Key to Umbria: Orvieto
 

Rescript of Constantine, Palazzo Comunale Vecchio, Spello

This marble inscription (CIL XI 5265, EDR136860), which was discovered in 1733 on the site of the pan-Umbrian sanctuary at Hispellum (Spello), records the content of a decree (rescript) issued by the Emperor Constantine and his sons, probably in ca. 335 AD.  In the Rescript (or more precisely, in the version of it that is reproduced in the inscription), Constantine replied, broadly in the affirmative, to three requests from Hispellum, the third of which related to annual games that were held at that time aput Vulsinios (in or, perhaps, near Volsinii/ Bolsena).  In this third request, which the Hispellates made on behalf of the “Umbrians”, the supplicants:

  1. recorded that the Umbrians had previously created a priest to represent them, alongside a similar priest created by the “Tuscians” (Etruscans), at this annual festival; and

  2. requested that, in future, this Umbrian priest should preside over a version of the festival held at Hispellum, while the traditional practice would continue, otherwise unchanged, at Volsinii.

Joint Festival at Volsinii

In what follows, I have relied on the translation of the Rescript into English by Noel Lenski (referenced below, at pp 118-9).  However, since there is still no consensus on some aspects of the translation, I have used the Latin for disputed or unclear words or phrases, followed by the alternative English translations in square brackets.

The Rescript first set out the background to this third request:

  1. You [i.e. the Umbrians] have asserted that you were joined to Tuscia in such a way that:

  2. -according to istituto consuetudinis priscae [previous/ ancient custom]; 

  3. -per singulas annorum vices [each year/ in alternate years];

  4. -priests are created by you [presumably the “Umbrians”] and by the aforesaid people of Tuscia. 

  5. [These priests] offer theatrical shows and a gladiatorial contest apud [in, near] Volsinii, a city of Tuscia.”

The Rescript then summarised the request ...:

  1. “[You request] that:

  2. -[at Hispellum], the priest whom Umbria had provided anniversaria vice [annually/ in alternate years] should offer a spectacle of both theatrical shows and a gladiatorial contest; [while]

  3. -the same custom remains for Tuscia: that the priest created [there] should attend the spectacles of the aforementioned games at Volsinii, as was customary.”

It had earlier repeated the reason given by the people of Hispellum for this request:

  1. “... because of the steepness of the mountains and the difficulties of the wooded routes [between the two cities], you have urgently demanded [this change].”

Constantine’s  reply was carefully worded:

  1. Consequenter (as a consequence) [of the erection of the Templum Flaviae Gentis at Hispellum], we ... grant you permission to host the games [at Hispellum], on the specific condition that ... the tradition of giving games shall not depart from Volsinii per vices temporis [annually; in alternate years], where the aforementioned festival shall be celebrated by priests created from Tuscia.  In this way:

  2. -not much will seem to be diminished from veteribus institutis [previous/ ancient custom]; 

  3. -while you [the Umbrians], who come to us as suppliants  ... will enjoy the pleasure of having obtained that which you so urgently demanded.”

Thus, the situation in ca. 335 AD (before the Rescript came into effect) can be summarised as follows:

  1. An annual festival was held in or near Volsinii, involving theatrical shows and gladiatorial games.

  2. This festival was under the auspices of a priest who was ‘created’ by the participating Etruscan cites, alongside (or, perhaps, in alternation with) a priest who was ‘created’ by the participating Umbrian cites.

  3. The two groups of participants (the Etruscans and the Umbrians) had been “joined” for this purpose by an established and possibly ancient tradition. 

Once the provisions of the Rescript were enacted, two interpretations are possible:

  1. either the festival was held annually in both centres, presided over in each by the priest created there;

  2. or the festival was held in each centre in alternate years, presided over by the priest chosen there. 

In my view, the first of these two interpretations is the more likely, since Constantine asserted that little would change at Volsinii, other than the end to Umbrian participation. 

