sign in sign up
<<
Home , AD 112, AD 116, AD 117, Anthony Birley, Congiarium, Hadrian

Hadrian: Art, Politics and Economy Edited by Thorsten Opper Publishers The Great Russell Street London WC1B 3DG

Series editor Sarah Faulks

Distributors The British Museum Press 38 Russell Square London WC1B 3QQ

Hadrian: Art, Politics and Economy Edited by Thorsten Opper isbn 978 086159 175 6 issn 1747 3640

© The Trustees of the British Museum 2013

Front cover: detail of the interior of the Pantheon, , seen from the entrance to the rotunda. © The Trustees of the British Museum

Printed and bound in the UK by 4edge Ltd, Hockley

Papers used by The British Museum Press are recyclable products made from wood grown in well-managed forests and other controlled sources. The manufacturing processes conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin.

All British Museum images illustrated in this book are © The Trustees of the British Museum.

Further information about the Museum and its collection can be found at britishmuseum.org. Contents Acknowledgements iv Introduction: 1 Continuity and Change in the Reign of Hadrian Thorsten Opper

1. Hadrian’s Succession and the Monuments 5 of Amanda Claridge

2. Hadrian and the Agrippa Inscription of 19 the Pantheon Mary T. Boatwright

3. Who Built the Pantheon?: 31 Agrippa, Apollodorus, Hadrian and Trajan Mark Wilson Jones

4. A Colossal Portrait of Hadrian and the Imperial 50 Group from the Roman Baths at Semra Mägele

5. The Fate of the Colossal Statues of Hadrian and 62 Other Members of the Imperial Family from the ‘Imperial Baths’ at Sagalassos during Late Antiquity

6. Matidia Minor and Suessa Aurunca 73 Sergio Cascella

7. Images of a Divine Youth: 89 The Brussels and its Workshop Cécile Evers With an appendix by Daniel Roger

8. Hadrian’s Villa and the Use of the Aphrodisian 103 Marbles from the Göktepe Quarries Matthias Bruno, Donato Attanasio and Ali Bahadir Yavuz

9. Hadrian and : 112 Exchange and Embassies in 2nd-century Trade with the East Roberta Tomber

10. Reshaping the : 120 Hadrian’s Economic Policy Rosario Rovira-Guardiola

11. Britain under Trajan and Hadrian 130 Anthony

12. The Impact of Roman ’s Transformation 139 on Hadrian’s Life and Policies José Remesal Rodríguez

13. Georgia in Roman Times 148 (1st to 4th Centuries AD) Manana Odisheli The succession Chapter 1 Hadrian succeeded Trajan on 11 August , acclaimed emperor by the legions in as soon as Trajan’s death was Hadrian’s Succession announced.1 In July, his health failing, Trajan had brought his disastrous Parthian War to a hasty conclusion and had and the Monuments of left Hadrian in command of the eastern expeditionary forces as he set out for Rome by ship, accompanied by his Trajan wife Plotina, niece Matidia and praetorian prefect Attianus. They only got as far as in , where he died on or shortly before 8 August.2 The body was taken back to Amanda Claridge Pieria, port of , where Hadrian went to meet it and the funeral was performed, after which Plotina and her party sailed for Rome again with the ashes.3 Hadrian, then 42 years old, had long been marked out as an eventual successor, having been Trajan’s ward in childhood, married to his niece in , given signiicant roles in the Dacian Wars of –2 and 105–6, appointed to some major public oices at a young age (governor of in , sufect consul at Rome in 109), followed by major posts in the Parthian campaigns of –17, and he was consul designate for ad 118.4 Trajan’s intention, had he reached Rome, was probably to declare his adoption of Hadrian and the latter’s appointment as in public in the Forum and on the Capitol, as had done for him in prior to his own succession.5 As things turned out, he did so only on his deathbed, witnessed solely by family and servants, and the fact of the adoption had to be conveyed by letters, which were signed by Plotina, not Trajan, allowing subsequent doubts that Hadrian was indeed his chosen successor.6 Hadrian, who stayed behind to settle matters in the East, reported the fact of his succession to the Senate by letter, in which he apologized for the lack of prior notice but made the usual promises to respect the Senate’s rights and requested divine honours for Trajan.7 Trajan’s relations with the Senate had been cordial from the start and were still excellent in the year of his death; he had been voted optimus (best of emperors) in ad 103 and the title was renewed in the summer of ad 114;8 in late February he was awarded the title Parthicus and the right to a triumph for ‘as many nations as he pleased’.9 The response in late ad 117 was favourable, the Senate conirmed Trajan’s consecration as a god and granted him other honours for which Hadrian had not asked;10 Hadrian himself was ofered a Parthian triumph and the title (he refused both). A of three coins was distributed in Rome to celebrate the adoption and succession, with Trajan’s portrait on the obverse, in military dress accompanied by his titles Optimus, , , , and Hadrian’s portrait on the reverse, identical to Trajan’s in proile but with a and nude, bearing the name Hadrianus Traianus Caesar.11 Relations soured soon after, for Hadrian began to give up almost all of Trajan’s precarious conquests in the East, returning and to their client kings, and in the irst half of ad 118 he travelled to to solve a growing crisis on the in the same way, abandoning many of the territories that had been won in Trajan’s .12 In the process he made numerous replacements among high-ranking oicers, causing anger

Hadrian’s Succession and the Monuments of Trajan | 5 courtyard attached to the rear of the , but it had also been designed as a belvedere, perhaps in an efort to justify and excuse its immense height, which raised the statue to the level of the basilica’s roof or higher; inside the shaft a spiral staircase still leads up from a door in the pedestal to the base of the statue on top of the capital, which once aforded panoramic views over the basilica roof to the in one direction and the in the other. The SPQR’s original inscription of is still in place over the door to the stair18 and there is no sign that this aspect of the Plate 1 Trajan’s Column on an of AD 113. British Museum, column was ever altered in any way or that the belvedere London (BM R.6046) function ever ceased.19 Tucked under the stair, it is true, is a small chamber (Pls 2a–b) which Boni reconstructed in 1906 and resentment among the generals most loyal to Trajan, as ‘Trajan’s tomb’ (Pl. 2c), an idea which has since hardened four of whom may have started to conspire, individually or into fact,20 but as the tomb of the ‘best of emperors’ it is open together, to remove Hadrian from oice. All four (all to serious question. The room measures only 11 feet (3.3m) ex-consuls) were indicted for treason by the Senate but then long by 6 feet (1.8m) wide and 6 feet (1.8m) high, much of summarily put to death without trial, causing additional which was once occupied by a bench of solid stone 2½ feet outrage among senators. Indeed the afair threatened to (0.735m) high and 4 feet (1.2m) deep. The space between the destabilize the new regime and although Hadrian always top of the bench and the ceiling was only 3½ feet (1.02m), insisted that the executions were not his idea (placing the hence the diminutive marble ash-chests in Boni’s drawing. blame on Attianus) he made his way swiftly to , entering Such chests are hardly the stuf of imperial burials – in the Rome on 9 July ad 118.13 A second congiarium of six aurei was , for instance, the urns of even minor distributed by him in person, together with ofers of inancial members of the family were housed in massive marble support to distressed senatorial families and generous containers, some standing up to 2m or more high.21 Worse increases to the child-support scheme which Trajan had still, the walk-in space in front of the bench in ‘Trajan’s tomb’ instituted in Italy, as well as tax remissions of beneit to the was just 2 feet (0.6m) wide, with the door at one end, so at the empire at large, all of which seem calculated to reassure, and most two people could enter and exit at a time, shuling to demonstrate that he would not only not abuse his power sideways. It was also completely undecorated, with little air but would actually be a great deal more open-handed than or light (it had but one small window by the door, and no his predecessor.14 provision for lamps); in fact, the ‘tomb-chamber’ shares its dimensions, limited light and ventilation and low ceiling with Trajan’s burial slaves’ cells and brothels – and the stone ‘bench’ was probably Quite how long it had taken the imperial party to convey a bed,22 provided for the porters, not the ashes of Trajan. Trajan’s ashes to Rome in ad 117, and what happened to Surely Trajan’s tomb must have been a separate installation them between then and Hadrian’s advent in July 118, or on the outside of , where it could be seen by all, thereafter, is not recorded. Kierdorf reckoned that the carrying an inscription which duly recorded his status at journey took at most a month (end of September ad 117) and death and the honour it represented.23 Its size and shape can that Plotina will have deposited the ashes immediately, as only be guessed at, for the evidence is lost; if it could be Agrippina had done when Germanicus’ urn was returned to surmounted by an image of Trajan in a triumphal quadriga her from Antioch in ad 19.15 However, Germanicus’ inal (see below), it presumably included a solid square base.24 resting place was the Mausoleum of Augustus, the family Where did the idea arise that Trajan should be buried at tomb, whereas Trajan, uniquely among emperors, was to be the foot of his column? A large school of thought has taken honoured with a public burial. Several ancient writers tell us the ‘tomb chamber’ in the pedestal as deinitive proof that that his ashes, in a golden urn, were deposited ‘beneath the the idea was Trajan’s own, but I have just explained how column in his Forum’16 i.e. Trajan’s Column, the huge weak that evidence is, and any attempt on his part to monument that had been dedicated by the Senate in pre-empt the honour seems unlikely on principle, since its Trajan’s honour four years earlier, in ad 113, the year Trajan value lay precisely in the fact that it was a voluntary gift from had set out for his Parthian War. It stood within the the state. For the same reason, he would not have made the , where burial was normally forbidden, only request in his will, though the family might have brought permitted by special decree of the Senate. The decree could pressure to bear on the Senate discretely, letting it be known have been passed as soon as Plotina arrived with the ashes that such had been Trajan’s deathbed wish. Otherwise, (perhaps it was one of the ‘other honours’ that the Senate Trajan could have expected to be buried, as his adoptive granted which Hadrian had not asked for in the letter that father Nerva had been, in the Mausoleum of Augustus, Plotina delivered to them), but it is unlikely that the Column though we are told that was now full.25 Presumably the will have been ready to receive them straightaway. Its family had tombs elsewhere in Rome and back home in primary function, traditional in Rome, had been to support . Where, for instance, had Trajan buried his own a statue, the second of the honorary statues17 that the SPQR father Traianus, who had probably died before ad 97, and had given to Trajan in exchange for his gift of the Forum his beloved sister Marciana, who died in ?26 Given the Traiani and (Pl. 1). It stood in a small number of building projects he left uninished at the time of

