Subject & Ruler: The Cult of the Ruling Power in Classical Antiquity (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series #17)

JOPRNALOF ROMAN:lARCHAEOLOGY SUPPLEMENTARY SERIE S NUMBER 17

GENERAL EDITORS: P. FOSS AND J. H. HUMPHREY

ANlNTERNATIONALJOURNA L

SUBJECT AND RULER: THE CULT OF THE· RULING POWl IN CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY

Papers presented at a conference held in The University of Alberta on April 13-15, 1994 to celebrate the 65th anniversary of Duncan Fishwick

edited by Alastair Small

ANN ARBORMI 1996

ABBREVIATIONS FOR FREQUENTLY CITED WORKS W. den Boer, ed., Le culte des sOllllerains dans ['empire romain (Ent retiens 19, Fondation Hardt, Geneva 1973). Etienne, Clllte impirial R. Etienne, Le culte impirial dans la Pininsllle Iberique d' Auguste a Diocltitien (BEFAR 191, Paris 1958/1974). Fishwick, Imp. Cult I and II D. Fishwick, Th. Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Stlldies in the ruler Clllt of the western prrroinces of the Roman Empire 1.1-2 and II.1-2 (Etudes p reliminaires aux religiOns orientales dans l'Empire romain 108, Leiden-New York-Koln 1987/91/92). Fishwick, Imp. Cult m.1 D. Fishwick, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West (H J. w. Drijvers, R. van den Broek, H. S. Versnell, edd., Religions in the Graeco-Roman world; Leiden. forthcoming). Los foros Los foros de /as provincias occidentales (Madrid 1987). Helbig4 W. Helbig. Fiihrer durch die offentlichen Sammlungen Idassischen Altertiimer in Roml-JV4 (TUbingen 1963-72). Latte, Rom. Rei. K. Latte, Riimische Religionsgeschichte2 (1960). F. MilIar, The Roman Nt!llT East 31 B.e. - A.D. 337 (Cambridge, MA 1993). MilIar, Roman Near East Nock. Essays A. D. Nock, Essays on religion and the ancient world. Selected and edited with an introduction, bibliography of Nock's writings, and indexes, by Zeph Stewart (Oxford 1972). Platner-Ashby S. B. Platner & T. Ashby, A topographical dictionary of ancient Rome (London 1929). Price, Rituals S. R. F. P rice, Rituals and power. The Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor (Carrbridge 1984). RIT G. A1f61dy, Die riimischen Inschriften ron Tarraco (Madrider Forsc:hungen 10, Berlin 1975) Soott Ryberg I. Scott Ryber g. Rites of the state religion in Roman art (MemAmAcc 22, 1955). W. T rillmic:h and P. Zanker (edd.), Stadtbild und Ideologie. Die Monumen­ T rillmic:h-Zanker talisienmg hispanischer Stiidte zwischen Republik und Kaiserzeit (BAW phil.­ hisl Klasse Abh. n.F. 103, Munic:h 1990). Zanker , Power of images P. Zanker (trans. A. Shapiro), The power of images in the age of Augustlls (Ann Arbo r 1988). Le culte des sollverains

ISBN

1-887829-17-2

ISSN

1063-4304 (for the supplementary series)

\��\\'

'\L 'J� ','1 \ i(

----- _.

Copyright

© 1996

1he individual authors

Printed by Thomson-Shore, Dexter, Michigan.

TIlls

IRA,

and other supplements to the Journal

.-

of Roman Archaeology may

1216 Bending Road, AI1n Arbor, MI 48103, U.S .A telephone (USA) 313 662 7132, telefax (USA) 313 662 3240,

or from

Oxbow Books, Park End Place, Oxford, telephone

OX1 1HN, England (UK) 1865-241 249, telefax (U.K.) 1865-794 449.

be ordered from:

CONTENTS

Prefa ce, by A. Small Duncan Fishwick

A bibliography

E. Badian

Alexander the Great between two thrones and Heaven:

variations on an old theme

Peter Herz

Hellenistische Kiinige. Zwischen griechischen Vorstellungen

vom Kiinigtum und Vorstellungen ihrer einheimischen Untertanen

Joyce Reynolds

Ruler-cult at Aphrodisias

in

the late Republic

and under the Julio-Claudian emperors

Robert Turcan

La promotion du sujet par le culte du Souverain

c. J. Simpson

Caligula's cult: immolation, immortality, intent

Heidi Hanlein Schafer

Die Ikonographie des Genius Augusti im Kompital- und Hauskult

der £riihen Kaiserzeit

John Dobbins

1he imperial cult building in the Forum at Pompeii

Alastair Small

The shrine of the imperial family in the Macellum at Pompeii

with an appendix by Maria Kozakiewicz

The

Leonard A. Curchin

headgear of the female statue

Cult and celt indigenous participation in emperor worship

in Central Spain

Robert Etienne

Du nouveau sur les debuts

dans la Peninsule Iberique

du culte imperial municipal

Duncan Fishwick

Four temples at Tarraco

Michael Hoff

The politics and architecture of the Athenian imperial cult

Mary E. Hoskins-Walbank Evidence for the imperial Tran tam T inh

cult

in Julio-Claudian Corinth

Les empereurs romains versus Isis, serapis

Marie-Odile Jentel

Les representations des

imperatrices romaines "En Euthenia"

sur les monnaies d'Alexandrie: concept modeme ou realite?

Earle Waugh

Alexander in Islam: the sacred persona in Muslim rulership

Geza Alfiildy

Subject and ruler, subjects and methods: an attempt at a conclusion

Index, by A. and

C.

Small

adab

6

DUNCA N FISHWICK

anno aetatis suae LXV felicia tempora insequantur

PREFACE lhis volume brings together in printed form the papers presented at a conference held i Edmonton, Canada on April 13-15, 1994 to celebrate the 65th anniversary and to mark It impending retirement of Duncan Fishwick. The conference was hosted by the Department ( Classics of which Fishwick had been chairman from 1987 to 1993. Since so much of Fishwick scholarly career has been devoted to the study of the cult of the Roman Emperor, the theme ( the Conference presented itself: Subject and Ruler: the cult of the ruling powe r in Classic.

Antiquity. The main aim of the conference was to communicate recent developments in the study of It cult, and to stimulate further work in the area. A conference on the Roman Imperial Cult w. last held at Geneva in 1972 under the auspices of the Fondation Hardt. The papers presented; that colloquium, subsequently published as Entretiens 19 of the Fondation, have had a vel significant impact on the field. The emphasis of the Geneva meeting, however, was from It inside looking out, that is to say from the point of view of Rome governing a subject empire; i the meantime the field has been revolutionized as scholarly attention has shifted 1 individuals, cities and provinces of the classical world in order to consider the attitudes , subjects towards the Ruler. The title of the Edmonton conference was intended to capture th changed focus of research. Those who attended the colloquium cherish vivid memories of the event. The conferen( hall was filled to capacity, and tlIe cumulative effect of the papers was to produce a vivi impression of the importance of ruler-worship as a cultural force in the ancient world. It hoped that something of that impression will linger in these pages. The conference was made possible by generous grants from the Social Sciences and HumaI1 ties Research Council of Canada, the General Faculties Council Conference Fund Committee, the University of Alberta, and by the Department of Classics. In addition, the followir institutions provided valuable support: the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research, It Faculty of Arts, the Faculte St Jean, and the Departments of Classics, Religious Studies, all History of the University of Alberta; AtlIabasca University; Augustana University Colleg tlIe Department of Classics of the University of Calgary; Concordia College; and the Edmontc Chapter of the Canadian Mediterranean Institute.

As the organizer of tlIe conference, I should like to record my thanks to Paul Davenport, thE President of the University of Alberta; to Martha Piper, Vice-President (Research); and Rosemary Nielsen, Duncan Fishwick's successor in tlIe chair of. the Department, for the unstinting support. Above all, I am grateful to the numerous students who were always at har when help was needed, and who provided a small army of volunteers to ensure the success, the Conference. A.M.

8

DUNCAN FISHWICK BA (Manchester); MA (Oxford); M. Phi!. (Manchester); D.UII. (Leiden) Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries (London) Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada Fellow of the Royal Historical Society Associe correspondant etranger, Societe National des Antiquaires de France Correspondent der Korunklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Correspondant &ranger, Academie des Inscriptions et Belies Lettres. LIST OF PUBUCATIONS (in chronological order) Review of J. Cerfaux and C. Tondriau, Le culte des souverains (Toumai 1957) in Phoenir 14 (1960) 118-20. "The Imperial Cult in Roman Britain, I," Phoenir 15 (1961) 159-73; II, Phoenir 15 (1961) 213-29. "The Rotas-Sator square again," EMC 7 (1963) 7-13. "The institution of the Imperial Cult in Africa Proconsularis," Hermes 92 (1964) 343·63. "The Talpioth ossuaries again," New Testament Studies 10 (1964) 49-61. "On the origin of the Rotas-Sator Square," HThR 57 (1964) 40-53. "Vae puto deus fio," CQ 58 (1964) 155-57. Article review of H. Zilliacus, Sylloge Inscriptionum Christianarum Vetemm Musej Vaticani (Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae) Vols. I, II (Helsinki 1963) in Phoenir 19 (1965) 332-36. Review of J. Gage, /'Aatronalia: essai sur Ies devotions et Ies organisations cultuelles des femmes dans l'ancienne Rome (Brussels 1963) in IRS 55 (1%5) 279. "The Cannophori and the March Festival of Magna Mater," TAP A 97 (1966) 192-204. Review of A. Birley, Ufo in Roman Britain (Oxford 1965) in Phoenir 20 (1966) 184 f. "Hastiferi," IRS 57 (1967) 142-60. Article review of J. Deininger, Die ProvinziJlllandtage des rmnischen Reiches (Vestigia 6, Munich 1965) in AIPhil 88 (1967) 465-69. "Genius and Numen," HThR 62 (1%9) 356-67. "The Imperial Numen in Roman Britain," IRS 59 (1969) 76-91. "The equestrian cursus in ClL 2,3271," Historia 19 (1970) 96-112. "On ClL 2, 473 ," AIPhil 90 (1970) 79-82. "PIamen Augustorum," HSCP74 (1970) 299-312 . "Numina Augustorum," CQ 63 (1970) 191-99. "The annexation of Mauretania," Historia 20 (1971) 467.,g4. "CIL 2, 3271: Supplementary note," HistoriJl 20 (1971) 484-87. Review of F. Millar, Rome and her neighbours (New York 1966) in AIPhil92 (1971) 114-16. "The institution of the Provincial Cult in Roman Mauretania," HistoriJl 21 (1972) 698-711. "Templumdivo Claudio constitutum," BritanniJl 3 (1972) 164-81 . "The Temple of the Three Gauls," IRS 62 (1972) 46-52. Review of V. Fadinger, Die Begriindung des Prinzipats (Bonn 1969) in AIPhil93 (1972) 619 f. "Tacitean usage and the Temple of Divus Claudius," BritanniJl4 (1973) 264-66. "The Severi and the Provincial Cult of the Three Gauls," Historia 22 (1973) 627-49. Review of D. G. Weingartner, Die Aegyptenreise des Germanicus (Bonn 1969) in IRS 63 (1973) 255 f. Review of H. Galsterer, UnteTsuchungen zum rmnischen Stiidtewesen auf deT iberischen Halbinsel (Madrider Forschungen 8,1971) in Phoenir27 (1973) 418 f. Review of R. Potier, Le genie militaire de Vercingetorir (Paris 1973) in AHR (1973) 1160. Review of C. M. Wells, The German policy of Augustus (Oxford 1972) in CW (1974) 135 f. "The name of the demi-god," HistoriJl24 (1975) 624-28. "A Spanish priest of Urns Roma," Historia 24 (1975) 114-20. Review of 0. J. Manchen-Helfen, The world of the Huns (Berkeley 1972) in AHR (1975) 390 f. "The priesthood of T. Sennius Soliemnis," HistoriJl25 (1976) 124-28. "Ptolemy of Mauretania and the conspiracy of Gaetuiicus," Historia 25 (1976) 491-94 (with B. D. Shawl. Studies in Roman imperiJlI history (Leiden 1977) v, 201. "The formation of Africa Proconsuiaris," Hermes 105 (1977) 369-80 (with B. D. Shawl. Review of D. Hennig, L. Aelius SeiJlnus (Vestigia 21, Munich 1975) inPhoenir 31 (1977) 284-86. "The era of the Cereres," Historia 27 (1978) 343-54 (with B. D. Shawl.

9

"The Federal Cult of the Three Gauls," in Les Martyrs de Lyon (177) (paris 1978) 33-45. "Augush.. dew and dew Augwh,s," Studies in honour of M. I. Vermaseren (EPRO, Leiden 1978) I, 375-80. "Die Einrichtung des provinzialen Kaiserkults in romischen Mauretanien," Wege der Forschung CCLXXII (Darmstadt 1978) 459-71 "The development of provincial ruler worship in the western Roman Empire:' ANRW II.16.2 (Berlin 1978) 120153 "Claudius submersus," AIAH 3 (1978) 76-78. Review of M. S. Bassignano, 11 Jlaminato nelle province romane dell'AfriCll in CPh 73 (1978) 168 f. "A priest of the Three Gauls at Valentia," RANarb 12 (1979) 281-86 (with M Christoi). "A gold bust of Titus at Emerita," AIAH 6 (1981) 89-96. "An early provincial priest of Lusitania," His/orill 31 (1982) 249-52. "On AE (1977) no. 506," Britannia 13 (1982) 302 f. 'The altar of Augustus and the municipal cult of Tarraco," MadMitt 23 (1982) 222-33. "A priest of the Three Gauls from Argentomagus:' Histaria 32 (1983) 384. Article review of R. MacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire (New Haven 1981) inAIPhil104 (1983) 306-10. "Coins as evidence: some phantom temples" EMC28 (1984) 263-70. "An altar coin at Heidelberg" in W. Heckel and R. Sullivan (edd.) Ancient coins of the Greco- Roman world. The Nickle Numismatic Papers (Waterloo, Ont. 1984) 159-64. "From Jlamen to sacerdos," 106e Congres national des socitites SI11Jantes, Perpignan 1981, rere Colloque sur I'histaire et l'archliologie d'Afrique du Nord, BCTH 17B (1984) 337-44. "Pliny and the Christians: the rites ad imaginem principis," Al AH 9 (1984) [19901123-30. Review of N. Benseddik, Les troupes auriliaires de l'armee romaine en MDuretanie Cesarienne so,.. le Haut-Empire (Algiers 1983) in Gnomon 36 (1984) 561 f. " Le culte irnp�rial sous Juba Il et Ptol�� de Mauretanie: le �moignage des monnaies," 108e Congres national des sociitis savantes, Grenoble 1 983, IIe Colloque sur I'histoire et l'archliologie d' Afrique du Nord (BCTH 19B , 1985) 225-34. Article review of A. E. Gordon, Latin epigraphy (Berkeley 1983) in EMC 29 (1985) 484-89. "Une variante des monnaies dites 'a I'autel de Lyon'," Bulletin des M,lSIies et Monuments Lyonnais 7 (1982-86) 263-68. "Les monnaies dites 'it J'autel de Lyon'; I'interpretation des motifs figures au-dessus d u monument," Bulletin des Musees et Monuments Lyonnais 7 (1982-86) 131-38. "L'autel des Trois Gaules: le �moignage des monnaies," BSNAF (1986) 90-110 "Une d�dicace a la damus divina a Lambese," 110e Congres national des societes savantes, Montpellier 1985, Ille Colloque sur l'histoire et l'archliologie d'Afrique du Nord (Montpellier 1986) 367-72 Article review of S. R. F. Price, Rituals and power: the Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge 1984) in Phoenir 40 (1986) 225-30. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West, EPRO 108 Vol.l, 1 (Leiden 1987) xii, 1-194, pis. I-XXXVIII. Vol. I, 2 (Leiden 1987) viii, 195-371, pis. XXXIX-LXXIII. "A municipal temple at Narbo," Praktika of the Eighth International Congress on Greek and Latin Epigraphy, Athens 1982 (Athens 1987) 192-94. "Dated inscriptions and the Feriale Duranum," Syria 65 (1988) 349-6l. "Imperial sceptre heads in Roman Britain:' Britannia 19 (1988) 399 f. "A sacred edict(?) at Mactar," ZPE 73 (1988) 113-15. "NI/men Augusti," Britannia 20 (1989) 231-34. ''The sixty Gallic tribes and the Altar of the Three Gauls:' Historia 38 (1989) 111 f .. "Di Caesan/m," AntAfr 25 (1989) 111-14. "Statue taxes in Roman Egypt," Historia 38 (1989) 335-47. "L. Munatius Hilarianus and the inscription of the Artemisii (AE 1913, no. 134)," ZPE 76 (1989) 175-83. "Le sancluaire des Trois Gaules et le culte imp�al Md�ral" in A. Pelietier, J. Rossiaud (edd.), Lyon antique. Antiquite et Moyen-Age (Le Coteau 1990) 43-65. "L'autel lyonnais de Rome et d' Auguste:' Latomus 49 (1990) 658-62 (with A. Audin). "Le culte du n umen imp�rial dans I' Afrique romaine," Afrique du Nord antique et meditivale, spectacles, vie portuaire, religions, 115e Congr,s national des societes savantes, Avignon 1990; Ve Colloque sur l'histoire et l'archeologie d' Afrique du Nord (Paris 1992) 83-94. "Votive offerings to the Emperor?" ZPE 80 (1990) 121-30. "Prudentius and the cult of Divus Augustus," Historia 39 (1990) 475-86. "Pliny and the Christians: the rites ad imaginem principis," AfAH 9 (1984) [19901123-30.

10

"The Temple et Caesar at Alexandria," AJAH 9 (19B4) [1990]131-34.

"Dio and Maecenas: the emperor and the ruler cult," Phoenix 44 (1990) 267-75. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West, EPRO lOB Vo!. rr. 1 (Leiden 1991) vii, 372-626, pis. LXXN-CXlII. "Sanctissimum Numen: God or Emperor?," ZPE B9 (1991) 196-200. "Seneca and the Temple of Divus Claudius," Britannia 22 (1991) 137-41. "Le culte de la domus diuina it Lambese," L'armee et les affaires militaires, 113e Cong ...s national des socii/es saNntes, Strasbourg, 1988; IVe Colloque sur I'histoire et I'archeologie d' Afrique du Nord (paris 1991) 2, 329-41. "Ovid and Divus Augustus," CPh 86 (1991) 36-41. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West, EPRO lOB Vo!. II.2 (Leiden 1992) vii, 627-867. "On the Temple of Divus Augustus," Phoenir 46 (1992) 232-55. "The statue of Julius Caesar in the Pantheon," Latomus 51 (1992) 329-36. "Prayer and the living emperor" in R M. Wilhelm and H. Jones (edd.), The t!OO !OOrlds if the poet: new perspectives on Vergil; Melanges in honor of Alerander G. McKay (Detroit 1992) 343-55. "Soldier and emperor," AHB 6 (1992) 63-72. " Un don de statues d'argent it Narbo Martius," CRAI (1992) 381-401. " On the origins of Africa Proconsularis I: The amalgamation of Africa Vetus and Africa Nova," AntAft 29 (1993) 53-62. "A votive aedicula at Narbo," ZPE 9B (1993) 238-42. "A temple of Vesta on the Palatine?" in Festschrift T. Kotula (Antiquitas 1B, Wroclaw 1993) 51-57. "Numinibus Aug(ustomm)," Britannia 25 (1994) 127-41. "On the origins of Africa Proconsularis 11: the administration of Lepidus and the commission of M. Caelius

Phileros," AntAft 30 (1994) 57-80. "Dio and the provinces," Y. Le BOhec (ed.), L'Afrique, la Gaule, la religion ill'epoque romaine; Melanges Marce! Le

Glay (Coil. Latomus 226, Brussels 1994) 116-2B. (CIL 2, 105')," Epigraphica 56 (1994) B1-B6.

"An inscribed pedestal at Cala

"De la Carthage punique it la Carthage romaine: la levee de l'interdit," Monuments funeraires, institutions autochtones en Afrique du Nord antique et medievale, 118e Congr_s national des societes savantes, Pau 1993; VIe

Colloque sur I'histoire et I'archeologie d'Afrique du Nord (paris 1995) 235-45. AJAH 12 (19B7) [1995]73-76. 'The Temple of Divus Claudius at Camulodunum," Britannia 26 (1995) 11-27. "The Caesareum at Alexandria again," AJ AH 12 (19B7) [1995] 62-72.

"A ducking in the Tiber (CD 61 [60],33, B),"

"The inscription of Mamia again: the Cult of the Genius Augusti and the Imperial Temple on the Forum at Pompeii," Epigraphica 57 (1995) (forthcoming).

"The dedication et the Ara Trium GaUiarum," Latomus 55 (1996) (forthcoming). "A silver aedicula at M
"On the origins of Africa Proconsularis ill: the era of the Cereres again," AntAfr 32

(1996) (forthcoming).

"The federal priesthood of M. Bucc[ ... again," REA 9B (1996) (forthcoming). "'Provincial Forum' and 'Municipal Forum': fiction or fact?" Anas 9 (1996) forthcoming. "The provincial centre at Camulodunum," Britannia 2B (1997) (forthcoming). "Iconography and ideology: the statue group in the Temple of Mars Ultor," Colloquium on the principate of

Augustus, Ottawa 1996 (forthcoming). "Un relief dynastique it Alger," 121e Congres national des societes saNntes, Nice 1996; VIle Colloque sur I'histoire et

I'archeologie d'Afrique du Nord (forthcoming)

Alexander the Great between two thrones and Heaven: variations on an old theme E. Badian When

I

was asked by the organizers of the Edmonton conference to speak on Alexander

Great in connection with divine honours, I could assume that they knew (as our honor,

certainly knew) that I had published a long essay on the deification of Alexander some

ti

ago 1 and have since referred to the subject in passing on other occasions. I obviously cannot tJ the subject without reference to that earlier essay.

in

On

the other hand, it happens that

Ih

fact changed my mind on at least one major aspect of the problem, and that I have comE

recognize that

I failed to

pay sufficient attention to the background (and especially the Pers

background) in that earlier treatment. Thus, although much that was argued there will here taken for granted and merely referred to, the present discussion should be regarded superseding the earlier one in some important respects as well as supplementing it.

I. The starting-point Let us first look at the Macedonian kingship that Alexander inherited. The dynasty of Argeads, encouraged by that presumably tribal name, claimed descent from Argos, indeed fr the Argive Temenids, the senior branch of the Heraclids descended from Zeus. We have historical evidence of this claim before Alexander I advanced it and had it accepted at Olympic Games, against the protests of his competitors who were obviously taken by SUrpl (Hdt. 5.22 ff.,

8.137 ff.). That acceptance by the Hellanodikai ensured that it was ne'

officially doubted again. The descent from Heracles was obviously important to the Arg' kings, and Heracles appears on much of their coinage from the middle of the 5th c. B.C. Unfortunately we know little about the daily life of those kings: practically nothing bef, Philip

II

and very little before the detailed (but obviously time-bound) information proviC

by the Alexander biographers. Since the move of the administrative capital to Pella Archelaus (the sacred capital remained at

the

adorned by the great painter Zeuxis (Aelian,

sanctified site of Aegae), they lived in a pal;

VH 14.17);

yet by comparison with other

kiz

their lifestyle remained rather simple. At home, the king would hunt, eat, and perhaps abc all drink, with his

hetairoi. In

the field he fought at their head, conspicUOUS (if we may juc

by Philip and Alexander) by his splendid arms and attracting the enemy's attack to person.2 Under Alexander we find protect

this

him

him surrounded by

•

a select bodyguard of seven nobles, w

in battle and take turns in guarding access to his quarters.J We cannot tell wr

group was formed: perhaps only under Philip

IT.

1here is at any rate no trace of it in wl

we hear of Alexander I and of Perdiccas in the 5th c. There was no elaborate ceremonial approach or address, at least for men of the right class. We cannot be quite sure how the

ki

was addressed by his nobles, since the speeches in our sources are presumably largely fictitio 1he usual address was perhaps simply "King"

(�acrlA£u

or

ill !3aOtA£U),

as in early Hellenil

times; but the name in the vocative was apparently quite acceptable.4

"The deification of Alexander the Great" in Ancient Macedonian studies in hanor 01 Charles F. Ed, (Thessaloniki 1981) 27-71. It is a special pleasure for me to dedicate this paper to Duncan Fishw since he had in fac!shown an interest in that earlier article.

For Philip's wounds see G. T. Griffith in N. G. L. Hammond and G. T. Griffith, History of Macedonil

(Oxford 1979) 473

f.

