sign in sign up
<<
Home , 80s, 90s, Capitoline Games, Congiarium, Divi filius, Dominus (title)

MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA

Filosofická fakulta

Katedra archeologie a muzeologie

Klasická archeologie

Bc. Barbora Chabrečková

Cisársky kult v období vlády Domitiána

Magisterská diplomová práca

Vedúca práce: Mgr. Dagmar Vachůtová, Ph.D.

Brno 2017

MASARYK UNIVERSITY

Faculty of Arts

Department of and Museology

Classical Archaeology

Bc. Barbora Chabrečková

The During the Reign of

Master's Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Mgr. Dagmar Vachůtová, Ph.D.

Brno 2017

2

I hereby declare that this thesis is my own work, created with use of primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

………………………………

Bc. Barbora Chabrečková In Brno, 2017

3

Acknowledgement I would like to thank to my supervisor, Mgr. Dagmar Vachůtová, Ph.D., for her guidance and encouragement that she granted me throughout the entire creative process of this thesis, to my consulting advisor, Mgr. Ing. Monika Koróniová, who showed me the possibilities this topic has to offer, and to my friends and parents, for their care and support.

4

Table of Contents Introduction ...... 7 Methodology ...... 8 I) Definition, Origin, and Pre-Imperial History of the Imperial Cult ...... 10 1.) Origin in the Private Cult & the Term ...... 10 2.) Origin of the Imperial Cult in the Near East ...... 13 3.) Establishment and Development of the Imperial Cult During the Imperial Era ...... 15 a) Gaius Julius ...... 16 b) Gaius Octavianus ...... 16 II) Justification of power of the Flavian ...... 18 1.) Domitian’s Character ...... 18 2.) Justification of the Flavian Family ...... 19 3.) and Other Titulature of a ...... 20 a) ...... 21 b) Caesar ...... 23 c) Augustus ...... 23 d) Divi Filius ...... 23 4.) Deification of the Flavian Family ...... 27 a) The Temple of and ...... 29 b) Porticus Divorum ...... 32 c) The Temple of the Flavia ...... 34 III) Development of the Imperial Cult During Domitian’s Reign ...... 44 1.) The Patron Deity ...... 45 a) – Domitian’s Personal Sphere of Her Worship ...... 45 b) Minerva’s Influence on Domitian’s Perception and Formulation of Military Policy 46 c) Temple of Minerva Chalcidica ...... 47 d) Forum Transitorium ...... 49 e) Depiction of Minerva on Coinage ...... 54 f) Domitian’s Affiliation with Other Deities ...... 56 2.) Domitian the People’s Emperor ...... 56 a) Flavian & Meta Sudans ...... 57 b) The ...... 59 c) The Domitiani ...... 60 d) Stadium & Odeum Domitiani – The Greek Games Complex ...... 61 3.) The Cancelleria Reliefs and Depiction of the Genii of Senatus & Populi Romani ... 63

5

IV) Dominus et Deus & ...... 71 1.) Dominus et Deus ...... 71 2.) Damnatio Memoriae ...... 75 a) Domitian’s Condemnation & Hypothesis ...... 75 b) The & Its Hypothetical Dating ...... 78 Conclusion ...... 83 Resumé ...... 87 List of Figures ...... 89 Bibliography ...... 91 Ancient Sources ...... 91 ...... 91

6

Introduction The main aim of this thesis is to present the Imperial cult of Roman during the reign of emperor Domitian and its role within the imperial . Present publications mostly discuss the Imperial cult of Domitian in two ways. It is either only mentioned in regard to the Flavian family as a whole, or it is centred around Domitian’s condemnation and his portrayal as a . I will therefore attempt to primarily focus my work on Domitianic changes, and I will also try to distinguish it from his often-subjective literary portrait of a tyrant, created by the early modern authors.

Domitian’s father, and the establishing member of the Flavian dynasty, Vespasian, assumed the position of princeps in July 69 AD, after the series of conflicts and death of three short-lived principes in the time of the of 68/69 AD. The imperial position of the Flavians however could not have been justified as easily as that of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, which was based on the divine ancestry of himself, thus Vespasian’s own means of validation were needed for their claim to the . Flavian family could not trace their origin to any of the Roman deities, therefore with this in mind, Vespasian must have taken different measures than the preceding emperors, and the Imperial cult under the reign of the Flavian dynasty had thus been set for a new course.

At the beginning, I would like to provide a short introduction to the Imperial cult, its various theories of origin, and short characterisation of its development prior to the reign of the Flavian dynasty. This would serve as a background for the later chapters of the thesis; mainly as a source for analogy in the comparison between the early imperial . The main function of the first chapter is thus rather supportive, than an analytical one, as it acts as an introductory summary of secondary sources, rather than a discussion.

Next, I would like to address Domitian’s ascend to power and the acts, which secured his position in the principal office. One of the main purposes of the Imperial cult is to justify individual’s right to be the princeps to public. The Imperial propaganda provides the emperor links, which connects his person with his predecessors in order to display the support and encouragement, which had been entrusted in him by the now deified past rulers. Vespasian had neither imperial ancestor to link himself with, nor any immediate predecessor from the group of the “good” emperors that could provide the necessity that was the “right name”, thus he had to reach as far as deified , to whom he had a temple rebuilt for this purpose (Darwall- Smith 1996, 48). I will examine Domitian’s actions, for when he had found himself in similar

7 position, by being “only” a brother to his predecessor Titus, not his Divi Filius. Even though Vespasian was deified within few months after his death by Titus (Levick 1999, 197), providing Domitian with the opportunity to skip past his brother, Domitian probably did not deem this to be enough of a justification. I will therefore discuss the importance of emperor’s titulature, and resulting deification of Domitian’s family members.

I will also attempt to illustrate the further development of the cult under the reign of Domitian, based on chosen literary, architectural, and archaeological evidence. I would like to discuss the Imperial cult within broader terms here than it usually is associated with, based on its definition. I will look at its relation with other forms of the imperial propaganda, of which it is a major, but not the only part.

As stated above, I have chosen several monuments, which played a crucial role in Domitian’s propaganda campaign. This work focuses primarily on architectural remains in , due to major differences between the perception of the imperial cult in the capital city and empire’s provinces. I will also attempt to present the structures within logical categories, based on their function, and what they represented, when correlated with the Imperial cult itself.

I will additionally also analyse Domitian’s personal sphere within the context of the Imperial cult. I will discuss emperor’s patron deity Minerva, and her impact on the shaping of the building program and the imperial propaganda as a whole.

Lastly, I would like to focus on the presumed title Dominus et Deus and its verity. Its analyses in the past was often based only on literary sources, but I will also attempt to find any possible mentions in archaeological context, which could further clarify the formality of its use. I will conclude the thesis with a discussion on possible reasons behind Domitian’s damnatio memoriae and a hypothetical scenario, in which it could have been avoided. I would also like to point out the precedent, which Domitian set out for , as well as the other emperors, whose accession followed afterwards, as I believe that the further development of the Imperial cult, and the comparison of Domitian’s contribution to that of the later dynasties, is a future prospect of continuation of the topic, which was chosen for this work.

Methodology Following topic was primarily chosen in order to understand the political propaganda of emperor Domitian, of which the Imperial cult is a substantial part. The Imperial cult is often discussed and typically presented mainly only as religious practice, therefore it might be

8 assumed it is more suitable for a religionist degree, I have however decided to plant the subject into a broader field of propaganda, where archaeology is needed to help to shape solutions to questions of religion. It is in the interest of my degree that this thesis should meet both, classical, as well as archaeological criteria. Therefore, is its concept composed of theoretical chapters on the works of the cult, and chapters dedicated to describing material evidence, with each part supporting the other.

I began my work by collecting available primary and secondary sources on the Flavian dynasty, particularly emperor Domitian, and the Imperial cult, and I submitted them to research. The primary sources such as , , , or , were especially important in assessing the character of Domitian’s reign and its evolution, as they were the closest to the contemporary observations, with both, Suetonius, and Pliny being alive during the last years of Domitian’s administration. At first, I summarised the available information on the origin of the Imperial cult and its development within the first chapter, which serves as a basis for further comparison. Secondly, I evaluated collected theories on given subject and concluded my own.

In the next step, I analysed selected architectural and sculptural evidence, which was predominantly constructed within the Flavian era, and further I chose the ones connected with the following: justification of Domitian’s reign, subsequent Flavian propaganda, and/or the condemnation of Domitian’s memory after his death in 96 AD. Some founds are preserved in worse condition than others, or they did not survive into the modern era at all, for this reason I chose to include better preserved monument from both, pre-Flavian and post-Flavian dynasties, in order to draw visual comparison there instead.

The thesis deals with the Flavian dynasty as a whole, and subsequent involvement of Domitian as an individual. The reason for Vespasian’s and Titus’ inclusion is rooted in the way they were often presented in the propaganda, as a family. The reason the thesis is titled as the Imperial cult in Domitian’s reign, and not in the reign of the Flavian dynasty, is that the way the family was seen and remembered, is primarily due to actions undertaken by Domitian personally. The Flavian family’s image, which went down to history, was mostly under his control, as he could influence the post-mortem status of any of his family members, with the exception of his own.

9

I) Definition, Origin, and Pre-Imperial History of the Imperial Cult In this chapter I would like to define the basic terminology for the Imperial cult, as well as other key terms, which are closely associated with the subject. Further, I would like to present a brief introduction on the origin and initial development of the Imperial cult, including its beginnings linked to the decline of the , preceding cults, specifically from Hellenistic states, and the changes, which occurred under the reigns of the early members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.

Creation of the Imperial cult in the first century AD, was largely influenced by already existing practices of similar character. The main factor involved in the process was the private cult, which was common for all republican households, and from which the cult of public worship of emperor’s Genius originated. The other major influence were similar cults of the ruler in eastern provinces, which had been previously established and known for instance in Persia, or ancient (Taylor 1975, 50).

The chapter thus summarises the early stages of the Imperial cult. From the initial moderate attempts at its construction in the Late Republic, in the late lifetime of Julius Cesar, throughout successful establishment under emperor Augustus. It also creates the basis of analogy for further changes, which occurred during the rule of the first two dynasties of the Principate, the Julio-Claudian and Flavian, including the Year of the Four Emperors.

Works of Ittai Gradel and Lily Ross Taylor provide the complete basic summary on the history of Roman cults. I have therefore decided to use them predominantly throughout this chapter, to offer an inclusive background, which would serve to complete my later observations.

1.) Origin in the Private Cult & the Term Genius Main bases, on which Augustus established the Imperial cult, was the private cult of Roman Republic. In the time of his reign, the most popular common practice in families was the traditional cult of paterfamilias and his Genius (Gradel 2002, 36).

The term paterfamilias, Latin for “father of the family”, refers to any male head of the household, or domus, who is also the owner of all the property belonging to it (Frier - McGinn 2004, 4).

In , Genius, and its female equivalent , were the guardian spirits, who accompanied and protected every person from the time of their birth until their death (Censorinus De Die Natali III, 1). This basic explanation by Censorinus seems to be the only

10 ancient source describing the nature of the Genius, as the concept was apparently so common, other authors did not bother to record it, or there probably never arisen any need to do so. He further mentioned that the Genius also shared birthday with his “owner” and rituals were thus performed on that day.

The Romans believed that everybody possessed this spirit, much like our concept of a soul, and people made annual sacrifices, each to their own Genius, or in case of women, to their Juno. Not much is known about the form of this spirit however, due to the Genius holding common place in people lives. Whether it existed within the person, like a soul, or if it acted merely as an outside image, similar to Christian concept of a guardian angel, thus remains unknown as well. The records are mostly clear that unlike other gods and virtues, this spirit, or a life force, as it is sometimes also translated, was never turned into a personification that could exist on its own, which was a typical practice in case of other similar incorporeal characters like Honos, Virtus, or Concordia. Genius was always attached either to a human being, or a group of people, a corporation as Genius Collegii, or a place as Genius Loci (Gradel 2002, 37).

To trace the private cult into more detail within the literary sources also remains rather difficult, as there are usually not any illustrated records of a ritual, or other practice in the official public documentation that we know of. What is known, is the cult of the Genius of paterfamilias, which served to honour the master, dominus, of the domus by his slaves and freedmen, because the and prosperity of his family depended entirely on his own. It also ensured the fertility and thus continuity of the family and the domus (Gradel 2002, 36).

Each house had a place for the worship of the Genius of its master, which are known as lararium/-a. The term is derived from the name of another home guardian deity, Lar, which is often considered a spirit of dead ancestors (Taylor 1975, 49).

These private shrines were typically niches in the walls of atriums, or kitchens, sometimes, with painted frescoes depicting the Genius. His personified figure was usually accompanied by two Lares. Mr. Gradel recognizes them to be probably the more prominent house deities, which is one explanation, as why Genius was not always included in these wall paintings (Gradel 2002, 37).

11

Fig. I Detail of lararium from the House of the Vettii, , (http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/img.htm?id=1278).

One of the surviving portrays of the Genius of paterfamilias could be seen in paintings from Pompeii. Pictured above (Fig. I), is a fresco from a lararium from House of the Vettii. Here is the Genius personified as a young man, who is wearing a covering his head (velato capite). He is holding a ceremonial bowl (patera), which is used for pouring libations in his right hand, and a cornucopia, symbol of prosperity, in his left. The Lares are also personified as young men, depicted in short tunics, dancing each on one side of the Genius (Gradel 2002, 41). This fresco is only one instance of various possible depictions, all of which are of similar character.

As already mentioned above, the Genius of paterfamilias was worshipped by servants and freedman of the house, who were bound to their dominus either by potestas, the power a master had over his subjects, or , the loyalty of the men, who once used to serve the family (Gradel 2002, 39). Any emperor, who would later insist on his official titulature to include the title Dominus, would therefore imply that the citizens were to be his subjects, bound by his potestas and thus, in the eyes of the public, degraded to the same level as the servants of a paterfamilias. A concept like that would not be met with popularity, especially in the early Principate.

12

The private cult was, in the time of the Republic, extended over a group of people, who were bound by ties of a familia or a . These were the people, who were at certain point under the authority of their master (Gradel 2002, 44). The Republic was however based on democratic principles, where men considered themselves free citizens, not subjects of the sole rulers, ever since the expulsion of the kings. This meant that nobody during the time of Roman Republic occupied a position, which would enable them to proclaim their own Genius to be worshiped by general public, that was until the time of Julius Caesar (Gradel 2002, 36).

Livy1 however, mentions a sacrifice to a possibly public Genius, or “Genius of Rome” in Ab Urbe Condita from 218BC ( XXI, 62.9). Gradel identifies this instance as the first known example of the figure, which would in the time of the Principate, under the Flavian dynasty, eventually develop into Genius Populi Romani (Gradel 2002, 38).

In conclusion, the creation of the Imperial cult based on the worship of emperor’s Genius was on its course under the last years of Caesar’s reign, but was stopped with his in 44 BC. This shifted the process of major transition in worship from the Genius of paterfamilias into the worship of Genius Augusti, of the emperor. This, according to a generally accepted theory of Mrs. Taylor (1975, 63-64), as well as Mr. Gradel (2002, 117), probably occurred under the responsibility of his adoptive son and successor, Octavian. The results of the transition will be addressed in the third segment of this chapter.

2.) Origin of the Imperial Cult in the Near East Private cult of the Roman Republic, which involved the worship of the Genius had a few known equivalents across the Hellenistic world. The main purpose of the eastern Hellenistic cults was to legitimise the position of the ruler and thus strengthen their power, which served as an inspiration for the future Roman emperors (Taylor 1975, 1).

The kings of Achaemenid Persia were worshipped as gods during their lifetime. Persians believed in guardian spirits, similar to Roman Genius, called Fravashi, which could be also regarded as Zoroastrian term for soul. People were offering food and drinks to Fravashi of the emperor, but he was not seen as a god himself. In Egypt on the other hand, the pharaoh acted as a living incarnation of god on earth, but his people would also worship his spirit, Ka. After Alexander III of Macedon defeated Persian king Darius III, who at that time also served as the pharaoh of Egypt, Alexander adopted all his himself. His successors, the Seleucid and

1 Romae quoque et Iuuentati et ad aedem Herculis nominatim, deinde universo populo circa omnia pulvinaria indicta, et Genio maiores hostiae caesae quinque, (Livy XXI, 62.9). 13

Ptolemaic dynasties of and Egypt respectively, continued to carry on the tradition, even though Seleucus I and Ptolemy I were not deified before their deaths, because it would be against traditional customs of the Greeks (Taylor 1975, 3-6).

Roman emperors, the Flavian dynasty included, followed these historical precedents set in the eastern provinces of the empire and in Egypt to certain degree. Cities of the East with prevailing Hellenistic tradition could have temples constructed to the Imperial cult of the principes. These selected few were using titles neokoros/-i, which could be translated as guardians, or keepers of temples (Burrell 2004,1). The neokoros of the all-Asian Flavian cult was in Ionia, todays Turkey, with the Temple of the Sebastoi, sometimes also called of the Augusti, as the Greek word σεβαστός is an equivalent to Latin title Augustus. The temple thus did not serve solely to the worship of Domitian, but either to all three Flavian emperors, or alternatively to all the previous Augusti up to the date of its dedication (Burrell 2004, 61).

There was an additional solution, more suitable for Romans considering their conservative customs, by which people would not readily accept the worship of a living person. It was the involvement of another deity into the Imperial cult, the personified city of Rome. In the second century BC, Titus Flaminius received the first paean, which mentioned goddess , after his defeat of Phillip V of Macedon. Taylor points out (1975, 35-36) that the purpose, for which Roma was created, was the validation of the cult of living Roman generals and consuls in the East, as the cult of their own person would not be considered appropriate in Rome. The tradition was later picked up by Augustus, who would allow only his conjoined worship with the goddess in the eastern provinces, and similar pattern was followed by other principes (Taylor 1975, 146).

Greek spirit, which could be appropriated to Roman Genius is known as Agathos Daimon, or simply Daemon. Its function is very similar to that of the Genius of paterfamilias in Roman private cult. The worship of one’s Daemon was individual for each of the Greek city- states. In different cities, men would take oaths by the Daemon of either a living person, or a hero, but these cults had mostly only local form (Taylor 1975, 9-10). The Greeks, like the Romans, however usually did not support cults of living rulers.

Alexander III of Macedon, for the first time in western history, created multicultural cities, where people of different believes coexisted together and adopted various elements of their indigenous religious practices, to create unified the Hellenistic religion. Places like Delos, or were inhabited by worshippers of various Greek, Egyptian, Jewish, or Near-

14

Eastern cults and doctrines, which later served as a breeding ground for the evolution of eastern Roman cults (Bugh 2006, 208-209). People would also for the first time chose their own deities, for themselves and their families to worship (Bugh 2006, 211). This practice was later again followed by Roman emperors, starting with Julius Caesar’s choice of Venus Genetrix as his Patron deity. He vowed a temple to Venus Victrix shortly before his victory over at Pharsalus in 48 BC ( The Civil War, 102). In 46 BC, Caesar decided to change the dedication to Venus Genetrix, from who the gens Julia was said to be descended through her son Aeneas, and had her a temple built in the centre of his forum. This way Caesar directly connected his private family to a public cult, a step, which openly displayed his divine aspirations (Orlin 2007, 68-69).

After the Roman Republic expanded its territory into and North , its rulers and generals were offered multiple titles and honours by local governments. As Taylor explains (1975, 35), divinity was no longer perceived as a religious statement, but more of a political propaganda in the time of the Late Republic. Both, Caesar, and Augustus were aware of this and used it into their advantage.

3.) Establishment and Development of the Imperial Cult During the Imperial Era Octavius, later known as emperor Augustus, is regarded to be the creator of the Roman Imperial cult. He was however building his practices on previous attempts of Julius Caesar, who tried, and to certain degree succeeded, in establishing of the cult of his own persona. Caesar laid down the precedent for Augustus’ reforms in many ways. His assassination however prevented him, or the Senate, from undertaking all the major steps towards the completion of the new belief system.

Foundation for the Imperial cult included the worship of emperor’s Genius during his lifetime, and the deificatio of the ruler after his death. The closest recognition to deificatio for an individual to receive in the time of the Late Republic, was a triumph (Taylor 1975, 57). According to generally accepted theory, the triumphator himself was given the rights to act as for the time of his triumphal ceremony (Versnel 1970, 58). That would have been the only time, when a living person received any kind of “worship”, while impersonating a god.

The deification was a process consisting of several steps. The official funeral of the emperor was followed by his , which was the act of ascendance to heaven, where the deceased joined the pantheon of other divinities. This was usually confirmed by eye-witnesses, who were “present” for the moment. After the testimony of the onlookers, the Senate issued a

15 decree, which granted the emperor his divine status and allowed his successor the declare consecratio, the official proclamation of the newly acquired honours. Minor changes occurred in the order of these events, first under emperor Claudius and another during the rule of the Antonine dynasty (Chalupa 2007, 202-204). I will describe the apotheosis of Titus in the later chapter on Flavian deification, as Domitian could not receive one himself, due to the damnatio memoriae of his person.

The newly created god-emperor received the posthumous title Divus, and he was included into the pantheon as a lesser deity, mentioned next to last in the records from sacrifices, after the Olympians and personified virtues. The word Divus was originally probably interchangeable with Deus, but due to its usage in relation to the Imperial cult, the meaning subsequently changed, until it was only associated with deified emperors by the time of Cassius Dio, who uses it exclusively in this context in the late second century AD (Gradel 2004, 63).

a) Gaius Julius Caesar Julius Caesar lied the precedent for creation of the Imperial cult in many ways. He did not officially become an emperor, but he came close in terms of several offices and titles, which he held, and which were later reserved for the principes. Despite the attempts of the Senate to restore the Republic after Caesar’s assassination, their hope for abolishment of his plans for the new position of power came to an end with his successor, Octavius.

