This article was downloaded by: [Aston University]On: 20 January 2014, At: 14:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 MortimerStreet, London W1T 3JH, UK

Symbolae Osloenses:Norwegian Journal ofGreek and Latin StudiesPublication details, includinginstructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sosl20

Temples to Proconsuls?Some Remarks onSuetonius DivusAugustus LIIHelène WhittakerPublished online: 06 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Helène Whittaker (2000) Temples to Proconsuls?Some Remarks on Suetonius Divus Augustus LII, Symbolae Osloenses:Norwegian Journal of Greek and Latin Studies, 75:1, 99-106, DOI:10.1080/003976700300005884

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/003976700300005884

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever asto the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of

the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall notbe liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with,in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and privatestudy purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

19 2

0 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

1 Templa, quamvis sciret, etiam proconsulibus decerni solere, in nulla tamen provincia nisi communi suo Romaeque nomine recepit. Nam in urbe quidem pertinacissime abstinuit hoc honore; atque etiam argenteas statuas olim sibi positas conflavit omnis exque iis aureas corti-nas Apollini Palatino dedicavit.2 Kai� tou‚tƒ eƒkei‚yen aƒrja�menon kai� eƒpƒ a…llvn auƒtokrato�rvn ouƒ mo�non eƒn toi‚w „Ellhnikoi‚w e…yne-sin, aƒlla� kai� eƒn toi‚w a…lloiw o†sa tv‚n „Rvmai�vn aƒkou�ei eƒge�neto (51.20.7).

Temples to Proconsuls?Some Remarks on Suetonius U US US LII

HelÈne Whittaker

Suetonius’ Life of Augustus 52 emphasises Augustus’ restraint with regard to divine honours and may have been written with the intention of contradict-ing Tacitus (Annales 1.10). Suetonius’ statement that it was common for tem-ples to be offered to proconsuls in the Republican period is not supported by the archaeological and epigraphical evidence. Two passages from Cicero’s letters (ad Q.Fr. 1.1.26; ad Att. 5.21.7) have been seen as supporting evidence. They do not, however, necessarily provide evidence for the existence of tem-ples to proconsuls, although it is possible that they may have been the source for Suetonius’ statement.

In Divus Augustus 52, Suetonius commenting on Augustus’ modesty in regard to the Imperial Cult remarks that although temples to proconsuls had been common in the Republican period, Augustus was reluctant to allow personal worship and would only accept temples to himself if the Goddess Roma was also included in the dedication. In Rome he would not accept any temples and even went so far as to melt down the silver statues of him which had been set up in the city, using the money obtained to provide gold tripods as votive offerings to Apollo.1

Regarding the existence of temples dedicated to Roman magistrates in the Republican period, Cassius Dio gives a different picture from that of Suetonius, since he would seem to indicate that the establishment of temple precincts dedicated to Octavian and the Goddess Roma in Asia Minor had no precedence.2 That Augustus had received divine honours which had no precedence is also implied by Tacitus who records that after the death of Augustus there were those who said that Augustus had left little room for the