Istituto Consuetudinis Priscae

The passages of the Rescript discussed above, which are easily the most perplexing of the passages in the Rescript, have given rise to a vast body of literature representing a number of differing points of view: 

  1. For some scholars, the “Tuscans” and the “Umbrians” of the Rescript were the cities that had been grouped together for administrative purposes in ca. 294 AD to form the Province of Tuscia et Umbria.

  2. For others, the two groups of cities were respectively associated with ancient pan-Etruscan and pan-Umbrian federations that, by the 4th century AD, had lost their original political significance and were now purely religious in nature.

This broad division of views is related to the question of when the two groups had been “joined together” for the purpose of celebrating the festival at Volsinii: the Rescript simply says that this was according to istituto consuetudinis priscae (previous/ old/ ancient custom):

  1. For the first group of scholars, the joining together had happened in ca. 294 AD, and (according to most scholars in this group) Volsinii had been chosen for the joint religious festival because it was the provincial capital and thus the locus for the provincial imperial cult.  However, Enrico Zuddas (referenced below, in the paper about to be published, at pp. 229), who is a powerful advocate of the ‘provincial cult’ hypothesis, nevertheless pointed out that:

  2. “... the fact that the spectacles of the Rescript were held in [Volsinii/ Bolsena] does not require the automatic acceptance that the city was also the capital of the new province of Tuscia et Umbria: the aged Diocletian could have chosen it [for the honour of hosting provincial games] because of its religious traditions (perhaps due to the presence in the vicinity of the ancient sanctuary) and perhaps also because of its location on the border of Umbria with Etruria: it was particularly convenient in this respect, despite of the statement [to the contrary] made by the Hispellates” (my translation).

  3. For the second group, the tradition was much older than that, and Volsinii had been chosen for the joint religious festival because it had been the meeting place of the Etruscan federation as long ago as the 4th century BC.  For most scholars in this group, the joint festival was dedicated to the Etruscan goddess Nortia, whose main cult site was still at Volsinii.  (There is evidence for her cult in the vicinity of Hispellum in the 1st century BC.)

In my page on Spello: Rescript of Constantine: Games, I argued that:

  1. the original joining together for the purpose of a joint annual celebration of the imperial cult of the cities designated in the Rescript as the Tuscans and the Umbrians occurred in the 1st century BC, in connection with Octavian’s revival of the Etruscan Federation, when the festival in question related to the rite of the Clavus Annalis at the temple of Nortia outside Volsinii; and

  2. the practice changed in the early 4th century, when the joint festival at Volsinii was reconfigured and dedicated to the gens Flavia.   

The reconfigured games no longer involved the historic temple of Nortia, which had been Volsinii’s ‘unique selling point’.  Now, all the Umbrians needed in order to transfer their part of the festival to the perfectly adequate sanctuary at Hispellum was an ‘unpolluted’ templum Flaviae gentis.

I develop each part of this proposition below.

Revived Etruscan Federation at Volsinii


Excavated site at Campo della Fiera, outside Orvieto

In my page on Volsinii in the Triumviral Period, I suggested that Octavian’s revival of the Etruscan Federation was formed part of a programme designed to consolidate his position in Etruria in the wake of the revolt in the region in 37-6 BC. I further suggested that the revived Federation was centred on the ancient Etruscan sanctuary at fanum Voltumnae, at what is now the Campo della Fiera, outside Orvieto, and that its revival was accompanied by:

  1. the restoration of the putative temple of Nortia at Campo della Fiera, which was, by this time, an extra-urban sanctuary of Volsinii/ Bolsena; and

  2. the revival of the rite of the Clavus Annalis at this temple, with each annually-elected praetor Etruriae now driving the nail to mark an imperial anniversary.

Enrico Zuddas (referenced below, in the paper about to be published, at p. 227) pointed out that:

  1. “... archaeological investigations [at Campo della Fiera] have not revealed - at least until now - facilities [for games and theatrical performances], although the ample open spaces there would have accommodated them” (my translation).

