Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T14:19:33.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Templum Divo Claudio Constitutum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Duncan Fishwick
Duncan Fishwick*
Affiliation:
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The standard view of the great temple at Camulodunum is that it served an early provincial cult which paid outright divine worship to the reigning emperor Claudius. ‘The British cult … was a personal cult of the Emperor Claudius, to whom it accorded divinity during his lifetime with an emphasis which went well beyond previous Roman practice.’ So entrenched has this belief become that discussion has centred almost entirely upon how such an anomalous situation is to be explained. Had Claudius' officials exceeded their orders in a fit of over-enthusiasm? Or should one rather suppose a more moderate cult, for example of the emperor's numen, that quickly merged into unadulterated divine veneration? Even in Rome the trend was more and more to regard the emperor as a praesens deus; so much so that a medical writer could boldly refer to Claudius as ‘our god Caesar’. Perhaps, then, one should think in terms of a provincial experiment, justifiable for local reasons but still too far ahead of its time to be risked in the political climate of the capital. Whatever explanation recommends itself, the temple of Claudius, as now interpreted, presents major difficulties that have never been satisfactorily resolved. I should like to reconsider the problem here by openly dissenting from the main tenets of present doctrine. Was Claudius ever the object of a purely personal cult at Camulodunum? Did a temple to the god Claudius even exist there within his own lifetime?

Type
Research Article
Information
Britannia , Volume 3 , November 1972 , pp. 164 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © Duncan Fishwick 1972. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I. A. Richmond, Roman Britain (1960), 187; cf. R. G. Collingwood and J. N. L. Myres, Roman Britain and the English Settlements 2 (1937), 86, 169. The view goes back at least as far as to Hirschfeld, S. Ber. der Berl. Akad. (1888), 841.

2 S. S. Frere, Britannia: A History of Roman Britain (1967), 323 f.

3 Fishwick, D., Phoenix xv, 1961, 164Google Scholar. I feel less happy with this suggestion today as further research has shown that the cult of the numen was much later in spreading to the north-west in general and to Britain in particular; cf. JRS lix, 1969, 86Google Scholar f. The only early example in Britain might be RIB 5, but whether this attests the imperial numen is very doubtful; ibid., 83 f. For a small, second-century sanctuary dedicated at Lugdunum to the numina Augustorum see CIL xiii, 1678; A. Audin, Essai sur la Topographie de Lugdunum 3 (1964), 129, with map p. 151. An early inscription from Crete reads: num]ini et providentiae / [Ti. Ca]esar Aug. et senatus … (Eph. Epig. vii p. 424, No. 3).Google Scholar

4 Charlesworth, M. P., ‘Deus Noster Caesar’, C.R. xxxix, 1925, 113–115, quoting Scribonius Largus, Praefatio lx, clxiii; also similar phrases in other authors.Google Scholar

5 So Charlesworth, o.c, 115.

6 The archaeological evidence is set out in full by M. R. Hull, Roman Colchester (1958), 162-77; for discussion see Richmond's introduction, pp. xxv-xxviii; cf. Arch. Journ. ciii, 1946, 57–60.Google Scholar

7 Cf. Richmond in Hull, Roman Colchester, p. xxvi f. ‘… the temple platform … may be regarded as Claudian …’.

8 Hull, Roman Colchester, 166.

9 Perret, V., Gallia xiv, 1956, 3–22Google Scholar; P. Courrent and Ph. Héléna, Rép. arch du Dept. de l'Aude (1935), 59; Grenier, A., Manuel d'Archéogie Gallo-romaine, iii (1) (1958), 135 f., 272–79.Google Scholar

10 Decorative alabaster apparently adorned the original temple since it was incorporated re-used within subsiduary buildings built after 60; Richmond in Hull, Roman Colchester, p. xxvi.