See H. Berve, Das Ale:tllnde"eich aul prosopographischer Grundlage (Munich 1926) I 27 f. We find this used by Pannenio (An. 1.13.3); by Coenus,

in a

fictitious speech which presumably nOJ

E. Badian

12

11,is familiarity was no doubt traditional, although clearly attested only under Philip and

Alexander. It

is

"King" before

his

confirmed by the Greek cities' references to the Macedonian kings. Not once,

either in Herodotus or in the name: he

is

Corpus Demosthenicum,

is the king of Macedon referred to with

regularly referred to by his mere name. And this corresponds to

the usage we find in the documents. We have no documents from cities within Macedon. But

the king of Macedon by mere name, just as the writers do.s And this is not confined to Athens. lhe alliances of the Chalcidic League with Amyntas ill and later

Athenian documents refer to with Philip

IT

use bare names, with patronymics added in more formal sections.6

In

what is

called the foundation document of the "League of Corinth,,7 Philip's llamA-cia is referred to, but

he himself is

Macedonian". S

called

This

plain

Philip

or,

in

the introduction to

the

oath,

"Philip

the

last item makes quite clear what the evidence in any case suggests: that

the omission of the royal title was not a mark of disrespect, but was approved of by (perhaps

due to) the kings themselves. lhe reason for this can only be conjectured. But they were not legitimate Greek kings, like those at Sparta, and so they may have preferred to avoid a title

that would seem invidious to Greeks (!socr. 5.105 f.; cf. 154)9 and would set them apart from Greek aristocrats, among whom they wanted Greeks to count them. lhe practice seems to

carry

on into the early years of Alexander, apparently until after the battle of Issus, when he seems to have regarded himself as King of Asia and, at least potentially, as successor to the Achaemenids. lhere is no good evidence for any change before .early 331.10

10

theless preserved the correct forms (Arr. 5.27.2 ff.); and by an obscure person (Arr. 7.11.6). Thus also by Nearchus in his own report as rendered by Arrian ( Ind. 20.5, 35.6). CHtus, in the episode that ends with his death, uses i1 'AAi�IlVOPE (Arr. 4.8,7 and 9), explicitly from Aristobulus, therefore authentic. One might think it an example of provocative familiarity, were it not for the fact that Isocrates, in his formal address to Philip (5.1), similarly uses i1 !I>(lumE. This although the Athenians were occasionally willing to name kings of Thrace with the royal title (Tod, GHI II 117, lines 11 f., 23 f.; but not in Tod 151 er 1S7) and might even give it to a kinglet in Upper Macedonia (IG J3 89 line 69; I12 190). Tod 111, 158. Tod 177. There is a possible exception, it has been claimed. At Lebadeia a king who may be Amyntas son of Perdiccas may be called I3Il<J1A£l,<; MIlICEOOvWV ( IG VII 3055), and much has been made of this by some historians, since he never actually became king. That phrase as such would not be extraordiruuy even in an Athenian author: note that he is not called 8110'1"'''<; 'Af!{>V'Il<;' which would indeed be unparalleled. It must be noted that any restoration of this text is based on two unsatisfactory old copies (by Pococke and Leake) and, if it is to make sense, must stray quite far from those copies. The text is discussed (with adventurous historical conclusions) by J. R. Ellis, "Amyntas Perdikka, Philip II and Alexander the Great," JHS 91 (1971) '15 ff. Cf. E. Badian, "Greeks and Macedonians" in Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic times (Studies in the History of Art 10, Washington 1982) 42 with n.69. The details are too complex for full discussion here. On Priene, see A. J. Heisserer, Alexander the GreJIt and the Greeks (Norman. OK 1980) 145 ff. It has since been shown that the actual inscription of Alexander's edict, which uses the title, must be dated well after his death (5. M. Sherwin-White, "Ancient archives. The edict cl Alexander to Priene, a reappraisal," IHS 105 [1985]69 if.). The Chios letter (Heisserer 79 ff.) presents the puzzle of the use cl the royal title in the prescript and its omission in the text Qine 7). Heisserer's involved argument trying to explain this does not seem to succeed. (His attempt to move the date from the usual 332 to 334 has not found much support.) On his reconstruction, the Chians called Alexander king while one of his generals uses the bare name in the text. The former would itself need explanation, in view of the fact that no Greek city uses the title with the name of a Macedonian king (see above and, for further discussion, Badian, "A reply to Professor Hammond's article," ZPE 100 [1994]389 f.). The contrast is best explained in the usual way, by the hypothesis that the prescript was engraved somewhat later, when the royal title had come into use. (As we have seen, the descriptive use of the title, in 'AAE9XvOpov '0;; �a"wro<;, presents no difficulty and can readily be accepted at any time.) The third relevant document, the Eresus file, is too complicated to be treated in

Alex.

'er the Great between two thrones and Heaven

Yet in the last year of Philip

IT we find

13

a surprising development.!l It begins in Asia Minor

and just offshore. At Ephesus, after his army had expelled the Persian garrison and the

oligarchy it supported, Philip's portrait statue the famous temple of Artemis as

this

synnaos

(Ebcoov, not 1XYCXAJ.1CX, cult statue) was set up in (An. 1,19.1 1). While not deification,

of the goddess

is clearly an extravagant and perhaps unprecedented honour. At Eresus on Lesbos a cult of

Zeus Philippios was instituted after a similar "liberation" - again extravagant, but in no way

tantamount to deification, as anyone familiar with elementary Greek will recognize: it is a cult

of "Phi lip's Zeus" (i.e., of Zeus as Philip's special protector - a duty that Zeus had assumed in addition to his numerous other special duties), not of Philip as Zeus.12 We do not know whether

Philip himself worshipped such a personal Zeus.

lhis does not amount to deification. But it clearly raised Philip to a status above that of other mortal men, and one unprecedented for a Macedonian king, whose royalty had been of a

simple and accessible kind. But worse was to come. It seems that these honours gave Philip the idea of approaching even more closely to the gods. At the celebration of his daughter's

wedding at Aegae, in the autumn of those of the

12

336, he had his own statue carried in

Olympians: he was making himself the

synthronos

the procession among

of the gods (Diod.

16.92.5).

It was at this point that Philip was assassinated.

IL Hero and god In the 19th c.

it was com=only suggested that Alexander got the idea of deification from the

tradition of the Oriental kings whom he superseded. Kaerst13 thought that the individua­

lized worship of Alexander and his Hellenistic successors differed notably from the veneration of the Oriental (he was thinking especially of the Egyptian) king as "Abbild des Gottes":

Kaerst derived it from Greek ideas on the reward of individual achievement, carried to their

extreme. lhis idea - rather to Kaerst's annoyance - was appropriated and spectacularly

developed by Eduard Meyer, with whom it remains principally connected.14 Julius Beloch, on the other hand, continued to see Oriental inspiration: he regarded the deification of the king as the Orient's first reaction visited upon the victorious Greeks.1S

11

12

13

14 15

detail. But Heiss erer's version, putting "Section 1" (which calls Alexander king) first, followed by Sections 2 and 3, where he is plain Alexander, is quite implaUSible. The traditional reconstruction inserts his "Section 1" between parts of "Section 3" so that Alexander is given his plain name first and the royal title after. (For this, see Tod 191.) The dossiernow needs renewed checking. It may have been foreshadowed by Philip's calling cities after himself, except that we cannot be sure precisely when he began to do so. Philippopolis (Plovdiv) was presumably named soon after he had conquered the area (c . 340) . Philippi, on the site of Crenides, is unlikely to have been renamed at once (356): such arrogance at that early time is hard to believe and would have harmed Philip's cause in his dealings with Greek cities. (He could c1alrn to have defended Crenides against barbarian Thracians.) It seems incredible that any scholar knOwing elementary Greek could have taken this as a cult of Philip himself. Yet even A. B. Bosworth (Conqutst and empire [Cambridge 1988] 322) describes it as "cult honours for Philip" at Eresus; as sole argument he produces the suggestion (p. 281) that "the sacrifices made to Zeus were also in a sense offered to Philip" (my emphasis). He does not explain the "sense" and I find it difficult to do so. The statement contrasts with Bosworth's careful and sensible treatment of other aspects of this question. Nock, Essays 1156 f. did not know this text. Gtschichte des hellenistischen Zeitalters I (Leipzig and Berlin 1901) 383 ff. First in an essay in International Q!Uzrterly, then in an expanded version in Kleine Schriften 1307 ff. See my discussion of this in W. M Calder ill and A. Demandt (edd.), Edllllrd Mf!!Ier: Leben und Leistung
E. Badian

14

Meyer was right, of course, in stressing that nowhere in the ancient world, as Alexander found it, was the living king worshipped as a god, with the sole exception of Egypt, even though an aura of divinity normally attached to him. As for Egypt, we must add that it does not count as an example. Alexander of course visited Egypt, but as I have pointed out,16 we have no justification for suggesting that he was crowned Pharaoh according to Egyptian ritual, either before or after his visit to Ammon. Such a striking and colourful event, had it taken place, could not be missing in the whole of our tradition. The reason for its omission was no doubt political: his Macedonians would not have relished such a ceremony. But he quite probably had no real interest in it. In official art and documents, he of course appears with all the Pharaoh's titles, inter alia as son of Amun-Re and a god himself: thus, strikingly, in the Alexander chamber in the temple at Luxor.17 But if he ever knew what was depicted there (and he quite possibly never heard of it it may be due to customary practice at a much lower level), it meant nothing to him, except as a device to engage Egyptian loyalty. On the other hand, as also needs to be pointed out, Meyer's use of some passages in Aristotle to support his claim of entirely Greek origins for the deification of kings involved such flagrant misinterpretation of the texts that one must wonder whether he ever read them without a preconceived interpretation. It is hard to see how anyone reading those passages in their context could take any of them as relevant to deification.18 There is in fact little in Greek tradition to prepare us for the deification of a living man.19 We know of only one example of securely attested deification of a mortal before Alexander: the Spartan Lysander; and I have tried to show20 how little solid reason there is for ascribing it to his lifetime: essentially no more than a s ingl e word in a mi s c ellan e ou s collection of anecdotes in Plutarch. Heroic honours after death were quite conceivable: founders of cities got them as a matter of course (see, e.g., Thuc. 5.11.1), and it would be rash to deny that some men may have attained them while still alive, though we seem to have no positive evidence for thiS.21 Hagnon's successor as hero-ktistes of Amphipolis, at any rate, received that honour only after his death. Nonetheless, the great speech by "CaIlisthenes" over the proskynesis affair, which

16 17

Art.

cit. (supra n.1) 45. See, however, infra n.65 for a possible remote relevance. See Mahmud Abd el-Rasiq, Die Darstellungen und Texte des Sanktuars Alexanders des Groflen i m Tempel van Luxor (Mainz 19B4) passim. The few relevant passages are frequently misrepresented and even mistranslated. Bosworth (supra n.12) 18 279 f. gets it essentially right, but shows some lack of clarity, stating that Aristotle envisages a situation in which one man would be so superior as to appear a god among men. Against this common misinterpretation of Pol. 3.B.12B4a etc. see my treatment (op. cit. n.14, 20 with n.30). Aristotle is saying that if there is a man or a number of men of outstanding arete, he or they cannot be part of an ordinary pal is, for such a man would be like a god among men; however (Aristotle takes care to add), if there are enough of them. they can fo rm a pol is by themselves. Nothing could be farther removed from thoughts of . deification. In Rhet. 1.1361a34 ff., which Bosworth treats very well, he lists outstanding honours awarded for EUEPYEOUU: they consist of 9"oial, I1Viil1al ... 1£pa, tquov'l, ltpoElipial, talpOl, Ei,,6vE�, tpolpa\ &'11001al (some barbarian customs intervene) and highly prized gifts. The reference to Ei,,6v� (not aya)..l'am), portrait statues (not cult statues), almost suffices to show that deification is not enVisaged. Honours for the living and the dead (as for Greeks and barbarians) are intermingled, and it is probably the latter that may include heroic honours, e.g. sacrifices, perhaps also tqIDrr" although the latter may be taken in a purely secular sense, as in Homer: see LSI s.v. and et the Loeb translation. There is no good reason for taking the heroic honours as referring to living men, although we do not know whether living men could reach heroic status. (Cf. infra n21) I have discussed this (supra n.1, 31-44), dealing with the supposed examples. 19 Op. cit. n.19. Duris is nowhere cited as saying that the divine honours for Lysander were awarded in 20 his lifetime: that conclusion hinges on a single word (A"a&vlipEla) in Plutarch's collection of miscellaneous anecdotes, we do not know from what sources; the word is Plutarch's own. Thucydides 5.11.1 does not clearly say whether the honours received by Hagnon as founder of 21 Amphipolis eta 'AyvwvEla) included heroic honours or cult.

Alex?�-ier the Great between two thrones and Heaven

(as I tried to show) reflects popular religion late in the time of Alexander, does not exclu< heroic honours, even for living men: the impassable frontier lies between hero and god. Only "licensed lunatic" like the physician Menecrates ever called himself a god; and it is wor noting for ancient assessments of Philip that, in an anecdote that of course need not 1 authentic, it is precisely Philip who makes fun of his pretEinsions.22 Let us now return to Philip. We must now ask: did he claim, or at least wish, to be a god ( the level of the Olympians? Had he lived longer, would he have tried to establish a cult· himself in Macedonia and perhaps in Greece? We cannot answer this question with re assurance (though it is clear that ancient tradition never imagined this), but it must be point! out that such a conclusion does not follow from his action at Aegae; and also, that he must ha' known how difficult it would have been to impose a cult of himself in Macedonia. However, I had made himself what the Greeks called icro9EO�: a mortal in many respects equal to the god but always known to differ from them, not least by his acknowledged mortality, and to 1 subject to them.

In Homer several of the heroes, all of them subject to arbitrary divine intervention, a: given this epithet. In epic scansion, it provided a convenient hexameter ending: ia6ge� q>w�­ combination that in itself stresses the hero's humanity. The word then disappears from 01 sources23 until we pick it up in Aeschylus. I need not follow its later history. It is never commo: but is used in various senses (e.g. by Plat024), not all of them favourable, which have in commc the implication that the man thus described is in fact not a god: there is no question of h receiving cult. As A. D. Nock concisely put it, citing an earlier scholar's inform, communication, "iao9� is not 900<;-"25 m. The "godlike" King of Persia Let us now look at Aeschylus. The word ia69Eo� appears twice in his surviving works: b01 times in the Persae and both times applied to a Persian King. In its first use, we can see deliberate assimilation of Xerxes to Homer's heroes. In line 80, Aeschylus uses what one mu call the actual Homeric quotation icrogeo<; q>�, complete with the epic scansion, whic Broadhead noted in his commentary on the line. The other reference is to Darius (856), who, i a word reminiscent of Homer (though not used by him), is also called 9Eo�fIat(o)p (god-m counsellor? - cf. Homer's geo'lIlV �fIat(o)p, of Priam and one or two others), continuing the hero parallel. We should also, however, note iaol\ai�<.olV (634), obviously not Homeric (since it woul not scan), but recalling Homer's I\ai�ov< Icr� (which could not be used in tragedy) - a word f 22

23 24 25

Supra n.1, 32 n.ll. Bosworth appears to believe that Clearchus, the eccentric tyrant of Heracle imposed worship of himself as a god on his subjects (supra n.12, 280). That tale turns up only in It Byzantine 5 "da, and even the less outrageous anecdote that he used a thunderbolt for his sceph appears as late as Plutarch's Moralia - evidence for what could be believed of him rather than R historical fact. The historian of Heraclea, Memnon (FGrH ist 434 F 1.1), knows nothing of thi (Bosworth's statement that he corroborates it is false.) Except apparently for a snippet of Pindar, which we have without context: Paean. 7(a)5 S" Phaedr. 255A (applied to the beloved), 25BC (the lawgiver and writer); Rep. 2.36OC, 8.568B (I irresponsible and tyrannical power). Nock, Essays (supra n.12) It 841 et al. citing Hepding. The reference given is to Nilsson's Geschichte d griech ischen Religion, which was not accessible to me in the edition Nock seems to have used. Tt (probably) corresponding passage in the third edition (U3 141 n.1) cites Hepding without an actu; reference, among many other scholars for whom references are given. I do not know where Hepding statement is to be found. It should be added that in the Hellenistic period the word ia69£� (as in ia09., tl.fJ.ai) comes to be confused with "divine" - a process usefully studied by Nock. It is worth mentionin that a 2nd-c. A.D. papyrus equates llaa� with ia09Eo�, and that we find iaoliai�ovo� jlaa
E. Badian

16

for heroes, yet with negative (hubristic) associations (e.g. of Diomedes attacking Apollo:

5.438, 459, 884; d.,

for Patroclus, 16.705, 786), hinting at a

link between

IL

the idealized Darius

and his son. There is only a single passage where the Kings are explicitly called divine: in

lines

157 If.

Atossa, Darius' widow and Xerxes' mother, is called wife and mother to a god (the

latter with some qualifications). As has always been seen by commentators (e.g. Broadhead p. 69), this is hyperbolic flattery of the Queen and cannot stand as meant literally against the

The poet's opinion is "like a god" (Wc; 9£6<;).

numerous contrary instances we have noted. when he describes Darius as having lived

in any case made quite dear

Much thaUs reported about the King of Persia in our Greek sources stresses his more than human status. 26 Can this be how Philip got the i dea? We cannot be sure. But it is worth noting an important and stimulating essay by D. Kienast27 that argued, more than 20 years ago, that Philip took much of the organization of his court and his expanded kingdom from Persia, the only obvious model at the time. Some of the detailed suggestions may be exaggerated, but a good deal of the case seems convincing, whatever we think of the actual relations of Philip with the King. Oddly enough, Kienast never mentioned Philip's final pretension to status, but we may supply

this

ia6geo<;

here. Kienast rightly pointed out that, as an educated man in

the Greek tradition, Philip would have read at least Herodotus and Xenophon (p. 269). We may confidently add Aeschylus' Persae - obvious reading for one who was preaching a crusade to avenge Xerxes' invasion, whatever Philip's literary and cultural interests. To put it simply: this step would make him (we may say) the equal of the Persian King

whom he was attacking, in the social and the religious sphere. For one who needed to attract

support in Asia Minor, the idea had much to commend it Philip's preparations for the invasion

had been careful and rational: we need only mention the contacts with Hermias of Atarneus in

northwest Asia Minor2B and the attempt to seize a chance of establishing a connection with the Carian dynast and satrap Pixodarus, which failed only owing to Alexander's irresponsible

interference. 29 After the invasion, we must note the politically profitable establishment of democracy in co-operating Greek cities occupied by his forces - we have commented on Eresus

and Ephesus, which we may regard as delineating a more general policy - while most of European Greece was run for him by pro-Macedonian oligarchies, precisely comparable to the

pro-Persian ones he was expelling in Asia30 As we saw, both Eresus and Ephesus responded by

Asia, accustomed to being 50 years, would find it a natural status for a descendant of Herades who had freed them from that barbarian. As for the native tribes in the enhancing

his

status beyond the merely human The Greek cities of

ruled by a more than human barbarian for

interior and along the southeast coast, such status might well seem an essential prerequisite in one who aimed at defeating

the

King and ruling them. Agesilaus of Sparta, himself a

descendant of Herac1es, who would never have countenanced such honours, had shown in years of futile campaigning that being a mere mortal king was not enough. This is not meant

to assert that Philip's motives were wholly rational. After his

achievement in raising a barbarian fringe kingdom to the status of the foremost power in Greece and the Aegean in less than 25 years, he seems, in the last year of his life, to have departed from that purposeful rationality on which

26 27 28 29

30

his

achievement had been based.

An

element of

See the sources collected b y S. K . Eddy, The King is dead. Studies in Near-Eastern resistance to Hellenism, 334- 31 B.C. (Lincoin, NE 1%1) ch. 2: to be used with caution in detail. D. Kienast, Philipp II "on Makedonien und das Reich der Achaimeniden (Abh. der Marburger Gelehrten Gesellschaft 6 , 1971 [1973]). See especially Dem. 10.32 with scholia (1.152 Dils) and Didymus 8 .26 ft. (pp. 29 f. P.-S.). See Plut., Aler. 10.1-3 (the only source), with Badian, "The death of Philip IT," Phoenir 17 (1963) 244 ft. Much has been written on this since, but not to much effect. For sound evaluation see Bosworth (supra n.12) 22 n. SS. Rightly stressed by Bosworth (supra n.12) 192.

r the Great between two thrones and Heaven

AlexaJ

17

irrationality enters hi s personal life and ultimately helps t o destroy him: as the biographer

Satyrus later put it in a famous passage (quoted by Athenaeus 13.557b

ff.),

the man who had

always married for political and strategic profit in the end made the mistake of marrying for

love

(Epacr9el�)

and thus "confounded his whole

life".

It cannot be denied that, whatever good

political reasons there might have been for his calling himself 'more than human and

demonstrating the claim by conspicuous symbolic actions, it is not the act of a wholly rational

man.

In

the end we cannot really conjecture what Philip's motives may have been in the

religious sphere, any more than we can conjecture what limits he had set for his campaign in

Asia - another issue much debated in the 19th and early 20th c., with Meyer and Beloch again on opposite sides.3 1 Leaving aside what A Demandt has called "ungeschehene Geschichte" (the historian's equivalent of science fiction), we can now turn to Alexander with a better understanding of his background.

IV. The road to

Kingship

What I have been trying to disengage is that a precedent (a been set for Alexander. -

If he wanted

domesticum exemp/um)

to equal his father - and he surely wanted to surpass

he would from the start have to aim at becoming

icr6eEo�,

had

him

For th e moment, succeeding to his

father's throne in highly suspicious circumstances, he would have to establish his right to it by acting like a traditional Macedonian monarch: like his father, he would dine, drink and hunt with his hetairoi; and he led his army with speed and decision, himself fighting in the front rank. This was how he would earn the confidence of his men, on whom his success ultimately depended. But Homeric reminiscence was stressed right from the start of the invasion of Asia,

in the sacrifice to Protesilaus (Arr. 1 . 1 1.5)

-

also, of course, recalling the blood-curdling

incident that concludes Herodotus' account of the victory of Hellas over Asia (Hdt. 9.116-22), which Alexander must have known. The romanticizing tradition that we call the Alexander

Vulgate found a good deal more to add to the Homeric theme: Arrian did not usually find it in

his main sources and added it for additional colour. We find such choice items as his taking from Athena's temple the very arms surviving from the Trojan War and henceforth having them carried before him by hypaspists in his battles - a picture hard to imagine, even if we grant the postulate that the original arms survived, for the centuries since the Trojan War (whatever it was). The "sacred shield from ilium" makes an appearance in the hands of Peucestas in the battle at the town of the Malli (Arr. 6.9.3, 1O.2). Peucestas has only

his

In

Curtius (9.5.17-18)

own shield, which he uses to protect Alexander as long as he can.

In

Diodorus (17. 18.1; cf. 21.2) Alexander merely takes the best of the armour dedicated to Athena and uses it himself: there is no mention of Troy. Since this elaboration

is

confined to Arrian (and

obviously was unknown to Clitarchus), we may suspect Aristobulus of having introduced it. Perhaps he (rather than Callisthenes, as has been suspected 32 ) is responsible for such items as the sacrifice to Priam, with the plea that Priam should not take vengeance on the descendant

of Neoptolemus (who had killed him), and various Homeric reminiscences, culminating in the proskynesis of the PamphyJian Sea to its lord, as in Homer the waves bow to Poseidon. Much of this is patent fiction, though modem biographers tend to believe all or most of it.33 Plutarch, who was no fool, ignored it all, except for the very plausible honours for Alexander's ancestor Achilles

31 32 33

(AI ex. 15.8).

See (briefly) Badian (supra n.14) 18 ff, See L. Pearson, The lost h istories of A lexander the Great (New York 1960) 40 H., with critical assessment. SurpriSingly, Bosworth (supra n.12) 3 8 f. seemS t o accept it all without much warning. H e expands the reported expiatory offering to Priam into a piece of powerful fiction: "The descendants of Achilles and Priam would now fight together against the common enemy."