Caesar was granted various traditional, as well as new titles. Suetonius mentioned Caesar being granted permanent consulship, censorship, and dictatorship, but he is mostly aggravated because of the title of an Imperator, which was originally a military title, but later became an honour, held by every emperor since Vespasian (Suetonius Jul. 76). Caesar was additionally awarded a long list of numerous honours, mainly in the very last years of his life, which were detailly recorded by Cassius Dio (Dio, XLIV). He was also a unique case, as the only living person, who was decreed the divine honours by the Senate while still alive. The only thing that prevented their implementation was his following assassination (Gradel 2002, 262- 263). This prompted Octavius, his adoptive successor, to act differently in the matters of Senatorial honours and their acceptance.

b) Gaius Octavianus Augustus Augustus, known back then as Octavianus, was fortunate enough to turn Caesar’s vision into reality. After the initial disagreement, he joined with and Lepidus to form the Second Triumvirate in 43 BC. Octavian was Caesar’s legal heir by , but his position

16 was not yet a strong one due to the existence of Caesar’s biological son with Cleopatra VII, Caesarion. He therefore took various steps to strengthen his position, starting with the deification of Julius Caesar in 42 BC, and subsequently taking the title Divi Filius (Taylor 1975, 99). This gradually became a tradition, but not a necessity for other principes and will be discussed closely in the chapter on Domitian’s titulature.

The following Augustan reforms concerning the Imperial Cult were quite substantial, and because they are not the topic of this thesis, I will only mention the new tradition, which Augustus brought to life, and which is important in relation to Domitian. It is the worship of a relatively new deity, Genius Augusti, which, according to Gradel, started in 7 BC, but it was not fully involved in the State cult by Augustus. The reason was, as noted by Ittai Gradel, because of its connection to the paterfamilias, whose Genius was, as I mentioned earlier, worshipped predominantly by slaves (Gradel 2002, 117). Jessica Suess (2007, 30-44) further proposed an observation in her dissertation that the worship of one’s Genius is not entirely of servile character, as the Romans used to conduct rituals to Genii of their family members and friends on the day of their birthday. The argument is convincing, but it does not properly explain why Augustus refused public oaths, or rituals to be performed to his Genius inside the city of Rome.

The transition from the personal worship of Genius of the emperor to a public one in Rome thus occurred sometime during the reign of one of the Julio-Claudian emperors. refused majority of titles and honours offered to him, including swearing of an oath to his Genius Augusti (Cassius Dio, 57, 8). Gradel mentioned the possibility of inclusion of the Genius Augusti on the Vicomagistri Relief from the early reign of Claudius, 42 AD (Gradel 2002, 165- 186).

The earliest known public offering to the Genius of the emperor and his introduction onto the list of annual sacrifices to the deities, was however recorded by the Arval Brethren in 55 AD, under the rule of . The record of the sacrifice follows: “…ob natalem Neronis Claudi Caesaris Aug(usti) Germanici principis pareniisque publici immolavit Iovi o(ptimo) m(aximo) bovem marem, Iunoni vaccam, Minervae vaccam, Saluti publicae vaccam, Genio eius taurum,” a bull for emperor’s Genius (Acta Fratrum Arvalium, Henzen 1874, LXII). The records continued during the reigns of all three civil war emperors until Vespasian, when another change occurred, the Genius Augusti was replaced by the Genii of the Senate and of the Roman People. Domitianic progression will be discussed in chapter three.

17

II) Justification of power of the Flavian Dynasty In the following chapter, I would like to illustrate how Domitian’s religious policy and propaganda reflected Vespasian’s, on which it was built. In order to validate his position of a princeps, Domitian used several stances already established by his father, but also made his own changes, which he deemed more suitable for his own persona. I’m going to discuss the difference in Vespasian’s and Domitian’s character and how it influenced each of their statuses, and address the justification of power of the Flavian family, based on their origin and connections, and an already mentioned Domitianic alterations.

1.) Domitian’s Character Domitian’s relationship with the Senate was not an amicable one, and he did not make many attempts to hide it (Jones 2002, 23). This was, in my opinion, the result of his character, which was the opposite to his father’s and brother’s. Both, Vespasian, and Titus, were perceived as social, good-natured, and friendly, and were described so by ancient sources (Suetonius Vespasian. 22, Titus 8). Suetonius’ work, despite him being Domitian’s contemporary, seems to be sometimes exaggerated, or untrue2, although his hints on Domitian’s personality appear to be accurate enough, and in accord with a similar remark by Cassius Dio. Suetonius describes Domitian as a solitary person, who enjoys long walks in his own company more than any social gatherings, which he hosted out of necessity, but never prolonged (Suetonius Dom. 21). Dio made a comparable statement on emperor’s character, where he claims that young Domitian used to spend too much time alone in his Alban Villa, playing with the flies, which later led to people joking about it. Dio proceeded to record the joke as following: When a person asked, where Domitian was, someone else’s answer was: “Alone, without a fly to keep him company” (Dio LXVI, 9). This statement again follows with portraying Vespasian’s character in contrast to Domitian’s, returning from his travels and humbly greeting with everyone in person – a clear sign of his cordiality towards others (Dio LXVI, 10).

These statements lead me to believe that Domitian’s introversion and lack of social skills thus put a strain on his relationship with the Senate, as well as with other influential members

2 Suetonius lived during the reigns of Domitian, , Trajan and . His credibility in case of his work Domitian is questionable, due to him writing it under the Nerva-Antonine dynasty, who established their right to the imperial throne on Domitian’s damnatio memoriae. Suetonius thus might have adjusted some of his views on the emperor accordingly, in order to stay in their good favour. He had also tendency to repeat certain rumours without any sourcing or other confirmation (Southern 1997, 1-2).

18 of the society. His restrained behaviour towards the aristocrats led to their fear, which subsequently developed into their animosity towards his person. Domitian always seemed to have followed his father’s and brother’s footsteps to certain degree, but his indifference towards the Senatorial class, whom he openly regarded as incompetent, or redundant, seem to have been there from the beginning of his rule. He neither refrained from proclaiming his opinion publicly, nor from replacing the officers he did not deem suitable for their positions with his own (Jones 2002, 179). His attitude thus brought inevitable changes, which distinguished him from the rest of his family and helped to shape his personal policy. I will return to this assessment on Domitian’s character once again, in the chapter on his damnatio memoriae, as I believe, his nature played a major role in case of his condemnation as well.

2.) Justification of the Flavian Family To examine Domitian’s policy, I am going to first address its ground stone, which had been laid down by Vespasian. Titus Flavius Vespasianus became an emperor on the 21st of December 69 AD, following the death of Nero and the 68/69 AD civil war, which resulted in deaths of another three short-termed emperors (Levick 1999, 43-64). For the relatively short time of their combined reign, and because there is not nearly enough evidence about any of their religious practices, I chose not to consider them in this work, as their contribution would be minimal, if any. I would therefore for the purpose of this thesis regard Vespasian as the successor of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. It is a view, which had already been established by some scholars before, for instance Kenneth Scott (1975, 1).

Flavian family came from arguably humble origins, or at least humbler than the Julio- Claudians. This was not however considered as major of an issue, as some might think. Both, Vespasian, and his father Sabinus before him, managed to accumulate enough finances, and arrange substantial connections, prior to Vespasian’s elevation into the position of a princeps by his troops (Jones 2002, 1-3). All of Vespasian’s efforts however could not change the fact that the family lacked divine ancestry (Scott 1975, 1). Instead of trying to invent an own lineage for his family, Vespasian chose to embrace their true origin. He would have encouraged the tales of his relatively humble upbringing, and incorporate them into the base, on which he built his religious policy. The reasons for this Vespasianic pretence, according to Pat Southern, could have been that he did not want to be seen as spending state money on his own pleasures, thus he chose to continue to live as simple life as his subjects. Another option was not mentioning family money, which had been acquired during the reigns of Gaius and Nero, in order to subtly make people forget about any earlier Flavian loyalty to these two (Southern 1997, 3). Whether

19 was this part of propaganda genuine or not did not quite matter, as it seemed to be successful, and therefore subsequently accepted and followed by firstly Titus, and later also by Domitian at least in the early stage of his rule.

Throughout his lifetime, Vespasian acquired a network of associates, who provided him with the bonds to the original imperial family (Jones 2002, 3-12). During the reign of Nero, both, Vespasian, and Titus, served as the highest officers of his legions in (Jones 2002, 11), which was an opportunity for Julio-Claudian connection, but as I already mentioned, this was no longer an advantage following Nero’s death and his subsequent damnatio memoriae. If Vespasian wanted to please the crowd, he had to seek the link elsewhere, and thus he reached for support further to the past, to the most recent of the “good” emperors, Claudius. Early in his reign, Vespasian had a temple for Divus Claudius rebuilt (Darwall-Smith 1996, 48). It was a step to promote the name of his family and to recover the old links. Titus acted in similar fashion during his term as an emperor, he had two statues build for his early friend , son of Claudius, with whom he grew up on the imperial court (Darwall-Smith 1996, 53-54).

Another of Vespasian’s early decisions, which portrayed the family in the best light, was also reflected in the building program. It was based on the gradual dismantling of Nero’s Domus Aurea, and subsequent building on the top of it (Levick 1999, 126). This was a very clear message, which served multiple purposes. Firstly, the destruction of Nero’s complex housing was a symbol of an open opposition to his oppressive regime, as well as the elimination of his legacy. The public support of his damnation brought the Flavian family popularity among both, the aristocracy, and the masses (Coarelli 2007, 187). The second stage of the building plan delivered another positive outcome, the Flavian Amphitheatre, or (Richardson 1992, 7). By taking Nero’s private property and turning it into a public amphitheatre, Flavian emperors gained even more support amongst their citizens and their policy turned into the epitome of the expression panem et circenses.

3.) Divi Filius and Other Titulature of a Princeps Over the time of the Julio-Claudian era, there had been several titles that a princeps could acquire and add to their name. The most common ones could have been assembled, to create the whole official name of emperor Augustus, and they were used, sometimes all together, other times with exceptions, by the principes throughout the rest of the imperial era. The titles were: Imperator, Caesar, Augustus, and Divi Filius. All of them were either established by Augustus himself, or based on an earlier practice.

20

Domitian’s official imperial names was Imperator Caesar Domitianus Augustus . The last title Germanicus was typical for triumphatores, and it was derived from the name of the area they had conquered, therefore it differed in case of each individual emperor. Germanicus was awarded to Domitian after his claimed victory over the Germanic tribe, known as the (Jones 2002, 129). The Divi Filius title was not officially incorporated into Domitian’s name, but he still held the right to use it. I will therefore provide short description to the whole titulature, as each of the listed titles played an important role in the justification of Domitian’s claim to the principal office.

a) Imperator The Imperator is an old Latin name for a military commander, who had been entrusted with the , the power of an officer to give orders and hold authority over the army (Drogula 2007, 419). This title was therefore, starting with Augustus, accepted by emperors, whose position resulted from their prior military success. After assuming the office, Vespasian chose the title Imperator, and placed it at the first position of the row of his formal titulature, to stress the support of his troops, who were responsible for declaring him a princeps (Levick 1999, 66). Both of his sons, Titus and Domitian, continued Vespasian’s tradition, and every princeps onwards (Campbell 2002, xiii-xiv). Titus was hailed imperator in 70 AD for his triumphs in Judea, where he had been stationed alongside his father (Suetonius Titus 5), Domitian’s situation was however more complicated.

Being the second son, born almost 12 years after his brother (Southern 1997, 7) meant that Domitian never received the same amount of preparation for the possible future position of a princeps as Titus did. Vespasian was naturally readying his firstborn Titus for future responsibilities from the beginning. Titus was provided with not only the best education, on the imperial court with Claudius’ own son (Suetonius Titus 2), but also many practical skills, which Domitian had to acquire himself only after his brother’s death. Brian Jones (2002, 12) made a case, based on Suetonius’ brief description of Domitian’s time growing up. Even though Domitian received substantial education, he could quote ancient authors like and Vergil, and give eloquent speeches in front of the Senate from an early age, he was still rather behind when it came to actual accomplishments. This was however understandable; he was after all only 18 years old, when his father became emperor, which was an age for any young man at the time, when his would still have been in front of him. The real disadvantage for Domitian, even after he became an emperor, was the lack of any military experience at all. His father prevented him to intervene when he had a chance, for instance in a dispute between

21 the Parthians and Alani, probably not to be involved in a non-beneficial foreign conflict (Jones 1979, 12). The Senate thus probably did not react well to a leader of such military nation as the Romans, who did not undergo any military training. This led to Domitian wanting the titles, which both, his father and brother, already held, and he could not possibly previously obtain, due to him being only a child at the time, when they were both receiving triumphs and commanding the army, and Vespasian’s later interference, when Domitian was in his 20s.

Ancient sources however portray Domitian’s want of military recognition as a wish of an autocrat, who lead the army to unnecessary wars, only because he wanted the same titles as his father and brother held before him (Suetonius Domitian 2). Military service was however a standard practice for many young men, as well as almost every emperor, and I therefore think, it shall not be seen as a sign of an early display of , or tyranny in Domitian’s case. It is a conclusion, which was previous also reached by Brian Jones (2002, 16).

The first salutation was awarded to Domitian on the day of his accession, on the 14th of 81 AD. Domitian was subsequently hailed imperator after ’s victories in Britain, and four other times for unknown cases (Jones 2002, 129). The opportunity to gain imperial salutations for his own military success presented itself within the first two years of Domitian’s reign, as his war with the Chatti, which presumably took place sometime between the years 81-83 AD. The war thus must have happened before August 83 AD, the date when Domitian issued with title Germanicus, which was a step up from both, Vespasian and Titus, as neither of them claimed the title Judaicus after their victories in (Jones 2002, 129). The following triumph was once again criticised in ancient sources, and not considered a true victory by hostile authors. Tacitus, for instance said that Domitian feels anxiety at heart, as all men laugh at his falsum e triumphum (Tacitus Agricola 39). Suetonius, even though he was usually trying to be objective, also judged Domitian, by pointing out the unnecessity of it (Suetonius Domitian 2).

These accusations seemed to be fair, when it came to the war, it was true that Domitian did not conquer the Chatti, but the campaign did serve its purpose regardless. By building roads and watchtowers Domitian strengthened the Romanus in , he also gained titles Imperator and Germanicus, however undeserved they might have been, and he ensured himself support of common soldiers, by increasing their pay by one third of their salary (Jones 2002, 131).

22

b) Caesar Julius Caesar’s became an equivalent of a title with young Octavian taking it up to emphasise the connection with his adoptive father (Suetonius Augustus 7). The name Caesar was later adopted by Claudius, not only for himself, but also for his heirs (Levick 1999, 66), and Vespasian once again seemed to follow his example. Young Domitian was hailed Caesar on the 21st of December 69 AD, when his father was officially proclaimed emperor by the Senate (Jones 2002, 14). Domitian used this title until he became an emperor, as evident from Vespasianic coinage, for instance in depicted (Fig. II), which reads DOMIT COS III CAES AUG F, or Domitian Caesar consul for the third time, son of Vespasian on the obverse, and PRINCEPS IUVENTUS on reverse (BMC 155), a title reserved for the young prince, or the future princeps.

Fig. II Golden Aureus of Vespasian (BMC 155), depicting Domitian as Princeps Iuventus (http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/sear5/s2622.html#RIC_0787[vesp]).

c) Augustus The Latin word Augustus means ‘majestic’ and it was awarded to emperor Octavian by the Senate in 27 BC. The title itself was only an adjective, which did not bear any political meaning, prior to its use as Octavian’s imperial name (Haverfield 1915, 249-250). Its first bearer however, gave it a significant meaning throughout his deeds. Augustus passed what became his first and most recognizable name onto Tiberius and it was held by every princeps since (Levick 1999, 66).

d) Divi Filius The Divi Filius title was, similarly to that of Caesar, assumed by young Octavian himself, to further stress his affiliation with his deified adoptive father. I am going to discuss its importance, extent, and possible substitutes.

23

Titus Flavius Domitianus became the emperor on the 14th of September 81 AD, after the death of his brother Titus. The succession to the office of the princeps was not established on any universally followed rule, or law, which for the first time became an issue after the death of Nero and resulted in the civil war of 68/69 AD. If the Flavians wanted to avoid similar situation following the death of Vespasian, their best choice was to adapt the somehow obscure practice of the only previous dynasty, the Julio-Claudians. It was rather irregular succession based on nepotism, where the future ruler was the son, either legitimate biological or by adoption, of the current emperor. The son could additionally deify his deceased predecessor, in order to receive the title divi filius. This practice was first used by Augustus, who later adopted the title as a part of his name, to demonstrate the ties with deified Julius Caesar, his adoptive father (Taylor 1975, 99). With the exception of Caesar, the only two other Julio-Claudian emperors, who were deified after their deaths were Augustus himself and Claudius. This fact proposes the question of the degree of importance of one being the divi filius in the early Principate. What were the substitutes for emperors, whose immediate predecessor was not their deified father, and was any substitute a necessity for the emperor?

What could be said about Domitian, is that he probably liked to see himself as the follower of both Augustus and Tiberius. It is known, based on the laws and policy he introduced that he reinstated more than one of Augustan regulations. At the beginning of his reign, Domitian increased the value of issued coins back to the original Augustan standard and also brought back the old laws about morality (Jones 2002, 13). Suetonius mentioned Domitian’s fondness of Tiberius, by informing the reader about Domitian’s habit to study nothing but commentarios et acta Tiberi Caesaris (Suetonius Domitian 20), one of his favourite predecessor. Based on these observations, I would like to think, he naturally wanted to adopt some of Augustus’ and Tiberius’ religious practices as well. Augustus practically adopted the title as a part of his own imperial name, being the son of a Divus was therefore deemed to be another important title, which Domitian wished for himself.

Vespasian’s death ended his reign on the 23rd of June 79 AD, with his eldest son Titus his heir, and the future emperor. Titus deified his father sometime within the first year of his reign, making both himself, as well as Domitian worthy of the divi filius title (Levick 1999, 197). At that time, Titus had no male heir of his own, but was theoretically still young enough to have a son born to him, which would have meant that Domitian’s future position was no clear until the death of his brother.

24

With the death of Titus on the 13th of September 81 AD, Domitian found himself in the position where he was the son of a Divus, although divi Vespasiani filius was a name, which had already been held by his older brother. This however did not seem to be an issue in the usage of the title. As evidence, I offer several chosen examples of inscriptions from various fields of empire’s administration, in which Domitian uses the title divi filius.

According to Duncan Fishwick, Domitian had been referred to as son of deified Vespasian on an pro salute inscription found in today’s Pozzuoli in Italy, which reads: “…pr[o salute / i]mp(eratoris) Domitian[i divi f(i1i) Caes(aris) Augusti] Germ(anici), et [Domitiae A ug(ustae) / Domitiani A]ug(usti) et lulia[e Augustae / totiusque domus] divinae” (CIL X, 1632), or to emperor Domitian Caesar Augustus Germanicus, son of divine Vespasian, to Domitia Augusta, his wife, to Julia Augusta, daughter of Titus and Domitian’s niece, and the whole divine house, to which I will refer later (Fishwick 1991, 424).

Further I offer multiple military diplomas from around the empire, all of which start with the phrase: “Imp(erator) Caesar divi Vespasiani f(ilius) Domitianus / Augustus Germanicus …”, and all of which were collected in CIL XVI (Mommsen - Nesselhauf 1936).

The last inscription from Falerone, Italy reading: “Imp. Caesar Divi Vespasiani F. Domitianus Aug. adhibitis utriusque ordinis splendidis viris cognita causa inter Falerienses et Firmanos pronuntiavi quod subscriptum est” (CIL IX, 5420), from July 82 AD. It describes Domitian’s judicial process, almost a year after his accession to the office of princeps (Crook 1955, 49).

The inscriptions, which I chose, are all from different spheres of Domitian’s reign - religious, military, and judiciary. I therefore think that they should be enough of a proof to suggest that Domitian was using the divi filius title on fairy regular basis, even though he had been directly preceded by his brother, instead of his deified father.

Even if Domitian could not use the title properly, he had been preceded by two Julio- Claudian emperors, who could not claim the title divi filius at all – Gaius and Claudius. Domitian certainly did not want to associate the family name with that of Gaius, or repeat his mistakes, therefore he found the solution, where his father had before him, and looked up to Claudius, the only Julio-Claudian, whose name neither suffered from damnation, nor was he in possession of the divi filius title. Claudius was not a son of deified father; therefore, he chose to honour other members of his immediate family after his own succession to the office, to

25 emphasise their, as well as his self-importance. He ordered deification of his paternal grandmother, Livia, established annual games for both of his parents, Antonia Minor and Drusus, and awarded his mother with title Augusta (Suetonius Claudius 11).

In conclusion, the title divi filius was not a condition for the pre-Domitianic rulers, even though it clearly helped to strengthen their recognition. Claudius, who was considered to belong among the “good” emperors did not have the right to the tile, therefore he came with an alternative solution to deify additional member of his family. Domitian himself was the legitimate son of Vespasian and seemed to use this claim on regular basis. He did however decide to deify other members of his family as well, in order to not only further enhance the ties with his brother, but to turn his whole family into a divine house.

This idea was not however a completely new one. The term domus divina is known since the Augustan times, its first recorded use from Belgica, which reads: “…pro perpetua salute divinae domus…” (ClL XIII, 4635), is from 33 AD (Fishwick 1991, 423). Fishwick dedicated an entire chapter to its analysis and he adds that it was already commonly in use during the reign of Tiberius. He also points out that it could easily include any and all members of the Imperial house, but its meaning probably changed overtime.

The proposed original meaning is “the house of (or, which was founded by) the divus” (Fishwick 1991, 427). Here, Fishwick made a case that the pro salute from time of Domitian and onwards included the reigning emperor and living members of his family. This was especially true for the era of the Severan dynasty, from which an example of pro salute read: “pro salutem et victorias dd(ominorum) nn(ostrorum) Impp(eratorum) Severi et Antonini Auggustorum et luliae A ug(ustae) matri Augg(ustorum) totiusq(ue) domus divinae eorum” (CIL VI, 461). It did not only include the emperor, but also his living wife and children. He further suggested that the meaning of the expression eventually become “divine house” and that this shift occurred in the late Flavian period, simply because a change like that would have suited an emperor like Domitian better. I would have to partly disagree in regard to this statement. While change like this might have occurred, and it could have even happened during Domitianic reign, there is not any substantial proof that Domitian suddenly changed the meaning of the old expression domus divina, in order to make his living family members and himself with them appear god-like or divine.