99

Symbolae Osloenses 75, 2000 D

ownl

oade

d by

[A

ston

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:19

20

Janu

ary

2014

HelÈ ne Whittaker

3 Nihil deorum honoribus relictum, cum se templis et effigie numinum per flamines et sacer-dotes coli vellet (Annales 1.10).4 Cf. Millar 1984, 53; Price 1984, 53–62; Reinhold 1988, 154–155; Mitchell 1993, 100–102; Fishwick 1993, 129; Clauss 1996, 411–421.5 o†ti eiƒw timh‚w aƒji�vsin tou‚ton ou†tv prosei‚pon oi„ a…nyrvpoi naoi‚w te kai� yusi�aiw gerai�rousin, a…na te nh�souw kai� hƒpei�rouw dihD rhme�noi kai� kata� po�leiw kai� e…ynh to� te me�geyow auƒtou‚ th‚w aƒrhth‚w kai� th�n eiƒw sfa‚w euƒergesi�an aƒmeibo�menoi (Jacoby, FrGrH 90F, 125).6 aƒllƒ o†ti kai� pa‚sa h„ oiƒkoume�nh ta�w iƒsolumpi�ouw auƒtvD‚ tima�w eƒchfi�santo. kai� marturou‚si naoi�, propu�laia, protemeni�smata, stoai�, v„w o†sai tv‚n pv�levn, h‡ ne�a h‡ palaia�, e…rga fe�rousi megalo-preph‚ tvD‚ ka�llei kai� mege�yei tv‚n Kaisare i�vn pareuhmerei‚syai (Leg. ad Gaium 149f ).7 Provinciarum pleraeque super templa et aras ludos quoque quinquennales paene oppidatim constituerunt (59).

worship of the traditional gods since he had appropriated priests and temples to the cult of himself.3

The rapid development and very wide diffusion of the ruler cult during the lifetime of Augustus is amply demonstrated by literary as well as by archaeo-logical and epigraphical evidence.4 Nicolaus of Damascus writes in his life of Augustus that divine honours were accorded to Augustus in recognition of his virtues and in gratitude for his benefactions.5 A similar description can be found in Philo.6 Both Nicolaus and Philo speci� cally mention temples. In contrast to the passage in Tacitus, however, both Philo and Nicolaus would exclude any idea of central direction in the manifestations of divine honours conferred on Augustus. On the contrary, they are spontaneous reactions to the bene� ts of peace, freedom, and prosperity which the rule of Augustus has bestowed on the world. Suetonius, possibly contradicting his earlier state-ment, also remarks that many cities in the provinces erected temples and al-tars to Augustus.7 A number of temples both to Augustus and Roma as well as to Augustus alone were constructed during Augustus’ own lifetime, both in the western and eastern part of the empire (cf. Hänlein-Schäfer 1985).

No temples to proconsuls in the Republican period are attested either epi-graphically or archaeologically (Tuchelt 1979, 105–112, 123). The expense of temple building and maintenance alone suggests that such temples cannot have been common. Furthermore, the construction of a temple implies the intention of establishing a long-lasting cult, and as already argued by Price, the impermanence inherent in the nature of cults to individual Roman mag-istrates suggests that such temples were rare or non-existent (Price 1984, 46).

Although, there is good evidence for the existence of cults to Roman magis-trates in the Greek East, such cults will normally have consisted of festivals and games and may also have included sacri� ces and libations to the gods. As has been stressed by Bowersock and as is clear from for instance Cicero’s Verrine Orations (2.251–52, 114, 154; 4.24) and Plutarch’s life of Flamininus

100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

19 2

0 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Temples to Proconsuls?

8 Bowersock 1965, 12–13; 150–151 for a list of cults to Roman magistrates.9 The authenticity of ad Q.Fr. 1 has been challenged by Magie 1950 , 1244; see also Tuchelt 1979, 105 who rejects its value as evidence. Shackleton Bailey 1980, 147, however, upholds its authenticity on the grounds that style, rhythm, and sentiment point to Cicero as the author.10 Quamquam has querelas hominum nostrorum illo consilio oppressimus (quod in Asia ne-scio quonam modo, Romae quidem non mediocri cum admiratione laudatur) quod, cum ad templum monumentumque nostrum civitates pecunias decrevissent, cumque id et pro meis magnis meritis et pro tuis maximis beneficiis summa sua voluntate fecissent, nominatimque lex exciperet, ut ad templum monumentumque capere liceret; cumque id, quod dabatur, non esset interiturum, sed in ornamentis templi futurum, ut non mihi potius quam populo Romano ac dis immortalibus datum videretur; tamen id, in quo erat dignitas, erat lex, erat eorum qui faciebant voluntas accipiendum non putavi cum aliis de causis, tum etiam ut animo aequiore ferrent ii quibus nec deberetur nec liceret.11 Ob haec beneficia, quibus illi obstupescunt, nullos honores mihi nisi verborum decerni sino, statuas, fana, te�yrippa, prohibeo, nec sum in ulla re alia molestus civitatibus.12 Price 1984, 46 thinks that Roman magistrates were offered temples, but that it is unlikely the offers were expected to be accepted.13 The choice of the verb obstupesco suggests a certain amount of exaggeration.

