University of Cincinnati

Home , Aurelian, Centuriate Assembly, Column of Antoninus Pius, Dacica, Historia Augusta, Pertinax

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

Date: 11-09-2006

I, Mark Andrew Atwood, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: Master of Arts in: The Department of Classics It is entitled: Trajan’s Column: The Construction of Trajan’s Sepulcher in Urbe

This work and its defense approved by:

Chair: Peter van Minnen

William Johnson

Trajan’s Column: The Construction of Trajan’s Sepulcher in Urbe

A thesis submitted to the

Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati

In partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

in the Department of Classics of the College of Arts and Sciences

2006

MARK ANDREW ATWOOD

B.A., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 2004

Committee Chair: Dr. Peter van Minnen Abstract Eutropius (8.5.2) and Dio (69.2.3) record that after Trajan’s death in A.D. 117, his cremated remains were deposited in the pedestal of his column, a fact supported by archeological evidence. The Column of Trajan was located in urbe. Burial in urbe was prohibited except in certain circumstances. Therefore, scholars will not accept the notion that Trajan overtly built his column as his sepulcher. Contrary to this opinion, I argue that Trajan did in fact build his column to serve as his sepulcher. Chapter 1 examines the extensive scholarship on Trajan’s Column. Chapter 2 provides a critical discussion of the relevant Roman laws prohibiting urban burial. Chapter 3 discusses the ritual of burial in urbe as it relates to Trajan. Chapter 4 identifies the architectural precedent for Trajan’s

Column and precedent for imperial burials in urbe. Finally, an appendix examines the role of the pomerium in the discussion about urban burial.

iii iv Acknowledgments I am indebted to Dr. Barbara Burrell for taking on this project and I am grateful for all her support and suggestions. I would also like to thank Dr. Peter van Minnen for his many revisions, and Dr. Peter Schultz for his enthusiasm and encouragement.

v Table of Contents

Abstract...... iii Acknowledgments...... v Abbreviations...... vii List of Figures...... viii

Introduction...... 1

Chapter One: A Review of Previous Scholarship...... 5 1) Excavation History...... 6 2) The Sepulchral Chamber ...... 11 3) The Dedicatory Inscription...... 14 4) The Column and its Archaeological Context...... 19 5) The Temple of the Deified Trajan...... 23 6) Conclusions...... 26

Chapter Two: Roman Legal Prohibitions against Burial in Urbe...... 30 1) Methods ...... 30 2) Urban Burial: Relevant Roman Statutes...... 32 2.A) XII Tables 10.1...... 32 2.B) Dig. 47.12.3.5 ...... 39 2.C) H.A. Ant. Pius 12.3...... 42 2.D) Paulus, Sent. 1.21.2-3...... 43 3) Concluding Remarks on the “Relevant Statutes” ...... 44

Chapter Three: Trajan and the Ritual of Burial in Urbe ...... 46

Chapter Four: Architectural Precedent and Influence...... 63 1) The Column of Julius Caesar...... 64 2) The Temple of the Flavian Gens...... 66 3) The Column of Antoninus Pius...... 71 4) The Column of Marcus Aurelius ...... 73

Conclusion ...... 76

Figures ...... 79

Appendix: The Pomerium and Urban Burial...... 88 1) Origins of the Pomerium ...... 89 2) Concept of the Urbs ...... 92 3) Etymology of Pomerium ...... 95 4) Concluding Remarks ...... 96

vi Abbreviations

CIL = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum

LTUR = Steinby E.M. 1993. Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae. Vol. 2, D–G. Rome: Quasar.

NTDAR = Richardson, L., Jr. 1988. A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

PA = Platner, S.B. 1926. A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. Revised by Thomas Ashby. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

BMCRE = Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum vol. 3, Nerva to Hadrian, with an Introduction and 102 Plates by Harold Mattingly. London: Oxford University Press. 1936

LSJ = Liddell, H.G., and R. Scott. 1925-40. With a Revised Supplement 1996. A Greek- English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

OCD3 = Hornblower, S. and Antony Spawforth. 1996. The Oxford Classical Dictionary3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

vii List of Figures Fig. 1. The Column of Trajan. (Taken from Iris Slide Library, University of Cincinnati)

Fig. 2. Pedestal of the Column of Trajan. (Taken from Iris Slide Library, University of Cincinnati)

Fig. 3. Restored plan of Forum of Trajan based on plan of Italo Gismondi. (After Packer 1970, fig. 54)

Fig. 4. Restored plan of Forum of Trajan based on plan of Roberto Meneghini. (After La Rocca 1998, fig. 17)

viii Introduction καὶ ἔστησεν ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ καὶ κίονα μέγιστον, ἅμα μὲν ἐς ταφὴν ἑαυτῷ, ἅμα δὲ ἐς ἐπίδειξιν τοῦ κατὰ τὴν ἀγορὰν ἔργου.1

And he set up in the forum a huge column, to serve as his tomb and at the same time to be an indicator of the work throughout the forum.

In 117 C.E. the Emperor, Trajan, died in Cilicia while en route home from his

Parthian campaign. His cremated remains were brought back to Rome and placed in the pedestal of his column, which had been dedicated four years earlier in 113 C.E.2 (Figs. 1

& 2) This column has drawn a great deal of attention from modern scholars. Most of this attention is due to the skillfully worked helical relief, which depicts scenes from the

Dacian wars, and the pedestal, which is adorned with sculpted weapons, trophies, eagles, and victories. Many scholars have drawn a strong connection between the funerary significance of this iconography and Trajan’s burial in the column’s pedestal. They have, however, rejected the notion that a sepulcher was part of the column’s design, solely because of its location. Standing 44.07 m (150 Roman feet) in height, the column is located in the Forum of Trajan on the north-west side of the Basilica Ulpia and in the center of the Bibliotheca Ulpia. This location puts the column in urbe.3 Roman law had, from the time of the XII Tables, forbidden burial in the city.4 Cicero records that

1 Dio Cass. 68.16.3. 2 Dio Cass. 69.2.3; Eutr. 8.5. 3 Most scholars define Trajan’s burial in relation to the pomerium, the sacred boundary of a Roman city. As will be shown below in chapter 2, no reference to the pomerium is made in Roman legal prohibitions against urban burial. I have therefore chosen to use the term in urbe rather than intra pomerium when discussing Trajan’s burial. This is not to argue that the pomerium should be totally ignored. For example, the location of Trajan’s sepulcher in urbe can be contrasted with the location of Augustus’ Mausoleum on the Campus Martius. The Campus Martius was an area distinct from the urbs for its political, military, and religious significance and was separated from the urbs by the pomerium. For a discussion of the significance of the pomerium as it relates to urban burial see the appendix to this thesis. For a review of the proposed routes of the pomerium in relation to the Campus Martius see Poe 1984. 4 Cic. Leg. 2.58; H.A. Ant. Pius 12.3; Paulus, Sent. 1.21.2-3; Dig. 47.12.3.5.

1 exemptions from the law had been made for certain clari viri on account of their merit

(virtutis causa) and that the honor had passed on to their descendants.5 Plutarch records that it was possible for triumphators to receive this exemption.6 Citing the relevant legal evidence, most scholars claim that Trajan could not have openly built his column as his sepulcher because by doing so he would have presumed that he would receive this honor.

They argue that he could not have held such a presumption with impunity. I disagree.

Thus far, scholarship on the column’s sepulchral function has focused mainly on archaeological and architectural aspects of the column itself, with the sepulchral chamber and the dedicatory inscription receiving most of the attention. Most scholars rightfully choose to analyze and interpret the column in its overall archaeological context, as one component of the larger forum complex. A sepulchral intention for the column cannot be disproved archeologically or architecturally, yet most scholars reject any notion that

Trajan could have overtly anticipated receiving the honor of a burial in urbe.

Consequently, the dominant theory is that the column was intended to function as a sepulcher, but this role was hidden by “purposefully ambiguous” iconography until the emperor actually died, when its real function was unveiled.

Though I agree that there was a sepulchral function behind the design of the

Column of Trajan, I strongly disagree that this function was ever masked in any way, since to do so would have been unnecessary. The relevant sources for Roman legal prohibitions against burial in urbe have often been cited, but thus far they have not been collected and analyzed. A critical review of these sources will show that a consistent prohibition of urban burial existed. When analyzed together, however, these sources also

5 Cic. Leg. 2.58. 6 Plut. Quest. Rom. 79.

2 reflect a process of legal development, which stretched over a period of nearly 1,000 years of Roman history. Not surprisingly, changes and inconsistencies in the law can be identified, as well as a degree of uncertainty in their interpretation. These sources by no means prove that Trajan could not have openly built his column to serve as his sepulcher.

Ultimately, Trajan was buried in urbe, so it must be assumed that he did, at some point, receive the honor of an exemption from the law, though no source records it. Little is known about the process by which this honor would have been granted but precedent is provided by the cases of Publicola, consul of 509 B.C.E., and Julius Caesar, who, before his assassination, was voted the honor by the senate.7 Unfortunately, these two examples present conflicting evidence and do not present a model that can be used for Trajan.

Likewise, the sources for the events surrounding Trajan’s funeral present a rather unclear picture, and attempts to reconstruct a “history” of these events remain largely hypothetical. Without stronger evidence there is no reason to believe that Trajan could not have expected this honor, especially considering the strong social and political position that he held.

Furthermore, there is ample precedent for the use of a column as a funerary monument. In addition, there is evidence to suggest that Trajan was not the only, or even first, emperor to receive a burial in urbe. The Temple of the Flavian Gens was located in the city and had held the remains of Domitian, Titus’ daughter, Julia, and possibly Titus himself and Vespasian. Finally, the Column of Trajan created an architectural influence that can be seen in the Column of Antoninus Pius, and most directly in the Column of

Marcus Aurelius.

7 For Publicola see Cic. Leg. 2.58; Plut. Quest. Rom. 79; Publ. 23.2-3. For Caesar see Dio Cass. 44.7.

3 In sum, this thesis will shift the debate over the intended function of the Column of Trajan from the monument itself to the issue of burial in urbe. It will analyze the relevant legal statutes, and consider how the process of granting the honor of burial in urbe would have worked in the case of Trajan. Finally, it will identify precedent of urban burials of imperial figures to prove that, by all means, the Roman Emperor, Trajan, could have erected his column with the intention of it serving as his sepulcher.

4 Chapter One: A Review of Previous Scholarship Scholarship devoted to the Column of Trajan is extensive. Although much of this scholarship has addressed the subject of the column’s sepulchral function, there are few works devoted directly to it.8 Nevertheless, the debate over the column’s sepulchral function is dynamic, mainly because of the implications of that function. Trajan’s

Column was located in urbe. Roman law forbade burial in the city, except in special circumstances where certain clari viri and other men had been honored with an exemption from the law on account of their virtue (virtutis causa).9 Most scholars therefore reject any notion that Trajan built his column with the intention that it would serve as his sepulcher. They argue that because of these restrictions it would have been impossible for Trajan to have overtly presumed he would receive the honor of burial in urbe.

Scholars therefore insist that there was a different motivation behind the building of Trajan’s Column. Several hypotheses for this motivation have been put forward.

Penelope Davies, in her book Death and the Emperor, has listed three. One is that the column was built simply as an honorary monument to Trajan for his Dacian victories and then used unchanged as a tomb after his death. Another possibility is that it was first intended to be an honorary monument, then posthumously modified to serve as a tomb.

The third is that it was designed as a tomb.10 Scholarship is divided into two main groups over the issue. One group accepts the third scenario and the other does not. Davies and many others accept that the third scenario is, in fact, the case, but only under the

8 Lugli 1960. Although J.C. Richard (1966c) does not focus on the column itself, his argument addresses the subject in more depth than most. 9 Cic. Leg, 2.58; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 79. See chapter 2. 10 Davies 2000, 31-2.

5 provision that Trajan, realizing the consequences of such a presumption, disguised the column as a victory monument until he actually died. 11

I, along with the majority, argue that Trajan’s Column was designed as a tomb. I disagree with the provision that Trajan disguised his column as a victory monument; such a disguise would have been unnecessary. Thus far, scholars have debated the column’s sepulchral function solely from an iconographical, architectural, and archaeological point of view. Their arguments are complex and have covered not only Trajan’s Column, but its complete archaeological context, including the Forum and Temple of Trajan. It will be clear, however, after a review of these arguments, that for the debate to progress its focus needs to switch from the physical monument itself to the historical issue of burial in urbe, especially during Trajan’s era.

1) Excavation History Trajan’s Column, although today it stands alone, was from its conception an integral component of the Forum of Trajan and has always been considered as such by scholars. A brief review of the forum, its history, and previous excavations is therefore necessary.12 The Forum of Trajan was the last and grandest of the five imperial fora.

The plans for it were most likely conceived by Domitian, but his assassination in 96 C.E. put a stop to any work which might have been in progress. Trajan, who probably kept

Domitian’s basic layout, resumed the project, which he financed with spoils from the

Dacian wars.13 Construction began in 106-7 C.E. and Trajan dedicated the forum in 112

11 Settis 1988, 53-6; Packer 1994, 163-82; Davies 2000, 32-4,129-136. 12 James Packer (1997b) provides one of the most extensive studies on the Forum and a thorough review of its excavation history. 13 Packer 1997b, 3-5.

6 C.E.14 The dedication of the column followed a year later in 113 C.E.15 After Trajan’s death in 117 C.E., his ashes were placed in the pedestal of his column.16 Hadrian then undertook construction of the Temple of Trajan and the entire complex was complete by

128 C.E.17 The forum remained in good condition through the 3rd century and was used for public as well as imperial business, such as the congiaria and the manumission of slaves.18 At the beginning of the 4th century the forum lost some architectural ornaments to the Arch of Constantine. Nevertheless it remained largely unharmed and in use through the 6th century.19

The forum suffered considerable damage during the Middle Ages and it is not clear exactly how long it remained intact. Archaeological excavations have revealed remains of the Church of St. Nicholas inside the forum. This church, which abutted the south-east side of Trajan’s Column, dates as early as the 9th century. The church’s presence suggests that the appearance of the forum had altered significantly by that period.20 The forum underwent further changes during the Renaissance. During the 15th and 16th centuries the forum and its surrounding area were occupied by various churches and tenements. Construction and restoration projects on new and existing buildings routinely uncovered parts of Trajan’s Forum. For example, excavation for the foundations of the still standing Church of the Madonna of Loreto revealed marbles probably from the Temple of Trajan. These marbles were then used for sculpture and as

14 Fasti Ostienses, 22, in Smallwood 1966, 32; Vidman 1982, 48, Pl. 13. 15 Fasti Ostienses, 22, in Smallwood 1966, 32; Vidman 1982, 48, Pl. 13. 16 Eutrop. 8.5.2; Dio Cass. 69.2.3. 17 Packer 1997b, 3-5. 18 Packer 1997b, 8. Coarelli (2000, 6-10) points out that the manumission of slaves was an important function of the Atrium Libertatis. 19 Packer 1997b, 8-10. 20 Packer 1997b, 10.

7 materials for other buildings.21 A large amount of marble was excavated for use in the building of St. Peter’s Basilica and the Farnese Palace in the 16th century.22 The forum underwent little activity in the 17th century, but in the year 1700 the dedicatory inscription from the Temple of Deified Trajan was found.23 Further excavations for houses revealed other fragments of the temple.24

The first archeological excavation was conducted by the French after the arrival of Napoleon’s army in 1808. This excavation lasted from 1811 to 1814 and focused on the area around the Column of Trajan, a sizeable part of the Basilica Ulpia, and a small section of the area fori.25 It revealed that the courtyard of the column was paved with white marble. The column had a border 1.5 m wide and was framed by a perforated marble screen.26 The French excavation also exposed colonnades to the north, east, and west, along with the north wall of the Basilica Ulpia. It uncovered the complete entablature of the porticoes surrounding the column, which includes a frieze of griffins and candelabra.27 This excavation inspired other smaller excavations, which took place throughout the 19th century. Some of these excavations were started and directed by the

French Academy in Rome, while others were the result of construction projects. 19th century excavations uncovered many sections of the forum, including the East

Colonnade, part of the area fori, and additional sections of the Basilica Ulpia.28 During the first decade of the 20th century, Giacomo Boni turned his attention to a wide area

21 Packer 1997b, 14-15. 22 Packer 1997b, 19. 23 CIL 6.966. 24 Packer 1997b, 28-29. These fragments could possibly be not from the temple, but from what Meneghini (1996; 1998; 2001a; 2001b) has called a propylon, which will be discussed below. 25 Packer 1997b, 31-2. 26 Packer 1997b, 35. 27 Packer 1997b, 36-42. 28 Packer 1997b, 42-53.

8 around the Column and the Markets of Trajan. A major excavation of all the imperial fora was then undertaken by Corrado Ricci, which lasted from 1928 to 1934. Ricci uncovered more of the markets, the East Colonnade and Hemicycle, West Colonnade, basilica and West Library. Among many other finds, Ricci uncovered in the East

Colonnade “numerous fragments of a large-scale frieze in high relief, similar to that on the base of the Column of Trajan.”29 American excavations in 1982 concentrated on the foundation of the area fori.30 Since the 1980s work on the Forum of Trajan has focused on documentation, architectural reconstructions, the Column of Trajan, and the Markets of Trajan after antiquity.31

From these excavations many different reconstructed plans of the forum have been created and proposed. Italo Gismondi, the official architect of Ricci’s 1928-34 excavation, created perhaps the most lasting and influential of these plans. Although most plans differ in certain details, the basic layout is the same.32 (Fig. 3) The entire complex sits on a north-south axis. Starting from the south, the area fori is flanked on the east and west sides by colonnades and large hemicycles. North of the area fori is the

Basilica Ulpia, which is flanked by naves on the east and west. Attached to the north side of the Basilica are the libraries and between them stands the Column of Trajan.33 The

Temple of Trajan sits north of the column on the site of the present day Valentini Palace and is the northernmost part of the forum complex. Recently, Roberto Meneghini has proposed a different plan, which radically changes the appearance of the area north of the

29 Packer 1997b, 59. 30 Packer 1997b, 83. 31 Packer 1997a, 317-21. 32 Packer 2003, 109, n.5. 33 La Rocca (2004) dates portions of the area around the column to Hadrian’s reign.

9 column.34 (Fig. 4) He suggests that the Temple of Deified Trajan was not located in the area north of the column and that a tall propylon attached to the libraries occupied that area instead. The propylon then served as the grand entrance to the forum complex. The temple or something like it could have been located at the south end of the forum. This would have been part of the original complex, which was dedicated in 112 C.E. What

Hadrian later dedicated to the deified Trajan was not a temple in the traditional sense, but the entire complex.35 This hypothesis is the result of recent work done by Meneghini in the area north of the column and in the southern part of the forum. Although Packer does not dispute Menegihini’s data, he does disagree with Meneghini’s interpretation of it.

Packer prefers to keep the temple on the north side of the column, where scholars have traditionally located it.

The Column of Trajan is the only part of the forum complex that remains intact.

Its survival is due not to chance but to the intervention of various figures. The Medieval

Roman Senate intervened to preserve the column in the 12th century. At this time the

Church of St. Nicholas was still attached to the pedestal, accounting for the groove in the inscription. The intensity of excavation in the 16th century led Pope Paul III to take measures to preserve the column, demolishing the Church of St. Nicholas, which had been using the column as a bell tower. The Pope also created a piazza around the column and appointed the owner of one of the demolished houses as its custodian. Later,

Michelangelo was commissioned by Pope Paul IV to buttress the earth surrounding the column. Sixtus V placed a statue of St. Peter on the column replacing the statue of

34 Meneghini 1996; 1998; 2001a; 2001b. 35 Meneghini 1996; 1998; 2001a; 2001b. See also La Rocca 1998; 2000; 2001; 2004; Rizzo 1997-98; 1999; 2001a; 2001b.

