Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T20:10:36.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Roman arches and Greek honours: the language of power at Rome*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

Andrew Wallace-Hadrill
Andrew Wallace-Hadrill
Affiliation:
Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It was decided that a marble arch (Ianus) should be erected in the Circus Flaminius at public expense, positioned by the spot where statues have already been dedicated to Divus Augustus and the Augustan household by G. Norbanus Flaccus, together with gilded images of peoples conquered, and an inscription on the face of that arch stating that the Senate and People of Rome have dedicated this marble monument to the memory of Germanicus Caesar, since he … (account of achievements follows) … unsparing of his labours, until an ovation should be granted to him by decree of the senate, had died in the service of the republic; and above the arch there should be set a statue of Germanicus Caesar in a triumphal chariot, and at his sides, statues of his father Drusus Germanicus, natural brother of Tiberius Caesar Augustus, of his mother Antonia, his wife Agrippina, his sister Livia, his brother Tiberius Germanicus and of his sons and daughters.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Second Series) , Volume 36 , 1990 , pp. 143 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1990

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

NOTES

1. Text: Gonzalez, J., ZPE 55 (1984) 55–100Google Scholar; AE (1984) 137–45Google Scholar. For discussion from a variety of angles, Gonzalez, J. and Arce, J. (eds.), Estudios sobre la Tabula Siarensis (Anejos de archivo español de arqueologia, 1988)Google Scholar. For a translation of both documents, see now Sherk, R. K., The Roman empire: from Augustus to Hadrian (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar no. 36.

2. For an excellent survey of the literature, see now Kleiner, F. S., ‘The study of Roman triumphal and honorary arches 50 years after Kähler’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 2 (1989) 195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Still basic is the article ‘Triumphbogen’ by Kähler, in RE VIIA (1939) 373–493Google Scholar. The fullest recent survey is De Maria, S., Gli archi onorari di Roma e dell' Italia romana (1988)Google Scholar. Good brief surveys are to be found in Pfanner, M., Der Titusbogen (1983)Google Scholar and Kleiner's own study, The Arch of Nero in Rome: a study of the Roman honorary arch before and under Nero (1985) 9–66Google Scholar.

3. On the change in usage, Kähler (n.2) 464; Pfanner (n.2) 94; Mansuelli, G. A., ‘Fornix e arcus. Note di terminologia’, in Studi sull' arco onorario romano (Studia Archaeologica 21) (1979) 15–17Google Scholar; De Maria (n.2) 43–4. For the usage of fornix, see TLL and Diz. Ep. s.v. On the Fornix Fabianus: Cicero, Verr. 1.1.19; Planc. 17; De orat. 2.267; cf. Quintilian, Inst. 6.3.67 (quoting Cicero). Other fornices: Cic. Verr. 2.2.154 (Verres); Livy 33.27.4 (Stertinius); 37.3.7 (Scipio). Also reflecting annalistic usage Orosius 5.9 (Calpurnium fornicem, the site of the murder of Ti. Gracchus). Note too Vulgate I Reg. 15.12, erexisset sibi [Sc. Saul] fornicem triumphalem, possibly deliberately avoiding in this disapproving context the honorific word arcus. For imperial usage cf. Asconius on Cic. Verr. 1.1.19, fornix Fabianus arcus est; Seneca, Const. Sap. 2.1 arcum Fabianum; Schol. Pers. 4.49.

4. TLL 2.479f. s.v. arcus iii.

5. Cf. n.1. Kleiner, , JRA (1989) 220–1Google Scholar discusses the Tabula Siarensis; note also the probable identification of Germanicus' German arch at Mainz, Frenz, H. G., ‘The honorary arch at Mainz-Kastel’, JRA 2 (1989) 120–5Google Scholar.

6. On the architectural contrast of arcus and ianus, Trillmich, W. in Estudios sobre la Tabula Siarensis (n.1) 57Google Scholar n.9; but Frothingham, A. L., AJA 19 (1915) 161Google Scholar, to which he refers, cites evidence (CIL 2. 4697–734Google Scholar) that shows the two words used interchangeably. Suet., Dom. 13Google Scholar (cited above) is taken to indicate a distinction; but even this may be pleonastic, and if there was a technical distinction, we cannot be sure that it was already established by AD 19.