6 | Hadrian: Art, Politics and Economy Plate 2a–c: a (top left) Trajan’s Column. Plan of the pedestal and top of foundations (Boni 1907, ig. 3); b (top right) Trajan’s Column. NW–SE section through pedestal and top of foundations (Boni 1907, ig. 4); c (left) ‘Trajan’s tomb’ (Boni 1907, ig. 13) his death – and the high hopes he must have had as he set out continues ‘and the image that was put on top [et imago on campaign again in October ad 113 (the year of the superposita] – just as is done with triumphantes – was carried column’s original dedication) that even more building would into the city, the Senate and army leading the procession’ follow his Parthian conquests – it is possible that had he lived [huius exusti corporis cineres relati Romam humatique Traiano foro longer he would have built the mausoleum which was later sub eius columna, et imago superposita – sicut triumphantes solent – in built by Hadrian, but had simply not yet got round to it. urbem invecta (sc.est), senatu praeeunte et exercitu]. The HA Hadrian Alternatively, the idea could just as well have come from 6.3 also refers to this procession: ‘When the senate ofered within the Senate at the time Plotina delivered the letters, a him the triumph which was to have been Trajan’s, he genuine desire to pay him some exceptional honour, [Hadrian] refused it for himself and conveyed the eigy of especially among Trajan’s ex-generals, efectively trumping Trajan in a triumphal chariot, in order that the best of Hadrian’s pious request for consecration. Still uppermost in emperors might not lose even after death the honour of a their minds will have been the Dacian conquest, the triumph’.28 Some modern commentators take this to mean memory of the extraordinary triumphal procession and that Trajan’s eigy celebrated a real triumph,29 but both games that had celebrated it, and the column monument sources carefully avoid saying any such thing. A real that had commemorated it. The Parthian War, although he triumph was a sacriicial procession, ending at the Capitol, put a brave face on it, had been a inancial as well as a where the sacriice to would be performed by the military disaster; that he would have actually performed his living triumphator, hence the Senate’s ofer of a Parthian triumph as Parthicus is doubtful, since there seem to have triumph to Hadrian instead. No posthumous examples are been few spoils.27 It is this which brings us to the unusual known. A sacriice could not be performed by a dead person, event known as Trajan’s ‘Parthian triumph’. or by an eigy, and certainly not by one god to another – in the light of which, Hadrian’s refusal to triumph on Divus Trajan’s ‘Parthian triumph’ Traianus’s behalf was doubly proper. The account of Trajan’s burial in Epit. de Caes. 13.11 begins: The ‘triumphal’ procession must, therefore, have been ‘The ashes of his burnt body were transferred to Rome and something else. It has been argued that, although his funeral buried in the Forum of Trajan under his column’ and then rites per se had already been performed and his body

Hadrian’s Succession and the Monuments of Trajan | 7 obscure (grammatically it should refer to the ashes, not the column on top of his mortal remains, hence the idea of an eigy burned on a pyre in a funus imaginarium; some have thought of transferring the reference to the top of the column, despite the linguistic objections; but that already bore a statue, see Pl. 1).38 A note in the epitome of Dio (69.2.3) in connection with the burial tells us that so-called Parthian Games were held for a number of years thereafter, but they were later allowed to lapse. No further details of these survive, but they were presumably funerary, and also Plate 3 Trajan’s Parthian triumph on an aureus of AD 117–18. British Hadrian’s idea, ofered by him on behalf of himself and Museum, London (R.8040) Trajan’s family. An actual date for either the deposition of the ashes or the cremated in the East, this was his funus imaginarium, the ‘triumph’ is elusive. Our sources suggest they were connected substitute ceremony in such cases, where a wax eigy was and that Hadrian will have wanted to be present, at least for carried in parade and burnt on a pyre, giving the general the procession, which the implies was his populace an opportunity to participate in the mourning.30 In idea.39 Things could have been supervised by Plotina et al. in the case of Trajan, it has also been argued that staging the his absence, the tomb and the statue made, the procession funus as a triumph was a necessary preliminary to his and the games organized, so the summer of ad 118 is possible; consecration as a god.31 However, the normal destination of a but so is any other time until Hadrian’s departure again in ad public funeral, and an eventual consecration, was the 121. They might even have been postponed to his second Campus Martius, having started from the Forum Romanum, advent in ad 125 (see below), for we have to take into account whereas the Epit. de Caes. indicates movement in the other that Hadrian’s irst return will have also seen the planning of direction, into the city (presumably from the Campus), which Divus Traianus’s temple, an enormous undertaking, to be was led – like a triumph – by the Senate and army. constructed in the immediate vicinity. Furthermore it may be doubted that a consecratio was involved, since it had already been decreed by the Senate in ad 117, Trajan’s temple when Hadrian asked for it: Trajan was already a god.32 Hadrian’s request from Syria that Trajan should be Although in the funerary context an imago might be made consecrated as a god, for whom he would vow and build a of wax, it more generally signiies a portrait statue or bust in temple, had already been approved by the Senate in ad 117 bronze or marble.33 Commemorative portraiture at death (see above). The established protocol of imperial successions, was a particular tradition at Rome, especially among the such as it was, expected it of him as a demonstration of his aristocracy.34 Given that Trajan’s was not to be a normal towards his predecessor and thus the legitimacy of his imperial burial but a special one decreed by the Senate succession,40 but a particularly personal importance is within the city limits, this could be what the procession was suggested by the Historia Augusta: ‘the temple of his father for – a real statue of Trajan, an image for his tomb, either a Trajan was the only one of the innumerable works he built standing igure or more probably a whole triumphal quadriga on which he inscribed his own name’.41 Although nothing – the most substantial form of statue-honour for a triumphator stands above ground, some sort of juxtaposition with the – a gift from Hadrian or yet another from the Senate.35 In ad Column is implied by their listing together in the Regionary 116 when ofering Trajan his Parthian triumph, the people Catalogues for Region VIII (templum divi Traiani et columna are also recorded as planning to build him an arch,36 for cochlis)42 and a site immediately to the north of the Column is which a statue in triumphal quadriga would have been de attested by reports of massive columns and other rigueur. Possibly the statue destined for the arch was architectural elements lying under the Palazzo Valentini diverted to the tomb instead. That would give the Column (currently seat of the Provincia di ). Many of the two public statues, one at the top facing south-east and one columns belong to a Corinthian order, of colossal at the foot facing north-west. An aureus issued in Rome (Pl. dimensions – 60 Roman feet (17.76m) high with monolithic 3) bearing the legends Divo Traiano Parth(ico) Aug(usto) Patri shafts in two types of imperial Egyptian granite.43 These and Triumphus Parthicus (A Parthian triumph for the Divine have generally been reconstructed as the porch of an Trajan Parthicus, Augustus, Father) could represent the octastyle temple which was placed on axis with the Column statue in question: a velate Trajan standing in a chariot of and enclosed within a large precinct.44 A particularly the tall tower-like ‘triumphal’ type, drawn by four horses, detailed and authoritative version by Italo Gismondi in the with a sceptre in his left hand and a laurel branch in his 1930s persuaded scholars that the temple must have been right.37 Hadrian staged the procession like a triumph, with planned as part of Trajan’s original Forum project, leaving the Senate and army leading the way, starting from the to Hadrian only the responsibility of carrying it out.45 Campus as triumphs did but instead of ending at the In the 1990s, however, a fuller investigation of the Capitolium, it ended at the Column, where it would grace archival record and explorations in the basements of the tomb which, as suggested above, was a new structure Palazzo Valentini failed to conirm the axial position, and installed for the purpose on the north-west side. This would the temple has since been oicially wiped of the map, its give a straightforward meaning to the term superposita porch turned into a monumental propylon facing the other (placed on top) in the Epit. de Caes. which has otherwise been way (Pl. 4).46 I am not alone in inding that solution highly