10 Trajan, which had fallen long before. 36 Upkeep slackened during the 17th and 18th centuries and by the end of this period the pit in which the column sat was filled with refuse. Nevertheless, Trajan’s Column survives to the present day.

19th and 20th century archaeological excavations of the Forum of Trajan naturally involved the column. The initial excavations by the French cleared a site in the form of an “abbreviated circus,” with the column serving as a meta. In this process the walls of

Michelangelo were taken down and several houses and churches were demolished.

Ricci’s work in the area to the north exposed the north branch of a peristyle around the column, which was removed when the Temple of Trajan was built.37 The major archaeological examination of Trajan’s Column was made by Boni in 1906 when he thoroughly assessed the pedestal and made the sepulchral chamber accessible.38

2) The Sepulchral Chamber The sepulchral chamber has, not surprisingly, played an important role in the discussion of the intended function of Trajan’s Column. The chamber is located in the rear of the column’s pedestal and is accessed through a small atrium situated to the left upon entering the pedestal. One door separated the chamber from the atrium and another separated the atrium from the vestibule. The door separating the atrium and vestibule had been walled and sealed with plaster as late as the second half of the 18th century.39 The chamber measures 3.048 m long x 1.524 m wide x 1.829 m high.40 Inside the chamber there is evidence of an altar, which was later carved away. This altar measures 1.219 m

36 Packer 1997b, 14-21. 37 Packer 1997, 31-2, 90. 38 Boni 1907. 39 These figures converted from Boni’s (1907-8, 94-5) measurements (10ft. x 5ft. x 6ft.) 40 Boni 1907-8, 95.

11 wide and 0.762 high.41 According to Boni, the altar was removed to make space during the middle ages when the column was used as a belfry.42 Drill holes above the altar imply that it held the urns of both Trajan and Plotina. A window with an embrasure also let in light.43

The interior design of the chamber and the literary references are evidence enough that the chamber did serve a sepulchral function. It is also highly unlikely that the chamber was added after the column was standing, which means that the chamber was part of the original design.44 Its very presence therefore strongly suggests that Trajan’s

Column was erected with the intention that it would serve as his sepulcher. Nevertheless, some scholars disagree. In fact, Amanda Claridge has expressed doubts that the chamber was ever used as a tomb at all. She has entertained the idea that a deep cavity in the column’s foundations might have held the urn instead.45 This cavity, uncovered during

Boni’s excavations, held the remains of medieval burials and was undoubtedly associated with the Church of St. Nicholas.46 It is highly unlikely that, as Claridge suggests, this is some sort of extension of a pre-existing cavity which held Trajan’s urn. Firstly, the remains found by Boni were not cremated, but inhumed. Secondly, to make a connection between the burial practices of medieval Christians and second century imperial figures is to stretch the evidence too far. Thirdly, no emperor’s cremated remains had ever been placed in a subterranean cavity beneath his tomb. Ultimately, Claridge admits that the chamber was probably the final resting place of the urn, but argues unconvincingly that

41 These figures converted from Boni’s (1907-8, 95) measurements (4ft x 2 ½ ft.). 42 Boni 1907, 95. 43 Boni 1907, 361-427, esp. 368. Coarelli (2000, 26) suggests that this window perhaps allowed for inspection from outside. 44 For the planning and construction of Trajan’s Column see Martines 1983; Wilson-Jones 1993; Lancaster 1999. 45 Claridge 1993, 11, n. 19. 46 Boni 1907-8, 94-5.

12 the original intention was for the chamber to hold spoils from the Dacian wars. The martial theme of the pedestal relief makes it a suitable place for votives from Trajan’s

Dacian triumph in commemoration of his vow to pay for the Forum ex manubiis.47 Like

Claridge, others have posited different fanciful suggestions for the function of this chamber during the interval between its dedication in 113 C.E. and the depositing of the urn after Trajan’s death in 117 C.E. to support the theory that column was not intended to serve as a sepulcher. Giuseppe Lugli once proposed that the room served as a site for propitiatory sacrifices.48 The dedication of the column or anniversaries of Trajanic victories could have been suitable times for such sacrifices.49 Another unsupported theory is that it might have acted as a special section of the Bibliotheca Ulpia and housed the scrolls of Trajan’s Dacica.50 Finally, it has been suggested that the chamber served as a repository for military standards.51

Although mildly plausible, none of these suggestions are supported by any archeological, numismatic, or literary evidence. Furthermore none of the suggestions prove that the chamber was intended to function as anything but a sepulcher. Even if one of these hypothetical uses was employed, it does not, as Davies points out, “preclude any ulterior motive.”52 Frank Lepper and Sheppard Frere also identify a major problem with these suggestions, which is “the more plausible they seem to be, the more one would

47 Claridge 1993, 11. 48 Lugli 1960, 338. 49 Lepper and Frere 1988, 22. 50 Davies 2000, 33. See also Stucchi 1989, 255-7. 51 The view that the column could have held military standards is based on an interpretation which likens the Forum to a military camp. The column then would correspond to shrines which normally held the image of the emperor, the eagle and legion’s standards. See Rodenwaldt 1926; Lugli 1960; Zanker 1970, 534; Boatwright 1987, 82-4; Lepper and Frere 1988, 22. 52 Davies 2000, 32. Packer (1994, 167) would agree with Davies that these suggestions are not convincing to disprove any notion that the room was not intended to be a sepulcher.

13 expect to find similar arrangements made in the base of the Marcus Column.”53 The

Column of Marcus Aurelius, which followed closely the design of Trajan’s Column, has no such chamber in its pedestal other than an access to the stairway. Filippo Coarelli notes the care with which the sepulchral chamber was isolated by two antechambers and two sets of doors and interprets the altar/podium as confirming a sepulchral function.

Furthermore, he claims that Claridge’s hypothesis that the chamber held weapons or trophies is “unjustified either by the dimensions or the total aspect of the spaces.”54

Finally and most importantly, there is absolutely no archeological or literary evidence to support the notion that the chamber held anything or was intended to hold anything before it received Trajan’s urn. Methodologically, the most responsible thing might be to admit that it is impossible to prove conclusively from the archaeological evidence what the intended function of this chamber was. The chamber was a part of the original plan and it did, in the end, serve as a tomb. The only reason to doubt that it was intended to serve in this capacity is the column’s location in urbe. It will be more fruitful to shift the focus of the debate away from the design of the column’s pedestal towards the question of burial in urbe, which will be discussed in chapter two.

3) The Dedicatory Inscription The problematic inscription on the pedestal of Trajan’s Column is also important to any discussion about its intended function. The inscription does not mention the

53 Lepper and Frere (1988, 22) propose that a sort of “Column Committee” headed up by Apollodorus, Trajan’s chief engineer, was responsible for the overall design and implementation of Trajan’s Column. The introduction and discussion of the idea of building Trajan’s sepulcher in a location in urbe would have been, they argue, less awkward in committee than in public. Although a “Column Committee” is a highly imaginative historical reconstruction, their opinion that that the chamber was included in the plans of the Column designers is sound. 54 Coarelli 2000, 26.

14 presence of a tomb in any way. Therefore some have used it as proof that a sepulchral function for the column was never intended. Others have maintained that this is an example of purposeful ambiguity, which masked the true intentions behind the design;55 the outside of the column and the friezes in the surrounding areas suggest the presence of a tomb without stating it explicitly. Several of the inscription’s problematic issues deserve attention here. It will be demonstrated, however, that the inscription should have no barring in the debate over the column’s sepulchral function. The inscription reads:

Senatus populusque romanus / Imp(eratori) Caesari Divi Nervae f(ilio) Nervae / Traiano Aug(usto) Germ(anico) Dacico pontif(ici) / maximo trib(unicia) pot(estate) XVII imp(eratori) VI co(n)s(uli) VI p(atri) p(atriae) / ad declarandum quantae altitudinis / mons et locus tan[tis oper]ibus sit egestus.56

The Senate and People of Rome dedicate this to the emperor Caesar Nerva Trajan Augustus Germanicus Dacicus, son of the Divine Nerva, Pontifex Maximus, with tribunician power for the seventeenth time, imperator for the sixth time, consul for the sixth time, Father of his Country, to show how high was the mountain site that was cleared away for such great works.

The first four lines of the inscription are straightforward. The last two lines, which state the purpose of the column, are problematic for a couple of reasons. First, there is a lacuna, which was created by the roof of the Church of St. Nicholas. Several reconstructions of this lacuna have been proposed, but two are most probable. Sandro

Stucchi proposed reading tan[tis vir]ibus.57 Under this reading, tantis viribus works as an ablative of means: “…to show how high was the mountain site that was cleared away with such great effort.” This “great effort” is evidenced all the buildings that make up the

Forum of Trajan. Though Stucchi’s reading has enjoyed some support, most scholars prefer to read tan[tis oper]ibus. Under this reading, the “great works” likewise refer to

55 Coarelli 2000, 14. 56 CIL 6.960. 57 Stucchi 1989.

15 the buildings that made up the forum complex. The second problem with this inscription is the meaning of mons et locus. Grammatically, mons et locus clearly works as a hendiadys and is the subject of sit egestus. What and, perhaps more importantly, where exactly this “mountain site” was has been the subject of considerable debate.58

It was thought previously that the inscription referred to a spur of the Quirinal hill, which had occupied the same location as the column, but had been cleared away for the building of the forum complex. The column, then, marked the spur’s height. This interpretation stems directly from a passage of Dio:

καὶ ἔστησεν ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ καὶ κίονα μέγιστον, ἅμα μὲν ἐς ταφὴν ἑαυτῷ, ἅμα δὲ ἐς ἐπίδειξιν τοῦ κατὰ τὴν ἀγορὰν ἔργου∙ παντὸς γὰρ τοῦ χωρίου ἐκείνου ὀρεινοῦ ὄντος κατέσκαψε τοσοῦτον ὅσον ὁ κίων ἀνίσχει, καὶ τὴν ἀγορὰν ἐκ τούτου πεδινὴν κατεσκεύασε.59

And he set up in the forum a huge column, to serve as his tomb and at the same time to be an indicator of the work throughout the forum. For, since the whole of that place had been hilly he excavated it to a level as deep as the column is high, and thereby made the forum level.

This passage confirmed the previous interpretation of the inscription until Boni’s excavations uncovered strata that significantly predate the column and forum, thus creating an inconsistency with Dio’s explanation.60 A number of different explanations are possible for the inconsistency between the Dio’s statements and the archaeological evidence. One is that Dio was ignorant of Roman topography and simply misinterpreted the inscription. Another explanation, proposed by Boni, is that the later half of this passage, παντὸς… κατεσκεύασε, is an explanatory note inserted by Dio’s Byzantine

58 For the many discussions and lengthy bibliography on this inscription see PA 238-9, s.v. Columna Traiani; Becatti 1960, 25-6; Zanker 1970, 529-30; Settis 1988, 49-56; Lepper and Frere 1988, 203-7; Packer 1997b, 447-8. 59 Dio Cass. 68.16.3. 60 Boni 1907-8, 93-8.

16 epitomizer, Xiphilinus.61 This passage is from the 68th book of Dio’s Roman History, a work which was originally comprised of 80 books. Only a portion of this work (fewer than 30 books) is extant, but epitomes survive of many of the earlier and later non-extant books.62 The 68th book in particular survives through the Byzantine epitomizer

Xiphilinus. Though an epitome, this text proves to be a faithful source mainly because of

Xiphilinus’ “inability to digest and condense Dio’s material.”63 As Fergus Miller points out, Xiphilinus’s epitome is not a précis, but an “erratic selection” from Dio’s work in which he reproduced large sections of Dio’s text almost verbatim.64 Nevertheless,

Xiphilinus was not immune from inserting his own comments and explanatory notes and it is important to take a critical approach when using an epitome. Giacomo Boni posited that the second half of the passage cited above (παντὸς γὰρ… κατεσκεύασε) is one of

Xiphilinus’ explanatory notes, but that the first half of the passage (καὶ

ἔστησεν…ἔργου) is genuinely Dio.65 This might account for the historical

(archaeological) inaccuracy of the second half of the passage, which seems to be a misinterpretation of the problematic inscription on the column’s pedestal. It is highly unlikely, though, that Xiphilinus, a Byzantine monk writing in Constantinople, would have actually read the inscription. Even if he had been to Rome to view the column, this part of the inscription would have been covered up the by Church of St. Nicholas, which was at that time attached to the pedestal. The entire passage therefore should probably be accepted as Dio’s writing, not a product of Xiphilinus.

61 Boni 1907-8, 93-4, n. 1. 62 Books 36.1.1 through 60.28.3 are extant, which cover the years 69 B.C.E. to 49 C.E. OCD3, pp. 299- 300. s.v. Cassius Dio (John William Rich). 63 Miller 1964, 2. 64 Miller 1964, 2. 65 Boni 1907-8, 93.

17 Several recent interpretations of the inscription have been posited that might also help to harmonize facts with Dio’s statements. Coarelli has read this inscription to mean that the column served a ‘replacement’ function.66 The column replaced a stretch of republican walls, the atrium Libertatis, and a spur of the Quirinal hill, which were all removed or demolished in the process of building the Forum. The location of the spur does not correspond directly with the column’s location, but was situated further south in the area of the hemicycles. Nevertheless, the hill was such an important topographical feature that it demanded adequate compensation, which took the form of Trajan’s

Column. Coarelli has therefore interpreted the column as a “gigantic piaculum,” a sort of propitiatory dedication in reconciliation for the loss of an important feature of the city’s topography. The inscription alluded to this function and the belvedere on the top of the column gave an observer a view from the same height as the removed hill. Under

Coarelli’s interpretation of the inscription Dio’s statements do not conflict with Boni’s archeological finds.

Another recent, but slightly different, interpretation is that the mons cleared away was in fact the Quirinal, but that it was cut away for the building of Trajan’s Markets.

The height of the Quirinal which was taken away for the markets is, however, only half the height of the column. Penelope Davies rectifies this problem by interpreting one of the column’s functions as a belvedere, from which to view the markets and “the height of the mountain that was cleared away.”67 Not only would the viewer appreciate Trajan’s architectural beneficence, he would also be reminded of Trajan’s military competence by the military camp-like layout of the forum.

66 Coarelli 2000, 5-7. 67 Davies 2000, 129-35. See also Lepper and Frere 1988, 207.

18 Either of these recent interpretations could very well be correct. The inscription makes no mention of the exact location of the mons et locus, which means the hill or spur of the Quirinal could have been located anywhere. More importantly, it is quite clear that the inscription makes no reference to Trajan’s burial-place, and any attempt to look for one would be, in the words of Lepper and Frere, a “waste of time.”68 Since the inscription does not refer in any way to the column’s sepulchral function, it should have no bearing on the discussion of that function; it does not disprove that the column was intended to serve as Trajan’s tomb and it does not prove of any sort of “purposeful ambiguity.”

4) The Column and its Archaeological Context The most useful examinations of Trajan’s Column have focused not on the sepulchral chamber or the inscription, but on the column’s iconography and overall archaeological setting. They interpret the column as an integral component of the forum complex in its complete form, including the temple. These examinations also take into consideration architectural and iconographical similarities between Trajan’s Column and other funerary monuments.

Penelope Davies has conducted one such examination and put forward a rather encompassing explanation for the overall design of the monument. She suggests the column and base together represent “the superimposition of the traditional funerary elements, the altar and the column.”69 She points out the similarities between the column base and Roman funerary altars. They share similarities in architectural design, both

68 Lepper and Frere 1988, 206. 69 Davies 2000, 32.

19 having double doors with an inscription above. They also share iconographical features like eagles, victories, and weaponry. Davies points out too that columns had been used to mark graves in Greece and Italy for centuries.70 This position is supported by Coarelli who also argues that the inscription above the doorway, which is supported by two victories, is similar to funerary monuments of the imperial era.71 He states that “the structure is a fairly faithful reproduction of an altar tomb, with the entry door surmounted by the inscription and with corner acroteria that, being eagles in this case, allude explicitly to apotheosis.”72

In her interpretation, Davies has taken into account the skillfully worked helical relief, which is ironically difficult to read from the standpoint of the viewer. She believes the answer to the difficulty in reading the sculptural frieze also lies in the column’s function as a tomb.73 Rather than just a piece of art the column is an “active work of architecture” which requires the interaction of its viewer. The scenes of the Dacian wars act as a visual res gestae while the column’s decorative sculpture, arranged in a helix, encourages the viewer to pursue the narrative.74 The design is therefore intentional and

70 Davies 1997, 41-65; 2000, 23. 71 Coarelli 2000, 25. 72 Coarelli 2000, 21. 73 Davies 1997, 41-65; 2000, 127-135. 74 There have been many different interpretations of the helical form of this frieze. Coarelli (2000, 11-6) and others view it as an unraveled scroll and draw a connection between the frieze and the nearby libraries. Others have viewed it as an illusion to ribbon or cloth decorations which often decorated columns at religious ceremonies. For a discussion of these arguments see Settis, 1988, 89-93; Coarelli, 2000, 11-6. Amanda Claridge (1993) argues that when Trajan’s Column was dedicated in 113 C.E. the shaft was not sculpted. She therefore ascribes the commissioning of the column’s helical frieze to Hadrian. It was only after Trajan’s created remains were deposited sub columna that this decision was made and work did not start before 119/120 C.E. According to Claridge, it was probably Hadrian who proposed to mark the column’s new sepulchral function with a spiral relief, which Claridge describes as an “excessively ornamental” design that “wrecked the architectural character of the original building.” Mark Wilson Jones (1993), who has examined architectural problems of the construction Trajan’s Column, agrees with Claridge that the spiral frieze was added by Hadrian. Claridge’s hypothesis that the spiral relief on Trajan’s Column is a Hadrianic feature is not acceptable, however, mainly because her examination of numismatic evidence is incomplete. For example, she chooses to dismiss coins of a Trajanic date which clearly show a decorated column shaft, using the unlikely argument that the coin artist was trying to represent the spiral

20 manipulates the viewer into perpetuating the dead emperor’s memory by walking around the tomb, and thus paying it honors. This design is architecturally similar, in concept, to imperial mausolea. Both Augustus’s and Hadrian’s mausolea incorporated annular corridors in their circular design, which denied the visitor direct access to the burial chamber and forced him to move in a circle. Circumambulation of the burial spot serves as a reenactment of funeral ritual.75 Davies has compared this act also to the example of

Alexander the Great who, with his companions, once honored Achilles by running naked around his tomb.76

Davies also considers Trajan’s Column as one component of the larger forum complex and follows the opinions of Paul Zanker, who in 1970 proposed the dominant interpretation of the Trajan’s Forum.77 James Packer, who has done the most extensive work recently on Trajan’s Forum, also follows many of Paul Zanker’s opinions. He argues that the column and the basilica were part of the same concept.78 Together they made up a heroön, a well attested feature in the Greek tradition.79 The identical weaponry appearing on both the column’s pedestal and the attic of the basilica’s south façade linked the two structures. The iconographical features in the basilica, and those surrounding the column, identified the area as the precinct of a hero’s tomb. In the interior of the basilica tauroctonous Victories made up part of the frieze decoration.80

Packer interprets these tauroctonous Victories as symbolizing Trajan’s political victories over foreign enemies. More importantly, the goddesses symbolize victory over death, staircase on the interior of the column. For a good overview of the complicated numismatic evidence for Trajan’s Column see Lepper and Frere 1988, 193-7. 75 Davies 1997, 56-8. 76 Davies 2000, 128. 77 Zanker 1970; Packer 1994, 167-71; Davies 2000, 32-4. See also Settis 1988, 53-6. 78 Packer 1994, 169. 79 Packer 1994, 168-71. See also Zanker 1970, 534-6; Davies 2000, 32. 80 Packer 1997, 233, 278-9, 434-5.