E. Badian

18

We need not follow Alexander's campaign in detaiP4 this enquiry, thus his dealing

(in

One or two items may be

of interest to

whatever way) with the Gordian knot -- which he was

compelled to do once its significance was explained to him35 Nowhere

in Asia Minor,

as far as

our information goes, did he either demand or receive superhuman honours; and for at least two cities i t can be proved that he did not receive any, as we shaH soon see. After defeating the royal Persian army under Darius' leadership at Issus and capturing his family, he occupied Egypt without meeting any resistance (332). By then some negotiations between him and Darius

had certainly been going on, for Darius was willing to give up a great deal (on terms ultimately favourable to himself) to get his family back. But we cannot know the details, since the various communications cited in our sources36 must be dismissed as fictitious, like nearly all speeches and letters in ancient historians.J7 As we have seen, coronation as Pharaoh can be confidently excluded, although Alexander sacrificed to Apis and no doubt other native gods. He then designated the site of the city of Alexandria, which would at least guarantee him the heroic honours (if only posthumous) of a City Founder. The ritual act of foundation had to wait for the approval of Ammon, whose oracle, respected in Greece for generations, Alexander decided to visit

in

person. The foundation of Alexandria was the first cautious step on the road to

superhuman status, a road that his father had taken before him3B The visit to Ammon, one of the crucial events

in

Alexander's life, need not be treated in

detail, for far too much has been written about it and we simply cannot tell exactly what happened: only conjectures are possible.39 That he was hailed as son of Zeus-Ammon is certain; and Callisthenes did not delay in proclaiming this to the world. The result was immediate: two Ionian cities, Miletus and Erythrae, sent messengers to Alexander (they met him

in

Memphis where he spent the winter after his return from Ammon) informing him of divine communications proclaiming him the son of Zeus. This, of course, is proof positive, at least for these two cities and presumably for all Greek cities in Asia, that nothing of the sort (let alone deification) had occurred to them before, e.g. on his first dealings with them Recognition of the new fact of Alexander's d ivine sonship, although now respectably confirmed, was not imposed on Macedonians and Greeks, for the Macedonians (in particular) still cherished Philip's memory. It was presumably voluntary, and appreciated by him: perhaps confined to the Greeks of Asia Minor and to "flatterers" at his court Even so, it did not go dowp well with

34 35 36 37

3B

39

Bosworth's is now the best-informed and most readable account. See also Badian, Cmnbridge History of Iran 1I (Cambridge 1985) ch. 8. For a plaUSible motive for his going so far out of his way from the coast see E. A. Fredricksmeyer, "Alexander.. Midas and the oracle at Gordium," CP 56 (1961) 160 ff. See Bosworth, A historical commentary on Arr.m's History of Alerander I (Oxford 1980) 227 ff. for a complete collection of sources, with discussion 228 ff. For an obvious parallel from a better historian, see the treasonable correspondence o f Pausanias quoted in Thuc. 1.128.7- 129. That these letters cannot be genuine was conclUSively proved by C. W. Fornara, "Some aspects of the career of Pausanias of Sparta," Hisroria 15 (1966) 263 ft. For Philip's foundations see supra n.11. For Alexander's first city, Alexandropolis (never heard of again), see Plut. Aler. 9.1 (with Badian, "Alexander the Great and the unity of mankind," His/aria 7 (1958) 442). He founded it in his 16th or 17th year, when put in charge of the kingdom while Philip was away fighting in Thrace. It must have been founded a t Philip's suggestion and with his approval. It is presumably to this time that Alexander's reported victory over the "lllyrians" (perhaps ThIacians?) in Philip's absence should be assigned (Curt. 8.1.25). The foundation precisely coincides with Philip's foundation of Philippopolis and was no doubt meant to build up Alexander as heir apparent to the throne. Bosworth (supra n.12) 246, suggests that Alexander may have renamed the city after his accession. This seems unlikely. Quite apart from the chronological coincidence with Philippopolis, we should be left to explain why he founded no other cities for o verfive years after this; and hewas hardly secure enough for such an act of conspicuous arrogance. Supra n.1, 44 ft. with some discussion and references, also for Miletus and Erythrae; for a further conjecture, ibid. 65 f.

Ale}{ - � der the Great between two thrones and Heaven

Macedonians, although they had to hold their peace. Many years later, Macedonian soldie still regarded Alexander's divine filiation with what appears to be sarcastic irritation. (5,

Arr. 7.8.3.) Philotas is said by Curtius

(6.9.18 et al.) to have been frank in expressing his opinion. A s tl

son of Parmenio, and himself commander of the

hetairai

cavalry, he no doubt thought he coli

SI

afford it But the result of his lack of caution was that Alexander set Philotas' mistress to on him and the elaborate conspiracy against

him,

which ultimately led to his death and

Parmenio's, began to take shape. Plutarch (Aler. 49) first suggested the connection, whi( ought to be accepted, despite the interval.4 o Alexander did not forgive open objection to h

newly-won heroic status, although we cannot be sure how he interpreted it 41 But Ammon mu in some sense have confirmed in

his

own mind a story put about, apparently well before

th

time, by Olympias, that his birth had been the result of a divine visit to her bed, apparent. by Zeus, with whom Ammon was identified. Plutarch

(Aler. 2.6 H.;

cf.

3.2) relates the StOl th

and cites Eratosthenes (surely no mere gossip) for the fact that Alexander was told about before

he

left for Asia. After

the

visit to Ammon, Alexander is reported to have written ·

Olympias that the secret revealed to him there was for her ears alone (ibid . entitled to conclude that the secret was

in

27.8): we a:

fact confirmation of the story, and that this Iru

have been one of the questions that Alexander wanted to ask Ammon; but he did not want . entrust the response to a letter.

It

would not be safe for him to be discovered denying Philip

physical paternity. He now advanced across the desert and Mesopotamia and on October

1, 331, destroye

Darius' army at Gaugamela. Darius fled to Ecbatana, while Alexander took over Babylon, 5m and (by January

330) Persepolis, collecting thousands of talents from the royal treasuries

an

appointing eminent Persians to govern the central lands of the kingdom. He now regarde himself, and obviously meant the Iranian aristocracy to regard him, as the successor to tl Achaemenids. At some point the army formally acclaimed him King (Plut.,

Aler. 34. 1 ) .

}

5usa and/ or Persepolis (the story is told about both) he ceremonially took his seat on the roy, throne of Persia. 4 2 Yet the town of Persepolis was handed over to his soldiers, who had had r major reward, for plunder (Curt.

5.6.1-10; Diod. 17.71.3). Alexander was between two work

and already had difficulty reconciling them. When taking his seat on the throne, he woul naturally have put his feet on the royal footstool (as we see

it

in the Persepol is audien<

scenes), for the King, on ceremonial occasions, was not allowed to touch the ground with h feet. Being short in stature, he could not reach it, and a royal table had to be substituted. (TI story is slightly garbled by our Greek sources, who probably did not know about the taboo.4

40 41

42

43

See Badian, "The death of Parmenio," TAPA 91 (1960) 326 ff. for the final form of the conspiracy, ar Bosworth (supra n.12) 101 ff. for further discussion and references. It seems t o b e only much later that we find him denying Philip's paternity: see Plut., Alex. 28.2, with U convincing discussion by J. R. Hamilton, "Alexander and his 'so-called' father," CQ n.s. 3 (1953) 151 J Even then, of course, he would use it when it was politically necessary, e.g. in his address to h mutinous soldiers (Arr . 7.9.2 ff.) - obviously not his actual words, but we can take it that praise , Philip was appropriate to the occasion and was presumably used. Plut., Mor. 329d, Diod. 17.66.3, Curt. 5.2. 13 (Susa); Plut., Alex. 37.7 (Persepolis). We do not know wh made Plutarch change his mind from the former (obviously in the vulgate) to the latter, but he is normal better informed in the biography. The story of the footstool can only have applied to one occasion. In the anecdote (Curt. and Diod., see preceding note) Alexander is too short for his feet to reach tl: ground and this is the reason for the production of the royal table. For the audience scenes, see, e.g., tl: reproduction in umbo Hist. Iran (supra n.34) Plate 23, between pp. 814 and 815. That the King Wi never allowed to touch the ground is popular misinterpretation. Thus the pretender Cyrus, considerir himselflawful King, is reported by Ctesias (who must have known of the taboo) as having walked aft. being wounded, and Artaxerxes himself marched at the head of his troops (PIut., Artox. 11.8, 24.10). TI taboo must have been confined to formal, especially ritual, occasions.

E. Badian

20

Alexander was announcing to the world that he was now the lawful King. cities had already begun to refer to

rum.

as such.

As we saw, the Greek

1here is a surprising reflection of his change in style in an unexpected place. Gcero, writing

to Attieus on May

26, 45,

complains that he has been asked to write a symb ouleutic letter to

Caesar and does not know how to set about it. He tNnks of Alexander

(A It. 13.28.3):

" quid? tu

non vides ipsumillum Aristoteli d iscipulum, summo ingenio, summamodestia, postea quam rex appellatus sit superbum crudelem immoderatum fuisse?" That this is based on Clitarchus,

whom both Cicero and Atticus had read,44 is clear from what Curtius writes about Alexander

not long after Darius' death, straight after the tale of the Amazon Queen, certainly from Clitarchus

(6.6.1):

in superbiam

"hie vero palam cupiditates suas solvit continentiamque et moderationem . ...

ac

lasciviam

verti t . . ..

Persicae regiae par deorum potentiae fastigium

aemulabatur." 1he Greek source commented on the io6e� status that Alexander had reached by becoming Persian King, "postea quam rex appellatus sit": the results are described in recognizably similar language, as remodelled by two

Latin

stylists. For some Greeks, the claim

to Achaemenid pseudo-legitimacy was the turning-point in Alexander's career and character.

v. From Persepolis to proskynesis We do not hear much about Pasargadae at

this

point. We know that Alexander collected

the royal treasure there (it did not amount to much), as he had all the others (Arr. 3.18.9; Curt.

5 .16.10)

and that at his request Aristobulus honoured Cyrus' tomb there. He probably went

there straight after the capture of Persepolis Gust possibly only on his thirty-day campaign before he moved on: Curt.

5.6. 12-20).

Pasargadae was the sacred capital, the place where the

"mysteries" of the King's coronation took place (Plut.,

Artox. 3.1: -riJv J3aOlAlT
-

surely from Ctesias, an author, incidentally, whom Alexander must have read). Did he

consider a "legitimate" coronation?

If

he did, the time was not right. For one thing, the duly

crowned King, Darius, was still alive at Ecbatana; the Macedonian soldiers had just been allowed to plunder Persepolis, as the enemy's capital; and in Greece the war against Agis, whieh we know the King took very seriously, was still going on. He could not afford to

antagonize Macedonians and Greeks by a gesture they could not but resent, no matter how well

it might have fitted into his personal plans.45 Ammon had been bad enough. All that he could

now do was to see to the safety of Cyrus' tomb, which, as we shaH see, may have played an

important part in the coronation. 1hat would leave the future open. Not long after he decided, in one of

his

best-known acts, to destroy the palace area at

Persepolis: an action that must have annihilated any chance he might have had of having the legitimacy of his Kingship recognized by the Persian nobility and far beyond their circle. I

have tried to point out46 that

this

puzzling step can be rationally explained only as a return to

the slogan of the "Hellenic crusade" no doubt due to his anxiety over the war in Greece. 1hat

worry was over by the time he reached Ecbatana: he had heard of Agis' defeat and death. 1he

Greek allies could now be sent home and Alexander had to think about how to make up for what had turned out to be a devastating error. 1here was just one chance: Darius alive, the King might be persuaded to pay homage to

44

For Cicero, see Leg.

rum. . This

if

he could capture

is clearly what Darius'

1.7 and (facetiously) Fam. 2.103 (to Caelius). The latter corresponds t o AIt. 5203,

where Clitarchus isnot named. Atticus is presumed to know the allusion, no doubt also from Clitarchus: as far as I know, there is no evidence of any other Alexander historians being known to Cicero.

45

5osworth (supra n. 12)

46

Most recently in Ian Worthington (ed.),

reported by Strabo

154 n399, impugns the authenticity of Aristobulus' first visit to Pasargadae, as 15.3.7. 73OC. I see no good reason for doing so, since Arrian's account (see below,

p.23) is summary and cannot be shown to be more accurate than Strabo's. Presumably Strabo had read .

Aristobulus on this, as on matters of geography. earlier statements.

Ventures into Greek history (Oxford 1994) 258-92, revising

Alexanuer the Great between two thrones and Heaven

noble companions

21

in his flight feared. They respectfully bound him in golden fetters and, before him, stabbed him and left him to die. Bessus, no doubt an Achaemenid

Alexander could reach

and perhaps no less entitled to rule than the man who called himself Darius, assumed the

name of Artaxerxes and the royal insignia.47 Alexander would have to live with the consequences of Persepo)is. He now had to make the best of it. 1he details are not clear and we cannot go into them here.

But he assembled a Persian court, complete with bodyguards, harem and eunuchs, in addition to

his Macedonian court, dressed his

hetairoi in

purple and himself adopted a modified style of

Achaemenid dress, combining i t with Macedonian in ways that may have changed over the years.48 He continued to pardon and receive Persian nobles, even if they joined him only after Darius' death, including Artabazus, who had been loyal to Darius to the end, and even

Nabarzanes, Darius'

"chiliarch"

(hazarapat�,

who had actually taken part in the murder

but now voluntarily surrendered. Bessus, who had actually committed the murder and had then assumed the royal title and style, could not be pardoned He was punished with traditional

Persian cruelty. (Berve, S.VV., gives the details.) Roughly contemporary with these events was

the elimination of Philotas, Parmenio and Clitus: this is only marginally relevant here, in

that it reassured Alexander that he could count on the unquestioning support of his army

whatever he did.49 Before long he married Roxana, daughter of a Persian baron

in

Sogdiana,

according to what may have been a mixed Persian-Macedonian rite . Whatever the technical

defects of

his

claim to royalty, there was no one to challenge

It was at this time that he tried to introduce

donians.

proskynesis

The outline of that story is clear enough: I set it out

him.

to himself for Greeks and Mace­

in my

earlier essay and I have seen no

reason to change my mind.50 What I must reconsider, however, is the implication. 1hat it was

merely a homogenization of court ceremonial (for his Oriental subjects had been performing it as a matter of course) and had no religious implications

is a view that is popular with those

who construct an entirely "rational" Alexander, and it will inevitably be revived from time to time.51 1hat it is a totally unacceptable view will be clear to anyone who can allow that the

47 48

See m y account in Camb. Hist. Iran (supra n.34)

448 ff., with the sources.

See Bosworth, "P)utarch, Callisthenes and the peace of Callias," THS 110 (1 990) 8 for an attempted reconstruction. The vulgate sources and Aristobulus (ap. AIr. 722) report him as wealmgthe diadem. In

an earlier passage Arrian, citing ro sources, says he wore the upright tiara (4.7.4). There is no reason to

disbelieve this. He may have changed his style over the years, or he reserved the wearing of the tiara for formal and ritual (Persian) occasions, as indeed the King himself may have done.

49

50

See Curtius' perceptive comment (8.430): "post Cliti caedem libertate sublata".

Badian 1981 (op.ci!. n.1) 4 8 ff. Bosworth (supra n.12, 285), i n one of his few unfortunate interpretations of sources, tries to reconcile Chares' tendentiously falsified account (aiming at robbing Callisthenes of the glory of opposition) with the main account in Arrian and Curtius by assuming two ceremonies, one

and only one of them described in each version. This stock device of making each of two conflicting sources partly right and partly wrong will not work. It is clear that Plutarch, who had seen all the

sources and knew (but does not tell) the main account, gives the version of Chares as an alternative account of the same banquet

(tv tq; ""1l1tO
He also fortunately documents Chares' attempt to

denigrate Callisthenes on another occasion: in ch. 55, "some say" that Callisthenes was executed by hanging, "others" that he was put in chains and died of illness (both of which can document Alexander's cruelty), but Chares reports that he was kept in chains for seven months "so that he should be tried before the Synedrion (of the Hellen ic League) in the presence of Aristotle, but that he died in

India of obesity and lice" - the most undignified end reported. (The other versions were probably" those

51

of Ptolemy and Aristobulus respectively: see Arr. 4.143.) Thus most recently by G . L Cawkwell in a very useful article in the collection cited supra n.46, obiter on p. 294. My discussion (loc. ci!. p. 9) disproved such a view

(I hope) for unprejudiced readers. As I there

E. Badian

22

Greeks (or most of them) took their religion seriously. (See

1981, 52 f.) On the other hand, the

view found by Arrian and Curtius in their sources, that the main point at issue (in Arrian

between "Anaxarchus" and "Callisthenes") was Alexander's deification - that view, taken

over by many scholars (including at one time myself), now seems to me clearly mistaken: it is

based, in our sources, on an anachronistic interpretation due to the time of composition, a time when Alexander was indeed seeking, or had recently sought, divinity. As far as the

proskynesis

affrur

is

concerned, that interpretation is premature.

What I missed was the maln fact that I have tried to make clear in this paper: that the

Greeks never c"Onsidered

proskynesis

before the King an act of divine worship and that they

well knew that the King was not a god but

i(J69EO�,

which was far from divine. It is likely that

authors who witnessed the actual event and later recorded it got it right, unlike the authors of

the set debate, who had not been with Alexander. Arrian

(4.9.9), in what he presents as his

own view, but what is presumably based on his main sources, makes Alexander's attempt a

consequence of his belief that he was the son of Ammon (i.e., a hero). Curtius, detailing (as we

have seen) Alexander's deterioration after he was proclaimed King, leads up to the demand for deification (as he considers

8.5.5), "iacere humi venerabundos ipsum . . . (6.6.2). Unfortunately Diodorus' account of the incident, which would be a useful control of the Clitarchan tradition, is missing.

expectabat," b y referring to

proskynesis:

his ia69EO�

see

status a s Persian King

The convenience of unifying court ceremonial was certainly a factor, and Alexander would

want to

do

it at the higher level: he could not abolish the custom for Orientals, since that

wouli:l impugn his claim to legitimacy. But in addition there was the expected ratification of

his status as i(J69EO�. His

Oriental subj ects (except for those still fighting him) had been forced

to recognize him as King, even though he was not qualified for tha t position by birth and

ancestry and was not prepared to submit to the taboos. He was also close to such recognition in

the case of those Greeks who acknowledged him as the son of Ammon. But the Macedonians, and probably most of the Greeks at his court, kept stubbornly aloof.

If he

wanted t o equal the

status reached by Philip before his death, he could now best do s o by means of

proskynesis,

approaching the issue in a way that had not been open to Philip. That all this had nothing to do with actual deification should be obvious. But the failure of the attempt to impose

proskynesis meant

the victory of those who refused to see Alexander as anything but the son of

Philip and the king of Macedon.

VI. Pasargadae

an d legitimation

as ta69E�

The failure in India and the disastrous march back through the desert had a serious effect

both on

him

and on his subjects. Both his own belief and theirs in his invincibility, in his

control of nature as well as of men, had been profoundly shaken, and he took immediate steps to

compensate. That is largely a different

logos,

which I have p ursued elsewhere.52 What we

must do here is to consider his return to the Persian homeland against this background. We have seen that

his first visit

to Pasargadae had been brief and inconspicuous. This time

he made straight for Pasargadae, even though it was well away from the direct route to Susa, where he planned to celebrate the conclusion

of

the campaign and his "victory". He had taken

particular care to honour and safeguard the tomb of Cyrus: we must note that he had never shown any interest in the tomb of Darius I, not far from Persepolis, even though that King had been his ancestor's suzerain and benefactor.53 He now fotDld Cyrus' tomb desecrated. It had been

wrote (p.47): "Rationalist historians will have to come to terms with the mystical element in

Alexander."

52 53

Most fully Badian, "Harpalus,"

IHS 81 (1961) 16-43.

On Alexander l and his relations with the Persians see most recently

my essay in S. Homblower

(ed.),

Alex"-�-ier the Great between two thrones and Heaven

broken into and robbed of most of its contents. Its appearance, both before the desecration an after, was described by Aristobulus, whom in this instance we have no reason to distrust He . reproduced, somewhat inaccurately, both by Arrian (6.29) and by Strabo (15.3.7. 730C). Th versions combine to give an interesting picture. Cyius' body lay in a gold sarcophagus, between couch with golden feet (or a golden couch) and a table with cups on it There is mention of ric carpets, Babylonian tapestries and Cyrus' clothing, jewellery and sumptuous arms. All th, could be moved was now gone. The body had been taken out of its sarcophagus and thrown on tl1 ground - an apparently pointless act of vandalism, since the sarcophagus obviously could n( be removed.

It is difficult to believe that the tomb had been thus stripped without the knowledge of tl1 magi who had the full-time task of guarding it The work could hardly be done in an hour c two, especially since the stone door made access to the tomb difficult The magi denied an knowledge, even under torture (so Arrian tells us). A favourite of Alexander's ·charged th satrap Orxines with responsibility: he had assumed office in Alexander's absence in Indi without Alexander's commission, and the charge made a good pretext for eliminating him.54 I should like to suggest that the objects in Cyrus' tomb may have bee n connected with th initiation mystery (see above, p .20) of the coronation. Plutarch (Artax. 3.1 f., from Ctesias) set this in an implausible temple of a warrior goddess identified with Athena. Excavators foun, no trace of such a temple and it cannot be reconciled with anything we know of earl Achaemenid religion (for the rite must be traditional).55 Among the buildings actually found o· the site ·(fig.1),56 the tomb of Cyrus seems the most plausible 10cationP isolated as it was in it own grove. The use of the cups and the donning of Cyrus' cloak are mentioned by Plutarcr Ctesias as parts of the ritual; but little was known in detail about that "mystery". The mag assigned to the tomb were presumably the priests in charge of the ceremony. That Pasargada, rather than Persepolis, remained the site for it makes it very likely that Cyrus, the Foundel was meant to impart his spirit to his successor. This must remain speculation. But if it is accepted, it follows that the sacred objects wer abstracted by the magi or with their connivance: they certainly had unlimited opportunitie! (Whether the satrap was involved we cannot tell.) We know, better than the Greeks did, tha torture is not a reliable means of eliciting truth. Many have confessed to crimes they did nc commit, others (documented both in antiquity and above all in our own generation) have stOOl firm and continued to refuse any information or confession. To a religious (and indeed to an: patriotic) Mede or Persian the ritual coronation of a Macedonian invader as King would be aJ act to be prevented at all personal costs. To the magi it would be supreme sacrilege. The castin; of Cyrus' body on the floor now becomes explicable: it would produce ritual contamination of th site and make it unusable for a religious ceI"(!mony. Greek historiography (Oxford 1 994 ) 107 ft. Basic discussion ap pears in the standard histories c

Macedonia.

54

For the court background to this, with the methodological questions concerned, see Badian,

55

It i s impossible t o hold that

Bagoas. A study in method,"

Herodotus did

CQ n.s. 8 (1 958) 147 ft.

"lhe eunucl

Ctesias, who had spent m an y years a t the Persian court, could believe, a

(1 .1 31 ), that Mitra Was a goddess. Herodotus identifies "her" with the mother goddes

Aphrodite, not with a warrior goddess. Ctesias was probably filling out his information with pI ab

fiction.

56

The excavation was splendidly published by D. Stronach, from whose work my illustration of the site i

57

The mysterious tower called "the Prison of Solomon" has at times been suggested, but is dedsivel:

taken. He wrote an extensive summary of the site in Camb.

refuted by the fact that Darius

I built

Naqsh-i Rustam. See Stronach, Camb.

His!. Iran (supra n.34) ch. 20.

a similar tower (the "Ka'ba of Zoroaster") near his tomb a

Hist. lran (supra n.34) 848 ft.

E. Badian

24

12

••

I. TheTomb of Cyrw; 2. Gate R. 3. Palace S .... Palace P 5. Scone water channels (Je:e Fig. 4) 6. Paviion A ,. Pavilion B B. The Bridge g. The Zen�n 10. The s..cred P�cinc:t r I. The Td-i Takht 12. The OUter" roroficaciOtLs of the TalJ..i Takht

Fig. ! . Pasargadae. Plan

of

the principal Achaemenian monuments (reproduced

from D.

Stronach,

Pasorgadoe [Oxford 1978] by perntission of the Oxford University Press).

We have seen that Alexander could not have risked a formal coronation at Pasargadae on his first visit. The care devoted to Cyrus' tomb (and not to any other building, or to the tomb of any other King)· suggests that he considered it a possibility for the future. On his return, visiting the sacred site and holding court there, he certainly haq the power to enforce it. We are within a few weeks of the Susa celebrations, involving the marriages to Iranian wives forced upon Greeks and Macedonians of high standing, and of the dismissal of the Macedonian veterans at Opis. The Greeks, by now, were merely remote subjects, whose opinion would count for little. A formal coronation at Pasargadae would have been a fitting prelude to the festivities planned for Susa - a fitting cHmax to the long campaign whose victorious conclusion was to be celebrated. Had he succeeded, he would have acquired the right to insist that Greeks and Macedonians perform proskynesis to him: he would have been recognized as [069£0<;.

VI. Forward to d ivinity By this time there were probably some cults of Alexander as a god in Asia Minor: that much of Habicht's thesis remains probable.58 One city that honoured Alexander as a god was Ephesus. It was there, in the Artemisium, that Apelles' famous portrait of him wielding the thunderbolt was set up (Pliny, NH 35.92). We cannot really know when it was put there, but 58

Supra n.l, 60 ff., with reference to Habicht and discussion.

Alexc

er the Great between two thrones and Heaven

25

certainly not before 331, as follows from our discussion, and probably much later, towards the end of his life. I once suggested that Alexander's offer to pay for rebuilding the temple of Artemis and dedicate it in his name was made when he first passed through the city, in 334.59 This cannot be so. At that time, no matter how optimistic he felt about the future, he could not have foreseen that he would be able to pay for the construction. (That only became possible by late 331.) And if we consider the Ephesians' reply, that it would not be fitting for a god to make offerings to a god, to be authentic (as we probably should, on the authority of Artemidorus), the incident must be moved down to a time when a cult to him had been set up at Ephesus and the portrait with the thunderbolt stood in the Artemisium: in fact, not long before the end of his life. In 334 there had been no question of calling him a god, even in extreme flattery. 6O When Hephaestion died, at Ecbatana, in the winter of 324-323, Alexander sent to Ammon, to ask what honours would be appropriate for his dead friend. "Some" (according to Arrian) said that he hoped for divine honours (7.14.7). However, he could be sure his "father" would approve at least a hero cult, which (as we have seen) was not all that extraordinary. In fact he at once made preparations for it. The god indeed allowed only heroic honours. 61 These honours are firmly attested at Athens (Hyp., Epitaph. 20 f.): the cult was still celebrated in the middle of the Lamian War, no doubt because of Ammon's sanction, for Ammon was much revered . 62 The same passage of Hyperides attests some divine cults (no doubt of Alexander) in Greek cities, presumably in Europe: 9uaia� !lEv av9poo1tot� y[tyvol!lEv� ... • ayaA.!l[ma IiEl lCat �C!)!lOU� Kat vaou� �oi.[� !lEvl 9Eol� a!lEAro�, �oi.� liE av9poo[1tot�l E1tt!leAii\ � auv�e1ml!lEva. Although it does not (strictly spealdng) tell us whether there had been (but was no longer) one in Athens, it makes it clear that there was not one at the time: had there been one that was abolished after Alexander's death, the orator could be expected to have had something to say about this as at least relative liberation. Hyperides also (Dem. 31) cites Demosthenes as agreeing that Alexander should be address­ ed as son of Zeus (i.e., Ammon) in what appears to be early 32363 - which shows that this had not been done up to that time. It was now a hotly debated question. Dinarchus (Dem. 94) charges

59 60

Ancient soc iety and institutions: stud ies presented to Victor Ehrenberg on his 75th b irthday (Oxford 1966) 44 ft.