On the other hand, it was a common practice for Gaius, Claudius, Nero, Titus, Domitian and later the Antonines, or the Severi, to deify other, especially female, members of their

26 families. This would suggest that the term could have been later used as a kind of indicator, as if to mark people, who were destined to become gods in the afterlife. What the Flavians thus initiated, was that the whole imperial family would, based on their affiliation to domus divina, receive the same honours as the person of the emperor (Fishwick 1991, 430-435).

4.) Deification of the Flavian Family When it came to self-presentation, the members of the Julio-Claudian family, even, while promoting the heritage, modelled their own images as individuals. The Flavians on the other hand, never failed to display that they were a family and presented themselves as such. This started with Vespasian awarding title Caesar to both of his sons with his accession in 69 AD, and graduated during Titus’, and predominantly Domitian’s reign.

As mentioned above, Titus was responsible for the deification of Vespasian, as his immediate successor. Both brothers subsequently profited from this act, but neither of them stopped there, when it came to consecrations of family members. Titus had also deified his younger sister Domitilla, who presumably died at least seven years prior to the Flavian dynasty taking the office (Scott 1975, 46-49).

Two years later with the death of Titus, Domitian had his brother deified. Suetonius mentioned, he did so rather unwillingly, defunctumque nullo praeterquam consecrationis honore dignatus, and it was apparently the only honour he awarded his death brother (Suetonius Dom. 2). Pliny’s reaction in Panegyricus is quite similar, where he accused both brothers of having the wrong motives for deification of their father and brother respectively: “Vespasianum Titus, Domitianus Titum: sed ille, ut dei filius, hic, ut frater videretur”, so there allegedly was not any honour involved in Domitian’s case, only his desire to be seen as a brother of a Divus (Pliny Panegyricus 11). Pliny however, wrote the Panegyricus to praise Trajan and it was only natural for him to diminish the actions of the Flavian brothers, especially that of Domitian, as much as possible, which he did, in order to distinguish the Nerva-Antonine dynasty from any association with condemned Domitian. I will discuss this further in the chapter on Domitian’s damnatio memoriae.

The deification of Titus was probably different from that of the early Julio-Claudians, due to a change that presumably appeared around the time of Claudius’ reign. After his private funeral, Titus was granted the divine honours by a Senatorial decree, followed by the consecration, performed by Domitian. The newly modified apotheosis only occurred afterwards. At the official state funeral, a wax effigy of the emperor was burn on the pyre, while

27 an eagle was released as a symbol of emperor’s ascendance to heavens (Chalupa 2007, 203- 206). The apotheosis thus developed from a fabricated rumour of the eye-witnesses, into a show for the public to watch and enjoy. A well-preserved archaeological evidence of Titus’ apotheosis is the depiction form a relief on the Arch of Titus, located at the eastern end of Forum Romanum on Via .

The attribution of the Arch of Titus to Domitian is not entirely clear. Discussions were led that it might have been constructed under Trajan (Darwall-Smith 1996, 166-171), which is the reason I will not describe the whole monument in this chapter, as its focus lies on architecture of confirmed Domitianic date. I however decided to include the detail, depicted on the right (Fig. III), which still serves as the evidence of Titus’ divinisation, despite the unresolved issue of which princeps commissioned the structure.

The relief from the centre of the ceiling of the Arch portrays the emperor Titus being carried by an eagle, and thus becoming a Divus by ascending to heavens (Darwall-Smith 1996, 166). Fig. III Detail of Apotheosis of Titus, Arch Titus subsequently received municipal cult of Titus, Forum Romanum in various cities and his own college of priests, the (http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/img.ht m?id=4787). Flamines (Scott 1975, 61). The priesthood of Flamines had been established at least since the early Republic, and according to Livy, the priests already existed during the reign of (Livy I, 20). They were, in the time of the Republic, always in service of one god, from whom they received their epithet. Their position was reformed by Augustus, who, among other changes, also established the office of Flamen Divi Iulii, for his recently divinised father (Dio XLIV, 6).

Apart from the Arch of Titus, the three main structures, which serve the best to illustrate the cult of the Divi during Domitian’s reign are: the Temple of Vespasian and Titus, Porticus Divorum, and the Temple of the Gens Flavia. Unfortunately, out of the three edifices, the only archaeological remains, which were preserved until this day, are three corner columns and two

28 fragments of the entablature, adorned with a frieze of symbolic objects, from the Templum Divi Vespasiani et Titi. I will nevertheless try to provide at least a short description of each building, based on available literary sources and the reasoning behind their inclusion in this chapter.

a) The Temple of Vespasian and Titus Construction of the Temple of Vespasian and Titus already begun during the reign of Titus, but it was finished under Domitian, who added the name of his recently deceased brother to the original consecration, not however to the inscription on the architrave. Temple’s remains (Fig. III) are located on the western end of the Forum Romanum, on the foot of the , between the old Republican structures, the Temple of Concordia, Porticus Deorum Consentium, and Temple of Saturn (Richardson 1992, 412).

Darwall-Smith also offers the ante quem to be 87 AD, based on an Acta Arvalium insert, which is a clear indication for Domitianic rule. An important detail, when it comes to the question of the Imperial cult is however the inscription, which read: “Divo Vespasiano Augusto SPQR”. The final four letters mean that even if Domitian had relatively free hands in his building program, the consecration of his father and brother respectively could not happen without Senatorial approval, and neither could the temple to the Divi be built without Senate’s involvement (Darwall- Smith 1996, 155-156).

The structure was originally a typical Roman prostylic hexastyle temple, measuring about 22 meters in width by 33 meters in length. The order is Corinthian, based on the capitals of the three in situ remaining columns, which are now standing Fig. IV Remains of the Temple of Vespasian and on the , joined by a small Titus, Forum Romanum (http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/img.htm?id=15 portion of the entablature. I will attempt to 82). 29 describe another piece of entablature (Fig. V), now located in the , in the Palazzo dei Conservatori, former Tabularium. It is decorated in a rich ornamented that was specific to the architecture of the Flavian dynasty (Darwall-Smith 1996, 154).

Fig. V Entablature from the Temple of Vespasian and Titus, Palazzo dei Conservatori (http://www.shafe.co.uk/temple_of_vespasian-_entablature/).

The preserved piece of the frieze (Fig. V) depicts objects connected to the practices of the cult, mainly the utensils used during the process of animal sacrifice. On both ends, there are bucrania adorned with garlands, or ribbons, which were wrapped around the horns. The ox skulls were typically displayed in front of the temple, after the sacrifice was performed. Next object is a leather hat, or a cap, which was worn by the flamen during the ceremony. It could be easily distinguished by its pointing top called , originally made of a longer piece of olive wood, but later reduced to its displayed size, and straps that were fastened below the chin. Another object is a whisk, usually made of hair of a horse, used to keep away flies from the cadaver. Pitcher was used to pour wine into the patera, or the libation bowl. The libation, which was usually a mix of wine and water, was then poured by the emperor, or priest, from the patera onto the altar. Both dishes, as well as the cap, have rich ceremonial decoration. Next objects are an axe and a knife, both used by the victimarius to perform the sacrifice. Lastly, there is an

30 aspergillum, which was used to sprinkle water onto the head of the sacrificial animal, that would force it to nod, which was recognised as a sign of an agreement with its sacrifice.

The entablature is adorned above, as well as below the frieze, with multiple layers of rich ornaments, which were, according to Darwall-Smith (1996, 154-155), typical for the Flavians and only rarely used outside of their period. The cornice is decorated with various floral patterns. Cyma recta is made of simple leaves, below which is a row of the anthemia as cyma reversa, and a decorated corona row. Acanthus leaves make up the bottom of the consoles, and other leaf type patterns are in between them. There are several different kinds of flowers stylised as rosettes in the coffers. Below that is the row of dentils with spectacles, in- between two rows of the egg-and-dart motifs, the later yet in between two thin rows of what seem to be wine leaves and adorned with more florals. Below the frieze, the architrave is divided into four step rows. The first is another floral row of anthemia, with a thin bead and reel row at its bottom. The remaining three rows are plain, alternated only with two thin rows of down- turned acanthus leaves.

Fig. VI Digital reconstruction of the Temple of Vespasian and Titus (centre) and its position between the Temple of Saturn (left) and Temple of Concordia (right) on Forum Romanum (http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/vespasianstempel/?lang=en). The temple was stationed on a high podium, which was made of a concrete core and faced with peperino tuff and travertine. Traces of both are still visible on the remaining fragment of the podium. There are also poorly-preserved fragments of a travertine cella wall and bases for cult statues, probably of Vespasian and Titus, which were located in the back of the temple. The cella was more broad than deep, due to temple’s obstructed position in front of the

31

Tabularium (Fig. VI). There might have been columns on the inside, but there is not any archaeological evidence to support the theory. The limited space was also the reason for the elongation of the columns, measuring 13.2 metres, with 1.57 metres in diameter (Richardson 1992, 412).

The temple of Vespasian and Titus was a standard structure worth of any deity, which even had precedent in several other temples for the previous divi. Despite the decoration, its architecture could also be considered very traditional, especially when compared to other, more extravagant buildings of Domitian’s era.

b) Porticus Divorum Porticus Divorum, also known as Templum Divorum, was a large complex of structures located on Campus , east of Saepta Iulia. Its position today is known primarily due to its depiction on the Forma Urbis Romae, or the Marble Plan of Rome, which was created between 203 and 211 AD, during the reign of . Its original name is unknown as well, because the fragments of the plan only display the word “Divorum”. The name Porticus Divorum is however used in the sources most commonly, which is the reason I will be using it in this work, even though L. Richardson (1992, 111) in A New Topographical Dictionary suggests that it is not justified. The structure is an enclosure, or a yard, which is surrounded by colonnades, or porticoes, which I believe, makes the name “Porticus”, even if it is a creation of modern authors, appropriate.

Fig. VII Reconstructed model of the Porticus Divorum located on (https://www.maquettes-historiques.net/P22.html).

32

The Marble Plan depicts the Porticus as a large rectangle on Campus Martius, surrounded with colonnades. Its main entrance was a grand arch with three fornices, which was located on the northern side of the Porticus, facing another of Domitianic structures, the Temple of Minerva Chalcidica. Inside, there were two small tetrastylic temples in the near left and right corners, facing each other. The rest of the court is painted with a symmetrical net of dots, which were interpreted as trees, or shrubbery (Darwall-Smith 1996, 156-157). Richardson also mentions two other buildings of a megaron plan on each side of the arch, serving an unclear purpose, as well as an uncertain opening at the southern end. On the central axis of the Porticus, by its southern side, there is another square structure with columns in its corners and two sets of stairs, interpreted as an altar (Richardson 1992, 111). It was suggested that the square building might be an early altar to . Domitian had built the Porticus only after the previous structure in its place, Villa Publica, was destroyed by the fire of Titus in 80 AD. The altar thus could be its original altar to Mars, which gave name to Campus Martius, and was therefore kept in its place, but does not have any additional connection to the new building (Richardson 1992, 245).

The dimensions of the Porticus were calculated to be around 200 metres in length by 55 metres in width. The colonnades presumably consisted of more than 30 columns on the long sides by 16 on the shorter ones (Platner 1929, 152-153).

The Porticus was built to accommodate the two tetrastylic temples for Divus Vespasian and Divus Titus respectively. These could be identified based on an inscription regarding votive offerings, which reads: “quod gestum est in templo divorum in aede divi Titi conuento pleno” (CIL, VI, 10234). The inscription clearly states that one of the temples of Templum Divorum belonged to brother of the emperor, Divus Titus, it is therefore logical to assume that the other one was for Domitian’s father, Vespasian. This theory is generally agreed upon as concluded by Robin Darwall-Smith (1996, 157).

This monument, as previously mentioned, stood on the ruins of Villa Publica, a public building, which apart from providing shade for walks, also served for enlisting of troops, and taking of Roman citizens (Richardson 1992, 430-431). Domitian’s Porticus Divorum seemed to have similar function, in addition to the celebration of his deified family. Rebuilding of this structure thus served Domitian well in propagating the image of the Flavian dynasty and their service to the people of Rome. It emphasized what Domitian and his predecessors did for their citizens by creating a connection between the public functions of the buildings, with the religious worship of the family. Similar assumption was again reached by Darwall-Smith, who 33 said that the building was a monument to both Flavian triumphatores and censors3, as well as to Domitian’s own position of censor perpetuus, which he held since 85 AD and considered it highly significant at the beginning of his career (Darwall-Smith 1996, 159).

The triple arch might have also displayed the Cancelleria Reliefs, which I will discuss later, thus emphasizing the military glory of the family that Domitian naturally wanted to take part in, as mentioned previously. All this propaganda was however handled with an interesting Flavian approach. While the Temple of Vespasian and Titus was a typical religious structure, considered practically compulsory, when it came to the promotion of the Imperial cult, Porticus Divorum is, on the other hand, the best example of how a “functional public structure” could also serve to advertise emperor’s intensions in originally non-religious spaces, thus further increasing the publicity for the cult of the Flavian Divi.

c) The Temple of the Gens Flavia

Fig. VIII Possibe reconstruction of the Temple of the Gens Flavia, Caelian Hill (https://www.maquettes-historiques.net/P10as.html).

The last example of justification of Domitian’s position via deifying his family members is the Temple of the Gens Flavia. As Suetonius informed us, Domitian had the Templum Gentis Flaviae built on the site of the house, in which he was born. It was located on the Ad Malum Punicum, or the Pomegranate street, in the sixth region of Rome, on the (Suetonius Dom. 1). Two inscriptions from that area provide connection to the Flavian family, one of which reads: “Inter duos parietes ambitus privat(us) Flavi Sabini” (CIL, VI, 29788). The other is a

3 Magistrates, who acquired information on the population, and supervised public morals. 34 lead pipe also inscribed “T. Flavi Sabini”. It is thus known that Titus Flavius Sabinus, Vespasian’s brother, owned a private property in the sixth region, which was either a neighbouring house, or the one, in which Domitian was born (Darwall-Smith 1992, 159-160). The exact location and design of the temple are however problematic, because with the exception of the Hartwig-Kelsey sculptural fragments, there are not any other remains, which could be associated with it.

In 1901, on two separate occasions, Paul Hartwig and Francis Kelsey each obtained two sets of fragments from the area in question, near the Baths of . All fragments probably originally came from the same construction site, but were placed separately into the Museo Nazionale delle Terme in Rome by Hartwig, and the Kelsey Museum in Michigan by Kelsey, only to be later matched together and reclassified (Davies 2000, 150-151).

Together there are 15 Hartwig-Kelsey fragments, made of Pentelic marble, with additional mortar indicating that they had been probably reused. The fragments were categorised into three groups based on their size and purpose.

Fig. IX Entablature pieces of the Hartwig-Kelsey fragments (http://exhibitions.kelsey.lsa.umich.edu/galleries/Exhibits/Empire2/objects/index.html).

Fig. X Torso pieces (front and back) of the Hartwig-Kelsey fragments (http://exhibitions.kelsey.lsa.umich.edu/galleries/Exhibits/Empire2/objects/index.html).

35

The first group (Fig. IX-X) consists of five various pieces of the entablature and two fragments of male torsos. One torso is clothed in tunic, the other one is nude, both are leaning against palm trees, which were used as substitutes for regular columns. Common patterns of the architectonic fragments include dentils with hollow centres, which were typical for Domitian’s architect and only rarely found elsewhere. These date the founds into the late first or early second centuries AD. Other often present motifs were egg-and-dart, down- hanging leaves, and pieces of a frieze, which was depicting griffins, thymiateria, or incense burners, and baetyloi in low relief. The whole structure followed Corinthian order, except for the capitals, where the typical usage of traditional crowns of acanthus was replaced with windblown palm leaves, to fit the palm tree trunk-like columns. This orientalising element was a specific reference to Vespasian’s and Titus’ victories in Judea, which had been commemorated with the images of palm trees next to seated Judea Capta on reverses from 71 AD (Koeppel 1980, 16-22). The conquest of Jerusalem was a significant military victory for the Flavian dynasty, it was thus very reasonable for Domitian to choose it as a main decoration theme for the temple. Not only did he stress the dedication to the worship of his family, but also the military background, which brought them to power in the first place.

Fig. XI Various pieces of the Hartwig-Kelsey fragments (http://exhibitions.kelsey.lsa.umich.edu/galleries/Exhibits/Empire2/objects/index.html).

36

The second group (Fig. XI) contains head of Vespasian, head, and torso of a soldier (framed in red in the picture), head of a woman, head of Genius Populi Romani, head of a flamen in front of the temple of , and a head of a sacrificial bull. The last category is another helmeted head of a soldier (framed in yellow in the picture), which differs in size and is therefore listed separately. Vespasian’s head is an indication that it belongs to a Flavian structure and motifs of griffins and thymiateria were typically connected with apotheosis, which implies the involvement of the Imperial Cult and therefore confirms that the fragments belong to the Temple of the Gens Flavia (Davies 2000, 151). The head of Genius Populi Romani is also similar to the one from Cancelleria Reliefs, which I will address later.

Koeppel’s analysis concludes that the sculptural fragments probably belonged to two different panels of a frieze. The head of the flamen and the head of a bull would both be typically part of sacrificial scenes, where Flamines were always present. The scene could have also included Genius Populi Romani and at least five other figures. Koeppel further correctly stated that soldiers would not be needed during religious practice such as this one, he therefore proposes the other scene to depict the adventus of the emperor. Similar adventus scene has a parallel in the Cancelleria reliefs, it is thus possible it was also presented on the Temple of the Gens Flavia for both of the above stated purposes, to stress the connection with the deified family members, as well as the importance of their prior military success (Koeppel 1980, 18- 19). The sculptural fragments should therefore belong to two panels depicting Vespasian’s arrival to Rome, and some kind of religious sacrifice that took place in close proximity of the Temple of Quirinus respectively.

The decoration of the temple, based even on the little evidence provided by the Hartwig- Kelsey fragments could be considered luxurious. This was also confirmed by , who spoke of the building as being faced with marble and gold: “Haec, quae tota patet tegiturque et marmore et auro…” (Martial IX, 20).

The overall appearance of the temple is however still difficult to judge, as the only currently available ancient sources providing an architectural concept, are collections of Martial’s Epigrammata, and ’ , both of which offer several lines of vague lyrical metaphors. Darwall-Smith also mentions three coins in his work, which possibly might have depicted parts of the temple, but the plausibility, as well as their authenticity, as he deduced, is highly debatable and I will therefore not discuss them further.

37

Both Martial and Statius refer to the temple in relation to the sky, or heaven. Martial wrote: “Addita quid Latio Flavia templa polo?” (Martial IX, 3), about the temple being added to the Latin heaven, and “Iuppiter Idaei risit mendacia busti, dum videt Augusti Flavia templa poli” (Martial IX, 34), Jupiter sees Flavian temple in Augustan heaven. Statius lists Domitian’s architectonic achievements by mentioning the temple after that of Jupiter and Pax, which he had repaired: “… qui genti patriae futura semper sancit lumina Flaviumque caelum” (Statius, Silvae, IV, 3), [Domitian] consecrated the temple for the gens of his father, the light that will last forever in Flavian heaven.

These three lines, all containing the words polus and caelum, Latin for sky, or heaven, could refer, among other meanings, to the round shape of the temple. The reason for this is the word caelum, which could be also interpreted as a ceiling. Darwall-Smith pointed out that ceilings, for instance that of Nero’s circular dining room, used to be painted as the night sky with the zodiac signs, stars, and other celestial bodies. This interpretation would therefore mean a possibility of a similar decoration, or a round-shaped ceiling, and thus a circular room, in case of the Temple of the Gens Flavia. This is however only a theory, which is not supported by any literal or archaeological evidence. The other meaning of the word is metaphorical. The deified members of the Flavian gens would find their places in heaven after their departure. The same metaphor could be also traced in Martial’s usage of Latin and Augustan polus, or heaven. He believes that the Flavian Divi will either join the rest of the existing Latin pantheon, or create their own (Darwall-Smith 1992, 162).

When it came to the size of the temple, another of Martial’s lines might have been interpreted as vaguely describing its vastness: “...Manebit altum Flaviae decus gentis cum sole et astris cumque luce Romana.” (Martial, IX, 1), or …the high temple in honour of Flavian gens will remain with the Sun, stars, and Roman light. Scott suggested here that the temple was possibly a lofty one, but at the same time agrees that the word altum might have only been an exaggeration typically used by the poet (Scott 1975, 65). Scott than continues his analysis by mentioning a sixteen-century description of ruins of a marble temple with palm trees, which might have been a match for the Flavian temple. It was described as a small tempietto, which, if the remains indeed belonged to the temple, would have contradicted the ancient sources (Scott 1975, 67). However, there are not currently any remains, which could be linked with any of the literary sources in order to either confirm, or disprove them.

The Temple of the Gens Flavia served multiple purposes. As I previously mentioned, it was built on the site of the house, in which Domitian was born. The house being turned into a 38 temple of worship of the Flavian gens was not merely a commemoration of the site of Domitian’s birth. This was a prior case, where the house of Augustus used to be a popular landmark even years after his death, but it was mostly preserved in its original state (Darwall- Smith 1992, 164), or another possible birthplace was rededicated to Divus Augustus and Diva Augusta by Tiberius only after both of their deaths (Richardson 1992, 45). The transition from the house of the Flavii into a temple, as Darwall-Smith notes, happened in 94/95 AD, while Domitian was still a reigning emperor. By making this change, Domitian practically pointed out that he was born in heaven, which would have two plausible meanings, he either saw himself as a deus or divus on earth, or he at least clearly expected to be deified after his death and it was his way of conveying this request to the future rulers (Darwall-Smith 1992, 165).