21 hinting at apotheosis and signaling the neighboring tomb.81 Also, pairs of griffins decorated the portico which surrounded the column. Davies pointes out that the forum entrance wall also held a lion-griffin and putto frieze.82 Griffins are significant in this context, as they were the attendants of Nemesis and represented divine vengeance.83

Both griffins and putti had a funerary significance, playing a role in funerary iconography and frequently appearing on sarcophagi. Furthermore, griffins served as watchful guardians in their association with Apollo and Dionysus and also acted as a vehicle of apotheosis.84 Scenes similar to the portico façade decorated the interior of the colonnade where sphinxes replaced griffins as the focus of the design. According to Packer, not only were the sphinxes apotropaic, they also “subtly anticipated the deification of

Trajan.”85

The decoration on the column itself also served to indicate the function the area played as heroön and tomb. Piled up weapons depicted on the pedestal represented the hero’s defeated enemies, while the spiral relief on the shaft depicted the wars which brought the hero his fame. The column, in this archeological context, “memorialized the achievements of the hero whose ashes were deposited in the burial chamber in the pedestal and visually linked the position of the burial chamber to that of the massive bronze colossus above.”86 Coarelli agrees that the statue of Trajan was in line with the column’s funerary function; it recalled the deceased and referred to his deification by projecting him toward the sky.87

81 Packer 1994, 169;1997, 278-9. See also Zanker 1970, 522; Davies 1997, 48. 82 Davies 1997, 48; 2000 33-4. 83 Packer 1994, 170; 1997, 279; Davies 1997, 48; 2000, 33. 84 Davies 1997, 48; 2000, 33-4. 85 Packer 1994, 171; 1997, 279. 86 Packer 1994, 168-9. 87 Coarelli 2000, 16.

22 Coarelli also suggests that the funerary function of the column is loosely connected to the presence of the libraries. The contemporary examples of the Library of

Celsus at Ephesus and tomb of Dio of Prusa support this occurrence, which Coarelli terms as a sort of “intellectual hero-making.”88 The column also played an integral role together with the libraries that celebrated Trajan’s sapientia and virtus.

The column and basilica therefore function as heroön and tomb in the overall design of the Forum complex, which Packer reads as “a biography in stone that successively revealed the various stages in the life of its hero as he progressed from mortality to deification.”89 Images of Trajan were positioned in important locations and the nature of these images was always different. In the forum, the viewer would see a likeness of an “omnipotent general.” As the viewer passed by the column he would see on top of it a colossal statue of the “deceased hero.” Finally, upon approaching the temple the representation of a “sanctified divus” was revealed.90 Within this context, the statue of Trajan atop the column, “not only clearly marked the position of his heroön and tomb, but also, to an ancient visitor at the south entrances to the forum, hinted at the existence of the colossal Temple of Trajan to the north.”91

5) The Temple of the Deified Trajan The Temple of the deified Trajan is an additional element influencing this discussion. The temple is significant because, like the column, it is usually viewed as one component of the overall forum complex. Also like the column, the temple poses many

88 Coarelli 2000, 10. See also Settis 1988, 63. 89 Packer 1997, 283. 90 Packer 1994, 181; 1997, 283. 91 Packer 1994, 171.

23 problems of interpretation, which center on its date of construction. Some, like Zanker and Packer, consider the temple to have been part of the original forum design. This leads to the question whether Trajan anticipated his own apotheosis. Because the temple is linked to the column iconographically and architecturally, discussion of Trajan’s

Column and its sepulchral function is usually blended with discussion of the temple, and therefore apotheosis. For the purposes of this paper it is necessary to determine whether the temple should have any place in the discussion of column’s funerary function.

Epigraphic evidence confirms that Hadrian dedicated the temple and it is possible to date this dedication to the third decade of the second century, probably to the year 128

C.E.92 In most modern reconstructions it is located at the extreme north end of Trajan’s

Forum. Although the date of the dedication is fairly straightforward, the dates of the temple’s planning and construction present several problems. Many different hypotheses have been proposed, but there four main hypotheses are identifiable.

The most recent hypothesis is that of Roberto Meneghini, who has proposed a scenario where the temple, or something like it, was located at the south end of the forum. This would have been part of the original complex, which was dedicated in 112

C.E. He has suggested that, instead of the temple, a tall propylon attached to the libraries occupied the area north of the column and served as the entrance to the forum complex.

This would mean, however, that Trajan built his own temple and planned his own apotheosis. Meneghini’s suggestion, therefore, is that the structure at the south end of the forum was a type of ‘sacred precinct,’ dedicated by Trajan himself. It would have been the entire forum complex that Hadrian later dedicated to the deified Trajan, not a temple

92 The inscriptions (CIL, 6.966, 6.31215) were found in the area north of the column. For discussion see Packer 1997b, 127, 131-35; 2003, 128. Compare with Meneghini 1996; 1998; 2001a; 2001b.

24 in the traditional sense.93 A recent challenge to this reconstruction has come from James

Packer, who, like many, prefers to keep the temple on the north side of the column, where scholars have traditionally located it.94

A second hypothesis is that the temple was designed and built during Hadrian’s reign. A major proponent of this hypothesis is Mary Taliaferro Boatwright, who disagrees with any notion that Trajan’s Temple could have been under construction or even conceived of during his lifetime, a claim which she thinks “goes against all that we know about Roman religion.”95 The Temple was probably started shortly before his posthumous triumph in 118 C.E., at which time the column was adapted to hold his ashes.96 Boatwright has argued that differences in design between Trajan’s Forum and other imperial fora prove that Trajan’s Temple was an afterthought, noting the symmetrically placed hemicycles, Basilica Ulpia, and libraries, all unique to Trajan’s

Forum. More important is the presence of Trajan’s Column, which, in Boatwright’s opinion, accounts for the lack of the Temple.97 During Trajan’s time it was the

“culminating element” of Trajan’s Forum, toward which the entire complex was directed.

She has also argued that the column served a topographical function by linking Rome’s political center with the Campus Martius. Finally, the column was meant to act as a cynosure for those on the Via Lata/Flaminia, which ran to the north of the forum.

Hadrian’s building of the temple later took this function away by obstructing the view.98

93 Meneghini 1996; 1998; 2001a; 2001b. See also La Rocca 1998; 2000; 2001; 2004; Rizzo 1997-98; 1999; 2001a; 2001b. 94 Packer 2003. 95 Boatwright 1987, 75. 96 Boatwright 1987, 93. 97 Boatwright 1987, 80-2. 98 Boatwright 1987, 84-8.

25 The remaining two hypotheses place the Temple of Trajan to the north of the forum complex and support the notion that it was part of the original plan, be that

Trajan’s, Apollodorus’ or some other unknown figure’s. The temple’s position in

Trajan’s Forum is in line with all other imperial fora, which include a temple located at the end opposite the entrance, dominating each complex. These hypotheses differ only in the start date of the temple’s construction. Coarelli, for instance, believes that Trajan’s

Temple was not started until after his death because its features of apotheosis would have been too revealing. He has pointed out, however, that a space was left for the temple and has argued that its function was closely connected to the column, citing the analogous examples of Julius Caesar and Marcus Aurelius, whose columns were located in the vicinity of their temples.99 Packer, on the other hand, has argued that the temple was started as early as 112 C.E., the date of the forum’s dedication.100 He thinks that the temple was so important in the design that the forum would have been meaningless without it, but admits that “the earliest publicity for the forum would not have named the as yet living Trajan as the ultimate dedicatee of the temple.”101

6) Conclusions It must be restated at this point that Trajan had dedicated his forum in 112 C.E. and his column in 113 C.E., long before he died. The idea that Trajan built the column as a tomb operates under the assumption that Trajan presumed he would receive a burial in urbe. According to most scholars, Roman tradition influenced the political climate in such a way as to make it highly unlikely that Trajan could have openly presumed this

99 Coarelli 2000, 13-4. 100 Packer 2003, 128. See also Zanker 1970; Ward Perkins 1979, 348-52. 101 Packer 1997a, 172.

26 honor. A creative solution to this problem was therefore developed. Zanker argued that the column was masked as a victory monument and the iconography was carefully chosen so as not to reveal its true meaning until Trajan’s death; knowledge of Trajan’s burial spot would have sparked a new level of interpretation.102 For example, griffins, putti, and tauroctonous Victories, portrayed in the Basilica Ulpia and in the temple temenos portico, are “purposefully ambiguous” features, but hint strongly at apotheosis.103 Less ambiguous about apotheosis are sphinxes, which were probably located on the inside of the column courtyard’s colonnade.104 Although ambiguous, these iconographical features were important to the column’s function as a tomb, which Packer thinks is the column’s most important function, but one that could not have been revealed publicly at the column’s dedication. Following this dominant opinion, Coarelli believes that the monument’s funerary function became explicit only after Trajan’s death, but that

“calculated ambiguity” allowed for its erection during Trajan’s lifetime.105

Although this interpretation of the Column and Forum of Trajan is sound overall, the notion that the architects built this complex with a degree of “purposeful” and

“calculated ambiguity” needs reconsideration. The theory is ingenious, but there is no evidence to support it. Moreover, if the political climate in Rome was so delicate that the erection of a sepulcher in urbe would have been impossible, then it is hard to believe that the people and political figures contributing to that climate would have been fooled by any sort of ambiguous iconography.

102 Zanker 1970, 532-3; Davies 2000. 103 Davies 2000, 34. 104 Davies 2000, 34. 105 Coarelli 2000, 14.

27 Further questions need to be considered. If presuming burial in urbe was such an outrageous offence that Trajan could not have openly built his column as a sepulcher while he was alive, then why would the political impact or repercussions have been any different when it was revealed that he in fact had presumed that honor? The jealously and odium which would supposedly have resulted from the presumption of burial in urbe would most likely have come from the senate and the aristocratic elite, not the people of

Rome. The senate is also presumably the body which had to grant the right of burial within the city.106 There is no firm evidence for the senate actually granting Trajan this honor. A passage in the Historia Augusta, Life of Hadrian is the closest thing.107 It records that the senate, after receiving a letter from Hadrian requesting divine honors for

Trajan, granted him those honors and voluntarily voted him many more. There is no hint, however, as to what these honors were. Supposing for a moment that among these honors was the honor of burial in urbe, the senate surely would have thought of the column when they voted it to him. Why would it have been all of a sudden acceptable, after he was dead, for Trajan to have presumed this honor, when it would have been unacceptable while he was living? It is hard to believe that the senate was so naïve that they did not notice the architectural and iconographical implications of the column while

Trajan was living, but did realize these implications only after they themselves voted him the honor that allowed the column to serve the purpose for which it was built. It is even harder to believe that after this function was realized it did not create the same outrage it would have created while Trajan was living.

106 See chapter 3, 47-49. 107 HA Hadrian, 6.

28 In addition, many claim that Trajan could not have presumed burial in urbe with impunity. Yet, there is no evidence for what the repercussions would have been. Would

Trajan have suffered the same fate as Julius Caesar? Would he have suffered the same fate as Domitian, who was damned from the public record? Was there a formal or constitutional penalty for such a presumption? The fact is that the evidence for any possible repercussion is lacking because the offence, if it was even considered an offence, was positively insignificant. The following chapter will provide a close examination of the main evidence for the prohibitions against burial in urbe and will challenge the traditional opinion among scholars of the nature and strength of the Roman attitude toward burial in the city.

29 Chapter Two: Roman Legal Prohibitions against Burial in Urbe This chapter compiles and analyzes relevant legal codes and literary evidence on urban burial in order to establish the political, legal, and social climate in Rome during the reign of Trajan to see whether or not it would have been an unmerited presumption for Trajan to have built himself a tomb inside the city. A long established Roman legal prohibition against burial in urbe existed. The evidence for this prohibition does not, however, present a clear picture of how, or even if, it would have applied to an imperial figure of the early 2nd century C.E. This chapter will also show that the norms, expectations, and structure of imperial burials during the first and second centuries C.E. are largely unknown. I argue that without further and more consistent evidence, there is no reason to assume that Trajan, an emperor who enjoyed a firm social and political position, could not have expected himself to receive a burial in urbe. The burden of proof lies, rather, with the assertion that Trajan could not have built his column as a sepulcher because it was located in urbe.

1) Methods Any examination of a topic directly involving Roman law first requires several comments on method. Many different methods for using law to determine the social norms of ancient societies have been proposed and used. David Cohen has reviewed and criticized some of the more problematic and methodologically dangerous approaches and lays out a more accountable approach in his book Law, Sexuality and Society.108

Although his overall study focuses on sexuality in Greek society, his discussion on

108 Cohen 1991, 14-34.

30 methods for using ancient laws as sources is directly applicable to this subject. The use of Roman legislation in discussions of burial practices is necessary, but can be problematic if the wrong methods are used or if thoughts on methodology are disregarded altogether, which is often the case with regards to Trajan’s burial.

Cohen warns against simply interpreting legal statutes as a reflection of the historical reality. He states that “The positivist account of ‘the law’ as nothing more than the relevant valid statutes blinds us to the normative structures of the community of which the law is but a part and which gives it its social meaning.”109 One cannot assume that legal statutes alone define social norms and that the coercive power of enforcement ensures the continuity of those norms. As will be shown, several “relevant statutes” clearly prohibit urban burial in Rome, but it will be important to remember that these statutes, which are gathered from many different periods of Rome’s history, do not themselves define the norms of burial practices, especially imperial burial practices during the 2nd century C.E.

Cohen suggests that “In seeking to recover the norms, values, and beliefs of an ancient society, the historian must look beyond the rules reflected in the law and other official ideologies to the social practices which instantiate and reproduce them.”110 In any society a system of “mutual monitoring” takes place in all social interactions and this system forms the basis for judgments about deviance or normality. This monitoring is achieved by individuals, who possess a certain level of “practical knowledgeablity” of the norms and expectations for a particular social situation.111 In the case of Trajan, the question should be asked whether or not there even was a normative structure in place for

109 Cohen 1991, 15. 110 Cohen 1991, 28. 111 Cohen 1991, 28.

31 imperial burial practices. Also, what was the level of “practical knowledgeability” of the rules governing burial held by those in a position to monitor and judge Trajan’s actions?

It might be the case that the normative structure governing these practices was not so normative at all, and that the “expectations” for what was normal or expectable were limited or even nonexistent. It is necessary to use the relevant legal statutes to recover the norms, values, and beliefs that would have surrounded Trajan’s decision to locate his sepulcher in the city. These statutes alone, however, are not necessarily representative of the historical reality and, in fact, present more confusion than clarity.

2) Urban Burial: Relevant Roman Statutes

2.A) XII Tables 10.1 The first piece of Roman legislation against burial in the city is the XII Tables

10.1. The XII Tables were promulgated in 451-450 B.C.E. and are non-extant in their original form, but their content has been reconstructed from various literary sources.112

The main evidence for this legislation is provided by Cicero in his De Legibus 2.58, a work which he composed most likely during the late 50s B.C.E., four hundred years after the XII Tables’ creation.113 Influenced stylistically by Plato’s Phaedrus and in content by

Plato’s Nomoi, Cicero takes on a learned Socratic role in a fictional dialogue with his brother Quintus and his friend T. Pomponius Atticus, who acts as the questioner setting the course of the discussion on Roman laws. The following passage appears near the end

112 The actual text of the XII Tables was probably destroyed in the Gallic sack of the city in 390 B.C.E. No authoritative text survived in the period of the late republic, but as Jolowicz (1972, 108) suggests private copies must have existed. 113 Dyck 2004, 5-7. A “garbled” reference to this statute is also made in Servius’ commentary on Vergil (Aen. 11. 206). See Crawford 1996, 704.

32 of the second book of De Legibus and fits into what A.R. Dyck has termed an

“appendix,” where Cicero examines and comments on existing laws and material of

“ambivalent status.”114 The following passage is the most frequently cited by scholars when discussing the topic of Trajan’s burial in urbe:

Atticus: Video, quae sint in pontificio iure, sed quaero ecquidnam sit in legibus.

Atticus: I see those rules which are in the pontifical jurisdiction, but I ask whether there is anything in the laws.

Marcus: Pauca sane, Tite, et, uti arbitror, non ignota vobis; sed ea non tam ad religionem spectant quam ad ius sepulchrorum. “Hominem mortuum,” inquit lex in duodecim, “in urbe ne sepelito neve urito,” credo vel propter ignis periculum. quod autem addit: “neve urito,” indicat, non qui uratur, sepeliri, sed qui humetur.115

Marcus: Little indeed, Titus, and, as I infer, you are not ignorant of it; but these do not so much concern religion as they concern the law of graves. “A dead man,” a law in the XII Tables says, “shall neither be buried nor burned in the city,” I believe that is perhaps on account of the danger of fire. This phrase however which is added: “nor burn” indicates that it is not the burned body but the inhumed body which is considered buried (sepeliri).

Atticus then asks Cicero about the burial in the city of renowned men after the time of the

XII Tables:

Quid, qui post duodecim in urbe sepulti sunt clari viri?

What about the famous men who have been buried in the city after the period of the XII Tables?

Cicero gives his reply:

Credo, Tite, fuisse aut eos, quibus hoc ante hanc legem virtutis causa tributum est, ut Poplicolae, ut Tuberto, quod eorum posteri iure tenuerunt, aut eos, si qui hoc, ut C. Fabricius, virtutis causa soluti legibus consecuti sunt.116

114 Dyck 2004, 242. 115 Cic. Leg. 2.58. 116 Cic. Leg. 2.58.

33 I believe, Titus, that there were those to whom this honor had been bestowed on account of their merit before this law, like Poplicola and Tubertus, whose descendants held this honor by law, or that there were those should there be any, like Gaius Fabricius, who happened to be free from the laws by reason of their virtue.

Cicero’s comments here are often cited as evidence that Roman law strictly forbade burial in the city. To do this is to assume that the XII Tables of the 5th century were clearly defined, unchanging, and frequently enforced statutes, which were known and understood by the broader Roman community at all times during the Republican and

Imperial periods. There is good reason to doubt this assumption if Cicero’s comments are considered within the context of his complete passage on the tenth table, as the passage probably reveals much more about Cicero’s antiquarian interests and about the late Republican understanding of the XII Tables than it does about Roman attitudes toward burial in the city.

Quoting the law in archaic Latin, Cicero states that the law of the XII Tables forbade the cremation and burial of bodies in the city. He explains that a fear of fire was the reason for the prohibition on cremation and then moves on to focus on the meaning of certain words. He purposes that the addition of the words “neve urito”, “nor to burn” to the passage means that the verb sepelio refers to those who are literally put in the ground, not those who are cremated. Taken literally then, Cicero’s passage means that the prohibition on burial within the city concerned only those inhumed and the actual act of burning, not remains having been cremated outside the city. This technical observation should not be overlooked. By Cicero’s interpretation of the law, Trajan was not “buried”

(sepelio). Therefore, the location of his tomb in urbe did not violate the law. One should be wary, however, of drawing definite conclusions based on these technicalities.

