Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:46:52.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Temple of Divus Claudius at Camulodunum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

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

Extract

‘The problem of Claudius’ temple at Camulodunum is one of those hardy perennials where insufficient evidence makes a final solution in practice hardly possible; anyone laying the law down on the subject does so at his peril’.

Meagre archaeological data that add up to few hard facts, a sneer by Seneca on which a whole case has been built, obscure terminology in a solitary half-sentence of Tacitus – all the familiar knots in the problem are brought into play by C.J. Simpson in his recent reappraisal of the enigmatic temple. That there are enough loose ends to justify continuing debate is hardly in contention. Whether Simpson succeeds in demonstrating that a temple dedicated to the living emperor Claudius was already in existence at the colony by that emperor's death in A.D. 54 is another matter. A rejoinder provides in any event a welcome opportunity to consolidate a thesis that has been the focus of vigorous discussion for well over twenty years.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 26 , November 1995 , pp. 11 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © Duncan Fishwick 1995. 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 Fishwick, D., ‘Templum Divo Claudia Constitutum’, Britannia iii (1972), 164–81, at 180CrossRefGoogle Scholar; The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire I, 2 (1987), 195–218, at 218 (hereafter ICLW). See further idem, ‘Tacitean usage and the Temple of Divus Claudius’, Britannia iv (1973), 264f.; idem, ‘Seneca and the Temple of Divus Claudius’, Britannia xxii (1991), 137–41.Google Scholar

2 Simpson, C.J., ‘Once again Claudius and the Temple at Colchester,’ Britannia xxiv (1993), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 For the later date of c. A.D. 60 proposed by Toynbee see ICLW I, 2, 202 with II. 41.

4 Simpson, op. cit. (note 2), 2. For statistics on the time taken for the death of an emperor to reach a particular province see the data usefully collected by Lewis, N. and Reinhold, M., Roman Civilization3 II (1990), 8, n. 11.Google Scholar

5 Fishwick, op. cit. (note 1, 1991), 138f.

6 Simpson, op. cit. (note 2), 2.

7 ibid.

8 ibid., 2, n. 11 cites Fishwick, op. cit. (note 1, 1973), 264 ’…Nero was never officially deified (emphasis added by Simpson)…’ and asks, why officially? For the obvious reason that official deification by decree of the Senate – or rather the lack of it – is central to the proposal recorded in Tac, Ann. xv, 74: ‘ut templum divo Neroni quam maturrime publica pecunia poneretur’. Any private deification would not affect the picture; see ICLW I, I, 77f. The fact that Nero had flamines at Pompeii during his lifetime (Simpson, ibid.) has no relevance to the proposal in the Senate to build a temple to Nero as divus in his lifetime. Neither has the (common) use of flamen as a priestly title.

9 Simpson, op. cit. (note 2), 3.

10 The most recent treatments are by M.R. Hull, Roman Colchester (1953), 162–77; Dyury, P.J.etal., ‘The Temple of Claudius at Colchester reconsidered’, Britannia xv (1984), 7–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crummy, P., ‘The temples of Roman Colchester’, in Rodwell, W. (ed.), Temples, Churches and Religion: Recent Research in Roman Britain, BAR Brit. Ser. 77(i) (1980), 243–8 with fig. 11: 3–6.Google Scholar

11 Gros, P., Aurea Templa, BEFRA 231 (1976), 65–7. See further ICLW 111, 1, ch. 2 (forthcoming).Google Scholar

12 Fishwick, D., ‘On the Temple of Divus Augustus’, Phoenix xlvi (1992), 232–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 ICLW, 1, 2, 197 with 11f., 16.