"Alexander the Great and the Greeks of Asia" in

His order to the Ephesians t o pay t o Artemis the tribute they had been paying t o the King (Arr . 1 .17.10) was issued before he formulated the policy of freeing the Ionian cities from tribute (ibid. 18.2: See my discussion, op. cit. n.59). Since we are not told it was rescinded, it presumably continued. This was no doubt a way of maldng sure that the work would in fact be completed - a paint not to be taken for granted

in major projects undertaken by Greek cities. A later offer to pay for the entire work of

construction would be all the more tempting to the Ephesians if they could by then expect a large refund The Artemidorus cited by Strabo 14.1.22. 640C for the story must be

the

eminent Ephesian geographer

well known to Strabo. He ought to be trusted for an important incident in the fairly recent history of his

61

city.

This i s the implication

of the logos reported b y Arrian. Most of the sources he

saw apparently omitted

the story of the embassy to Amman, but that does not disprove it. Its truth might depend on who the

"some" who reported it were: if (as is quite likely) the contemporary Ephippus in his work On the dtaths of Hephaestion and Alerander, that would make it credible. Its truth is supported by the fact that the cult of Hephaestion established at Athens was not abolished after Alexander's death: see next note

62

and text. This wa s pointed out b y E . Bickerman, "Sur u n passage d'Hypericle,

Epitaphios, voL VIII," Athenaeum

n.s. 41 (1963) 81. No other good reason for the retention of the cult through the Lamian War can be

63

imagined At the time when the Areopagus had postponed publication of its verdict,

in its enquiry that began in

autumn 324 - hence at the earliest at the end of 324 or (more probably) early in 323. It is possible that this stage of the debate (over Alexander's divine sonship) may be connected with the letter denying Philip's paternity (see supra n.41); that letter was addressed to the Athenians and concerned Samos (Plut.,

Alex. 28.2).

E . Badian

26

that Demosthenes, after proposing a decree that no gods other than the traditional ones should

his mind and said that the People must not question Alexander's o£i �ov oil�ov a�'I'lO"�l]uiv �oov E:v OUPCXVOOl "l1oov 'AA.£savopeJl1).

be recognized, then changed "honours in heaven" (ou

Demosthenes had clearly changed his mind in the light of Demades' remark that the Athenians must not lose the earth over their concern for heaven

(Val. Max. 7.2, ext. 13). That is

the context in which the remark belongs, as the coincidence in wording helps to show. And these sources are contemporary: they cannot (as Athenian orators were given to doing) have

The fate of Samos was at stake, only way to save Athens' claim.64 But how was it to be done?

made up or distorted what was still remembered by everyone. and "honours in heaven" were

the

We may now inspect Hyperides' further report

(Dem .

32), in a n unfortunately lacunose

(£bcrov, not iiycxA.l1a) be set up to Alexander, "King and God Invincible" (O"�O"al EtKo[va 'A M �avl o p o1) ·�aO"1A.[Ew� �ou aVl1Kfl�ou 8£[ oil . .. ). It was in any case likely that the proposer of this was the man attacked in the speech: passage, that someone proposed that a portrait statue

Demosthenes is the subject of the statement just before the lacuna, which comprises about 1 0 lines o f ab out 1 5 letters. W e c a n now knit th e primary evidence together into a n explanation of what form Alexander's deification took in Athens. When Demades made it clear (no doubt from his private contacts at the court) that Alexander, although he had not demanded deification, would greatly welcome it and generously reward such an offer, Demosthenes, who had been firmly opposed to "recognizing any gods other than the traditional ones", opposed setting up a cult, but agreed that "honours heaven" would in some form have to

be

granted

for the sake

of

the

in

city. He therefore proposed

(or perhaps merely supported) a motion that seemed a reasonable compromise: the city would set up a portrait statue on which Alexander would be

described as divine, but it would avoid him, since we do not know his

actual cult We do not know whether that recognition satisfied final decision on Samos - but that There

is indeed no

is

a subject too vast to be treated here.

evidence for an order by Alexander demanding deification, even at a time

when he was apparently dressing

up

in a variety of divine costumes

with various gods. (Thus Ephippus

ap.

in

order to identify himself

Athen. 12.537d ff.) But Bickerman's insight remains

valid, against what rationalizing historians of Alexander keep reiterating: the debate in

his life - and in full measure,

Athens amply makes clear what Alexander really wanted in the last months of what Athens had up to a point to concede, while weaker cities had to grant it

as Hyperides' comment after Alexander's death reveals. Having failed to achieve universal recognition of i(J68£o� status, he now wanted to prod the Greeks into much more: into what Greek cities in Asia seem to have spontaneously' offered him. Perhaps encouraged by Ammon,65 he came to long for the genuine article, at least in the Greek world, where it was feasible if enough pressure was applied, even

if not in

the Persian, where religion utterly forbade it and where he

had to remain contenf with an insecure claim to the heritage of the Achaemenids . indeed Ammon who had led him along this path,

his

If

it was

prophecy for once stopped short of

fulfilment: Alexander was never universally recognized as a god, nor even universally as "equal" to one. Department of History, Harvard University

64 65

The phrase about "honours in heaven" ascribed to Dernosthenes presumably mirrors Demades' warning about the "concern for heaven" leading to loss of the earth. It quite probably comes from the same debate. It may be relevant that QUpciVIO<; is one of the names of Zeus. Supra n.l, 65 ft.

This, of course, Can only be advanced,

as it there was, as reasoned speculation. In thjs

respect only there may be an Egyptian connection: Ammon, in his Egyptian capacity, would be quite accustomed to "introducing" kings to the ranks of the gods.

See supra n.l:? with text.

Hellenistische

Könige.

Zwischen griechischen Vorstellungen vom Königtum und Vorstellungen ihrer einheimischen Untertanen PeterHerz Die beiden großen hellenistischen Monarchien der Seleukiden und Ptolemaier hatten ih Herrschaft über eine Bevölkerung etabliert, die

in

ihrer jeweiligen Mehrheit einer vo

Griechentum völlig abweichenden religiösen und kulturellen Tradition verpflichtet wal Wenn man nicht in Zukunft mit einer permanent unruhigen Bevölkerung leben wollte, die Iru nur durch brutale militäris<;he Gewalt beherrschen konnte, dann war es eine

non,

candicio sine q,

eine Herrschaftsform zu finden, die es diesen Bevölkerungsteilen in irgendeiner For

ermöglichte, ihren Frieden mit den fremden Herrschern zu machen. Und zwar nicht nur, W( man die Aussichtslosigkeit von offenem Widerstand einsah, sondern weil man bereit war, d Fremden auch

als

Herrscher zu akzeptieren. Doch was war dazu notwendig? Dabei spiel!

neben rein politisch motivierten Entscheidungen, wie etwa die weitgehende Akzeptanz d bestehenden Sozialstruktur und eine einigermaßen humane Behandlung der Menschen, au, andere Maßnahmen eine Bedeutung. Diese sollen uns im folgenden interessieren.

Im

moralisch-ethischen Bereich, also bei den grundsätzlichen Erwartungen, die die brei

Bevölkerung an ihren jeweiligen Herrscher herantragen konnte, waren die Vorstellungen v( Hellenen

und

Nichthellenen nicht besonders weit voneinander entfernt.' Die Garantie v(

Frieden und Sicherheit, die Herrschaft von Gerechtigkeit, keine übermäßigen Forderungen , das Vermögen oder die Arbeitskraft der Untertanen, die Freiheit, seine jeweilige Religic ungehindert auszuüben, kurzum die Sicherung eines friedlichen Lebens in all seinen Aspekte das bildete einen Grundkonsens an Erwartungen, auf den sich praktisch alle (Hellenen ur Nichthellenen) ohne besondere Bedenken einigen konnten. Dabei gehe ich davon aus, daß , sich durchwegs um Bevölkerungen handelt, denen eine masochistische . Erwartungshaltur hinsichtlich der Politik ihrer Herrscher fremd war. Dennoch gab es einige Probleme

i

Umgang mit den orientalischen Untertanen, doch lagen diese auf einem ganz anderen Felde ur sollen im folgenden genauer geprüft werden. Ethnische Vorurteile gegen die Griechen sind nur in Ägypten eindeutig nachzuweisen, w; allerdings durch die Qualität der Quellenüberlieferung nur sehr bedingt auf die übrigE orientalischen Reiche übertragen werden kann. Man kann also dort nicht sagen, daß d schwächer fließende Überlieferung aus anderen Bereichen auch eine geringere Intensität in d, Ablehnung des Griechentums impliziert. Was Eddy in seinem Werk zur einheimischE Reaktion im iranischen Bereich an Details zusammentragen konnte, spricht dafür, daß d, Schock über den plötzlichen Sturz der achaimenidischen Monarchie tiefreichend war.

I

welchem Umfang sich das Fehlen einer der ägyptischen Priesterschaft vergleichbarE priesterlichen Hierarchie im Iran auswirkte, läßt sich nur schwer entscheiden. Soweit wir erkennen können, kommt es nur dann zu eindeutig gewaltsamen Aktionen gegE die seleukidischen Könige, wenn diese Tempel mit einer starken Priesterschaft und einer großE Verankerung in der Bevölkerung direkt angreifen. Die Fälle der großen Tempel des BellZel oder der Anaitis in der Elymais, bei deren Plünderung Antiochos

ill.

und Antiochos IV. von dE

empörten Gläubigen erschlagen wurden, richtet sich in erster Linie gegen eine Person, die ei

Letzter Gesamtüberblick zu dieser Diskussion: F. W. Walbank, "Monarchies and monarchie ideas

. CAH Vll.1 (Cambridge 19842) 62-100.

P. Herz, "Die frühen Ptolemaier bis 180 v. Chr." in R Gundlach, H. Weber (Hrsg.), Legiti77Ultion UI Pharao zum neuzeitlichen Diktator (Mainz' Philosophische Fakultätsgesellschaft, Stuttgart 1992) 51-97.

Funktion des Herrschers - Vom ägyptischen

Peter Herz

28

Sakrileg gegen die Gottheit begehen wollte, nicht gegen den Griechen, Man wäre wohl einem Iraner in gleicher Weise entgegen getreten, wenn er es gewagt hätte, sich an den Reichtümern der Götter zu vergreifen. Die enorme Bedeutung der Priesterschaft in Ägypten und mit gewissen Abstufungen auch in Babylonien scheint durch

die

interne gesellschaftliche Struktur des Volkes besonders gefördert

worden zu sein. Soweit wir es nachvollziehen können, fehlte in beiden Staaten eine starke aristokratische Führungsschicht, deren

Hauptlegitimation

nicht

auf der priesterlichen

Funktion beruhte. Der iranische Adel der vorhellenistischen Periode konnte zumindest teilweise in d en entstehenden neuen Staatsverband integriert werden,

die jeweiligen

Priesterschaften ließen sich nur über die Akzeptierung der sozialen Prärogative der Priesterschaften und ihrer religiösen Überzeugung zu einer Kooperation mit den neuen Herrschern gewinnen. Die seit alter Zeit

in

Ägypten erkennbare Konkurrenz zwischen den

unterschiedlichen großen KultzentIen (Memphis, Theben, Heliopolis u.a.) und die Fähigkeit der jeweiligen Priesterschaft, von einer besonders engen Verbindung zu den neuen Herrschern zu profitieren, dürfte auch den Grad der Akzeptanz bestimmt haben.3 Die Ptah-Priester von Memphis hatten keinen besonders dringenden Grund zur Unzufriedenheit, während die Amun­ Priesterschaft in Theben schon durch die räumliche Distanz zur neuen Hauptstadt geringere Einflußmöglichkeiten besaß. Seleukos und Ptolemaios, die Begründer der beiden großen Dynastien, waren absolute Neulinge und standen dabei vor dem Problem, nicht nur ihre Berechtigung zur Herrschaft überhaupt nachzuweisen, sondern auch eine

für

alle akzeptable Herrschaftsform zu finden.

Dabei sind zunächst einige Unterschiede und Stufen konstatieren.

Im

in der Entwicklung ihres Herrschertums zu

griechischen Bereich lieferten zunächst die Herrschaft und die Persönlichkeit

Alexanders des Großen ein politisches und ideologisches Leitbild, an dem man sich in vielerlei Aspekten orientieren konnte.' Dabei stehen, um nur einige Aspekte zu nennen, eng miteinander verbunden verschiedene Argumentationslinien zur Diskussion. An erster Stelle ist die Ausrichtung an Alexander und die postume Legitimation durch eine besondere Beziehung zu seiner Person zu erwähnen. Dieses Modell ist in verschiedener Ausformung für Seleukos, Eumenes, Ptolemaios und Lysimachos hinreichend gesichert. Dabei konnte sich die besondere Beziehung zu Alexander

in

unterschiedlicher Form manifestieren. Alexander konnte sich der

angesprochenen Person unter seinen Nachfolgern oder

ihm

im

Traum offenbaren,

ihm

Ratschläge geben

ganz generell seine Gunst zeigen. Zu Lebzeiten Alexanders waren es die besondere

Nähe zum Herrscher oder Handlungen, die der Herrscher an dieser Person vollbracht hatte.s

Im postumen

Bereich konnte die Aufbewahrung von Gegenständen aus dem Besitz Alexanders

oder eine offen zur Schau gestellte Verehrung diese Beziehung betonen.6 Eine weitere Argumentationslinie führt über die Konstruktion einer verwandtschaftlichen Beziehung zur alten makedonischen Königsfamilie, was für die drei großen Königsfamilien der Antigoniden, Ptolemaier und mit gewissen zeitlichen Abstufungen auch für die Seleukiden faßbar ist.?

Der ma""donische Kiinig und die ägyptischen Priester. Studien zur Geschichte des ptotemaischen Ägypten CHistoria Einzelschrift 85, 1994)_ Vgl. daneben auch J. Quaegebeur, "The Egyptian dergy and the cult of the Ptolemaic dynasty ," Anc50c 20 (1989) 93-116. Zur Person Alexanders: P. Goukowsky, Essai sur tes origines du mythe d'Atexandre (336-270 av. '.-Ci. I. Les origines politiques (Nancy 1978); 1I. Aterand.. et Dionysos (Nancy 1981). Vgl. die Argumentation bei Lysimachos: H. S. Lund, Lysimachus. A study in earty Hellenistic kingship Zuletzt zu dieser Thematik W. Huß,

(London 1992) 6

fL 159 ff.

Dies wird u. a sichtbar bei der Aktion des Eumenes mit den Waffen Alexanders des Großen: N.

Hammond, "Arms and the King. The insignia of Alexander the Grea!," Dazu genaueres bei P. Herz,

Friihhellenismus (in Arbeit).

Phoenix 43 (1989) 217-24. Aterander und die MRJcedonen. Legitimation und Propaganda im

G. L.

Hellenistische Könige

29

Fast parallel dazu entdeckten die beiden Dynastien der Ptolemaier besonders enge Beziehung zu bestimmten Gottheiten. Stammbaum, der über

und Seleukiden eine Die Ptolemaier verfügten bald über einen

die beidenGottheiten Herakles und Dionysos auf den Göttervater Zeus

zurückführte, während die Seleukiden etwas bescheidener waren und sich lediglich mit einer besonderen Beziehung zu ApolIon begnügten, der zum wirklichen Vater des Dynastiegründers Seleukos wurde.8 Bei der Gottessohnschalt des Apollon

für Seleukos Nikator scheint es sich um

die griechische Variante zu handeln, wie sie aus dem heroischen Zeitalter bestens bekannt ist. Die orientalische Variante der Gottessohnschaft, wie sie bei Alexander und Ammon-Zeus greifbar wird, scheint hier eher unwahrscheinlich.9 Beide Argumentationslinie mündeten letztendlich in einer vor allem cha rismatisch begründeten Herrschaftslegitimation ein, wobei die persönliche Leistung der beiden Dynastie­ gründer die entscheidende Komponente lieferte, während

die persönliche Nähe zu Alexander,

eine mögliche Verwandtschaft mit seiner Familie und auch die individuelle Förderung durch bestimmte Gottheiten eher die Funktion hatten, zusätzlich die Person und ihre Leistung als Gründerväter abzusichern und respektabel zu machen. D.h. vor allem der politisch­ militärische Erfolg machte am Ende den Herrscher.10 Erst nach der eigentlichen Etablierung der Dynastie kommt die zweite und dann immer wichtiger werdende Legitimationskomponente stärker ins Spiel; man erwirbt den Anspruch auf die Herrschaft und wird zum legitimen Herrscher, weil Vater oder Großvater selbst Herrscher gewesen waren.

Obwobl

es aus der Distanz nicht gerade leicht ist,

b ier

ZU einer e ind e utig en Gewichtung zu

kommen, scheint die dynastische Legitimierung eindeutig vor der charismatischen zu liegen. Die anderen Modelle (Alexander, göttliche Gunst oder Abstammung) scheinen nur von vorübergehender Bedeutung gewesen zu sein. Konfrontieren wir diesem Befund jetzt mit den wichtigsten Herrscherkonzeptionen

im orientalischen Bereich, so stellen wir eine Reihe von

übereinstimmungen, aber auch eine in vielen Details deutlich abweichende Argumentations­ struktur fest. Zunächst zum grundsätzlichen Ergebnis dieser Prüfung, wobei ich

die wichtigsten

orientalischen Regionen (Ägypten, Mesopotamien, Iran und den syrisch-palästinensischen Raum Uudaea]) etwas genauer betrachten möchte. Auch hier können wir zunächst eine hohe Bedeutung der dynastischen Legitimation

für die

einheimischen Herrschaftsvorstellungen feststellen, allerdings mit einer lokal unterschied­ licher Intensität und auch jeweils abweichender Argumentation.

Ägypten. In der Regel ist der Pharao Sohn seines Vorgängers, was auch in den entsprechen­ den' Zeugnissen deutlich zum Ausdruck gebracht wird. Möglichkeiten, den künftigen Pharao bereits zu Lebzeiten des Vorgängers aus der Vielzahl von Söhnen herauszuheben, wurden genutzt.lI

lmn. Hier genügt es an die Behistun-Jnschrift des Dareios zu. erinnern, in der er nachdrück­ lich herausstellte, daß er ein Achämenide sei. und daher ein Recht auf die Herrschaft besitze; "Es verkündet Dareios der König. Die Herrschaft, die von unserem Geschlecht genommen wurde, die setzte ich (wieder) auf die Beine" und '1ch bin Dareios, der große König, der König

E. E. Rice,

10 11

Tirt g rand proc:ession of Ptolemy Philadelphlts (Oxtord 1983) 84 t.; A Mehl, Seleukas Nikator und sein Reich. I. Teil: Seleukas Leben und die EntwicKlung seiner Milchtp05ition (Löwen 1986) 5 tt.; K. Brodersen, Appians Abriß der Stleukidengeschichte rSyriake 45.232-70,369). Text und Kommentar (München 1989) 131 tf.; E. Grzybek, Du calendrier maredonien au calendrier ptolemai'tiue. Problimes de la chronologie Irtllenistique (Basel 1990), mit weiterem Material. Vgl. Huß, Kiinig (supra n.3) 129 ff. mit der Nektanebos-Geschichte. Vgl. etwa H.-J. Gehrke, "Der siegreiche Käüg. Überlegungen zur hellenistischen Monarchie," Archiv fitr Kulturgeschichte 64 (1982) 247-77. Vgl.

R Gundlach,

"Weltherrscher und Weltordnung. Legitimation und Funktion des ägyptischen Königs

am Beispiel Thutmosis m. und Amenophis

m.," in Legit. und funktion (supra n.2) bes.

44 ff.

Peter Herz

30

der Könige, der König der Länder, der König auf dieser großen Erde, Vistaspas Sohn, ein Achämenide".12 Später versuchten die Sassaniden trotz eines Abstandes von gut 500 Jahren eine Abkunft von den Achämeniden zu konstruieren,13 und die iranische Tradition bemühte sich

sogar nachdrücklich, den historischen Unglücksfall Alexander zu entschärfen, indem man seine Mutter

Zu

einer makedonischen Prinzessin machte, die als bereits Schwangere vom Großkönig

verstoßen worden war und anschließend Alexander gebar, der folglich ein halber Achämenide war. Dies sollte es zumindest psychologisch leichter machen, sich mit dem unangenehmen Faktum der dynastischen Katastrophe anzufreunden.H

Mesopotamien. Sowohl im Bereich des assyrischen als auch des neubabylonischen Reiches

sind die Hinweise auf die Abstammung von einem früheren Herrscher sehr zahlreich.15 Der übliche Weg zur Herrschaft führte in der Regel über die Familie, wobei keine feste Ordnung wie die Primogenitur existierte. Andere Legitimationsmodelle werden vor allem dann bemüht, wenn man von der üblichen Sukzession abweichen muß.

Syrisch-palästinesischer Raum. Wenn wir das vorexilische Judaea als Exemplum für diesen Raum nehmen, dann ist die Abstammung vom Dynastiegründer David eine feste Konstante der Herrschaftslegitimation, die sogar über die physische Existenz des Staates hinausreicht. Selbst das Neue Testament legt größten Wert auf die Stellung Jesu als Davidide.16

In

Punkt der dynastischen Legitimation scheinen also auf den ersten Blick durchaus Berüh­

rungspunkte vorhanden zu sein. Deutlichere und m.E. entscheidende Unterschiede zur griechischen Konzeption stellen wir hingegen fest, wenn wir etwas tiefer gehen. Während bei den Griechen nach einer einmal erfolgten Etablierung der Dynastie offensichtlich kein spezielles Hinterfragen der dynastischen Legitimation mehr erfolgte - der Anspruch wurde also gewissermaßen perpetuiert - wird der dynastische Herrschaftsanspruch bei den orientalischen Monarchien wesentlich stärker als Resultat besonderer göttlicher Gnade

für

den

Dynastiegründer und damit auch die gesamte Familie erklärt. Jahwe versprach dem Hause Davids in der sogenannten Nathan-Verheissung einen prak­ tisch ewigen Herrschaftsanspruch, Ahuramazda förderte

die

Familie der Achämeniden ebenso

wie die großen Götter des mesopotamischen Pantheons die jeweiligen Familien und den aus ihnen stammenden Herrscher förderten. Einen weiteren und auf den ersten Blick überraschenden Unterschied stellen wir allerdings fest, wenn wir

die

Problematik der menschlichen Natur

für

die Herrscher betrachten. Während die hellenistischen Herrscher nach griechischer Sicht der Dinge durchaus als zu Menschen gewordene Götter

(theoi epiphanes) angesehen werden

konnten, stellte sich dieses Problem für den lebenden Herrscher im orientalischen Bereich als solches nicht. Sieht man von einigen wenigen und auch als solche empfundenen Ausnahmen im mesopota­ mischen Raum ab, so sind die Herrscher stets und unbestritten Menschen, wenn auch von einer

12 13

Zitate naeh G. Ahn, Religiöse Herrscherlegitimation im achämenidischen Iran. Die Voraussetzungen und die Struktur ihrer ArK',mentation (Acta Iranica 31. UIe sh:ie: Textes et memoires 17, 1992) 128 und 186.

Für die Ausrichtung der Sassaniden am Beispiel der Achämeniden vgl. J. Wiesehöfer, Das antike Persien

14

von 550 v.Chr. bis 6S0 n.Chr. (München-Zürich 1994) 223 f.und dens. "Iranische Anspruche an Rom auf ehemals achaimenidische Territorien," AMIran N.F.19 (1986) 177-86. M. Boyee, A history of Zoroastrianism III. Zoroastrianism under Macedonian and Roman rule (Leiden

15

Hellenism, 334-31 B.C. (Lineoln, NE 1961) 74. Vgl. etwa C. J. Gadd, Ideas ofdivinemle in the ancient NearEast (München 1980) 46.

16

1991) 60 mit Anm. 40. Ähnlich aueh S. K. Eddy, 111e king is dead. Studies in Near-Eastern resistance to

Lit. zu dieser Frage: Jesus als Davidide: Luk. 3,23-38; Matt. 1,1-17; R. Albertz, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit. Von den Anfängen bis zum Ende der Königszeit (Grundrisse zum Alten Testament 8, 1992) 60S f. mit Lit. zu den Davididen.