Another purpose for the temple was to establish the main centre for the worship of the Flavian Divi. An edifice like this one, does not have any parallel within the building program of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. The reason for this was that all three of the deified Julio- Claudians, Caesar, Augustus, and Claudius, were perceived as individuals. Divus Julius and Divus Augustus had separate temples on the Roman Forum, which were built and consecrated by Augustus and Tiberius with consecration by respectively (Richardson 1992, 213 and 45). The deification and subsequent worship of Divus Claudius, was often ridiculed, and his temple on the Caelian Hill was destroyed by the Great Fire of 64 AD and later by Nero himself, only to be rebuilt and its more serious position re-established by Vespasian (Darwall- Smith 1992, 48). There was not however any structure, which unified all the Julio-Claudian Divi under one roof, which, together with its last function, makes the Templum Gentis Flaviae a unique concept.

The last role of the temple was to serve as a mausoleum for the emperors of the Flavian dynasty, together with their families (Darwall-Smith 1992, 165). While there is a clear connection to the Mausoleum of Augustus, this unification of the final resting place with the place of collective worship of family members is a new step within the Imperial cult.

Another unique feature of the Temple of the Gens Flavia was its location, as it stood, unlike the Mausoleum of Augustus, within the pomerium of Rome. Its construction therefore probably required a permission from the Senate to save it from braking traditional religious laws, concerning the prohibition of burials inside the pomerium (Da̧ browa 1996, 157). This proposes an idea of practical reasons for the unification of a religious shrine with a mausoleum aside from the obvious propaganda. In the time of Domitian’s rule the city of Rome was crowded with structures of various characters, especially after the extensive building programs 39 of the previous emperors. As the records state, the property on which the temple was built, had already been in possession of the Flavian family prior to its construction. Domitian thus owned a suitable place for his project without having to acquire it otherwise. The house was however within the pomerium, so an easier way than only building a proper mausoleum there, would have been assembling a temple, which is also a “mausoleum in disguise”. The solution of a conjoined temple and mausoleum on the site of a birthplace would therefore not only be symbolic, but also a pragmatic one.

The temple became a tomb for possibly up to five members of the Flavian family, who were either buried there directly, or their ashes were moved to the site later. The structure was often associated with the concept of Flavian heaven by ancient authors and the five deified Flavian divi, namely Vespasian, Titus, Domitilla, Domitian’s son, and finally Titus’ daughter Julia, were considered its stars (Scott 1975, 69-71).

The only not-deified member of the family, whose remains were deposited there, was Domitian himself. Suetonius wrote that after Domitian’s death on the 18th of September 96 AD, his childhood nurse Phyllis officially carried his body and buried it on the property of his private Alban villa in today’s . However, Phyllis afterwards took his ashes and privately brought them to the Temple of the Gens Flavia. There she proceeded to mix them with ashes of Diva Julia (Fig. XII), daughter of Titus and Domitian’s nice, who had also been nursed by Phyllis as a child (Suetonius, Domitian 17).

Fig. XII Golden Aureus depicting deified Julia Titi on the obverse and a biga, driven by elephants on the reverse, issued in the between 90-91 AD (http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/julia_titi/i.html). Julia was only around ten years younger than Domitian and both of them grew up mostly without their parents being present in their lives. It is thus reasonable to believe that they were raised together and Domitian might have been fond of her as an older brother would be (Jones

40

2002, 38-39). She died in the late , probably around 89 AD, supposedly due to a forced abortion. Some hostile source claimed the unborn child to be Domitian’s, but that seems like nothing more than a rumour, which only worsened after Domitian’s damnatio. During her lifetime, Julia received flattery from poets and was included in prayers for safety and health of the ruling Imperial couple by the Arval Brothers until 90 AD. She appeared on multiple coin issues, including the commemorating coins of her deceased father, Titus (Mattingly, BMC II, 313, number 69). There were also coins, which equated her to several goddesses, who appeared on the reverse, while the obverse depicted her bust, often encircled with the inscription: IULIA AUGUSTA DIVI TITI F[ilia]. Her deification was confirmed by posthumous issues of early , which include a carpentum drawn by two mules, or a biga drawn by elephants, carrying her image on the reverse (Fig. VI), inscribed with DIVA IULIA AUGUSTA (RIC Domitian 718). Scott also mentioned an issue of aurei with similar bust on the obverse, but with a peacock on the reverse. He perhaps observed the absence of the word diva, and therefore assigned it to the last years of her life. The image of a peacock was, as he further stated, associated with Juno, but while Kenneth Scott (1975, 75-77) connected it with the harmony in the family, he also stated that it was sign of the apotheosis of female divae, and I therefore think that there is a possibility of the coin being minted posthumously, but prior to the actual deification.

Another deified member of the Flavian heaven is Domitian’s unnamed son. Suetonius mentioned him as Domitian’s only child by his wife, , who was born in the second term of his consulship, in 73 AD (Suetonius, Domitian 3). The child died very young, which is evident from Martial’s epigram, where he described the little boy sending snow down on Domitian from heaven: "quis siccis lascivit aquis et ab aethere ludit? suspicor has pueri Caesaris esse nives" (Martial, IV, 3). His deification had been commemorated on a series of coins issued between 82-83 AD. This means he must have died before reaching the age of ten. One of the denarii (Fig. IX) depicts bust of Domitia on observe and a naked infant sitting upon a globe, representing baby Jupiter, who is surrounded by seven stars on the reverse. The coins are inscribed on reverse: DIVUS CAESAR IMP[erator] DOMITIANI F[ilius] (Mattingly, BMC II, 311, number 62). The stars represent the Ursa constellations, which are by legend associated with Jupiter, as well as with royalty and eternity (Scott 1975, 72). While the evidence of child’s deification is clear, it is not known whether he was actually buried in the temple, as there is not any recording on his final resting place.

41

Fig. XIII Silver depicting Domitia Augusta on obverse, and Divus Caesar, son of Domitian on reverse, issued between 82-83 AD (http://romanumismatics.com/articles/article/rome-domitia-domitians-deified-son/).

I already mentioned the deifications of Titus and Domitian’s sister Domitilla previously in this chapter. While Domitilla was deified during the reign of Titus, and Titus himself very early into Domitian’s rule, it was still possible that some of their remains might have been transferred into the new temple, even though its construction was not finished until more than a decade after the death of Titus. This move would have played well into Domitian’s intentions of creating a new dynasty mausoleum after Augustus’ model, but just like in case of Domitian’s son, there is neither literary, nor archaeological evidence of any such thing.

There was however an exception when it came to burial of the establishing member of the dynasty, Vespasian. His ashes were deposited in the Mausoleum of Augustus for the most important reason at that time, the legalisation of his own deification, as well as all that of the future Flavian emperors. In time of Vespasian, the link with Augustus as the first princeps meant a necessity for the approval of his family, especially after his accession to the throne through his imperia, following the civil war. Placing Vespasian’s ashes within Augustus’ mausoleum granted the Flavian family what they never had, the divine origins, or at least a meaningful connection to that of the gens Iulia (Da̧ browa 1996, 156). It meant a new concept for the Flavian brothers and a major diversion from their father’s original ideology, which was based on the lack of any divine ancestry and pretence of humble origins.

I agree with the three main purposes of the structure, which I discussed above; the promotion of Domitian’s own position by linking the temple with his birthplace, promotion of the Flavian family and their collective worship, and a mausoleum of the gens Flavia, or link of Domitian’s person with his ancestors. Further I am also inclined towards the hypothesis, which had been proposed by Edward Da̧ browa in his 1996 paper on The Origin of Templum Gentis

42

Flaviae. It is mainly due to its construction date, which Da̧ browa, as well as Darwall-Smith stated to be most-likely after 94 AD. The hypothesis proposes that the temple’s purpose was not only to link Domitian to the ancestors, because that was already the role of structures, which had been built prior to 94 AD. Both, the Temple of Vespasian and Titus, and Porticus Divorum served the purpose of justifying Domitian’s position as a princeps. The Temple of the Gens Flavia thus could have been built to justify the position of Domitian’s successors.

After the death of his own son, Domitian adopted two children of his cousin Flavius Clemens to keep the succession within the family. The boys were even named Vespasian and Domitian (Suetonius, Domitian 15), so it was clear he wanted to continue another tradition, which was started by the Julio-Claudians. Domitian wanted to prepare them for the position of the princeps from an early age, and thus an adequate propaganda would have been in place to justify their adoption, rights to the throne, and reasons for their future dynastic succession. By building the temple, the position of the Flavian dynasty was finally legitimised and secure enough that they could have stopped imitating the Julio-Claudian traditions, and start their own (Da̧ browa 1996, 159-160). Therefore, if the hypothesis is correct, the Templum Gentis Flaviae was not only a device to improve Domitian’s position, or to promote the family heritage, but also to secure its future.

In conclusion, the deification of the Flavian family begun under emperor Titus and came to an end fifteen years later, with the death of Domitian. Titus’ decision to deify his deceased father and preceding emperor Vespasian was a standard practice and a necessary step for the establishment of a new dynasty. The following deification of his at that time presumably long death sister Domitilla, was however and additional act, which did not have any precedent with the “good” emperors. I believe that it was her deification, which lunched the process of building the family of the divi. Therefore, I assume it could have easily been Titus, instead of Domitian, who first envisioned the idea of creating the house of divine predecessors, as opposed to Vespasian’s story of humble family origins. Titus’ short-lived reign however prevented any more religious changes, or alternations in the imperial propaganda, which could have occurred had he not died early, only 27 months after his accession to the principal office.

The change thus took place during the rule of Domitian. The three monuments, which were chosen as examples of the Imperial cult of the Flavian family have all been built under different circumstances and each of them served its own role. Firstly, the Temple of Vespasian and Titus was planned out by Titus and completed by Domitian as a necessity, in order to publicly present both Flavian brothers as divi filii. Besides that, Domitian became a successor 43 to two preceding emperors, both of whom were deified. This would have also been in accord with Pliny the Younger’s quote: “Vespasianum Titus, Domitianus Titum: sed ille, ut dei filius, hic, ut frater videretur” (Pliny Panegyricus X, 11). The Panegyricus is meant to praise Trajan at the expense of Domitian and it is therefore not considered objective, but even if Domitian did not want to deify Titus out of brotherly love, as he had been accused, he still did it, perhaps not only to glorify his own person as Pliny claimed. He had Titus deified not as his brother, but as his successor, to establish a dynasty, where every emperor receives deification after his death. This ultimately meant that he expected deification following his own death, and it also became a precedent for the Antonines, who were using the same system and whom I will discuss later.

The second example was the Porticus Divorum, a structure, which was probably not planned until after the fire of 81 AD had destroyed a large part of Campus Martius. The function of the Porticus was, as stated above, to further justify Domitian’s position, while the porticoes also hosted public activities. Thus, the Porticus could also be considered a building from the “practical propaganda category”, which I will introduce in the next chapter. Lastly, there is the Temple of the Gens Flavia, which was again built with the future emperors of the Flavian dynasty in mind. All three of these buildings, while undeniably playing their major roles in the justification of Domitian’s claims to the throne, also act as the instances of a greater plan, which Domitian, and perhaps even already Titus, had for their imperial dynasty.

III) Development of the Imperial Cult During Domitian’s Reign In the following chapter, I would like to describe the development of the Imperial cult and its place within the propaganda, following the justification of Domitian’s position as a princeps. While his policy on ancestral worship completely contradicted Vespasian’s declarations of obscure origins, the propaganda seemed to keep the same course under the rule of all three of the Flavian emperors. Modest background might have been forgotten with Vespasian’s death, but the dynasty never stopped presenting themselves as family of people’s emperors. Their activity was often accompanied with the purpose of prosperity of Rome, with emphasis on the wellbeing of her ordinary citizens.

I would therefore divide this chapter into three parts. In the first section, I am going to address Domitian’s relationship with his personal deity and how his own interests reflected in public propaganda. Every emperor changed the course of the imperial cult to suit his own person and Domitian was not an exception. Therefore, I would like to map the changes that occurred when his personal choice became a public domain with his accession into the office. The second

44 part of the chapter will be assigned to propaganda through games and circuses, which represented the major difference between the Julio-Claudian and Flavian dynasties. The third segment would include newly introduced alteration by the Flavian dynasty, the replacement in the Genius worship. I will be again illustrating this development by tracing archaeological remains of chosen monuments.

1.) The Patron Deity The idea of patron deity was already popular with Hellenistic rulers, who would choose their favourite gods as their personal protectors. Their choice was often accompanied with a claim that they were descendants of said deity, which further helped to justify their position on the throne (Scott 1975, 166).

Julius Caesar set an example for his adoptive son, emperor Augustus, by choosing Venus as a personal deity, who offered protection to him and his family. Various principes, who were admirers of the first emperor and his deeds, followed this instance in similar fashion, emperor Domitian amongst them. Augustus’ early choice of a personal patron was the young god of the truth, light, and arts, Apollo, who gained his popularity within the Roman world specifically as a result of this decision. What is more important in relation to the Imperial cult however, was the god, who had been selected to represent Augustus’ intensions towards his enemies, the god, whose temple dominated the most frequented public space and was on display for everyone, who would dare to attack the Imperial family again, Mars Ultor, the Avenger. While Mars was regarded to be the father of the twin founders of the city of Rome, he was first and foremost god of war, which was something undeniably connected to Rome’s fundamental existence. However, out of all deities, who were associated with war, Mars was considered the most vicious and violent one. He was the one, who lusts for battle, searches for revenge, and blindly kills his victims (Neškudla 2004, 126-129). Augustus chose this deity to avenge Caesar’s assassins, and provide a link with his deceased adoptive father, by building the on Forum Augusti, which had been vowed since 42 BC, and finally consecrated in year 2 BC (Richardson 1992, 160).

a) Minerva – Domitian’s Personal Sphere of Her Worship Domitian made a more calculated decision and picked a different warfare related deity, Minerva. She was his patron in both, private and public life and she symbolised a more peaceful, yet still traditional warlike nature of the Roman nation.

45

Minerva was Roman goddess of wisdom, art, crafts, commerce, and strategic war. Her Roman origins were created by a combination of Etruscan deity Menrva, and Greek Athena. She also received majority of her epithets, symbols, as well as skills, from both of her cultural predecessors. She was primarily worshiped as a part of the , together with Juno and Jupiter, her father (Neškudla 2004, 134-135). In battle, she was more of a protector, or a voice of reason, rather than a mindless charging attacker like Mars.

Both, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio mentioned Domitian’s private worship of the goddess and his close attachment to her, Suetonius stressing that his devotion to Minerva reached a superstitious excess, and that Domitian even kept her sanctuary in his own bedroom (Suetonius Domitian 15, Dio LXVII 1.1-2). Augustus however, had his own private house on the joined with the temple he had built for his patron deity Apollo (Richardson 1992, 14); therefore, I believe that a presence of a shrine in emperor’s private residence was not considered anything unusual, or excessive.

Domitian moved the celebration of the traditional annual festival to Minerva known as , into his own Alban Villa, and he had a college of priests appointed to supervise the occasion. The governors of the college were chosen by a lot and their functions included entertaining the people by a chase of wild beasts and stage plays. The games also involved oratory and prize-winning contests, and gladiatorial shows. Suetonius further wrote that Domitian presented a traditional of three hundred sesterces to each citizen at three occasions, and concluded with the most generous banquet (Suetonius Domitian 4).

b) Minerva’s Influence on Domitian’s Perception and Formulation of Military Policy Domitian’s choice of Minerva thus seems like a more rational equivalent to Augustus’ Mars. Where Mars attacks, Minerva defends and that was also the strategy, which was typically implied by Domitian in his war campaigns. While both, Vespasian and Titus famously re- capture the province of Judea, Domitian’s record with the military differs. His war with the Chatti was meant to calm a presumed riot of the tribe and defend the empire from their aggressions, and so was the war with the Dacian king , which ended with a peace treaty, rather than a celebration of a triumph (Jones 2002, 127-143). The topics of this strategy, its efficiency, or Domitian’s results on the battlefield had been subjected to several discussions in the past, and they are not the focus of this thesis, therefore I will cease from any further analysis of his abilities as a soldier.

46

I want to, however, point out Domitian’s involvement in the construction of Rome’s defence system, the Limes Romanus. It was the frontier of the , which had been encircling its territory for around four centuries. The border was under constant test of endurance against various attacks from a number of foreign forces, until it underwent gradual destruction from the invading barbarian tribes, who, with their actions, initiated the Migration Period in the fifth century AD. Limes Romanus was a system of camps, which served for stationing the legions in places, where they were needed either in order to gain new territory, or to defend the already claimed lands. The , or military camps, which were built during the reign of Augustus, served mostly as strategic locations, from which the soldiers organised their campaigns, or expeditions with the purpose of gaining new lands. Domitian’s program was however focused on building infrastructure, forts, or series of watchtowers called speculae, or vigilaria, which were used for the purpose of alerting the soldiers of any incoming danger, and thus to protect the border, rather than expand the territory (Jones 2002, 127-131). By choosing Minerva as a patron deity, whose public function was, among others, the representation of emperor’s intentions, Domitian indirectly acquainted his people with his attitude and proposed politics in the military sphere of his rule.

Domitian further honoured the wisdom goddess by designated a legion in her name. In 82 or 83 AD Domitian assembled Legio I Flavia Minervia (Watson 1969, 117). By choosing the cognomen Flavia, Domitian continued the tradition established by Vespasian, who was the founder of Legio IIII Flavia Felix, and Legio XVI Flavia Firma. This legion therefore provides the evidence, which helps to proof that the Flavians, Domitian included, presented themselves as a united family, rather than a collective of individual personalities. Domitian could have chosen his own name, like Augustus did in case of Legio II Augusta for instance, or Trajan after him by creating Legio II Traiana. Instead, he opted for the name of the deity, who was known for protecting the soldiers, and his cognomen, through which he simultaneously honoured his heritage and laid down the precedent for his eventual dynastic heirs.

Other instances of honouring Minerva provide two Domitianic structures located in the heart of Rome, the Temple of Minerva Chalcidica and Forum Transitorium. The first was an ordinary temple for a patron deity, the later however served multiple purposes, including the imperial propaganda.

c) Temple of Minerva Chalcidica This temple is only known due to its plan, which was recorded on two fragments of the Marble Plan of Rome from the early third century AD. The building presumably stood in front 47 of another Domtianic structure, the Porticus Divorum, on Campus Martius. The temple was small and round, with two columns on the frontal podium and a statue of Minerva, who carried a shield and a spear in her left, and outstretched her right hand. This description is based on a denarius, which had been identified as depicting the structure (BMC, 241). The roof carried a row of alternating globe and palmette leaves decorations, which were topping a clean architrave, instead of use of a proper pediment. The Marble Plan does not include the columns, but they could have been omitted due to temple’s small size. There is a theory, which suggested an explanation to the unusual epithet of Minerva, claiming it might be associated with Minerva’s guardian position due to the temple’s location in front of the Porticus Divorum, but the author, Mr. Coarelli4, did not explain, how did he arrive to his conclusion (Darwall-Smith 1996, 125-126).

Fig. XIV Fragmentary plan and location of the Temple of Minerva Chalcidica on Campus Martius, the Marble Plan of Rome (Darwall-Smith 1996, plate XXVII).

Richardson further pointed out the existence of four flights of stairs, which encircled the temple. He also discussed the coin and a drawing of Onofrio Panvinio, which had been associated with the temple in the past. The drawing however depicts exterior and interior colonnades, which seemed inaccurate due to temple’s small size, therefore Richardson deems the association highly improbable, unless a later restoration of the temple occurred, after the

4 I was unable to access the work of the original author, therefore I cited his theory as recorded by R.H. Darwall- Smith. 48 creation of the Marble Plan (Richardson 1992, 256). Currently there is not any more available evidence on the destroyed temple.

d) Forum Transitorium The Forum Transitorium, also known as Forum Nervae, was one of the five , which served as the centre of social gatherings for Roman citizens since the early Principate. It was built by Domitian, but officially dedicated by Nerva within the first year of Domitian’s death in 97 AD, therefore it is sometimes incorrectly referred to with Nerva’s name. Its location was within a narrow space between the and Forum Pacis of Vespasian, known as . It was an old pathway, which connected the Forum Romanum to the lower-class residential area called Suburra. Domitian’s intention for this structure was to make the old passage more prominent and to bring all the fora together, in order to create a more fluent public space.

During the forum’s construction, Domitian Fig. XV Plan of Forum Transitorium (http://www.romainteractive.com). had to have the neighbouring wall of Vespasian’s Templum Pacis altered, to gain enough space to fit in its colonnades, which surrounded the forum from three sides. Despite the change, the forum had a prolonged irregular shape of a rectangle, which ended in a large semi-circular Porticus Absidata on its north-eastern side, facing the Suburra, and Aemilia in the south-east (Fig. XV). Its interior also had to accommodate several other asymmetrical features. The Temple of Minerva was located in the far north corner, next to and exedra from Forum Augusti, which was protruding the western site of Forum Transitorium. Behind the line of temple’s pronaos were therefore slightly bent screen walls, which created a perfect scenery, which was used to hide the asymmetry of two different sides of the forum. The wall adjacent to the eastern wall of the forum contained a gate, which was built to preserve the original passageway to Suburra. It was known as Arcus Aureus in the Middle Ages. In the centre of the forum, in front of Minerva’s temple, stood the quadrifrontal arch of , which to an extent also distracted the incoming onlookers from the irregularities

49

(Richardson 1992, 167). It had also been called a temple in early sources, but that is unlikely, as Janus usually received a simple, or four-sided arch, instead of a regular temple.

Fig. XVI Proposed reconstruction of the Forum Transitorium (http://fori-imperiali.info/en/004-2/).

The arch of Janus was a multi-purpose structure, which did not only mark the centre of the forum. It was also centre of the crossroad of the Forum Romanum – Suburra passage, with another important connection, the path between Forum of Augustus and Vespasian’s Templum Pacis. With this arch Domitian created another metaphorical link between the two emperors, after Vespasian’s burial in Augustus’ Mausoleum.