14 J. de la Genière, ‘Le sanctuaire d'Apollon à Claros, découvertes récentes’, CRAI (1992), 195–210.

15 Cassius Dio LIII.21.6.

16 Pliny, NH XXXVI.50.

17 Suetonius, Aug. 29.1

18 I.A. Richmond in Hull, op. cit. (note 10), xxvff.

19 Hull, op. cit. (note 10), 162–8; cf. Richmond in ibid., xxvii; ICLW i, 2, 196 with n. 8; Drury, op. cit. (note 10), 24. For the podium (32 × 41 m) which supported the temple now in the grounds of the convent of the Verbe Incarné on the plateau of Fourvière see J. Lasfargues and M. Le Glay, ‘Découverte d'un sanctuaire municipal du culte impérial á Lyon’, CRAI (1980), 394–414.

20 ICLW 1,2, 197.

21 Ann. XIV.31.

22 Simpson, op. cit. (note 2), 4.

23 ibid., 4, n. 28, cf. 3, n. 18, citing Jackson's translation.

24 ICLW 11, 1 (1991), 574–84, especially 579f., citing CIL II.6278 (= ILS 5163); cf. ICLW i, 1, 136.Google Scholar

25 At Lugdunum construction of a modest podium for the amphitheatre along with the levelling of an area was evidently undertaken c. A.D. 19 by C. Iulius Rufus, some thirty years after the establishment of the provincial cult of the Three Gauls ad aram: ICLW i, 1, 133f. For the amphitheatre at Camulodunum see Hull, op. cit. (note 10), 106 (Insula 13); J.-C. Golvin, L'Amphithéâtre romain, Publ. du Centre Pierre Paris 18 (1988), 91, no. 50. But this is now taken to be rather the theatre; cf. Drury, op. cit. (note 10), 23, fig. 11.

26 ICLW II, 1, 515–18.

27 ICLW I, 2, 216 with nn. 98f.

28 Similar levies may well have financed provincial temples elsewhere, but it is worth noting that the provincial temple at Tarraco was built at the request of the provincials themselves (Tacitus, Ann. 1.78), while Lusitania, which followed suit, was already well Romanized, as were Baetica and, of course, Gallia Narbonensis. In Tres Galliae, the region which most resembled Britain, construction of a provincial temple looks to have been deferred until the reign of Hadrian: ICLW I, 2, 308–16. Was Roman experience in Britain, where such a temple led to disaster, responsible for the long interval between provincial altar and provincial temple at Lugdunum? A modern parallel that comes to mind is the construction of Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral of Christ the King, which took decades to complete and was supported in part by monthly collections taken up in parishes throughout the diocese. The original design of Lutyens proved so costly that in the end this had to be abandoned in favour of a simpler structure.

29 1CLW,1 2,216.

30 ibid., 203–13.

31 Suetonius, Claudius 2.1.

32 Tacitus, Ann. XIV.31.

33 For references see Simpson, op. cit. (note 2), 2, n. 15; D. Fishwick, ‘Four Temples at Tarraco’, in A.M. Small (ed.), Subject and Ruler (forthcoming).

34 op. cit. (note 2), 2, n. 15.

35 Cassius Dio LIX.25.5.

36 ICLW I, 2, I98f.; Fishwick, op. cit. (note 1, 1991), 137.

37 For the refusal formula see recently Fishwick, D., ‘Dio and Maecenas: the emperor and the ruler cult’, Phoenix xliv (1990), 267–75, at 271f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 Tacitus, Ann. III.64. For the theological implication of Pietas Augusta see ‘Augustan Blessings and Virtues’, in ICLW II, 1, 455–74, esp. 457ff.

39 Simpson, op. cit. (note 2), 6, n. 42.

40 For the statement that outside Rome a local council or private individual might erect a temple ‘at the expense of the Emperor or his deputy’ see Stambaugh, J.E., ‘The Functions of Roman Temples’, ANRW II.16.1 (1978), 554–608, at 566 with n. 82 and refs. This is surely a preposterous notion, though evidently behind Simpson's ‘private/imperial initiative.’ Yet in the example cited in support, that of Pliny's temple at Tifernum, Pliny explicitly states that he built the temple pecunia mea (Ep. IV.1.5–6).Google Scholar

41 ICLW II, I, 525, citing similar examples at Soriano and Gabii.

42 Fishwick, op. cit. (note 33). See further ‘The Provincial Centre’, in ICLW III, 1 (forthcoming).

43 P. Gros, ‘Sanctuaires traditionnels, capitoles et temples dynastiques; ruptures et continuités dans le fonctionnement et l'aménagement des centres religieux urbains’, in Los Asentiamentos ibericos ante la Romanizacion (1986), 111–17.