This is perhaps unsurprising in relation to the situation in the 4th century BC, when the facilities in question might well have been temporary wooden structures.  However, had Campo della Fiera hosted the pan-Etruscan games and theatrical performances of Octavian’s revived federation, one might have expected to find evidence of monumentalised facilities of the kind found, for example, at the Octavian colony of Hispellum (mentioned below).  In my page on Volsinii in the Triumviral Period, I suggested there were, in fact, two loci for the meetings of the revived federation:

  1. the rite of  the Clavus Annalis took place at the sanctuary at Campo della Fiera (which probably belonged to the Volsinians); and

  2. the games and theatrical performances took place at Volsinii itself, quite possibly on the site of the original forum.

These locations were linked by the ancient road, part of which is highlighted in the illustration of the site of Campo della Fiera above.

Hispellum and the Revived Etruscan Federation


Aerial view of the site of the monumentalised sanctuary at Villa Fidelia, Spello  

The likely plan of the now-demolished theatre is overlaid at the lower left

Octavian had established the Colonia Iulia Hispellum in ca. 40 BC, on the site of what had been a small Umbrian settlement.  The colonists were given land that had been brutally confiscated across a swathe of the Valle Umbra, an outrage that precipitated an Umbrian revolt that culminated in the Perusine War.  An Umbrian sanctuary outside the walls of the new colony (later the site of Villa Fidelia) was subsequently monumentalised, when the colony itself also received its city walls. 

It has long been recognised that the theatre that was built in the sanctuary as part of this programme was too large for the sole use of the new settlers, and it is therefore generally assumed that it was used for festivals that also involved their Umbrian neighbours.  It is entirely possible the Octavian encouraged the formation of a more or less formal pan-Umbrian confederation, perhaps inspired by his revival of the Etruscan Federation: both developments would thus have formed part of of a programme designed to consolidate his position in central Italy following the revolts of 41-40 and 37-6 BC.

Mario Ricci (referenced below, at p. 19), who published an important survey of the epigraphical evidence for the revived Etruscan Federation and its priesthood, the praetores Etruriae observed that:

  1. “It does not seem absurd to connect the post [of praetor Etruriae], more or less directly, with the imperial cult; in favour of this hypothesis [are the following]:

  2. -attestations of it extended, like the imperial cult, into the 4th century AD;

  3. -the holders of this office (as with provincial priesthoods of the imperial cult) had municipal backgrounds; and

  4. -above all, [Octavian, the future Emperor] Augustus was not reluctant to accept, even in Italy, the cult of his person, as evidenced by an Etruscan city such as Perusia [where sacred groves were dedicated to him during his lifetime].

  5. In this respect, the provenance of the first [known] attestations of praetores from a restricted area of Etruria that was affected by the Perusine War and the viritane settlement of the triumviral and Augustan periods [i.e. the provenance of two attestations of the 1st century BC, from, respectively, Vettona and Cortona], suggests that the reconstituted federation was based, at least initially, on the support of the new municipal élites that had been imposed by [Octavian/] Augustus, which were therefore well disposed to the worship of his person.  It is even possible that ,initially (as was the case elsewhere), [Octavian/ Augustus] may have associated himself with an existing cult [to which the revived federation was dedicated]” (my translation).

Given this background, it seems to me that this is the most likely point at which the “Umbrians” were joined to the “Tuscans” for the celebration of an annual festival: having revived the Etruscan federation at Volsinii, Octavian might well have arranged for the “Umbrians” who used the sanctuary at Hispellum to elect a priest each year who would join that year’s praetor Etruriae in the annual the rite of the Clavus Annalis at Campo della Fiera in order to mark an important imperial anniversary.  In my page on Spello: Rescript of Constantine: Games, I suggested that Lucius Falius Tinia, who is known from a funerary stele that was found near Hispellum, was an early priest (praetor) of this putative pan-Umbrian federation.  According to the inscription, he held what was presumably an annual priesthood on two occasions.  If so, on the model I suggest here, he would have travelled to Volsinii at some time in each of his periods of office in order to participate in the  rite of  the Clavus Annalis and the festival associated with it.

Enrico Zuddas (referenced below, in the paper about to be published, at pp. 220-1) commented on:

  1. “... the symmetric role played in the Rescript by [the Etruscan and] Umbrian priests, who operated on an equal footing (except for the discomfort imposed by the journey to Volsinii, of which the Hispellates complained)” (my translation).

