67. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. Wiseman, T. P. 1995. Remus: A Roman Myth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wiseman, T. P. 1998. Roman Drama and Roman History. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. Wiseman, T. P. 2000. “The Games of Hercules.” In E. Bispham and C. Smith (eds.), Religion in Archaic and Republican Rome and Italy: Evidence and Experience, 108–14. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Wiseman, T. P. 2004. Clio's Cosmetics: Three Studies in Greco-Roman Literature. Bristol: Bristol Phoenix Press. Wiseman, T. P. 2005. “Origines ludorum.” In K. E. Welch and T. W. Hillard (eds.), Roman Crossings: Theory and Practice in the Roman Republic, 49–58. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Wiseman, T. P. 2008. The Myths of Rome. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. Wiseman, T. P. 2009a. “Augustus, Sulla, and the Supernatural.” In C. Smith and A. Powell (eds.), The Lost Memoirs of Augustus and the Development of Roman Autobiography, 111–23. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Page 317 → Wiseman, T. P. 2009b. “Licinius Macer, Juno Moneta, and Veiovis.” In Remembering the Roman People: Essays on Late Republican Politics and Literature, 59–80. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wissowa, G. 1912. Religion und Kultus der Römer. Munich: Beck. Wonterghem, F. 1992. “Il culto di Ercole fra i popoli osco-sabellici.” In C. Bonnet and C. Jourain-Annequin (eds.), Héraclès d'une rive à l'autre de la Mediterranée: Bilan et perspectives. 319–51. Brussels: Istitut historique Belge de Rome. Wonterghem, F. 1999. “Il culto di Ercole e la pastorizia nell'Italia centrale.” In E. Petrocelli (ed.), La civiltà della transumanza: Storia, cultura e valorizzazione dei tratturi e del mondo pastorale in Abruzzo, Molise, Puglia, Campania e Basilicata, 413–28. Isernia: C. Iannona. Woodman, A. J. 1998. Tacitus Reviewed. Oxford: Clarendon. Woodman, A. J. 2006. “Tiberius and the Taste of Power: The Year 33 in Tacitus.” CQ 56:175–89. Woolf, G. 1993. “Roman Peace.” In J. Rich and G. Shipley (eds.), War and Society in the Greek World, 171–94. London: Routledge. Yakobson, A. 1999. Elections and Electioneering in Rome: A Study in the Political System of the Late Republic. Stuttgart: Steiner. Zadorojnyi, A. V. 2010. “Transcripts of Dissent? Political Graffiti and Elite Ideology under the Principate.” In J. Baird and C. Taylor (eds.), Ancient Graffiti in Context, 110–33. New York: Routledge. Zanker, P. 1990. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Zecchini, G. 2001. Cesare e il mos maiorum. Stuttgart: Steiner. Zetzel, J. E. G. 1995. Cicero, “De Republica”: Selections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ziolkowski, A. 1992. The Temples of Mid-Republican Rome and Their Historical Context. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider. Page 318 →

Page 319 →

Index Acca Larentia, 228 acclamations Antony's, 158 Caesar's, 23n91, 117–18, 132 on coins, 207 Marius', 36n13, 39 Octavian's, 147, 158–59, 160, 170 Scipio Aemilianus', 244n11 Sulla's, 33n1, 54n96, 159n78 Achilles, 187 Acropolis, Athens, 50, 154 actio gratiarum, 122 Actium, 137, 141, 158, 160, 161n88, 231 adventus, 20n77, 47 Augustus, 233 Cicero's post-exilic, 109–10, 111 conflation with triumph, 141 in Horace Carmina 4. 6, 266–67 imperial, 141, 210, 278 Janus, 213 Octavian, 141, 167, 198–99 parousia and, 149, 232–34 in Res Gestae, 199–200, 232–34, 261–62 rhetoric of, 108, 157–59 role in triumph, 39 aedicula Camenarum, 252 Aeneas, 272, 273

Ara Pacis Augustae, 201–2n16 Caesar's propaganda, 240 deification, 272 Evander and, 232, 254, 273 Forum of Augustus, 270 Indiges Pater, 90n10 Italians and, 80 shield of, 246 Aesculapius, 189, 257n80 Ager Petilii, 190n70 Agrippa, Marcus Vipsanius, 219, 224, 226, 230 Aidos, 105 Alba Longa caerimonia, 240 Feriae Latinae, 125–26, 127 Julii, 127, 131, 163, 238, 241 Romulus and, 259–60 Tullus Hostilius, 8, 126, 238 Alban kings, 270, 272 Alban Mount Feriae Latinae, 25, 125–26 triumph, 26, 129n58 Tullus Hostilius, 8, 190 Albinus, Lucius Postumius (cos. 173), 194n85, 208n35 Alexander the Great Augustus and, 177–78, 275n49 Dionysus, 39 Gordium, 19 Pompey and, 69, 72, 178, 182