44 op. cit. (note 42). Obvious parallels are the provincial fora at Tarraco and Narbo Martius, both of which lay on the edge of the town as at Camulodunum. That at Lugdunum lay a kilometre or so up-stream from the city.

45 Simpson, op. cit. (note 2), 2.

46 Fishwick, op. cit. (note 1, 1991), 140.

47 See now Fishwick, D., ‘Numinibus Aug(ustorum)’, Britannia xxv (1994), 127–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48 Fishwick, op. cit. (note 1), 140, n. 26.

49 Simpson, op. cit. (note 2), 3.

50 ICLW II, 1,515.

51 Accepted by Fishwick, D., ‘Votive offerings to the emperor?’ ZPE lxx (1990), 121–30 with supporting arguments.Google Scholar

52 ICLW I, 2, 203–13.

53 According to Pliny, NH XXVIII.12, the prayer used at the ceremony of devotio, for example, was customarily recited by the magister of the college of quindecímviri s. f.; cf. Livy XXII. 57, 6.

54 Simpson, C.J., ‘Livia and the constitution of the Aedes Concordiae. The evidence of Ovid, Fasti I 637ff.’, Historia xl (1991), 449–55 with n. 7. Livia's role in the ceremony depends on Simpson's (convincing) interpretation of Ovid, Fasti 1.649: ‘hanc tua constituit genetrix et rebus et ara…’Google Scholar

55 Simpson, op. cit. (note 2), 3. Much the same argument is nevertheless rejected by Simpson himself, op. cit. (note 54), 451, n. II: ‘I believe F. Cassola to be quite confused as to process when he suggests constitution only took place (in the case of the temple of Mars Ultor) after the sacred structure was open to the cult…Clearly, if such a relative chronology applied to the Temple of Concord, the ceremony of the constitution would have taken place c. 16 years after the Senate decision – inherently unlikely’.

56 cf. Simpson, op. cit. (note 54), 454: ‘…a decision to restore which… presumably, was recorded in the minutes of the Senate meeting of 1 January 7 B.C. It was the first stage in the rite of constitution of the re-built Aedes Concordiae’. Cf. 451: ‘The constitution of the Aedes Concordiae was not complete without the ceremonial inauguration (i.e. re-inauguration) of the site. Livia, as it appears, took part in the ceremony of constitution’.

57 Tacitus, Hist. IV.53. For commentary see H. Heubner, P. Cornelius Tacitus. Die Historien (1976), 124–8.

58 Degrassi, lnscr.lt XIII, 2, 398–400.

59 ICLW I, 2,213, n. 87.

60 Tacitus, Ann. II.49.

61 Simpson, op. cit. (note 2), 3.

62 Degrassi, lnscr.lt XIII, 2, 452, cf. 476.

63 ICLW, I, 2, 213.

64 Fishwick, op. cit. (note 1, 1973); ICLW I, 2, 214f.

65 Simpson, op. cit. (note 2), 4, n. 24, attributes to D. Fishwick two articles on the temple of Mars Ultor published in JRS and RBPH. The credit for these belongs to C.J. Simpson.