8 | Hadrian: Art, Politics and Economy Plate 4 Meneghini’s propylon theory (Meneghini 1998, ig. 9) improbable47 and in 2007 proposed that we should allow instead for the possibility that the temple was not quite as large as that of Ultor (on which it has usually been modelled), that it was hexastyle rather than octastyle and, most signiicantly, that it was not on axis (north-west), rather, it was placed due north, facing the Column at an angle (Pl. 5). The Palazzo Valentini’s main courtyard (which lies 2 metres higher than the surrounding streets) could correspond fairly closely with the position of the temple cella, while the despoiled ruins of the pronaos and its collapsed columns could account for the irregularities of the southern wing and smaller yard, and their downward 48 slope towards the Column. Excavations in the cellars all Plate 5 Conjectural location of the temple of Divus Traianus around the main courtyard have found a sequence of (Claridge 2007) wealthy houses which, if the temple was there, encroached from the east in the course of the mid 2nd to early 6th By a happy chance, between 2007 and 2010 excavations centuries ad, but everything found so far can be reconciled for the new Metropolitana C station at with its continued existence in their midst.49 brought some far more reliable shape to this prospect of a Not to follow the existing alignment of Trajan’s Forum very diferent setting for the temple (Pl. 6).51 Where and the Column when placing the temple might seem a previously Gismondi had reconstructed a curving temple perverse decision to us, but could have its own particular precinct wall with a street on the outside we now have a rationale in antiquity. Public building was a very monumental curving porticus, with a suite of three competitive business, among emperors as much as others. monumental Hadrianic buildings laid out in an arc behind While axial symmetry is a distinguishing feature of high it, facing on to a piazza. The buildings were apparently status Roman architecture, it was generally limited to the identical in form but distinguished from each other by the internal organization of space within a given building or set particular qualities of their interior marble decoration. Each of buildings; it was rarely carried over externally from one comprised a large rectangular hall containing two opposed emperor’s project into the next. Where the ground was lat banks of seating, entered at both ends from a wide lateral and space allowed, successive projects might develop corridor of three bays. The main chamber had a lofty according to a common orthogonal grid, but each project concrete barrel vault, cofered on the underside. In within that grid took its own distinctive shape and its own dimensions and internal layout the hall resembles the orientation, turned at 90, 180 or 270 degrees to the buildings Julia on the , except that the entrances are around it. Which is to say, Hadrian could have chosen to placed diferently. The precise building type has not hitherto position his temple for Trajan at an angle precisely because it been attested in Rome but has some possible parallels was his own project, which he wished to make clear, and not elsewhere in the Roman world which suggest that they could just by inscribing his name on it. If, against the odds, be rhetorical schools-cum-libraries – namely the bibliotheca Trajan’s temple does turn out to be on axis with Trajan’s Ulpia and bibliothecae Divi Traiani (the Ulpian Library and the Forum after all, then this would not necessarily mean that Libraries of Divus Traianus) whose existence in this vicinity is Trajan had planned it, only that Hadrian intentionally known from the written sources.52 The suite can now be subordinated his project to Trajan’s in ilial deference, which dated very precisely by quantities of brickstamps to the years the inscription of his name on the temple then emphasized. and 125, and, moreover, it seems to have replaced a If on the other hand it lies due north, this could have its own previous project.53 A similar sequence has been found in the more positive values. It would mean it shared its orientation two halls located to either side of the Column, traditionally with the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitol, identiied as libraries (Pl. 5), whose construction may have for instance, while the rooline will have directed a line of started before Trajan’s death in ad 117 or slightly later (ad sight from the top of the Column of Trajan to the top of the 118–19) but was interrupted in progress and completed to a Mausoleum of Augustus, also capped with a statue, at the far modiied design around ad 122–5.54 A colonnade on the end of the Campus Martius.50 north-west side of the Column courtyard was removed and

Hadrian’s Succession and the Monuments of Trajan | 9 Plate 7 of c. AD 125–8 depicting Hadrian being acclaimed by the people in front of the temple of (?) Divus Traianus. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford

divi who might have shared Trajan’s temple by ad 126 – his sister Diva Marciana deiied in ad 112,59 his real father Divus Traianus Pater deiied shortly after,60 Marciana’s daughter (Hadrian’s mother-in-law) Diva Matidia, who died and was deiied in December ,61 Trajan’s wife – Hadrian’s adoptive mother – Diva Plotina, who died and was deiied sometime in ad 122–3, though in her case Hadrian is 62 Plate 6 Restored plan of buildings newly excavated near Piazza reported as having given her a temple of her own. Matidia Venezia (Egidi 2010, ig. 31) had her own temple on the Campus Martius, with a basilica on either side, one named for her, the other for Marciana.63 the paving extended, supported on foundations that have Trajan’s adoptive father Divus Nerva is also a candidate, since now also proved to date from ad 123 and 125.55 there is some doubt that the temple vowed for him by Trajan The discovery of a major Hadrianic building programme upon his own succession had been built.64 Divus Traianus around and to the north-west of the Column in ad 122–5 Parthicus and one or more other fragmentary divi are named increases the probability that the temple was under in two monumental inscriptions of a closely related form construction at the same time, notwithstanding current recorded from the area north of the Column, both doubts as to its exact position. The plans could have been put dedications by Hadrian ‘parentibus suis’ (‘to his parents’).65 in hand, and the site inaugurated, before Hadrian left Rome Although commonly attributed to the temple, their letter size in ad 121. Its basic fabric, including its massive columns (only 140 mm), their format (on four lines) and their (probably diverted on Hadrian’s orders from the Pantheon duplication might better suit two sides of an arch or two project) could have been in place by ad 122–3, at which point smaller monuments, perhaps large statue bases. Diva Plotina is it was possible to start work also on the surrounding the normal restoration on the understanding that ‘parents’ buildings. Hadrian returned in the summer of ad 125, which were intended in the strict sense of Hadrian’s (adoptive) will have enabled him to oversee the inal phases of the mother and father, but since parentes can also be used of project. ad 126 was his : the tenth anniversary of his grandfathers and other relations, Divus Nerva and Divus accession and of Trajan’s death and consecration. What Traianus Pater should not be ruled out.66 better year to dedicate his temple? Pertinent could be an If a coin of c. ad 125–8 (Pl. 7) represents Hadrian entry in the Ostienses for ad 126, unfortunately not more acknowledging an acclamation of the from a closely dated, which records Hadrian’s dedication of a rostra in front of the temple of Divus Traianus, as I have templum Divoru[m] accompanied by a munus of 1,825 pairs of suggested,67 then the rostra on which he stands and the held in circo (presumably Maximo).56 The text is rearing horses which appear in the background to either side fragmentary and Divoru[m] has been thought to refer to Divus were presumably also part of the project. The rostra may Vespasianus and Divus ,57 but it may be questioned why have been traced in the cellars of Palazzo Valentini, lying on Hadrian should be dedicating a temple to the Flavian divi at axis with the column.68 The three horses to the right could this juncture, especially with such an extravagant munus (a represent the quadriga for his Parthian triumph, set on his show for the people) staged not in the Flavian amphitheatre tomb (see above). Alternatively they and the other horse but in the , which was one of Trajan’s great beyond the temple could represent a pair of triumphal benefactions to the people.58 There were numerous Ulpian quadrigae which lanked the temple, commemorating