in Res Gestae, 177–78 Siwah, 82n94 Soma, 275n49 Successors (Diadochoi), 36–37 Sulla and, 81 Alexandria Antony in, 158n74, 247 Augustus in, 275n49 Vespasian in, 37–38n19 Page 320 → altera Roma, 186n50, 247. See also Capua; Veii Amulius, 204–5, 263 ancile, 9, 244n9, 245, 246, 249 Ancus Marcius, 238, 243, 250, 256 Anthesteria, 50n76 Antiochus IV Epiphanes, 131n71, 194n84 Antonius, Lucius, 144 Antony (triumvir), 199, 240 Alexandria, 247 Athens, 176 banqueting, 158n77, 170n124 Caesar and, 118, 133, 148, 182 Cleopatra and, 137, 152n58 Ephesus, 158, 176 legionary standards, 209 Lupercalia of, 44, 118, 133, 182 Mars Ultor, 204–5n25 Mutina, 263 New Dionysus, 19n71, 158–59, 176

ovatio of, 40, 129, 147, 167 propaganda, 141, 152–54, 158, 247 Sextus Pompey and, 143n13 statues of, 168n116 supreme pontificate of Lepidus, 237–38, 240 apantêsis, 194n85, 208–9, 232–33, 260 Aphrodite, 16n53, 57, 104 Apis, 247n28, 275n49 Apollo, 189 Agyieus, 257, 266–67, 271 Augustus and, 151, 153, 155n64, 160, 168, 204 Cicero and, 102 Medicus, 256 Palatinus, 162–66 in Res Gestae, 256–58 Sicilian War, 28 Sulla and, 51, 52 Tortor, 153–54, 157–59 Veiovis, 163, 165–66 Apulu, 162 Ara Fortunae Reducis, 203, 209–10, 212–13, 234, 251, 253, 267 Ara Martis, 205n26, 205n28, 211–13, 221, 229n125 Ara Maxima, 80–81n89, 84n102, 232 Ara Pacis Augustae, 197n1, 201–3, 205–6, 210–14, 221, 230n128, 234–36, 252–54, 258–60, 267 Aratus, 105 Arausio, 39 Argiletum, 252 Aristion, 50–51, 58 Asclepiades of Mendes, 155n64

astrum Caesaris, 167, 228 Asylum of Romulus, 163–64 Atargatis, 39 Athena, 18, 94, 105–6, 177, 267 Athenion, 148n35 Athens, 18, 27n104, 41, 49–52, 95, 104–5, 148n35, 149n44, 152, 176, 193n80 Atia, 155n64 Atticus, Titus Pomponius, 106–11 auctoritas, 10, 91, 123n29 auguraculum, 212–13 augurium salutis, 212 Augustus, 15, 17–18, 137 censuses, 215–23 colossal statue, 272 divi filius, 151, 160 divina mens, 275 funeral, 268–69, 272 Hercules and, 207 honors in, 36, 147–50 horoscope, 243n6 memory of Caesar, 203–4, 238–41 New Apollo, 151, 158–60, 169–70, 176 New Numa, 175 New Romulus, 175 ovatio of, 40, 147, 167 ovatio of, 36, 199 quadriga, 262, 264–65, 269–72, 275 sacrosanctitas, 151 triumphs, 205

Aventine Hill, 44n49, 236, 245n13 Aventinus (king), 272 Balbus, Lucius Cornelius, 85, 209, 248 Balbus, Lucius Cornelius (cos. 40), 184, 185–86n42, 187–88 Battaces, 39 Bellona, 49, 52, 54, 55–56, 73, 98, 112 Ma, 55 Blossius of Cumae, 116 Bocchus of Mauretania, 42 Bona Dea, 90, 157 Brundisium, 96, 106–11, 198 pact of, 129, 167 Brutus, Decimus, 263 Brutus, Marcus Junius (pr. 44), 133n76, 187, 204 Page 321 → Brutus, Marcus Junius (trib. 83), 186 Bubulcus, Caius Junius, 107 Bulbus, Caius Atilius (cos. 235), 253 Bursio, Lucius Julius, 166n108 Cacus, 82, 84n102, 232, 249 Caecus, Appius Claudius, 55–56 Caesar, Gaius (son of Agrippa), 163n98 Caesar, Gaius Julius assassination, 120, 134, 190 assimilation to Jupiter, 182–83 clementia, 122, 125, 137–38 dictator perpetuo, 125, 133–34 divinity, 179–80, 194 ovatio, 117, 128–34, 147, 215