(16), cults of Roman magistrates should be interpreted as an extravagant form of honour and gratitude.8 Tuchelt has shown from the study of the archaeo-logical and epigraphical evidence that Romans in the East were generally honoured by statues which were placed within already existing sanctuaries, and has argued that separate cult buildings for Roman magistrates did not exist (Tuchelt 1979, 105–107). It would therefore seem legitimate to question the validity of Suetonius’ information concerning the existence of temples to proconsuls in the Republican period.

A con� rmation of Suetonius’ statement concerning the existence of tem-ples to Roman magistrates in the Republican period has been seen in two passages from the letters of Cicero (ad Q.Fr. 1.1.26; ad Att. 5.21.7).9 According to the letter to his brother, written in 60 or early 59 BC, Cicero records that they had refused a temple and a monument which the provincials wished to erect in their honour.10 During his proconsulship in Cilicia in 51/50, Cicero boasts, in a letter to Atticus, that he refused a number of honours, including statues, shrines, and chariots, which the provincials had wished to confer on him.11

The fact that Cicero claims to have refused the offer of temples on two oc-casions seems, however, doubtful evidence for the actual existence of temples dedicated to other proconsuls.12 In the � rst place, Cicero, in his letter to Atticus, may have been exaggerating the elaborateness of the honours he was to have been offered in order to magnify the esteem he was held in by the Cilicians as well as his own modesty and concern for the welfare of the prov-inces in comparison with other Roman magistrates.13 In the second place, it

101

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

19 2

0 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

would also seem possible to suggest that the references to fana and templum in the passages in Cicero do not necessarily have to be interpreted as refer-ring to the refusal of temples which were to have been dedicated to Cicero himself. Since, as has been mentioned, Roman magistrates in the East were usually honoured by statues which were placed within sanctuaries dedicated to one of the traditional gods, it is possible that fanum does not necessarily mean a separate temple or shrine, but can also refer to a niche vel sim. within a temple precinct, where a statue could have been placed.14 In regard to the letter to Quintus, it would seem possible to argue that by the phrase tem-plum et monumentum nostrum Cicero is not thinking of both a temple and a monument dedicated to himself and to his brother. Alternatively, it can be suggested that nostrum is to be understood as only qualifying monumen-tum. Templum would then refer to a temple, which was perhaps to have been erected in honour of Marcus and Quintus Cicero, but which was to be dedi-cated to one of the traditional gods or possibly to the Goddess Roma, while monumentum nostrum would refer to an honorary monument such as statues of Marcus and Quintus or an equestrian monument, which was to be set up within the temple precinct.15 This interpretation would seem to be supported by Cicero’s words that the money which was to be spent in his honour was to be used for the ornamentation of a temple and was therefore to be regarded as being used to honour the gods and the Roman people rather than Cicero himself. Cicero writes that a law expressly stipulated that it was permitted to spend money on the monument and temple. The lex mentioned by Cicero has been identi� ed by Shackleton Bailey as Lex Cornelia de provinciis, while Price sees it as a law which permitted expenditure on temples and monu-ments in general.16 However, it is surely also possible that Cicero is not refer-ring to a general law but to the speci� c decree made by the cities with regard to the honours to be awarded to himself and his brother. Consequently, it can be argued that the passages in Cicero do not support Suetonius’ state-ment concerning the widespread existence of temples to proconsuls in the Republican period.