Hellenistische Könige

ganz besonderen Art.17 Der künftige Pharao wird zwar von Re-Horus gezeugt, der dazu d menschliche Gestalt seines Vaters annimmt, er wird zwar als Kind von Göttinnen gesäugt ur aufgezogen, doch zum wirklichen Gott wird er erst nach seinem Tode, wenn er zu seine göttlichen Vater zurückkehrt und eins mit Osiris wird. Aber selbst als Pharao muß er sich de Totengericht

S t e r bliche. 18

stellen und Sein

dieselben peinlichen Fragen beantworten wie jeder ande

Totenkult unterscheidet sich nicht grundsätzlich

von

dem ein,

gewöhnlichen Sterblichen, lediglich in den Dimensionen etwa seines Grabes.

In

diesem Bereich können wir also qualitative Unterschiede feststellen.

Noch deutlicher werden die konzeptionellen Unterschiede, wenn wir die Frage nach d, Person stellen, die in der Meinung der betroffenen Menschen der eigentliche Herrscher d, jeweiligen Staates war. Der hellenistische

basileus war theoretisch der Herr des gesamtE

Territoriums, das er dank seiner Tüchtigkeit erobern bzw. kontrollieren konnte. Daß er in d, Realität natürlich vielfältige Rücksichten nehmen mußte und sich zumindest in einem Zustan des Konsenses mit seinen führenden Leuten und seinem Heer befinden mußte, muß dabei nicht E gens betont werden.

An seiner prinzipiellen Eigenverantwortlichkeit

ändert dies jedoch nichts

Die Situation in den vorhellenistischen orientalischen Monarchien sah ganz anders aus un hat demgemäß auch die Vorstellungen der entsprechenden Bevölkerungsteile nachdrücklic beeinflußt. Dies können wir an zwei sich eng berührenden Konzepten aufzeigen, die auch d: Vorstellung des jeweiligen Herrschertums prägten.

1. Der

eigentliche Herrscher des jeweiligen Staates war kein Mensch, sondern ein höchst,

Gott, der gewissermaßen einen Sterblichen als seinen irdischen Repräsentanten benannte un mit der ordnungsgemäßen Verwaltung seiner Liegenschaften betraute.

Die regiona:

Ausformung dieses Konzeptes konnte zwar gewisse Differenzierungen aufweisen, doch d: grundsätzliche Argumentationslinie ist überall praktisch identisch. Gleichzeitig ist d, irdische Sachwalter der privilegierte Vermittler zwischen Mensch und Gott, nimmt als parallel

zum Herrscheramt wichtige priesterliche

Funktionen wahr.

Die

eigentlict

Herrschaft des Gottes zeigt sich etwa im iranischen Bereich beim Auszug der Königs durch d, Mitführen eines leeren Wagens, der von 4 weißen Pferden gezogen wurde und die Präsenz d. unsichtbaren Gottes Ahuramazda, des wirklichen Herrschers, symbolisieren sollte. 19 I welchem Umfang der leere Thron Alexanders, den Eumenes aufstellen ließ, um bei de Beratungen an die Präsenz des toten Herrschers zu erinnern, an diese orientalische Konzeptio anknüpft, läßt sich in diesem Zusammenhang nicht klären.2D Dieses Modell des stellvertretenden Herrschertums läßt sich

in

allen Staaten fassen.

Agypten. Der Pharao ist gewissermaßen die menschliche Hypostase des Gottes, wie sic u.a. an seiner Herrschertitulatur feststellen läßt [Horus-Name].21 Wie zuletzt von Ahn tre

fend festgestellt wurde,22 " ... findet sich hier ... das Konzept einer situativen, fallweise Göttlichkeit des Königs, die mit der Unterscheidung der Privatperson von seiner AmtsträgeJ schaft einhergeht". 23

17

18

19 20 21 22 23

Zu den Kennzeichen einer besonderen göttlichen Stellung gehört etwa die Beigabe des Gott", Determinativs zum Eigennamen, vgl. R J. Fears, Realenlexikon für Antike und Christentum U (198: 1103-59 s.v. Gottesgnadentum (Gottkönigtum) bes.UU. H. Brunner, Altägyptische Religion. Grundzüge (Darmstadt 198�) 130 ff. Vgl. dazu die Ausführungen von P.Calmeyer, "Zur Genese altiranischer Motive II: der leere Wagen, AMlran N.F . 7 (1974) 49-77. Diod. 18.60.5-61.3; 19.153-4; Plut. Eum. 13.3-4; Nep. Eum. 7.2-3; Polyaen. 4.82. Zur Titulatur des Pharao vgl. Gundlach, WeItherrscher (supra n.ll) 33 ff. Ahn, Herrscherlegitimation (supra n.12) 32. R. Gundlach, "Der Pharao - eine Hieroglyphe Gottes.Zur 'Göttlichkeit' des ägyptischen Königs" in I Zeller (Hrsg.), "Menschwerdung Gottes - Vergöttlichung von Menschen," Novum restamentum ,

Peter Herz

32

Syrisch-palästinesischer Raum. Hier ist vor allem an die Nathanprophezeiung im Alten

Testament zu erinnnern.24 Der jüdische Herrscher wurde durch die rituelle Salbung zu einer sakralen Person mit priesterlichen Funktionen. Die sakral-priesterliche Rolle des israelischen Königs wird besonders eindrucksvoll in den sogenannten Königspsalmen deutlich, wo wir ein Königtum fassen können, das völlig in die altorientalische Vorstellungswelt und ihre Terminologie eingebettet ist. Unzweifelhaft ist die sakrale Komponente des Königtums, das sich u.a. durch die Salbung des Herrschers und die Ausübung priesterlicher Funktionen zeigt.25 Vor allem durch die Übernahme von Opfern, die eng mit dem religiösen Jahresablauf verbunden waren (Neujahrsfest, Herbstfest), wurde der König fest in den Ablauf der kosmischen Ordnung einbezogen.

Mesopotamien. Ein in der Regel vom jeweiligen Staats-Gott (Assur, Marduk) ausgewählter und beauftragter Herrscher, was ganz konsequent auch eine starke Ritualisierung bestimmter Handlungen bedeutet.26

Iran. Herrscher wird von Ahuramazda berufen und steht unter dem göttlichen Auftrag für

ihn

zu handeln. Zu seinen zentralen Aufgaben gehören der Kampf gegen die Lüge und die

Verteidigung der Wahrheit in der Welt. Man kann für

ihn

eine eigentlich menschliche

Persönlichkeit annehmen, die nur durch die Berufung in sein Amt verändert wird.2'

2.

Ein weiterer Punkt ist die Konzeption von der Welt, die hinter dieser Berufung steht, und

der Rolle, die der Herrscher in dieser Welt zu übernehmen hat. Sowohl in den Vorstellungen der Agypter

als auch

der iranischen und mesopotami schen Völker müssen wir von einer stark

dualistischen Sicht der Welt ausgehen. Am deutlichsten ist dies in der iranischen Vorstellung mit der unversöhnlichen Gegenüberstellung von Gut und Böse [av.

'am'

und 'drug' bzw. apo

'arta' und 'drauga') zu fassen. 2B Die Hauptaufgabe des von Ahuramazda beauftragten Herr­ schers ist daher eine konsequente Bekämpfung und möglichst die Auslöschung von 'drauga' in der Welt. Auch im ägyptischen Denken finden wir eine vergleichbare Konzeption einer göttlichen Weltordnung, die MaCat , deren Bewahrung und Förderung wichtigste Aufgabe des jeweiligen

24 25

26

27

28

Orbis AntiqtlllS 7 (1988) 13-35. Wichtig sind die Ausführungen von Ahn, Herrscherlegitimation 33: "vielmehr prägt der jeweilige Grad der Verbindung des Königs mit der Göttlichkeit auch die Bewertung der (politischen und kultischen) Aktivitäten des Herrschers und steht im engenZusammenhang mit der dynastischen Herleitung des Herrschaftsanspruchs". Albertz, Religionsgeschichte (supra n.16) 177 f. zu 2. Sam. 7. J. H. Eaton, Kingship and the psalms (Sheffield 19862); Albertz, Religionsgeschichte (supra n.16) 172 ff.; T. N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah. The civil and SQcral legitimation of the Israelite king (Lund 1976) 233 ff.; L.Schmidt, "König und Charisma im AltenTestament," Kerygma und Dogma 28 (1982) 73-87 bes. 82 ff. Material bei S. Sherwin-White, "Aspects of Seleucid royal ideology: the cylinder of Antiochus I from Borsippa," /HS 111 (1991) 71-86; J. A. Black, "The New Year ceremonies in ancient Babyion: 'Taking Bel by the hand' and a cultic picnic," Religion 11 (1981) 39-59; A. Kuhrt, "Usurpation, conquest and ceremonial. From Babyion to Persia" in D. Cannadine, S. Price (Hrsg.), Rituals of royalty. Power and cerernonial in traditional so cieties (Cam br i dge 1987) 20-55; P. Garelli, "L'etat et Ja legitimiteroyale sous I'empire assyrien" in M. T. Larsen (Hrsg.), Power and progaganda. A symposium on ancient empires (Kopenhagen 1979) bes. 323: " D'apres le rituel du couronnement, qui a dü rester en usage jusque sous l' empire, le veritable roi d'Assyrie etait Je dieu Assur. Le souverain effectif n'etait que son �angü, c'est­ a-dire a Ja fois son grand-pretre et son administrateur"; Gadd, Ideas (supra n.15) 33 ff. zum Königtum und 39 ff. zu den kultischen Verpflichtungen des Herrschers. Zum Thema Grollkönig vgl. die folgende literatur: H. Humbach, "Herrscher, Gott und Gottessohn in Iran und in angrenzenden Ländern" in Zeller, Menschwerdung (supra n23) 89-114; P. CaJmeyer, "Zur bedingten Göttlichkeit des Grollkönigs," AMlran N.F . 14 (1981) 55-60. Ahn, Herrschaftslegitimation (supra n.12) 109 u. 278 ff.

Hellenistische Könige

33

Pharaos ist. 29 Dabei ist die Ma'at keine statische Größe, sondern sie wird erst durch die permanente Erfüllung der Aufgaben des Pharaos geschaffen und perpetuiert. Als negatives Gegenbild der Ma'at finden wir das Chaos (Isfet), das in der ursprünglichen Vorstellung der Ägypter mit den ursprünglichen Zustand der Welt identisch war und dem man nur die permanente Verwirklichung der Ma'at begegnen konnte. Nur der Herrscher konnte wirklich das Konzept der Ma'at durchsetzen, bereits das Fehlen eines Herrschers oder seine mangelnde Amtsführung bedrohte die Weltordnung. Ein Interregnum war gleichbedeutend mit der Herrschaft des Chaos.3° Mesopotamien König

im

und

In

etwas reduzierter Form findet sich diese Vorstellung auch in

Judaea, wo das Wohlergehen des Staates konkret davon abhängt, ob der

Einklang mit seinem göttlichen Auftrag handelt.3� Wohlergehen kann dabei ebenso

den außenpolitischen Erfolg gegen Feinde umfassen wie das Einbringen von guten Ernten oder das Ausbleiben von Seuchen. Die Gewährleistung des positiven Zustandes wurde vor allem durch die Person des Herrschers und sein persönliches Verhalten bewirkt. Dem Herrscher

kam

im

Verhältnis mit den Göttern

also eine zentrale Verantwortung als persönlichem Garant zu,

daß auch in Zukunft die Herrschaft der göttlichen Heilsordnung

Land

im

gesichert wurde.

und

in der Welt

Der wichtigste Teil seines Auftrages, um diesem Ziel gerecht zu werden, bestand permanenten Erfüllen seiner Verpflichtungen gegenüber dem Gott bzw. den Gottheiten, die

im ihn

in sein Amt eingesetzt hatten. Damit wurde vor allem die korrekte Durchführung aller kultischen Aufgaben zum zentralen Kriterium, wie m an seine Amtsführung bewertete. Die Investitur durch den jeweiligen Gott erhob Mitmenschen, packte

ihm

ihn

im

allgemeinen

zwar aus der Masse seiner

also auch wesentlich mehr Pflichten auf die Schultern als den

anderen Menschen. Vor allem war er der gegebene Sprecher der

ihm

anvertrauten Menschen

gegenüber den Göttern und daher nicht nur der politische Leiter, sondern auch einer der wichtigsten Priester innerhalb der Gemeinschaft, der bei vielen Aufgaben nur schwer oder überhaupt

nicht

zu

ersetzen

war.

Damit

ist etwa

der

Pharao

oder

der klassische

mesopotamische Herrscher in ein relativ enges Geflecht von ritualisierten Aufgaben eingebunden, die sich am Ablauf des religiösen Jahres orientierten und· deren permanente Befolgung sowohl für die eigentliche Legitimation der Herrschaft als auch die Sicherung des Wohlergehens der von

ihm

repräsentierten Gemeinschaft unabdingbar waren. Dazu passen

auch die Salbung des jüdischen Königs, der dadurch eine sakrale Figur wurde, oder die ausgefeilten Investiturriten, mit denen die babylonischen, ägyptischen und iranischen Herrscher in ihr Amt eingeführt wurden.32 Betrachten wir hingegen die Erhebung eines hellenistischen Königs, so läßt sich diese auf eine Vorstellung und Akklamation durch die Heeresversammlung reduzieren, womit keine eigentlich religiöse Zeremonie verbunden war. Ein babylonischer König wurde erst in einer ausgefeilten Zeremonie durch das Ergreifen der Hände des Gottes Marduk zum wirklichen König über das Land, wobei die Wiederholung der Zeremonie beim akitu-Fest zu einer permanenten Neubelehnung mit der Herrschaft führte.33 Auch in Ägypten und

im Iran sind dies

Thronbesteigungen eindeutig religiöse Investiturakte, die von Priestern vorgenommen wurden, während alle anderen Bevölkerungsgruppen eher dekorativen Charakter hatten. Überall stand dem Herrscher eine traditionsreiche Gruppe von Priestern gegenüber, die gewissermaßen

29 30 31 32 33

Ma'at. Gerechtigk.eit und Unsterblichk.eit im Alten Ägypten (München 1990) 200 ff. Ibid. 213 ff. Vgl. mit weiterem Material Ahn, Herrschaftslegitimatfun (supra n.12) 246 ff. (König im Amt). Eine vergleichende Studie dieser Riten fehlt bisher. Einiges findet sich bei Ahn, Herrschafts-legitimation (supra n.12) und bei Gadd, ldeas (supra n.1S). Zum Zeremoniell des akihl-Festes vgl. Kuh!t, ''Usurpation'' (supra n26), bes. 30 ff . mit weiterer Literatur. Daneben auch A K Grayson, "Chronicles and the Akitu Festival" in A.Finet (Hrsg.), Actes de la XVIIe Rencontre Assyrologique (Ham-sur-Heure 1970) 160-70.

J. Assmann,

Peter Herz

34

das religiöse Wissen um die Art der Herrschaft und den richtigen Umgang mit den Göttern hütete und verbindlich interpretieren konnte. Zu dieser Gruppe gab es im griechischen Bereich keine Alternative. Besonders interessant ist dabei im iranischen Bereich, daß dem Herrscher mit seiner inves­ titur von Ahuramazda ein spezielles xVaranah verliehen wurde, das

ihm

erst die Kraft gab,

seinen göttlichen Auftrag zu erfüllen.34 Das xVaranah erscheint auf den großen Darstellungen etwa in Behistun als geflügelte Sonnenscheibe mit dem Bild eines bärtigen Mannes, die hinter tmd über dem Großkönig schwebt.3SXvaranah ist vom av. xVar � 'Sonne' abgeleitet und wird am besten als eine Form von feuriger Flüssigkeit und als lebensnotwendige Essenz beschrieben (Duchesne-Guillemin: "un fluide igne et un semence vitale"), dessen Existenz alle Glücksgüter dieser Welt hervorbringt. Der Besitz des speziellen herrscherlichen xVaranah durch den König war die zwingende Voraussetzung zugleich sakrosankt, enthob

ffu jeden Sieg tmd Erfolg des Herrschers und machte ihn ihn also dem Kreis der übrigen Menschen. Entsprach der Herrscher

allerdings nicht mehr den hohen moralischen Anforderungen, die Ahuramazda an den König und seine Amtsfühnmg stellte, dann verließ

ihn sein xVaranah, das man sich in diesem Fall ihn damit seinen Feinden aus.36

auch als aufsteigenden Falken vorstellen konnte, und lieferte Die Griechen setzten, nachdem sie

in Kontakt mit den Persern gekommen waren, an die Stelle

des herrscherlichen xVaranah die Tyche, die allerdings nur zum. Teil das breite Bedeutungsfeld des xVaranah abdecken konnte}? Dur4t Tyche wird in den Augen der Griechen vor allem die Unsicherheit unterstrichen, die

dem Besitz des herrscherlichen xVaranah eigen war. Daß aber seine Stärke schöpfen

das xVaranah auch eine Quelle der Kraft war, aus der der Herrscher

konnte, geht dabei fast ganz unter. Auch die hellenische Konzeption der launischen Göttin Tyche trifft nur partiell die Vorstellung des xVaranah, da hier zu stark die Autonomie und gewissermaßen Ziellosigkeit der Tyche betont wird, während die Ausstattung des Herrschers mit dem xVaranah ebenso wie der Entzug dieser Kraft doch eine letztendlich auf Ahuramazda selbst zurückgehende Entscheidung war. In diesem Zusammenhang scheint der Begriff der in einer von

'SEtOV'

eines weiteren Studiums wert zu sein,

L Robert publizierten Inschrift aus Sardes in einem eindeutig persischen

Kontext verwendet wird.38 Da dieser Begriff auch in der Serie der Laodike-Inschriften in der

Form

'7tp� �O SEtOV'

an Stelle des üblichen

'1tpO� toU� SEOU�'

erscheint, wäre einmal in einem

breiteren Kontext zu prüfen, ob hier ein weiterer Versuch der Griechen faßbar wird, der mit dem

34

Lit. zu diesem Thema: P. Calmeyer, "Fortuna-Tyche-Khvamah," TdI

94 (1979) 347-65; J. Duchesne­

Guillemin, "La royaute iranienne et le xVerehnah," in G. Gnoli, A V. Rossi (Hrsg.), Iranica (Istituto

Universitario Orientale - Seminario di studi asiatici, Series Minor 10, Neapel 1979)

35

375-86 u.ö.

Die ikononographische Genese des xVaranah geht wahrscheinlicl. von der Darstellung des Horusfalken

im ägyptischen Bereich aus und erreichte den Iran über die Zwischenstufen Assur und Urartu

[Ahn,

Herrschaftslegitimation (supra n.12) 208 f., daneben J. Reade, "Ideology and propaganda in Assyrian art" in Larsen, Power (supra n.26) 329-43 mit Abb. 15 (Flügelscheibe) ohne detaillierte Ansprache]. Der Hinweis von A. Kuhrt, "Nabonidus and the Babylonian priesthood" in M. Beard, J. North (Hrsg.), Pagan priests. Religion and power in the ancient world (London 1990) 117-55 bes. 141 auf das lledu Nabonids als mögliche babylonische Variante zum av. xVaranah sollte einmal genauer verfolgt werden.

36

Die Vorstellung des xVaranah, das den Herrscher verläßt, scheint auch bei Curtius Rufus

4.16.10

vorzuliegen, wo sich noch während der Schlacht von GaugamelaTeile der persischen Truppen vom

Schlachtfeld zurückziehen, weil die Fortuna den König verlassen habe. Nicht recht erkannt bei G. Wirth, Der Brand von Persepolis. Folgenmgen zur Geschichte Alexanders des Großen (Amsterdam

1993)

174 Arun.5. 3? 38

M. Boyce, A history of Zoroastrianism ll. Under the Achaemenians (Leiden

15.

1982) 255 nach Plut., Artox.

L Robert, "Une nouvelle inscription grecque de Sardes: reglement de l'autorite perse relatif a un culte de

Zeus," CRAI

(1975) 306-30

=

Opera minora seleda V, 485-509 mit Verweis (320

Sardes VII,I. Greek and Latin inscriptions Nr. 22:

"po. <0 aeiov ';'<JeJliiic;.

=

499) auf den Text

Hellenistische Könige

3

Begriff des xVaranah verbundenen Konzeption gerecht zu werden.39 Die von Welles nach Holleaux vertretene Meinung, daß

'9ElOV'

W

lediglich 'common use' sei, also nicht viel mehr al

eine stilistische Variation, sollte daher einmal unvoreingenommen überprüft werden.40 Aud bei der Verwendung der römischen Terminologie läßt sich xVaranah nur sehr unvollkommel wiedergeben, der übliche Weg,

das herrscherliehe xVaranah einfach mit dem geniu imperatoris oder der Fortuna Augusta zu identifizieren, deckt keinesfalls das breite Spektrull der Möglichkeiten ab. Man muß wohl zusätzlich das Bedeutungsspektrum des numei imperatoris, d.h. der im Kaiser wirkenden göttlichen Kraft, die dem Herrscher eigen WaI heranziehen, um in etwa der Bedeutungsvielfalt des xVaranah gerecht zu werden. Nachdem Robert überzeugend herausarbeiten konnte, daß der in der Inschrift aus Sardes al anthropomorpher Gott zu verstehende Zeus Baradates gewissermaßen als gräzisierte Forn Ahuramazdas anzusehen ist, der ja im eigentlich iranischen Bereich ohne Gestalt verstande]

'9ElOV' etwas mehr Aufmerksamkei '9ElOV' in diesem Zusammenhang könnte andeuten, daß hier da

wurde, scheint es notwendig, daß man auch der Frage des widmet. Die Verwendung von

den übrigen Göttern übergeordnete göttliche Prinzip des Ahuramazda, das über den übliche] Dämonen thront, auch die Wortwahl beeinflußte. Das

'9ElOV'

erhebt sich wie Ahuramazd;

gewissermaßen über die übrigen Gottheiten. Gleichzeitig deutet die in Sardes greifbar, werdende Anpassung an die von der einheimischen und griechischen Denkwelt vorgegebenl Form anthropomorpher GötterdarsteIlungen an, daß sich die iranische Glaubenswelt nicht vo den Einflüssen ihrer Umwelt verschloß. Die in diesem Zusammenhang genannten Namen für da Kultpersonat die eindeutig der griechischen Terminologie entnommen wurden, unterstreiche:. diese prinzipielle Offenheit. Die kultischen Traditionen im ägyptischen und babylonische] Raum waren wesentlich mehr verfestigt, so daß sich dort solche Übergänge praktisch nich nachweisen lassen. Wie Busse herausameiten konnte, ist der Besitz islamischer Zeit noch deutlich

des xVaranah in den iranischen Traditionet als Voraussetzung für das Herrscheramt zu fassen.41 Ganz in de

iranischen Tradition steht die Bezeichnung 'nur'

=

'Licht' für das alte xVaranah. Allerding:

finden sich hier einige bemerkenswerte Adaptionen an die

in islamischer Zeit herrschendeI ihI

Vorstellungen. Während der hohe Thron des achaemenidischen Großkönigs dazu diente,

vor der profanen Umwelt zu separieren, wurde er in dieser von einem dem MenscheI zugänglichen Königsideal geprägten Welt umgedeutet, der erhöhte Thron war jetzt notwendig um die um eine Audienz ansuchenden Bittsteller alle genau sehen zu können.�2

Im Zeremoniell wurde die Präsenz dieses herrscherlichen xVaranah etwa durch da: Anzünden eines ewigen Feuers beim Regierungsbeginn oder durch das Vorantragen von Feue: beim Auszug des Herrschers versinnbildlicht.43 Eben weil der Herrscher von Ahuramazda s, offenkundig mit diesem Element seiner Herrschergewalt ausgezeichnet worden war, mußte e: streng von seinen Mitmenschen abgeschirmt werden.44 Diesen erschien er nur bei bestimmtet Gelegenheiten, wobei er auf einem deutlich erhöhten Thron unter einem Baldachin saß, durd den er von der

39

ihn umgebenden Umwelt abgehoben wurde. Man vollzog vor ihm die Proskynese

C. B. Welles, Royal correspondence in the Hellenistic period. A study in Greek epigraphy (Chicago

Nr. 36. Daneben L. Robert, "Eneore une inseription greeque de I'Iran," CRAI (1%7)

281-96

=

1974

OMS V

469-84. 40

M. Holleaux, "Deeret des auxiliaires eretois de Ptolemee Philometor, trauve " Delos,"Archiv fii

41 42

H. Busse, "Der persische Staatsgedanke im Wandel der Geschichte," Saeculum 28 (1977) bes. 59 ff.

43

44

Papyrus forschung 6 (1920) 22 f.

Ibid.63.

Zur Verwendung d es Feuers im römischen Herrscherzeremoniell vgl. A . Alföldi, Die monarchisch,

Repräsentation im römischen Kaiserreiche (DaImstadt 1970) 111 ff.; M. C. Root,

The

king and

kingship in Achaemenid art. Essays on the ereation of an iconography of empire (Leiden 1979). W . Hinz , Darius und die Perser. Eine Kulturgeschichte d er Achämeniden I-li (Baden-Baden 1976).