recusatio regni, 132–33, 215 Res Gestae divi Augusti, 238–41 silver tablets, 178–84 triumphs, 121, 128 Caesar, Lucius, 163 Caesar, Lucius (son of Agrippa), 163n98, 226 Caligula (emperor), 181, 276n51 Camillus, 5, 36, 159n78, 176, 245–47, 264 Campania, 148, 184, 186, 194n85, 232–33, 260 Campus Martius, 77n79, 178, 205n26, 205n28, 220–21, 234, 247, 268–69 Cannae, 39, 48n64 Cannutius, Tiberius, 167 Cantabria, 244 Capitoline Hill, 12, 20, 21, 25, 54, 77, 92, 110, 179–81, 254 Caprae Palus, 205n28, 211, 268 Capua, 70n51, 184–89 Capys bronze tablet of, 29, 177, 184–89, 196 tomb, 184 Carthago Nova, 10, 50 Casmilus, 246 Cassius Hemina, 82, 190n70 Castor and Pollux (Dioscuri), 75–76, 79–80 Catilina, Lucius Sergius, 48, 59, 62n14, 63n19, 89–91, 92, 111–12, 121, 199, 264 Cato, Caius (trib. 56), 135n84 Cato Censorius, 24n95, 107–8 Cato Uticensis, 90n9, 116n3, 121 Catulus, Quintus Lutatius, 35, 40–41, 42n41, 92, 99 Catulus Capitolinus, Quintus Lutatius, 54, 90, 155, 163–65, 244n10

cena adventicia, 148, 156, 157n69, 169 cena dodekatheos, 141, 151–61, 171 Censorinus, Gaius Marcius (mon. 88), 250n40, 256 Censorinus, Gaius Marcius Rutilus (cos. 310), 250n40 census, 46, 73, 85, 206n28, 214, 277 70/69 BCE, 60, 65–67, 68n45, 72–76, 79, 80, 85 86/85 BCE, 63n16 Augustus, 214–24, 227, 229–30, 260 Cicero, 107–9 Romulus, 206n28, 269n26 Servius Tullius, 85–86 Sulla and, 66n32, 73–74 unenrolled citizens, 63 Valerius Publicola, 229 Ceres, 11, 151n51, 236 Chytroi, 50 Cicero, Marcus Tullius Ad Quirites, 103 aedileship, 9, 11 Brutus, 122n28 De consulatu suo, 93–94 De divinatione, 96, 110 De republica, 128 De temporibus suis, 95, 100–102 dream of Marius, 97–102 In Pisonem, 110 In Verrem, 11, 89 novus homo, 91, 115 Pro Deiotaro, 129–30

Pro lege Manilia, 87, 88–89 Pro Marcello, 105, 116, 122–24, 129, 231 Pro Sestio, 104 relationship with Pompey, 110 Cinna, Lucius Cornelius, 33, 45–49, 50, 53–54, 55, 70n51 Circus Flaminius, 46n57 Circus Maximus, 271 civilitas, 71 Claudia (Vestal), 25, 239 Claudius (emperor), 276n51 Cleopatra, 149, 152n58, 247 Clodius (Pulcher, Publius Clodius), 91–95, 99, 101n45, 103, 109, 165 Clunia prophecy, 33n2, 37, 244n11 clupeus virtutis, 202, 261 Collatinus, Lucius Tarquinius, 219 Comitium, 22, 179, 188–89 Page 322 → conditor, 36n13, 159n78, 184n42, 187, 220, 222–23, 243, 245 conservator, 97, 99, 110 consulship(s) and ceremonial cycle, 6–7 and the gods, 25–27 of Marius, 37–40 and ritual, 20–22 and triumph, 21, 40n30 Corvinus, Marcus Valerius Messalla, 262–63 Cotta, Caius Aurelius (cos. 75), 67 Cotta, Lucius Aurelius (cos. 65), 66n37, 134–36 Crassus, Marcus Licinius, 43, 90

census of 70 BCE, 63, 216, 237 Cicero and, 90 consulship, 65–68 defeat at Carrhae, 43, 135, 209 Hercules and, 80–81, 83 Licinia (Vestal) and, 59 ovation, 65, 79, 166 profectio, 43 reforms of, 70, 60–61, 65–68 relationship with Pompey, 64–65 Culleolus, Cornelius, 47–48 Curia Cornelia, 126–27 Hostilia, 40, 126 Julia, 127, 195n88, 261–62, 265, 268 Pompeia, 168 Cybele, 8, 39, 104n55 Cyrus, 51 decursio, 269n26 Delphi, 51n82 Delphic Oracle, 189 delubrum Minervae, 29, 177–78, 182, 195 Demeter, 18n67, 196n92 Demetrius Poliorcetes, 27n104, 94, 149n44, 152, 154, 193n80 Deucalion, 50 Diana, 257–58 Aventine, 245n14 Trivia, 257 Dikê, 105 Dionysodorus, 196n92