Underneath the whole length of the Argiletum ran the course of Cloaca Maxima, Rome’s earliest sewage system. Janus was also associated with crossing of water, that is the reason his arches were usually placed near rivers, or, as in this case, above a historically important drainage sewer. One additional function of the arch is only a theory, but it seems probable. It is based on Janus’ association with the Fasti, a calendar, which includes a list of consuls. The consules ordinarii assumed their term in office every year at the beginning of Janus’ moth, January, and their name was placed on the list for the following year. According to Statius, Janus praised Domitian for the seventeen consulships he had held during his professional career. It would be thus appropriate to place the Fasti, which mention Domitian’s name on the new arch of Janus on Domitian’s own forum (Darwall-Smith 1996, 123). Once again however, as in

50 case of the Temple of Minerva Chalcidica, there is not any archaeological evidence of the arch. The place, where it might have stood, is located underneath the , which was built during the 1920s on orders of Benito Mussolini. The road covers substantial parts of Forum Transitorium, as well as fora of Trajan and Augustus, which presently makes any plans for future excavations of the fora virtually impossible. Descriptions of the arch, or any subsequent analysis have therefore only a theoretical basis.

The temple to Minerva survived at least into the middle ages, and its destruction was recorded in 1606, when Paul V had its stone re-used for a construction of his aqueduct. There is only a little known about its design, most of it from what was depicted on the Marble Plan fragments. As already mentioned, the pronaos was the only part, which could have been observed from a frontal view, because the rest of the temple was obstructed by the screen-walls, which were between the temple’s sides and the long walls of the forum. The building was standing on a high podium, accessed by a flight of stairs from the front. It was a hexastylic prostylos with a typical Roman three rows deep pronaos. The order was Corinthian, but the decoration of the entablature remains unknown. The interior of the cella contained colonnades and ended with an apse. To this day only a core of the former podium remains in place (Richardson 1992, 168).

The south-wester side of the forum was also slightly curved to match the opposing screen-wall. The main entrance to the forum, leading there from Forum Romanum, was on the far left of the curved wall, due to its right side being completely restricted by the Basilica Aemilia, which was positioned right in front of it. The whole structure was therefore almost entirely hidden from the outside view, which provided a moment of surprise for new visitors after entering. Whole forum was paved in travertine, which was later cover with marble slabs. The outer walls of the forum were made of peperino tuff and further faced with Phrygian marble as well. Around the whole interior ran a colonnade of Corinthian columns, which supported a frieze displaying various myths associated with the goddess of wisdom, small part of which reminded in situ until today (Richardson 1992, 168), as depicted in Fig. XVII.

51

The remains of the south-eastern wall with partly preserved frieze, also known as Le Colonnacce, had been excavated in the early 1930s. The site consists of two marble Corinthian columns, which were forwarded in front of the main forum wall in order to create pedestals for statues. This resulted in the re-entrant corners, or a pattern of bays, which was followed by the above entablature. The adoption of semi-engaged columns, instead of proper porticoes, which were used for instance in Forum Augusti, was a consequence of narrow space, with which Domitian’s architect had to operate. Above the entablature is the attic, or a niche, which was created in the intercolumnar space after the promotion of the pillars. The Attic contains a single marble panel with a full Fig. XVII "Le Colonnacce" of Forum Transitorium relief of Minerva (Darwall-Smith 1996, (http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/img.htm?id=6996). 118-119).

The goddess is depicted standing, in a frontal view, with her left leg bent in the knee in a contrapposto. She is dressed in a long tunic with a broad belt and a paludamentum, a cloak typically worn by military commanders, which is fastened on the top of her right arm. She is wearing decorated Corinthian helmet and holds a shield in her left hand. Her right hand was broken off right below the elbow, together with other protruding parts, like the shield, her left foot, as well as her nose, therefore I assume it was in an extended position.

Fig. XVIII Detail of relief depicting Darwall-Smith divided the surviving frieze into Minerva, Forum Transitorium eight sections. From the left, the first segment contains a (http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/i mg.htm?id=6997). figure identified as a river god, possibly Fontus. The

52 second section has a male and three female figures, two of which are probably Venus Obsequens and Venus Cloacina, which seems probable due to the close proximity of Cloaca Maxima. Next section portrays with the river god, nymphs, and worshippers, followed by section four, displaying the myth about Arachne (Darwall-Smith 1996, 119). The myth was one of many traditional Greek tales, later retold by Ovid, which warned people from ὕβρις, or overconfidence. Arachne was a weaver, who challenged Minerva, the goddess of crafts, to a contest, at which she took too much pride in her own work. Angry Minerva punished the woman by turning her into a spider, and destined all of her ancestry to spin the web threads until the end of times (Ovid, Metamorphoses VI, 1-145). Despite the figures being preserved in relatively good condition, majority of them are missing heads, which makes their identification more difficult. Minerva is in this section mostly recognisable due to the remaining traces of the horsehair decoration of her helmet (Fig. XIX).

Fig. XIX Detail of the frieze depicting helmeted Minerva (centre), Forum Transitorium (http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/img.htm?id=7000).

Sections five to eight continue the Arachne theme, by depicting figures of young women practicing various stages of weaving, presumably learning the craft from Minerva herself. Eve D'Ambra5 suggested that the display of working women was related to Domitian’s stern view on morality, as wool weaving was considered a virtue of every good wife and Minerva was also recognized for her chastity. Domitian’s concern is well-known thanks to Suetonius (Domitian 8), who wrote about his re-establishment of several strict Augustan laws on corruption, morality, and virtues. This surviving piece of frieze is the only one known to be preserved out of 38 possible bays, and thus any other scenes can not be confirmed with certainty. It is however highly probable that all of them featured goddess Minerva in either mythological scenes, or other of her related interests (Darwall-Smith 1996, 120).

Darwall-Smith also added that the forum was different from other imperial fora, because of its “obsession” with a single theme, goddess Minerva. It is true that Augustus combined the

5 I was unable to access the original work of Ms. Eve D'Ambra, therefore I quoted Mr. R.H. Darwall-Smith, who discusses Ms. D'Ambra’s research in his own work. 53 temple to Mars Ultor, the avenger of his father’s murder, with porticoes filled with statues of the summi viri, and a series of statues promoting his family heritage, while Domitian’s forum seems to only celebrate his patron deity. Minerva was however, unlike already mentioned Mars, more than just a goddess of war. Her functions could be linked to several Domitian’s decisions and policies, whether it was the military defence of the empire, or the laws on morality and corruption, which ‘defended’ the virtues of Roman citizens. Additionally, it is unknown what other reliefs or sculptural decoration did the forum contain, or how did the monument to Janus look like, the diversity of topics thus can not be judged properly. I further think, if the Temple of Minerva played similar role to Augustus’ Temple of Mars, the function of linking Vespasian’s Templum Pacis with Forum Augusti and Forum Iulium could be practically seen as a substitute for Augustus’ statues of famous Julian ancestors. With that Domitian’s Forum Transitorium, despite its small size, equates the functionality, as well as the amount of propaganda of the other imperial fora.

e) Depiction of Minerva on Coinage The last type of propaganda, which featured portraits of goddess of war prominently was coinage. There were four distinctive depictions of Minerva, which were present on prevailing majority of Domitianic coins struck between the years 83 and 96 AD.

Fig. XX Domitianic coins depicting Minerva (http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/domitian/i.html). Depicted above (Fig. XX) are four silver denarii, each with bust of Domitian, which was usually inscribed “IMP CAES DOMIT AUG GERM PM TR P…” on the obverse. The four types of reverse were:

54

1.) Minerva advancing towards the right, holding a spear in her right hand and a shield in her left.

2.) Minerva standing on a rostrum, facing right, holding a spear in her right hand and a shield in her left, with an owl sitting by her feet.

3.) Minerva facing left, holding a spear in her right hand, her left hand placed on her hip.

4.) Minerva facing left, holding a thunderbolt in her right hand, a spear in her left behind her, and a leaning shield at her feet.

While the first type was known since Claudius, the other three occurred solely during Domitian’s reign. Other, less frequent coins featuring Minerva depict Domitian’s private shrine to the goddess, or Domitian wearing , head of a Gorgon typically worn by Minerva, on the obverse (Darwall-Smith 1996, 127-129).

Patron deity embodies a set of values, which are chosen by the ruler, and through which he wishes to be represented, because they should reflect his personality. Domitian’s personal choice was goddess Minerva, whose character synthetises his individual desire for imperium and general warlike nature of Romans, with lawful justice and wisdom, which he either deemed as important ingredients of his rule, or at least he wanted to present himself that way.

Scott however, presented in his work what is now a dated view, where he claimed that having a patron deity was a sign of absolutism. It was, in his words, because picking a personal deity used to be a habit of Hellenistic rulers and because Domitian was, probably based on his depiction in the ancient sources, only seen as an authoritative tyrant, therefore everything he did was portrayed as an act of an absolute ruler (Scott 1975, 166). I will discuss the matter of Domitian’s autocracy further in the chapter on damnatio memoriae, but momentarily, I would like to again compare Domitian to Augustus. Augustus’ person was in both, his personal life, as well as in propaganda, closely associated with Apollo and Mars Ultor, and Julio-Claudian dynasty even proclaimed both, Mars and Venus, as their ancestors, yet Augustus was never declared a tyrant for his claims. Even if Domitian were an autocrat, it does not mean that every one of his choices, like a selection of a patron deity for instance, was autocratic in character as well. This is something that some older authors, including Mr. Scott, did not take in account, when creating their theories, therefore it sometimes seems, as if the evidence was presented the way, which suited the theory about an absolute tyrant, instead of the theory being based on the actual evidence.

55

f) Domitian’s Affiliation with Other Deities Apart from Minerva, Domitian maintained close relationship with two other gods, Jupiter, and . Both deities received either new temples, or restoration of their old ones. Jupiter’s two temples on Capitol had been restored following the fire of 80 AD, namely the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus and the Temple of Jupiter Custos, the later serving as a personal offering to the god, who provided protection to young Domitian during the events of the 69 AD civil war. Jupiter was further honoured by the Capitoline Games, which will be discussed in the second part of this chapter. Domitian was also proclaimed “…in terris Iuppiter” in celebratory speech by Martial (IX, 91), or depicted on coins, holding thunderbolt and spear, both Jupiter’s attributes (Darwall-Smith 1996, 105-115).

Egyptian goddess Isis and her male counterpart were considered protectors of all three Flavian emperors. Serapis was said to support Vespasian’s decision to become an emperor and helped him, when he was proclaimed princeps for the first time by his legions in Egypt in summer of 69 AD. The night before their civil war victory, both, Titus and Vespasian, found accommodation in the Temple of Isis and Serapis, which had Domitian later rebuilt. Domitian’s personal reason for gratitude was the help he received from priests of Isis also on the eve of his father’s official victory in December 69 AD, when he escaped from the Capitol, while dressed like the priest of Isis himself (Darwall-Smith 1996, 141-152). Domitian’s worship of the foreign Egyptian gods is therefore more of a family tradition, which was neither found excessive in the ancient sources, nor celebrated, instead it seemed to be tolerated.

2.) Domitian the People’s Emperor In the second part of this chapter, I would like to discuss the basis of Flavian family propaganda, the public games. The careful construction of a humble image of people’s emperors began with Vespasian’s rule and did not change until Domitian’s death, contrary to the humble origin concept. Nowadays, the most famous of Flavian dynastic monuments, the Amphitheatre, had been constructed under Vespasian, dedicated in 80 AD by Titus, and the top store was finally finished early into Domitian’s reign. The Colosseum had been the embodiment of the expression “panem et circenses” ever since its construction, throughout the following centuries and is recognised as such up until these days.

Domitian continued to develop this arguably most popular branch of the propaganda further, by building his own sites used for entertainment of the masses. The Domitianic structures, which were located in Rome, with the exception of today’s , which

56 was the original plan of a stadium, almost did not survive at all. Their description is therefore shorter and for the most part theoretical, but their inclusion serves to illustrate a proper picture not on the extent of the games and spectacles organised by Domitian, which was comparable with other emperors, but the accompanying building program for the infrastructure, which flourished under the reign of Flavian emperors more than under any other princeps before.

a) Flavian Amphitheatre & Meta Sudans The Amphitheatre was built in Vespasianic era, and its remains have always been among the most discussed topics in archaeology, I will therefore not focus on the description of its architecture here. However, despite the Colosseum originally being Vespasian’s project, he did not live to see its construction finished, instead it became one of the most prominent features in Domitian’s advertising strategy and that is the reason why I have decided to at least mention its involvement within the propaganda.

The structure was built, as observed by Martial: “…hie ubi conspicui venerabilis Amphitheatri erigitur moles, stagna Neronis errant,” on the grounds, which previously accommodated Nero’s artificial lake (Martial Spectacles, II). The choice of this position was the first strategic step of the Flavians to gain people’s favour. They eliminated the work of Nero, which was presented as the symbol of his egocentrism and selfish needs, and replaced it with a building, granted to the citizens of Rome, to use solely for their entertainment. The upper class and other prominent guests additionally received a special seating sector, with marble-faced seats, which separated them, both physically and metaphorically from the public, and the rest of the spectators were handed out free food, drinks, and other small tokens. Long-lasting games had been already a tradition in the times of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, but they never built a substantial structure like the Colosseum to host them.

The official inauguration of the Colosseum took place in 80 AD, during the reign of Titus. Suetonius wrote that people were afraid that Titus would become another Nero, but he proved them wrong by this dedication among other of his deeds. It was a hundred days long series of largissim(i), or magnificent spectacles, for which Titus, according to Suetonius, had brought five thousand wild beasts of all kinds (Suetonius, Titus 7). The building was however a large-scale project, which probably still required additional finishing works even after the celebratory games marked its grand opening.

It is difficult to determine, which part of the Amphitheatre was constructed under each of the Flavian emperors, but it is presumed that Domitian added the network of underground

57 passageways and lifts, which provided an easy transport of animals and performers into the arena. This innovation however brought an end to naumachia battles in the Colosseum, because the arena could not be flooded with water in order to prevent any possible damage to the underground system. The naumachiae received their own structure and Domitian received nothing but praise from the ancient authors for his unusual spectacles. Statius (Silvae no.) even approved of Domitian eating with the people and, spare for one occasion, refusing the title dominus (Darwall-Smith 1996, 215-216).

Domitian further expended the vicinity of the Colosseum by building other structures around the amphitheatre. One of the structures, traces of which are still visible today, was Meta Sudans. The fountain was partly destroyed by Benito Mussolini in 1930s, but its plan was re- excavated and remains noticeable on the western side of the Amphitheatre. The structure did not only replace what used to be a portico belonging to Nero’s Domus Aurea, but it also marked the junction of four regions of central Rome (Darwall-Smith 1996, 216).

The name of the fountain comes from the similarity with a meta, which was a pillar marking the turning point in circuses. Its core, part of which was still standing before Mussolini’s demolition orders in 1936, was shaped as a prolonged cone (Fig. XXI), measuring five metres in diameter at the bottom and was presumably about fifteen metres Fig. XXI Artistic reconstruction of the Meta Sudans fountain (http://www.romanoimpero.com/2010/10/meta-sudante.html). tall. The base probably contained niches for statues and the cone was topped with either a floral finial, or one in shape of a pine cone. The water seemed to flow from the top, down the sides of the cone, and it was collected into a basin with the diameter of 13.60 metres, around which was a drain to contain the overflowing liquid (Richardson 1992, 253). Here yet again construction of a public source for refreshment, ordered by a Flavian emperor, replaced the privately enjoyed lake of ‘despised’ emperor Nero.

58

b) The Ludi Another addition to the Colosseum were the Ludi, gladiatorial schools and living quarters, which surrounded the arena. Schools specified in training of already existed in Rome since the Republic, but at least four of the major ones, located in close proximity to the Amphitheatre, were assigned to Domitian, namely: , Ludus Matutinus, Ludus Gallicus, and Ludus . Besides the Ludi, Domitian might have founded also other parts of the infrastructure necessary for the proper functioning of games and spectacles. These included: the Spoliarium, a room where the death gladiators were stripped of their armour, entered through Porta Libitinaria, the gate of the goddess of death Libitina, the Saniarium, an infirmary where the winners received medical attention, the Armamentarium, storage closet for arms, Summum Choragium, storage closet for scenery, and Castra Misenatum, living quarters for sailors, who operated the velarium, a linen cloth on timber structure, used as a retractable awning. These room, as well as the Ludi, were connected with the arena by the network of underground tunnels (Darwall-Smith 1996, 218).

Fig. XXII Aerial view of archaeological remains of Ludus Magnus (circled red) next to the Flavian Amphitheatre (https://www.slideshare.net/magistraciotti/amphitheatrum-2).

59

Ludus Magnus was the main training arena, identified on the Marble Plan (Fig. XXII). Its size 63 by 42 metres was comparable to 79 by 47 metres of the one in the Colosseum. The Ludus also contained a cavea holding three thousand spectators, porticoes, and two storied living Fig. XXIII Plan of Ludus Magnus from Forma Urbis and the excavation quarters (Darwall-Smith site (http://www.mmdtkw.org/RT04-LudusMagnus.html). 1996, 219). The tunnels connecting the Ludus directly to the arena of the Amphitheatre were an effective innovation, which provided even more amusement among the public than the original plan.

c) The Naumachia Domitiani Due to the Domitianic introduction of underground tunnels to the Amphitheatre, a construction built in order to host reconstructed naval battles became a necessity. Very little is however known about the Naumachia, spare for its location iuxta Tiberim (Suetonius, Domitian 5), next to the river and that it was dismantled after Domitian’s death, its material used for reconstruction of by Trajan (Richardson 1992, 265).

Fig. XXIV Speculated reconstruction and position of the Naumachia as depicted on the eighteen century map by G.B.Piranesi (http://www.quondam.com/c01/0131.htm).

60

Cassius Dio (LXVII, 8) mentioned Domitian’s enthusiasm for the spectacles, which was not however always shared by the public. One display even resulted in death of the spectators, due to heavy rain, which occurred during the battle. Dio said that Domitian prohibited the people from leaving, even though he himself changed his cloths for a woollen cloak. As a result, some people became sick and died. To compensate for the event, Domitian later provided public dinner, which lasted all night. It is difficult to judge how big of an exaggeration Dio’s statement was, but the popularity of naval battles did not seem to suffer from the accident.

d) Stadium & Odeum Domitiani – The Greek Games Complex Apart from supporting the traditional Roman pastime activities, the gladiatorial games and spectacles, Domitian had built two permanent structures, which hosted the events of popular imported contests, the Greek Games. Both, the Stadium, and Odeon of Domitian, were located on Campus Martius in place of today’s Piazza Navona.

Fig. XXV Reconstructed model of the Stadium and Odeon of Domitian on Campus Martius (https://www.maquettes-historiques.net/page20b.html).

The Stadium was the first permanent structure of its kind in Rome. Julius Caesar and Augustus both organized Greek games before, but just like in case of their gladiatorial arenas, the venues for games were only temporary, probably of wooden construction (Darwall-Smith 1996, 222). The plan of the Stadium was the same as today’s piazza, resembling that of Circus Maximus, with the exception of missing spina. It was surrounded by two-stored arcades, with many entrances enabling quick exit of a large number of people at once, like the ones on the Colosseum, as the Stadium could host up to twenty thousand spectators. The length of the arena

61 was about 250 metres, making it one of the largest athletic venues after the Circus Maximus. Several remains of the cavea have been discovered, they are however located under modern buildings surrounding the piazza. The building was, based on the founds, made of concrete and brick core, faced with travertine, again similarly to the Colosseum (Richardson 1992, 366-367).

Richardson suggests that the Stadium might have also contained the Pamphili , which marks the centre of today’s Piazza Navona as a part of the Fontana dei Quattro Fiumi. It is unknown, where did the obelisk originally stood, but the hieroglyphs include names of Domitian, as well as Divi Vespasianus and Titus, and the text refers to restorations done by the emperor. It was dedicated to Harmakhis, Egyptian god of dawn, or the rising sun, therefore it probably was not part of the Temple of Isis, as it was originally presumed (Richardson 1992, 275). The Stadium however lacked the spina, typical for this kind of structures, which suggests that the place of the obelisk might have been elsewhere. The only certainty is that it marked Domitian’s interest in Egyptian cults and that it is one of the few, if not sole inscription containing his name, which survived the damnatio memoriae, perhaps due to the lack of knowledge of hieroglyphs in Rome.

The Odeon of Domitian was built to accommodate musical contests during the Greek Games. Not much is however known about the structure, apart from its presumed location on the south-east side of the Stadium and the capacity of about seven thousand spectators (Richardson 1992, 276).

The Greek Games, also known as Capitoline Games, were established by Domitian to celebrate Jupiter in 86 AD. Suetonius wrote that the Games were to be held every five years, and the contestants competed in music, elocution in Greek and Latin, equestrian, and athletic disciplines. He continued by mentioning young girls, who ran the races at the Stadium, so unlike in Greece, the Games were mixed and women were allowed to compete among men (Suetonius Domitian 4). While the athletic events were held at the Stadium, musical performances, as well as speeches were given at the Odeon.

Darwall-Smith stated (1996, 223) that the Games were not popular in Rome, but they were previously held by both Caesar and Augustus, which is, in my opinion, the reason for their reinstatement by Domitian. Similar games were held by Nero, but they were named after him and he even participated in both, literal, as well as musical competitions. Domitian, even though he was interested in poetry himself, did not repeat Nero’s mistake, he chose only the position of a spectator and the name for the Games, to honour the highest Capitoline deity. The Games

62 endured until the early fifth century AD, when all events of this character were banned (Darwall-Smith 1996, 224-225).

The Capitoline Games were also an event, where Domitian publicly presented his connection to Jupiter via his clothing. Suetonius captured the image by writing: Domitian wore sandals and purple toga in Greek style, upon his head he wore a golden crown with effigies of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. The flamen of Jupiter and the college of priests wore the same dress, expect their crowns also contained image of Domitian himself (Suetonius Domitian, 4). This shows that the priests had to pay Domitian the same respect, he paid to Jupiter. Domitian did not dress as Jupiter, he nearly dressed to honour the god, the crowns of the priests could have however been of concern, as they compared him to the deity.