34 Comments by Plutarch seem to compensate for this latent loophole in Cicero’s interpretation of the law. In the Questiones Romanae Plutarch asks the question: Διὰ τί

τοῦ θριαμβεύσαντος εἶτ’ ἀποθανόντος καὶ καέντος ἐξῆν ὀστέον λαβόντας εἰς

τὴν πόλιν εἰσφέρειν καὶ κατατίθεσθαι… (Why was it allowed to take up a bone of someone who had celebrated a triumph then had died and been cremated, and to carry it in to the city and to bury it…).117 Plutarch mentions exactly that which Cicero does not treat in his passage, namely, remains which had been cremated outside the city and then brought into the city. Still, this does not mean that the depositing of Trajan’s ashes in urbe violated the law. Plutarch states that this was something permitted to men who had enjoyed a triumph. In fact, Trajan could have expected to be buried in urbe as early as

103 C.E., after he celebrated his triumph over the Dacians and received the title of

Dacicus.118

The implications of these technicalities aside, Cicero’s main concern is the exact meaning of the verb sepelio. His attention to the words uro and sepelio indicate an awareness of the possible change in meaning of words over the course of four hundred years. It also reflects the fact that the meaning of many statutes of the XII Tables was quite obscure by the mid 1st century B.C.E. In fact, Cicero comments later in the texts that he and Quintus had memorized the XII Tables as boys, but that quas iam nemo discit

(no one learns them nowadays).119 Admittedly, this comment is probably better evidence

117 Plut. Quaest. Rom. 79. The similarities to Cic. Leg. 2.58 are apparent, but the use of the singular of ὀστέον has been puzzling to some. One suggestion posited by H.J. Rose (1924, 202) is that this passage is a reference to a custom whereby a member a dead body, usually a finger, is cut off and buried (membrum abscindere, os resectum) while the rest of the body is cremated and placed in a tomb. This was a relic of inhumation. To my knowledge this hypothesis has not been developed to any great degree. Although a future inquiry might be useful, it would be too large to be undertaken here. 118 Dio Cass. 68.10.2; Plin. Pan. 17.1. 119 Cic. Leg. 2.59.

35 for changes in the trends of boyhood educational exercises in late Republic and does not suggest that Cicero and his brother were the only ones who were familiar with them.

Nevertheless, problems of interpretation had always existed and in certain cases even the early interpreters non satis se intellegere dixerunt (said that they did not understand it sufficiently).120 Overall, Cicero does not present a clear enough explanation of the exact motives behind and stipulations of the law to prove that any consistent Roman attitude toward urban burial existed in the late Republic.

Cicero’s concern is with ancient matters and when asked about exceptions to the law he points to ancient examples. He relates that a sort of grandfather clause was adopted for the descendents of those who held the honor of burial in urbe before the enactment of the XII Tables, or that a concession was granted to certain men on account of their merit, virtutis causa. The Publicola Cicero refers to here is P. Valerius, who was consul in 509 B.C.E., or the first year of the Republic. He was granted burial on the

Velia, which was the site of his house. P. Postumius Tubertus, another early Republican figure, was Publicola’s colleague in the consulate in 505 B.C.E. His time of death and burial spot are unknown. Finally, the virtuous C. Fabricius was probably instrumental in

Rome’s war with Pyrrhus of Epirus.121 That Cicero uses these distinguished figures from early Republican times as examples does not necessarily mean that they were the only examples he could have drawn on or that the practice of granting this honor had been out of use for centuries. In discussing ancient subject matter, Cicero could very well be demonstrating his antiquarian knowledge by using early Republican figures. This

120 Cic. Leg. 2.59. 121 Dyck 2004, 401.

36 passage is not, therefore, an indicator of the frequency with which this honor was granted at any period in Roman history.

Cicero’s positioning of this passage within the overall framework of the De

Legibus might reveal more about the nature of this ancient prohibition of urban burial.

The passage cited above starts a discussion of other restrictions, which regulate and limit the expense and grandeur of funerary practices. These together make up the tenth table, which is divided into ten parts itself. Cicero claims that these restrictions are borrowed from the laws of the famous 6th century B.C.E. Athenian lawgiver, Solon. The Greek influence on these laws is apparent. For that reason, many have understood them as sumptuary law and have interpreted them as evidence of the Conflict of the Orders, an interpretation which has to a large degree been disproved by Mark Toher, who sees

Roman funerary and sumptuary law as related but separate and distinct parts.122

The location of this passage within the overall outline of the work leads to the question whether this prohibition on burial in the city was a matter of religious concern or whether the law existed for some other reason. The extant components of the De Legibus consist of a general introduction to law (Book I), laws on religious observance (Book II), and magistrates (Book III).123 The passage cited above occurs within the discussion concerned with religious observance.124 Yet, Cicero introduces this portion of the dialogue as a discussion on ius civile, which he separates from the ius pontificium with the phrase sed ea non tam ad religionem spectant quam ad ius sepulchrorum (but these do not so much concern religion as they concern the law of graves).125 Cicero makes

122 Toher (2005) provides a summary and comparison of Greek and Roman sumptuary law. 123 Dyck 2004, 28. 124 Dyck 2004, 20-8; Toher 2005, 272. 125 Visscher 1963, 146; Dyck 2004, 400.

37 clear to Atticus that the XII Tables forbade a body to be buried or burned within the city and he supposes that the prohibition on burning is because of fire. He does not, however, suggest an explanation for why burial is prohibited. The explanation he gives for the prohibition on the burning of bodies is utilitarian. His concern is fire, not religious pollution. Cicero later cites a fear of dangerous fire as the reason for a different statute of the tenth table, which protects private property by creating a sixty foot zone between a funeral mound or new pyre (rogum busumve novum) and another person’s building.126

This is not to argue, however, that death, burial, and graves were divorced from the realm or jurisdiction of religion. The entire preceding section of the book concerns religious laws on graves.127 Roman laws concerning burial must therefore be handled carefully when used as evidence, since death and burial falls into both religious and secular categories.

It should also be noted that not every statute of the XII Tables remained effective and unaltered. Description of several imperial funerals clearly contradicted at least one statute. For example, one statute of the tenth table regulates the use of gold in funerals: qua in lege cum esset: “Neve aurum addito,” videte quam humane excipiat altera lex:

“At cui auro dentes iuncti escunt, ast im cum illo sepeliet uretve, se fraude esto”

(whereby although it is in the law: “nor is he to add gold,” observe what exception another law courteously makes: “But he whose teeth are joined with gold, and if he buries or burns it with him, let it be without liability”).128 Any number of examples will prove that the emperors were not held to this portion of the legislation. Dio recounts that at

Augustus’ funeral κλίνη ἦν ἔκ τε ἐλέφαντος καὶ χρυσοῦ πεποιημένη καὶ

126 Cic. Leg. 2.61. 127 Cic. Leg. 2.55-7. 128 Cic. Leg. 2.60.

38 στρώμασιν ἁλουργοῖς διαχρύσοις κεκοσμημένη (there was a couch made of ivory and gold and adorned with coverings of purple and gold).129 Dio gives further evidence of this while describing the elaborate funeral pyre, on which the effigy of Pertinax was cremated: ἐπεσκεύαστο δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ πυρὰ πυργοειδὴς τρίβολος, ἐλέφαντι καὶ

χρυσῷ μετὰ ἀνδριάντων τινῶν κεκοσμημένη (There a pyre had been built in the form of a tower having three stories and adorned with ivory and gold as well as a number of statues).130 Finally, Herodian, when recounting the funeral of Septimius Severus, gives a similar description of an imperial funeral pyre: ἔξωθεν δὲ χρυσοϋφέσι

στρωμναῖς ἐλεφαντίνοις τε ἀγάλμασι γραφαῖς τε ποικίλαις κεκόσμηται

(outside it is decorated with gold-embroidered drapery, ivory carvings and a variety of paintings).131 Again, these examples are not to prove that Trajan could have presumed exemption from a law prohibiting burial in urbe, but they do clearly illustrate that imperial funerary practices were not necessarily bound by statutes of the XII Tables.

2.B) Dig. 47.12.3.5 All other interdictions of Roman law on burial in the city occur chronologically after the death and burial of Trajan. Nevertheless, they are often cited by scholars when discussing the cause of Trajan’s burial. They are also essential not only for understanding the Roman administrative stance on burial, that is whether it changed or remained static over time, but also for understanding the Roman concept of a city as it

129 Dio Cass. 56.34. 130 Dio Cass. 75.5. 131 Herodian 4.2.

39 grew from a relatively limited area of inhabitation during the 5th century B.C.E. to a sprawling metropolis of the 2nd and 3rd centuries C.E.

The first piece of legislation after Trajan’s death is a rescript of the Emperor

Hadrian, Trajan’s successor. This legislation was recorded by the jurist, Ulpian and survives in Justinian’s Digesta 47.12.3.5:

Diuus Hadrianus rescripto poenam statuit quadraginta aureorum in eos qui in civitate sepeliunt, quam fisco inferri iussit, et in magistratus eadem qui passi sunt, et locum publicari iussit et corpus transferri. quid tamen, si lex municipalis permittat in civitate sepeliri? post rescripta principalia an ab hoc discessum sit, videbimus, quia generalia sunt rescripta et oportet imperialia statuta suam vim optinere et in omni loco valere.132

The divine Hadrian by rescript established a punishment of forty aurei for those who make a burial in the city, which he has ordered to be paid to the fisc, and for magistrates who allow same (sc. burial in the city); he has ordered that the spot be expropriated and the body be moved. But, what if a municipal law permits burial in the city? We will see, after the principal rescripts, whether there has been a departure from this, since rescripts are universal and it is fitting that imperial legislation retain its own force and prevail everywhere.

Though the Digesta is the most comprehensive source for Roman law during the late

Republic and Imperial periods, several caveats need to be considered when using it as a source. The Digesta was compiled in the 6th century C.E. from writings of earlier Roman jurists.133 Though the compilers of the Digesta did not comment on the laws themselves, they had the power to cut down or alter the texts. As H.F. Jolowicz comments, these interpolations are “not marked in any way, so that the authors mentioned in the inscriptions of the fragments may be represented as saying what in fact they did not say.”134 The jurist, Ulpian, worked in the late 2nd-early 3rd century C.E. and was an

132 Dig. 47.12.3.5. 133 Jolowicz 1972, 481. 134 Jolowicz 1972, 486.

40 interpreter of the law himself. What exists in the Digesta of Hadrian’s rescript has, therefore, undergone at the least several stages of interpretation and alteration.

This source is important nevertheless in the discussion of legal restrictions on urban burial, especially as they relate to the emperor. It records that in a rescript, a response to a specific request or problem, Hadrian established a penalty of forty gold pieces for the burying of a body in the city.135 It is difficult to tell whether Hadrian was referring to any city in the empire or just to Rome with the words in civitate.136

According to the text, consideration was made for differences in municipal law, but this may be a result of later interpretation or alteration. It is likely that Hadrian was referring to any city in the Empire, since the nature of the rescript means that Hadrian was probably responding to an inquiry sent from a municipality or location other than Rome.

For Hadrian to impose a fine for this offence, especially a fine payable to the imperial treasury (fiscus), does suggest that it was a matter of imperial business.137 It is highly doubtful, however, that this law applied to any member of the imperial family, since Hadrian himself was responsible for Trajan’s funeral and, ultimately, for the entombment of his ashes in civitate.138 The establishment of a fine of considerable measure might also be interpreted as an effort to control an ever growing problem. But again, whether that problem existed in the city of Rome or elsewhere remains unknown.

135 Jolowicz 1972, 356-7, 369-70. The rescript was an important source in the development of the law during the Imperial period when a gradual consolidation of legislative powers into the hand of the emperor himself was occurring. A notable step in this process was the consolidation of the praetor’s edict, which occurred during the reign of Hadrian. 136 Presumably, the text would read in urbe, not in civitate, had Hadrian been referring to Rome. One must be careful, however, when using such a distinction. G. Cantino Wataghin (1999, 155) has pointed out that by late antiquity urbs and civitas can be seen to have very little difference in meaning, and has suggested that this blurring of meaning could have started long before the late antique period. See Appendix. 137 In Justinian’s Digesta, this legislation falls under the rubric ‘Violation of a Tomb,’ the fines for which were generally paid to the fisc. 138 The exemption for clari viri to which Cicero refers certainly deserves consideration in this case. This exemption, or honor, is problematic and there is no direct evidence that it was ‘formally’ given to Trajan. See chapter 3.

2.C) H.A. Ant. Pius 12.3 Hadrian’s successor, Antoninus Pius, made yet another interdiction, recorded in the Historia Augusta: intra urbes sepeliri mortuos vetuit (he forbade dead bodies to be buried in cities).139 The Historia Augusta is of great importance because it is the only

Latin source for the years 117-284 C.E., yet problems of authenticity, reliability, and authorship make it a problematic historical source.140 For example, Ronald Syme has addressed the problem of authorship, challenging view that the Historia Augusta, a collection of imperial biographies, was written by six different authors during the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine I; the problem of authorship continues.141

The problems of using the Historia Augusta for an historical source are many, yet it would be irresponsible to simply reject this citation as fiction. Though a verification of the above citation’s authenticity would merit a work of its own, the factual content of the earlier vitae, especially of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, is high and without a specific contradiction to this statement it should be accepted as factual.142 If Pius did indeed prohibit burial in cities, which he probably did, the question remains as to why it was necessary, since Hadrian, his predecessor, had recently promulgated a similar if not the same prohibition. The repeated reenactment of the same law could represent an attempt to reinforce a law that was continually being broken, or to close loopholes that were being exploited. It could also mean that Pius was simply stating his intention to follow

139 H.A. Ant. Pius 12.3. 140 Syme 1983, 12. 141 Den Hengst 2002, 187-95. 142 For the factual reliability of the early vitae see Barnes 1978, 38-48.

42 the same policies as his predecessor.143 The reference to Pius’ action in the Historia

Augusta is simply stated and unelaborated; it does not reveal the nature of this prohibition, whether it was an edict, decree, rescript, or mandate. It is impossible to determine exactly the historical meaning of this reenactment of the prohibition of urban burials. The plural use of urbes does make certain that the purview of the law, by the mid

2nd century C.E., extended beyond the city of Rome.

2.D) Paulus, Sent. 1.21.2-3 Finally, the Sententiae of Paulus provide two pieces of legislation against burial in a city. Paulus, Sent. 1.21.2 reads: Corpus in civitatem inferri non licet, ne funestentur sacra civitatis; et qui contra ea fecerit, extra ordinem punitur (It is not permitted to bring a dead body in the city, lest the sacred places/things of the city be polluted; and he who acted against this is punished beyond what is normal). The next passage, Paulus Sent.

1.21.3 reads: Intra muros civitatis corpus sepulturae dari non potest vel ustrina fieri (it is not possible for a body to be given to a grave or for an ustrina to be made within the walls of a city).144 Paul was a jurist writing in the late 2nd-early 3rd centuries C.E and his

Sententiae are a collection of opinions or statements on various laws, which were written, in part, for students. It is unlikely that Paul wrote the Sententiae as a book or gave it this title, and it is more likely that the work is a collection of his statements compiled during the reign of Diocletian.145

Though Paul’s writings carried authority and were important for the development of the law, his comments here do not represent new legislation but rather statements on

143 Robinson 1997, 121. 144 Paulus, Sent. 1.21.2-3. 145 Jolowicz 1972, 392, 457.

43 existing law. These two citations are short, but contain several pieces of information not found in other sources. Paul’s negative purpose clause in Sent. 1.21.2. is the only explanation given for the prohibition on urban burial. It is also the first occurrence of concerns of religious pollution, which is in contrast to Cicero’s more utilitarian explanations. As a jurist, it is probable that Paul would have been familiar with statements on the XII Tables. There is no proof that Paul’s comments on urban burial were influenced by Cicero, but their statements are similar and worthy of comparison.

Cicero gives a utilitarian explanation for the prohibition on cremation in the city, which is a fear of the danger of fire, but does not explain the prohibition on urban burial. Paul gives a religious explanation for prohibition on burial, which is so that the sacred places/things of the city are not polluted, but does not explain the prohibition on the making of ustrina. The two sources do not contradict each other, but matters of religious pollution are more of a concern to the jurist of the late 2nd-early 3rd centuries C.E.

Whether religious pollution from urban burial was a concern during Cicero’s period but just not expressed by him, or whether it was a later development of Paul’s period is difficult to determine.

3) Concluding Remarks on the “Relevant Statutes” Though “relevant legal statutes” on urban burial alone do not define Rome’s normative social structure, they are vital in establishing the legal and political atmosphere at the time of Trajan’s death. The nature of the sources, however, requires that these

“relevant statutes” be used carefully. The legal sanctions and the sources for them are chronologically dispersed and cover nearly all of Rome’s Republican and Imperial

44 periods, during which time numerous social, political, and legal changes and developments occurred. The sources clearly demonstrate a long established prohibition on urban burial, however, explanations of that prohibition are unclear, some involving secular concerns and others religious. It is also evident that sometime between the 1st century B.C.E. and 2nd century C.E. the prohibition was extended to all cities in the

Empire. Furthermore, a traditional “exception to the rule” is recorded by Cicero for certain men virtutis causa. Plutarch also mentions that the exception was granted to men who had celebrated a triumph, but this exception is not “formally” written into any of the later law codes. From the “relevant statutes” alone it is, therefore, unclear whether this exception retained any significance. Finally, Cicero’s statements and later comments by the jurist, Paul, indicate that the realms of civil and religious law overlapped in matters of burial. In piecing together different references to Roman law in order to interpret what the meaning of it was at any given time period, the modern historian is doing, essentially, the same thing the Roman jurists did. These sources record a consistent prohibition of urban burial, but taken together they also reflect a process of legal development, which at times revealed a degree of uncertainty. More importantly, very little in these sources can be used to evaluate what, if any, connection existed between the official Roman legal position and the evolving tradition of Imperial funerary practices during the 1st and 2nd centuries C.E.

45 Chapter Three: Trajan and the Ritual of Burial in Urbe So far, this discussion has focused mainly on Roman legal sources in an attempt to recreate the Roman legal attitude about urban burial during the late 1st-early 2nd centuries C.E. As demonstrated above, several Roman laws prohibited the burial of bodies in urbe, but taken together these laws do not present a clear picture of the 1st and

2nd centuries C.E. mainly because of the chronologically detached nature of their sources, among other problems. Besides the laws, several other sources exist that will help clarify

Roman attitudes toward urban burial in the 1st and 2nd centuries C.E. and illuminate the circumstances surrounding of the actual burial of Trajan, whom this discussion has largely ignored up until this point. These sources will show that Trajan’s burial within the city should not be interpreted as an anomaly, easily explained away by his unique funeral ceremony involving a posthumous triumph,146 but should rather be interpreted as part of an evolving and developing tradition of imperial funerals. In addition, Trajan’s strong posture as emperor, his political position, and carefully managed propaganda program ensured that he could easily have presumed with impunity the honor of burial in urbe and therefore certainly could have built his column to serve as his sepulcher.

As we have seen, Cicero records that there was a somewhat obscure exemption from the law prohibiting burial in urbe, an honor that was granted certain clari viri.147

Though no source states it explicitly, it must be assumed that Trajan, at some point, received this honor, since he was in fact buried in the city. This assumption, however obvious it might seem, should not go unexamined especially since so little about the honor is known. For example, it is unclear what the process was by which the honor of

146 Richard 1966. 147 Cic. Leg. 2.58. Plutarch (Quaest. Rom. 79) records a similar exemption, which is discussed in more detail below.

46 burial in urbe was granted; that is if a formal process can even be identified. Who or what body granted the honor (or denied it)? Could it be granted during the recipient’s lifetime? Were there, as most scholars assume, consequences for presuming it? If so, what were those consequences? These questions might be largely unanswerable, but a few problematic sources will shed some light on the picture.

The source that is perhaps the most revealing about the honor and ritual of burial in urbe in practice is Cassius Dio, who records that Julius Caesar was voted this honor by the senate: ἅμα τε ταῦτα ἐψηφίζοντο καὶ τάφον αὐτῷ ἐντὸς τοῦ πωμηρίου

ποιήσασθαι ἔδοσαν (and at the same time they voted him these honors they also gave him the right to put his tomb within the pomerium).148 The only source I am aware of that links burial and τὸ πωμήριον, this statement occurs within a larger passage in which

Dio records the numerous and excessive honors that Caesar at one time or another received. It would seem at first that a few fundamental facts could be taken from Dio’s passage. Firstly, the larger context of the passage makes it quite clear that the senate voted Caesar the honor, suggesting therefore that it was that body which was responsible for conferring this honor. Secondly, the honor was given to him while he was living, and although it is not stated explicitly whether he accepted the honor or not, it would be a reasonable inference to assume that he did, since the following lines in this passage state that the resolutions concerning this and other honors were inscribed in silver tablets and at the feet of Jupiter Capitolinus.149

148 Dio Cass. 44.7. According to Dio (44.51) Caesar was ultimately buried in the Julian monument located on the Campus Martius, the site of later numerous imperial burials. His body was, however, cremated in the forum, not according to plan. For a discussion of Caesar’s funeral see Weinstock 355, 364-7. 149 For a more detailed discussion on these lines of Dio’s passage see Gatti 1976-7, 71-82.