11 L. Cerfaux and J. Tondriau, Le Culte des Souverains (1957), 339, n. 12 with refs.

12 J. Beaujeu, La Religion romaine à l'Apogée de I'Empire (1955), 129-31.

13 Cerfaux-Tondriau (above, note 11) 354, n. 9 with refs.; similarly the Templum Pacis begun in the summer of 71 was not dedicated until 75 and many buildings begun by Vespasian and Titus were completed by Domitian; cf. Riemann, in P-W xviii, 2 (1942), 2108.Google Scholar

14 Hull, Roman Colchester, 166; ‘began to be built’ is the meaning obviously intended.

15 The colony was originally planned in the governorship of Ostorius Scapula (Tacitus, , Ann. xii, 32)Google Scholar– therefore in the winter, perhaps, of 48-49; cf. Richmond, , Arch. J. ciii, 1946, 57Google Scholar, n. 4. Kornemann, in Klio i, 1901, 102, n. 2 dated the construction to the period 50-54, following Hirschfeld, o.c. (above, note 1), 841.Google Scholar

16 Wissowa, Religion u. Kultus der Römer 2 (1912), 472 f. (hereafter RuKR 2).

17 See Wissowa, in P-W iv, 2 (1901), 896–902 (s.v. consecratio), 2356-59 (s.v. dedicatio).Google Scholar

18 P. Wuilleumier, Lyon, Métropole des Gaules (1953), 33 f.

19 See the useful summary by Cerfaux–Tondriau (above, note 11) 339-42. One exception to this policy was in Asia, where he allowed the erection of a temple to himself, Livia and the Senate (here replacing dea Roma): Tacitus, , Ann. iv, 15Google Scholar. But it is notable that a similar arrangement was forbidden in Baetica: Ann. iv, 37 f.Google Scholar

20 R. Étienne, Le Culte Impérial dans la Péninsule iberique d'Auguste à Dioclétien (1958), 414 f.

21 E. M. Smallwood, Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius and Nero (1967), 99, No. 370.

22 See in particular Taylor, L. R. in Trans. Amer. Philological Assoc. 60, 1929, 87–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Charlesworth, M. P. in Papers Brit. School at Rome 15, 1939, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Phoenix (above, note 3) 172, n. 37; see also in general T. G. E. Powell, The Celts 2 (1958), ch. 3.

24 Cf. Charlesworth (above, note 22) 4 f. quoting the phrase preserved on the Lyons tablet ‘ne nimio insolentior esse videar’; Smallwood, Documents (above, note 21), p. 97, No. 369, 11.39 f.

25 Harvard Theol. Review lxii, 1969, 365Google Scholar f. Even Gaius was well aware of his human status, at least until megalomania took its toll; cf. I.G. vii, 2711, where he categorically limits the honours he will accept from the κοινόν of the Achaeans, Boeotians, Locrians, Phocians, and Euboeans; cf. Deininger, J., Die Provinziallandtage der römischen Kaiserzeit (Vestigia: Beiträge zur alten Geschichte, Band vi: 1965), 89 f.Google Scholar

26 Cerfaux-Tondriau (above, note 11), 316, with refs.; Deininger, Provinziallandtage, 17 f., 61. Haverfield held that the temple at Camulodunum served the official cult of Roma and the emperor, The Romanization of Roman Britain 3 (1915), 68.

27 Wissowa, RuKR 2, 345-47.

28 ‘The Temple of the Three Gauls’, JRS lxii, 1972; see further below, note 97.Google Scholar

29 It is notable that Richmond, despite his adherence to the standard view (above, note 1), consistently refers to the provincial cult of divus Claudius: cf. Collingwood-Richmond, The Archaeology of Roman Britain (1969), 154; Hull, Roman Colchester, p. xxvi.

30 Hull, Roman Colchester, 175 f.; Richmond ibid., p. xxviii; Arch. Journ. ciii, 1946, 58Google Scholar. Could this altar have any bearing on the variant reading of Tacitus, Ann. xiv, 31Google Scholar … quasi ara aeternae dominationis? At Lugdunum the altar seems similarly to have stood in the near vicinity of the temple; cf. the priestly title sacerdos ad aram … apud templum … in inscriptions from the turn of the second century; op. cit. (note 28), n. 3.