3.) The Cancelleria Reliefs and Depiction of the Genii of Senatus & Populi Romani The so-called Cancelleria Reliefs is a set of eight fragments, creating two panels of fine classicising reliefs, found between the years 1937 and 1939, underneath the Palazzo della Cancelleria in Rome. The slabs, made of Carrara marble, were found nearby a late-republican Tomb of Aulus Hirtius, where they had been stashed probably at the end of the first century AD, and their original location is therefore unknown. Visible holes at the back of the slabs are a clear proof that the Reliefs adorned a larger structure, it however remains uncertain which one (Kleiner 1992, 191). The main subject depicted in the two scenes, Frieze A (Fig. XXVI), and Frieze B (Fig. XXVII), have also been open to various discussions throughout the years, which produced multiple theories and one general agreement, which I would like to address in short terms here.

Fig. XXVI Cancelleria Relief, Frieze A (http://www.rome101.com/Cancelleria/).

63

Fig. XXVII Cancelleria Relief, Frieze B (http://www.rome101.com/Cancelleria/).

The main figures were carved in high relief in the front, while the other supporting characters are in low relief in the back. Behind them is an empty space, a solution which was for instance similar to the procession depicted on the Augustae. Despite the debates, I do not find the choice of this style unusual, considering Domitian’s already mentioned adoration towards Augustus. It was further doubted, whether were the Cancelleria Reliefs commissioned by Domitian, due to the dissimilarity with the illusionistic reliefs on the Arch of Titus (Darwall-Smith 1996, 173). The Arch however, could have been commissioned by Trajan, instead of Domitian (Darwall-Smith 1996, 166), it is therefore difficult to assess these two monuments and declare precise judgements, without knowing the author of any of them. It is true that the reliefs from the Arch were made in different style, but that alone is not a proof that various styles could not coexist on two separate monuments commissioned by the same emperor either. I prefer the Domitianic date for the Cancelleria Reliefs based on the recarving, about which I will write later.

The bodies of figures on the Reliefs are mostly portrayed from frontal view, occasionally from three-quarters. Their heads are usually seen from either right or left profiles. All figures from the A Side seem to be of similar height, the B Side however, distinguishes between the position of people and divinities, or other personifications, where the later either appear to be taller, or are located on higher grounds (Kleiner 1992, 191).

Based on the traditionally accepted theory, the chronological order of depicted events places Side B before Side A, that is the reason I will also start by describing Frieze B first. The current remains of Frieze B consist of three broken and one whole marble slab, which together contained at least 15 figures. The original length of the whole panel is unknown, but it was

64 estimated to be at least six metres. The height of both friezes is 206 centimetres. The Frieze B portrays adventus of Vespasian to Rome, from his overseas civil war victories of 69 AD. The figures from the left to right are interpreted by Ms. Kleiner (1992, 191-192) as following: the aparitor, an officer dressed in a toga, behind him is seated goddess Roma, dressed in her Amazon tunic, with one breast showing, a Corinthian helmet on her head, holding a spear in her right hand. In front of them were the Vestal Virgins, the slab is broken, but at least five female figures are still traceable, with one of them fully preserved. On the next piece, there are two in short tunics, bearded Genius Senatus in the back, young Domitian in the front, dressed in a toga, youthful Genius Populi Romani, holding a cornucopia in the back, his left foot on a low plinth, Vespasian dressed in a toga in the front, and a part of a wreath above his head, which was originally held by now non-existent flying goddess Victoria, whose only remains are her bare feet in the following section. The relief ends in another broken slab with a and a male figure, holding a scroll, both in short tunics, on the right side from Vespasian.

Frieze A probably portrayed either Domitian’s profectio to, or reditus from either his military campaigns with the Chatti in Germania Inferior, or the clash with the from behind the River. There are three surviving slabs, last one was broken into two halves, but they are very well preserved nonetheless. There were at least 16 figures, which followed: a cut-off wing from flying goddess Victoria at the top left side of the relief, next a lictor in a short tunic, holding fasces in his left hand. Next to them are god Mars and goddess Minerva, both in full armour, helmets, and shields, Minerva also wearing her traditional aegis. The deities were followed by Domitian, later recarved as Nerva, goddess Roma again in helmet and short Amazon-like tunic, bearded Genius Senatus, with a sceptre in his left hand, dressed in a toga, and a semi-nude Genius Populi Romani, holding a cornucopia in his left hand. Other figures are various men in the front or back, mostly soldiers, or other lictors, holding fasces, spears, or shields.

The most common interpretations of the Reliefs are thus adventus of Vespasian from 69 AD on Frieze B, and profectio, or reditus of Domitian from 92/93 AD on Frieze A. The events of the Sarmatian campaign (Jones 2002, 152-153) would therefore date the Reliefs into the period between 93 AD and 96 AD, which was the end of Domitian’s reign.

65

The dispute, whether the scene on Frieze A depicts the profectio, or reditus, lies in the interpretation of a sole figure, goddess Roma. On the far right in the depicted detail (Fig. XXVIII), Roma appears to be pushing Domitian/ recarved Nerva towards Minerva and Mars, who personify the war, which could be considered a sign of profectio, the emperor getting ready for a war Fig. XXVIII Detail of the Cancelleria Relief, Frieze A, Goddess campaign (Kleiner 1992, 191- Minerva, Emperor Domitian, Goddess Roma (http://www.rome101.com/Cancelleria/). 192). Some scholars (Kazdová 1979, 50; Varner 2004, 119) however claim that this would be seen as a sign of weakness for the emperor, who would have been seen as reluctant in going into the war, and who had to be forcefully pushed by the goddess to go. It was further proposed that Domitian thus might have been portrayed just before his dedication to Jupiter Capitolinus, after the victory over the Sarmatians, where god Jupiter himself could have even been depicted in the now missing fourth panel at the beginning of the relief. This scene also had parallel with similar reditus scenes of Augustus, I therefore think this interpretation is as plausible as profectio.

Another dispute is based on the recarving of the main protagonists in both scenes. Firstly, I would refer to the above depicted detail of the recarving of Domitian to emperor Nerva on Frieze A. The head of the central figure dressed in toga and paludamentum, which today bears some details specific for emperor Nerva, once undoubtedly belonged to Domitian (Kazdová 1979, 48-49). This interpretation is certain, based on three distinctive features: the size of the head, which is too small compared not only to others, but in proportion to the rest of the body as well, traces of hairstyle characteristic for Domitian, and figure’s close proximity to Minerva, Domitian’s patron deity, his hand on her arm, and their eye contact. Domitian’s paludamentum also seems to be fastened with the same gorgoneion as the one appearing on Minerva’s aegis, which only further enhances their relationship.

66

The resulting face is also a combination of features of both emperors. Domitian’s fuller face had been cut down to Nerva’s slimmer chin, the original is however still traceable, his nose is thinner as well, but not hooked enough, as in other Nerva’s portraits, and naso-labial lines had to be added, because of Nerva’s older age (Varner 2004, 119). Another feature, which could not have been altered were the lips, which stayed typically Domitianic. The final outcome thus barely resembles Nerva and looks rather out of place. Eliška Kazdová also correctly noted (1979, 49) that during his 16 months long reign, Nerva did not have time to undertake any military campaign, which could serve as the subject for the Reliefs.

Fig. XXX Detail of head of Vespasian, Fig. XXIX Head of Vespasian, formerly Nero, Cancelleria Reliefs, Frieze B found at Feroniae, Villa Giulia, Rome (http://www.rome101.com/Cancelleria/). (https://alchetron.com/Vespasian-1047604-W).

Other theories centre around possible recarving of portraits of both, Domitian, as well as Vespasian form Frieze B. Vespasian’s portrait has the most characteristic appearance and easily recognizable individual features out of the three main characters of the Reliefs. The stern look towards young Domitian and general facial expression are undoubtedly his, which, according to Eliška Kazdová (1979, 52), means that it was probably modelled on one of his earlier portraits. I would like to propose the comparison with the classicising idealised portrait of Vespasian, originally reworked from emperor Nero (Varner 2004, 52), found in Lucus

67

Feroniae, which has numerous identical details. I believe that the author of Cancelleria reliefs used the Lucus Feroniae portrait to create the Cancelleria Vespasian, without the knowledge that it had been prior recut from the portrait of Nero. To support my argument, I offer pictures of both portraits for comparison (Fig. XXIX; XXX). The Lucus Feroniae piece offers corresponding hairline, forehead wrinkles, equally arching eyebrows with identically shaped eyes, matching wrinkles around the eyes and mouth areas, shape of the left ear, thin mouth, and identical chin and neck area.

Portrait of young Domitian, standing still on Vespasian’s right, is even more idealised and rather generic. There are however still some individual features, which help to identify him, even though he was only 18 years old at the time of Vespasian’s adventus. Below I offer the comparison between one of Domitian’s bust as a young man on the right (Fig. XXXI) and a detail from Frieze B on the left (Fig. XXXII). Nose and lips from the Relief are more generic, but similar enough and more importantly, the type of hairstyle from both cases, coma in gradus formata, was typically ever worn only by Nero and Domitian (Kleiner 1992, 192).

Fig. XXXII Detail of head of young Fig. XXXI Detail of a bust of young Domitian, Cancelleria Reliefs, Frieze B Domitian from Musée de , (http://www.rome101.com/Cancelleria/). (http://www.ancient.eu/image/1154/).

Several theories appeared (Kazdová 1979, 49; Kleiner 1992, 192; Varner 2004, 119- 120), all based on the suggestion of Ms. McCann6, mentioned in all of the above listed sources,

6 I could not access the work of the original author, therefore I cited her opinion as described in other sources. 68 that the faces seemed to be recarved, which is in my opinion unlikely. Both heads, unlike clearly recarved Domitian/Nerva, seemed to have proportionate size to their bodies and the only traces of work are visible on the background, not directly on the heads. One of the issues is the facial hair of young Domitian, but that was traditional for young men, who had yet to reach the age of twenty (Kleiner 1992, 191). Domitian’s elaborated frontal hairline and Vespasian’s typical facial expression let me believe that it would be very difficult to recarve whichever original heads into such good quality portraits, especially after the less-successful change resulting in Nerva’s unnatural features.

I therefore agree with the generally accepted theory that the Reliefs were originally Domitianic, with later attempt at customising under emperor Nerva. He however died soon afterwards, in January 98 AD, and because it was impossible to alter them further, they were stashed and later probably forgotten. Despite their unconfirmed provenance, as well as date of their creation, the Reliefs are today amongst the most prominent pieces of artistic propaganda of the Flavian dynasty.

Another feature of the Reliefs, which plays an important role in the propaganda of the Imperial cult, are the two new figures, who appear together on both sides of the Reliefs, they are personifications of Genius Senatus and Genius Polupi Romani. Genius Senatus is in both cases a wise and distinguished older bearded man, dressed in a long toga, holding a sceptre in his left hand in Frieze A. He represents the spirit of the Senate, who could this way always accompany the emperor and watch over his actions. If Genius Senatus is present, it means that the Senate is in agreement with emperor’s deeds, depicted in the relief. Same role of the watchful guardian takes on his younger counterpart Genius Populi Romani as well. The beardless youth, also wearing a long toga, but with bared chest, appears with a cornucopia in his left hand in both friezes and additionally with a spear, standing on a plinth in Frieze B. He is the personified spirit of the Roman people, who, together with the Senate represent the will of Rome and her citizens. The political role of both, the Senate and people, was becoming more and more illusionary throughout the Principate, but it was officially still presented as substantial part of the government, which materialised, apart from other instances, in the ever-present inscription SPQR.

The depiction of Genius Senatus and Genius Populi Romani is thus the typical example of the crowd-pleasing Flavian strategy of the people’s emperors. While the Julio-Claudian dynasty propagated the Genius Augusti, the spirit of the emperor, on whom depends the prestige of their family and subsequently the empire, the Flavians yet again turned their attention 69 towards their citizens and the Senate by giving them both their own personified representatives. Furthermore, on the Cancelleria Reliefs, Domitian placed the Genii on the same level with his own person and the gods, or above himself in case of Frieze B, which was a well-calculated act to gain people’s support. By attributing the Genii a position of importance, Domitian demonstrated to the people that they still had a word of influence in state matters, whether it was a real or illusionary position is a topic of another discussion.

Apart from the unconcealed endorsement of the Genii of Senatus and Populi Romani, Domitian also brought back the Julio-Claudian Genius Augusti, of the living emperor, after his absence from the Imperial cult records from the reigns of both, Vespasian, and Titus. The Arval Brothers recorded one instance from two weeks after Domitian’s accession to the office as follows: “…kalendis Octobribus in Capitolio collegius fratrum Arvalium immolavit ob votorum commendandorum causa pro salute et incolumitate Caesaris divi fili Domitiani Augusti ... Iovi optimo maximo bovem marem, Iunoni reginae vaccam, Minervae vaccam, Saluti vaccam, Genio ipsius taurum…” (Acta Fratrum Arvalium, Henzen 1874, CX-CXI). This entry from the first of 81 AD, where the Collegium made the sacrifice for the safety and health of the emperor, is the only record made in the following fifteen years long rule, which mentioned the Genius Augusti. The Acta is a document preserved in fragments, there is however enough evidence, which suggests that the propagation of the Genius of the emperor dropped after this occasion. This can not be viewed as a proof that the Genius Augusti was completely excluded from the Imperial cult, only that he lost his previously prominent position (for instance under emperor Nero, with multiple entries in the Acta) to the probably publicly better received Genii of Senatus and Populi Romani.

As mentioned at the beginning, the reliefs were not found in situ. It is therefore difficult to judge their original location, whether they were displayed at all, and if, for how long. Dr. Kazdová (1979, 47-48) suggested that the Reliefs do not bear the signs of damage, which similar monuments manifest, due to being displayed to weather conditions for prolonged time. It is thus possible that the Reliefs were taken down shortly after they had been first exhibited, because of Domitian’s sudden death and subsequent damnatio memoriae. Could the rough traces of work behind Domitian’s and Vespasian’s heads suggest that they were originally never finished and thus never even displayed? This theory seems more plausible than that of recarving by McCann.

Taken in account that the Reliefs were indeed displayed, there are three proposed structures, which could have them: the arch by the Temple of , an arch in 70

Circus Maximus, or the Porticus Divorum. Darwall-Smith further suggested (1996, 176-177) that arches usually depicted scenes connected to the same event, while these two Cancelleria friezes were probably a part of larger group of reliefs, intended for a single unifying structure. This observation, together with the depicted subject thus makes them suitable decoration of the Porticus Divorum. The Reliefs would have served multiple purposes there. Promotion of Domitian and the Flavian family, as well as the visual public reminder of the importance of the Senate and the people through the Genii of Senatus and Populi Romani, two new figures of the Imperial cult, typical for the Flavian dynasty.

IV) Dominus et Deus & Damnatio Memoriae This final chapter consists of two closely related issues from Domitian’s life, which heavily influenced the construction of his portrayal in the early academic sources, led by Kenneth Scott (1975). The judgement of emperor’s character, and subsequently all of his actions, was based mainly on these two controversial points. The more recent authors, such as Ittai Gradel (2002), or Brian Jones (2002), have been trying to revaluate some of these initial theories, especially their subjective and one-sided nature, and they offered new ones. I will therefore attempt to draw my own conclusion on how is Domitian and the Imperial cult during his reign viewed in modern literary sources, which were available to me during the construction of this thesis.

The chapter is divided into two main parts. The first one illustrates the change that was for a long time considered substantial, the turning point in Domitian’s career, or the main reason for his damnation. It was the use of the infamous title Dominus et Deus, or and God. I will describe the transition from Divi Filius to Dominus et Deus, the if and how did it happen. In the second part, I would like to discuss the damnatio memoriae of the emperor, what led to it and what were its consequences. Finally, I would also refer to the above-mentioned portrayal of Domitian in modern literature from my personal point of view.

1.) Dominus et Deus The title Dominus et Deus is often considered the main offense against the people of Rome and one of the main faults in Domitian’s actions, which led to his damnatio memoriae. The usage of this title is best described by Domitian’s contemporaries: Martial, Pliny the Younger, Statius, and Suetonius. Kenneth Scott (1975, 102-112) dedicated a whole chapter to instances, when the problematic title was applied in his monography The Imperial Cult under the Flavians, which I used as one of the sources for this work. I however disagree with his

71 theory on the title and subsequent views on emperor’s deeds based on its usage. I will therefore mention a few selected examples to illustrate the case. Further I would like to present contrasting opinion of Ittai Gradel, representing the more recent scholars, such as above mentioned Brian Jones (2002), or Jessica Suess (2007), who reject Scott’s theory. I incline towards Ittai Gradel’s view from his monography Emperor Worship and Roman Religion, published in 2002.

Statius wrote about Domitian’s refusal of the title: "…et dulci dominum favore clamant: hoc solum vetuit licere Caesar" Domitian vetoed the usage of dominus, as did Augustus before him (Silvae I, 6). It is known that this Statius’s piece was from a banquet of the December Kalends, but not, which year did it take place.

In a poem, Statius also addressed Domitian as “potens terrarum dominus” (Silvae, III, 4), but even Scott agrees that it was only poet’s way to pay respect to his patron. It was a common place to refer to the patrons of artists as their masters, or domini.

Suetonius wrote that after Domitian took his wife back following their divorce and separation, he like the couple to be referred to as dominus and domina: “…adclamari etiam in amphitheatro epuli die libenter audiit: 'domino et dominae feliciter!'” (Suetonius Domitian 13). In the same paragraph, Suetonius continued that Domitian, in his arrogance, required the usage of Dominus et Deus in his correspondence, after one of his procuratores had previously used it in a letter addressed to him: “pari arrogantia, cum procuratorum suorum nomine formalem dictaret epistulam, sic coepit: 'dominus et deus noster hoc fieri iubet'”, this later became a rule: “unde institutum posthac, ut ne scripto quidem ac sermone cuiusquam appellaretur aliter.” Suetonius however did not specify when did it happen either, only that the title originated with Domitian’s procurator, who, as Gradel (2002, 160) pointed out, was his freedman. He was therefore bound to him by the loyalty of the ex-servants to their paterfamilias, and thus called Domitian dominus out of respect for his former master, not only the current employer.

Despite Suetonius’s claim that Domitian used the title whenever he could from that time on, there is not any existing evidence of the title ever being granted by a senatorial decree, and thus it can not be considered official. Ittai Gradel (2002, 160) argues even further by saying that when Suetonius said: 'dominus et deus noster hoc fieri iubet', lord and god orders this and that to be done, he could not know, if Domitian dictated the words himself, and he did not mention any concrete examples, like he had done while describing other deeds of the emperors, thus the only certainty remains the usage of the title by his subordinates in reference to him.

72

Kenneth Scott (1975, 105-108) further collected the verses of Martial, where the poet referred to Domitian as Dominus et Deus during several occasions throughout the Epigrammata. One of the examples is an advice to Fabullus, who requested a reward for being a father to three children: “Quod petis a nostro supplex dominoque deoque, tu dabis ipse tibi, si potes arrigere,” anything you ask of lord and god, you shall obtain, if you are able to stand up for it (Epigrammata IX, 66).

In other instances, Martial used the title either in correspondence, as in the example to Fabullus, or in poetry written for the emperor. He sometimes separated the words dominus and deus, and used only one of them, which also shows that it was not an official title. K. Scott (1975, 106) again admitted that one instance of noster deus might have not even been for Domitian, but for Titus. He however continues that the also referred to Domitian as god, but this does not mean anything in relation to the Imperial cult either, as did not become a province until ten years after Domitian’s death in 106 AD. He then said that emperor returned as victorious god from Sarmatian campaign (Epigrammata 7, 8), but, as mentioned in the first chapter, it was customary that the triumphator was celebrated as a kind of deity during his triumphal march throughout the city, and this was a celebration of victory in battle, thus a triumph-related example of the usage of the tile.

To conclude the evidence on Martial, the Epigrammata is a collection of celebratory poems to his current emperor, where exaggerated flattery was in place. Additionally, Domitian was, as previously mentioned, patron of the arts including poetry. For Martial, as a poet living on the Imperial court (Jones 2002, 30), the case would be similarly to Statius’, a way to pay respect to his patron.

Another piece of evidence presented by Scott (1975, 108-109) are three surviving inscriptions. Two of them are calling the emperor dominus, both were however dedicated by a slave and a freedman of Domitia respectively. The last one only depicted probable letters DN, about which Scott claims that they might have meant dominus noster, but the evidence is not clear on that.

Finally, Pliny the Younger used both words dominus, and also deus to degrade Domitian’s memory after his death, in the Panegyricus Traiani. Diminishing memory of the deceased emperor was a skilfully used tool, which served the specific purpose of this work. It was a celebratory poem to new emperor Trajan, which played an important role in justification of the Nerva-Antonine dynasty in the principal office. Their right to rule was based on the

73 opposition to Domitian’s deeds and acts, just like Vespasian had based the ideology of the Flavian family on disgracing the memory of Nero before them. Pliny thus used well-constructed insults to point out Domitian’s typical characteristics, which were most opposing Trajan’s. An instance of his work followed: “Nusquam ut deo, nusquam ut numini blandiamur, non enim de tyranno, sed de cive; non de domino, sed de parente loquimur;” Trajan is not depicted as a god, who would want flattery of his name, he was not a tyrant, but a citizen, not a dominus but a parent (Pliny Panegyricus II, 3).

Kenneth Scott (1975, 109-110) includes Pliny the Younger on the list of instances of the Dominus et Deus title being used by contemporaries, but the separate use of words only confirms, that it was not an official title. Additionally, the above-mentioned reference to Domitian as tyranno by Pliny, is an appellation, which only supports the case of exaggerating for purpose of the panegyric, rather than that of an official titulature.