47 Before this passage can be used as sound evidence to reconstruct any sort of

“formal” process for the ritual of burial in urbe (especially as it applied to Trajan) several interpretive problems must be noted. Julius Caesar was an extraordinary figure operating with great influence during an extraordinary time. It would be fair to say that Caesar held a unique, changing, and somewhat undefined position within the Roman political and social framework during a turbulent time in Roman history, which constitutes an identifiable period of change between one form of government and another. Neither

Caesar nor this historical period can be used as models entirely representative of the preceding Republican period, in which many honors and traditions took form (including the honor of burial in urbe), or of the following Imperial period, in which the same honors and traditions were adopted, adapted, or abandoned.

The interpretive problems are further compounded when seemingly contradictory evidence from Plutarch is considered. In the Life of Publicola, Plutarch states that after he died the triumphant general Publicola was buried within the city (ἐντὸς ἄστεος) by a vote of the citizens (τῶν πολιτῶν ψηφισμένων).150 That Publicola did not receive this honor until after his death is inconsistent with Dio’s remarks about Caesar, who was voted the honor while still alive. Another inconsistency is Plutarch’s use here of

πολιτῶν, which suggests that it was the people, not the senate, who were responsible for granting the honor of burial in urbe. If Plutarch were referring to the senate he would have used βουλή, not πολίτης. It should be remembered, however, that Publicola was consul in 509 B.C.E. and much about the senate, its duties, and responsibilities at that time is unknown. Determining which of these sources is “correct” would be difficult, if

150 Plut. Publ. 23.2-3.

48 not impossible, and that is probably the wrong line of questioning to take. But different attempts at interpretation can be equally troublesome. For example, one possible explanation for the inconsistency of these sources is that originally the honor of burial in urbe was granted to its recipient by the larger citizen body, perhaps the plebian assembly, but that the senate took over this function sometime during the mid-republic. This sort of hypothesis is problematic too. The mere lack of evidence makes it again impossible to prove with any certainty. The hypothesis also does not take into consideration that in one case the honor was granted while the recipient was still living, while in the other case it was granted postmortem. It is more likely that the inconsistency of these sources is representative of the unsystematic nature of the ritual of burial in urbe, which is by no means fully understood by modern scholars and was probably vague to the majority of

Romans, including historians. The only undisputable conclusion from these sources is that the honor of burial in urbe was granted; that is, the recipient did not claim the honor for himself. With so little certainty to work with it will be necessary to proceed under an assumption. For the simple and unqualified reason that the event of Caesar, recorded by

Dio, is chronologically nearer to Trajan, it will hereafter be assumed, for the sake of argument and interpretation, that the senate was the body which granted Trajan the honor of burial in urbe.

The events following Trajan’s death give some insight into the problem. What exact honors Trajan received after his death and the ceremonies in which these honors were celebrated are unclear. Two sources provide some idea as to these events. The

H.A., Life of Hadrian, 6 is one source:

Traiano divinos honores datis ad senatum et quidem accuratissimis litteris postulavit et cunctis volentibus meruit, ita ut senatus multa, quae Hadrianus non

49 postulaverat, in honorem Traiani sponte decerneret…cum triumphum ei senatus, qui Traiano debitus erat, detulisset, recusavit ipse atque imaginem Traiani curru triumphali vexit, ut optimus imperator ne post mortem quidem triumphi amitteret dignitatem.151

With a carefully composed letter sent to the senate he insisted on divine honors for Trajan and obtained them by unanimous vote; indeed, on their own accord the senate voted in honor of Trajan many things, which Hadrian had not asked for… when the senate granted a triumph to him [Hadrian], the triumph which ought to have been Trajan’s, he refused it for himself, and carried an effigy of Trajan in the triumphal chariot, in order that the best emperor might not, even after death, lose the honor of a triumph.

The important point here is that the senate offered voluntarily many more unspecified honors than the divine honors which Hadrian had requested. This source offers the possibility that the senate voted Trajan the honor of burial in urbe posthumously, but again this is never stated specifically. Therefore, one should be careful in accepting that this is when the honor of burial in urbe was granted, especially since there was at least one other opportunity in which Trajan could have received the honor from the senate.

Dio records that after capturing Ctesiphon in 116 C.E. and having reached the Erythraean

Sea, Trajan was given the right to celebrate a triumph for as many nations as he liked, and “other honors” (ἄλλα τε). If the honor of burial in urbe was among these “other honors,” which again are not specified, then Trajan would have received it, like Julius

Caesar, while he was still alive.

This passage from the Life of Hadrian provides another piece of information important for recreating the appearance of Trajan’s funeral. It records that the senate offered Hadrian the triumph over the Parthians that would have been Trajan’s, but the new emperor refused and demanded that an effigy of Trajan be displayed in the procession instead.

151 H.A. Hadrian, 6.

50 The Epit. de Caes. 13.11 contains a similar description of the procession:

Huius exusti corporis cineres relati Romam humatique Traiani foro sub eius columna, et imago superposita, sicut triumphantes solent, in Urbem invecta senatu praeeunte et exercitu.152

The ashes of his cremated body were brought to Rome and buried in the Forum of Trajan under his column, and an effigy having been put on top, just as is customary for those celebrating a triumph, was carried into the city with the senate and the army leading the procession.153

This passage describes the funeral ceremony, but does it also describe Trajan’s posthumous triumph? J.-C. Richard puts great stress on the event following Trajan’s death and, pointing out the similarities between the traditional triumphal processions and funeral processions, argues that Trajan’s funeral procession, apotheosis, and posthumous triumph were all combined into one ceremony.154 The triumphal procession then legitimized Trajan’s burial within the city. This hypothesis has enjoyed considerable support, but has been challenged in part by W. den Boer, who argues that Trajan’s triumph and consecration were separate.155 If Richard is correct in combining the funeral ceremony and posthumous triumph, which on the whole he seems to be, that means

Trajan’s burial represents a major, but perhaps only one time, innovation to the traditional forms of imperial funeral procession and apotheosis.

152 Epit. de Caes. 13.11. 153 There has been some disagreement about the effigy. This certainly cannot refer to the colossal bronze statue that stood on top of the column, which was too large to have been carried in the procession in a triumphal chariot. Furthermore, numismatic evidence (for a discussion of the ‘statue-coins’ see Lepper and Frere 1988, 194) depicts the column with its statue as early as 111 C.E. The statue would not have been taken down, used in the procession, and then put back on top of the column. Several different interpretations might be considered. The author could simply be wrong in what he is describing, which is a possibility considering that the Epit. de Caes. is hardly an infallible historical source. This could also very likely refer to a waxen image similar to that used in the funeral of Pertinax, described by Dio (75.4-5). See also Den Boer, 1975. 154 Richard 1966. 155 Den Boer 1975.

51 I disagree, however, that a triumphal procession was needed to legitimize the depositing of Trajan’s ashes under his column. Technically speaking, Trajan had been perfectly “eligible” to receive the honor long before he died, even before his column was built. As discussed already in chapter 2, a specific passage from Plutarch’s Questiones

Romanae implies that it was permitted to carry into the city and deposit the remains of a man who had celebrated a triumph, died and been cremated.156 Therefore, Trajan technically could have expected an urban burial as early as 103 C.E., when he celebrated his triumph over the Dacians.157 Furthermore, it is recorded in no source that a posthumous triumph was required for someone to receive this honor, so there is no reason to assume that Trajan’s posthumous triumph was necessary just because it occurred.

Finally, it is important not to project events occurring after Trajan’s death on those that took place while he was alive. Whatever form his funeral ceremony took had absolutely no bearing on how, or for what purpose he built his column. The preparations he made while he was living, on the other hand, could have influenced the ceremonial events that took place after his death.

These sources have provided some insight into the events following Trajan’s death. Unfortunately, the sources do not present a clear picture of how the ritual of burial in urbe might have worked in Trajan’s situation, but render several different possible scenarios. Trajan’s funeral ceremony and posthumous triumph were probably combined into one ceremony, but this does not mean that the posthumous triumph was necessary for his burial in urbe. It is equally likely that Trajan received the honor while he was still living as it is that he received it after he had died. If the senate was the body which was

156 Plut. Quest. Rom. 79. 157 Dio Cass. 68.10.2; Plin. Pan. 17.1.

52 responsible for granting the honor they would have also had the power to deny it. If

Trajan had presumed himself to merit this honor before it was granted by building his column to serve as his sepulcher inside the city, then the senate would have been the body to dictate and carry out any sort of consequences there might have been.

One possible consequence has been provided by the example of Caesar. Burial in urbe was one of a number of honors received by Caesar that resulted in a great deal of ill will among the senatorial class and ultimately led to his assassination.158 One must realize, however, that it was not this honor alone that resulted in Caesar’s death, but the collection of extraordinary honors, some of which were divine or semi-divine (e.g. the senators addressed him as Jupiter Julius, ordered a temple consecrated to him and his

Clemency, and elected Antony as priest) and others of which were outright ridiculous

(e.g. a proposal that Caesar be allowed to have intercourse with as many women as he wanted). Dio also makes it clear that the most damning were not the honors themselves, but that Caesar seemed to enjoy them and acted more arrogantly because of them.159 It is also necessary to draw a distinction between the senatorial body during Caesar’s day and the senatorial body during Trajan’s, and to draw a distinction between their relationships with that body respectively. By the end of the Julio-Claudian period the greater part of the Republican senatorial families had died out.160 This drop in numbers lead to the recruitment of members from the lower social classes and from the provinces, and a rise

158 Dio Cass. 44.3. It should be noted that although this was (according to Dio) one of many honors that led to Caesar’s assassination, his body was in fact cremated in the forum, on which spot the people erected an altar and column to him. This altar and column is discussed in more detail below in chapter 4, 64-66. 159 Dio Cass. 44.3; 44.7. 160 Talbert 1984, 37. This decreasing trend in numbers is probably due to a combination of different factors: an inability of aristocratic families to perpetuate themselves, execution or death on active service, and financial burdens are reasons which have been proposed. See Hammond 1957, 74-9; Hopkins 1983, 120-98; Talbert, 1984, 30.

53 in the number of provincial senators can in fact be identified under Trajan.161 Not only must the change in the senatorial makeup have altered the sentiments of that body, but many out of its ranks must have felt a personal loyalty towards Trajan, who enjoyed

“uninhibited regulation of its membership.”162 Commenting on this issue, Talbert states that because of “their debt to the emperor, they were liable never to consider adopting an independent approach to an issue, but merely to approve the wishes of the Princeps without question.”163

Julius Caesar’s assassination should not, therefore, be used as evidence to claim that Trajan would have suffered any sort of consequences had he presumed himself to merit the honor of burial in urbe by building his column as his sepulcher. Finally, it is important to remember that the honor of burial in urbe was a remnant from the Republic, in existence long before there was even a concept of an emperor. Like other republican honors, traditions, and political functions, this honor must have been adapted to the imperial system.

A fuller treatment of Plutarch’s Quaestiones Romanae 79, cited in part above, might give us an idea of what the honor of burial in urbe entailed and how it was perceived during the Imperial era.164 Plutarch lived and wrote in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries C.E. and was a contemporary of Trajan. Born in Chaeronea, he wrote in his native Greek language and provides evidence for Roman customs from an outsider’s point of view. The Quaestiones Romanae are, as the title suggests, a collection of just

161 Hammond 1957, 74-9. For a detailed study of provincial senators especially from eastern provinces see Rémy 1988. For the most recent discussions about prosopography of the Roman senate see Eck and Heil 2005. 162 Waters 1969, 392. 163 Talbert 1984, 33. 164 Plut. Quaest. Rom. 79. See also Plut. Publ. 23.3.

54 under three hundred questions mostly dealing with antiquarian religious matters of

Roman history. The work is set up such that Plutarch first posits a question and then follows by attempting an answer, or at least expounding on the question. In his 79th question, Plutarch asks why it was permitted to bury in the city (τὴν πόλιν) the remains of someone who had celebrated a triumph, died, and been cremated. Again, the passage is very similar to Cicero Leg. 2.58, and Plutarch’s attempt to answer his own question reveals that Cicero was probably one of his sources. Plutarch thinks that this might be to show honor to the dead and explains that it was received not only by triumphators but also by other noble men. Citing the examples of Valerius and Fabricius, the very same antiquarian examples cited by Cicero, he notes that the honor was passed to the descendents of these men.165 What is important about this passage is that Plutarch explains the manner in which these descendents celebrated the honor of burial in urbe, which had been passed down to them by their ancestors. According to hearsay evidence

(φασι), after having died the bodies of these descendants were carried to the forum. A lighted torch was then passed quickly under the body without igniting it. Thus,

χρωμένων ἀνεπιφθόνως τῇ τιμῇ καὶ τὸ ἐξεῖναι μόνον ἐκβεβαιουμένων (they make use of the honor without provoking envy, and only confirm that it is their right).166

If, as Plutarch reports, the very celebration of this honor, which had been held by these descendants for generations, was enough to cause envy, how could Trajan have openly anticipated this ancient honor for himself by erecting a 100 foot column in his forum that was to serve as his tomb without creating the same envy himself? The purpose of the

165 Dyck (2004, 401-2) warns that Plutarch’s statement that this honor applied to descendants of Valerius and Fabricius may be a misreading of Cic. Leg. 2.58. Dyck thinks Cicero regards this case as an ad hominem honor for Fabricius, not one inherited by his family. 166 Plut. Quest. Rom. 79.

55 following discussion will not be to dispute the validity of Plutarch’s statements, but to argue that they do not apply to Trajan. There is no reason not to believe that an ostentatious celebration of this honor by certain members of the elite could have provoked an envious sentiment among other members of their own rank. But, Trajan (the imperial family included) was not a member of the aristocratic elite, even though he might have presented himself primus inter pares. Trajan was the emperor. It is my argument that the envy or jealousy that Plutarch mentions is the product of a competing aristocracy, of which Trajan was not a part.

According to Plutarch, the potential for envy stemming from the honor of burial in urbe would have resulted from the actual carrying out of the honor –there is no mention of whether a presumption of this honor would have caused the same envy– and the honor had therefore been reduced to a symbolic act in the cases of those whose ancestral privilege it was. Trajan’s cremated remains were deposited in urbe, and the ceremony was carried out with great pomp, yet the sources provide no mention that it created any envy. If Trajan’s presumption of receiving this honor would have caused the slightest misgiving, there is no mention of that in the sources either. In fact, a review of

Dio’s comments on the column will reveal a conspicuous absence of this envy. Here Dio states quite clearly that Trajan built his column for the purpose of serving as his sepulcher:

καὶ ἔστησεν ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ καὶ κίονα μέγιστον, ἅμα μὲν ἐς ταφὴν ἑαυτῷ, ἅμα δὲ ἐς ἐπίδειξιν τοῦ κατὰ τὴν ἀγορὰν ἔργου.167

And he set up in the forum a huge column, to serve as his tomb and at the same time to be an indicator of the work throughout the forum.

167 Dio Cass. 68.16.3.

56 According to Dio’s sentence, one of the purposes for which Trajan built his column was to serve as his tomb (ταφὴν). Although the sentence is not constructed with the strongest possible purpose clause, the use of ἐς in this scenario definitely carries a sense of purpose.168 Dio is not saying here that Trajan built a huge column in the forum, which later happened to serve as his tomb, he is saying that Trajan built this column with a twofold (ἅμα μὲν…ἅμα δὲ) purpose: so that it would at one and the same time be his tomb (ταφὴν) and indicate the work throughout the forum.

Dio’s comments are more meaningful when we consider who he was and the political position in which he wrote. Dio lived in the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries C.E. and was of a wealthy Greek family from Nicaea in Bithynia, whose links to Roman society dated back probably to the 1st century C.E.169 After moving from Bithynia to

Rome, Dio, like his father, became a Roman senator, holding the consulship twice.170

Though he lived several generations after Trajan, Dio, a provincial Greek, is representative of the new senatorial composition discussed above. It is safe to assume that Dio, a Roman senator of consular rank, was fully aware of Roman custom. If the honor of burial in urbe held such significance during the Imperial period that the presumption of it would have caused a negative reaction, it is hard to imagine that Dio would fail to mention that significance, especially when he specifically states that Trajan built his column for the purpose of serving as his tomb.

That Trajan’s presumption of burial in urbe is unremarkable to Dio should not be surprising, since the emperor and the imperial family, certainly by Trajan’s period, held a

168 LSJ, pp. 491-2, s.v. εἰς V.2. 169 Miller 1964, 185-9. 170 He was suffect consul in 204 C.E. and ordinary consul in 229. The date of his suffect consulship is disputed. See Miller 1964, 204-7.

57 position in Roman society above and far divorced from the rest of the Roman aristocracy.

Firstly, this distinction can be seen in realm of funerary and burial practices, especially for those who enjoyed apotheosis. True, the funeral ceremonies for deified emperors were based in part on the traditional noble funeral, but the grandeur with which these were carried out emphasized the distinction not only of the deceased but also of his successor.171 Furthermore, burial in the Campus Martius, an honor in itself that had been given to Sulla and a few other notable figures during the Republic, was in the Imperial period strictly reserved for members of the imperial family.172 Secondly, Trajan, not unlike other emperors, was distinguished by various honors and titles. Most notably,

Trajan was unofficially given the appellation Optimus, which was usually reserved for

Jupiter and carried with it a god-like association, and which he later took it on as part of his official nomenclature.173 Divinely appointed by this same supreme god, Trajan was often portrayed as semi-divine.174 On numerous occasions in the Panegyricus, Pliny’s rhetorical flair emphasizes Trajan’s divine nature, putting him on par with the gods.175

Admittedly, the Panegyricus should be read as nothing more than a sycophantic adulation of the Emperor by a faithful and loyal partisan.176 Nevertheless, at least a version of this work was delivered before the senate by Pliny in thanks for his consulship in 100 C.E.177

171 Price (1987) notes especially the splendor of the funerals of Augustus (Dio Cass. 56.34.), Pertinax (Dio Cass. 75.5.) and Septimius Severus (Herodian, 4.2.). 172 Price 1987, 68. For the significance of burial in the Campus Martius see Strabo 5.3.8; Dio Cass. 39.64. For Sulla see Plut. Sulla 38; Appian Bella civilia 1.106. Weinstock (1971, 349-50) notes that Lucullus was buried there in 56, and Iulia, Caesar’s daughter, was buried in the Campus Martius in 54 B.C.E. 173 Dio Cass. 68.23.1. See Bennett 1997, 106, 195. 174 Plin. Pan. 1.3-5. 175 Plin. Pan. 1.3; 2.7; 26.4; 35.4; 80.5. 176 P.A. Roche (2002) argues that the Panegyricus adheres strictly to Trajan’s “official” public image, which presents Trajan as exercising benevolent direction not just over the senate and people but also over his family. This is not the only reading of the Panegyricus. See Schowalter 1993. 177 The published version of the Panegyricus was longer than the original speech to the senate. Its date of publication is disputed, but should lye somewhere between 101-103 C.E. See Schowalter 1993, 6-9.