Peter Herz

36

nicht etwa weil der Herrscher ein göttliches Wesen war - hier haben die Griechen die iranische Konzeption gründlich mißverstanden45 - sondern weil er von Ahuramazda mit seiner

Macht ausgezeichnet worden war. Man verhüllte auch den Mund, um mit seinem Atem nicht die

göttliche Aura zu beeinträchtigen, die den Großkönig umgab.40 Neben der besonderen Tracht (Kleidung, Krone) gehörte bei seinen öffentlichen Auftritten zu den Prärogativen des iranischen

Großkönigs auch die Mitführung von Fliegenwedel und SonnenschirmP Wir können also

als

gemeinsames Element all dieser Herrschervorstellungen festhalten, daß

eventuelle sakrale Züge, die wir bei den menschlichen Herrschern registrieren können,

gewissermaßen von den jeweiligen göttlichen Herrschern des Staates geborgt sind. Die

irdischen Herrscher werden an den von diesen festgelegten Regeln gemessen, wenn es um die Rechtmäßigkeit ihrer Herrschaft geht.

In

diesem Typ von Herrschaftslegitimation wird die

permanente Bestätigung der Herrschaft vor allem durch die engen Beziehungen zwischen dem 'Gott-Herrscher' und seinem 'menschlichen Stellvertreter' geliefert.

In

der alltäglichen Praxis der Herrschaftsausübung bedeutet dies, daß die religiös deter­

minierten Aufgaben des orientalischen Herrschers einen wesentlich breiteren Raum einnehmen als

bei

der

charismatischen Legitimation im griechischen Bereich.

Mittlerfunktion

für die vom Herrscher

Die priesterliche

vertretene Gemeinschaft gegenüber dem Staatsgott oder

den Göttern in allgemeinen nimmt eine zentrale Funktion ein. Man könnte sogar sagen, der Hauptsinn einer königlichen Herrschaft lag

in

der Verpflichtung des Herrschers, durch die

gewissenhafte Erfüllung aller religiösen Verpflichtungen die Existenz des Staates (und auch der kosmischen Ordnung) zu garantieren. Der Umfang,

in dem die griechischen Herrscher diese

Funktionen für ihre jeweiligen Untertanenvölker wahrnehmen konnten und auch wollten, ist sehr kontrovers. Ptolemaios

1.

zahlte etwa die Begräbniskosten für den Apis-Stier, war aber

wohl nicht in der Lage oder auch nicht bereit, im vollen Umfang die religiösen Funktionen eines Pharao zu übernehmen.48 Auch

die

rituellen Handlungen Antiochos I. bei der Einweihung des

Esagila-Tempels von Borsippa sind wohl eher die Ausnahme geblieben wie die Teilnahme

seleukidischer Herrscher an der Zeremonie des babylonischen akitu-Festes.49 Hier bestand also

für die einheimische Bevölkerung ein deutliches Defizit.

Zwar weisen Sherwin-White und Kuhrt auf Grund der von Sachs-Hunger vorgelegten

babylonischen Quellen darauf hin, daß offensichtlich die Beteiligung der seleukidischen

45

Die groBe Frage an dieser Stelle ist, ob man auf griechischer Seite nicht die intellektuelle Möglichkeit

hatte, dieses Konzept zu verstehen, oder ob man es ganz einfach nicht verstehen wollte. Ein feindlicher

Herrscher, der sich wie ein Gott verehren lieB und so offensichtlich der Hybris verfallen war, eignete

46

47

sich ja durchaus als besonderes gutes Objekt der Feindpropaganda.

Hinz, Damm (supra n.44) li, 55 ff., bes. 70.

Hinz, Dam,s (supra n.44) li,6 1 zusammen

mit Abb. 21.

Wichtig ist seine Beobachtung, daB das rot-weiBe

Gewand des GroBkönigs die Farben des Krieger- und Priesterstandes vereinte. Beachte die Arbeiten von

P. Calmeyer, "Zur Genese altiranischer Motive IV. 'Persönliche Krone' und Diadem; V. Synarchie," AMIran N.F. 9 (1976) 45-95, ders. "Zur Genese altiranischer Motive X. Die elarnisch-persische Tracht,"

AMIra n N.F. 21 (1988) 27-51. Vom Reisehut zur Kaiserkrone. B. Stand, "Der archäologischen Forschung zu den iranischen Kronen," AMIran N.F. 10 (1977) 168-90; daneben auch G. Azarpay, 48

"Crowns and some royal insignia

in early Iran," IrAnt 9 (1972) 108-15.

Dazu vor allem D. J. Thompson, "Ptolemy, Ptah and Apis in Hellenistic Memphis," StIldia Hellenistica 24 (1980) 1-42 und dies., "The high priests of Memphis under Ptolemaic rule" in Beard, North, Pagan

priests (supra n.35) 95-116. Die von E. Gnybek, Ca/endrier (supra n.8), 69 ff. ins Gespräch gebrachte

Möglichkeit, den Kult des Atoum auf der Pithomstele mit dem Kult des Ptolemaios 1. Soterin Verbindung

zu bringen, sollte von den Spezialisten genauer geprüft werden.

49

A. Kuhrt, S. Sherwin-White, "Aspects of Seleucid royal ide% Borsippa," IHS 1991,

85

ff.

gy: the cylinder of Antiochus I from

Hellenistische Könige

37

Könige an Ritualen der babylonischen Religion häufiger war als man bisher vermuten wollte.50 Allerdings muß man hierbei auch anmerken, daß die physische Präsenz der Könige in

Babylonien oft eher sporadischer Natur war. Viele seleukidische Herrscher verbrachten den

größten Teil ihrer Regierungszeit im Westen des Reiches, was Rituale, die zwingend eine

Präsenz des Herrschers voraussetzten, doch nachhaltig behindern mußte.

Ähnliches scheint für die Situation in Ägypten zu gelten. Die Frage, seit welchem Mitglied

der Dynastie regelmäßig mit einer Inthronisation als Pharao zu rechnen ist, wird noch immer heftig und sehr kontrovers diskutiert. Die zuletzt von Huß nach

L.

Koenen u.a. vertretene

Ansicht, daß beginnend mit Soter alle Ptolemaier auch Pharao waren, ist nicht so überzeugend

wie man es sich wünschen würde. 51 Der Hinweis auf die Feier der Basileia, die Koenen als Beleg

für

eine Krönung als Pharao heranzieht, kann ebensogut auch den Termin der Annahme

des Titels

basileus meinen, sich also auf die griechische Komponente des ptolemaischen

Königtums

bez iehen. 52 Die Bereitstellung von Geldern oder Sachlieferungen für die

Durchführung des Kultes oder eine ehrerbietige Haltung sind nicht zwingend Indizien für die Annahme des einheimischen Königtums. Da scheint doch die Skepsis von Peremans

angemessener, vor allem an dem Punkt, wo er den Stolz der Ptolemaier auf ihre makedonische Herkunft und das fehlende Bemühen hervorhebt, sich um die Beherrschung der ägyptischen

Sprache zu bemühen.53 Die Verwendung der ägyptischen Königstitulatur für die frühen

Ptolemaier impliziert nicht unbedingt eine Krönung, was bei den römischen Kaisern ja auch niemand vermuten würde.

Im

Konspekt der griechischen Staatsvorstellungen war die

basileia eine durchaus anerkann­

te Möglichkeit der Herrschaft, vor allem, wenn sie der theoretischen Diskussion entsprach und

die moralischen Erwartungen erfüllen konnte, die man an sie herantrug: also ein König, der in seiner Person gewissermaßen den v6"o;; ll"",uXo;; verkörperte, und damit der Garant einer von den femen und nicht genauer definierten Göttern sanktionierten Ordnung war.54

Ein ganz entscheidender Unterschied im Vergleich mit den Vorstellungen der von Alexander unterworfenen orientalischen Völkern war aber, daß diese

basileia nicht unbedingt die einzige

denkbare Art war, in der sich eine ordentliche Regierung auf Erden darstellen konnte. Aristo­

kratische oder demokratische Regierungsformen waren von den Griechen in allen möglichen Spielarten bereits hinreichend erprobt und auch als mögliche Formen des staatlichen Lebens akzeptiert worden. Diese Varianzmöglichkeiten, über die das Griechentum verfügte, existierte

aber im orientalischen Bereich nicht. Dort gab es, wenn wir einmal von dem eindeutigen

Sonderfall des nachexilischen jüdischen Staates absehen möchten, für den Jahwe der eigent­

liche König Isra'els war, keine ernsthafte Alternative zu einer monarchischen Regierungs­ form. 55 Und selbst in Juda war die Dynastie der Makkabäer peinlich darauf bedacht, daß

möglichst bald nach der Etablierung ihrer politischen Herrschaft auch das Hohepriestertum

mit der Herr schaft gekoppelt wurde. Dies wurde zwar von Teilen der Priesterschaft und der

50

S . Sherwin-White, A Kuhrt, From Samarkhand 1 0 Sardis. A new approach 1 0 Ihe Seleucid empire (London

1 993) 216. 51

52 53

54 55

Huß, K ö n i g (supra n.3) 5 1 ff. nach L . Koenen, Eine ago nislische Inschrifl

au s Ägypten

u nd

frühplolemäische Königsjesle (Mei senheim 1977) 56 ff. Weitere Alternativen bei Grzybek, Ca/endrier (supra n.8) 97 ff., der feststellt, daß der offizielle Regierungsantritt Ptolemaios I. als König mit dem Todesdatum Alexanders am 28. Daisios identisch ist. W . Peremans, "Les Lagides, les elites indigenes et l a monarchie bicephale" in T. Levy (Hrsg.), Le sysleme paliJlia/ en OrienI, en Grece el il Rome. Actes du CoIIoque de Slrasbourg 19-22 juin 1985 (Leiden 1987) 3328-43 bes. 3338. Herz, PloIemaier (supra n.2). Zum Sonderfall Israel: Albertz, Religionsgeschichle (supra n.16) 1 7 2 f f . zur israelischen Königs­

theologie und 350 H., und 608 H. zur Gegnerschaft gegen dieses Konzept.

Peter Herz

38

Bevölkerung auf das heftigste bekämpft, doch im Prinzip kehrten die Makkabäer damit zum

altorientalischen Modell der vorexilischen Königsherrschaft zurück.5 6 Ganz

im Gegenteil zur griechischen Welt, wurde die Existenz des Königtums in den meisten

Staaten geradezu als zwingende Voraussetzung für ein ordnungsgemäßes Funktionieren des Staates angesehen. Es gab für diese Menschen nur die Alternative zwischen Königtum und der Herrschaft des Chaos, nicht zwischen Königtum, Aristokratie und Demokratie. Probleme, wie sie etwa die makedonischen Herrscher in griechischen Mutterland hatten, wo viele Staaten sie prinzipiell ablehnten, eben weil sie Könige waren, existierten

im Orient nicht. Man konnte

zwar individuelle Könige oder ganze Dynastien bekämpfen, doch an der Institution des Königtums und seiner von den Göttern sanktionierten und daher notwendigen Existenz rüttelte man dort nicht. Man ersetzte lediglich eine Königsherrschaft durch eine neue, man stellte aber auf keinen Fall das gesamte System in Frage. Ein weiterer wesentlicher Unterschied zwischen den griechischen und orientalischen Konzeptionen scheint im regionalen Geltungsbereich der Königsherrschaft zu liegen. Die hellenistischen Könige akzeptierten, nachdem erst einmal die Idee von einer Wiederher­ stellung des Alexanderreiches an den politischen Realitäten gescheitert war, daß mehrere Könige parallel existieren konnten. Die bei den orientalischen Königreichen deutlich faßbare Konzeption ist wesentlich universeller angelegt. Aus der Quelle der göttlichen Legitimation gespeist (ein Gott als eigentlicher Herrscher) entwickelt sich die Vorstellung einer göttlichen Weltherrschaft des obersten Gottes bzw. seines menschlichen Stellvertreters. Die Königstitel 'König der Könige', 'Herr der Länder', 'Herrscher der vier Weltgegenden' usw. implizieren eine an sich universelle Monarchie, die gewissermaßen eine der Grundlagen für die positiven Auswirkungen d er göttlichen Ordnung auf das Leben der Menschen ist. Selbst das nachexiJische Judentum, das sich sehr nachdrücklich vom davidischen Königtum getrennt hatte, stellte dabei den Anspruch seines Gottes Jahwe auf die Herrschaft der Welt nicht in Frage. Um dies alles sehr prägnant auf einen Nenner zu bringen. Während man Diskussion, wie man sie noch in den Schriften bemühen mußte, die

in der griechischen

'm:pi. pacnAEioo;' fassen kann, sich vor

allem darum

basileia als Regierungsform überhaupt in ihrer Berechtigung oder

Notwendigkeit zu sichern, geht es bei d e r Diskussion im Bereich der orientalischen Monarchien nur darum, die Berechtigung einer bestimmten Einzelperson, höchstens aber einer bestimmten Familie für die Herrschaft nachzuweisen bzw. abzusichern. An der berechtigten Existenz einer Königsherrschaft gab es hier nicht den geringsten Zweifel Dies war gewissermaßen ein Axiom. Somit stellt sich auch die Frage, w ie man seine Königsherrschaft im Orient öffentlich legitimieren mußte, in ganz anderer Form wie bei den Griechen. Der König besaß in den unterschiedlichen orientalischen Reichen eine unverzichtbare Funktion - man könnte sogar sagen, er war die Person, von deren Präsenz und MittlersteIlung das Funktionieren der göttlichen Weltordnung abhing. Ganz

im Gegenteil dazu waren die möglichen sakralen Funktionen eines griechischen Königs basiIeus

ohne weiteres von irgendeinem anderen Individuum zu übernehmen. Der griechische

war weder ein exklusiver Vermittler in den Beziehungen zwischen Menschen und Göttern seine priesterlichen Funktionen unterschieden sich nicht grundsätzlich von denen eines Archon oder Strategen - und er war auch nicht der unverzichtbare Garant einer göttlichen Ordnung, die nur er allein durch seine Person gewährleisten konnte. Man konnte daher auch ohne besondere Bedenken auf seine Dienste und seine Funktion innerhalb der menschlichen

56

Zum historischen Umfeld vgl. J. A. Goldstein, "The Hasmonean revolt and the Hasmonean dynasty," Cambridge Hislory 0/ Jwiaism II (Cambridge 1989) 293-351 bes. 318 ff., der die Kritik anmerkt, daß die Familie nicht zur hohepriesterlichen Linie der Zadokiden zählte. Ahnlich Albertz, Religionsgeschichte (supra n.16) 604 f.

Hellenistische Könige

Gemeinschaft verzichten: der Staat der Athener funktionierte durchaus auch ohne König zufriedenstelIender Art. Für die orientalischen Untertanen eines Königs, egal welcher ethnischer Herkunft sie al sein mochten, stellte sich diese Problematik

in völlig anderer Form. Die sakerdot.

Komponente des Königtums war nicht nur ein eher zufälliges Beiwerk ohre Bedeutung, sond, sie machte im Gegenteil einen wesentlichen, man könnte sagen, den zentralen Teil seit Herrschaft aus. Bestimmte Funktionen innerhalb des staatlichen, d.h. hier vor allem c religiösen, Lebens konnten nur von einem sakerdotalen Herrscher oder mindestens einem seiner Stelle amtierenden Priester übernommen werden.57 Das babylonische Neujahrsfest er konnte unter der Regierung des letzten Königs Nabonid mehrfach nicht in der'vo rgeschrieben Form gefeiert werden, da der König nicht präsent war. Hier war der König als Pers unverzichtbar.58 Wie sich am Beispiel der langjährigen Abwesenheit des Nabonid von Babyl zeigen läßt, konnte der König zwar die administrativen Aufgaben an seinen Thronfol1 delegieren, aber nicht die religiösen Funktionen. Fest nicht statt.5 9

In seiner Abwesenheit fand folglich das aki;

Natürlich könnte man an diesem Punkt mit einiger Berechtigung einwenden, daß bei c Etablierung von griechischen Herrscherkulten auch immer d ie besonderen Leistungen e geehrten Königs gegenüber den Gö ttern hervorgehoben werden (etwa in der bekannt Formulierung npo<; äno:vfa<; �Ev

1:0� BEOU<; EUaE�E\o:),60 doch

dies ist nur

eine

der formell

Begründungen für dieser Ehrungen. Fast gleichberechtig stehen neben seinem vorbildlich Verhalten gegenüber den Göttern andere Begründungen wie seine Freigiebigkeit gegenüber d Menschen (EUEpyEcr{o:), sein konkretes Auftreten als Retter (alO1:'; p) in einer Notsituation oe ganz einfach seine besonderen Qualitäten

im Verhältnis zu seinen Mitmenschen (qnMvBplOltO

In diesem Kontext bedeutet also die hier festgestellte Erfüllung seiner Verpflichtung gegenüber den Göttern nur, der König ist ein vorbildlicher Mensch, was man mit ebensov Berechtigung von einem verdienten Mitbürger sagen konnte. 61 Konfrontieren wir jetzt das Bild des persischen Großkönigs, der bewußt von den Mensch abgeschirmt wurde und dem man sich nur in Formen der religiösen Verehrung nähern durfte, U nicht seine Aura zu beeinträchtigen, mit

den

Vo rstellungen

des

griechischen

od

makedonischen Königtums, so liegen Welten zwischen diesen Konzeptionen. Ein bei P lu tar überliefertes Zwiegespräch zwischen Demetrios Poliorketes und einer alten Frau, die a

offener Straße denKönig ansprach.. um eine Entscheidung von ihm zu fordern.. und dann zunäd abgewiesen wurde, ist dafür typisch. Erst

als sie ihm in ihrer Verärgerung die Worte 'dann hc

auf, König zu sein' (�Tt �o:aiAEuaE) an den Kopf schleuderte, wurde ihr endlich Gehör gesehen] da Demetrios sein in griechischen Augen unwürdiges Verhalten einsah. 6 2 Eine jederz. mögliche Annäherung an den Herrscher oder eine Zugänglichkeit wie bei jedem ander, w ic htigen Mitbürger (qltAo:vBplOnio: oder römisch

57

58 59

60

61

62

jami/iaritas

bzw.

civilitas)

sind

kei-

Dies ist etwa die religiöse Lösung in Ägypten, wo der Pharao schon aus physischen Gründen nicht der Lage war, im Verkehr mit den einzelnen Göttern immer präsent zu sein. Hier übernahm dann E Priester die Rolle des Pharao in dem vorgeschriebenen Ritual. Lit. zu diesem Punkt: Gadd, ldeas (supra rL15) 39 ff. zu den kultischen Verpflichtungen. P.-A. Beaulieu, Tht reign of Nabonidus King of Baby/on 556-539 B.C. (New Haven 1 $9) 1 86 f. Es genügt dazu auf das Material bei Welles, Roya/ Correspondence (supra rL39) hinzuweisen, das si unschwer vermehren läßt. Betrachtet man hellenistische Königsinschriften einmal unter diesem Aspekt, so sieht man recht gut, d sie eindeutig eine Sonderform der Ehreninschriften für bedeutende Bürger sind, da sich c entsprechenden Begrändungspartien in beiden TYFen nachweisen lassen. Im römischen Bereich ist c Eigenschaft der pietos zwar eine der Kardinaltugenden des Kaisers, doch gehört sie auchz um Spektru der von allen Menschen geforderten Tugenden. Plut., Dem. 42.3 f.

Peter Herz

40

Grundwerte orientalischer Herrscherkonzeptionen. Im Gegenteil hätte man diese Frau als lästerliches Wesen betrachtet. Die deutlich kosmologische Ausrichtung der verschiedenen orientalischen Königsherr­ schaften ist ohne rechte Parallele i m griechischen Bereich.

Vor allem die permanente

Einbindung in den religiqsen Jahresablauf, die sich mit der rituellen Erneuerung der Königsherrschaft im babylonischen akitu-Fest oder dem sed-Fest Ägyptens a m deutlichsten manifestiert, ist nur dieser Weltregion eigen. Die griechische Diskussion, die den idealen Herrscher als '7Wmos empsyclws' und daher als der Natur entsprechend zu erweisen suchte, ist in diesem Konzert eher zweitrangiger Natur. Man hat dabei eher den Eindruck, daß diese Diskussion erst durch die relativ neue Existenz der hellenistischen Könige provoziert wurde und gewissermaßen nachträglich eine ideologische Rechtfertigung liefern sollte. Die in der Diskussion herausgestellten Phänomene ist nicht nur typisch für die hier genauer angesprochenen orientalischen Herrschaftstypen, sondern lassen sich auch unschwer in anderen Kulturen nachweisen. Ich möchte nur ganz kurz, mehr als Anregung zu weiterem Studium gedacht, weniger zur Absicherung meiner 'eigenen Beobachtungen, auf vergleichbare Phänomene in der chinesischen Herrschaftslegitimation hinweisen. 63 Auch hier erhält der Kaiser seine Herrschaft als 'Mandat des Himmels', der Zugang zu seiner Person ist streng reglementiert und vollzieht sich in quasi-religiösen Formen.64 Zu den allgemeinen Aufgaben seiner Herrschafts­ ausübung wie Sicherung des Wohlergehens für das ihm anvertraute Volk tritt bei ihm eine ganze Serie von religiösen AUfgaben, die etwa seine Präsenz bei der DurclUührung von Ritualen und Opferakten notwendig machen. Dazu gehört auch die Verpflichtung zur ständigen Erforschung des göttlichen Willens (man beachte

in diesem Fall die bedeutende Rolle der ihm

babylonischen und chinesischen Astrologie), um angemessen auf Bedrohungen der

anvertrauten Gemeinschaft oder Gefahren reagieren zu kÖnnen, die durch fehlerhafte Ausübung der Aufgaben entstanden sind. Somit gehört auch die Sorge um das Funktionieren des Kalenders, um das alltägliche Leben in seiner Gemeinschaft in Einklang mit den Sternen und dem von ihnen

vorgegebenen Jahr zu organisieren, zu den zentralen Herrschaftsaufgaben.6s

Von den reinen Erwartungen, die man an einen der hellenistischen Herrscher herantragen konnte, war das Verhältnis der Herrscher gegenüber ihren von griechisch Vorstellungen geprägten Untertanen ideologisch wesentlich schwieriger als gegenüber denen, die fest in der orientalischen Tradition verwurzelt waren. Diese mußten ihn nicht unbedingt lieben, doch in ihrem Weltbild gab es lange Zeit zu

ihm keine ernsthafte Alternative. Institut Geschichte, Universität Regensburg

63

Ähnliche Typologien lassen sich in den mesoamerikanischen Herrschaften, aber a uch in der japanischen Herrschaftslegitimation für den Tenno oder auf dem indischen Subkontinent fassen. Zum Einstieg in die jeweilige Problematik erschienen mir die folgenden Werke besonders nützlich. H. J. Wechsler, Offrrings

of jade and silk. Ritllal and symbol in the legitimation of tht T'ang dynasty (New Haven 1985); D. Bodde, Festivals in classi",1 China. Ntw Year and other ann llal obs.,.""nces dll ring lhe Han dynasty 206 B.C.­ A.D. 220 (princeton 1975); R. S. Ellwood, 1111: ftast of kingship. Accession ceremonies in ancient Jap'n (Tokio

1973);

A. Seidel, "The image of the perfeet mler in early Taoist messianism: Lao-tzu und Li

64

9 (1969/70) 21 6-47; L. Schele, M E. Miller, T1re blood of kings. Dynasty and rit"al in MoY" art (New York 1986). Wechsler, Offerings (supra n.63) 55 If. (Omina für Dynastie), 78 ff. (Antrittszeremonien). 107 ff.

65

Neben Wechsler, Offerings (supra

Hung," Histo/Y of Religions

(Opferzeremonien). shuo

[1.

n.63) 212 ff. zur

Rolle des Kalenders b e s .

223:

"By deterinining the

Monat des Jahres), then, the Chinese sovereign, whose sole prerogative it was, both revived and

renovated time." Vgl. Gadd (supra mesopotamischen Bereich.

n.15) 52 If.

zur Bedeutung von Opferschau und Astrologie im

Ruler-cul t at Aphrodisias in the late Republic and under the Julio -Claudian emperors Joyce M. Reynolds A collection of inscriptions from a single site, even one as epigraphically rich as A phrodi­ sias, can hardly be trusted to give a representative picture of the texts displayed in antiquity within its own boundaries, much less one that adequately shows circumstances over the Graeco­ Roman world as a whole. At Aphrodisias, for instanoe, only part of the city has been excava­ ted, and in that part almost nothing has been recovered of what was written on or with ephe­ meral materials (so, for instance, almost nothing on bronze or on plaster, nothing written with i nk), and, of the inscribed stones that once stood in it, many have certainly been destroyed (in antiquity as well as later). What I h ave to offer, therefore, is a very incomplete account. It re­ lies too heavily on disjointed gobbets of information, derived from inscriptions which are often broken and uncertainly datable, whose meanings are obscured by brevity or damage. The gaps and the lost nuances are incalculable; any conclusions suggested are provisional only. Further­ more much of the material has been published and discussed; what is new is very limited.1 1.