7. TLL 6.1125, 37ff. Fornix continues in use for arches (except triumphal ones) under the empire. Vitruvius 6.8.3–4 uses fornices/fornicationes/arcus interchangeably. Frontinus, , De aqu. 125 and 127Google Scholar quotes Augustan senatusconsulta calling aqueduct arches fornices; cf. Pliny, NH 31.41.

8. So Kähler (n.2) 464; cf. Künzl, E., Der römische Triumph. Siegesfeiern im antiken Rom (1988) 48Google Scholar. Mansuelli (n.3) makes the attractive suggestion that arcus carried overtones of the vault of heaven.

9. For fornix as brothel, see TLL 6.1126, 56ff. Horace, Sat. 1.2.30; Ep. 1.14.21. Seneca, De vita beata 7.3.: altum quiddam est uirtus, excelsum et regale, inuictum infatigabile; uoluptas humile seruile, inbecillum caducum, cuius statio et domicilium fornices et popinae sunt. uirtutem in templo conuenies, in foro in curia … uoluptatem latitantem saepius et tenebras captantem circa balinea ac sudatoria ac loca aedilem metuentia …

10. See De Maria (n.2) 55–6 for an appreciation of the way terminological change reflects Augustus' ideological transformation of the arch.

11. CIL I 2, 762–4Google Scholar = 6.1303–4: Q. Fabius. Q.F. Maxsumus aed. cur. rest. and for statue bases. See Platner, T. and Ashby, S. B., Topographical dictionary of ancient Rome (1929) 211–2Google Scholar.

12. Location and history of the Actium and Parthian arches remain highly controversial: Coarelli, F., Il Foro Romano II, Periodo repubblicano e augusteo (1985) 258–308Google Scholar; Nedergaard, E., ‘Zur Problematik der Augustusbögen auf dem Forum Romanum’, in Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik (1988) 224–39Google Scholar; Kleiner (n.5) 198–200; Künzl (n.8) 51ff.

13. Even the sources habitually refer senatorial actions to the emperor: cf. Brunt, P. A., ‘The role of the senate in the Augustan regime’, CQ 34 (1984) 423CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Millar, F., ‘Imperial ideology in the Tabula Siarensis’, in Estudios sobre la Tabula Siarensis (n.1) 11–19Google Scholar, esp. 13 rightly underlines the (neglected) participation of the people in decisions of the SPQR; see also ‘“Senatorial” provinces: an institutionalised ghost’, Ancient World 20 (1989) 93–7Google Scholar.

14. Pliny, NH 36.36, Lysiae opus quod super arcum diuus Augustus honori Octaui patris sui dicauit: in fact the text does not make clear whether Augustus dedicated the whole arch or simply the statue by Lysias in honour of his father. The contrast between republican and imperial arch dedications is seen by Kleiner (n.2, 1985) 63, who notes that outside Rome arches were still occasionally set up as private cenotaphs.

15. Dio 51.19.1 speaks of two arches, one at Brundisium, one in the Forum Romanum.

16. Flaminian arch: Dio 53.22.

17. Suet. Claud. 1.3 (Drusus 9 BC); Tacitus, Ann. 2.41 (Tiberius and Germanicus, AD 16); 2.64 (Drusus and Germanicus, AD 19); 2.83 (Germanicus, AD 19).

18. On the dissemination and its sense of urgency, Richardson, J. S., ‘The rogatio Valeria Aurelia: form and content’ in Estudios sobre la Tabula Siarensis (n.1) 35–41Google Scholar.

19. For a sceptical examination of Greek influence on Roman politics, Gruen, E. S., The Hellenistic world and the coming of Rome I (1984) 250ffGoogle Scholar; Studies in Greek Culture and Roman policy (1990)..

20. Cf. Talbert, R. J. A., The senate of imperial Rome (1984) 354ffGoogle Scholar.

21. Brunt, P. A., ‘The lex Valeria Cornelia’, JRS 51 (1961) 71–83Google Scholar sees the voting provisions as ceremonial, but focuses only on the implication for the equites. Cf. my observations in ‘Augustus' Metamorphoses’ JACT Review 2nd. ser. no. 4 (Autumn 1988) 18ffGoogle Scholar. at 22.

22. For the absence of an earlier tradition of refusal of honours, see ‘Civilis princeps: between citizen and king’, JRS 72 (1982) 32–48Google Scholar.