10 | Hadrian: Art, Politics and Economy Trajan’s other two triumphs (as Germanicus, which he shared with Divus Nerva, and as Dacicus). Or, alternatively again, they honoured respectively Nerva Germanicus and Traianus Pater – who won the ornamenta triumphalia during service in Parthia in ad 74–769 – in which case their placement beside the temple reinforces the possibility that it housed them too. The statuary faintly indicated in the temple pediment seems to be a quadruped with a short head with a igure or igures above – perhaps a hunt, real or mythological, a theme which Hadrian may have considered eminently appropriate to Trajan’s .70

The frieze on Trajan’s Column For most people, the monument to Trajan is the frieze on the shaft of his Column. Two hundred metres long, wound 23 times round the shaft, it tells the story of his two Dacian Wars (–6) in some 155 scenes, and is carved in extraordinary detail. The army sets out, builds bridges, enters enemy territory, forages for food, builds camps, engages in ferocious battles, builds more bridges, achieves victory and creates the new province of Dacia; then has to do it all over again because of the peridy of the Dacian king , but eventually prevails and the barbarians are brought to inal defeat. Trajan is prominent throughout (up to band 21 at any rate), appearing over 50 times, in a range of situations which were evidently calculated to illustrate his virtues: his piety towards the gods (ofering sacriice at the start of each campaign), his concern for the welfare and morale of his troops, his skill in dealing with the barbarians, receiving their embassies, showing clemency. In return he is blessed by Plate 8 Appearances of Trajan in the frieze on Trajan’s Column the gods (not just Victory, but Jupiter Tonans and Night both (Galinier 2007, ig. 15) intervene to help the Romans) and is rewarded by the loyalty and companionship of all his subordinate oicers, who are professionalism as well as that of the . That the also portrayed as recognizable individuals, often standing, frieze was most probably a Hadrianic addition to the sitting or riding beside him. Although he rides to the rescue Column I have already argued elsewhere on a number of in band 15 scene xcvii, he is never shown charging into battle other grounds,73 here by way of conclusion, I would draw in the Alexandrian manner of the so-called Great Trajanic attention to a couple more. Frieze, which is thought to have decorated some part of First, there is the question of the relationship between the Trajan’s Forum.71 In the 19th century the frieze was seen layout of the frieze and the temple. Some connection has primarily as a form of historical document – a pictorial always been suspected, because Victory, the single most edition of Trajan’s own lost commentary. Since then, as its prominent igure, who marks the division between the two structure, repertory and composition of scenes have been wars, is centred on the Column’s north-west side, which studied increasingly as ‘text’, its visual language has been presumed to face the temple, not on the south-east side, seen as ever more ideologically charged.72 Both the narrative which is that shown in the coins. Not just Victory but an style and the artistic vocabulary used on the Column can be episode known as the ‘omen of victory’ and its outcome, the matched to the rhetorical language of contemporary suicide of Decebalus appear on this north-west axis, one of and eulogy. the ‘vertical correspondences’ which could have allowed the The more eulogistic the message contained in the frieze is frieze to be read synoptically from one particular direction, perceived to be, the more it appears speciically composed instead of trying to follow its continuous narrative around for the honours of his public burial and apotheosis. Like the the shaft.74 The correspondence on the ‘Victory axis’ has tomb and the temple, however, the idea that the frieze was been taken as evidence that the temple and the frieze must commissioned, either by the Senate or by the man himself, have been designed at the same time, though as part of a while he was still alive, sits most uncomfortably with what Trajanic project.75 If the temple turns out to be positioned at we know of his character and the balance of imperial power an angle, as I have proposed, then the correspondence is no in Rome. Rather, it is just the sort of eulogy we might longer there. Or is it? imagine Hadrian delivering beside the Column in praise of The latest study of the frieze, by Martin Galinier, his father, the imperator and optimus princeps, outstanding analyses both continuous and intermittent vertical readings general of the army and outstanding leader of the Senate, in equal measure. He is a irm believer in its Trajanic date, using the Dacian Wars and Trajan’s own words as metaphor, but most helpfully for my case, he has mapped the incidence and his own experiences, to illustrate Trajan’s consummate of all the appearances of Trajan (Pl. 8) and the gist of the

Hadrian’s Succession and the Monuments of Trajan | 11 ‘vertical correspondences’ from eight directions: on the four main axes and the four diagonals, the latter as deined by the corners of the pedestal (Pl. 9). Although he was not disposed to make much of it,76 both his exercises reveal the same singular imbalance: Trajan appears twice as frequently, and with a far greater preponderance of other notably more signiicant messages, not on the north-west axis, or any of the Column’s other orthogonal axes, but between the north-east and north-west, that is on the diagonal axis which faces due north (Pl. 10a), where I would place the temple. The very irst igure in the frieze, an auxiliary on guard duty, is positioned on this axis (Pl. 10b) and directly in line upwards from his head, scene after scene was evidently calculated to coincide with the same point, where the longer scenes often divide around a particularly eye-catching component:

Band 1: i Auxiliaries stand guard on the Roman side of the Danube Band 2: viii Trajan performs a sacriice at the outset of his campaign Band 3: xvi Trajan inspecting fort-building and xvii Trajan Plate 9 Themes in the vertical correspondences on the eight faces interrogating Dacian prisoners of Trajan’s Column (Galinier 2007, ig. 28) Band 4: xxiv Battle of , intervention of Jupiter Tonans Such a concentration of imagery is not likely to be Band 5: xxxii Attack on a Dacian stronghold fortuitous – if there was ever an attempt to provide a synopsis Band 6: xxxviii Night battle against the of the whole story on one face of the Column this would Band 7: xlii: Trajan addresses the troops seem to be it, and if the temple turns out to be positioned at Band 8: lii Trajan receives Dacian embassy and liii Trajan the same angle we would have even more reason to connect suovetaurilia sacriice the two in a speciically Hadrianic context. Band 9: lxi Trajan receives surrender of Dacian nobleman Before one gets too carried away, however, it must be and lxii supply wagons advance to a Roman fort noted that our habit of cutting up the frieze into equal Band 10: lxvi A major engagement, focal point: ballista sections for reproduction in books has tended to obscure the emplacement inside stacked logs fact that its 150 or so scenes are of greatly difering lengths, Band 11: lxxii Trajan surveys the last battle of the First War. those on the diagonal axes of the Column (N, W, S, E) being Focal point: Stonethrower generally longer and more complex than those on its Band 12: lxxvii Trajan acclaimed as Dacicus by his troops orthogonal axes (NW, SW, SE, NE). This must be because and lxxviii trophy (end of First War) the orthogonal axes are interrupted at intervals by the Band 13: lxxxv Trajan, on his return to Dacia at the outset of windows which light the internal staircase, whereas the the Second War, is welcomed with a grand sacriice diagonal axes invariably ofer a clear space 3 metres wide. In Band 14: xci Trajan sacriices at six altars – those of the six places the windows allowed for a clear ield across the deiied Caesars, at Ulpianum(?) orthogonal axes, too, and the sculptors took advantage of all Band 15: xcvii clearing forest and drawn up to such opportunities, but more often they made those axes witness Trajan sacriicing coincide with divisions between two smaller scenes, Band 16: civ Trajan addresses his legions especially where there was a window to be negotiated. The Band 17: cx legionaries harvesting grain and cxi auxiliaries diiculty was not only how to incorporate the window’s on watch before a Dacian city black rectangle into any given composition (often no efort Band 18: cxv a sally by the Dacians. Focal point: ferocious was made to do so), rather that the wide embrasure inside Dacian leader the window meant the stone around the slot was Band 19: cxx–cxxii Dacians take poison from Decebalus, comparatively thin – it will have been quite risky to do much others lee. Focal point: Dacian weeping over the body of his carving close to it. Carving on the diagonal axes was also comrade compromised, but to a much lesser extent, at the junction Band 20: cxxviii–cxxx large Roman fortress under between one drum and the next, by small iller-holes construction. Dacian nobles plead with Trajan (or are through which lead had been fed into the lower end of the telling him where Decabalus has hidden treasure) four large metal dowels pinning one block to the next (hence Band 21: cxxxvii Trajan addresses the army for the last time. the large cavities that frequently mar the centres of the reliefs Decebalus’ treasure being brought on mules on the diagonal axes, where scavengers have spotted the Band 22: cxlv pursuit and suicide of Decebalus holes and chiselled into the depths of the blocks to extract Band 23: cl–cli the last ighting of the war, last buildings in the dowels). Such considerations, certainly until the position the frieze. Focal point: and fallen Dacian of the temple is conirmed one way or the other, suggest to