I think that this was not the case in the original configuration of the joint festival: rather, an Umbrian praetor had simply taken part in an annual festival associated with the rite of  the Clavus Annalis that was presided over by a praetor Etruriae.  I suggest below that this situation changed shortly before the Rescript, when the joint festival at Volsinii was re-dedicated to the gens Flavia.

Templum Flaviae Gentis at Hispellum

                

                                     Spello: San Fedele (18th century)                        Plan: Templum Flaviae Gentis

                             On foundations of Templum Flaviae Gentis                With the kind permission of

                                                                                                                                 dott. Pietro Tamburini

The second request from the Hispellates to Constantine was made on behalf of the city itself: they asked that:

  1. “... in [Hispellum], a templum Flaviae gentis (temple of the Flavian family) should be built in very grand fashion, in accord with the greatness of its name.”

Constantine’s reply was in the affirmative, with an important (if not altogether clear) qualification:

  1. “[In Hispellum], we wish to be completed, in grand fashion, a temple ... of the Flavian family ... with the following restriction being proscribed:

  2. that the temple dedicated to our name not be polluted with the deceits of any contagious superstition.” 

John Curran (referenced below, p 181) pointed out that the superstition in question was probably animal sacrifice, since:

  1. “... [as] one of the most objectionable acts which the pagans practiced, Constantine could not sanction it in connection with the imperial cult.”

As described in the page on the Spello: Rescript of Constantine: Temple, the remains of the templum Flaviae gentis survive under the church of San Fedele, which stands within the site of the Umbrian sanctuary at Villa Fidelia (marked at the centre left in the aerial view above).

The drafting of the Rescript implies that the construction of this temple at Hispellum was a necessary  precursor to the partial transfer of the annual festival that had previously been held at Volsinii (discussed above):

  1. Consequenter (As a consequence) [of the erection of the Templum Flaviae Gentis at Hispellum], we grant you permission for the [annual festival, previously held at Volsinii] also to be held in this city”.

John Hanson (referenced below) argued (in my view, probably correctly) that the use of the word “consequenter” here signified that the citizens of Hispellum would not have been allowed to hold the annual festival in their own city unless they had also constructed a new temple:

  1. “The relation between the two [i.e. the construction of the new temple and the transfer of the festival to Hispellum] is regarded [in the inscription] ... as both topographically and logically necessary”. 

Hanson quoted the identical view of Theodor Mommsen (1859):

  1. "In Hispellum sollen also kiinftig die umbrischen Spiele gefeiert werden.  Dadurch war es notwendig dort einen neuen Tempel zu bauen.” 

  2. “The games would thereafter be celebrated in Hispellum.  As a result, it was necessary to build a new temple there” (my translation and my italics).

This raises the question of why the Hispellates needed a new temple: the sanctuary there already had two temples that were carefully positioned in respect to the theatre, and quite possibly others beside.  The answer presumably lies in Constantine’s requirement that the new temple should not be:

  1. “... defiled by the deceits of any contagious superstition.” 

Templum Flaviae Gentis at Volsinii?

              
        
  

       Bust of Emperor Constantine                    Modified Basilica Forense                Templum Flaviae Gentis

                (recut ca. 315 AD)                                        With the kind permission of dott. Pietro Tamburini

      Museo Nazionale Etrusco, Viterbo             

As discussed in my page on Volsinii in the Imperial period, what had been a civic basilica in the forum of Volsinii was modified early in the 4th century AD: it received a new apse, new side walls and (presumably) a new roof, leaving the original side aisles outside the covered structure.  A bust of the Emperor Constantine, which had been recut in ca. 315 AD from a bust (ca. 40 BC) of Octavian, was discovered in 1981 just outside the new left wall of the basilica (at the place marked * in the plan above).  Pietro Tamburini (referenced below) suggested that this bust had been installed at the time that the basilica was modified and deduced (at p. 559) that:

  1. “... it is [therefore] entirely possible that the central nave of the civic basilica of Volsinii was transformed in the first instance into a temple of the deified members of the gens Flavia, the exact pendant to the [later Templum Flaviae Gentis at Hispellum, above)] ...” (my translation).