23. It is however worth noting the refusal of honours, including statues, by the Cicero brothers in the East in 52/1 BC: Ad Att. 5.21.7; Ad Q. fr. 1.25.

24. Veyne, P., Le pain et le cirque (1976) 268CrossRefGoogle Scholar; now translated as Bread and circuses (1990).

25. The expression of MacMullen, R., ‘The epigraphic habit in the Roman Empire’, AJP 103 (1982) 233–46Google Scholar. Contrast the importance of Roman testamentary habits as the driving force in Latin epigraphy, Meyer, E., ‘Explaining the epigraphic habit in the Roman empire: the evidence of epitaphs’, JRS 80 (1990) 74–96Google Scholar.

26. My account of honorific practice generally follows Gauthier, P., Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs (BCH supp. 12, 1985)Google Scholar; cf. his paper, ‘Les cités hellenistiques …’, in Praktika tou H' Diethnous Synedriou Ellenikes kai Latinikes Epigraphikes (1984) 87–92Google Scholar. See further Whitehead, D., ‘Competitive outlay and community profit’, Class. et Med. 34 (1983) 55–74Google Scholar; Rosen, K., ‘Ehrendekrete, Biographie und Geschichtsschreibung’, Chiron 17 (1987) 277–92Google Scholar.

27. See Osborne, M. J., ‘Entertainment in the Prytaneion in Athens’, ZPE 41 (1981) 153–70Google Scholar; Gauthier (n.26) 92ff.

28. On deme honours, see Whitehead, D., The demes of Attica (1986) 112fGoogle Scholar. (two-thirds of all deme inscriptions are honorific).

29. Larfeld, W., Handbuch der griechischen Epigraphik II.2 (1902) 737–843Google Scholar for Attic inscriptions, I (1907) 487–546 for non-Attic inscriptions; cf. p. 487, ‘Auf keinem Gebiete … macht sich der Einfluss Athens in dem Grade bemerklich, wie bei der Stilisierung der Ehrendekrete’. Henry, A. S., Honours and privileges in Athenian decrees (1983)Google Scholar offers detailed analysis of the fomulas.

30. Larfeld (n.29) II.2, 696, I, 534f; Veyne (n.24). 268.

31. Gauthier (n.26) 7f. and 66ff., in stressing the ‘debasement’ of honours in the second century BC, underestimates the persistent tendency of any system of status markers to debasement. The underlying principles of status emulation are set out, in another context, by Morris, I., Burial in ancient society (1987) 16fGoogle Scholar.

32. Osborne (n.27) 170; Gauthier (n.26) 107; Henry (n.29) 294ff. On honorific statues at Athens, see Stewart, A., Attika: studies in Athenian sculpture in the hellenistic age (1979) 115–32Google Scholar; Smith, R. R. R., Hellenistic royal portraits (1988) 16–18Google Scholar.

33. Gauthier (n.26) 42f.; cf. Smith (n.32) 21–2 on portraits of royal courtiers at Delos.

34. The hierarchy is well summarised by Smith (n.32) 21–2; cf. Scott, K., ‘The significance of statues in precious metals in Emperor worship’, TAPA 62 (1931) 101–23Google Scholar.

35. Gauthier (n.26) 57ff.; Siedentopf, H., Das hellenistische Reiterdenkmal (1968) 26ffGoogle Scholar.

36. Veyne (n.24) esp. 262 and 269f.

37. Gauthier (n.26) 66ff.

38. On the theatre setting of civic ceremonial, see Goldhill, S., Reading Greek tragedy (1986) 75fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39. Plut., Demetr. 10Google Scholar; Scott, K., AJP 49 (1928) 137–66 and 217–39Google Scholar; Mossé, C., Athens in decline (1973) 108–14Google Scholar. Note also the bronze equestrian statue to Demetrius of 302 BC erected by that of Demokratia: Siedentopf (n.36) 83, no. 3.

40. Habicht, C., Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte ed. 2 (1979)Google Scholar; cf. Gauthier (n.26) 46.

41. Conveniently, Bowersock, G. W., Augustus and the Greek world (1965) 150ffGoogle Scholar.; Price, S. R. F., Rituals and power: the Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor (1984) esp. 42ffGoogle Scholar.