12 | Hadrian: Art, Politics and Economy Plate 10a–b a: north face of Trajan’s Column (photo: author); b: north face of Trajan’s Column, bands 1–2 (photo: author) me that the preponderance of scenes on the north face rather has been deinitely identiied as his, and in so far as the than the north-west could have been prompted by its artistic matter has been given much consideration at all, his relative advantages as much as the desire to put the frieze in obscurity has been taken to endorse a Trajanic rather than dialogue with the temple. The west face (that towards the Hadrianic date. Unfortunately, no particulars of Hadrian’s curving portico and its suite of curia-like halls) also has a exploits are given, so we do not know what we might be good quota of very eloquent scenes, whose arrangement in looking for in the way of action, nor is it certain how he will the vertical sense would surely repay further study. The have been portrayed, in the event that the frieze was carved relative visibility of one side of the column compared to before his accession, possibly in the ‘youthful’ Hadrian type, another should also be taken into account if we really want with long sideburns, which appears on coins issued for his to understand ancient viewpoints and the viewer experience. decennalia, but seems to have resurrected a type minted at It is not just a question of distance and angle,77 it is also light. just after his accession.80 An added complication One reason why the sequence on the north face has not been is that even the portraits of Trajan on the Column are recognized before is that, nowadays, it is extremely diicult extremely variable, some look nothing like him; we can pick to see except very early in the morning and is disigured by him out only by his actions and gestures, or by the fact that long black streaks which run down the shaft at precisely this he is usually slightly taller than the rest of his oicers and angle, for the Basilica Ulpia no longer gives the Column any usually the centre of attention from surrounding igures. protection from the weather, nor our eyes a guard against Many Romans in the frieze sport short of the sun. We may seriously doubt that anyone was expected Hadrian’s type81 including several oicers, some of whom to read the detail, except the deiied Trajan in his temple, look to be of suitable age (26–30). Two appear in the irst but it was surely intended to be readable in some degree, and band (scenes iv–v), leading their troops over the Danube on instead of reconstructing the surrounding buildings to pontoon bridges, wearing the cuirass and paludamentum provide spectator terraces, or applying paint (for which there diagnostic of generals, but in the second case the legate has a is no evidence whatsoever) it might be more instructive to companion in front, not wearing a cuirass, who might be reconstruct a series of diferent roof heights and model the Hadrian (Pl. 11). The igure is centred on the south-east column and its reliefs in raking light as the sun moves round axis, over the door. Alternatively, there is a very tall the sky. cuirassed igure at the far end of scene v who is defaced (Pl. Finally, if the frieze is Hadrianic, and it was meant to be 12). Given his size he is generally identiied as Trajan read, where’s Hadrian? He accompanied Trajan as a himself, but the masonry behind him and the gesture of his in the , was given command of Legio I hand indicates that he actually belongs to the adjacent scene Minervia in the Second, and was apparently commended for vi in which Trajan is already seated on a high dais in his exploits, receiving dona militaria from Trajan for both company with two of his generals. Trajan would not be wars,78 so we should expect him to appear in the frieze, shown twice in the same setting, and the tall igure is whenever it was carved. Some modern commentators have standing on the ground, not raised on the dais, so despite his been willing to recognize him here and there79 yet no igure size is evidently a subordinate, albeit an important one.

Hadrian’s Succession and the Monuments of Trajan | 13 (from left to right) Plate 11 Trajan’s Column frieze, detail of scene IV (from DAI Rome neg. 91.149)

Plate 12 Trajan’s Column frieze, detail of scenes V–VI (from DAI Rome neg. 91.150)

Plate 13 Trajan’s Column frieze, detail of scenes VII–VIII, from plaster cast in Museo della Civiltà Romana EUR (photo: author)

Another faceless igure more justiiably recognized as Conclusion Trajan is that presiding at the irst sacriice, scene viii, Trajan’s death in ad 117 was marked in the city of Rome by centred on the north face, whose head is framed by the tent two important monuments – his public burial within the roof above (Pls 10b, 13) but the similarity between the pomerium, at the foot of the column that the Senate had worn by the igure and a unique velate statue of Hadrian in dedicated in his honour in ad 113, and a temple which Rome, found near the Castra Peregrina on the Caelian, is housed him as the god Divus Traianus. Only the Column still intriguing.82 Two scenes further on, in the irst of Trajan’s stands, and the exact location of the temple is currently in adlocutiones (scene x) addressing the troops from a high stone doubt, but both monuments were evidently closely podium (Pl. 14), a clean-shaven general standing directly connected with one another. Modern scholarship is in the behind him is surely Sura, but the bearded igure habit of crediting their juxtaposition to a plan drawn up by in the foreground to the left seems a good candidate for Trajan, well before his death, when designing his Forum in Hadrian, as Gauer thought.83 The man has no cuirass, only 106. This paper has pursued the alternative view, that a leather jerkin (like the igure stepping of the pontoon in Trajan will not have attempted to deprive the Senate and his scene v and one in scene lxxiv), and is equal in height to successor of the honour of honouring him, and that it was Trajan. Still more remarkably Hadrian-like is a curious Hadrian who brought the tomb and temple together, to igure positioned at mid shaft on our prime north axis (band underscore the legitimacy of his succession and consolidate 11, lxxii), dressed only in a tunic and cloak (similar to his somewhat shaky imperial position at the end of his irst Trajan’s travelling costume in scene xci) and about to throw year of power. The tomb was a gift from the Senate, not a stone from a pouchful he has wrapped in his cloak (Pl. hidden inside the column pedestal but a new installation 15). Isolated within the mêlée of legionaries, auxiliaries and located in full view on the outside, identiied by an Dacians that surround him, his head silhouetted against the inscription and probably crowned with a statue of Trajan rocky terrain, he even seems to have Hadrian’s which the Senate may have originally commissioned for an characteristic crease in the lobe of his ear.84 Whatever the arch to commemorate his inal Parthian triumph. Hadrian answer to that conundrum, Hadrian ought to be represented among the generals in the Second War. Plate 14 Trajan’s Column frieze, detail of scene X (from DAI Rome neg. 91.153) According to Gauer he is the bearded general in scene cxli behind Trajan (his inal appearance on the Column), and might be present also in lxxv, but few agree.85 We must leave the question open, but it is worth stressing that Hadrian’s absence would be odd whether the frieze was carved before ad 113 or not until ad 118–26, though the latter would be marginally easier to understand, in that Hadrian could have had himself omitted from the story in deference to the honour which was being paid to Trajan, rather than that Trajan during his lifetime had ordered his son-in-law and recipient of dona militaria to be omitted on purpose.86 The degree to which Trajan’s fellow generals are present, shown participating on all occasions, is also a striking feature that might reward further study in the context of the events that had marred the beginning of Hadrian’s reign.