Dionysus, 267 Antony and, 19n71, 158–59, 176 escorting Hephaestus to Olympus, 267 Marius and, 27n104, 38, 39 Pompey and, 69n46, 178n13 traveler and civilizer, 81–82 triumph over India, 38n22, 69n46 Diophanes of Mitylene, 116 Dis, 223n102, 224, 227–28 Divus Iulius, 180, 187, 270, 272n38 Domitian (emperor), 278 Drusus, Marcus Livius (trib. 91), 90n11, 185n46 Duilius, Gaius, 150 Dyrrachium, 106 Egeria, 9, 252 ekpyrosis, 48 Eleusinian Mysteries, 51 elogia, 11n37, 176, 178 Ennius, 90n10, 192, 193, 205, 264 Ephesus, 158–59, 176 epidêmia, 19 epulum Iovis, 168, 169, 170 Eratosthenes, 196n92 Esquiline Hill, 81 euergetês, 19 euhemerism, 183–84, 191, 193, 228 Euhemerus, 177, 183, 184n40, 191–93, 195, 222 Eunus, 39 Eurypylus, 18n67

Evander, 82, 84n102, 232, 254, 273 evocatio, 96 exemplum, 4 Augustus' use of, 18, 223 Genucius Cipus, 22–23, 138, 215 Tarquin the Proud, 22 theology of, 7–8, 7n23 Fabia (Vestal), 59 Fabius Maximus, 154n60 Fasti Praenestini, 236 Fasti Triumphales, 248 fatalis annus, 89–90 Faunus (and Picus), 9 Faustus Sulla, 127 felicitas, 27n103, 35 adventus and, 199 Caesar's, 123n31, 150 Marius', 35, 37–38, 98 Pompey's, 86 Scipio Aemilianus', 37 Sulla's, 37n17, 44n48, 58, 98 feriae conceptivae, 125–26, 222 Feriae Latinae Caesar's, 28, 117–18, 125–28, 133, 138, 215 Page 323 → consuls and, 21, 134 Social War, 34n3, 53n93 Feronia, 169 Fetial Law, 211

Figulus, Publius Nigidius, 257–58, 266 flamen Dialis, 49, 57 Flamininus, Titus Quinctius, 198n3 Flavius, Lucius Caesetius, 117, 132 Flora, 11 Fortuna, 123, 198 Huiusce Diei, 35 Primigenia, 169 Redux, 210, 251 Forum Augustum, 1, 29, 175–76, 195–96, 197–98, 200, 201, 205–6, 262, 264–65, 266–72, 276 Forum Romanum, 150, 168, 201, 211–12, 213n60, 252–53, 255, 259 Galba (emperor), 33n2, 100n43, 244n11, 278 Galba, Caius Sulpicius, 38n20 Gallia Cisalpina, 263 Gemma Augustea, 248n29 Genucius Cipus, 22–24, 138, 215 Germanicus Caesar, 276 Geryon, 82 Golden Age, 222–23, 227n115, 255, 268 Gordium, 18n57, 19 Gracchi (Tiberius and Gaius), 116, 151n51 Gratidianus, Marcus Marius, 89n6, 133n78 Graviscae, 189–91 Hannibal, 8, 35, 39, 81 hariolus, 47–48n63 haruspices (and haruspex), 7 65 BCE, 89–90, 111, 179 Genucius Cipus and, 23, 215 Marius and, 37–38

Octavian and, 143–45, 161–62, 165 Postumius, 49, 215 Sulla and, 15–16, 42–43, 49, 52, 55, 57 Vulcatius, 228 Hecataeus of Abdera, 184n40, 193n79 Hephaestus, 104, 267 Heracles, 81, 82n94, 105, 267 Hercules, 28, 60, 80–84, 166, 207, 232, 249 Horace's, 82n97, 207n31 Libyan, 36n13 ludi, 81n91 Melqart, 82 polluctum, 80–81, 83n101 Pompeianus, 83–84 Pompey and Crassus' celebration of, 60, 80–84 Sullanus, 81, 83 Herdonius, Appius, 226n113, 229n126 Hermes, 246, 257n80 Hesiod, 105 Horace Carmen Saeculare, 175n1, 257n84, 258 Carmina, 82n97, 207n31, 246, 251n46, 266–67 Horatius, Publius, 7n23, 22 Horologium, 201, 253–54, 266, 271 Hypereides, 193–94n82 Hygeia, 257n80 Iana, 257–58 imperium Augustus, 218–19, 248