31 It seems unlikely that Tacitus would have jumbled technical terms indiscriminately and have called the British high priest sacerdos if flamen were the correct title; cf. Ann. i, 10, 5, … per flamines et sacerdotes coli vellet.Google Scholar

32 Harvard St. Class. Philology lxxiv (1970), 299–312.Google Scholar

33 The basic difference between the two titles seems rooted in the nature of the cult offered, as I hope to work out in detail in a later paper. It may be noted that when the divi were added to the provincial cult at Lugdunum, the priests still continued to be called sacerdotes; similarly, when Roma and the living ruler were added to the cults of Hither Spain and Lusitania, the priestly title remained flamen. In Baetica, where the cult of the divi, Roma, and the living ruler appears to have been introduced simultaneously under Vespasian, the title was flamen in line with that already current in Spain. For further discussion see ‘The Development of Provincial Ruler-Worship in the Western Roman Empire’ in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (Festschrift J. Vogt), iii (1973), forthcoming.Google Scholar

34 Phoenix xv, 1961, 163.Google Scholar

35 Above, note 32, 302-07. For coins struck at Tarraco (A.D. 69-70) showing Roma offering a Victory to Vespasian see Mattingly-Sydenham, RIC No. 264; cf. No. 385.

36 So Kraft, K., ‘Der politische Hintergrund von Seneca's Apocolocyntosis’, Historia xv, 1966, 96–122, with refs. to earlier literature.Google Scholar

37 ‘Deus’ is rhetorical exaggeration of course. What Claudius had become is divus, which no longer is technically identical with deus; cf. Wissowa, RuKR 2, 343 n. 7. Nor does posthumous deification strictly speaking imply enrolment among the gods on an equal footing with, say, Jupiter; cf. Charlesworth, M. P., Harvard Theol. Review xxviii, 1935, 36.Google Scholar

38 Cf. Cicero, , Rep. i, 18: … ut … Africanum ut deum coleret Laelius. Here the meaning is surely to pay honours to a human being of the kind usually reserved for a god. This would be in line with the jeers of Seneca.Google Scholar

38a For the consecration procedure see now S. Weinstock, Divus Julius (1971), 386 ff., especially 387 f.

39 Though Nero pulled down the temple of divus Claudius begun by Agrippina (Suetonius, Vespas. ix), the deification of Claudius was never formally annulled; cf. Charlesworth, in JRS xxvii, 1937, 57–60.Google Scholar

40 C.Q. xxxvi, 1942, 90 f.Google Scholar

41 Syme, R., Tacitus ii, 762–66.Google Scholar

42 Cf. Richmond in Hull, Roman Colchester, p. xxvi.

43 For example in Phoenix xv, 1961, 164.Google Scholar

44 As argued by Domaszewski, , Jahreshefte des österr. archäol. Inst. vi, 1903, 57 ff.Google Scholar

45 Above, note 17; cf. RuKR 2 385, 473 f. Not surprisingly dedicatio and consecratio are frequently used synonymously; cf. Wissowa, , Hermes 39, 1904, 159Google Scholar. For the interesting suggestion that the process of consecratio includes constitutio as well as dedicatio see Hanell, K., Opuscula Romana ii (1960), 70.Google Scholar

46 Fasti Amiternini, 10 August: Feriae quod eo die arae Cereri matri et Opi Augustae ex voto suscepto constituta[e] sunt Cretico et Long(o) c[os] (A.D. 7) (CIL i 2, p. 244)Google Scholar; cf. Fasti Vallenses, 10 August (CIL i 2, p. 240)Google Scholar; Wissowa, Hermes 39, 1904, 157, suggested that the dedication of this altar may have been celebrated on 6 August, which is given in the Fasti Amiternini as a dies fastus (F). If so, the altar could not have been dedicated before the following year, A.D. 8, at the earliest, the ‘constitution’ of an altar being always prior to its dedication.Google Scholar

47 It is here assumed that the Ara Pacis Augustae is the Augustan monument on the Campus Martius conventionally identified with it. Strong objections to this have been advanced by Weinstock, , JRS 1, 1960, 44–58Google Scholar, to whom we have Miss Toynbee's reply, JRS li, 1961, 153–156.Google Scholar The controversy is only peripheral to my argument, but it might be noted that the four-year gap between the constitutio and dedicatio could be relevant in that it has to be explained. Weinstock, o.c. 56, argued the point that an elaborate monument is not to be expected; but if the four-year gap is not to be ascribed, say, to the intricate work on the various friezes, how is it to be interpreted? Riemann in P-W xviii, 2 (1942), 2095Google Scholar suggested that postponement of the dedication was due to Augustus' absence from Rome in the winter of 11/10 B.C.; but this would not explain deferment until 9 B.C., though the actual date could have been left to coincide with Livia's birthday on 30 January. Toynbee, o.c., 153, notes that the best available Greek craftsmen were summoned from Pergamon (?) to Rome to execute the marble carving of the monument excavated in the Campus Martius. All this would have taken time, and I would agree with Toynbee, o.c., 155, that an altar commissioned by the Senate could well have been elaborate. The gap between the ‘constitution’ and the dedication of the altar might therefore tell in favour of an elaborate altar without ipso facto proving the conventional identification of the well-known altar on the Campus Martius.