58 This image of Trajan had been a public and seemingly accepted one from the early stages of his reign.

Further setting the emperor and the imperial family apart was apotheosis. Trajan secured the deification of his adoptive father Nerva soon after the latter’s death in 98

C.E., thus making himself the son of a god and strengthening his position as emperor.178

In 112 C.E. Trajan’s recently deceased sister Marciana was deified.179 Sometime before

114 C.E., Trajan’s biological father was also made a god, which gave Trajan the distinction of being the only princeps with two deified fathers.180 With members of his own family deified and a tradition of deification for emperors who had not committed outright atrocities during their reign already in place, Trajan could have expected his own apotheosis. The idea of Trajan’s eventual apotheosis is presented no more clearly than, again, in Pliny’s Panegyricus.181 For Pliny to predict Trajan’s divine destiny is not extraordinary and it was common for poets and prose writers to predict that rulers would return to the heavens whence they came.182 The commonality of this motif, however, strengthens the idea of the emperor’s distinction from the rest of the population, aristocratic or otherwise.

The actual ceremony also highlights the dominance of the imperial position in relation to the declining power of the senate. In the 2nd century the decree of the senate granting divine honors to the deceased emperor became nothing more than a political

178 Epit de Caes.. 12.12; Pliny Pan. 10.5; 11.1-3; Eutr. 8.1. See Bennett, 1997, 50. 179 Fasti Ostienses, 22, in Smallwood 1966, 32; Vidmen 1982, 48, Pl. 13. See also BMCRE 647-55, vol. 3. 180 BMCRE 498, vol. 3. There is dispute over the date of the death of Traianus pater and therefore uncertainty about the date of his deification. Numismatic evidence from between 112-114 C.E. shows that he was eventually elevated to the status of divus. See Waters 1975, 395; Bennett, 1997, 19. 181 Plin. Pan. 26.4; 55. 182 Gradel 2002, 266-71.

59 formality.183 Simon Price argues that the role of the senate as an important functionary body in the imperial funerary ceremony diminished while the importance of the funeral pyre itself in that ceremony increased. Also, the funeral pyre became a more distinct imperial symbol as the norm in Roman burial practices changed in the 2nd and 3rd centuries from cremation to inhumation. Price has also demonstrated that whereas in the

1st century a decree of the senate recognizing the deceased emperor as divus occurred after the funeral and after a witness had confirmed he had seen the emperor ascend to heaven, as early as the 2nd century that vote of the senate came before the funeral and the testimony of the witness, making the senate’s vote nothing more than a rubber stamp.184

The regularity and pre-prescribed nature of apotheosis can draw different interpretations. Ittai Gradel has pointed out that “After Tiberius, all emperors who left behind an heir, and all empresses who predeceased their august husband, received state deification.”185 From this Gradel makes the interpretation that in time the honor of divus was devalued by the frequency with which it was given.186 This could be true, but since no one other than those of the imperial family received divine honors the regularity of apotheosis could also reflect and emphasize the distinction of the imperial position.

I have argued that the emperor and the imperial family held a social position above and distinct from the Roman aristocracy and have deemphasized the power of the senate. It must be admitted at this point that the senate was not an entirely toothless body and it could dictate the ultimate fate of an emperor. This power is most aptly evidenced

183 Price 1987, 92. 184 Price 1987, 91-4. The role of the witness in the imperial funeral has drawn some attention, as has the role of the eagle, which the witness would claim to have seen ascending to heaven. For discussion of the witness and eagle see Gradel 2002, 291-5; 295-7. 185 Gradel 2002, 287. 186 Gradel 2002, 287-8.

60 by the example of Domitian, who was damned from the public record for his despotic behavior as emperor.187 Even though, as K.H. Waters has convincingly argued, many of

Trajan’s policies followed closely those of Domitian, Trajan presented a public image of himself that was entirely different.188 The contrast between these two emperors is highlighted in the poet Martial, who makes a point of condemning Domitian for the use of the appellation dominum deumque.189 Pliny too compares the era of freedom for the liberal arts under Trajan to the oppressive regime of Domitian.190 As Julian Bennett points out, “Trajan publicly maintained a studious respect for the dignity of the senate, choosing to exercise his influence through measured prerogative rather than authoritarian dictum.”191 This is evidenced in part by the fact that he only held the consulship four times during his reign.192 He also, unlike other more tyrannical predecessors, honored his oath not to execute or disenfranchise any senator.193

It is true that the senate could, on occasion, exercise the power to damn an emperor from the public record, but I do not think it could have done so in the case of an emperor like Trajan. If the senate did not honor Trajan with apotheosis, an emperor whose civilitas towards them had been hailed, then they could not expect the same civilitas from his successor. Trajan’s public image and good relation with the senate therefore ensured he would be granted divine honors or other honors that he might expect

187 An example of this can be seen on a monument from Puteoli, from which an inscription honoring Domitian has been completely removed. For a discussion of this monument see Flower 2001, 625-48. 188 K.H. Waters 1969, 385-7. See also Bennett, 1997, 208-13. 189 Martial 10.72. Martial had curried the favor of Domitian and had actually referred to the emperor by this appellation while he was alive (Martial, 5.8.1). The poet apparently changed his opinions to fit the mold of the new regime. 190 Plin. Pan. 2.3. Even Trajan’s decision to make his traveling expenses public drew attention from Pliny (Pan. 20.5), who contrasts this the domineering style of travel practiced by Domitian. 191 Bennett 1997, 107. 192 Bennett 1997, 107. 193 Dio Cass. 68.5.2. See Bennett 1997, 108. In addition, programs like the congiaria and the alimenta, though not entirely his own innovations, added to Trajan’s public image as a beneficent and generous emperor and stressed the abundance and security of the age. See Roche 2006, 199-229.

61 after his death. It is, in conclusion, highly doubtful that the presumption of a burial in urbe could have alone been enough to blacken Trajan’s public image as Optimus

Princeps.

62 Chapter Four: Architectural Precedent and Influence There is no doubt that certain elements of Trajan’s funeral and the circumstances of his burial were innovative and in some ways unique to Roman funerary and burial custom. For example, the combination of a posthumous triumph with the funeral procession and ceremony seems to have been a novel and onetime occurrence.194

Trajan’s burial within the pedestal of his column represents another innovation in imperial burial practice, which was not copied by his any of his successors. Though

Trajan’s burial was in some ways unique, it was not entirely without precedent.

Firstly, the column as a monument with funerary associations was long attested.195 An example of this will be seen in the problematic case of Julius Caesar, who posthumously received a column and an altar built on the site of his funeral pyre.

Secondly, it has often been claimed that Trajan’s burial in urbe was an anomaly within the context of imperial burials. This view is supported by and due in part to the testimony of Eutropius, who claimed that Trajan solus omnium intra urbem sepultus est. ossa conlata in urnam auream in foro, quod aedificavit, sub columna posita sunt (had been the only one out of all buried in the city. His bones having been brought together in a golden urn to the forum, which he built, were placed under his column).196 As will be shown there is reason to doubt the validity of Eutropius’ statement and reason to believe that Trajan was not the first imperial figure to be buried in urbe. Finally, though monuments built by Trajan’s successors cannot be used to evaluate Trajan’s Column or

194 That is, if J.-C. Richard (1966c) was correct in combining these two ceremonies. See chapter 3, 51. 195 Davies (2000, 32) has pointed out that columns had long been used in a burial context in Greece and Italy, and had demonstrated a connection between the column base and Roman funerary altars, which share similarities in architectural design and iconography. Coarelli (2000, 21, 25) agrees. See chapter 1, 19. 196 Eutr. 8.5.2.

63 determine the reasons for which he might have built it, the columns of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius will demonstrate the architectural influence of Trajan’s Column and confirm its funerary association.

1) The Column of Julius Caesar It has been recorded by numerous sources that a column and altar were built for

Julius Caesar some time after his funeral. This column and altar stood in the Forum on the site of his funeral pyre. The problems with using Julius Caesar as a reliable example for establishing any sort of precedent have already been discussed.197 Uncertainties surrounding the construction and the physical nature of these monuments dedicated to

Julius Caesar further complicate any interpretation and undermine monuments’ reliability as examples of historical precedent. Nevertheless, Caesar’s Column should not be ignored, since it can provide valuable information about the column as a funerary monument.

It should be noted that the location of Caesar’s funeral pyre in the Forum (and therefore the location of his column on that same spot in the forum) was not planned. As discussed in the previous chapter, Caesar had been granted the right of a burial in the city while he was still alive.198 In the end, this was not observed. According to Suetonius’ description of Caesar’s funeral, the plan was for Caesar’s body to be carried from the

Forum to the Campus Martius.199 It was to be cremated there on a pyre prepared next to his daughter Julia’s tomb, where he was to be buried too. During the funeral ceremony the people took matters into their own hands, erected a pyre in the Forum and cremated

197 See chapter 3, 48. 198 See chapter 3, 47. 199 Suet. Caes. 84. See Weinstock 1971, 355.

64 him there.200 Ultimately, his cremated remains found a final resting place in the Julian tomb on the Campus Martius.201

Sometime after Caesar’s death a cult was established at the site of his pyre and a series of funeral monuments were set up, torn down and then rebuilt. The circumstances surrounding these monuments and the form they originally took are unclear. Stefan

Weinstock has proposed a probable course of events.202 After the funeral, an altar was built that was never used and quickly destroyed by the consul Dolabella. Following this, it was probably Octavian who set up the column, which was later perhaps replaced by an official altar after Caesar’s consecration. Whether or not we accept Weinstock’s proposal, the tearing down of this monument has resulted in at least one questionable interpretation. Bernard Frischer has attributed Dollabela’s destruction of the monument to resentment of Caesar’s earlier receipt from the senate of the honor of a burial in the city.203 A far more reasonable interpretation, in my opinion, would be to attribute the destruction of the monument to partisan fighting during a period of political chaos. For example, Weinstock has pointed out that the destruction of this monument occurred “at the time when Caesar’s statues were removed from their pedestals and broken up, to the great annoyance of his followers.”204

Problematic events after Caesar’s funeral aside, it is clear that a column at one time stood on the location of Caesar’s funeral pyre. Suetonius has described it as a solid column nearly twenty feet high made of Numidian marble with the inscription parenti

200 Suet. Caes. 84. See Weinstock 1971, 355. 201 Dio Cass. 44. 51.1. See PA, p. 542, s.v. Tumulus Iuliae; Weinstock 1971, 355. 202 Weinstock 1971, 355. 203 Frischer 1983, 69. 204 Weinstock 1971, 356.

65 patriae.205 Whether the column carried a statue of Caesar on top is not known, and there is no good evidence to suggest that there was. Caesar’s Column was itself not an architectural innovation, as columns had been used for centuries to honor gods and distinguished men.206 Among other Republican examples, Weinstock points to L.

Minucius Augurinus, the praefectus annonae of 439 B.C.E. who received a column with a statue at the Porta Trigemina.207 It is highly doubtful that Trajan, in building his column, was influenced in any way by Caesar’s Column, but this example does help explain the column as a monument with funerary associations.

2) The Temple of the Flavian Gens The location of Trajan’s Column in urbe has led many scholars to believe that

Trajan could not have built his column for the purpose of serving as his sepulcher. To strengthen this opinion it is generally cited that, according to Eutropius, no emperor before or after Trajan received a burial in urbe.208 This view is not without opposition.

The dissenting opinions have drawn attention to the burials of the Flavian emperors and have focused on the location of the Temple of the Flavian Gens, which held the cremated remains of Domitian, his niece Julia, and quite possibly the remains of Domitian’s father,

Vespasian, and his brother, Titus.

Suetonius has recorded that after Domitian’s assassination, his nurse Phyllis cremated his body at her suburban estate.209 She then secretly brought his ashes to the

Temple of the Flavian Gens and mixed them with the ashes of Julia, the daughter of

205 Suet. Caes. 85. 206 Weinstock 1971, 365. 207 Weinstock 1971, 293-96, 365. 208 Eutr. 8.5.2. 209 Suet. Dom. 17.

66 Domitian’s brother and late emperor, Titus. Many hold that the ashes of Vespasian and

Titus were also transferred to the Temple of the Flavian Gens, which was intended as a family mausoleum.210

Since the Temple of the Flavian Gens was not built until Domitian’s reign, the remains of Vespasian and Titus must have initially been placed elsewhere.211 Due to a lack of evidence, these locations are problematic. A fragmentary inscription found in the vicinity of the Mausoleum of Augustus that contains only the word Vespasiani has led some to believe that Vespasian was first buried there.212 It is, however, doubtful that the inscription refers to the emperor, and it is more likely that it refers to son or wife of

Flavius Clemens.213 There is even less evidence for the burial of Titus and several different hypotheses for his burial have been offered. Karl Lehmann-Hartleben once proposed that the Arch of Titus had been constructed by Domitian as a tomb for his deceased brother.214 The central bay of the arch, which includes two famous relief panels depicting the triumph celebrated for the Jewish war, has at the apex of its vault a scene portraying Titus ascending to heaven on the wings of an eagle. Lehmann-Hartleben’s suggestion was that the urn was placed in the attic above this apotheosis scene, behind the inscription, which dedicated the monument to Divo Tito.215 The arch’s location on the

Velian hill puts it indisputably inside the city, and if Lehmann-Hertleben’s suggestion

210 Mart. 9.34.7; Stat. Silv. 4.3.18-19; 5.1.240-41. See Hirschfeld 1886, 1158-59; PA, p. 247, s.v. Gens Flavia, Templum; Richard 1978, 1131-32; Anderson 1983, 93-105; LTUR, pp. 368-69, s.v. Gens Flavia, Templum (F. Coarelli); NTDAR, p. 181, s.v. Gens Flavia, Templum; Arch 1988, 78-80; Gazda and Haeckl 1996, 20-21; Davies 2000, 24. 211 Suet. Dom. 1. The temple was not completed until sometime between 89 and 96 C.E. For estimates on the temple’s completion see Davies 2000, 185 n. 40. 212 CIL 6.893. 213 PA, p. 334, s.v. Mausoleum Augusti; Arce 1988, 78. 214 Lehmann-Hartelben 1934, 89-122. 215 Lehmann-Hartelben 1934, 109-111. The dedicatory inscription (CIL 6.945; ILS 265) to a deified Titus proves that the arch was erected and dedicated after Titus’ death. This arch would not have been solely a victory monument for the Jewish war, since the other Arch of Titus located by the Circus Maximus already fulfilled that function.

67 were correct it would mean that Titus received a burial in urbe. But as Davies correctly points out, there is very little evidence to support this theory and therefore very few scholars have supported it.216 Davies prefers to interpret the arch as “a commemorative monument occasioned by his death.”217 Javiar Arce has posited a different suggestion.

According to Suetonius, Titus died in the same house that his father, Vespasian, died in, which was located in the rural area near Reate.218 Arce has therefore proposed that the ashes of both Titus and Vespasian were held at this house before being transferred to the

Temple of the Flavian Gens.219 This is an ingenious hypothesis, but like Lehmann-

Hartleben’s proposal, it is totally unsupported. Unfortunately, unless new evidence is discovered, the initial burial location of Vespasian and Titus remains unknown. That

Vespasian’s and Titus’ ashes were later transferred to the Temple of the Flavian Gens remains, in fact, hypothetical. This has, however, enjoyed considerable scholarly support. The fact that Julia’s ashes were housed there and that Statius calls it a genti patriae futura semper…limina (eternal dwelling for the family of his father) makes the notion that the temple served as a family mausoleum more credible.220

The Temple of the Flavian Gens is non-extant and no part of it has ever been found. Therefore little is known about its form and appearance.221 Its location is better documented. Both Martial and Suetonius have recorded that Domitian built this temple

216 Davies 2000, 23. See also Arce 1988, 80-2. The theory is not totally rejected by Richard 1966c, 355; 1978, 1123. 217 Davies 2000, 23. 218 Suet, Tit. 11; Vesp. 24. 219 Arce 1988, 78, 80-82. 220 Stat. Silv. 4.3.18-19. 221 One reconstruction of the temple based on numismatic evidence posits that it might have been a three- tiered structure, the third tier of which was comprised of a decastyle façade. For a discussion of the different proposed reconstructions see Gazda and Haeckl 1996, 19-20.

68 on the site of the house in which he was born.222 It has been established that this was located on the Quirinal Hill, south of the Alta Semita, a location which falls in region VI of the Regiones Quattuordecim made by Augustus.223 This position would clearly put the

Temple of the Flavian Gens inside the pomerium.224 Much of the scholarship that has covered the Temple of the Flavian Gens has avoided comment on the temple’s location in relation to the pomerium, thereby ignoring the possible complications caused by the imperial burials in that building.225 The scholarship that has made comment on the location of the temple in relation to the pomerium has put the temple well within this boundary.226 In addition, an unrelated study by Joe Poe on the route of the pomerial extensions of Claudius and Vespasian around Campus Martius has shown that all proposed reconstructions of this route have put the pomerium well outside the temple’s location on the Quirinal Hill.227 There can be no doubt, then, that the Temple of the

Flavian Gens was located in the city.

Commenting on the significance of this location, Anne E. Haeckl has contrasted the Temple of the Flavian Gens to the Mausoleum of Augustus, which is located on the

Campus outside the pomerium. She has argued that the grandeur and magnificence of

Augustus’ Mausoleum “posed a formidable challenge to Domitian” and that the latter might have chosen a location inside the city in order to best his predecessor

222 Mart. 9.20.1-2; Suet. Dom. 1. 223 PA, p. 247, s.v Gens Flavia, Templum; LTUR II, pp. 368-69, s.v. Gens Flavia, Templum (F. Coarelli); Davies 2000, 25. 224 As noted in the introduction to this thesis I have limited my reference to the pomerium in discussions on urban burial, using the term in urbe instead. See appendix. 225 PA, p. 247, s.v. Gens Flavia, Templum; NTDAR, p. 181, s.v. Gens Flavia, Templum; LTUR II, pp. 368- 9, s.v. Gens Flavia, Templum (F. Coarelli); Davies 2000, 25. 226 Waurick 1973, 111; Arce 1988, 79; Gazda and Haeckl 1996, 20. 227 Poe 1984.

69 architecturally.228 That the building took the form of a temple (instead of a mausoleum) and did not include any funerary vocabulary in its official designation could reflect an effort by Domitian to comply with decorum.229 Haeckl has also found it noteworthy that

Martial and Statius, whose verses praise and flatter the building, “maintained a discreet silence about its more controversial aspects.”230 Finally, Haeckl has argued that reaction to this pomerial violation can be seen in the burial location of Domitian’s successors.

Nerva’s remains were placed in the mausoleum of Augustus and Hadrian later built his mausoleum on the right bank of the Tiber, well outside the pomerium.231

Though Haeckl’s analysis is perceptive, it is largely unsupported and, I would argue, overstates the significance of the temple’s location in the city. Firstly, there is no evidence to suggest that Domitian’s choices in the construction of the Temple of the

Flavian Gens were influenced by architectural competition with his predecessors.

Secondly, the title of the building is hardly evidence that Domitian was complying with decorum. No fragment of the building is extant and all that remains are references to it in literature, so it is therefore impossible to know what the “official designation” of the temple was. Thirdly, Martial’s and Statius’ silence about the “controversial aspects” (i.e. its location in the city) can just as easily be interpreted as evidence that the “controversial aspects” were not controversial at all. Finally, without any supporting evidence it is purely conjectural to claim that the burial locations of successive emperors were in any way reactionary. That Hadrian showed more respect for the pomerial boundary because he situated his mausoleum a greater distance from it is also completely without backing

228 Gazda and Haeckl 1996, 21; c.f. Waurick 1973, 113-16. 229 Gazda and Haeckl 1996, 21. 230 Gazda and Haeckl 1996, 22. 231 Gazda and Haeckl 1996, 22-23; c.f. Waurick 1973, 117.

70 by the sources. Without more evidence there is very little we can say with any certainty about the Temple of the Flavian Gens. What remains therefore is that the temple was located in the city and that it certainly held the remains of Domitian and Julia and probably those of Vespasian and Titus. But even this small amount of information has bearing on the Column of Trajan, since the urban location of the Temple of the Flavian

Gens provides a precedent that lessens the significance of Trajan’s burial in urbe along with the significance of any presumption he might have had for it.