66 Simpson, op. cit. (note 2), 4.

67 For the priests of the Three Gauls the best recent coverage is by Maurin, L., ‘Gaulois et Lyonnais’, REA lxxxviii (1986), 109–24 with list of priests at 115f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

68 Deininger, J., Die Provinziallandtage der römischen Kaiserzeit, Vestigia 6 (1965), 151.Google Scholar

69 Tacitus, Ann. 1.58.2.

70 Simpson, op. cit. (note 2), 6.

71 ICLW, 1, I, 99–102.

72 Simpson, op. cit. (note 2), 6.

73 In the Danube region provincial worship at Sarmizegetusa and elsewhere looks to have centred on an altar without the inclusion of Roma, but this occurs at a much later stage – under Trajan and after: ICLW I, 2, 301–7.

74 For an overview see Fishwick, D., ‘Institution and Evolution’, in ICLW III, 1, ch. 1 (forthcoming).Google Scholar

75 Responsibility must then be assigned to Claudius, in which case here as elsewhere the evolution of provincial ruler-worship in the West disproves F. Millar's implausible view that the Roman emperor was essentially passive and only reacted to the demands of his subjects: The Emperor in the Roman World (31 B.C.-A.D. 337) (1977), passim. See further Fishwick, op. cit. (note 74).

76 ICLW I, 1, 137–46.

77 Simpson, op. cit. (note 2), 4.

78 ibid.

79 Deininger, op. cit. (note 68), 144f.

80 ICLW I, 1–2 passim; Alföldy, G., Flamines Provinciae Hispaniae Citerioris, Anejos de Archivo Español de Arqueologia 6 (1973); Maurin, op. cit. (note 67).Google Scholar

81 Tacitus, Ann. I.57.2.

82 1CLW 1, 1, 165–7.

83 Drury, op. cit. (note 10), 15 with fig. 2, cf. 8, 24; R. Stillwell (ed.), The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites (1976), 191 (Hull).

84 Drury, op. cit. (note 10), 27 with fig. 2.

85 M.J.T. Lewis, Temples in Roman Britain (1966), 62 with fig. 59. For the size of the surviving pedestal (4ft 9in by at least 9ft) see Hull, op. cit. (note 10), 176. Equestrian statues were certainly set up at the sanctuary of the Three Gauls: ICLW I, 2, 318 with n. 10 ad C1L XIII.1680 = ILS 1390.

86 Drury, op. cit. (note 10), 15 with fig. 2. For the hypothesis of an eventual symmetrical arrangement of statues see Drury, 27 with fig 11. Whether anything similar can be supposed at Lugdunum is not in evidence.

87 Audin, A. and Quoniam, P., ‘Victoires et colonnes de l'autel fédéral des Trois Gaules: donnees nouvelles,’ Gallia xx (1962), 103–16; ICLW I, 1, 105. If the oblong shape of all the Camulodunum pedestals constitutes a continuing objection, the possibility might come under consideration that the original Victories were later replaced by imperial equestrian statues.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

88 Tacitus, Ann. XIV.32.

89 Simpson, op. cit. (note 2), 5.

90 R. Syme, Tacitus (1958) II, 762–6.

91 Cassius Dio LII.1.2.

92 Simpson, op. cit. (note 2), 5.

93 R. Daut, Imago. Untersuchungen zum Bildbegriff der Römer (1975), 32–8; Fishwick, D., ‘The Caesareum at Alexandria again’, AJAH xii (1987) [1995], 64Google Scholar with nn. 11f., 14 and refs. ad Suetonius, Aug. 17 (simulacrum divi luli); cf. Suetonius, Tib. 26, I (simulacra deorum). For Tacitean uses of simulacrum see Gerber, A. and Greef, A., Lexicon Taciteum II (1877–1890) (1962), 1507, listing 13 examples of simulacrum in a specifically cultic context (including Ann. XIV.32.1). One exception is the aureum tauri simulacrum in the Forum Boarium (Ann. XII.24.2), which Tacitus nevertheless mentions in the religious context of the circumscription of the pomerium by a plough drawn by a bull. In Agricola 46.3 there is a figurative usage ‘…ut vultus hominum, ita simulacra vultus imbecilla ac mortalia sunt…’Google Scholar