48 Wissowa, , Hermes 39, 1904, 156 ff.Google Scholar; K. Hanell, Hum. Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund, Arsberätt, 1935-1936, 191 ff.; Opuscula Romana ii (1960), 62–71Google Scholar; E. Welin, Dragma Nilsson (1939), 500 ff. See further Momigliano, , Journ. Warb. Court. Inst. v, 1942, 231Google Scholar (following Welin); Rumpf, , Trierer Zeitschr. xxiv–xxvi, 1956-1958, 267 (following Wissowa).Google Scholar

49 So Winstock, , JRS 1, 1960, 48, n. 51; Hanell, o.c. (Årsberätt), 192; Welin, o.c., 502, avoids the question by lack of punctuation.Google Scholar

50 As Wissowa seems to imply, o.c. (Hermes), 159.

51 Cf. Weinstock, o.c., 48, Hanell o.c. (Opusc. Rom.), 71.

52 I see no difficulty here, though H. J. Mason has recently shown the difficulties in reconstructing official Latin from the Greek, Phoenix xxiv, 1970, 150–159. I quote the texts with the standard supplements; but see now the recent edition by H. Volkmann, Res. Gestae divi Augusti (1969).Google Scholar

53 Cf. A. Degrassi, I Fasti Consolari dell'Impero Romano (1952), 4: 13 B.C.

54 o.c. (Hermes), 159 reading co[nsacrari censuit].

55 o.c. (Årsberätt), 194.

56 o.c. (above, note 48), 506 f.

57 But see Wissowa's argument, o.c. (Hermes), 158 that the relative importance of either festival is not in any case proved by the fact that Augustus mentions only the day of the ‘constitution’ in the case of both (?) altars.

58 Henzen, Acta Fratrum Arvalium (1874), xlii: … in campo ad aram Pacis Augusta[e vac]cam inmolavit; the reading given in Smallwood, Documents p. 10 is: … in campo ad aram Pacts [… inmolavit].

59 Pasoli, Acta Fratrum Arvalium (1950), 15 f.

60 o.c. (Hermes), 158. It is true that the Feriale Duranum confirms that minor deities received a supplicatio whereas an animal sacrifice was reserved for major; YCS vii, 1940, 190 f. But in the Feriale Cumanum the contrast is between a supplicatio and nothing (apart from feriae). The fact that the Feriale Cumanum was set up c. A.D. 4 would appear to imply that the dedication was already the more important festival at so early a date.Google Scholar

61 Weinstock, o.c. (note 47), 49 with nn. 59 f.

62 As argued in detail by Hanell, o.c. (Opusc. Rom.), 65 f.

63 Beaujeu, Rel. romaine 129, n. 8 follows Welin and speaks of the dies natalis of the constitutio: which is surely impossible. Nor can I accept his view that the ‘constitution’ of a temple appears ruled out by Welin's arguments, o.c., 511 ff.

64 o.c. (Opusc. Rom.), 69 f. Hanell suggests that Welin's view is supported by the notice in the Fasti Amitemini for 10 August (above, note 46) recording that the altars of Ceres Mater and Ops Augusta were ‘constituted’ ex voto suscepto. But could not the senate have decreed an altar in fulfillment of a vow? The senate made vota pro reditu when Augustus was in Gaul in 16 B.C. (Dio liv. 19, 7) and Weinstock has suggested (o.c. 48, n. 46) that it may have tried to carry these out in 13 B.C. in decreeing an altar pro reditu in the Curia Iulia–refused by Augustus (Dio liv. 25, 3).