3) The Column of Antoninus Pius The influence of Trajan’s Column, especially in a funerary context, can be seen in the Column of Antoninus Pius. The dedicatory inscription indicates that the column was built and dedicated by Antoninus’ successors, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus.232 The column was erected on the Campus Martius and stood there until the early 18th century.233

Originally the shaft was an un-sculpted 50-foot red granite monolith, and numismatic evidence indicates that a male statue holding a spear and an orb stood atop a Corinthian capital, which capped the column.234 Only the pedestal of this column survives today, which, unlike the pedestal of Trajan’s Column, does not contain a sepulchral chamber.235

One side of this pedestal contains the dedicatory inscription. Two sides of the column pedestal, situated opposite one another, depict nearly identical scenes of Roman cavalry encircling a group of infantry carrying Roman military standards. These scenes have

232 CIL, 6.1004. Though the side of the column base containing the inscription was damaged before its restoration the inscription itself was intact with the exception of the loss of its bronze letters. See Vogel 1973, 17-18. 233 For a history of the column and its restorations since the 18th century see Vogel 1973, 1-31. 234 Davies 2000, 41-2. 235 The cremated remains of Antoninus Pius were placed in Hadrian’s Mausoleum. CIL 6.986.

71 been interpreted as depicting a decursio, part of the funeral ceremony in which the cavalry rode round the emperor’s pyre.236 The final side of the pedestal depicts the apotheosis of Antoninus and Faustina.237 In this relief, the emperor and empress ascend to heaven on the back of a nude winged male figure, who holds a globe in his left hand.

Eagles to the right and left of the emperor and empress accompany them. On the bottom left corner supporting an obelisk is a reclining male figure, whom Vogel has identified as a personification of Campus Martius. On the right is Roma in Amazon gear.

When the column was in situ, the apotheosis scene faced a monument located 25 meters to the column’s north. This monument had the same orientation and stood at the same level as the Column of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius.238 This monument was originally identified as the Antonine ustrinum when it was discovered by F.

Bianchini in 1703.239 No ancient source mentions this monument, and this identification has been challenged. Boatwright has argued that it could not be an actual ustrinum mainly because the conflagration of an imperial pyre would easily have destroyed the structure’s marble and travertine walls.240 Instead she has instead interpreted the monument as a memorial commemorating the spot where the emperor was cremated.241

Richardson has chosen to identify the monument as an altar to the deified Faustina the

Elder. This, he argues, was erected on the spot where her pyre stood, whereas the column of her husband Antoninus was erected where his pyre stood.242 Though the exact identification of this monument is disputed, it is clear that the monument played a

236 Vogel 1973, 56-81; Davies 2000, 42. 237 Vogel 1973, 32-44; Davies 2000, 41-42. 238 PA, p. 545, s.v. Ustrinum Antoninorum; NTDAR, p. 149, s.v. Diva Faustina Maior, Ara. 239 Boatwright 1985, 493. 240 Boatwright 1985, 495-6. 241 Boatwright 1985, 496. 242 NTDAR, p. 149, s.v. Diva Faustina Maior, Ara.

72 commemorative funerary function and was architecturally linked to the Column of

Antoninus Pius. This connection, the site in the Campus Martius, along with the decursio scenes and the apotheosis relief on the pedestal put the column in a funerary context.

4) The Column of Marcus Aurelius The influence of Trajan’s Column can be seen most clearly in the Column of

Marcus Aurelius. One of the few building projects of Comodus’ reign, the column was erected in the Campus Martius on the west side of the Via Lata.243 Unfortunately, the dedicatory inscription is missing and much of the damaged pedestal was chipped away by a restoration during the late 16th century under Pope Sixtus V, after which a marble casing was added to the pedestal.244 An inscription dated to 193 C.E. indicates that, like

Trajan’s Column, the Column of Marcus Aurelius had a procurator whose quarters were nearby.245

The most recognizable similarity to Trajan’s Column is the helical frieze which decorates the column’s shaft. The scenes of this frieze celebrate Marcus’ campaigns against the Macromanni and Sarmatians in 172-75 C.E. Like Trajan’s Column, the frieze reads left to right from the bottom to the top. Two different campaigns are depicted, and these are separated by a Victory inscribing the achievements of Marcus on a shield.246

The sculpture of Marcus’ Column is set in higher relief and the windows in the shaft seem to be incorporated into the design better. The helical design also makes fewer turns.

243 Davies 2000, 45. For a recent discussion of the Column of Trajan and the Column of Marcus Aurelius see La Rocca 2004, 225-34. 244 Richarson, pp. 95-6, s.v. Columna Marci Aurelii Antonini. 245 CIL 6.1585. See NTDAR, pp. 95-6, s.v. Columna Marci Aurelii Antonini. 246 Kleiner 1992, 295.

73 Marcus’ column was similar to Trajan’s architecturally too. The height of the shaft, torus, and capital are roughly the same at 100 Roman feet (29.77 meters).247 A staircase in the column’s shaft leads to the top of the column where there once stood a bronze statue of Marcus, which was replaced with a statue of St. Paul during the

Renaissance period.248 Though the pedestal does not contain a sepulchral chamber, the column does have a funerary association.249 Similar to the position of Trajan’s Column in relation to his own temple, the Column of Marcus was architecturally linked with the temple of the deified Marcus.250 The column and temple made up a complex probably bordered with colonnades.

Located north east of the Antonine ustrinum is a similar structure that was originally identified in 1907 as the ustrinum of Marcus Aurelius.251 This structure shares the same orientation and has therefore been considered linked to the Column of Marcus

Aurelius. Boatwright has disputed its classification as an ustrinum, and has instead identified the structure as monument situated on the location of the emperor’s cremation.252 Richardson has identified it as an altar to the deified Faustina the Younger,

Marcus Aurelius’ wife who died in 176 C.E.253 Since the identification of this structure is uncertain, its connection with the column should remain tentative. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Column of Marcus Aurelius was influenced heavily by the column of his

247 PA, pp. 132-33, s.v. Columna Marci Aurelii Antonini; NTDAR, p. 95, s.v. Columna Marci Aurelii Antonini. 248 Kleiner 1992, 295; Davies 2000, 46. 249 The cremated remains of Marcus Aurelius were placed in Hadrian’s Mausoleum. CIL 6.984-95. 250 Richarson, pp. 95-6, s.v. Columna Marci Aurelii Antonini; p. 244 s.v. Divus Marcus, Templum; Kleiner 1992, 295. Although no remains of the temple have been found, there are literary references to it. See H.A. Aurel. 18.8; Aur, Vict., Caes. 16.15; Epit de Caes. 16.14. 251 For a full discussion on this monument see Boatwright 1985, 493. 252 Boatwright 1985, 496. 253 NTDAR, p. 149, s.v. Diva Faustina Minor, Ara.

74 predecessor Trajan. The link between the column and the temple of the defied Marcus puts the column, like Trajan’s, in a funerary context.

It has been shown that Trajan’s Column fits well within a long established tradition of funerary columns. The size and scale of Trajan’s Column were greater than anything that had come before, but this style profoundly influenced at least two monuments built by Trajan’s successors. Finally, the location of the Temple of the

Flavian Gens, which held the remains of Trajan’s predecessors, provided a precedent for

Trajan’s burial in urbe.

75 Conclusion Modern scholars working on Trajan’s Column have provided helpful analyses of the column in its archeological context. These analyses have identified a funerary significance in the column’s architectural design and iconography, which is supported by

Trajan’s burial in the pedestal. The sepulchral chamber within this pedestal has received a great deal of attention. Different hypotheses have been suggested for the use of the sepulchral chamber during the interval between the column’s dedication and the depositing of Trajan’s ashes. All of these are unsupported and it is impossible to find in the chamber any evidence for an intended function other than a sepulchral one. The dedicatory inscription, which does not mention a sepulchral function, has also been the focus of much debate. Despite the attention it has been given, the inscription fails to yield any clues as to whether a sepulchral function was intended for the column or not.

In the end, scholars’ main hesitation to accept that Trajan built his column as a sepulcher is due to Roman legal prohibitions against burial in urbe. The sources for these prohibitions have, for the most part, been left unexamined. This in turn has influenced scholars’ analysis of the column, resulting in hypotheses such that Trajan ‘disguised’ the column’s true function as a sepulcher with ‘purposefully ambiguous’ iconography.

In analyzing these legal prohibitions the modern historian is, in a sense, playing the role of a Roman jurist. The exercise here has consisted mainly of piecing together different references to Roman law in order to interpret what the meaning of it was at any given time period. The advantage held by the modern historian is the ability to compile all the available references, which, in this case, span an historical period stretching over a millennium, and to identify when and where changes took place. These sources record

76 that a consistent prohibition on urban burial existed. They also show a process of legal development, and at times reflect a degree of uncertainty in interpretation. An evolving tradition of Imperial funerary practices can be identified during the 1st and 2nd centuries

C.E. Very little from these sources, however, can be used to identify any connection between the official Roman legal position and this funerary tradition. This analysis has also shown that Roman attitudes about burial practices were, like many other Roman customs, liable to change over time. Precedent for imperial burials in urbe and Trajan’s posture within the Roman political framework make it perfectly reasonable to assume that Trajan did build his column to serve as his sepulcher.

It is also clear that the Column of Trajan fits well within the context of funerary monuments. This is evidenced in part by the funerary column of Julius Caesar, which happened to have been erected in the Forum. Trajan’ column was exceptionally larger and more ornate than any funerary column that had come before, but its style was to greatly influence subsequent monuments. The significant architectural impression left by

Trajan’s Column can be seen in the Column of Antoninus Pius, and most clearly in the

Column of Marcus Aurelius. Furthermore, the Temple of the Flavian Gens, which held the remains of Domitian, Julia, and most likely Vespasian and Titus, provides precedent for the burial of imperial figures in urbe.

That Trajan could, or could not have presumed burial with in the city of Rome is a small point within the context of the column itself, but is a point which has great significance in the larger discussion not only of imperial burial practices, but also of the perception of space and boundaries in Rome. Discussion on this point has also forced

77 consideration of the shifting attitudes towards republican traditions during the imperial period, especially as they relate to the emperor.

78 Figures

Fig. 1. The Column of Trajan. (Taken from Iris Slide Library, University of Cincinnati)

Fig. 2. Pedestal of the Column of Trajan. (Taken from Iris Slide Library, University of Cincinnati)

Fig. 3. Restored plan of Forum of Trajan based on plan of Italo Gismondi. (After Packer 1970, fig. 54)

Fig. 4. Restored plan of Forum of Trajan based on plan of Roberto Meneghini. (After La Rocca 1998, fig. 17)

80 Bibliography

Alföldi, A. 1965. Early Rome and the Latins. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Anderson, J.C. 1983. “A Topographical Tradition in Fourth Century Chronicles: Domitian’s Building Program.” Historia 32:93–105.

Antaya, R. 1980. “The Etymology of pomerium.” AJP 101:184–90.

Arce, J. 1988. Funus Imperatorum: Los funerals de los emperadores romanos. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.

Barnes, T.D. 1978. The Sources of the Historia Augusta. Brussels: Latomus.

Beard, M., J. North, and S. Price. 1998. Religions of Rome. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bennett, J. 1997. Trajan: Optimus Princeps. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. von Blumenthal. 1952. “Pomerium.” In RE 21.2:1867–76.

Boatwright, M.T. 1985. “The ‘Ara Ditis-Ustrinum of Hadrian’ in the Western Campus Martius and Other Problematic Roman Ustrina.” AJA 89:485–97.

———. 1986. “The Pomerial Extension of Augustus.” Historia 35:13–27.

———. 1987. Hadrian and the City of Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Boni, G. 1907. “Esplorazione del Forum Ulpium.” NSc 5:361–427.

———. 1907–8. “Trajan’s Column.” ProcBritAc 3:93–8.

Cantino Wataghin, G. 1999. “The Ideology of Urban Burials.” In The Idea and Ideal of the Town Between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, edited by G.P. Brogiolo and B. Ward-Perkins, 147–80. Boston: Brill.

Calcani, G. 2003. “Apollodorus and the Column of Trajan at Damascus.” In Apollodorus of Damascus and Trajan’s Column: From Tradition to Project, edited by G. Calcani, 35–64. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider.

Claridge, A. 1993. “Hadrian’s Column of Trajan.” JRA 6:5–22.

Coarelli, F. 2000. The Column of Trajan. Translated by C. Rockwell. Rome: German Archaeological Institute.

81 Cohen, D. 1991. Law, Sexuality, and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crawford, M.H. 1996. “Roman Statutes II.” In Roman Statutes, edited by M.H. Crawford.the BICS, Suppl. 64, vol. 2. London: University of London Institute of Classical Studies.

Davies, P.J.E. 1997. “The Politics of Perpetuation: Trajan's Column and the Art of Commemoration.” AJA 101: 41–65.

———. 2000. Death and the Emperor: Roman Imperial Funerary Monuments from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Den Boer, W. 1975. “Trajan’s Deification and Hadrian’s Succession” Ancient Society 6:203–12.

Den Hengst, D. 2000. “The Discussion of Authorship.” In Historiae Augustae Colloquium Perusinum, edited by G. Bonamente and F. Paschoud, 187-95. Historiae Augustae Colloquia 8. Bari: Edipuglia.

De Visscher, F. 1963. Le droit de tombeaux romains. Milan: Giuffrè Editore.

Driessen, C.M. 2001. “On the Etymology of Lat. urbs.” JIES 29:41–68.

Dyck, A.R. 2004. A Commentary on Cicero, De Legibus. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Eck, W., and M. Heil. 2005. Senatores Populi Romani: Realität und mediale Präsentation einer Führungsschicht. Kolloquium der Prosopographia Imperii Romani (11–13 Juni 2004). Heidelberger althistorische Beiträge und epigraphische Studien 40. Stuttgart: Steiner.

Edbrooke, R.O. 1975. “Constantius II and Hormisdas in the Forum of Trajan.” Mnemosyne 28:412–7.

Endt, J. 1909. Adnotationes super Lucanum. Stuttgart: B.G. Teubner.

Festy, M. 1999. Abrégé des Césars: Pseudo-Aurélius Victor. Paris: Belles Lettres.

Flower, H.I. 2001. “A Tale of Two Monuments: Domitian, Trajan, and Some Praetorians at Puteoli.” AJA 105:625–48.

Frischer, B. 1983. “Monumenta et Arae Honoris Virtutisque Causa: Evidence of Memorials for Roman Civic Heroes.” BullCom 88:51–86.

Gatti, C. 1976-7. “Dione Cassio XLIV, 7: Una Proposta di Interpretazione.” AttiCAntCl 8:71–82.

Gazda, E.K. and A.E. Haeckl. 1996. “Dynasty, Cult, Topography, Architecture: The Roman Contexts of the Templum Gentis Flaviae.” In Images of Empire: Flavian Fragments in Rome and Ann Arbor Rejoined 11-25. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Kelsey Museum of Archaeology

Groh, V. 1925. “La Colonna di Traiano.” RendLinc 6:40–57.

Gradel, I. 2002. Emperor Worship and Roman Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Haarlov, B. 1977. The Half Open Door: A Common Symbolic Motif within Roman Sepulchral Sculpture. Odense: Odense University Press.

Hammond, M. 1957. “The Composition of the Senate, A.D. 68-235.” JRS 47:74–81.

Hopkins, K. 1983. Death and Renewal. Sociological Studies in Roman History, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hirschfeld, O. 1886. Die kaiserlichen Grabstätten in Rom. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 51. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.

Kleiner, D.E.E. 1992. Roman Sculpture. New Haven: Yale University Press.

La Rocca, E. 1998. “Il Foro di Traiano ed i fori tripartite.” MdI 105:149–73.

———. 2000. “Il foro di Traiano in base alle più ricerche.” In Traiano emperador de Roma, edited by J. González, 251–85. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider.

———. 2001. “La nuova imagine dei fori imperiali. Appunti in margine agli scavi.” MdI 108:171–213.

Lancaster, L. 1999. “Building Trajan’s Column.” AJA 103:419–39.

Lehmann-Hartleben K. 1934. “L’Arco di Tito.” BullCom 62:89–122.

Lepper, F., and S. Frere. 1988. Trajan’s Column: A New Edition of the Cichorius Plates. Gloucester: Alan Sutton.

Lugli, G. 1952. Fontes ad Topographiam Romae Pertinentes. Vols. 1 and 2. Rome: Università di Roma Instituto di topographia antica.

Lugli, G. 1960. “La Tomba di Traiano.” In Omagiu lui Constantin Daicoviciu cu prilejul împlinirii a 60 de ani, 333–38. Bucharest: Academiei Republicii Populare Romine.

83 Martines, G. 1983. “La struttura della Colonna Traiana: Un esercitazione di meccanica alessandrina.” Prospettiva 32:60–71.

McGowan, E.P. 1995. “Tomb Marker and Turning Post: Funerary Columns in the Archaic Period.” AJA 99:615–32.

Meneghini, R. 1996. “Templum Divi Traiani.” BullCom 97:47–87.

———. 1998. “L’architettura del Foro di Traiano attraverso i ritrovamenti archeologici più recenti.” MdI 105:127–48.

———. 2001a. “La nuova imagine architettonica del Foro di Traiano.” In Tra Damasco e Roma: l’architettura di Apollodoro nella cultura classica, edited by F. Farina et al., 48–65. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider.

———. 2001b. “Il foro di Traiano: ricostruzione architettonica e analisi strutturale.” MdI 108:245–63.

Miller, F. 1964. A Study of Cassius Dio. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Momigliano, A. 1963. “An Interim Report on the Origins of Rome.” JRS 53:95–121.

Mommsen, T., and P. Krueger. 1985. The Digest of Justinian. Edited and translated by A. Watson. Vols. 3–4. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Packer, J.E. 1994. “Trajan’s Forum Again: The Column and the Temple of Trajan in the Master Plan Attributed to Apollodorus (?)” JRA 7:163–82.

———. 1997a. “Report From Rome. The Imperial Fora: A Retrospective from the Mid- Nineties.” AJA 101:307–30.

———. 1997b. The Forum of Trajan in Rome: A Study of the Monuments. Berkeley: University of California Press.

———. 2001. The Forum of Trajan in Rome: A Study of the Monuments in Brief. Berkeley: University of California Press.

———. 2003. “Templum Divi Traiani Parthici et Plotinae: A Debate with R. Meneghini.” JRA 16:109–36.

Poe, J.P. 1984. “The Secular Games, the Aventine, and the Pomerium in the Campus Martius.” ClAnt 3:57–81.

Price, S. 1987. “From Noble Funerals to Divine Cult: The Consecration of Roman Emperors.” In Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies,

84 edited by D. Cannadine and S. Price, 56–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Reece, R. 1977. Burial in the Roman World. London: Council for British Archaeology.

Rémy, B. 1988. Les Fastes Sénatoriaux des Provinces Romaines d’Anatolie au Haut- Empire. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

Richard, J.C. 1966a. “Incinération et inhumation aux funérailles imperiales: Histoire du ritual de l’apothéose pendant le haut-empire.” Latomus 25:784–804.

———. 1966b. “Le aspects militaires des funérailles imperiales.” MÉFR 78:131–325.

———. 1966c. “Les funérailles de Trajan et le triomphe sur les Parthes.” In RÉL 44:351–62.

———. 1966d. “Tombeaux des empereurs et temples des ‘divi:’ Notes sur la signification religieuse des sépultures imperiales à Rome.” RHR 170:127–42.

———. 1978. “Recherches sur certains aspects du culte imperial: Les funérailles des empereurs Romains aux deux premiers siceles de notre ère.” ANRW 16:1121–34.

Rizzo, S. 1997-98. “Recenti scoperte nell’ambito degli scavi dei Fori Imperiaei.” RendPontAcc 70:145–56.

———. 1999. “Fori imperali: I cantieri di scavo.” Archeo 15.12:34–45.