censors lack, 71–42, 217–18 Cornelius Merula's, 54 credit for deeds, 68 Jupiter and, 25–26, 53, 149–50, 182 lex curiata, 20 maius, 110, 216n73 Marius and, 40, 54 militae, 21, 24, 40, 68 Numa, 227, 244, 248 pax deorum and, 5, 6 pomerium, 23–24, 236 Pompey and, 71, 110 summi viri increase, 272n38 triumph, 40 intercessio tribunicia, 236 Italia, 63, 94n24, 99n38, 103, 104–5n59 cuncta, 85, 146, 236–37, 250, 260 tota, 80n86, 85 Iulus, 13, 163, 184, 271 ius imaginis, 11–12 Janiculan Hill, 188, 190n70, 214n63, 254, 255, 256 Janus, 254–55, 257–58 Bifrons, 258 profectio and adventus, 213 Quirinus (Geminus), 201, 207, 212–14, 252–53, 255, 259 Julia (Caesar's aunt), 13n45, 131, 147n29, 238, 240 Page 324 → Juno Capitoline, 11

Regina, 44n49 Sospita, 44n49 Jupiter, 8–9, 253 Elicius, 190, 245n13 Feretrius, 25, 213 Latiaris, 25–26, 126–28 Optimus Maximus, 10–11, 12, 25, 53–54, 94–95, 101, 133, 178–83 Tonans, 152n57, 244–45 Koinon of Asia, 254 Lake Regillus, 76–77, 79 Lake Trasimene, 43, 154n60 lapis manalis, 190n69 Lapis Niger, 267n19 Latinus, 193, 251, 271n35 Laverna, 15–16, 42–45, 55, 82, 90, 144 Lavinium, 21, 240 lectio senatus, 74–75, 109, 230, 277 lectisternium, 154, 157 Lentulus Clodianus, Cnaeus Cornelius, 72n64 Lepidus, Marcus Aemilius (cos. 78), 41, 58, 60, 62n14, 121 Lepidus, Marcus Aemilius (triumvir), 146, 149, 171, 235–38, 240 Lex Aurelia, 66, 79n83 Clodia de censoria notione, 109 curiata, 20 Pompeia, 61 Saenia, 230n128 Sempronia, 92 Titia, 169

Liber, 11 pater, 38n22 Libera, 11 Liberalia, 249n35 Libertas, 92–93, 99, 169 Licinia (Vestal), 59 lictors, 21, 40, 70, 71–72, 96, 98 Livia, 152n58, 155, 242n1, 258, 269 logos epibaterios, 108 Lucina, 226 Lucretius, 104n55, 222 Lucretius, Quintus. See Vespillo, Quintus Lucretius Lucullus, Lucius Licinius, 15, 42, 44n48, 52, 64 Ludi Apollinares, 256 Cereales, 152 Magni, 154n60 Megalenses, 152 Plebeii, 148, 167–68, 208 Romani, 11, 154n60 Tarentini, 224 Victoriae Caesaris, 125 Victoriae Sullanae, 51 Lupercal, 201n16, 202–6 Lupercalia, 118, 133, 136, 182 Luperci, 206n29, 246 Lupiae, 198 Luscinus, Caius Fabricius, 179 lustrum, 63n19, 79n83, 216–17, 220–24, 227–28

Macer, Gaius Licinius, 163–64, 166n108 Magna Mater, 104 Mamurius Veturius, 47n62 Manlius, Lucius, 262n3 Manlius, Titus. See Torquatus, Titus Manlius Manlius Capitolinus, 92 Marcellus, Marcus Claudius (cos. 222), 25, 129n58 Marcellus, Marcus Claudius (cos. 51), 105, 122–24, 127, 129n58, 130, 138 Marcia (grandmother of Caesar), 256 Marcii Reges, 130–31, 238, 250n40, 256 Marica, 55 Maris, 226 Marius, Gaius, 28, 33–40 civil war, 44–49, 53 Dionysus and, 27n104, 33n2, 38n22, 39, 69n46, 72 exile, 97, 98 felicitas, 35–38 flight, 55 Martha and, 27n103, 39 Scipio Aemilianus and, 36–37 Third Founder, 35n12, 36n13, 39, 48n65, 176 triumphs, 38–40, 53–54, 72 Marius the Younger, 52 Mars, 204–5, 211, 214, 226, 270 Marspiter, 90n10 Martha, 27n103, 39 Marullus, Caius Epidius, 117, 132 Matius, Caius, 125, 136 Page 325 →