Ittai Gradel (2002, 160) discusses the issue only shortly, he however also regards all Scott’s instances of informal and private nature, no matter how common they were. He further points out that there is not any evidence of the title in either official sources, the coinage, and the Acta Fratrum Arvalium. The Acts, written by the college of priests known as the Arval brethren, is the only preserved collection of records regarding the Imperial cult, thus an invaluable contemporary source of information. I would also like to add that there is not any definite archaeological evidence, which would confirm the Dominus et Deus title as official during the reign of emperor Domitian.

I would therefore conclude this part of the chapter that while the title Dominus et Deus became to be commonly used by Domitian’s subordinates and poets, there is almost a certainly (until any new evidence would suggest otherwise) that it was not confirmed by a decree from the Senate. Thus, it probably could not be considered as a main offense against the Principate, and even if it certainly did not add the emperor on popularity, it probably did not have a major influence on his damnatio memoriae either. The title could have however been seen as one of a series of minor insults to the people, as it certainly did to Pliny, who spoke up after Domitian’s death. These minor violations of the unscripted rules of the principes were probably slowly culminating throughout Domitian’s reign, until they were all added up together, which led towards Domitian’s assassination and the eternal damnation of his memory by the Senate.

74

2.) Damnatio Memoriae Damnatio memoriae refers to the act of condemning one’s memory, usually after their death. This is done by deliberate destruction or recarving of portraits, busts, or statues of the individual, and erasure of their name from any architectural monuments, official texts, and recorded deeds. It serves to eliminate any of their artistic propaganda and, in case of Roman emperors, to substitute it with the new ideology of the successor. For Romans applied the word memoria in a broader sense than is the word memory used in modern English. The concept included the reputation of the deceased individual, which they earned throughout their lifetime and by which they were remembered and recognised even in the afterlife (Varner 2004, 1-2). The complete erasure of one’s memory from people’s minds was thus seen as one of the greatest punishments an individual could have received for the actions deemed faulty by their successor.

The term was however, as Varner explains, not used by the ancient Romans, but it is a creation of modern scholars, based on two most common words associated with the above described actions. In ancient sources, the word memoria was often paired with verbs abolere, accusare, condemnare, damnare, or eradere, which could be translated as: to abolish, accuse, condemn, damn, and erase. All of these measures could have been taken by the ruling emperor, the Senate, the army, or they could have happened unofficially. In case of Domitian, the damnatio was enforced by a senatorial decree (Varner 2004, 2-6).

a) Domitian’s Condemnation & Hypothesis The circumstances of Domitian’s damnatio memoriae are best described in the last chapter of Suetonius’ Life of Domitianus. He wrote that while the people were indifferent towards Domitian’s assassination, the army displayed great anger and the soldiers immediately demanded his deification. Were there a leader, they were ready to avenge Domitian, but in the end, they at least demanded the punishment of his murderers. The Senate had however a contradictory reaction, that of the greatest joy. They did not waste any time to meet in the , where they discussed the emperor and mutilation of his image in bitter terms. Their actions were described as follows: “… [senatus] scalas etiam inferri clipeosque et imagines eius coram detrahi et ibidem solo affligi iuberet, novissime eradendos ubique titulos abolendamque omnem memoriam decerneret”. The Senators had the ladders brought into the curia, Domitian’s shields and images were taken down before their eyes and smashed on the spot, and lastly, they decreed his titles everywhere to be erased and all the memory of him to be abolished (Suetonius Dom. 23).

75

Varner mentioned an example from the end of the second century AD, when emperor let the army condemn the memory of his brother , rather than the senators, who were in disagreement with this decision (Varner 2004, 6). In Domitian’s case, the will of the Senate overpowered the strong protests heard from the army, but even Suetonius mentioned that the presence of a hypothetical leader would probably be enough, to change the outcome.

Thus, a hypothesis occurs, if Domitian had a son, or a follower adopted into the Flavian dynasty, as was the case with the Nerva-Antonines, he might have had the power to avert the damnatio memoriae all together, and possibly even bestow the title Divus on Domitian. He would have had support from the soldiers, and if what Suetonius wrote was true, and the people were indeed indifferent, there would not be any reason not to proclaim Domitian one of the “good” emperors instead, and thus change not only the ancient view on the emperor, but also that of the modern scholars.

The visual damnation of art and monuments was, as mentioned, accompanied with its literal parallel of vituperatio, verbal attacks on a person, or blaming, and invectio, a form of abusive speech. This was a practice to damage emperor’s reputation even further by spreading false accusations and deceiving stories (Varner 2004, 7). It is also a reason, why the works of ancient literary authors must be carefully judged before any interpretation is made. Sources on lives of the emperors are often divided into two categories: friendly and hostile, and their preservation sometimes depends on the relationship of the deceased emperor with his successor. Writers of the Imperial court are sometimes generous flatterers, while other poets often use hyperbole with both, positive and negative connotations. Authors from both, friendly and hostile groups also write works specifically per request of their contemporary emperor, where invectio of an exiled, or condemned individual plays the main role. It is therefore often difficult for modern writers to be able to determine the authenticity of certain statements and to subsequently reach correct conclusions.

Misjudgement of the ancient sources seems to be partly the case of the above-mentioned work of Mr. Scott on the Flavian dynasty, where he sometimes relied too much on the written evidence and often took it too literally. He then based his perception of any other evidence on the premise that Domitian was the “bad” emperor and a condemned tyrant, rather than acknowledging that even the reign of “bad” emperors could have been relatively prosperous and peaceful and vice versa for the “good” ones.

76

Were Domitian’s name preceded by title Divus, even if undeserved, but customary, as another Flavian emperor would have probably continued the tradition of deified predecessors, Domitian would have been perceived differently. Several of his actions, which were in early modern literature judged as cruel deeds of the condemned , could have been perhaps overlooked, similarly to numerous senatorial murders of Divus Claudius (Jones 2002, 192), or “bad” and inappropriate behaviour of both “good” emperors Augustus and Trajan, who were similar to Domitian in their actions, but very different in character.

To illustrate the case with an example, during the reign of Vespasian and Titus, to hold the ordinary consulship, a position, which had the most value for aristocrats, was allowed almost exclusively to the members of Flavian family. Domitian changed this by letting the non- family “outsiders” to hold the posts, which was an action that was criticized in ancient sources (Pliny Panegyricus 58, 3-4), while Trajan was being praised for doing the exact same thing (Jones 2002, 163-165).

The emperors like Augustus, or Trajan were mostly on good terms with the aristocracy, and more importantly with the Senate (Darwall-Smith 1996, 255). Their ability to present themselves with false modesty, while their office was in its core highly autocratic was what distinguished them from Domitian in first place. Their assignment into the group of the “good” emperors thus did not depend solely on the actions they undertook, but mostly on the art of how they were presented to the Senate and the public.

I therefore believe that the assassination and subsequent damnatio memoriae of Domitian could be essentially traced down to his character and his lack of attempts at bettering his relationship with the aristocracy and the Senate. As I mentioned several times throughout the work, the archaeological evidence shows that the Flavian dynasty, Domitian included, aimed their visually consumed propaganda materialised in their building program onto the people of Rome. While the popularity of Titus’ reign can not be objectively judged, due to its short term, it is rather certain that this kind of propaganda was beneficial for Vespasian, but not substantial enough for Domitian. There are two interconnected reasons for this. Vespasian was a good-natured individual, who seemed to be simply liked by the people, while Domitian’s closed off character resulted in their indifference. Further as Darwall-Smith noted in his work, the aristocrats and senators were the ones, whose voices were heard the loudest, not the plebs (Darwall-Smith 1996, 255). Domitian might have aimed all of his efforts to build , stadiums and the Odeon, the Naumachia, the Porticus Divorum, Forum Transitorium, and other

77 public places to please the crowds, but none of it seemed to be enough to get him into the favours of the aristocracy and thus prevent his assassination.

b) The Arch of Titus & Its Hypothetical Dating The Arch of Titus is listed among the best-preserved Imperial cult related monuments from the era of the Principate. The date of its construction however still remains the topic of debates, because the Arch is omitted from any kind of surviving literary sources. The Arch was dedicated to the memory of Divus Titus by the Senate and people of Rome, as displayed on the dedicatory plate on its eastern side, with the imprint of its original inscription: SENATUS POPULUSQUE ROMANUS DIVO TITO DIVI VESPASIANI F VESPASIANO AUGUSTO, located on its eastern side, above the fornix (Fig. XXXIII). The emperor, who had it commissioned, could have been either Domitian, as one of the to his deceased brother, or Trajan, whose reason to celebrate Titus was connected to Domitian’s damnatio memoriae. Due to the uncertain authorship, I chose to present several details, that illustrate both probable scenarios.

Fig. XXXIII Detail of the dedicatory plate from the east side of the Arch of Titus (https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ancient-art-civilizations/roman#early-empires).

The structure consisting of a single fornix is 15.4 metres high, 13.5 wide and almost 5 metres deep. The main decoration is composed of two reliefs on Titus’ Triumph in Judea of 70 AD on the inner sides of the archway, relief of the apotheosis of Titus on the coffered underside soffit, two Victories, each in one of the triangular spandrels, between the curve of the arch and the outer rectangle, and a central keystone with one figure on each side, whose probable identifications are Honos on one side, and Virtus on the other. There is also decorated

78 entablature with partly preserved frieze in high relief, and four columns on each side of the Arch, two outer pairs are ionic columns without cannelures, or fluting, which however underwent modern restoration, and two inner pairs, known as the earliest surviving examples of columns constructed in the composite order used on a building. The rest of the arch does not contain any decoration, which is the result of the modern restoration of 1822, as well as its prior incorporation into the wall of a medieval fortress (Richardson 1992, 59).

Naomi Norman (2009, 41-53) expanded the idea of the connection between the triumph and the apotheosis, as the emperor becomes god in both cases, only for a day during triumphal celebrations, and for eternity after the apotheosis. She presented the argument that the Arch of Titus contains scenes of triumph, as well as apotheosis, and because the apotheosis is in the centre of the arch, the two events are interconnected. Norman further concludes that one is the opposite of the other, because the route taken during the funerary procession of Augustus, is the exact opposite of the one usually taken during the triumphs.

While I agree that the short-lived divinity of the triumphator could be indeed seen as the precedent for the actual deification, certain arguments of the theory seem to be a little overreaching. One of them is, for instance, reasoning that funeral of Drusus is linked to triumph, while the source only said that so many people were watching the event that it felt, as if it were an actual triumph (Norman 2009, 49).

The position of the Arch of Titus is on the Via Sacra, which was part of the triumphal route, and alongside which the triumphal monuments were built (Norman 2009 43). The arch itself however, is not triumphal, but merely commemorative, and it was built at least eleven years after the actual triumph, based on the depiction of the deceased, and the inscription reading “Divo Tito”. Regarding the relief depicting the apotheosis, rather than the unifying factor of the decoration, it might be in the centre of the ceiling, because that is the closest representation to heaven, to which Titus was supposed to be ascending.

Similarly to other rituals connected to the Imperial cult, the official funerals also underwent certain development, as mentioned in the first chapter. The funerary procession of Augustus led from his house on the Palatine, to his Mausoleum at the edge of Campus Martius (Norman 2009, 49). Funeral of Titus is not described in the ancient sources, but he did not reside on Palatine, died outside of Rome, and his burial place remains unknown, the procession in his case could have therefore varied from that of Augustus, even though it is possible that it remained the same.

79

Naomi Norman (2009, 47) also goes into details, such as the garlands, which frame the apotheosis relief that remind her of the wreath, traditionally held over the head of the triumphator by Victoria. I personally disagree with this argument, as the garlands seem to be just regular decoration.

There is however an interesting observation, which seems to support the whole theory. It is the way, in which are all three inner reliefs are positioned. While the reliefs depicting Titus, the triumphator, and spoils of Jerusalem, are both read from west to east, the apotheosis relief is meant to be looked at the other way, with the observer arriving to the Arch from the east (Norman 2009, 51). This would indeed put the “permanent” apotheosis to the opposition towards the “temporary divine” status of the triumphator.

To the dating of the Arch, in favour of Domitianic construction could be the Haterii Reliefs, which are dated to Domitian’s era, but the arch they depict can not be identified as the Arch of Titus with certainty (Darwall-Smith 1996, 168). Another parallel could be seen in the decoration of the entablature, which, even though might seem a little less pompous, is still very similar to the preserved piece of the entablature from the Temple of Divus Vespasian and Divus Titus (Fig. V). The style thus might be seen as Flavian, this conclusion alone however does not exclude the possibility of Trajan’s architect adopting similar artistic style, especially if building a monument for the late Flavian emperor.

Fig. XXXV Arch of Titus, Rome Fig. XXXIV Arch of Trajan, (http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/img.htm?id= (http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/img.htm?id= 1759). 3883).

80

Several arguments for later construction date are mentioned by R.H. Darwall-Smith (1996, 168-172), who however mostly disagrees, and tries to disprove them. One of them is that Vespasian and Domitian are omitted from the inner reliefs, which would not have happened, if Domitian was the one to commission them. Mr. Darwall-Smith’s explanation is that the Arch served to commemorate Titus and the scenes on the reliefs are not realistic, due to the depiction of deities and personifications. Here, I would like to point out the Cancelleria Reliefs, which also depict deities, yet both Domitian and Vespasian are still present. Another argument is that the style of the arch reliefs is different from the Cancelleria Reliefs. Darwall-Smith correctly notes that both styles could have easily coexisted during the reign of one or more emperors, this claim therefore can not be viewed as evidence. A dedicatory plate was also found, which states that the monument, on which it was located, had been built by Trajan. Darwall-Smith writes that it would contradict the SPQR plate, thus it should not belong on the arch.

More convincing claims in favour of Trajanic date could be the similarity with the Arch of Trajan in Benevento, and the absence of the arch from a Martial’s poem (Epigrammata I, 70), where he describes the monuments alongside a pathway, which passes its location. In the epigram dated to 86 AD, Martial navigates his servant from The Quirinal hill to Palatine, leading alongside the site of the arch. Darwall-Smith further states that the Arch was omitted, because only monuments that served as pointers were included. Fifteen metres high arch, with a probable biga on top, which was directly in the way is not a structure easily overlooked. However, even if this was the case, the poem would only serve as evidence up until the date of its publishing in 86 AD, with another decade of Domitian’s reign still remaining.

81

Lastly, I would like to refer to the distinct resemblance between the Arch of Titus and the Arch of Trajan from Benevento. The later looks like an almost exact replica of Titus’ arch, not only in general appearance, but also in details, which were very carefully modelled after its predecessor. The comparative analyses of these two structures could be a topic for its own thesis, I will therefore not go into details, but illustrate the evident via the above figures (Fig. XXXIV & XXXV). Darwall-Smith (1996, 169) pointed out that Trajan’s structure is covered in more reliefs than that of Titus. While this statement is true about its present state, a large part of the Arch of Titus underwent reconstruction in the nineteenth century, after it had been converted into a wall in the middle ages. Its original relief decoration, if there was any, was thus probably Fig. XXXVI Detail of an early 18th century painting of the Arch of Titus destroyed throughout the medieval times, or (http://www.settemuse.it/arte_bio_V/van_wi perhaps reused in different structures, as the entire ttel_andriaans_caspar.htm). outer section of the arch was missing, and had to be re-built anew, which is evident from the painting of an early eighteen century artist Caspar Van Wittel (Fig. XXXVI).

Whether was the construction of the Arch of Titus of Domitianic or Trajanic date is still not confirmed, until new evidence, or a keen observation appear, but the monument might have played its role in the Imperial cult in both cases. If it was indeed Domitianic, then it was another instance of Domitian’s intention to preserve the memory of his family members, even long time after their death. If, however, was the Arch commissioned by Trajan, it was a clear sign of Domitian’s condemnation. The structure would have in this scenario served as both, an instruction for the people to forget Domitian the autocrat, as well as a link, established between the last “good” Flavian emperor and the new rulers of the Nerva-Antonine dynasty. Even if Trajanic date is not the case, the desired connection remains obvious in the Arch of Benevento, which was evidently modelled to resemble the Arch of Titus, to stress to the people that Trajan’s rule was going to resemble that of Divus Titus, rather than that of Domitian.

82

Conclusion The aim of this thesis was to provide a view on the development of the Imperial cult and its broader propaganda during the reign of the last princeps of the Flavian dynasty, Titus Flavius Domitianus. My work was primarily based on selected archaeological remains, mainly the architectural monuments of the Imperial cult located predominantly in Rome, as well as primary and secondary literary sources.

The Imperial cult was still on its initial evolutionary course, seemingly without any solidified rules, during the reigns of both ruling dynasties of the first century AD. The establishing Julio-Claudians, and the Flavians, who had to grasp the often chaotic and incomplete Julio-Claudian regulations, and remake them, to suit their own ambitions. The Flavian family went a long way from the justification of their position, by establishing the links to their predecessors under the reign of Vespasian, towards their own independent standards, set for the future successors by Domitian.

In the early stages of the Imperial cult, almost every emperor set a new precedent for the next ruler. The main reason for the lack of clarified rules, not only in the Imperial cult, but also in religious and political practices of the early Principate in general, was a series of consciously made decisions of emperor Augustus. The first princeps kept denying his real position of an autocrat throughout his entire reign, but at the same time accepted several honours, which were granted to him by the enthusiastic senators. As for the other early principes, they were all members of the Julio-Claudian family, their position was therefore easily justified based on these claims. Once after they assumed the office, all of Augustus’ honours and titles were automatically offered to them as his descendents. Times changed with the death of Nero in 68 AD. The three Civil War emperors of the following year did not get the chance to make any religious or political adjustments on their own, due to the endurance of general Vespasian, who seized the right opportunity with the help of his loyal legions, became princeps, and immediately declared the new dynasty by naming his two sons his successors in the office. Domitian’s hypothetical future position of a princeps was thus already secured a mere few days after his father’s own accession in July 69 AD.

Titus had Vespasian deified within the first few months after his succession in June 79 AD, thus ensuring the title Divus Filius for his own needs, as well as that of his younger brother Domitian, who was at that time still first in line of succession for the principal office, due to lack of Titus’ heir apparent. After that, the brothers have also convinced the Senate to grant the

83 deification to their long-gone sister, Domitilla, thus taking the initial steps towards the divinisation of the Flavian family.

The death of Titus in September 81 AD might have been sudden, or unexpected, but Domitian was not completely unprepared. He did not have much practical experience, or the military skills and success of both, his father and brother, but he readily accepted the position that had been designed for him, and for which he had been waiting for the past twelve years.

Opposing to the Julio-Claudian emperors, who were always perceived as individuals, the Flavian dynasty operated within the Imperial cult as a family, which is apparent in several structures of Domitianic architectural program. Buildings like the Temple of Divus Vespasian and Titus, Porticus Divorum, which contained temples to the both divi, or the Temple of the Gens Flavia, were all dedicated to commemorate the deceased members of the family. Domitian already owned the title of Divus Filius, but that did not prevent him from additionally deifying his brother, as his predecessor, as well as prematurely gone nice and infant son. While Vespasian supported claims of humble origins of his gens, Domitian gradually built himself the divine lineage worth of an emperor, which he might have taken even further, if it was not for his assassination. The purpose of the Temple of the Gens Flavia was to ensure the justification to planned Domitian’s successors, Vespasian and Domitian, young boys, whom he adopted from his cousin, Flavius Clemens.

In case of propaganda, Domitian continued his father’s and brother’s original building plan, which was aimed at the needs and entertainment of the people. He gave the final touches to the construction of his father’s Amphitheatre, which again carried the name Flavian, not Vespasian’s. It is a reoccurring pattern that only further proves Flavian public presentation as a firmly united dynasty. Apart from the Colosseum, Domitian also build his own stadium and Odeon to hold the Greek games. They shared a parallel with a similar even of Nero, known as Neronia, but Domitian wisely dedicated his games to Jupiter Capitolinus, whose name they also carried, and thank to which they survived centuries after Domitian’s death. Lastly, Domitian had a Naumachia built, used for the reconstruction of popular naval battles, after he had added subterranean structures to the Flavian Amphitheatre, further the Meta Sudans, fountain for refreshment in front of the Amphitheatre and several Ludi, gladiatorial schools. All of these structures provided endless possibilities of various entertainment for the public, who was in return satisfied with their emperor.

84

In the personal sphere, Domitian propagated goddess Minerva, whom he considered his personal patron deity. She was the goddess of war, which was one of the most important interests for ancient Romans, but unlike god Mars, who was for instance dominating the Forum Augusti, Minerva represented justified clever strategic warfare. She was the main deity of Domitian’s Forum Transitorium, which however remained unfinished during his lifetime. Her name also appeared in Domitian’s favourite naming pattern, when he named his newly established legion Legio I Flavia Minervia, the combination of his patron deity and again a family name.

An important change introduced into the Imperial cult by the Flavian dynasty, was the new role of the genius, or the ancient guardian spirit. Genius Augusti, of the emperor, was often featured in the rituals that took place during the reign of the Julio-Claudian emperors, especially Nero. This deity disappeared from the list of ritual offers under Vespasian. There is however one example mentioned, of an offer made to the Genius of the emperor in the early days of Domitian’s rule. The evidence is preserved in the Acta Fratrum Arvalium, a series of important records of practices connected to the Imperial cult throughout the first two centuries AD. Apart from this instance, however, Domitian continued to propagate the new figures: Genius Senatus and Genius Populi Romani, to highlight the role of the Senate and Roman people in his politics, or at least to preserve the illusion of their importance. This is attested by the Cancelleria Reliefs, where both figures appeared on its both preserved sides.

With the Divi Filius title, ongoing architectural propaganda, and a gradually growing family heaven of the divi, another main step in Domitian’s career was, according to the early modern literature, conversion to the new title, Dominus et Deus. More recent authors however claim that it was not part of Domitian’s official titulature, because all of the recorded uses of the title were found only in literal and epigraphical sources of private and informal character. There is not any evidence of the title in either official state documents, or , and further, I did not discover any recorded usage in studied architectural monuments. I therefore believe that even if the title was in use by Domitian’s subordinates, it was not officially granted by the Senate, and therefore can not be seen as part of Domitian’s titulature. With this conclusion in mind, I do not think that there was a turning point, at which the change from Divi Filius to Dominus et Deus occurred. Domitian was an autocratic ruler, but the title Dominus et Deus, which was invented by his freedman, and occasionally used by hostile poets, should not be considered a main proof of that matter.