———. 2001a. “I cantieri di scavo dei Fori Imperiali,” in Archeologia e Giubileo: Gli interventi a Roma e nel Lazio nel piano per il grande Giubileo del 2000, edited by F. Filippi. Naples: Electa.

———. 2001b. “I Fori Imperiali,” in Tra Damasco e Roma. L’architettura di Apollodoro nella cultura classica, edited by F. Farina, et al., 34–47. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider.

Robinson, O.F. 1992. Ancient Rome: City Planning and Administration. New York: Routledge.

Roche, P.A. 1997. The Sources of Roman Law. New York: Routledge.

———. 2002. “The Public Image of Trajan’s Family.” CP 97:41–60.

———. 2006. “Selling Trajan’s Saeculum: Destiny, Abundance, Assurance.” Athenaeum 94:199–229.

85 Rodenwladt, G. 1926. Review of Das Römerlager Vetera bei Xanten, by H. Lehner. Gnomen 2: 337–43.

Rose, H.J. 1924. The Roman Questions of Plutarch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Roth, C.L. 1857. Suetoni Tranquilli Quae Supersunt Omnia. Leipzig: Teubner.

Schowalter, D. 1993. The Emperor and the Gods. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Settis, S., A. La Regina, G. Agosti, and V. Farinella. 1988. La Colonna Traiana. Turin: G. Einaudi.

Smallwood, E.M. 1966. Documents Illustrating the Pricipates of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stucchi, S. 1989. “Tantis Viribus: L’area della Colonna nella concezione generale del Foro di Traiano.” ArchCl 41:237–91.

Syme, R. 1958. Tacitus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

———. 1971. The Historia Augusta: A Call for Clarity. Bonn: R. Habelt.

————. 1978. “The Pomerium in the Historia Augusta.” In Historia Augusta Colloquium, edited by A. Alföldi, 217–31. Bonn: R. Habelt.

————. 1983. Historia Augusta Papers. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Talbert, R. 1984. The Senate of Imperial Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Toher, M. 2005. “The Tenth Table and the Conflict of the Orders.” In Social Struggles in Archaic Rome. edited by K.A. Raaflaub, 268–92. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Toynbee, J.M.C. 1971. Death and Burial in the Roman World. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Turcan-Deleani, M. 1958. “Les monuments représentés sur la Colonne Trajane: schématisme et réalisme.” MÉFR 70:149–76.

Vidman, L. 1982. Fasti Ostienses. Prague: Academia.

Vogel, L. 1973. The Column of Antoninus Pius. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Ward-Perkins, J.B. 1970. Roman Imperial Architecture. London: Penguin Books.

86 ————. 1976. “Columna divi Antonini.” In Mélanges d’histoire ancienne et d’archéologie offerts à Paul Collart, edited by P. Ducrey, et al., 345–52. Paris: Bibliothèque historique vaudoise.

Waters, K.H. 1969. “Traianus Domitiani Continuator.” AJP 90:385–405.

————. 1975. “The Reign of Trajan.” ANRW 2:381–431.

Waurick, G. 1973. “Untersuchungen zur Lage der Römischen Kaisergräber in der Zeit von Augustus bis Constantin.” JRGZM 20:107–46.

Weinstock, S. 1971. Divus Julius. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Wilson Jones, M. 1993. “One Hundred Feet and a Spiral Stair: The Problem of Designing Trajan’s Column.” JRA 6:23–38.

Zanker, P. 1970. “Das Trajansforum in Rom.” AA:499–544.

————. 2004. Die Apotheose der römischen Kaiser. Munich: Carl Friedrich von Siemens Stiftung.

Non Vidi

Meneghini, R. 1999. “Roma: interventi per il Giubileo del 2000. Scabo del monastero di S. Urbano al foro di Traiano.” Archéologie Médiévale 26:43–66.

87 Appendix: The Pomerium and Urban Burial Modern scholars often discuss Roman legal restrictions against burial in urbe in direct connection with the pomerium, the sacred boundary of a city. Discussions about the sepulchral function of Trajan’s Column are therefore always directed at the column’s location within this boundary. For example, in an article about the funeral and posthumous triumph of Trajan, J.-C. Richard states that “En choisissant pour sa sepulture un emplacement situé intra pomerium, Trajan avait repris à son compte un privilège réservé aux triomphateurs.”254 Giuseppe Lugli draws attention to the problem of the column’s location and writes “Vi era solo lo difficoltà dell’intra pomerium.”255 It is striking that the pomerium would play such a pervasive role in these discussions when, with the exception of Dio’s comments on Julius Caesar, the actual word pomerium does not occur in the texts referencing Roman laws on burial.256 Cicero’s record of the XII

Tables states that it was not allowed to bury or cremate a body in urbe. The Digesta records that Hadrian’s rescript forbade burial in civitate and the HA states that Antoninus

Pius prohibited the burial of dead bodies intra urbes. Paul’s Sententiae, finally, legislates against burying a body in civitatem and defines the city’s boundary with the phrase intra muros.

It would seem that the connection drawn between the pomerium and Roman legal restrictions on burial is to a large degree an assumption of modern scholarship. A brief assessment of the pomerium will show, however, that this assumption is not unfounded.

Nevertheless, it is important for this study to examine why the pomerium was significant to burial practices and ask whether it retained the same significance throughout Rome’s

254 Richard 1966, 356. 255 Lugli 1960, 367. 256 Dio Cass. 44.7.

88 long history. It will be clear after a review of the main sources for the pomerium that the ancient views on many aspects of this complicated boundary were as conflicted then as modern scholars' views are today.

1) Origins of the Pomerium The line of the first pomerium, which is largely hypothetical, was ascribed to

Romulus and was located on the slope of the Palatine.257 As the city grew the pomerium was extended by various important Roman figures. According to Tacitus, ancient Roman custom gave the right to extend the pomerium to those who had extended the territory of

Rome.258 Though Tacitus ranks among the most reliable of historical sources, M.T.

Boatwright has questioned the validity of his statement and holds that this “custom” might have been fabricated during Claudius’ reign.259 It is believed, according to some literary sources, that Servius Tullius, Sulla, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Nero, Trajan, and

Aurelian all made extensions.260 Besides literary references, some of which are questionable, the evidence for all of these extensions is scanty; the extension of Augustus especially has been challenged.261 Claudius is sure to have extended the pomerium in 49

C.E. and there is good evidence for extensions by Vespasian and Hadrian. The validity

257 Plut. Rom. 11; Tac. Ann. 12, 24. See PA, pp. 392-7, s.v. pomerium; Magdelain 1990, 155-191. 258 Tac. Ann. 12. 23. 259 Infra n. 261. 260 For Servius Tullius see Livy 1.44.3; Dion. 4.13.3; Gell. 13.14.4. For Sulla see Tac. Ann 12.23; Gell. 13.14.4; Dio 43.50.1. For Julius Caesar see Dio 43. 50; Gell. 13.14.4. For Augustus see Tac. Ann. 12.23; Dio 55.6.6; H.A. Aurel. 21. For Nero, Trajan, and Aurelian see H.A. Aurel. 21. 261 Boatwright (1986) maintains that the reports of Tacitus (Ann. 12.23), Dio (55.6.6), and the Historia Augusta (Aurel. 21.2) that Augustus extended the pomerium are probably false. These mistakes are probably due to Claudius’ who in a speech to the Senate justified his own extension by fabricating a similar extension by Augustus. Thus, Claudius is responsible for the (false) Augustan pomerial tradition, a renewed interest in the pomerium during the principate and for perhaps the association between the right to pomerial extensions and the expansion of Roman imperial territory. See also Syme 1971.

89 of these extensions are confirmed by extant cippi, stone markers, but the exact route that these extensions followed is, for all intents and purposes, unknown.262

In meaning, the pomerium was the boundary surrounding a city within which the auspicia urbana could be taken.263 This boundary also had other functions; it was a dividing line that regulated certain political and military authority and activity. For example, the ‘tribal assembly’ could only meet inside the pomerium because the auspicia required for the holding of an assembly could only be taken within the city. The

“centuriate assembly,” on the other hand, had to meet outside the pomerium because of its military associations. During the Republic, plebian tribunes were restricted in their powers to the area inside the pomerium. Finally, a commander could not cross the boundary and retain his military authority, with the exception of a triumph.264 In the imperial period, however, the consolidation of consular imperium and tribunician power in the hands of the emperor resulted in the disappearance of these magisterial restrictions.265

As shown above, the pomerium has also had a close association with burial, especially in modern scholarship. The association between the pomerium and urban burial is closely linked with the role that the pomerium had as the traditional defining line of the urbs. In a well known passage, Varro illuminates this connection between the pomerium and urbs:

Oppida condebant in Latio Etrusco ritu multi, id est iunctis bobus, tauro et vacca interiore, aratro circumagebant sulcum (hoc faciebant religionis causa die

262 For a list and discussion of the cippi that correspond to the pomerial extensions of Claudius, Vespasian and Hadrian see PA, pp. 392-96, s.v. pomerium; Lugli 1952, 128-31. Joe Poe (1984, 57-81) illustrates the myriad modern reconstructions of the route of the pomerium in the area of the Campus Martius alone. 263 Varro, 5.143; Gell. AN, 13.14. 264 Beard, North, and Price 1998, 177-81. 265 Beard, North, and Price 1998, 177-81.

90 auspicato), ut fossa et muro essent muniti. Terram unde exculpserant, fossam vocabant et introrsum iactam murum. Post ea qui fiebat orbis, urbis principium; qui quod erat post murum, postmoerium dictum...Quare et oppida quae prius erant circumdata aratro ab orbe et urvo urbes; ideo coloniae nostrae omnes in litteris antiquis scribuntur urbes, quod item conditae ut Roma, et ideo coloniae et urbes conduntur, quod intra pomerium ponuntur.266

Many founded towns in Latium according to the Etruscan ritual, that is with joined cattle, a bull and a cow on the inside, they made a circular ditch with a plow (on account of religious reasons they did this on an auspicious day), so that they might be fortified by a ditch and a wall. The place from where they plowed the earth they called a ditch and the earth thrown inside, a wall. The circle which arose behind this was the beginning of the city; since the circle was behind the wall it was called postmoerium…Therefore also towns which previously were encircled by the plow were labeled cities from [etymologically] circle and plow; for that reason all our colonies were referred to as (urbes) cities in old writings, since they were founded in the same way as Rome, and therefore colonies and cities are founded, since they are placed inside a pomerium.

This passage reveals many things, but there are two points that are most important to this discussion. First, this passage makes it quite clear that the pomerium was, at least at one time, an inherent component in the definition and concept of the urbs. Second, Varro comments on the etymology of pomerium, which in his description is directly dependent on its location in relation to the murus. Varro’s comments on the etymology and location of the pomerium need to be scrutinized since many points in his description of it contradict the descriptions in other ancient sources. Making matters more complicated, modern scholars have often noted these contradictions in the ancient sources, but have themselves disagreed in their interpretation of the contradictions. Using Varro’s passage as a starting point, I will first address the connection between the pomerium and the urbs to investigate whether that connection remained throughout Rome’s long history and whether the pomerium had any meaning in Roman legal interdictions on burial in urbe. I will then outline the contradictions in the ancient sources and the disagreements over

266 Varro Ling. 5.143.

91 those contradictions in modern scholarship in order to demonstrate the confusion and overwhelming lack of understanding about the pomerium.

2) Concept of the Urbs According to Varro’s passage, the limit of the urbs was defined by the pomerium.

Varro is not the only evidence for this connection. Allus Gellius records that according to the augurs Pomerium est locus intra agrum effatum per totius urbis circuitum pone muros regionibus certeis determinatus, qui facit finem urbani auspicii (the pomerium is the place within the solemnly designated territory throughout the entire circuit of the city behind the walls marked off by specific boundaries, which makes the limit of the urban auspices).267 Livy states that as the city grew the pomerium extended in relation with the walls: et in urbis incremento semper, quantum moenia processura errant, tantum termini hi consecrati proferebantur (and at every increase of the city, these sacred limits were advanced as far as the walls were moved forward).268 Since this evidence clearly suggests that the territory of the urbs was defined by the pomerium, any legal interdiction against burial in urbe would logically be an interdiction against burial intra pomerium.

There is, conversely but not surprisingly, evidence to suggest that the semantics of the Latin urbs underwent several changes over the long course of the Regal, Republican, and Imperial periods and that the role of the pomerium as the defining boundary of the urbs might have at some point become obscured. C. Michiel Driessen, in “On the

Etymology of the Lat. urbs,” an article in which he argues, ultimately, that urbs was etymologically influenced by urvum, the hooked plow used in the ritual of plowing the

267 Gell. NA. 13.14.1. 268 Livy 1.44.4-5.

92 sacred furrow, suggests that originally the word simply carried the meaning of an

“enclosed area for taking auspices.” 269 Urbs had the significance of a templum, marked off by the pomerium, but the “original designation of the templum-area may have come to be more and more associated with urban settlement.”270 Driessen’s hypothesis, if correct, implies that by the time urbs took on its lexical and “secondary and inherited” definition of “urban area, city,” it had already undergone one semantic change. Nevertheless, the exact meaning of urbs as an “urban area, city” is a greater concern. The evidence above implies that the boundary of this “urban area, city” was the pomerium, but evidence of the Imperial period suggests that the significance of the pomerium had decayed.

According to the jurist Paul, et quidem urbes fere omnes muro tenus finiri,

Romam continentibus, et urbem Romam aeque continentibus (generally, indeed, all cities extend as far as the wall, Rome as far as the suburbs, that is the “city of Rome” extends equally as far as the suburbs).271 Paul is not commenting here on burial, but rather on the legal implications of legacies concerning stores (penus). He is concerned with what constituted the city if a legacy involved stores that were at Rome (quae Romae sit).

Nevertheless, the need for Paul to offer a definition of the urbs of Rome is evidence alone that there was confusion over the issue during the 1st and 2nd centuries C.E. Paul’s definition does imply that at Rome the urbs, in a legal and juridical sense, was conceptualized as the total area of inhabitation. G. Cantino Wataghin, who has studied the transition between extramural burials to burials in urbe during the late antique and early middle ages, draws attention to the difficultly in forming a correct definition of a town during this transitional period. She notes that by the 7th century, urbs is used only

269 Driessen 2001, 52-66. 270 Driessen 2001, 41-51. See also Magdelain, 1990, 155-191. 271 Dig. 33.9.4.4-5.

93 in special contexts whereas civitas had become the standard term for city.272 This change in the concept of the urbs probably started much earlier than the late antique period and

Wataghin suggests “a conceptual conflict in Rome between the urbs defined by the pomerium and the urbanized area of the fourteen regions.”273 Moreover, while drawing a tentative connection between this ambiguity and the switch from cremation to inhumation during this period, Cantino Wataghin states that “The extension of the inhabited area in the suburbs in the first and second century A.D. leads to a certain elasticity in the concepts of space for the dead and space for the living, which quite often, in fact, become intermingled.”274

The legal sources of the Imperial era reflect the ambiguity of urbs and civitas too.

Hadrian’s rescript, documented in Justinian’s Digesta, established a penalty of forty gold pieced for those qui in civitate sepeliunt.275 Antoninus Pius prohibited the burial of bodies intra urbes. Paul, however, recorded that it was not permitted to carry bodies in civitatem.276 Two explanations might be offered for this variety of vocabulary. One explanation is that the technical sense of urbs and civitas is different, which would then imply that there were differences in what legal sources were regulating. The exact role of the pomerium would also be questionable since there is no identifiable connection between pomerium and civitas, as there is between pomerium and urbs. A better explanation might be that these sources are all variations of the same basic law, a continuation of the prohibition on burial of the XII Tables. The difference in vocabulary

272 Cantino Wataghin 1999, 155. 273 Cantino Wataghin (1999, 155) notes Suetonius’ (Aug. 30.1) comment that spatium urbis in regiones vicosque divisit, and that many of these regions were outside the walls or pomerium. Edmond Frézouls (1999, 373-92) discusses problems concerning Roman urban expansion from Augustus to Aurelian. 274 Cantino Wataghin 1999, 156. 275 Dig. 47.12.3.5. 276 Paulus Sent. 1.21.2.

94 would then reflect an ambiguity in the meaning of urbs and civitas. It would therefore be questionable whether the direct connection between the pomerium and urbs still remained part of the Roman conscience.

3) Etymology of Pomerium The subject of the etymology of pomerium has caused a great deal of confusion for both modern and ancient scholars and the conflicting accounts of the ancient sources reveal a great deal of disagreement about the nature of this boundary. In fact, Roger

Antaya claims “Without question the Romans, by the time they came to write of it, had only the foggiest idea of what the pomerium was originally.”277 The ancient sources reveal two conflicting views on the etymology of pomerium. Varro’s passage cited above is evidence of one interpretation which claimed that pomerium came from postmoerium.278 The other view, evidenced by the scholium on Lucan 1.594, claimed that the word came from promoerium.279 These interpretations, directly opposed to each other, rely on the location of the pomerium in relation to the city walls, one locating the pomerium after the wall (murus) and the other locating it before the wall (murus).

Finally, Livy offers his own interpretation:

Pomerium, verbi vim solam intuentes, postmoerium interpretantur esse; est autem magis circamoerium…Hoc spatium, quod neque habitari neque arari fas erat, non magis quod post murum esset quam quod murus post id, pomerium Romani appellarunt.280

277 Antaya 1980, 185. 278 Varro Ling. 5.143. Suetonius (frag. p. 313 Roth) has an opinion similar to Varro’s: Hunc locum appellabant pomerium veluti postmerium, eo quod esset post murum. Gellius too (AN 13.14.1.) shares this opinion: Pomerium est locus intra agrum effatum per totius urbis circuitum pone muros regionibus certeis determinatus. 279 Endt 1969, 34: Pomeria dicuntur ante muros loca, quasi promoenia. Festus-Paulus (295L) gives a similar interpretation. 280 Livy 1.44.4-5.

95 Those who consider the force of the word only understand pomerium to be (postmoerium) “the space behind the wall;” but it is rather “the space on both sides of the wall” (circamoerium)…This space, which was forbidden by divine law to be inhabited or tilled the Romans called pomerium, not any more because it was behind the wall than because the wall was behind it.

In a strict etymological sense, Livy agrees with Varro’s interpretation, but thinks that the actual boundary was situated on both sides of the city wall. Modern scholars have argued in support of both of these etymologies.281 Complicating matters further, there are conflicting modern interpretations of what meant by postmoerium and promoerium. For example, Driessen interprets Varro’s use of postmoerium as a line just outside the murus.282 On the other hand, Antaya explains that promoerium has been interpreted as a line “outside of the city murus, opposite to the postmoerium which would be on the inside of the fortifications.”283 Ultimately, however, Antaya rejects all ancient etymological explanations. He instead supports an Indo-European etymology, which would separate the pomerium from the murus entirely, and argues that the pomerium and the walls were not part of the same concept.

4) Concluding Remarks The connection the pomerium had to Roman legal restrictions on urban burial would have been in its function as the defining limit of the city. This traditional link between the pomerium and the urbs is clear. The concept of the urbs, however, underwent a change sometime during the Imperial and late antique periods and its definition was, at various times, questioned and reinterpreted. The significance of the pomerium to the definition of the urbs during this time of change is unknown. It is

281 Antaya (1980) provides an outline of these etymological arguments. 282 Driessen 2001, 45-6. 283 Antaya 1980, 186-7.

96 therefore almost impossible to establish whether there would have been, especially during

Trajan’s period, a conceptual link between the pomerium and legal interdictions against urban burial. Furthermore, with the exception of one problematic reference from Dio, the sources for Roman laws do not actually refer to the pomerium but use the terms urbs and civitas to define their restrictions. The link between the pomerium and restrictions on urban burial found in Roman law is tenuous. It would, therefore, be more appropriate classify Trajan’s burial as a burial in urbe, not intra pomerium.