94 See Crummy, P. in Rodwell, W. (ed.), Temples, Churches and Religion: Recent Research in Roman Britain, BAR Brit. Ser. 77(1) (1980), 243–83; Lewis, op. cit. (note 85), 66, 78f., 104, 127, 136. E. Koestermann, Cornelius Tacitus Annalen Band IV, Buch 14-16 (1968), 88, suggests that the simulacra Victoriae stood either in the temple itself (surely impossible) or in an open place.Google Scholar

95 For the Victory columns at Lugdunum see ICLWl, 1, pls I, XI–XVII.

96 For the background see ICLW I, I, III–18 with special reference to the symbolism of the twin Victories at Lugdunum.

97 Simpson, op. cit. (note 2), 4 n. 29, citing B. Levick, Claudius (1990), 145, 186.

98 Tacitus, Ann. XIV. 32.2–3.

99 Cassius Dio Ll.20.7.

100 Tacitus, Ann. IV.37.

101 Fishwick, op. cit. (note 47), 132f; ICLW I, 1, 126f. with refs.; S.R.F. Price, Rituals and Power. The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (1984), 46 with n. 102.

102 Suetonius, Aug. 53.

103 ICLW I, 91f. withn. 55.

104 ICLW II, 1, 524L with nn. 298–300; Gros, op. cit. (note 43), 1115f.; Fishwick, op. cit. (note 33). Simpson, op. cit. (note 2), 5, n. 35, comments on the Caesareum at Benevento, ‘I am not as certain as Fishwick that such shrines were really to the emperor in his "menschliche Wesenheit'". More careful reading of ICLW II, 1, 439 might have shown Simpson that the point at issue here is incongruity: dedications to the emperor, in particular of a Caesareum at Beneventum, in which the emperor is nevertheless addressed by his secular titles: ‘Despite the level of the divine evoked by sacrum or the purpose of the structure and objects dedicated or financed, the wording of the various epigraphical texts makes clear that the emperor is addressed in his “menschliche Wesenheit’”. The conflict is therefore between a shrine which should be to the emperor ut deo and a dedication in which he is addressed as imp. Caesari Augusta. But Simpson does ‘not wish to become embroiled in here defining “numen”’. Fortunately, as none of the incongruous dedications in question make any reference to the emperor's numen, nor does this concept have any bearing on the shrines in question. Simpson nevertheless refers to ‘the erection of an altar on the Palatine (emphasis added) c. A.D. 6 –‘ara numinis Augusti”’. While the date is that generally accepted, there seems to be no evidence for the whereabouts of the altar.

105 ICLW I, 158–63. For the cult of the Senate see Kienast, D., ‘Der heilige senat. Senatuskult und “Kaiserlicher” Senat’, Chiron xv (1985), 253–83.Google Scholar

106 Tacitus, Ann. IV. 15. Simpson, op. cit. (note 2), 5, n. 36 is confused throughout. He states ‘In fact in Tac, Ann. IV.15 Roma is not mentioned and in Tac, Ann. IV.37 the Senate stands more as an example of Tiberian (republican?) sentiment than as a body “replacing Roma’”. Simpson has evidently misread Fishwick, op. cit. (note I, 1991), 137 and taken the reference (despite the dash) to imply that Tacitus notes Roma was replaced by Livia and the Senate. On the contrary, this is plainly an editorial remark by the author to the effect that Roma was replaced by Livia and the Senate. In place of Augustus and Roma what was allowed at Smyrna was the combination Tiberius, Livia, and the Senate. Obviously Roma is replaced by Livia and the Senate, the two together. In which case Livia at any rate can hardly stand as an example of Tiberian (republican?) sentiment.

107 Simpson, op. cit. (note 2), 6.

108 ICLW II, 1, 423f. with numerous refs.

109 Above, note 36.

110 But see Syme, op. cit. (note 90), 762f.

111 On ‘refusals’ see Fishwick, op. cit. (note 37).

112 Horace, Odes III.5.1–5.

113 Simpson, op. cit. (note 2), 6.