42. On statues to Romans in the East, see Siedentopf (n.35) 23f. For dedications to Romans on Delos, , Inscr. Delos esp. 1683–729, 1842–63Google Scholar; Degrassi, , ILLRP 343–4, 349, 359–63, 369, 1270Google Scholar. For the statues, Michalowski, C., Lex portraits hellénistiques et romains (Expl. de Délos XIII, 1932)Google Scholar. On the transfer of Greek idiom to Romans, Stewart (n.32) 73–7, 142–6; Wiseman, T. P., Catullus and his world (1985) 92–6Google Scholar. On the bizarre effect of transferring heroic nudity to Romans, Zanker, P., ‘Zur Bildnisrepräsentation führender Männer …’, in Les ‘bourgeoisies’ municipales italiennes aux IIe et Ier siècles av. J.-C. (1983) 251–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar and The power of images in the age of Augustus (1988) 5–8Google Scholar.

43. For other examples, see Mason, H. J., Greek terms for Roman institutions (1974) 75Google Scholar, and Reynolds, J., Aphrodisias and Rome (1982) no. 3. line 51Google Scholar.

44. The political role of such honours is clear, and the history of attempts to stop them long: Nichols, J., ‘Zur Verleihung öffentliche Ehrungen in der römischen Welt’, Chiron 9 (1979) 243–60Google Scholar.

45. This is the sole thrust of the bibliography on honours for Caesar: Weinstock, S., Divus Julius (1971)Google Scholar; Rawson, E., ‘Caesar's heritage: Hellenistic kings and their Roman equals’, JRS 65 (1975) 148–59Google Scholar, etc.

46. Degrassi's accompanying volume of photographs makes it relatively easy to identify statue bases. For Delos dedications in ILLRP, see above n.42. Also ILLRP 370 (Aegii), 374, 376 (Argos), 433 (Mytilene), 320 (Halesa), 378, 398 (Tarracina), 372 (Nemi). Statues to Sulla, 349–56; Pompey, 380–2; Caesar, 406–9; cf. 416 (Octavian), 1276 (Lepidus). The main cases of local dedications to benefactors in Italian towns are 528 (Betilienus Varus at Alatri); 558 (Brundisium); 583 (Ferentinum); 618 (Interamnia Praetuttiorum); 624, 626 (Luna). Note also late dedications by colonists, to Afranius by Valentia in Spain (385), to Cornelius Balbus by Capua (425), to Nonius Asprenas by Valentia in Narbonensis (432); cf. 388 (Utica). There are also statues dedicated on private initiative at Interamna Nahars (364) and Rimini (959). On Betilienus Varus and the Hellenisation of Italy, Zevi, F., ‘Alatri’, in Zanker, P. (ed.), Hellenismus in Mittelitalien (1976) 84–96Google Scholar.

47. See Talbert (n.20) 354ff.

48. Excellently discussed by Eck, W., Senatorial self-representation: developments in the Augustan period’, in Millar, F. and Segal, E. (eds.), Caesar Augustus. Seven Aspects (1984) 129–67Google Scholar. Also valuable on the aristocratic ethos, Harris, W., War and imperialism in republican Rome (1979) 20fGoogle Scholar.; Wiseman, T. P., Roman political life 90 BC–AD 69 (1985) 3ffGoogle Scholar.

49. On the ideology of monumenta and the shift away from it under Augustus, see Gros, P. and Sauron, G., ‘Das politische Programm der öffentlichen Bauten’, in Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik (1988) 48–68Google Scholar, esp. 49–51.

50. Daremberg, C. and Saglio, E., Dictionnaire des antiquités (1877–1912) s.v. ‘corona’, 1529–33Google Scholar (Greek athletic and honorific crowns); 1533–7 (Roman military awards).

51. Weinstock (n.45) 107f. on the military background to the crowns of Pompey and Caesar; going back to Mommsen, StR 1.438f. On dona militaria in general, Maxfield, V. A., The military decorations of the Roman army (1981) esp. 67ffGoogle Scholar. on coronae and 118f. on the role of the senate.