Apart from the passages discussed above, Suetonius does not have much to say concerning Augustus and the Imperial Cult, and there would seem to be little reason to doubt that he believes a certain restraint with regard to the Imperial Cult was true of Augustus. Suetonius’ account in ch. 52 can be

102

HelÈ ne Whittaker

14 Cf. Tuchelt 1979, 29–33 on the precise significance of nao�w.15 The temple to Apollo Chresterios, which was erected or completed by the demos of Aigai in honour of Servilius Isauricus, shows that this is a possible interpretation (IGR IV 1178; cf. Tuchelt 1979, 108).16 Shackleton Bailey 1980, 155; Price 1984, 46, n.102.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

19 2

0 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Temples to Proconsuls?

17 Statuae meae pedestres et equestres et in quadrigeis argenteae steterunt in urbe XXC circiter, quas ipse sustuli exque ea pecunia dona aurea in aede Apollinis meo nomine et illorum qui mihi statuarum honorem habuerunt posui (RG 24).18 See Wallace-Hadrill 1983, 56–57 on Suetonius’ familiarity with Cicero’s work.19 Annales 1.1–5; cf. Pelling 1997, 129; Wallace-Hadrill 1983, 110–112.20 Cf. Wallace-Hadrill 1983, 111–112, n. 15, who suggests that Suetonius’ account of Augustus’ constitutional settlement deliberately contradicts Tacitus and mentions several other passages in Suetonius which seem to have been written with the intention of refuting Tacitus. See also Townend 1967, 88–90.21 Fishwick 1993, 127, on the other hand, believes that what Octavian accepted was well short of what the cities had wished to offer.

seen to echo the information provided by the Res Gestae, where Augustus makes no reference to the divine honours which were accorded him apart from mentioning how he himself had removed about eighty silver statues which had been set up in Rome in his honour and used the money from them to dedicate gold votives in the temple of Apollo.17 It can furthermore be suggested that Suetonius’ information about temples to proconsuls is derived primarily from Cicero’s two letters.18 Against the background of a century of emperor worship, it would have been natural for him to assume that Cicero was referring to temples to be dedicated to himself, and the impression could certainly be got from Cicero that such honours were common.

The gap between façade and reality during Augustus’ reign is a major theme of Tacitus’ discussion on the � rst Roman emperor.19 Suetonius, on the other hand, seems content to accept the of� cial image of Augustus. Sue-tonius’ account of divine honours in relation to Augustus re� ects the façade and can be seen as coloured by Augustan propaganda which endeavoured to present the establishment of the Imperial Cult as the continuation of an al-ready existing tradition in the Greek East, and to emphasise the reluctance of Augustus in accepting divine honours. Furthermore, it can be proposed that part of Suetonius’ intention in clarifying Augustus’ attitude towards divine honours may have been to refute Tacitus’ statement concerning Augustus’ appropriation of honours which should have been reserved for the gods.20

As the archaeological and epigraphical evidence clearly shows and the liter-ary evidence of Nicolaus, Philo, and Tacitus indicates, the temples dedicated to Octavian and the Goddess Roma in 29 BC represent an innovation in terms of monumentality and permanence in comparison with the honours paid earlier to Roman magistrates in the East. Cassius Dio records that the cities of Asia and Bithynia sent embassies to Octavian and that he permitted temple precincts to be dedicated to himself if Roma was included in the dedication. It may be doubted, however, whether the original proposal envis-aged the establishment of temple precincts.21 Although the battle of Actium