He pointed to the similarities between the modified basilica at Volsinii and the Templum Flaviae Gentis at Hispellum, in both the technique of construction (opus vittatum mixtum) and the use of a basilical plan.  He concluded (at p. 560) that:

  1. “... the dedication of the [putative Templum Flaviae Gentis at Volsinii] preceded that of its ‘pendant’ at Hispellum, and the construction  of the latter ... was essential for the legitimisation of [reclaimed importance ?] of the sanctuary at Villa Fidelia by the imperial house, under whose auspices (and under whose temple) the games had previously been held ‘aput Vulsinios’” (my - not very good - translation).

I would like to suggest that the installation of the new temple at Volsinii was part of a second phase in the development of the cult of the gens Flavia at Volsinii:

  1. The first phase probably coincided with the recutting of the bust of Octavian in ca. 315 AD, at the time of Constantine’s (belated) visit to Rome for his decennalia, when he seems to have been ready to accommodate the State religion despite his newly-avowed Christianity. 

  2. The second phase can probably be dated to ca. 326 AD, at the time of Constantine’s (belated) visit to Rome for his vicennalia, by which time he seems to have been reluctant to celebrate the usual sacrifices at the Capitoline Temple and would thus have been concerned about any association between a traditional Pagan temple and the imperial cult.

Phase I (ca. 315 AD)

According to Aurelius Victor, after Constantine’s victory over Maxentius at Rome in October 312 AD, the cult of the gens Flavia had been introduced into Africa, and its centre was apparently established at the Numidian city of Cirta:

  1. “... per Africam (in or throughout Africa), a college of priests was decreed to the gens Flavia: and the city of Cirta ... was rebuilt, embellished, and re-named Constantina” (‘De Caesaribus’ 40:28).

In my page on Volsinii in the Triumviral Period, I suggested that the original bust of Octavian had probably been associated with the revived Etruscan Federation and its putative annual festival associated with the rite of the Clavus Annalis.  If so, then its recutting would have associated Constantine with this particular manifestation of the imperial cult.  On this basis, we might reasonably assume that, soon after the cult of the gens Flavia was introduced per Africam, it was also introduced to the cities that had long participated in this annual Tuscan and Umbrian festival, and that the new cult centre was at Volsinii.

In my page on Volsinii in the Late Empire, I suggested that Caius Vettius Cossinius Rufinus, who had been corrector (governor) of Tuscia et Umbria  in ca. 311 AD and whom Constantine appointed as Urban Prefect during his stay in Rome in 315 AD, might well have commissioned the recutting of the bust of Octavian at Volsinii and thus with the establishment of the cult of the gens Flavia there.  It is even possible that Constantine visited Volsinii, perhaps accompanied by Vettius Rufus, after he left Rome for Milan.

Phase II (ca. 326 AD)

As discussed above, the Rescript at Hispellum records Constantine’s insistence that the new Templum Flaviae Gentis at Hispellum should:

  1. “... not be polluted with the deceits of any contagious superstition [such as, presumably, a history as the locus of animal sacrifice].”

This attitude had probably become apparent to the Romans in the summer of 326 AD, during Constantine’s (belated) visit to Rome for his vicennalia.  I would like to suggest that this changed attitude triggered a reconfiguration of the annual Tuscan and Umbrian festival. 

Specifically, a new and thus unpolluted temple was now needed in order to fill the rôle that had been previously associated with the extra-urban temple of Nortia.  This prompted the adaptation of the erstwhile civic basilica in the forum, and the transfer to this location of the recut bust of Octavian/ Constantine.  On this model, the annual Tuscan and Umbrian festival at Volsinii was tnow dedicated to the gens Flavia.  We must presume, therefore, that the priests created by (respectively) the Tuscans and the Umbrians were now pontifices gentis Flaviae.  As noted above, Enrico Zuddas (referenced below, in the paper about to be published, at pp. 220-1) commented on:

  1. “... the symmetric role played in the Rescript by [the Etruscan and] Umbrian priests, who operated on an equal footing (except for the discomfort imposed by the journey to Volsinii, of which the Hispellates complained)” (my translation).