14 | Hadrian: Art, Politics and Economy 14 HA Hadrian 7.3; Birley 1997, 94–6. 15 Kierdorf 1986, 152. 16 Dio 69.2.3; HA Hadrian 6, 1–2; 8.5.2–3; Epit. de Caes. 13.11. 17 The other being the equus Traiani, also commemorated on the coinage, a colossal portrait of him on horseback (Bergemann 1990, 166 L32, pl. 92h), whose base has now been identiied in the forum square, set towards the southern end: Meneghini and Santangeli Valenzani 2007, 86f. 18 CIL VI 960; Lepper and Frere 1988, 20, 203–7. 19 Amm. Marc. 16.10.14: elatosque vertices qui scansili suggestu consurgunt, priorum principum imitatamenta portantes ‘lofty heights [columns] which bear platforms to which one may mount, and the images of former emperors’ were among the wonders that greeted Constantius IV on his visit to Rome in ad 357. As far as we know, the plural can only refer to the Columns of Trajan and (’ was not hollow). The steps in Trajan’s Column are not as worn as those of Marcus, but that might only mean it was less frequented in later ages, not in antiquity. 20 E.g. Zanker 1970, 532, followed by Settis 1988, 53, Packer 1997, 117, Plate 15 Trajan’s Column Galinier 2007, 188f.; also Hesberg 1992, 160f.; Davies 1997, 46. frieze, detail of scene LXXII 21 Hesberg and Panciera 1994, 88–147, e.g. Octavia’s (94 no. II, pl. (from DAI Rome neg. 13a) measures 1.04m; Agrippina the Elder’s (137 no. XVI, pl. 15 c–d) 89.742) measures 1.14m; an anonymous (162f. no. XXVIII, pl. 13b) is 1.34m high, all are missing their lids and plinths. 22 Compare 50 cells with stone beds for slaves in the basement of a had the statue conveyed to the tomb in a procession led by late Republican house on the : Carandini 1986, 264f. ig. 1 the Senate and the army, as the triumph would have been, and similar basement cells in Lugli 1947, 147–9 ig. 45 (there and no doubt participated himself – not as triumphator, which identiied as a brothel); for the cells in the lupanare at Pompeii (VII, he had refused, but as Trajan’s son. The temple was a gift 12, 18–20), which contain little more than a masonry bed, see Lugli from Hadrian, put in hand when he was in Rome in ad 1947, 157f. ig. 48 (plan); Varone 2003, 204 tav. II (plan); McGinn 2004, 232f. and ig. 6. 118–21 and dedicated when he returned for his decennalia in 23 That Trajan’s tomb would not be inscribed with his name and titles, ad 126. It may have housed both Divus Traianus and other and that the legality of the burial would not be publicly declared, family divi – such as Trajan’s fathers Divus Nerva and Divus would go against all norms of Roman funerary practice (Keppie Traianus Pater – and, as the latest archaeological discoveries 1991, 106f.). The very fact that so many diferent commentators in late antiquity knew that Trajan’s Column was his tomb and that have shown, it was erected in conjunction with a suite of the knowledge survived well into the suggests there libraries or schools at the same time as alterations were made was a public inscription in addition to that which survives. to the Column, its courtyard and the buildings to either side. 24 Unfortunately, all the marble paving of the courtyard around the Hadrian’s change to Trajan’s Column was to add the frieze Column has been stripped and even the travertine capping of the on the shaft, which efectively turned the column on its axis Column foundation is missing along most of the north-west side, where a large hole was cut into the Column foundation in the early to face in the same direction as the tomb at its foot, and Middle Ages (for plan and section see here Pl. 2a–b). It is possible developed the story of Trajan’s Dacian triumph into a that the medieval hole (illed with burials) enlarged an existing one permanent eulogy in stone. Trajan did have plans to develop on the same spot. The footings of a tomb superstructure made of the area around his Column and the hillside beyond, plans solid marble, as one should expect Trajan’s to be, might only have been let into the marble paving of the court, not set deeper into the which were in progress at the time of his death and may have ground (the concrete foundations of the paving are anyway a metre included porticus and libraries but that project was stopped thick), thus leaving no trace. and Hadrian instituted his grander one, which united 25 Nerva’s burial in the Mausoleum of Augustus had been at Trajan’s Trajan’s tomb and temple together with libraries, schools request: Epit.de Caes 12.12. For the base of a portrait statue which accompanied Nerva’s burial, perhaps set up outside the tomb, see and a public rostra in a new vision of shared senatorial, and Hesberg and Panciera 1994, 144–6 no. XX, pl. 12c. ‘Ulpian’, ideological values. 26 Bennett 1997, 19: death of Traianus Pater before ad 100 implied by Pliny Pan. 89.2, and before ad 97 by his adoption by Nerva; death Notes and apotheosis of Marciana Fasti Ostienses J 40–44: Bargagli and 1 Birley 1997, 77. Grosso 1997, 36–8. 2 Bennett 1997, 201f. 27 Bennett 1997, 191–201; Birley 1997, 66–75. 3 HA Hadrian 5.9–10. 28 HA Hadrian 6.3: Cum triumphum ei senatus, qui Traiano debitus erat, 4 Birley 1997, 52–5. detulisset, recusavit ipse atque imaginem Traiani curru triumphali vexit, ut 5 Pliny Pan. 6.3, 8.1–3, 5.10.1 and 6, 47.5; Dio 68.2.3 and 3.3–4; optimus imperator ne post mortem quidem triumphi amitteret dignitatem. Eutropius 8.1.1–2; Epit. de Caes. 12.9; cf. Bennett 1997, 41, 47–50. Birley 1997, 99f., Bennett 1997, 204. 6 HA Hadrian 4.6–7. Birley 1997, 77. 29 Beard 2007, 42, 88–9, 91. 7 HA Hadrian 6.1–2. 30 Boer 1975, 206f. on analogy with funeral of Augustus. Settis 8 Dio 68.23.1. 1988, 78 agrees. In general, Arce 2010, 312–17. 9 Dio 68.29.2. The date is conirmed by the Fasti Ostienses: Bargagli 31 Richard 1966, 258. and Grosso 1997, p. 40f. Kb, 14–16. 32 On which further, see den Boer 1975. 10 HA Hadrian 6.3–4. 33 Lahusen 1982, 108. 11 Birley 1997, 81: BMC III, p. 124; another BMC III, Hadrian no. 8, 34 Flower 1996 passim; the letters of provide a in Hadrian’s name as emperor with Trajan’s titles and the two of sample of what might go on in the early : Ep. IV, 2 and them clasping hands on the reverse with a subscript ‘Adoptio’. 7 (on the senator M. Aquilius Regulus’ exaggerated behaviour on 12 Birley 1997, 78, 83–92. the death of his son). 13 Birley 1997, 93. 35 Well documented in the case of L. Volusius Saturninus cos ,