65 Wissowa, o.c. (Hermes), 160; Weinstock o.c., 55. The ceremonies and festivities associated with later occasions of an adventus Augusti (cf. Welin, o.c., 507 ff.) are not really parallel since in both 19 and 13 B.C. Augustus deliberately entered Rome overnight in order to avoid a tremendous reception.

66 o.c., 510.

67 Hanell, o.c. (Opusc. Rom.), 68 f.; Toynbee o.c. (above, note 47) 155.

68 Cf. Welin's sample, o.c., 511.

69 Thesaurus L. L. iv. 522 s.v. constituere E, 1 and 2. The following may be cited: Cicero, Sestio cxxiii: id a me et a senatu esse constitutum; Tacitus, , Ann. xiii, 5: multaque arbitrio senatus constituta sunt; Suetonius, Iul. xxx: si quid … a senatu constitutum esset; Gaius, Inst. 1.4: senatus consultum est quod senatus iubet atque constituit. See further Oxford Latin Dictionary, fasc. ii s.v. constituo 6 and 7.Google Scholar

70 This would surely follow from the entries in the Fasti if in campo Martio be understood adverbially in the sense of ‘constituted/dedicated on the Campus Martius’. Cf. … consacrandum censuit ad campum Martium … (Mon. Ancyr. xii,2)Google Scholar; … in campo ad aram Pacis … (AFA (above, note 58)). This certainly seems to be the way to take, for example, the entry for 28 April in the Fasti Praenestini: … Feriae ex s.c. quod eo di[e signu?]m et [ara] Vestae in domu Imp. Caesaris Augu[sti po]ntif. ma[x.] dedicatast Quirinio et Valgio cos … (CIL i 2 p. 236).Google Scholar

71 Above, note 47, 2094.

72 For the use of constitutio with precincts in the sense of arrangement (?) cf. Vitruvius iv. 8, 7: nunc de areis deorum inmortalium, uti aptam constitutionem habeant ad sacrificiorum rationem, dicam.

73 The following (not cited by Welin) are of interest: … [matribus?]/ quadru[b.] / et genio lo/ci Flaviu[s] / Severu[s] / vet. leg. X[XX] / u. v. templum / cum arborib. / constituit / v.s.l.m. (CIL xiii, 8638); Marti Camulo/ sacrum pro / salute Neronis / Claudi Caesaris / Aug. Germanic, imp. / cives Remi qui / [t]emplum constitu/erunt. (CIL xiii, 8701); … culto/res iuniores / suis sumtis / aram constitu (sic) / pro … (CIL viii, 21481). A further inscription given by Welin might also be included in this group: Genio Pa[triae aug.] P. Horatius … aram constit[uit idemque] dedicavit (CIL viii, 4191).

74 Wissowa, RuKR 2, 473 f.

75 Wissowa, o.c. (Hermes), 157, n. 4 with refs.

76 S. Weinstock, Divus Julius, 390; cf. Cerialis Anicius' (rejected) proposal in the senate that a temple be erected in Rome to the living emperor Nero as divus Nero; Tacitus, , Ann. xv, 74: A.D. 65.Google Scholar

77 See in general Lepper, JRS xlvii, 1957, 101Google Scholar f.; Murray, O., Historia, xiv, 1965, 46.Google Scholar A different view of the quinquennium has recently been argued by Hind, J. F. G., Historia xx, 1971, 458–505.Google Scholar

78 I cannot follow Welin's argument, o.c., 510, n. 22, that aliquanto postquam excessit constitutum cannot imply a senatorial decree because the decree of the senate is mentioned a few lines later. Surely the later clause clarifies the meaning of constitutum.

79 The Loeb translation reads ‘… built shortly after his death.’ But it is clear from the passage that the question here is one of converting into a shrine part of an existing building; cf. Kornemann, , Klio i, 1901, 104, n. 4.Google Scholar

80 RuKR 2 472.

81 Cf. Wissowa, RuKR 2, 258, n. 4; 474, n. 5. It is interesting to note that in describing the decision to consecrate this temple Dionysius employs both ΨηΦἰξω and άΦιερὸω exactly as in the Greek version of consacrandam censuit, Mon. Ancyr. xii, 2: ή μέντοι βουλὴ καἰ ὀ δῆμοѕ άπὸ τῶν κοινῶν ἐΨηΦίσαντο χρημἀτων τἐμενὀѕ τε ωνηΘὲν καΘιερωΘῆναι τῆ θεῷ καὶ έν αὐτῷν … (viii. 55, 3).