Mausoleum of Augustus, 179, 187–88, 190–91, 201, 222, 247, 259, 269, 277 Menander Rhetor, 13n44 Mercury, 2n5, 246, 257n80 Merula, Lucius Cornelius, 49, 54 Messalla, Potitus Valerius, 262–63 Meta Sudans, 266 Metellus, Quintus Caecilius, 221n92 Metellus Numidicus, 37–38 Metellus Pius, 42n41, 45, 62n12, 70n51 Metellus Scipio, 109, 121 Mezentius, 163 Midas, 18n67, 19 Minerva, 11, 94–96, 101, 111, 154n60, 157n69, 177 custos urbis, 92, 95, 99, 102–3, 106 Mithradates Eupator, 27n104, 34, 45, 49, 51, 53, 58, 277 Asian Vespers, 66n38 Athenion and, 148n35 Pompey and, 88, 89n4 Naulochus, 140, 143, 145 Nepos, Gaius Flaminius, 43, 154n60 Neptune lectisternium featuring, 154n60 Scipio Africanus and, 10, 50 Sextus Pompey, 140, 142, 151, 159–60, 168–69, 171, 208 Nero (emperor), 159n78, 276n51, 278 nostos, 20 Novum Comum, 122 Numa Marcius, 250 Numa Pompilius, 8–10, 17–18, 19–20, 126, 155, 175, 177, 200, 227, 268

Ara Pacis, 201–2, 205n26, 211–12, 214, 235, 242 books of, 177, 188–91, 196, 207, 250, 256 lex Numae, 213 Res Gestae, 207, 211–12, 215, 220–21, 229, 230, 242–60 Numantia, 36–37 Numanus, 271 Numerius Atticus, 268n21 Numitor, 203–4, 229 Octavius (trib. 133), 151 Octavius, Gnaeus, 45, 54 Odysseus, 18, 20, 100–101, 105 Ogyges, 225n109 Oppius, Marcus, 151n52 ornatus Iovis, 26, 159n80. See also vestis triumphalis ovation, 120n17 Caesar's, 120–34 qualifications for, 65n26 wearing laurel, 80 Palatine Hill, 47, 90, 99, 107, 145, 161–65 Palatine palace, 161–65, 193, 261 Palingenesis, 225 Palladium, 96, 246 paludamentum, 21, 23, 183n37 Palus Caprae, 205n28, 211, 268 Panchaea, 183, 192 parens patriae, 90n9 Caesar, 264–65 Camillus, 159n78 Romulus, 264

parens urbis, 268 parousia, 19, 131, 148n38, 149, 192, 194–95, 197 pater patriae Augustus, 137, 175, 194–95, 200, 205, 261–65 Cicero, 89–90, 93, 94, 111 pater urbium, 175n1 Patroclus, 187 Paullus, Lucius Aemilius, 156, 212n56 pax deorum, 5, 6, 7n19, 8, 59 Peisistratus, 18, 41, 105, 267n18 Penates Ara Pacis, 201–2n16 Publici, 79 Trojan, 80, 240 Penelope, 20 Persephone, 18n67 persona, 12, 13n47, 14 Perusine War, 142, 144, 147n31, 168, 171, 187 Petreius, Marcus, 121 Philippi, 140, 142, 143 Philus, Publius Furius (cens. 214), 221n91 Picenum, 61 Picus, 9 pietas, 23n90, 169, 202–3, 243n6 pignus imperii, 9, 245–46, 249 Piso, Caius Calpurnius (cos. 180), 189n66 Piso, Gnaeus Calpurnius (cos. 23), 242 Piso Caesoninus, Lucius Calpurnius (cos. 58), 102, 116n1 Page 326 →

Piso Frugi, Lucius Calpurnius (cos. 133), 189n66 political theology, 2–3, 12, 15, 22 Pollio, Publius Vedius, 164 Polybius, 10, 116 pomerium, 21, 23–24, 41, 46–47, 86, 98–99, 148, 161, 236, 259 burial within, 178–79, 180n26, 187 pompa triumphalis, 121 Pompey, Sextus coinage, 160 death, 170nn123–24 grain blockade, 143, 146, 235 Naulochus, 140 protector of the Republic, 142 in Res Gestae, 208n34 Sicilian War, 140–51 son of Neptune, 142, 160, 168, 169, 208 Pompon, 256 Pompey Magnus Capua, 185 census, 63, 74–75 Hercules and, 80–84 man of the saeculum, 17, 18n64, 226n114 recognitio equitum, 69–79 reforms of 70, 60, 65–68 relationship with Crassus, 64–65 relationship with Sulla, 61–62, 70 triumphs, 68–69, 157n73 Pomponii Mathones, 256 pontifex maximus, 11n37 Augustus, 235–41