Hadrian’s Succession and the Monuments of Trajan| 15 who was given three: Eck 1972, 469f., though as Fejfer 2008, 441f. 55 Claridge 2007, 85–7. points out, those were likely to be a pedestrian statue in triumphal 56 Bargagli and Grosso 1997, 43: Ma ll. 2–5. costume, not an equestrian igure or the full-blown quadriga 57 Degrassi 1947, 233; Boatwright 1987, 56. The association is with the chariot. Divorum on the Campus Martius, built by , known from 36 Dio 68.29.3. the Marble Plan, but that is a porticus, not a temple (LTUR II, 37 Strack II 22; BMC III, 47.7. Broadly datable to 117–18. Similar types 19–20 s.v.). were issued for imperial triumphs, e.g. aurei of Domitian of ad 88–9 58 Pliny Pan. 51; Dio 68.7.2; Humphrey 1986, 102–6. (Trioni Romani 2008, 131 no. 1.2.12), perhaps also representing a 59 29 August 112 in the Fasti Ostienses J 40–4 (Bargagli and Grosso statue rather than the event itself. 1997, 36–8). 38 Kierdorf (1986, 150) reasoned that it would have to be a standing 60 M. Ulpius Trajanus had died at least 16 years earlier (see here n. igure, placed on top of the burial itself, but does not enter into the 26), but the deiication did not take place until just before Trajan details of where that was. If we entertain the possibility that the left for his Parthian campaign (late ad 113): Durry 1965, 54. He is original statue of ad 113 was removed and replaced by a new one to divus on coins of 112–14. On Trajan’s possible reasons for deifying mark the greater honour, it could have been turned round to suit him in connection with the Parthian War, see Bennett 1997, 189f. the tomb (unfortunately, although the footprints were reportedly 61 Birley 1997, 107. still visible when the statue of St Peter was installed in 1588, no one 62 Dio 69.10.3.1. Where Plotina died is not recorded but she may have noted the direction they faced). been buried at Nemausus (Nîmes), where Hadrian certainly built a 39 Kierdorf 1986, 153–4, on the basis of his chronology for the relevant basilica in her honour c. ad 122–4, possibly the ‘temple’ referred to coinage, prefers a date in the autumn of ad 117, arguing that invehi by Dio: Birley 1997, 144–5. ‘caused to be carried’ could apply to orders given in absentia, but not 63 Boatwright 1987, 59. The temple is attested by a stamped lead all would agree, see Birley 1997, 99, and 328 n. 20. water pipe CIL XV 7248; the are named in the Regionary 40 Kragelund 1998, 161f. Catalogues for region IX. The ensemble is depicted on a medallion 41 HA Hadrian 19.9. of 120–1 (Gnecchi 1912, II, no. 25, ig. 39. 2; Boatwright 1987, ig. 8), 42 Cochlis (shaped like a snail-shell) refers to the internal spiral where the cult statue is seated inside the temple while two standing staircase, on which see Wilson Jones 2000, 165–9. statues to either side represent the honorands of the basilicas. 43 One section of shaft in Mons Claudianus granite brought to the 64 Epit. de Caes 12.12; Eutropius 8.1. That he was deiied is clear from surface in 1836 and a Corinthian capital of matching scale in white Pliny Pan. 10.5 and 11.1–3, which refers to variously to Trajan marble found in 1866, are displayed beside Trajan’s Column. raising ‘temples’ to him in the plural, altars in the plural, ‘couches’ Shafts of granite bianco e (from Wadi Barud) are also recorded in and a priest, but nothing is listed in the Regionary Catalogues nor the verbal reports. For the detailed history of discoveries on the is there any other documentary evidence. site, see Claridge 2007, 59–70. 65 CIL VI 966 (Vatican, Galleria Lapidaria):...AIANO PARTHICO 44 See Packer 1997, 88–121 for a series of examples by French and ET …/…VI TRAIANI PARTHICI …/…NUS HADRIANVS Italian architects in the 18th and 19th centuries. The plan in AV…/….COS III PARENTIB...’; CIL VI 31215 (Florence, Uizi Lepper and Frere 1988, 8 ig. 1 is very much in that tradition. A656): … S C DIVI …..ICI DIVI N../ …P CAES….AVG PONT 45 On Gismondi, see Packer 1997, 136–7. Principal advocates for a M /…….TIBVS SVI …. See Claridge 2007, 92–3. Trajanic master-plan: Zanker 1970, 503f., 537–9; Settis 1988, 45f, 66 See Lepper and Frere 1988, 202. It may be noted that the trio of 75–8, esp. 80–2; Packer 1997, 131, 261 n.11. It is still being Divus Traianus, Divus Traianus Pater and Divus Nerva begin the series championed: e.g. Coarelli 2000, 3, 14; Galinier 2007, 187f.; of imperial divi which clustered around Temple A at Gigthis (CIL Stevenson 2008. Lepper and Frere 1988, 197–203 expand upon the VIII supp. 4, 22704–6, 1916, 26–9 and plan pl. II). The idea that the temple was planned in advance and dedicated pro tem hexastyle temple is thought to be Hadrianic in date and has a to Nerva and Traianus Pater. For reasoned objections, Boatwright rostra set in the middle of its front steps, perhaps taking its model 1987, 78–88. from the temple in Rome. A hall of ‘curia’ type, like those newly 46 First proposed in Meneghini 1993 and reconstructed in Meneghini excavated at Piazza Venezia in Rome, occupies the north-west 1998, all the latest reconstruction plans of the imperial forums now corner of the precinct. present the propylon as fact. 67 Claridge 2007, 91f. Previous identiications of the temple, because 47 E.g. Packer 2003. of the rostra, have favoured Divus Julius on the forum, but have had 48 See Claridge 2007, 59–70 for details. diiculty identifying a suitable occasion for the issue of the coin in 49 The main question mark hangs over the last house in the series, a that context, and explaining the statuary. Buildings are so rarely curiously polygonal structure of the early–mid 4th century ad represented on Hadrian’s coinage (compared with Trajan’s) that it whose remains disappear under the foundations of the modern was presumably of special importance to him. palazzo: see Baldassarri 2009; also Palazzo Valentini 2008, 27–80, 68 Claridge 2007, 68. It could be one of the Rostra tria listed in the esp. 64–7. The excavation just caught the western edge of the opus 4th-century Regionary Catalogues for Region VIII, the other two sectile loor, running more or less parallel with the palazzo being those at each end of the Forum Romanum (Augustan and foundation, N–S, which could mean it was built hard up against Diocletianic respectively): the identiication of the third rostra with the podium of the temple. On the invasion of senatorial houses into the front steps of the temple of Castor and Pollux is very dubious, public space in Rome during the 4th to 5th centuries, see especially in the 4th century (Ulrich 1994, 199). Guidobaldi 1986, 175 no. 3; cf. Guidobaldi 1999, 56f. 69 ILS 8970, Pliny Pan. 14; see Bennett 1997, 18. 50 John Fitzgerald, quondam Oxford, kindly pointed this out to me. It 70 Both were keen huntsmen: Pliny Pan. 81.1–3. is quite possible that Augustus’ mausoleum, which is usually 71 I.e. the attic storey of Trajan’s Forum porticoes (Zanker 1970, restored to a height of over 40m, had an internal staircase leading 513–17) or the Basilica Ulpia on the side towards the Column to a belvedere at its summit, around the base of its crowning statue, (Packer 1997, 198). Galinier 2007, 185, 193f. proposes to mount it on and that Trajan’s Column had been positioned with that in view. around all four sides of the Column court, so that the two friezes 51 Egidi 2010. I am most grateful to Prof. Egidi and his colleague could be read in tandem by viewers. However, large sections of the Dott. Giovanni Ricci for several opportunities to see their frieze were incorporated into the in ad 312, excavations in progress and their kindness in sharing their indings which means they cannot come from any part of Trajan’s Forum, with me in advance of publication. nor for that matter any other standing Trajanic building. Their 52 Claridge 2007, 76–82; La Rocca 2009, 396. It seems plausible that availability for re-use on the Arch favours a decommissioned the complex subsequently became the venue for the Athenaeum, monument of Domitian. The Extispicium relief in the could intellectual games instituted by Hadrian in (Aur.Vict. Caes. indeed have come from Trajan’s Forum or Basilica (Zanker 1970, 14), though we should probably not apply the term to the buildings 516) but it is most unlikely to be part of the Great Trajanic Frieze themselves (Egidi 2010, 114–16). (see Leander Touati 1987, 110). 53 Egidi 2010, 111f. 72 Settis 1988, 163–202; Galinier 2007, chapters 1 and 2. 54 Meneghini 2002; cf. Claridge 2007, 82–4. 73 Claridge 1993.