82 Wissowa, o.c. (Hermes), 160, remarks that no evidence has come down for the ceremonial dedication of the site of a future temple. Welin, o.c., 512, objected to this by citing the ritual described by Tacitus before reconstruction of the burned-down temple of Jupiter Capitolinus (Hist, iv, 53; cf. Dio Cassius lxv, 10). This in no way contradicts Wissowa's statement, however, being clearly in the nature of a ceremonial lustrum; cf. Riemann, o.c. (above, note 47), 2094. A new temple could be newly dedicated on an old site, but consecration applied to the ground on which the original temple stood and was in no way annulled by the destruction of the earlier temple; Wissowa, RuKR 2, 475; 468, n. 6 quoting Marcian, , Dig. i. 8, 6, 3; Pliny, Ep. ad Trai. lxxi.Google Scholar

83 Syme, , Tacitus i, 65 f.Google Scholar

84 Ibid., 186-8, 278-85, 295-97; cf; Borzak, in P-W Suppl. xi (1968), 483 noting that the books concerning Nero bear many traces of the acta senatus. It might be objected that in recording the request of the Spaniards templum ut in colonia Tarraconensi strueretur Augusto (Ann. i, 78) Tacitus is inaccurate since the temple must have been to divus Augustus. But here Tacitus may well be reporting the actual words of the embassy itself.Google Scholar

85 Thesaurus L.L. iv, 512 f., s.v. constituo.

86 Contra Kornemann (above, note 79) 102, n. 2 ‘… woraus man aber nicht schliessen muss, dass der Tempel erst nach dem Tode des Claudius geweiht worden sei. Der Tempel des Claudius war naturgemäss nach dessen Tode ein templum divi Claudii.’

87 Richmond (above, note 1) clearly had this point in mind in remarking that Britain had been organized without referring back to the senate and that a cult of the living Claudius could be recognized as one of the consequences; cf. Tacitus, , Ann. xv, 74: nam deum honor principi non ante habetur quam agere inter homines desierit.Google Scholar

88 So rightly, I believe, Frere, Britannia: A History of Roman Britain (1967), 324, though divus Julius seems not to have been included in the cult of the divi; Wissowa, RuKR 2, 344; YCS vii, 1940, 184.Google Scholar

89 Syme, , Tacitus ii, 765 f.Google Scholar; cf. Henze, , P-W iii (1897), 797; Wheeler, RCHM: Roman London, 27.Google Scholar

90 This would fit the possibility that omnis fortunas effundebant (Ann. xiv, 31) could mean omnium fortunas: Phoenix xv (1961), 163Google Scholar, n. 19 quoting Woodcock, E. C., The Annals of Tacitus: Book xiv (1939), 119.Google Scholar

91 See in general Deininger, Provinziallandtage, 160 f.

92 Cf. above, note 82; Cerfaux-Tondriau (above, note 11) 354, n. 9 with refs.

93 This removes the difficulty sensed by Kornemann (above, note 76) 105, in that the temple at Camulodunum would on the normal view have remained the only temple officially erected to Claudius before the death of Nero.

94 Harvard St. Class. Philology, lxxiv, 1970, 307–12; coins of A.D. 70-73 show Dea Roma resurgent kneeling before the emperor: H. Cohen, Descr. histor. des monnaies frappées sous l'empire romain 2 (1880) (1955) i, Nos. 424-27; see also above, note 35.Google Scholar

95 Cf. RIB 92; Frere, l.c. (above, note 88).

96 Above, note 28.

97 A reform of the British cult at the time of Hadrian's visit to Britain in 121 might be conjectured with some plausibility in the light of his possible arrangements at Lugdunum about this time (p. 168). Conceivably the cult of divus Claudius at Camulodunum may now have been expanded to include all divinized personages, if this modification had not taken place earlier.

98 ‘The Severi and the Provincial Cult of the Three Gauls’, Historia 23 (1974), forthcoming.Google Scholar

99 JRS lix 1969, 87.Google Scholar