Under the Republic For this period the whole of the limited body of evidence available at present is already

published. That it is small may be attributed in part, I think, to the fact that, in the 1st c. B.C., the city suf fered at least once from enemy invasion,an d possibly more often. Thus i n40 B.C. the army of T. Labienus looted

the sanctuary of Aphrodite and probably ranged much more widely,

damaging the monuments in its way; there may also have been earlier invasions, e.g. by

88 B.c., and by those of Brutus in the months before Philippi, when it oertainly favoured the Caesarian party.2

soldiers of Mithridates, when the city chose to support Rome in and Cassius

But in any case there may never have bee n many inscriptions there in the Republican period, since city life seems to have been a late development on the site. It is probable that the city was created sometime in the

2nd

c. B.C., with the encouragement of Rome, by the political (but

not physical) synoecism of two groups, the Plarasans and the Aphrodisians; its civic centre, beside the Sanctuary of Aphrodite (itself an apparently simple af fair at this date), was, as far as we know, quite unpretentious before the reign of Augustus.3 I should like to believe that it

M Errington, that this creation - and its first attested in c.165 B.C., in the immediate aftermath of Rome's liberation of Caria from Rhodes, although his argument seems to fall short of proof at present;4 but in any

is right, as reoently proposed by R. political action - occurred

case it cannot have been so very much later. The earliest attested political action is known from an inscription which records oaths s worn by the new city and its neighbours of Cibyra and Tabae when they ratified a treaty made between the three of thems (also perhaps with the encouragement of Rome, as Errington suggests).

The deities invoked were not only Zeus Philios

J. M. Reynolds, "The origins and beginnings of imperial cult at Aphrodisi­ PCPS 206 (1980) 70-84; "New evidence for imperial cult in Julio-Claudian Aphrodisias," ZPE. 43 (1981) 317-27; "Further information on imperial cult at Aphrodisias," SIC/as 24 (1986) 109-17. J. M_ Reynolds, Apluodisias and Rom. (1982) documents 7 (Labienus, Brutus and Cassius), 11, 1 2 For previous discussions see as,"

(Labienus), 28-30 ( probably Labienus), 2 (Mithridates) . .3 4

The earliest datable building inscription is probably of 28 B.C., Reynolds (supra n.2) document excavation has not y et revealed any large buildings that are earlier. R. M. E rrington,

(1987) 97-118.

"ElEa 'P';'��

UM r6mischer Einfluss siidlich des Maanders im 2

Reynolds (supra n.2) document 1.

36;

Jh. v.Chr.," Chiron 17

42

Joyce M. Reynolds

and Homonoia (who, however unusual in such a context,6 are obviously appropriate) but also Thea Rhome; her presence indicates that, at whatever precise date the treaty was made, the three cities felt a strong dependence on Rome's authority, which they expressed in terms of divinity. Whether the contracting parties must all be supposed to have established civic cults of that divinity seems to me not quite certain; Cibyra is known to have had one in the 2nd c.

B.C.; there is no evidence for Tabae; at Aphrodisias a priest of Rhome is first attested in an

insl;ription of the triumviral period, when cult could be a comparatively recent introduction, following favours conferred on the city by Rome in the 1st c. B.C.7

In the meantime, and certainly by the time of the First Mithridatic War, Aphrodisian Aphrodite had come to be seen, by some at least, as identical with Venus Genetrix, mother of Aeneas, and so of Rome; the similar exploitation of a connection with Aeneas at llium provides an obvious parallel.s Wherever this idea originated (it is not mentioned in the surviving

documents of the city for the Mithridatic period, although Aphrodisias appears in these as ostentatiously loyal to Rome), Appian shows that it was used by Sulla; and it was subsequently taken up by Julius Caesar, who dedicated a golden Eros at Aphrodisias and presumably meant to recall his own family's legendary descent from the goddess.9 Loyalty to Rome, and, in due

course, attachment to the Caesarian party, were fostered by it; and any cult act offered to Aphrodite could be seen as being, in some sense, a demonstration of those loyalties. In the event, Octavian became the city's patron, and in 39 8.C., with Antony, organised SPQR into granting

her -the status of a free and autonomous city, immune from taxation, and in a treaty relation with Rome.lO

In the evidence as we have it at present, the Caesarian/Triumviral period, and especially

the grant of privileges in 39 B.C., provides the context for the first inscriptiOIIS relevant to

Ruler-cult since the treaty-oaths of the 2nd c. B.C.; and there is quite a group of them. lhis is the time of that one certain reference to a cult of Rhome referred to above; also of two texts

featuring Nike, one certainly and the other probably set up by the man who had been priest of

Rhome (although not, to our knowledge, when he was acting in !hat capacity).ll He had

been a

notable figure in the resistance to the invasion of Labienus and later gaye to the city what he

described as "the Nike which had accompanied him in all wars", presumably a talismanic figure of which, unfortunately, we have no trace. That was a personal thing, but since the wars concerned were certainly Rome's wars, or wars of Caesar and his heirs, his personal Nike was

closely linked wi!h that of Rome. In what was probably ano!her of his dedications a Nike

(with, apparently, a lion) was represented as saying

NiK11 ltllp£tl'(lj 9£O'YEv£t Kaicrapl ad.

When I first published this text I suggested that the Caesar here was likely to be Julius

Caesar, descendant of Aphrodite (the lion perhaps referring to Caesar's birth-star, which was Leo, or to Aphrodite, since lions were a feature of her entourage at Aphrodisias, where she was

related to Cybele); since the present tense of the verb should imply !hat the Caesar concerned was alive, that identification would indicate a date before the Ides of March 44 B.C. I feel less sure about this now and incline to think !hat Caesar is quite probably Octavian, divi filius. At !he time, of course, !he reference is likely to have been entirely clear from a neighbouring

monument, presumably carrying a statue either of Julius Caesar or of Octavian. But whichever

10 11

Price, Ri tuals 127. For Thetl Rhome in this kind of context in the 2nd c. B.C. see IOSPE2 LOO2 and C. Habicht, "Samische Volksbeschllisse der hellenistischen Zeit, section muAthMitt 72 (1957) 241 f., inscription no. 65; for her cult at Cibyra OGIS 762; at Aphrodisias, Reynolds (supra n.2) document 30. Appian, BC 1.11.97; for ilium, see Syll.3 59!. That seems to follow from his dedication; Reynolds (supra n.2) document 12. Reynolds (supra n.2) documents 6, 10, 11, 12,13 for Octavian as patron; documents 7,8,9 for grants of privileges. Reynolds (supra n.2) documents 31,32.

Ruler-cult at Aphrodisias

Caesar it was, it is obvious that the Nike was a Roman's Victory, and that the dedicator w,

well on the way to the concept of Ni/ce Sebaste or Nike Sebaston which was to be of SOIr significance in Aphrodisian thought under the Principate. We do not know where fu monument stood; but when a descendant of the original dedicator restored it (probably aftl

earthquake damage and perhaps under Trajan) he offered it aeOt� L£j3CXO"tOt� lCat

tipliiJJ.lCjl. 1

these three texts must be added those which show that Rome's grant of freedom to the cif

stimulated a cult of Eleutheria and perhaps one of ATete, the excellence which had earned tr

gran t.12 Both could have received cult for their significance in Greek terms, but, as one wa here, the gift of Rome and the other, perhaps, the justification of the gift, they must be relate

to Ruler-cult. It may be important that the only known priest of Eleutheria is C. Julius Zoilu freedman and agent of Octavian/ Augustus, who played some part in influencing the decision I grant this privilege to the city. 2. Under the

Julio-Claudian dynasty

While much of the evidence for this period is published, there are some new documents I

add. For the opening decades of the principate, however, information is scarce, since there aJ surprisingly few inscriptions of any category from the site which can be confidently dated i

the reign of Augustus. Given the importance of Augustus as civic patron this can hardly reflel reality; but it means that only speculative points about this reign can be proposed.

There is no unequivocal proof as yet that Augustus received cult at Aphrodisias before h: death, although it may be hard to suppose that he did not. It is possible that he was the mai recipient of a statue of Hygeia offered by a priest of that deity KCX{OCXpl Lej3cxO"tiih lCCXt ori

liiJl!Wl but even if the identity of Caesar Augustus here were absolutely certain, he is n< described as ae6�.13 It is also possible that his adopted son, Gaius Caesar, is linked wit

Homonoia in a manner which could imply cultl4 (and if Gaius Caesar received cult, then surel

so did Augustus), but the inscription is incomplete and uncertainly dated - the reference coul be to Gaius Caligula.

9

It may perhaps be assumed that Aphrodisias accepted the decision of the Koinon of Asia i Kcx{ocxp� was presumably th

H.C. to begin the year with Augustus' birthday;15 the month

first month of the year under this dispensation as in the Koinon's decree. It is possible th, reign in honour of Augustus.16

another new month-name, ·IO\)t..(l1�, was introduced in this

Another relevant feature that might belong here is the introduction of the name 'PWl1cx'{� fc

one of the city's tribesP Coins suggest that there was a civic reorganisation under Augustu which could have been the occasion of such an introduction,18 for what had earlier been th city of the Plarasans and Aphrodisians became the city of the Aphrodisians only.

If the Hygeia dedication already mentioned is gentrinely Augustan, and if, as seems probat le, Hygeia is to be understood as Roman Salus, rather than as the daughter of Asclepios, w could posit the beginning of the establishment of Aphrodisian cults for personifications of number of Roman abstractions associated with Emperors. Homonoia

12

13 14 IS

16 17 18

=

Concordia, also mention-

Reynolds (supra 11.2) documents 33, 39 (Zoilos, priest of Eleulheril); G. Iacopi, "GJi scavi della MissioI1 Archeologica ltaliana ad Afrodisiade nelI937," MonAnl38 (1939) inscription no. 26 (ATele; bu t it rna be Augustan in date); for Zoilos and the grant of freedom, see Reynolds (supra n2) document 10. Reynolds, PCPS (supra 11.1) 76-77, inscription no. 4. Unpublished recent find. OGIS 458; for the month-name Kaioapoc; at Aphrodisias, erG 2842. erG 2827, 2836. Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua VIII, no. 4130. D. J. MacDonald, The coinage of AphTOdisias (London 1992) 59-71 (pre-Augustan ), 72 (possibl Augustan), 73-77 (Augustan).

Joyce M. Reynolds

44

ed above, and Amerimnia Securitas,19 first attested probably in the reign of Claudius, are two more of these; and Nike Victoria may fit into the same pattem.20 =

=

With the accession of Tiberius, evidence becomes more plentiful, and, although never fully satisfying, continueS well into the 3rd c. A.D. For the Julio-Claudian period it may be presented under three headings: the later history of the relevant civic cults established under the Republic, the city's cults of emperors and members of the imperial family, and private cults. 1. The cult of Rhome (Thea Rhome) is not at present attested under the principate. There are sculptural representations of Roma, e.g. in the Sebas teion (see below, p.47), but these in themselves do not imply cult. The cult of Arete does continue, but the evidence for the cult of Eleutheria is not clear. A cult of Nike appears but is not so clearly connected with Rome;2i the specific victories of Augustus, however, and the subsequent victories of his successors, are striking features of the decoration of the Sebasteion 22 and can well be taken to be a major justification for imperial cult in the eyes of those who commissioned it. At the same time the significance of Aphrodite is freshly stressed. At some stage in the first decade of Tiberius' reign it came to be felt that a new precinct was needed for the goddess in her capacity as ancestress of the gens Julia.23 Two prominent families undertook construction of a complex now generally known as the Sebasteion - a propylon giving access from a main street to a processional way which was flanked by porticoes and led to a temple on a high podium. Fallen from a programmatic position on top of the propylon and facing the street, the base for a statue of Aphrodite, 1tpo�,;tOlp tWv EEI3(lo"'tWv, has been found along with others for Aeneas and for a number of young Julio-Claudians (see also below); and on the main building-inscriptions of the propylon and the two porticoes, of which substantial parts survive, including the opening words, Aphrodite comes first in each dedication, preceding imperial names and the demos (fig. 1). It is unfortunate that the building-inscription from the temple is very fragmentary and that its opening words are lost, but it is plausible to propose that here too Aphrodite came first. It seems very clear that the complex was built for Aphrodite as Venus Genetrix, with the imperial house under her wing, as it were; but it should be noted incidentally that, if it is right, as commonly now supposed, that this complex is (or includes) what was meant by b EEI3(lO"tEt� v(l6� (a formula used as a topographical indicator in a funerary inscription probably of the 3rd c. A.D.),24 popular usage came to ignore Aphrodite and to concentrate on the imperial house. It was not only in the Sebasteion, however, that Aphrodite's identity with Venus Genetrix was stressed. She figures also in the dedicatory inscription of a bath building. which is possibly Neronian in origin although perhaps erected under a Flavian emperorp if a Flavian date of erection necessarily implies a Flavian emperor in the dedication (probably then Domitian), there has been an interesting shift in the meaning of her title - for the ancestress of the gens Julia, 1tpo�,;tOlp tou YEvoU� tiilv �El3ao"tiilv as she appears in this text, has become essentially the ancestress of all Augusti and can easily pass from one legitimate dynasty to another. It must be noted, however, that when Trajan himself dedicated a statue of 19

20

21 22 23

24 25

erG 2m, see also J. and L. Robert, Bull.Ep. 1967, no. 552. erG 2810; but the priest of Thea Nike here was a performer on the flute whose goddess

may have been

primarily one who gave victories in agonistic contests. Nike Sebastim figures on sculpture in the Sebasteion and Nike Sebaste in an inscription of unknown implication in the Portico of Tiberius; we have no evidence of cui !for her.

erG 2786 (Arete); for Nike see n.20.

R. R. R. Smith, "The imperial reliefs from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias," IRS 77 (1987) 88-138; "Simulacra gentium: the ethne from theSebasteion at Aphrodisias," IRS 78 (1988) 50-77. See n.22 and, for inscriptions, Reynolds (supra n.1).

CIG 2839. Publication is forthcoming in a memorial volume for Professor G. Mihailov; meanwhile see L Robert, "inscriptions d' Aphrodisias," AntCl 36 (1966) 416-17 for a quotation from it.

Ruler-cult at Aphrodisias

45

Fig. 1. Propylon of the Sebasteion. first block of dedicatory inscription. showing thatAphrodite preceded the emperor (photo Ali Mehmet Dugen9i).

her at Aphrodisias, it was more cautiously, as ItPOJ.L>1tOJP alone - ancestress par excellence­ that she was described.26 2. After his death Augustus commonly (but not invariably) appears as eE6� and might be identi­ fied with Zeus Patroos, an identification which was apparently recommended by a decree of the koinon of Asia, usually attributed to A.D. 15.27 It seems to me probable that he was Zeus Patroos on the building inscription of the Temple of the Sebasteion, since Livia appears there as Nea Demeter, and it seems unlikely that she would be assimilated to an Olympian if he was not;28 that would also provide an explanation for the distinctly unusual formula on the rather later inscription of the propylon of the Sebasteion, where the imperial reference is eEOt� ·OA.U�ltiOl�.29

The status of Tiberius is not 26 27 28 29

50

explicit; his name (but without the addition of eE6�) stands

Reynolds (supra n2) document 55. Reynolds, SICI.s (supra n.1) llO; the dating of the koinon decree in A.D. 15 is due to W. H. Buckler,

"Auguste, Zeus Patroos," RPhiI61 (1935) 177-88; but see Price, RiltUlIs 76 for doubts. Reynolds, SICI.s (supra n.l) 114-15. Reynolds, SICI.s (supra n.1) 114.

46

J oyce M. Reynolds

Fig. 2. Base from the Sebasteion. with part of its statue of Drusus son of Tiberius (photo by Ali Mehmet Dugen,i).

Ruler-cult at Aphrodisias

between those of Augustus as Zeus Patroos and of Livia as Julia Augusta in the dedication of a

stoa early in his reign,Ja and probably between those of Augustus (perhaps as Zeus Patroos) and of Livia as Julia Augusta Nea Demeter on the temple of the Sebasteion; in the latter at least it seems natural to suppose that he was thought of as a divinity, whether or not he was called

SE&;. Presumably Gaius was also honoured in the complex

his reign, since Claudius and Stole;) appeared in the dedicatory inscription of the South Portico, and his victory in Britain, followed by the during

Nero were subsequently brought into the group; Claudius' name (but without

victories of Nero's reign in Armenia, were commemorated on reliefs on"its fac;ade. For the attitudes which underlay these Aphrodisian cults, the sculpture of the Sebasteion provides helpful insights. The importance and significance of the representations of the victories of Augustus and his successors Were noted above. There are also a number of reliefs which show emperors and princes in heroic nudity, with Rome's" triumphant advance over the whole earth and the Victory of the Augusti, as well as mythological scenes, indicating a cosmic context; the whole universe was indicated as the back-cloth for the imperial achievements.

In addition there are bases for an imperial family group perhaps set up in the first decade of the reign of Tiberius (we have them for Gaius and Lucius Caesar, Germanicus and his wife Agrippina, Drusus son of Tiberius (fig.

2) and his daughter Julia, and a Ti. Claudius Drusus who

was probably the eldest son of Claudius; 31 it is likely that we should add a base for Atia, mother of Augustus,32 found among debris used in Byzantine defence work in the area of the Theatre, where some material demonstrably from the Sebasteion can be identified). Very obviously the concept of the dynastic family is being stressed; and, if Ti. Claudius Drusus is rightly identified, at least one person was included who was neither born in, nor adopted, nor married into the gens Julia, although he was closely associated with it; the family is interpreted in rather broad terms. None of the persons commemorated in what survives of this family group is known for certain to have received cult in the city, but they were given unusual

distinction by commemoration in

this precinct devoted to their ancestress Aphrodite and to

Augustus, Livia and Tiberius. It seems likely that similar groups of statues for the families of Gaius Caligula, of Claudius and of Nero were added to the decor of the Sebasteion at later dates. Also found

in the re-used

debris from which the base for Atia came, are three bases for members of the family o f Caligula - f o r Agrippina h i s mother, Germanicus his father, a n d Marcus Lepidus, husband of Drusilla, who was briefly considered to be his heir;33 these may well derive from the

Sebasteion too. One base from a family of Claudius has actually been found in the Sebasteion, for his mother Antonia Augusta; and since it was set up by her priest, she was certainly

receiving cult in her own right. 34 Nothing has survived for a family of N ero. It is just possible that two bases, one probably for Julia the daughter of Titus and one for Domitian, both found in the debris mentioned above, also once stood in the Sebasteion,35 in which case the Flavian dynasty was honoured alongside the Julio-Claudian. But, those two uncertain examples apart, there is a remarkable absence of epigraphic material from the Sebasteion between the death of Nero (whose name was erased) and the reign of Valerian and Gallienus, when a copy of an imperial letter was affixed to an outside wall.36 It may well be that later dynasties received

their main honours elsewhere, in some place as yet unexcavated.

30 31 32 33 34

35 36

Reynolds, PCPS (supra n.l)

78. 112-13. Reynolds, PCPS (supra n.l) 80, inscription no. 12. Reynolds, PCPS (supra n.l) 80-81, inscriptions nos. 13, 14, 15. Reynolds, ZPE (supra n.l) 322, inscription no.5. Reynolds, PCPS (supra n.l) 82, inscription no. 17 Qulia);the Domitianic text is unpublished. Reynolds in C. M. Roueche, Aphrodisias in late antiquity (London 1989) 4-8. Reynolds, StC/as (supra n.l)

Joyce M. Reynolds

48

Moreover it is,

I think, certain that the Julio-Claudians and the Flavians received cult

honours in other parts of the city as well as in the Sebasteian. That is probable for Augustus,

arguable for Gaius and almost certain for Claudius: thus a restored architrave in what is

sometimes call the Portico of Tiberius carries a post mortem dedication to Augustus which could

imply cult thereP the above-mentioned inscription linking Hamanaia with a Gaius Caesar who may be Caligula, suggests (though it does not prove) a joint cult

in the building from which

it came; and an incomplete inscription records the dedication of an imperial statue (very

possibly Caligula, although Domitian cannot be excluded) to the local deity Zeus Nineudios, and describes it, strikingly, as a dedication of "tov B€ov "tip BEip;38 for Claudius there is evidence

for an archiereus who apparently served a joint cult of Dionysus and Claudius, presumably,

therefore, in the precinct of Dionysus.39 Claudius is associated with Dionysus in other cities too, and it has been suggested that the association Dlight imply a Mystery ritual40 (in which, if so, it is conceivable that the priest called a Sebastophant, attested later in the 1st C.,41 was

responsible for a revelation of the imperial image); but it might be simpler to suppose that, as

in Hellenistic Teos,

this combination of Emperor and deity was simply intended to associate reign with agricultural prosperity.42 Other trends that are of interest can

his

be provisionally discerned in this period. Thus our

earliest datable instance of inclusion of the imperial family in the dedication of a public

building comes from early in the reign of Tiberius, when the so-called Portico of Tiberius was dedicated to Aphrodite, divus Augustus as Zeus Patroos, Tiberius, Livia and the People of

Aphrodisias,43 a formula which, with appropriate variations, continues in subsequent reigns,

changing, perhaps already in the later 1st, and certainly in the 2nd c., when the individual

names of emperors ceased to be regularly spelled out and came to be summed up as BEO' I:E�a<J10C

In broad terms, of course, this accords with standard practice as it developed in the cities of Asia; but it is particularly well-attested at Aphrodisias, where, for anyone who actually read

the letters on the public buildings, it must soon have been difficult to approach any of them without being reminded of the imperial family.

Of the organisation of the cult and cult rituals we are poorly informed. There is some evi­

dence, already in the 1st c., that games were given

in honour of the Augusti; in the 2nd c. high

priests of the imperial cult are sometimes recorded with troupes of gladiators and condemned

criminals who must have performed in these games but there is no certainly dated example for

the 1st C.44 As already indicated the priestly title Sebastophant implies revelation of an

imperial image on some occasions; and the possible combination of Dionysus and Claudius may point to some Mystery rites. 1he appearance of an archiereus, first attested (apparently) in the reign of Claudius,45 suggests an increasingly complex organisation for the cult (natural enough in that reign since Gaius had already increased the number of officially deified imperials and

Claudius raised the number again).

But for details our only serious piece of evidence comes in a set of fragments from a m.atble

37 38 39 40

'1

42 43 44 45

Reynolds, PCPS (supra n.1) 78, inscription no. 7.

P. Paris, M Holleaux, "InSCriptions de Carie," BCH 9 (1885) 79�O, inscriptio n no. 10.

CrG 2739, but note the warning that the formula used may have been designed to save space, Nock, "l:YNNAOl: 8EOl:" in Essays 226, n.135. H. W. Pleket, "An aspect of the emperor cult: imperial mysteries," HTItR 58 (1965) 331 f.

Reynolds, ZPE (supra n.1) 321-22, inscription no.4. Cf. Price, Rituals 31. Supra n.13.

C. M. RouecM, Performers and partisans at Aphrodisias in the Roman and late Roman periods (London

1993) 161·62, document 48, cf. 49; for gladiators, documents 61, 62.

CrG 2739.

Ruler-cult at Aphrodisias

49

Fig. 3. One fragment of a document (unpublished) concerned with birthday celebrations, po ss ib ly for Germanicus and Drusus as sons of Tiberius (photo by Mossman RouecM). panel so incomplete that they give us no more than hints of the meaning46 - nevertheless, since

it concerned (or includes a concern with) birthdays, it seems particularly appropriate to say something of it here (fig.

3). It is a prescriptive document, with verbs in the imperative and

probably refers to funds which are to be invested in loans, as well as laying down fines,

presumably to be paid for misuse of these funds; it mentions Caesars (in the plural) and, at one point, a Germanicus, prayers, sacrifices, thank-offerings, a temple, a precinct, images, Hygeia,

and birthday celebrations

[

....

(y£v£oux);

also something to be done .

..

"al��lt£p f:v 'AA.£�avop£iat

It seems reasonable to conjecture that among the matters regulated were birthday celebra­

tions, plausibly (I think) for Germanicus and Drusus, the sons of Tiberius; and while it is, at

first sight, perhaps natural to think that a model (whether for the birthday celebrations or for some other feature) was sought in Alexandria

ad Aegyplum, 1 think that it may be worth con­

sidering whether it wasn't in Alexandria Troas, the notable Roman colony in provincia Asia.

Although I have not emphasised the point so far, it is clear that while the Aphrodisian

imperial cult took much from the koinon of Asia and/or from her sister cities of the area, there was a marked element in it which came from Rome, whether directly or, as in the case just proposed, via a third party; it is very obvious, e.g., in the architecture of the Sebasteion.47 The

Roman element was, of course, transmuted

in the course of borrowing, which makes it sometimes

difficult to recognise and isolate, but it was real. It must sometimes have been brought to the

city by civic ambassadors sent to Rome, sometimes, perhaps, by craftsmen who worked abroad for a time; but we should bear in nUnd the possibility that Aphrodisians, on occasion, looked to

46 47

Unpublished.

Smith (supra n22).

Joyce M. Reynolds

50

Roman colonists in Asia for evidence of what a Roman community, and of what they as syngeneis, relatives, of Rome through Aphrodite, should be doing.

3. 50 far all the evidence that I have collected has been concerned with civic Ruler-cults, even, of course, when the buildings were undertaken by private benefactors and the funding for

festivals· derived from private donations. But we have one inscription which was, I think, a more personal dedication.48 This is one which I date probably under Tiberius (but must admit that this is not absolutely certain), an offering by an imperial freedman, M. Julius Philippus.