16 | Hadrian: Art, Politics and Economy 74 Explained and illustrated in detail by Settis 1988, 212–19. Depeyrot, G. 2008, Légions romaines en campagne. La colonne Trajane, 75 Gauer 1977, 46f; Brilliant 1984, 103; Settis 1988, 224; Bode 1992, Paris. 170f. Durry, M. 1965, ‘Sur Trajan père’, in Les empereurs romaines d’Espagne, 76 Galinier 2007, 81–6. Paris, 45–54. 77 It does not even start until 7.8m above ground and then rises up to Eck, W. 1972, ‘Die Familie der Volusii Saturnini in neuen Inschriften 35.10m. The modern street level raises our viewpoint on a par with aus Lucus Feroniae’, Hermes 100, 461–84. the lowest bands, and other more elevated viewpoints may have Egidi, R. 2010, ‘L’area di Piazza Venezia. Nuovi dati topograici’, in been available in antiquity. The roofs of the porticoes on either side Archeologia e infrastrutture. Il tracciato fondamentale della linea C della of the column, for instance, could have been lat, providing metropolitana di Roma: prime indagini archeologiche (volume speciale pedestrian terraces at about 12 metres on the north-east and Bollettino d’Arte), eds R. Egidi, F. Filippi and S. Martone, Rome: south-west side; the upper gallery in the Basilica Ulpia probably 93–123. had windows which looked out on the south-east side of the Evers, C. 1994, Les Portraits d’Hadrien. Typologie et ateliers, Brussels. Column at about 16 metres. The closest such viewpoints came to Fejfer, J. 2008, Roman Portraits in Context, Berlin. the Column, however, was 6 metres on the basilica side, 8 metres Fittschen, K. 2009, ‘Lesefrüchte I. 1. Hadrian: Weder am Beneventer on the portico sides. Bogen noch an der Trajanssäule’, Boreas 32, 127–30. 78 HA Hadrian 3.6–7: ‘At this time his many outstanding deeds Flower, H. 1996, Ancestral Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture, became renowned’; dona militaria are recorded in the inscription on Oxford. the base of the statue set up in the Theatre of at Galimberti, A. 2007, Adriano e l’ideologia del Principato, Rome. marking the archonship Hadrian held there in 112: ILS 308, cf. Galinier, M. 2007, La colonne Trajane et les Forums impériaux (Collection Birley 1997, 52, 64; Galimberti 2007, 17. de l’École française de Rome 382), Rome. 79 Gauer 1977, 63, briely reviewed with others in Lepper and Frere Gauer, W. 1977, Untersuchungen zur Trajanssäule, Teil 1: 1988, 277. Darstellungsprogramm und künstlerischer Entwurf, Berlin. 80 Opper 2008: 59f. igs 41–4; for the Alexandrian coin: Bergmann Gnecchi, F. 1912, I medaglioni romani, Milan. 1997, 145 ig. 10 and Fittschen 2009, 128. Guidobaldi, F. 1986, ‘L’edilizia abitativa unifamiliare nella Roma 81 Lepper and Frere 1988, 277. tardoantica’, in Società romana e impero tardoantico, II, Roma: politica, 82 Opper 2008, 57 ig. 38; Ritratti 2011, 234 no. 3.10 and ig. [M. economia, paesaggio urbano, ed. A. Giardina, Rome-Bari, 165–237. Cadario]. Evers 1994, 158f., 245–51, dates the portrait type c. ad 125. Guidobaldi, F. 1999, ‘Le domus tardoantiche di Roma come “sensori” The simpliied form of toga, without umbo, is quite rare in the 2nd delle trasformazioni culturali e sociali’, in The Transformations of century ad, but also appears on the at Beneventum. Vrbs Roma in Late Antiquity, ed. W.V. Harris (Journal of Roman 83 Gauer 1977, 63, igs 19a–20a. Supplementary Series 33) Portsmouth R.I., 53–68. 84 On which see Opper 2008, 59. Hesberg, H. von 1992, Römische Grabbauten, Darmstadt. 85 Gauer 1977, 63, pl.16b, rejected by Lepper and Frere 1988, 277. Hesberg, H. von and Panciera, S. 1994, Das Mausoleum des Augustus. Der 86 Depeyrot 2008, 128, declares that Hadrian is ‘certainly’ one of the Bau und seine Inschriften, . two persons who accompany Trajan in the arrival scene lxxx, Humphrey, J. 1986, Roman Circuses: Arenas for Chariot Racing, Berkeley though I can’t see why. An attempt to identify Hadrian as the and Los Angeles. legate in scene xlviii on the basis of his footwear and the legionary Keppie, L. 1991, Understanding Roman Inscriptions, London. standards (Töpfer 2008) is misplaced (see Fittschen 2009, 128f.). Kierdorf, W. 1986, ‘Apotheose und postumer Triumph Trajans’, Tyche 1, 147–56. Kragelund, P. 1998, ‘’s “Pietas”, Nero’s Victims and the Mausoleum Bibliography of Augustus’, Historia. Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte 47.2, 152–73. Arce, J. 2010, ‘Roman imperial funerals in eigie’, in The Emperor and Lahusen, G. 1982, ‘Statuae et Imagines’, in Praestant Interna. Festschrift Rome. Space, Representation and Ritual, eds B.C. Ewald and C.F. U. Hausmann zum 65. Geburtstag, Tübingen, 101–9. Noreña (Yale Classical Studies 35), Cambridge, 309–23. La Rocca, E. 1998, ‘Il foro di Traiano in base alle più recenti ricerche’, Baldassarri, P. 2009, ‘Indagini archeologiche a Palazzo Valentini: in Trajano emperador de Roma (Actas del congreso internacional 14–17 domus di età imperiale ai margini del foro di Traiano’, Rendiconti septiembre 1998), ed. J. González, Rome (2000), 251–85. della Pontiicia Accademia Romana di Archeologia lxxxi, 343–84. La Rocca, E. 2009, ‘Le domus nelle vicinanze del foro di Traiano e le Bargagli, B. and Grosso, C. 1997, I fasti ostienses. Documento della storia di scuole per le arti liberali’, Rendiconti della Pontiicia Accademia Romana Ostia (Itinerari Ostiensi VIII), Rome. di Archeologia lxxxi, 385–98. Beard, M. 2007, The Roman Triumph, Cambridge. Leander Touati, A.-M. 1987, The Great Trajanic Frieze (Acta Instituti Bennett, J. 1997, Trajan, Optimus Princeps, a Life and Times, London and Romani Regni Sueciae, Quarto Ser., 45), Stockholm. New . Lepper, F. and Frere, S. 1988, Trajan’s Column, Gloucester. Bergemann, J. 1990, Römische Reiterstatuen. Ehrendenkmäler in öfentlich LTUR = Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, ed. E.M. Steinby, 6 vols, Bereich, Mainz. 1993–2000, Rome. Bergmann, M. 1997, ‘Zu den Porträts des Trajan und Hadrian’, in Lugli, G. 1947, ‘Caupona sive lupanar’, in id. Monumenti minori del foro Itálica MMCC. Actas de las jornados del 2200 aniversario de la fundación de romano, Rome, 139–64. Italica, Sevilla 1994, , 139–53. McGinn, T. 2004, Economy of Prostitution in the Roman World, Ann Arbor. Birley, A.R. 1997, Hadrian. The Restless Emperor, London and New York. Meneghini, R. 1993, ‘Nuovi dati sulle biblioteche ed il templum divi Boatwright, M.T. 1987, Hadrian and the City of Rome, Princeton. Traiani nel Foro di Traiano’, Bollettino di Archeologia 19–21, 13–21. Bode, R. 1992, ‘Der Bilderfries der Trajansäule: Ein Meneghini, R. 1998, ‘L’architettura del foro di Traiano attraverso i Interpretationsversuch’, BJ 192, 123–74. ritrovamenti archeologici più recenti’, RM 105, 127–48. Boni, G. 1907, ‘Esplorazione del Forum Ulpium’, NSc 1907, 361–427. Meneghini, R. 2002, ‘Nuovi dati sulla funzione e le fasi costruttive Brilliant, R. 1984, Visual Narratives. Story-telling in Etruscan and Roman delle ‘Biblioteche’ del Foro di Traiano’, MEFRA 114, 655–92. Art, Ithaca and London. Meneghini, R. and Santangeli Valenzani, R. 2007, I Fori Imperiali. Gli Carandini, A. 1986, ‘Domus e insulae sulla pendice settentrionale del scavi del Comune di Roma (1991–2007), Rome. Palatino’, BullComm 91, 263–78. Opper, T. 2008, Hadrian. Empire and Conlict, London. Claridge, A. 1993, ‘Hadrian’s Column of Trajan’, JRA 6, 5–21. Packer, J.E. 1997, The Forum of Trajan in Rome. A Study of the Monuments, 3 Claridge, A. 2007, ‘Hadrian’s lost Temple of Trajan’, JRA 20, 54–94. vols, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Coarelli, F. 2000, The Column of Trajan, trans. C. Rockwell, Rome. Packer, J.E. 2000, The Forum of Trajan in Rome. A Study of the Monuments in Constans, L.-A. 1916, Gigthis. Etude d’histoire et d’archéologie (Nouvelles Brief. Berkeley and Los Angeles. archives des missions scientiiques, fasc. 14) Paris. Packer, J.E. 2003, ‘Templum Divi Traiani Parthici et Plotinae: a Davies, P.J.E. 1997, ‘The politics of perpetuation: Trajan’s Column debate with R. Meneghini’, JRA 16, 109–36. and the art of commemoration’, AJA 101, 41–65. Palazzo Valentini 2008: Palazzo Valentini. L’area tra antichità ed età moderna: Degrassi, A. 1947, Inscriptiones Italiae XIII.1, Rome, 173–241. scoperte archeologiche e progetti di valorizzazione, ed. R. del Signore, Den Boer, W. 1975, ‘Trajan’s deiication and Hadrian’s succession’, Rome. Ancient Society 6, 203–12.

Hadrian’s Succession and the Monuments of Trajan | 17 Richard, J.-C. 1966, ‘Les funérailles de Trajan et le triomphe sur les Ulrich, R.B. 1994, The Roman Orator and the Sacred Stage: the Roman Parthes’, REL 44, 251–326. Templum Rostratum (Latomus), Brussels. Ritratti 2011: Ritratti. Le tante faccie del potere (exhib. cat., Rome), eds E. La Varone, A. 2003, ‘Organizazzione e sfruttamento della prostituzione Rocca and C. Parisi Presicce, Rome. servile: l’esempio del lupanar di Pompei’, in Donna e lavoro nella Settis, S. (ed.) 1988, La Colonna Traiana, Turin. documentazione epigraica, ed. T. Cenerini, Faenza, 193–216. Stevenson, T. 2008, ‘On dating the frieze of Trajan’s Column’, Wilson Jones, M. 2000, Principles of Roman Architecture, New Haven and Mediterranean Archaeology. Australian and New Zealand Journal for the London. Archaeology of the Mediterranean World 21, 43–58. Zanker, P. 1970, ‘Das Trajansforum in Rom’, AA 85, 499–544. Töpfer, K. 2008, ‘Hadrian auf der Trajanssäule’, RM 114, 357–88. Trioni Romani 2008: Trioni romani (exhib. cat., Rome), eds E. La Rocca and S. Tortorella, Milan.

18 | Hadrian: Art, Politics and Economy