52. On the corona ciuica, Weinstock (n.45) 163–7.

53. On the corona obsidionalis and the bogus precedent of Fabius, Weinstock (n.45) 148–52.

54. On supplicationes, RE IVA, 942ffGoogle Scholar.; Weinstock (n.45) 62–4.

55. Richardson, J., JRS 65 (1975) 50fGoogle Scholar., taking issue with Mommsen, , StR 1. 126ffGoogle Scholar. But even Mommsen concedes, ‘Das Triumph ist ein feldherrlicher Act’ (132); cf. Versnel, H. S., Triumphus (1970) 164ffGoogle Scholar. In general on the triumph, see now Künzl, E., Der römische Triumph (1988)Google Scholar.

56. Polybius 6.15.8; cf. F. Walbank's commentary ad loc.

57. Cf. Crawford, M. H., The Roman Republic (1978) 74–83Google Scholar.

58. Price, S., ‘From noble rituals to divine cult …’, in Cannadine, D. and Price, S. (eds.), Rituals of royalty: power and ceremonial in traditional societies (1987) 56–105Google Scholar.

59. On the funus publicum, see Daremberg-Saglio s.v. funus, 1406–8; RE suppl. III, 530–2Google Scholar, s.v. funus publicum, both drawing on Vollmer, F., ‘De funere publico Romanorum’, Jahrb. class. Phil. 19 (1892–1893) 319–64Google Scholar. Earlier ‘precedents’, notably the public funeral of Valerius Publicola (Dionysius, Ant. Rom. 5.48.1, Plutarch, , Publ. 23Google Scholar), were manufactured in the late Republic.

60. Cited by Millar, F., JRS 79 (1989) 148–9Google Scholar, but apparently missed in the discussions below. On the passage, see Skutsch, O., The Annals of Quintus Ennius (1985) 753Google Scholar.

61. Livy's account is rejected by Mommsen, , Römische Forschungen 2, 502ffGoogle Scholar. but the honours are defended as authentic by Weinstock (n.45) 36, on the grounds that some were actually given. If so, it is unlikely that they were contemporary: see Walbank, F. W., PCPS n.s. 13 (1967) 55–6Google Scholar, suggesting that the image in the temple of Jupiter was Sullan. The fondness of the Scipiones for self-advertisement is manifest in their tomb: on which recently, Coarelli, F., Il Sepolcro degli Scipioni a Roma (1988)Google Scholar.

62. Vessberg, O., Studien zur Kunstgeschichte der römischen Republik (Act. Inst. Sueciae 8) (1941)Google Scholar; Hölscher, T., ‘Die Anfänge römischer Repräsentationskunst’, Röm. Mitt. 85 (1978) 318ffGoogle Scholar.; Rollin, J. P., Untersuchungen zu Rechtsfragen römischer Bildnisse (Diss. Bonn 1979)Google Scholar; Lahusen, G., Untersuchungen zur Ehrenstatue in Rom. Literarische und epigraphische Zeugnisse (1983)Google Scholar. Lahusen is endorsed by Hofter, M., in Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik (1988) 291fGoogle Scholar. Note also the useful collection of sources by Lahusen, , Schriftquellen zum römischen Bildnis I (1984)Google Scholar.

63. Mommsen (n.51) 447–52.

64. Lahusen (n.62) 18–19; on Roman concepts of policing, Nippel, W., ‘Policing Rome’, JRS 74 (1984) 20–9Google Scholar.

65. Astin, A., ‘Regimen Morum’, JRS 78 (1988) 14–34Google Scholar. Good discussion in the unpublished doctoral thesis of Miles, D., Forbidden pleasures: sumptuary laws and the ideology of moral decline in ancient Rome (London Ph.D. diss. 1987)Google Scholar.

66. Suet., Cal. 34Google Scholar; Dio 60.25; Lahusen (n.62) 101f.

67. Glabrio: Livy 40.34.5; Val. Max. 2.5.1. Marcelli: Asconius on Cicero, , In Pisonem 11Google Scholar.

68. Cf. Wiseman, T. P., ‘Rome and the resplendent Aemilii’, in Tria Lustra (Festschrift for John Pinsent) (1990)Google Scholar.

69. Pliny, NH 35.23 (the painting); 34.18 (the statue).

70. Details of temples and other monumenta erected by victors in the period 264–146 BC are now analysed by Pietilä-Castrén, L., Magnificentia Publica: the victory monuments of the Roman generals in the era of the Punic Wars (Soc. Sc. Fennica: Comm. Hum. Litt. 84) (1987)Google Scholar.

