Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:31:20.193Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aspects of Imperialism in Roman Spain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

C. H. V. Sutherland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The two following notes deal with parallel and interrelated aspects of imperial policy noticeable in Spain after the institution of the Principate, namely, the attitude of the provincials to the Princeps and his house, and the survival of Nationalism. Under the first head are included both religious and non-religious institutions, showing in each case not only the reactions of the Spanish provincials to the Principate but also the personal efforts made by the Princeps to ingratiate himself and his dynasty, while in the second note an attempt is made to demonstrate that the imperial administration, so far from aiming at a paralysis of nationalism, went out of its way to encourage it.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , 1934 , pp. 31 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © C. H. V. Sutherland 1934. 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 Certain abbreviations are used in the notes to this paper:–A plain number signifies the inscription to be found under that number in Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Vol. ii and Supplement. A reference to any other volume of CIL is quoted by the appropriate volume number, as vi. 1463.

MLI = Monumenta Linguae Ibericae.

My gratitude is due to Mr. R. P. Longden for assistance in the writing of these notes.

2 Vives, , La Moneda Hispanica, iv. 131Google Scholar, 10.

3 As Hill suggests in his Ancient Coinage of Hispania Citerior (American Numismatic Society's Notes and Monographs, no. 50), p. 50.

4 For the view of the imperial cult presented in this note, cf. the careful and appreciative study of Van Nostrand, Univ. California Hist. Publ. (1916).

5 cf. Mon. Anc. 12; Dio 54, 23, 7.

6 It is here assumed (cf. Hill, op. cit., p. 47) that Augustus' visit to Tarraco was the occasion of the dedication of the altar, although Quintilian (6, 3, 77) is the only evidence for its dedication during Augustus' lifetime. For coin-types cf. Hill, pl. v. 8. 11 (Tarraco), and Vives, op. cit., iv. 64, 39 ffGoogle Scholar. Emerita): both types are posthumous.

7 Tac. Ann. i. 78Google Scholar (at Tarraco). It is worth noting that an Augustan coin of Carthago Nova shows a temple inscribed, on the architrave, AVGVSTO (MLI, p. 89). This coin-type is evidence for no more than the existence of the imperial cult at Carthago Nova, and it is unsafe to argue the existence of a temple there during Augustus' lifetime. Temples are frequently represented on coins as a standard type, and the addition of the legend AVGVSTO on the architrave should sufficiently discourage any such theory; moreover, Tacitus' account in Ann. i. 78 seems explicit enough.

8 Cf. 4201, 4055 (of the time of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius respectively).

9 Cf. 114–5 (Ebora), 742 (Norba).

10 Cf. 339 (Collippo), 114 (Ebora).

11 473 (Emerita): cf. 3620 (Saetabis).

12 1133 (Italica), 3709 (Mago): cf. 761 (Alcantara).

13 2782 (Clunia): cf. 2426 (Bracara).

14 Salacia provides what is probably an example of a libertinus becoming a flamen (34).

15 That Baetica was the stronghold of conservatism is shown by 3271, Titus' curator being there styled ‘Flamen Augustalis in Baetica primus.’ It should be noted that this inscription was suspect in the opinion of Hirschfeld and, apparently, of Dessau, who did not include it in ILS.

16 See below, p. 34: cf. p. 35.

17 2026

18 4061.

19 4536–48, 6149.

20 183 (Olisipo).

21 3349.

22 It is interesting to speculate on the extent to which the Seviri backed the interests of their former masters. At Baesucci, for instance, the whole collegium of Sevirs were liberti of a single man on one occasion (cf. 3249).

23 495. The original nature of this colony was not such that Sevirs would at first be of common occurrence: but the subsequent greatness and prosperity of the city, after its swift transition to the rank of a civil capital (cf. Melida, Arqueologia Española, passim, and Hübner, , CIL ii. p. 52Google Scholar), renders the silence or obscurity of such officials remarkable.

24 1346 ff.; 1475; 2038.

25 194.

26 Tac. Ann. I, 14Google Scholar.

27 Urgavo had a ‘Pontifex Domus Augustae’ (2105).

28 Even on early milestones uncertainty is evident: cf. 4775–6.

29 3827.

30 2107.

31 5852.

32 5987.

33 3732, which is of Flavian date, is not an instance in point, since it is of Valentia.

34 3524

35 1516.

36 6080.

37 He was a privatus (5930).

38 1113.

39 2422.

40 2109.

41 5093.

42 3103. For Augustus' insistence upon Tiberius' adoption of Germanicus, cf. Tac. Ann. I, 3Google Scholar.

43 1525–9.

44 2108; 2038.

45 3379.

46 963. Both ladies had received wide and honorific advertisement from the imperial coinage.

47 Vives, op. cit., iv. p. 115 f.Google Scholar, nos. 5–7, 8–10, 12–15.

48 Id. iv. 130, 5.

49 Id. iv. 130, 1–4.

50 Id. iv. 78, 21.

51 Id. iv. pp. 79–80, nos. 30–31.

52 cf. Hill, op. cit., p. 166.

53 Vives, op. cit., iv. 128Google Scholar, 13; 25, 42.

54 Id. iv. 132, 20.

55 It is very doubtful whether the portrait of Claudius can be recognised on an issue of Ebusus (cf. Vives iv., p. 14). Portraiture on the coins of Spain never reached even a satisfying level, much less an accurate one.

56 Cf. the admirable account by Albertini, E., Les divisions administratives de l'Espagne romaine (Paris, 1923)Google Scholar; the conclusions there reached are here accepted.

57 2029.

58 3270.

59 3271: see, however, p. 33, n. 15 above.

60 3395.

61 Pliny, NH 3, 19Google Scholar.

62 Albertini, op. cit., p. 40.

63 In the former they might become decurions.

64 Add, perhaps, the double ordo at Valentia (3745).

65 Vives, op. cit., iv. 24Google Scholar, 29.

66 Id. iv. p. 45.

67 1343: cf. 185 (Olisipo), dedicated to Vespasian ANN. IIII. IMPERII. EIVS.

68 Ann. 4, 45.

69 MLI, xlix.

70 Römische Geschichte, V8, p. 66.

71 Studies in Roman Imperialism, p. 152 f.; for the theory generally cf. his Roman Provincial Administration 3, pp. 19 f., 41 f.

72 Op. cit., pp. 108 ff.

73 Cf. Albertini, op. cit., pp. 83 ff.

74 Suet. Div. lul. 7.

75 Op. cit., pp. 43 ff. According to the theory there forcibly presented the dioecesis is, in Spain at least, a purely military unit of administration, incompatible with the essentially civil system of the conventus, to which it gives way in time. This distinction well reflects what must have been Augustus' greatest obstacle–the varying states of civilization in the different parts of Spain.

76 4091, 6077.

77 4072–3.

78 2422, 4192, 4226, 4233, vi. 1463.

79 432, 4240, 5238.

80 Cf. 1041.

81 761.

82 2633; 5762–3; 5792; 2958.

83 The case of Lacilbula in Baetica (1343, of A.D. 5) seems exceptional for the south.

84 Cf. Van Nostrand, op. cit., p. 109.

85 Cf. above, p. 32.

86 Cf. Heitland, Repetita, p. 5.

87 Heitland, op. cit., pp. 9 ff., bitterly attacks this assumption: but we in our turn must assume that the municipal system was, at Rome, never regarded as anything but a permanency.