Caesar, 163, 240 in Livy, 248n31, 249 Lepidus, 146, 149, 235 Numa, 248n31, 250–51 pontifices, 110, 185, 217n79, 248–49 Pontius Telesinus, 52 Poplicola, Publius Valerius. See Publicola, Publius Valerius Porta Capena, 75n73, 76, 77, 99, 110, 167, 190n69, 251–52 Porta Collina, 42–44 Porta Raudusculana, 23 porta triumphalis, 77, 251 Porticus Catuli, 92–93 Posidonius, 5n13, 36n13, 70n51 Praeneste, 52, 208n35 praetorship, 21, 25, 66n32, 188n61 Proculus, Julius, 268 profectio, 16n, 20n77, 21n80, 42n41, 47, 208n35, 213 Cicero, 92, 95, 99, 101, 103 Crassus, 43 Genucius Cipus, 23, 215 imperial, 199 Sulla, 43, 56, 58 Proserpina, 223n102, 224, 227–28 provincia, 16n56, 20–21, 142 Publicola, Lucius Gellius, 72n64 Publicola, Publius Valerius, 179, 219, 229 Publicola, Publius Valerius Volusi (cos. 460), 226n113 Pulcher, Appius Claudius (cos. 143), 25 Pulcher, Publius Clodius. See Clodius

Punic Wars First, 224 Second, 45n50, 48n64, 128n53, 129n58, 253 Third, 244n11 Pythagoras, 188n58, 188n60, 189, 196n92, 245n11 Pythagoreanism, 188, 191, 225, 255n68 quindecemviri, 7, 134–36, 245 Quinta Claudia, 8 Quintilian, 4, 94–95 recognitio equitum, 69–79 reditus, 22–23n89, 58, 208n35, 213n60 Caesar, 117 Cicero, 97, 102, 107, 111 Marius, 97 Octavian/Augustus, 141, 203, 207, 230, 251 Sulla, 44 Regia, 251 regia Pici, 193n78 Regifugium, 22 Regulus, Marcus Atilius (cos. 227, 217), 221n91 Res Gestae, 1, 14, 17–18, 28, 146, 148, 150 Res Publica (personified), 103–6, 112 rex sacrorum, 22 Rhea Silvia, 203–4 Roma (Dea), 104 Romulus, 17, 19, 22, 126, 179, 216n70 Ara Maxima, 232n138 Ara Pacis, 201–6 Asylum of, 163–65

banditry, 82–83 calendar, 255 Camillus and, 159n78 Page 327 → Cicero and, 90, 93, 111 death, 242, 268, 269n26, 272 Forum of Augustus, 270 Marius and, 36, 176 parens patriae, 264 pomerium, 24n95 Remus and, 47, 83, 201, 203, 204 in Res Gestae, 175, 202–6, 229, 252n53, 258–59 Sulla and, 41 tomb, 179, 267n19 triumph, 260 Romulus Silvius, 4, 244 Rufus, Marcus Egnatius, 210, 233 ruler cult Hellenistic, 193–94, 230–33 Roman, 179–80, 231–34 Rullus, Servius, 186 Sacred Way, 254 sacrosanctitas, 25, 151, 235, 239–40 saeculum, 15–16, 34, 44–47, 53, 222–26, 230, 257n78, 258, 278 of Augustus, 216, 223n101, 230, 257n78 man of, 17, 47–48, 86–87, 89, 162, 216, 230 Salian Hymn, 213n61, 231–32, 249–50, 273 Salii, 47n62, 246, 249–50 Sallustius, 96

salus, 33n1, 86, 96, 111, 199n6, 231–32 Salus, 107n67, 108, 189, 231n131, 232n137, 257n80 Samnites, 43–46, 55–56, 73, 82, 121 sanctitas, 25, 235, 238–41 Saturn, 214, 249, 254–55, 260 Saturnalia, 152 Saturnia, 254–55, 260 Saturnia regna, 255, 260 Scipio Aemilianus, 33n2, 36–37, 50, 128, 244n11 Scipio Africanus, 9–10, 12, 18n64, 35–36, 50, 54, 93n17, 152, 155–56, 244n11 Secular Games Apollo, 257–58 Augustus, 47n61, 216n73, 223–30, 236, 243, 245, 257–58 Claudius, 47n61 Diana, 257–58 founding, 219n85, 244n9 Juno, 44n49 senatus consultum ultimum, 92 Serapis, 247n28, 275n49 Sertorius, 27n103, 59, 62, 70n51, 78–79, 83n101, 86 Servius Tullius, 24n95, 85–86, 218, 220, 243, 252 Sextus Tarquin, 20 Sibylline Oracles, 8, 118, 134–36, 189, 257n80 Silvium, 52 Social War, 15n50, 16, 17n59, 33–34, 42, 44–45, 53, 56–58, 61, 63n15, 73, 82, 88, 143–45, 216, 277 Sol, 267, 271n35 sôter, 19 Spartacus, 59, 61–65, 72n64, 79, 82–83, 86 spolia

opima, 25, 129n58, 205, 212–13 secunda, 206n28, 211, 212–13 tertia, 212–13 Spurius Cassius, 92 Spurius Maelius, 92 stasis, 18–19 Strabo, Gnaeus Pompeius, 61 Sulla, Lucius Cornelius census, 73–74 Epaphroditus, 57 Felix, 123 iste Romulus, 41 memoir, 15–17, 41 proscriptions, 73–74 summi viri, 124, 181, 271–72 Sura, Publius Lentulus, 17, 48, 50, 74, 88, 93n17, 111 Sylleia, 51 Syracuse, 18n67 tabernaculum, 212 Tabularium, 166n107, 257n80 Tanaquil, 243n8 Tarentum, 52, 57, 215 tarentum, 228 Tarentum (Campus Martius), 226, 244n9 Tarquinius Superbus, 22, 76, 219, 243 Telines, 18n67 Temples Apollo Medicus, 256n77 Apollo Pallatinus, 93, 145, 161–66, 257, 267