71. See my discussion, ‘Image and authority in the coinage of Augustus’, JRS 76 (1986) 66–87Google Scholar.

72. On the underestimation of the role of the populus Romanus, see the recent series of papers by Millar, F., particularly in relation to monuments, ‘Political power in mid-republican Rome: curia or comitium’, JRS 79 (1989) 138–50Google Scholar. While not accepting that republican Rome was ‘democratic’, I fully agree that the roles of senate and people have been fundamentally misrepresented.

73. Vell. Pat. 2.43.4; Suet., Jul. 11Google Scholar; Plut., Caes. 6Google Scholar. Cf. Val. Max. 6.9.14.

74. Dio 42.18.2 (removed by senate in 48 BC); 43.49.1 (restored by Caesar in 44).

75. Weinstock (n.45) 5–35.

76. 43 BC was a rich year for such honours. Lepidus: Cic. Phil. 5.41; 13.7f; Ad Brut. 16.9. Octavian: Appian, BC 3.51, Vell. Pat. 2.61.3; Crawford, RRC 490/1 (43 BC), 497/1 (42 BC). Lucius Antonius received a series of statues, not from the senate: Cic. Phil. 6.12–15. M. Iuventius Laterensis received a posthumous statue: Dio 46.51.3f.

77. Cf. Larfeld, , Handbuch I, 517Google Scholar (Magnesia), 518 (Themisonion); OGIS 332, 12 (Pergamon, Attalos III). Standard Roman usage was to be celeberrimo loco. I am grateful to Professor Frank Walbank for this point.

78. Alföldi, A., Mus. Helv. 10 (1953) 103–24Google Scholar, reprinted in Der Vater des Vaterlands in römischen Denken (1971) 80ffGoogle Scholar.

79. Weinstock (n.45) 167 suggests Cicero's responsibility; his prominence in the honorific activity of 43 BC points in the same direction.

80. See my arguments in ‘The virtues of the Roman emperor’, Historia 30 (1981) 306fGoogle Scholar. Ramage, E., The nature and purpose of Augustus' Res Gestae (1987) 73ffGoogle Scholar. continues to treat the virtues of the shield, out of context, as a programmatic statement.

81. Excellently discussed by Zanker, P., The power of images in the age of Augustus (1988) 89–100Google Scholar; cf. JRS 79 (1989) 157–64Google Scholar.

82. Mommsen, StR 2, 898Google Scholar; Brunt, P. A., ‘Lex imperii Vespasiani’, JRS 67 (1977) 103Google Scholar n.42. The phrase per relationem secundam in Tabula Siarensis II, 30, as Professor Nicolet points out, is relevant to the discussion.

83. e.g. Larfeld, , Handbuch I, 524Google Scholar (Samos) = Syll. 183. Also from Samos, SEG 1.363, 33.

84. Dio 51.19; Plut., Cic. 49Google Scholar; Ant. 86. Octavian reversed the decision: Tac. Ann. 3.18. Note that Cicero, well aware of Greek rituals of obliteration, had urged such actions earlier: Pro Sest. 33 etiam ex fastis euellendos (Piso and Gabinius); Phil. 13.26 totus consulatus [sc. Antoni] est ex omni monumentorum memoria euulsus.

85. Mommsen, , StR 3, 1189ffGoogle Scholar.; Vittinghoff, F., Der Staatsfeind in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Untersuchungen zur “damnatio memoriae” (1936)Google Scholar. Daube, D., Aspects of Roman Law 51Google Scholar pointed out that the ‘noun-phrase’ is a construct of modern scholars.

86. So Eck (n.48).

87. Eck, W., ‘Die Familie der Volusii in neuen Inscriften aus Lucus Feroniae’, Hermes 100 (1972) 461–84Google Scholar; cf. JRS 61 (1971) 142ffGoogle Scholar.

88. Suet. Otho 1.3; Tac. Ann. 15.72; Suet. Vit. 3.1.

89. Alföldy, G., ‘Bildprogramme in den römischen Städten des Conventus Tarraconensis: das Zeugnis der Statuenpostamente’, in Homenaje a Garcia Bellido IV (Revista de la Univ. Complutense 18 no. 118) (1979) 177–275Google Scholar. See also now Zimmer, G., Locus datus decreto decurionum. Zur Statuenaufslellung zweier Forumsanlagen im römischen Afrika (1989)Google Scholar.