I think that this symmetry had not existed in the original configuration of the joint festival: rather, an Umbrian praetor had simply taken part in an annual festival associated with the rite of  the Clavus Annalis that was presided over by a praetor Etruriae.  On the model proposed here, this situation changed and symmetry was introduced when the joint festival at Volsinii was re-dedicated to the gens Flavia

After the Rescript of ca. 335 AD

On the model above, an Umbrian pontifex gentis Flaviae attended the reconfigured joint festival in the period ca. 326-35 AD.  However, this reconfiguration apparently had an unintended consequence: while the Umbrians had not been able to duplicate the historic temple of Nortia outside Volsinii, they could easily duplicate the ‘unpolluted’ temple to the gens Flavia that now stood in the forum there.  Thus, the Hisepllates requested and received permission to build their own Templum Flaviae Gentis and, as a consequence, also received permission to hold an associated annual festival.  The inconvenience of travelling to Volsinii would thereby be avoided and, more importantly, the status of Hispellum would be greatly enhanced by a direct relationship with the imperial house.

This certainly did not mark  the end of the revived Etruscan federation at Volsinii: its priesthood is epigraphically attested into the middle of the 4th century.  Nor is there any evidence that the temple at Campo della Fiera was abandoned.  However, Constantine had summarised the result of the new arrangements decreed in the Rescript as follows:

  1. “In this way:

  2. -not much will seem to be diminished from previous customs [as far as the people of Tuscia and the city of Volsinii are concerned]; 

  3. -while you [the people of Umbria and, in particular the Hispellates], who come to us as suppliants  ... will enjoy the pleasure of having obtained that which you so urgently demanded.”

He might have added that the two centres of the Flavian cult that had now been established in central Italy (one at Volsinii and the other at Hispellum) would be of great value in securing a smooth transition from the rule of the aged Constantine to that of his young and untried son Constans, for whom the second of these cult sites had been renamed.


Read more:

E. Zuddas, “La Praetura Etruriae Tardoantica”, in

  1. A. Cecconi and A. Raggi (Eds), “Epigrafia e Società dell’ Etruria Romana (Firenze, 23- 24 ottobre 2015)”, in course of publication

  2. I am grateful to Dr Zuddas for sending me a copy of his paper 

N. Lenski, “Constantine and the Cities: Imperial Authority and Civic Politics”, (2016) Philadelphia

M. Ricci, “Praetores Etruriae XV Populorum: Revisione e Aggiunte all’ Opera di Bernard Liou”, Bollettino della Deputazione di Storia Patria per l’Umbria, 111:1 (2014) 5-30

P. Tamburini, “Bolsena: Emergenze Archeologiche a Valle della Città Romana”, in

  1. G. della Fina (Ed.), “Perugia Etrusca”, Annali della Fondazione per il Museo ‘Claudio Faina’, 9 (2002) pp 541-80

J. Curran, “Pagan City and Christian Capital: Rome in the 4th Century”, (2000) Oxford

J. Hanson, “Roman Theater-Temples”, (1959) Princeton


Ancient History:  Velzna/ Volsinii      Destruction of Velzna

Volsinii (Bolsena): Republican Period;    TriumviralPeriod;

Early Empire;    Imperial Period;     Late Empire;    

Rescript of Constantine at Hispellum (ca. 335 AD)


Return to the page on History of Orvieto.

 


Ancient History: Rescript of Constantine

at Hispellum (ca. 335 AD)


Umbria:  Home   Cities    History    Art    Hagiography    Contact 

   

Orvieto:  Home    History    Art    Saints    Walks    Monuments    Museums


Ancient History:  Velzna/ Volsinii      Destruction of Velzna

Volsinii (Bolsena): Republican Period;    TriumviralPeriod;

Early Empire;    Imperial Period;     Late Empire;    

Rescript of Constantine at Hispellum (ca. 335 AD)