Athena Parthenos, 152 Bellona, 46, 52, 55–56 Castor, 70, 71, 75, 76, 167 Concordia, 170n124, 262n3 Diana Aventina, 245n14 Page 328 → Fortuna Huiusce Diei, 35, 99 Hercules and the Muses, 252 Hercules Custos, 81 Honos and Virtus, 76, 96–97, 99–100, 110–11, 210n40 Jupiter Feretrius, 206n29, 213, 251n45 Jupiter Optimus Maximus, 10, 12, 16, 21, 52, 54, 90, 135, 145, 146, 152, 155–56, 161, 163, 164, 170, 178, 181, 183, 193n78, 226n113, 245n14 Jupiter Tonans, 152n57, 244–45 Mars (Via Appia), 75n73, 76, 77n79, 167 Mars Ultor, 204–6, 213, 251n45, 270, 272 Quirinus, 180, 206n29, 231n131 Salus, 106–8 templum, 212–13 Terentia, 90n7 Terminalia, 22 theos Kataibates, 193n80, 267 Theseia, 51–52 Third Cornelius, 48, 88, 176 Third Founder, 33n12, 36n13, 39, 48n65, 176 Tiber, 51, 203–4, 247, 254–55, 259–60 Tiber Island, 257n80 Tiberius (emperor), 180n27, 248n29, 272–76 Timaeus, 240 toga praetexta, 11

Torquatus, Titus Manlius (cos. 235), 253 Trajan (emperor), 278 transvectio equitum, 76–78, 100n42, 251 tresviri monetales, 242–43 tribunicia potestas, 235–37 tribunii aerarii, 66, 79n83 triumph, 16, 21, 23–24n94, 25–26, 53, 58, 65n26, 141, 150, 233 acclamation, 158–59 Antony in Alexandria, 247n27 Augustus, 198, 199n5, 205, 207, 209, 211n45, 213 Balbus, 248 banquet, 156 Caesar, 121, 128–30 Catulus, Q. Lutatius, 99 costume, 168, 182–83, 195, 197 Dionysus, 69n46 in monte Albano, 26 Marius, 38–40, 54, 78 Pompey, 60n5, 63, 64n20, 68–72, 76–78, 177 Publicola, Publius Valerius, 219 Pulcher, Appius Claudius, 239 quadriga, 165, 178, 200, 262, 265–68, 270 Romulus, 260 Sulla, 33n1, 44, 54, 67–68n44, 137, 159n78 Tullia (Cicero's daughter), 106–7 Tullianus, Statius, 246 Tullus Hostilius, 4, 8, 126, 130, 163, 190, 238, 244, 250 Twelve Tables, 179, 185n45 Tyche, 104, 234

Urania, Muse, 95 Ustrinum, 269n25 Valeria, 37 Valesius, Manius, 219n85, 226–27, 229, 244n9 Varro palingenesis, 224–25 ruler cult, 194, 228, 272 three spolia, 212–13 three theologies, 103n52 Vegoia, 45, 144–45 Veii, 205n28, 245–46 Veiovis, 162–66, 257n80 Velabrum, 228 Venus, 2n5, 104, 126, 154, 225n107, 238, 253, 270 Vercellae, 35, 39, 40, 54 Vergil Aeneid, 72, 186, 222–23, 226, 232, 246, 254–55, 273 Eclogues, 226 Verres, 11, 67, 75, 89 Vespillo, Quintus Lucretius, 233 Vesta, 80, 251 Vestals, 59, 74, 179, 209 vestis triumphalis, 26n100, 38, 40, 168. See also ornatus Iovis Via Appia, 52, 75n73, 76, 77n79, 167, 234 Via Flaminia, 201, 206, 277 Victoria, 34n6, 99n38, 138, 199 Villa Publica, 46, 52, 56, 67, 73, 206n28, 211 vir bonus dicendi peritus, 4 Vulcatius, 228

Xerxes I, king of Persia, 51 Zeus, 50–51, 58, 101n45 Triphylius, 177, 183, 191–93

Page g1 → Page g2 → Page g3 → Page g4 →