103

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

19 2

0 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

HelÈ ne Whittaker

22 Sjöqvist 1954, 86–168; Weinstock 1971, 297; Fishwick 1993, 56.23 For the inclusion of the Goddess Roma, see Whittaker 1996, 93–99, with further refer-ences.24 Cf. Cassius Dio 53.1.3 for the dedication of the temple to Apollo on the Palatine; for com-mentary on the passage see Rich 1990, 133. It is uncertain whether the silver statues mentioned by Augustus and Suetonius have any connection with the silver statues mentioned by Cassius Dio which were melted down by the emperor in order to finance road construction (53.22.2). Cassius Dio gives the impression that these silver statues were not removed and melted down at the same time, but rather over a long period of time as the need arose for funds. Appian (BC 5.132) mentions that statues of Augustus were placed in the temples of Italy after the Battle of Naulochus. It is possible that these statues were of silver and that they are the ones to which Cassius Dio refers. The silver statues in Rome may have been set up at a later date, possibly after the Battle of Actium.

can, in retrospect, be seen as a decisive watershed in Roman political his-tory, it may not have appeared in the same light in the years immediately fol-lowing, and the permanence of Octavian as the Roman ruler may not have been entirely self-evident (cf. Bowersock 1987, 299). It is therefore a possibil-ity worth consideration that what the cities of Asia and Bithynia had offered Octavian were honours comparable to those which had been commonly of-fered to Romans in the Republican period, such as statues, games, festivals, processions and sacri� ces, and that the decision temple-precincts should be built and thereby a permanent cult established was made by Octavian him-self.

It can be proposed that Octavian is following the example of Caesar in the establishment of the Imperial Cult. At Antioch and Alexandria, Caesar himself took the initiative in promoting his cult by the construction of Cae-sareia.22 Octavian, who had learnt from Caesar’s mistakes, combined his cult with that of the Goddess Roma, and he took care to ensure that in the or-ganisation of his cult he appeared to be merely giving in to the wishes of the provincials.23

It is of some interest that Suetonius mentions the melting down of the silver statues in Rome in the same connection as Augustus’ willingness to accept temples dedicated to himself only in connection with the Goddess Roma. The signi� cance which Augustus himself placed on his action with regard to the silver statues is evident from the fact that he mentions it in the Res Gestae where he also emphasises that he himself removed them (ipse sustuli). Although neither Augustus nor Suetonius say anything concerning the date, it is not unreasonable to assume that the gold votives, which were bought with the money obtained from the melting down of the silver statues, were placed within the temple to Apollo on the Palatine on the occasion of its dedication in 28 BC and that the removal of the statues was undertaken soon after Octavian’s return to Rome in 29 BC.24 An association between

104

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

19 2

0 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

statues in gold and silver and divinity is clear, even if silver statues which were not placed within sacred areas did not necessarily imply cult.25 It is not known where the silver statues of Octavian stood, but even if they had not been placed within a cultic context, their removal by Octavian, and his use of the money which he thereby obtained to honour Apollo with gold votives can be seen as a spectacular gesture which was certain to be remembered as an overt repudiation of divine honours as indeed Suetonius testi� es. It would seem probable that Octavian’s main motive may have been to distance him-self from Caesar who had received various forms of divine honours in the last years of his life and thereby to counteract suspicions that he himself had monarchical aspirations.26 In addition, it is plausible that Octavian was also deliberately contrasting himself with Antonius and his appropriation of di-vine honours. In the same chapter of the Res Gestae Augustus records that in the aftermath of the Battle of Actium he had restored ornaments which had been plundered by Antonius from the temples of Asia.27 It can therefore be suggested that part at least of Octavian’s intention in transforming honours to himself into dedications to Apollo may also have been to contrast himself with Antonius who disdained the gods and sought after extravagant honours for himself, and moreover to rebut any unfavourable impression which might have arisen at Rome following the establishment of the temple precincts at Pergamon and Nicomedia.28

References

Bowersock, G. 1965: Augustus and the Greek World, Oxford.Bowersock, G. 1987: “The Mechanics of Subversion in the Roman Provinces”, in: Giovannini

(ed.) 1987, 291–317.Clauss, M. 1996: “Deus praesens. Der römische Kaiser als Gott”, Klio 78, 400–433.Dorey, T. A. (ed.) 1967: Latin Biography, London.Edwards, M. J. and S. Swain (eds.) 1998: Portraits. Biographical Representation in the Greek and

Latin Literature of the Roman Empire, Oxford.Fishwick, D. 1990: “Dio and Maecenas: the Emperor and the Ruler Cult”, Phoenix 44, 267–275.