85

Neither Domitian’s titulature, nor his changes, or propaganda of the Imperial cult via an extensive building program should be considered the main causes of his assassination. Domitian’s death dates to the 18th of September 96AD, followed by the official condemnation of his memory by the Senate. It was the senators, who could be considered Domitian’s real enemy. Early in his reign, Domitian increased the salary of his common soldiers by one third, this act, and the fact that he was still son of one of their favourites, Vespasian, probably ensured him their loyalty, which they displayed after his murder. The emperor later secured at least minor likability from the people, for whom catered every piece of propaganda he had built. He also kept relative peace and prosperity throughout his reign, the major issue was thus the mutually hostile relationship with the Senate and aristocracy. Domitian did not favour them throughout the duration of his reign, which resulted in the final measure they took after his death, his damnatio memoriae.

The actions Domitian took throughout his fifteen years long lasting career, influenced the view on the principal office and, just as in case of his predecessors, also set several precedents for the Nerva-Antonine dynasty. Domitian was for a long time seen as a tyrant, because of his inclusion on the list of “bad” emperors. This thesis covers the basic concept of Domitian’s Imperial cult. It would be however an interesting concept for the future, to compare even thoroughly mapped imperial propaganda of Domitian with that of Trajan, or other long- ruling principes of the later dynasties, whose names are on the “good” list, to see if, and how much they differ. Comparison to Julio-Claudians, and roughly also to Trajan, so far only proofs that the position of the emperor was always autocratic, but the relationship with the aristocracy was what meant the difference between praise and condemnation.

86

Resumé Cieľom tejto práce bolo poskytnúť pohľad na cisársky kult a s ním súvisiacu propagandu v období vlády posledného cisára Fláviovskej dynastie, Domitiána. Táto diplomová práca je založená najmä na vyhodnotení architektonických pamiatkach z obdobia Domitiánovej vlády, ale aj na primárnej a sekundárnej literatúre o živote cisára.

Cisársky kult sa stále nachádzal v počiatočnej fáze svojho vývoja počas vlády oboch dynastií, Julsko-klaudijská, ktorá je považovaná za zakladajúcu, ako aj Fláviovská, ktorá si kult prispôsobila svojim vlastným potrebám. Rodina Fláviovcov prešla dlhú cestu od nástupu po občianskej vojne, ktorá vyvolala otázku legitimizácie dynastie v dobe vlády cisára Vespasiána, až po obdobie Domitiána, ktorý si dovolil vytvárať vlastné pravidlá pre svojich plánovaných nasledovníkov.

Za zakladateľa cisárskeho kultu je považovaný cisár Augustus. Ten však odmietal akékoľvek tvrdenia o autokratickej vláde, no na druhej strane prijal množstvo rozličných pôct a titulov, čo malo za následok nejasné pravidlá kultu, ktoré samotný cisár nechcel bližšie definovať. Žiaden z Augustových nasledovníkov na trón nemal problém s legitimizáciou svojho postu, na základe preukázania rodinných vzťahov k zakladateľovi dynastie a teda samotného cisárstva. Každý Julsko-klaudijský cisár tak len jednoducho prevzal tituly a pocty svojich predchodcov. Po smrti cisára Nera však nasledovala občianska vojna, ktorá okrem novej dynastie priniesla taktiež zmenu v cisárskom kulte. V júli roku 69 po.Kr. nastúpil na trón Vespasián, ktorý okamžite menoval oboch svojich synov za nasledovníkov. Domitiánova budúca pozícia na tróne bola teda v pláne už v tejto dobe.

Domitiánov starší brat Titus dal pri svojom nástupe v júni roku 79 po.Kr. otca zbožštiť, čím zaistil titul Divi Filius nie len sebe, ale aj svojmu bratovi, ktorý bol v tej dobe jeho jediným nasledovníkom. Bratia si neskôr v Senáte presadili i zbožštenie svojej mladšej sestry Domitilly, ktorá zomrela dávno pred Titovým vymenovaním za cisára. Titova smrť však prišla za nečakane krátku dobu v septembri roku 81 po. Kr., no Domitián sa svojej budúcej pozície, ktorá mu bola prakticky predurčená už pred dvanástimi rokmi zhostil okamžite, i keď mladému cisárovi chýbali praktické, či vojenské skúsenosti jeho predchodcov.

Na rozdiel od Julsko-klaudijských cisárov, ktorí boli vnímaní ako jednotlivci, Fláviovci vždy prezentovali verejnosti obraz súdržnej rodiny. Tento fakt je zjavný na Domitiánovských pamiatkach ako sú Chrám Vespasiána a Tita na Fóre Romane, Porticus Divorum na Martovom poli, alebo Chrám Fláviovského rodu na Caeliu. Domitián neskôr k zbožštenému otcovi a sestre

87 pridal i brata Tita, neter Júliu a svojho vlastného syna, ktorý zomrel ako malý chlapec. Zatiaľ čo Vespasián tak podporoval chýry o chudobných pomeroch, z ktorých rodina vzišla, Domitián si postupne zaisťoval božský pôvod tým, že menil zosnulých členov svojej rodiny na božstvá. Cisár v tom chcel pokračovať i v budúcnosti, no krátko po tom, čo si adoptoval dvoch synov svojho bratranca bol Domitián zavraždený.

V rámci propagandy pokračoval Domitián v šľapajach svojho otca a brata, ktorí sa zameriavali predovšetkým na politiku panem et circenses, teda chlieb a hry pre svoj ľud, na rozdiel napríklad od Augusta, ktorému záležalo predovšetkým na názore aristokracie. Domitián dokončil rodinnú stavbu Fláviovského amfiteátru, ktorý opäť svojim názvom poukazoval na meno jednotnej dynastie, ktorá ho spolu vybudovala. Ďalej dal postaviť štadión a odeon, stavbu naumachie, fontánu meta sudans, či ludi, školy zabezpečujúce výcvik a ubytovanie gladiátorov v Ríme. Účelom všetkých týchto stavieb bola zábava verejnosti.

V súkromnej sfére kultu si Domitián za svoje ochranné božstvo vybral Minervu. Tá bola bohyňou vojny, ktorá pre Rimanov mala veľký význam, no zároveň symbolizovala múdrosť a do značnej miery i spravodlivosť v boji. Z týchto dôvodov ju Domitián umiestil na svoje fórum, a taktiež po nej pomenoval svoju légiu, Legio I Flavia Minervia, kde jej meno znovu skombinoval s rodinným menom Flávius aby poukázal na svoj rod.

Dôležitú zmenu predstavoval aj prechod z uctievania Génia cisára na dve nové božstvá Génius senátu a Génius rímskeho ľudu. Táto zmena je dobre doložená na analyzovaných reliéfoch z Cancellerie, kde sú obe nové božstvá vyobrazené na oboch nájdených tabuliach.

Domitián mal teda funkčnú propagandu v podobe neustále prebiehajúcej architektonickej výstavby, titul Divi Filius a rozrastajúci sa počet zbožštených členov rodiny. Ďalším krokom bol podľa skorších moderných zdrojov prestup na titul Dominus et Deus, no novodobejší autori toto tvrdenie nie celkom potvrdzujú. Zatiaľ čo Divi Filius bol oficiálnou súčasťou cisárskej titulatúry, Dominus et Deus predstavovalo skôr neformálne oslovenie, ktoré používali len cisárovi podriadení, či básnici. Domitián bol autokratickým vládcom, no toto oslovenie by nemalo byť vnímané ako hlavný dôkaz danej skutočnosti, práve kvôli jeho privátnemu charakteru. Najväčším problémom cisára bolo teda nezaistenie si nástupcu

Domitiánov život bol ukončený vraždou osemnásteho septembra 96 po. Kr. a následným zavrhnutím jeho pamiatky senátom. A práve senátori a ďalší aristokrati boli tí, na ktorých názore najviac záležalo, no Domitián k nim nikdy nemal kladný postoj, preto sa mu za to po jeho smrti rozhodli odplatiť vymazaním jeho mena z histórie – damnatio memoriae.

88

List of Figures Fig. I Detail of lararium from the House of the Vettii, Pompeii, Italy (http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/img.htm?id=1278). 12 Fig. II Golden Aureus of Vespasian (BMC 155), depicting Domitian as Princeps Iuventus (http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/sear5/s2622.html#RIC_0787[vesp]). 23 Fig. III Detail of Apotheosis of Titus, Arch of Titus, Forum Romanum (http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/img.htm?id=4787). 28 Fig. IV Remains of the Temple of Vespasian and Titus, Forum Romanum (http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/img.htm?id=1582). 29 Fig. V Entablature from the Temple of Vespasian and Titus, Palazzo dei Conservatori (http://www.shafe.co.uk/temple_of_vespasian-_entablature/). 30 Fig. VI Digital reconstruction of the Temple of Vespasian and Titus (centre) and its position between the Temple of Saturn (left) and Temple of Concordia (right) on Forum Romanum (http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/vespasianstempel/?lang=en). 31 Fig. VII Reconstructed model of the Porticus Divorum located on Campus Martius (https://www.maquettes-historiques.net/P22.html). 32 Fig. VIII Possibe reconstruction of the Temple of the Gens Flavia, Caelian Hill (https://www.maquettes-historiques.net/P10as.html). 34 Fig. IX Entablature pieces of the Hartwig-Kelsey fragments (http://exhibitions.kelsey.lsa.umich.edu/galleries/Exhibits/Empire2/objects/index.html). 35 Fig. X Torso pieces (front and back) of the Hartwig-Kelsey fragments (http://exhibitions.kelsey.lsa.umich.edu/galleries/Exhibits/Empire2/objects/index.html). 35 Fig. XI Various pieces of the Hartwig-Kelsey fragments (http://exhibitions.kelsey.lsa.umich.edu/galleries/Exhibits/Empire2/objects/index.html). 36 Fig. XII Golden Aureus depicting deified Julia Titi on the obverse and a biga, driven by elephants on the reverse, issued in the between 90-91 AD (http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/julia_titi/i.html). 40 Fig. XIII Silver Denarius depicting Domitia Augusta on obverse, and Divus Caesar, son of Domitian on reverse, issued between 82-83 AD (http://romanumismatics.com/articles/article/rome-domitia-domitians-deified-son/). 42 Fig. XIV Fragmentary plan and location of the Temple of Minerva Chalcidica on Campus Martius, the Marble Plan of Rome (Darwall-Smith 1996, plate XXVII). 48 Fig. XV Plan of Forum Transitorium (http://www.romainteractive.com). 49 Fig. XVI Proposed reconstruction of the Forum Transitorium 50 Fig. XVII "Le Colonnacce" of Forum Transitorium (http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/img.htm?id=6996). 52 Fig. XVIII Detail of relief depicting Minerva, Forum Transitorium (http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/img.htm?id=6997). 52 Fig. XIX Detail of the frieze depicting helmeted Minerva (centre), Forum Transitorium (http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/img.htm?id=7000). 53 Fig. XX Domitianic coins depicting Minerva (http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/domitian/i.html). 54

89

Fig. XXI Artistic reconstruction of the Meta Sudans fountain (http://www.romanoimpero.com/2010/10/meta-sudante.html). 58 Fig. XXII Aerial view of archaeological remains of Ludus Magnus (circled red) next to the Flavian Amphitheatre (https://www.slideshare.net/magistraciotti/amphitheatrum-2). 59 Fig. XXIII Plan of Ludus Magnus from Forma Urbis and the excavation site (http://www.mmdtkw.org/RT04-LudusMagnus.html). 60 Fig. XXIV Speculated reconstruction and position of the Naumachia as depicted on the eighteen century map by G.B.Piranesi (http://www.quondam.com/c01/0131.htm). 60 Fig. XXV Reconstructed model of the Stadium and Odeon of Domitian on Campus Martius (https://www.maquettes-historiques.net/page20b.html). 61 Fig. XXVI Cancelleria Relief, Frieze A (http://www.rome101.com/Cancelleria/). 63 Fig. XXVII Cancelleria Relief, Frieze B (http://www.rome101.com/Cancelleria/). 64 Fig. XXVIII Detail of the Cancelleria Relief, Frieze A, Goddess Minerva, Emperor Domitian, Goddess Roma (http://www.rome101.com/Cancelleria/). 66 Fig. XXIX Head of Vespasian, formerly Nero, found at Lucus Feroniae, Villa Giulia, Rome (https://alchetron.com/Vespasian-1047604-W). 67 Fig. XXX Detail of head of Vespasian, Cancelleria Reliefs, Frieze B (http://www.rome101.com/Cancelleria/). 67 Fig. XXXI Detail of a bust of young Domitian from Musée de Louvre, Paris (http://www.ancient.eu/image/1154/). 68 Fig. XXXII Detail of head of young Domitian, Cancelleria Reliefs, Frieze B (http://www.rome101.com/Cancelleria/). 68 Fig. XXXIII Detail of the dedicatory plate from the east side of the Arch of Titus (https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ancient-art-civilizations/roman#early-empires). 78 Fig. XXXIV Arch of Trajan, Benevento (http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/img.htm?id=3883). 80 Fig. XXXV Arch of Titus, Rome (http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/img.htm?id=1759). 80 Fig. XXXVI Detail of an early 18th century painting of the Arch of Titus (http://www.settemuse.it/arte_bio_V/van_wittel_andriaans_caspar.htm). 82

90

Bibliography Ancient Sources Appianus Alexandrinus: Ῥωμαϊκά. Translation: White, H. 1913, London.

Censorinus: De Die Natali. Translation: Cholodniak, I. 1889, St. Petersburg.

Dio, Cassius: Ῥωμαϊκὴ Ἱστορία. Translation: Cary, E. 1914-1927, London.

Livius, Titus: XXI-XXX. Translation: Weissenborn, W. – Müller, H.J. 1884, Leipzig.

Martialis, Marcus Valerius: Epigrammata. Translation: Bohn, H.G. 1897, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Ovidius Naso, Publius: Metamorphoses. Translation: Myers, K.S. 2009, Cambridge.

Plinius Secundus: Panegyricus Traiani. Translation: Garland, F. 1905, New York.

Statius, Publius Papinius: Silvae. Translation: Mozley, J.H. 1928, London.

Suetonius Tranquillus, Gaius: De Vita Caesarum. Translation: Rolfe, J.C. 1959, London.

Tacitus, Publius Cornelius: Anales. Translation: Brodribb, W.J. – Church, A.J. 1906, London.

Literature Alston, R. 1998: Aspects of Roman History, AD 14 – 117. London.

Beard, M. 2009: The . Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Beard, M. – North, J. – Price, S. 1998: Religions of Rome. Cambridge.

Bennett, J. 2005: Trajan: Optimus Princeps. London.

Biguzzi, G. 1998: Ephesus, Its Artemision, Its Temple to the Flavian Emperors, and Idolatry in Revelation, Novum Testamentum, 40, 276-290. JSTOR. Web. Feb. 2016.

Boyle, A.J. – Dominik W.J. 2003: Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text. Brill.

Brodd, J. – Reed, J.L. 2011: Rome and Religion. A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on the Imperial Cult. Atlanta.

Bugh, G. 2006: The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World. Cambridge.

91

Burrell, B. 2004: Neokoroi: Greek Cities and Roman Emperors. Leiden.

Campbell, J. B. 2002: War and Society in Imperial Rome 31 BC – AD 284. London.

Cartwright, M. 2014: Minerva. Ancient History Encyclopedia. Web. 16 May 2017. (http://www.ancient.eu/Minerva/).

Chalupa, A. 2007: Roman Emperors: Gods, Men, Something Between or an Unnecessary Dilemma? Religio: Revue pro religionistiku 15, 256-270.

Chalupa, A. 2009: How Did Roman Emperors Become Gods? Various Concepts of Imperial Apotheosis, Anodos: Studies of the Ancient World 6-7, Trnava, 201-207.

Coarelli, F. 2007: Rome and Environs. Berkeley.

Crook, J. 1955: Consilium Principis. Cambridge.

Crook, J. 1967: Law and Life of Rome. New York.

Dabrowa, E. 1996: The Origin of the "Templum Gentis Flaviae": A Hypothesis, Memoirs of the American in Rome 41, 153-161. JSTOR. Web. Feb. 2016.

Darwall-Smith, R.H. 1996: Emperors and Architecture: A study of Flavian Rome. Bruxelles.

DeBlois, L.– Funke, P. – Hahn, J. 2006: The Impact of Imperial Rome on Religions, Ritual and Religious Life in the Roman Empire. Brill.

Drogula, F.K. 2007: Imperium, Potestas, and the Pomerium in the Roman Republic, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 56, 419-452. JSTOR. Web. Apr. 2017.

Fishwick, D. 1969: Genius and , The Harward Theological Review 62, 356-367. JSTOR. Web. Feb. 2017.

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

Fishwick, D. 1991: The Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. Vol I, 1. Leiden.

Frier, B.W. – McGinn, T.A.J. 2004: A Casebook on Roman Family Law. Oxford.

Friesen, S.J. 1993: Twice Neokoros. Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family. Brill.

92

Gibson, S. – DeLaine, J. – Claridge, A. 1994: The Triclinium of the Domus Flavia: A New Reconstruction, Papers of the British School at Rome, 62, 67- 100. JSTOR. Web. Feb. 2017.

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

Hammond, M. 1956: The Transmission of the Powers of the from the Death of Nero in A.D. 68 to That of Alexander Severus in A.D. 235, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 24, 61-133. JSTOR. Web. Feb. 2017.

Haverfield, F. J. 1915: The Name Augustus, Journal of Roman Studies 5, 249-250. Available online (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Journals/JRS/5/Augustus*.html).

Henzen, W. 1874: Acta Fratrum Arvalium Quae Supersunt. Berlin.

Jones, B.W. 2002: The Emperor Domitian. London.

Kazdová, E. 1979: Domitianovské Reliéfy od Cancellerie, Sborník Prací Filozofické Fakulty Brněnské Univerzity 24, 47-56.

Kleiner, D.E.E. 1992: . New Haven.

Koeppel, G.M. 1980: Fragments from a Domitianic Monument in Ann Arbor and Rome, Bulletin, Museums of Art and Archaeology, The University of Michigan 3, 14-29.

Levick, B. 1999: Vespasian. London and New York.

McFayden, D. 1915: The Date of the Arch of Titus, The Classical Journal 11, 131-141. JSTOR. Web. Feb. 2016.

Mommsen, T. – Nesselhauf, H. 1936: Diplomata militaria: ex constitutionibus imperatorum de civitate et conubio militum veteranorumque expressa. Berlin.

Mousourakis, G. 2003: The Historical and Institutional Context of Roman Law. New York.

Murison, C. L. 2003: M. Cocceius Nerva and the Flavians, Transactions of the American Philological Association 133, 147-157. JSTOR. Web. Feb. 2016.

Neškudla, B. 2004: Encyklopedie bohů a mýtů starověkého Říma a Apeninského poloostrova. Praha.

Norman, N. 2009: Imperial Triumph and Apotheosis: The Arch of Titus in Rome in Koine: Mediterranean Studies in Honour of R. Ross Holloway, 41-53. Oxbow Books.

93

Petersen, L. H. 2011: The Presence of "Damnatio Memoriae" in Roman Art, Notes in the History of Art 30, 1-8. JSTOR. Web. Jun. 2017.

Platner, S.B. 1929: A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. London.

Price, S.R.F. 1984: Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge.

Richardson, Jr., L. 1992: A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. Baltimore.

Robathan, D.M. 1942: Domitian’s Midas-Touch, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 73, 130-144. JSTOR. Web. Feb. 2017.

Rose, H.J. 1923: On the Original Significance of the Genius, The Classical Quarterly 17, 57- 60. JSTOR. Web. Feb. 2017.

Rüpke, J. 2007: A Companion to Roman Religion. Malden.

Scott, K. 1975: The Imperial Cult under the Flavians. New York.

Scott, K. 1933: Statius' Adulation of Domitian, The American Journal of Philology 54, 247- 259. JSTOR. Web. Feb. 2016.

Southern, P. 1997: Domitian: Tragic Tyrant. London.

Stamper, J. W. 2005: The Architecture of Roman Temples. Cambridge.

Suess, J. 2007: The Congregation of the Genius Augusti. Unpublished dissertation, Oxford University, Oxford.

Suess, J. 2011: Divine Justification: Flavian Imperial Cult. Unpublished master's thesis, Oxford University, Oxford.

Syme, R. 1939: The Roman Revolution. Oxford.

Syme, R. 1980: Some Arval Brethren. Oxford.

Taylor, L.R. 1975: The Divinity of the Roman Emperor. Philadelphia. Oxford.

Townend, G. 1961: Some Flavian Connections, The Journal of Roman Studies 51, 54-62. JSTOR. Web. Feb. 2016.

Tuck, S.L. 2005: The Origins of Roman Imperial Hunting Imagery: Domitian and the Redefinition of Virtus under the Principate, Greece & Rome, 52, 221-245. JSTOR. Web. Feb. 2017.

94

Vagi, D.L. 1999: Coinage and history of the Roman Empire, c. 82 B.C.- A.D. 480. Sidney.

Varne, E.R. 2004: Mutilation and Transformation. Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture. Brill.

Vasta, M. 2007: Flavian Visual Propaganda: Building a Dynasty, Constructing the Past 8, 107- 138. Available online: http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/constructing/vol8/iss1/10.

Versnel, H.S. 1970: Triumphus. Brill.

Watson, G.R. 1969: The Roman Soldier. New York.

Winterling, A. 2009: Politics and society in Imperial Rome. Malden.

Wood, S. 2010: Who Was Diva Domitilla? Some Thoughts on the Public Images of the Flavian Women, American Journal of Archaeology 114, 45-57. JSTOR. Web. Feb. 2016.

95