105

Temples to Proconsuls?

25 Fishwick 1990, 272–273; idem 1991, 543–544.26 Cicero, Philippic 2.43; Suetonius, Divus Iulius, 76. For a discussion of the divine honours awarded to Caesar see Weinstock 1971, 270–317; Fishwick 1993, 56–72; Clauss 1996, 406–411; Nock 1972, 202–203.27 In templis omnium civitatium provinciae Asiae victor ornamenta reposui, quae spoliatis templis is cum quo bellum gesseram privatim possederat.28 Yavetz 1984, 6 argues that the Mausoleum of Augustus which was opened to the public in 28 BC was intended as a reminder that Octavian and his family were to be buried at Rome, in contrast to Antonius who had wished to be buried at Alexandria. See also Simon 1986, 27–28.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

19 2

0 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

HelÈ ne Whittaker

Fishwick, D. 1991: The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire (Volume II,1), Leiden.

Fishwick, D. 1993: The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire (Volume I,1), Leiden.

Giovannini, A. (ed.) 1987: Opposition et résistances à l’Empire d’Auguste à Trajan (Fondation Hardt 33), Genève.

Hänlein-Schäfer, H. 1985: Veneratio Augusti. Eine Studie zu den Tempeln des ersten römischen Kaisers, Roma.

Magie, D. 1950: Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ, Princeton.Millar, F. 1984: “State and Subject: The Impact of Monarchy”, in: Millar-Segal (eds.) 1984,

37–60 .Millar, F. and E. Segal (eds.) 1984: Caesar Augustus. Seven Aspects, Oxford.Mitchell, S. 1993: Anatolia. Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. Vol. 1: The Celts and the

Impact of Roman Rule, Oxford.Nock, A. D. 1972: Synnaos Theos in Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (Selected and ed-

ited with an introduction, bibliography of Nock’s writings, and indexes by Zeph Stewart), Oxford.

Pelling, C. 1997: “Biographical History? Cassius Dio on the Early Principate”, in: Edwards-Swain (eds.) 1997, 117–144.

Price, S. 1984: Rituals and Power. The Imperial Cult in Asia Minor, Cambridge.Reinhold, M. 1988: From Republic to Principate. An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s

Roman History Books 49–52 (36–29 B.C.), Atlanta.Rich, J. W. 1990: Cassius Dio. The Augustan Settlement (Roman History 53–55.9), Warminster.Shackleton Bailey, D. R. 1980: Cicero: Epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem et M. Brutum (Cambridge

Classical Texts and Commentaries 22), Cambridge.Simon, E. 1986: Augustus. Kunst und Leben in Rom um die Zeitenwende, München.Sjöqvist, E. 1954: “Kaisareion. A Study of Architectural Iconography”, Opuscula Romana 1,

86–168.Townend, G. B. 1967: “Suetonius and his In� uence”, in: Dorey (ed.) 1967, 79–111.Tuchelt, K. 1979: Frühe Denkmäler Roms in Kleinasien 1: Roma und Promagistrate (Istanbuler

Mitteilungen, Beiheft 23), Tübingen.Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1983: Suetonius. The Scholar and his Caesars, London.Weinstock, S. 1971: Divus Iulius, Oxford.Whittaker, H. 1996: “Two Notes on Octavian and the Cult of Divus Iulius”, SO 71, 93–99.Yavetz, Z. 1984: “The Res Gestae and Augustus’ Public Image”, in: Millar-Segal (eds.) 1984, 1–36.

University of TromsøDepartment of Greek and Latin Studies

106

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

19 2

0 Ja

nuar

y 20

14