What he offered, and where he offered it are both unknown, since his inscribed base (a quite modest affair) was found re-used in the city-walL He dedicated to the eEt6�T1<; of the

A"'�ol(p,hoPE<;, which I take to be the numen of Augustus and Tiberius, to Aphrodite Geneteira, to the Senate and the People of Rome, and to the citizens (presumably the people of Aphro­

disias). There is much here that is idiosyncratic. As we have seen, Venus Genetrix was, for Aphrodisians, Aphrodite Prometor, and there is at present no other trace among them of a cult

of imperial eEt�T1<; or numen, or, for that matter, of the Senate and People of Rome; and the people of Aphrodisias are normally described not as the po!eitae but as the demos. For the

moment we should, I think, suppose this to be the dedicator's own profession of grateful

loyalties (perhaps made on the occasion of his manumission?). The presence of such private dedicators in the city, with ideas brought from elsewhere, including Rome itself, might be

another cause of idiosyncrasies in the local imperial cult; but at present I must stress that there is no indication that this man's concepts had any effect on civic practice whatsoever. eviden�e f o � the It cannot, I think, be quite an a c cid e nt of d;,;covery that much of OUr . in 39 Republican period comes from the years after the grant of privileges made to AphrodlSllIs the Under Ruler-cults. B.C.; that was clearly the kind of occasion to give a stimulus to develop ties; but Principate the lack of present evidence for the reign of ��gustus causes �ti �l un�� . of a its volume in and after the reign of Tiberius, followmg the first offlcllll deification there is, fortunately, no that (so sites other from picture the with agrees deceased emperor, . of the serious reason to attribute the Aphrodisian picture to the aCCident of the discovery material, Sebasteion). I am hoping that further discoveries, and further analysis of the known what, at may lead to better understanding of local idiosyncrasies and a cI-:arer im�ge of . Aphrodisias, is directly derived from Rome rather than from other Cities of ASia.

�

Newnham College, Cambridge University Acknowledgements I ..m much indebted to the late Professor Kenan Erim for the o pportunity to collect and work on the

inscriptions of Aphrodisias; and now also to Professor R R R Smith, his succe ssor on the site. I have discussed several of the texts considered here with a number of colleagues and friends, and gladly acknowll!dge helpful comments, especially from Charlotte Roueche, Marguerite HirtandOnnovanNyf. No one but myself is responsible for the result.

46

.

Reynolds, PCPS (supra n.1)

73-74, inscription no. 2.

La promotion du sujet par le culte du souverain Robert Turcan "Sujet et souverain ... ": ce libellé

du thème auquel nous

consacrons le présent colloque est à 1

fois pertinent et fallacieux. Car, juridiquement (du moins à l'origine), l'empereur n'a pas d

le princeps n'a que des concitoyens. Quant à ceux dE civita s, ils sont collectivement les sujets de Rome, du populu Romanus, et non pas de l'imperator, même investi de l'imperium maius. L'Égypte fait exceptio: qui est la propriété du prince, encore que dans ses Res gestae Auguste déclare l'avoir annexé imperio populi Romanï.1 Le texte cité par Macrobe2 du sénatus-consulte donnant au "sixième mois (Se:rtilis) le nom d'Auguste justifie cette nouvelle appellation au nom du même princip' cum '" Aegyptus hoc mense in potestatem populi Romani redacta sit. "sujets". Parmi

les

Romains de plein droit,

provinciaux qui n'ont pas la

Donc,

de iure, l'empereur n'a pas de sujets. Ou, plus exactement (et c'est ce qui justifie le titr

du colloque), il y a les sujets et l'empereur. Mais, de toute façon, qu'ils soient citoyens romains o' pérégrins, face à l'empereur tous ceux qui vivent dans

l'Orbis Romanus ont defocto la conditio: 1 Peuple Romain, une souveraineté qui le met au-dessus ou en dehors des lois.3 D'abord primu inter pares dans la cité romaine, le prince tend à devenir le patronus, voire le dominus' de 1

de sujets à partir du moment où un homme détient, avec les pleins pouvoirs délégués par

grande maison romaine, y compris de ses concitoyens. Corrélativement, les nombreux portrait d'Auguste voilés incarnent, exemplifient la piété d'un

pater familias devenu pater patnal pax deorum, gage de la paix universelle ou "auguste" et de 1 felicitas temporum. C'est ainsi également que la dévotion au Genius Augusti, qui transcri publiquement le culte domestique du Genius domini, répond à cette logique d'une monarchi grand prêtre responsable

de

la

patemaliste6 qui se greffe tout naturellement sur la conjonctu re politique en même temps que su une tradition familiale proprement romaine. Cet aspect public et politique du phénomène, l'attention portée majoritairement sur le manifestations les plus voyantes du culte impérial, même et surtout quand elles procèden d'initiatives privées ou collectives apparemment intéressées, ont pu inciter les historiens.

considérer ce culte soit comme une expression plus ou moins conventionnelle du loyalisme civiqUE soit comme une forme d'adulation: religion d'esclaves, en somme, confirmant le sujet dans un éta de subordination mentale absolue, sinon de minorité légale. C'est ne pas tenir compte, en premier lieu, des relations assez complexes, sinon

a pria?

contradictoires, que le prince entretient avec les "sujets", même dans ce que le cérémonial et le monuments figurés nous font connaitre et comprendre de la religion augustale.7 En second lie\: c'est oublier que d'autres témoignages que ceux de l'art officiel ou municipal nous démontren

J. Gagé, Res Gestae divi AlIgllsti (Paris 1950) p.130 S. (27.1), commentaire p.131; cf. p.24: "dans l'expos de ses actions civiles comme de ses exploits militaires, il ramène avec insistance le nom du pEuple-roi." Sat. 1.12.35. Phil., Leg. ad Gaillm 5.28 (éd. Smallwood [1961] commentaire p.176); Dio 53.18.1; Ulpian, ap. Dig. 1.3.3 (princep; legiblls sallltus est). Cf. Th. Mommsen, Le droit pllblic romain (Paris 1984) p.8 sS. Ibid. p.17, 19 sS. Cf. notamment les exemplaires de la Voie Labicane (Thermes), du Louvre, d'Ancône, de Berlin, Cologm Madrid. Sur le premier, voir M. Hofter dans Kaiser AlIgllS/l/S IInd die verlarene Repllblik. (Berlin 1988 p.323 s., nO 168. C. Gallini, Protesta e integraziane nella Rama antica (Bari 1970) p.l62 SS. Cf. Priee, Ritllals p.234 S5.; R. Turcan, "Culta impEriale e sacralizzazione deI potere nell'impero romano" dans J. Ries (éd.), Trattata di antrapalogia deI sacra 3 (Milano 1992) p.322 S.

Robert Turcan

52

l'existence, voire la vitalité d'une dévotion personnelle, qui ne s'affichait pas festivement dans les villes et dans les temples, mais qui n'en est que plus probante. Cette documentation privée invite à s'interroger sur le sens et les mobiles des hommages voués à un dieu qui n'en est pas vraiment un, puisqu'on prie et sacrifie pour sa sauvegarde, pro sa/ute, mais qui à certains égards est plus immédiatement et nécessairement dieu que les autres numina du panthéon gréco-romain. Historiquement, juridiquement, les sujets sont collectivement les peuples soumis à l'empire: les provinces que l'empereur administre ou fait administrer au nom du Sénat et du Peuple Romain. On expliquait ce mot provincia comme signifiant et rappelant qu'il concernait des peuples préalablement vaincus: Prouineiae appe//antur, quod papu/us Romanus eas prouicit, id est ante vieit.8 lis se sont "donnés": dedere se in arbitrium dieionemque populi Romani (Uv. 26.33.12).9 Aussi les appelle-t-on dediticii, épithète plus précise que le grec 1:l1t1]1COOt que Polybe (3.22) applique, par exemple, aux cités latines dont l'autonomie relative demeure évidemment dépendante.l° Mais à l'intérieur des provinces, outre les colonies de droit latin et surtout romain, les conditions diffèrent en principe plus ou moins notablement. On sait que, dans les Trois Gaules, les deux tiers des peuples ont le statut de "déditices", à côté des cités dites "amies" ou "alliées" (sociae,foederatae) et des cités dites "libres". Les dediticii ou "sujets" à proprement parler sont tenus à des redevances au peuple maître, stipendiarii populi Romani (ou en grec \lItotEÂ.iîç). lis versent le tribut pour la jouissance de leurs terres qui appartiennent au Peuple Romain,n outre la capitation: tribut et capitation étant, selon Tertullien (Apol. 13.6), notae eaptivitatis.

En fait, les peuples "stipendiaires" jouissent d'un large tolérance envers leurs coutumes locales et leurs traditions indigènes. Inversement, les privilèges des cités "libres" et "alliées" s'évanouissent avec le temps comme autant de "fantômes juridiques" (c. Jullian). Elles n'ont aucune espèce de souveraineté, puisqu'elles ont perdu le pouvoir d'une politique extérieure, c'est-à-dire militaire. Le gou.verneur de la Gaule Belgique réside à Reims, quoiqu'il s'agisse d'une cité alliée, dont le territoire devrait rester distinct de la provineia proprement dite. Les immunités fiscales sont rapidement devenues illusoires (d'où la révolte de Florus et Sacrovir en 21), et les discriminations institutionnelles tendent de facto à s'estomper. D'autre part et surtout, ces différences disparaissent dans ces grandes associations politico­ religieuses que sont les assemblées provinciales. Les délégués des peuples "sujets" y siègent au même titre que ceux des peuples dits "libres" ou "alliés". Th. Mommsen12 a rapporté à cette représentation égale des cités juridiquement distinctes l'affirmation surprenante de Philon d'Alexandrie13 rendant à Auguste cet hommage: "li a donné la liberté à toutes les villes". Cette "liberté" serait en réalité la reconnaissance d'une identité dans ces collectivités fondées pour le culte de Rome et d'Auguste. Tous les représentants des peuples s'y retrouvaient à égalité face au représentant du Peuple Romain. En l'occurrence, c'est le culte impérial qui annulait toute espèce de ségrégation, mais sans pour autant niveler les peuples dans l'uniformité d'une sujétion anonyme et globale, pour ne pas dire totalitaire. En effet, Strabon'4 nous apprend que l'autel fédéral des Trois Gaules portait gravés les noms des 60 peuples honorant Rome et Auguste au Confluent. Mais cette reconnaissance épigraphique Paul. p.253, 15 s. (éd. Lindsay).

10

Il

12 13 14

Œ. Mommsen (supra n.3) Vll, p.I56; VI.2, p352 s.

Ibid. VI.2 p.238 et n.4. Caius, 11151. 2.7. Mommsen (supra n3) Vl.2, p.283. Leg. ad Gaium 21.147 (éd. Smallwood, commentaire p.229; Pelletier p.l72 s. et n.I). Ni Smallwood ru Pelletier ne mentionne l'interprétation de Mommsen. 43.2 (Meineke vol. 1, p.262, 5-8, avec un texte aussi contestable que celui d'éditions-traductions plus récentes).

L,

omotion du sujet par le culte du souverain

53

était doublée d'une légitimation iconographique. Les personnifications des cités gauloises figuraient en "images" (Eil,oVEÇ), chacune séparément et distinctement: b,aO"�o1) J.Lta, précise le Géographe qui a visiblement été frappé par cette représentation différenciée. J'ai proposé naguère d'identifier sur les monnaies dites "à l'autel de Lyon" l'indication des statues par delà le téménos, de part et d'autre des deux niches abritant celles de Rome et d'Auguste.1S Cette iconographie des peuples rassemblés à l'autel du Confluent avait une importance majeure, semble-t-il, au regard des responsables qui ont conçu ce type de revers monétaire. "libres", "alliés" ou "assujettis", ils retrouvaient une sorte de parité et d'unité dans l'hommage rendu à l'Urbs, à son imperium et à l'incarnation de cet imperium. Ds se reconnaissaient ainsi tous sujets de.l'empereur en même temps que de Rome, solidairement. Mais ils le faisaient aussi chacun personnellement, si j'ose dire, avec leur identité propre. Paradoxalement, l'identité de condition cultuelle aboutissait à la consécration d'une identité ethnique. "Paradoxalement", mais ce processus a sa logique, car la dévotion collective n'avait de valeur, en fait, que comme unanimité réelle des dévotions singulières. P. Catalano16 a fort justement insisté sur la conception très concrète que les Romains avaient foncièrement de la collectivité publique, c'est­ à-dire de civitas non pas en tant que totalité abstraite, mais en tant que formée de cives et n'existant qu'à ce titre. Pareillement, les Trois Gaules n'existent réellement que par leurs composantes "nationales", qui s'affirment à la fois différentiellement et unitairement par leur piété envers les deux faces divine et humaine, éternelle et transitoire, du souverain.

De même aussi, la représentation des 14 villes d'Asie secourues par Tibère et statufiées autour du prince au Forum de César, dans un ensemble monumental dont la base de Pouzzoles au Musée National de Naples nous donne une image en reliefP illustrait cette idée que l'hommage au pouvoir sauveur était en quelque sorte multiplié par les personnifications mêmes des cités concernées. On retrouve les personnifications des peuples au Sébasteion d'Aphrodisias, toujours dans le cadre du culte impérial.1B Mais l'exemple le plus connu et le plus révélateur aussi de l'évolution des esprits reste dans l'Urbs, au centre du pouvoir, la suite des provinces qui décoraient les socles internes de l'Hadrianeum. Une série de monnaies avait célébré, comme la base de Pouzzoles et les statues du Forum de César un siècle plus tôt, l'empereur en tant que restitutor ou sauveur des provinces figurées chacune avec leur nom, leur costume et leurs attributs respectifs. L'adventus du prince qui les avait visitées et réconfortées par sa présence valorisait typologiquement le sujet, avec son identité propre, en même temps et corrélativement que le souverain lui-même. Au revers des bronzes rappelant l'action secourable du prince (restitutor), les provinces figurent agenou­ illées.19 Mais la série des adventus nous les montre debout, face à l'empereur qui les salue de la main droite, debout et tenant chacune sa patère au-dessus d'un autel allumé.20 Par conséquent, lS

16 17

18 19 20

R. Turcan, "L'autel de ROIœ et d'Auguste 'ad Confluentem'," ANRWII.12.1 (1982) p.607 55., 632 55.; id., "Un bimillénaire méconnu: l'assemblée des Trois Gaules," CRAI 1991, p.738 et n.15. "Populus Romanus Quirites," Mem. dell'Istituto Giuridû:o, Univ. di Torino Ser.II. 156 (1974) p.100 55., 105 55. et passim. Outre le mémoire toujours utile de V. Spinazzola (Atti Acead. Napoli 22 [1902]121-153), d. Ch. Dubois, Pouzzoles antique (Paris 1907) p.104 s., 422 n' 32; A. Ruesch, Guida deI Museo Nazionale di Napoli (Naples 1927) p.22-24, n' 82; P. Mingazzini, "La datazione della base di Pozzuoli," Rii mMitt 83 (1976) p.425 55. (elle daterait de Domitien .. . ?); T. Holscher, "Beobachtungen zu romischen historischen Denkmâlem ID," AA 1988, p528. J. Reynolds, "Further information on Imperial cult at Aphrodisias," Studii CIasiee 24 (1986) p. 109 55.; R. R. R. Smith, "The imperial reliefs from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias," J RS 77 (1987) p.88 ss. P. L. Strack, Untersuehungen zur rii m isehen Reichspriigung des II. Jahrhunderts II (Stuttgart 1933) p.152 ss., pI. V.317-22, XIV.767-84, XVI.328. Cf. J. M. C. Toynbee, The Hadrianie School (Cambridge 1934) p.33 ss. Strack (supra n.19) pl. V 315, VI.312-19, XIII.740a-766; RIC II, p.451 sS., pl. XVI.325. Toynbee (supra n.19).

Robert Turcan

54

dans l'hommage cultuel au souverain, la province n'a plus l'attitude de la sujétion. C'est la

pie tas qui la remet sur ses pieds, devant le prince qu'elle ne saurait honorer sur le foyer l'adoratio. Une autre série d'espèces en bronze représente

sacrificiel en restant agenouillée pour

plusieurs provinces isolément, en particulier leurs personnifications armées (Bretagne,

adventus.21 Ce sont ces personnifications l'Hadrianeum, en alternance avec des trophées.

Cappadoce, Maurétanie), comme dans la suite des armées qu'on reconnaît dans

Les provinces de ce temple consacré au

divus Hadrianus, qui avait eu de l'Empire romain lll1e

vision véritablement oecuménique et qui l'avait administré dans cet esprit, figurent toutes

il s'agit de auxiIia) dans la

debout, certaines armées, voire cuirassées, avec leurs insignes ou leurs étendards. peuples jadis vaincus et assujettis, mais désormais engagés (au moins comme

défense et la sauvegarde de la Paix Romaine, lll1e action à laquelle les purs Romains d e race et même de droit ne contribuent dès lors que très minoritairement, sinon dans une proportion insuffisante. Comme les trophées, l'aspect militaire de ces personnifications correspond bien au souci de marquer la part que prennent les provinces à la vie et à la survie de l'Empire, dans leur pluralité distincte, chacune à sa manière et à sa place dans ces reliefs dans la

l'Orbis Romanus. L'emplacement de cella du temple autour de l'idole impériale, a également valeur d'indice. Les

provinces ressortent, en effet, sur les socles des demi-colonnes qui, fictivement, mais significa­ tivement, soutenaient le plafond voûté (à l'image du monde) et donc tout l'édifice dans sa grandeur symbolique. C'était sans doute une façon de rappeler que l'Empire romain, tel que

la vigueur et la force de ses provinces en union étroite avec l'imperator. En glorifiant leur dévotion au nouveau divus, les socles de l'Hadrianeum mettaient en évidence leur irremplaçable unicité propre en même temps que leur bénéfique unité autour du l'avait "pensé" Hadrien, reposait sur

souverain déifié. Cette imagerie s'enracine dans une tradition. Mais le contexte historique a changé, et les variations dans le temps de l'iconographie des provinces transcrivent celles de l'idéologie impériale. Les peuples soumis figuraient rituellement en images dans le cortège du triomphe. Ce fut 61 av. J.-c. dans celui de Pompée. 22 Le portique attenant à son théâtre

notamment le cas en

abritait les statues de

14

nations vaincues23 et, d'après Dion Cassius, 24 ces nations auraient

accompagné avec l'image même de Pompée les funérailles d'Auguste. Elles y étaient donc

associées à l'apothéose impériale, comme dans l'Hadrianeum,25 chacune avec ses caractéris­ tiques indigènes,26 mais en tant que peuples annexésP Auguste aurait fait ériger dans un portique "des nations"

simulacra omnium nationum, totalité qui dépassait donc en principe le

compte des provinces, mais impliquait l'hégémonie de Rome sur le monde habité.28 Cet inventaire pourrait avoir inspiré la "galerie" des

21

22

23 24 25 26 27 28

ethnè alignés sur le portique nord du

Strack (supra n.19) pl. XII.722-26; Toynbee (supra n.19) p. 53 ss. P lin. , N H 36.41. C f. F. Coarelli, " Il complesso pompeiano d ei Campo Marzio e la sua decorazione scultorea," AttiPontAcc 44 (1971/72) p. 99 ss. et T. Hôlscher (supra n.l7) p.526; voir aussi l'édition de J. André, R. Bloch et A Rouveret (1981) p.167. Serv. ad Aen.8, 721 (Thilo-Hagen II, p.304, 28 s). Cf. Hôlscher (supra n.l7) p.526. 56.34.3 (éd. Boissevain Il, p.S46, 17 ss). Cf. M Cipollone, "Le province dell'Hadrianeum. Un tema dell'ideologia imperiale romana," AnnPerIlgia 16 (1978-79) p.46 s.; Reynolds (supra n.18) p.116. Toynbee (supra n.19) p.152 sS.; A M. Pais, Il 'podium' dei templo dei Divo Adriano a Piazza di Pietra in Roma (Roma 1979). Dio 56.34.3: E7ItXOlpiOlÇ a'i'icltv ID, ËKaa
exemplo.

J. Reynolds, "New evidenœ for the imperial cult in Julio·Claudian Aphrodisias," ZPE 43 (1981) p.323 n.7; R R R Smith (supra n.18) p.%.

J

�

"promotion du sujet par le culte du souverain

Sébasleion d'Aphrodisias29 où figurent des peuples étrangers à l'Orbis Romanus. Les provinc romaines y sont représentées, en tout cas, comme assujetties à l'Empire. Les panneaux où l'on v( Claude domptant la Bretagne ou Néron maîtrisant l'Arménie3o font valoir avant tout victoire romaine. Dans le temple d'Hadrien, au contraire, les provinces posent en partenaires ( Peuple Romain, dans toute leur dignité nationale, avec leurs particularités de costume d'équipement qui illustrent leur place dans le concert des peuples dont l'empereur sacralis, l'unanimité de son vivant et après sa mort, en tant que dieu tutélaire de la romanité. . Collectivement donc, dans la vie publique et dans l'art officiel, les sujets de l'Empire fini sent par affirmer leur existence et leur personnalité par la religion du souverain qui transcen( toutes les hiérarchies de la pyramide socio-politique ou socio-administrative. C'est le' pluralité qui sert à glorifier l'universalité de l'Empire, mais réciproquement cette plurali fait valoir leur irréductible originalité et coïncide, par conséquent, avec un pluralisme nation, Maintenant essayons de considérer les sujets en tant qu'individus, chez eux et dans leur v privée: terrain évidemment très problématique, car il nous faut faire abstraction ( l'épigraphie, des dédicaces qui, même si elles procèdent d'une initiative personnell s'affichent en somme "pour la galerie" des

amis et

concitoyens. Nous n'avons pas à tenir comp

non plus, au moins pour commencer, des témoignages littéraires qui sont faits pour toucher Ul

partie de l'opinion, à Rome et même hors de Rome. Restent dès lors en cause des documeI1 beaucoup moins explicites par eux-mêmes, qui ne parlent pas et dont la signification demeu

souvent très ambiguë. Ils relèvent, en effet, de ce qu'on appelle les arts "mineurs" et d'Ul

archéologie figurée à usage interne. n s'agit aussi d'objets qu'on n'a peut-être pas suffisamme pris en compte pour mieux apprécier certains aspects plutôt méconnus du culte impérial.

A priori,

la relation religieuse individuelle du sujet au prince et à sa famille s'exprime dru

le laraire de son foyer, par des hommages à

l'imago impériale,31 par la sacralisation (

statuettes, de petits bustes ou de têtes sur un socle qui voisinent avec les dieux de la maisonnée ( telles divinités de prédilection liées soit à la vie professionnelle du maître, soit même à sa v spirituelle Ge songe au Mercurio/us d'Apulée).32

On connaît bon nombre de ces figurines en bronze, en argent, voire en pierre précieuse (crisl de roche, agate, améthyste, chalcédoine, turquoise).33 Les bustes et les têtes sont, pour plupart des portraits, assez bien identifiés. Mais des interrogations subsistent dans le cas c statuettes. Ainsi en est-il, par exemple, de celle qu'on a trouvée à Bavai en

1841

(Trajan?).34

1

Gaule, les statuettes d'empereurs figurés en Mercure (Néron, Titus, Domitien)35 pourraie s'expliquer en fonction du souci de faire coincider un dieu très populaire et cher aux milie1 économiques avec le prince garant de la prospérité. Mais l'identification du Mercu

29 30 31 32 33

34 35

Smith (supra n.18). Du même, cf. "Le Sébasteion et son décor sculpté," dans Aphrodisias. Les dossiers l'archéolDgie 139 (1989) p.56. Smith (supra n.18) p.115 55. (pl. XlV), p. 11755. (pl. XVI). Th. Pekâry, Das romische IV1iserbiidnis in Staat, XlIlt IInd Gtsellschaft (Das romische Herrscherbild III Berlin 1985) p. 114, 144; Fishwick, Imp.ClIlt Il.l, p.376 s., 533 55. Apol. 61.8. Cf. A. Abt, Die Apologie des Apllieills von Madllltra IInd die antike Zlllcberei (RGVV 4 Berlin 1967) p.300 ss. On n e saurait e n faire ici l'énurneration. Un corpus d e c es témoignages rendrait d'éminents services. ( H. Jucker, "Portratminiaturen von Augustus, Nera und Trajan," Schweiz. Miinzbl. 1964, p.81-92; Bartman, Ancient sculptllral copies in miniatllre (Leiden 1992) p.28. Statuettes et bustes impériaux améthyste; A. Furtwangler, Die antike Gemmen III (Berlin 1900) p.334 ss.; H. Mi:ibius, "Zweck Ul Typen der rômischen Kaiserkameen," ANRWIl.12.3 (1985) p.49; eri cristal de roche; R. Lantier, "Bw en cristal de roche; Faustine l'Ancienne," MonPiot 38 (1941) p.129 ss. (avec un relevé des exemplait alors connus, p.140 ss.); infra n.45. G . Faider-Feytmans, Recueil d es bronzes d e Bavai (Gallia SuppL 8 , 1957) p.64, n ° 8 5 e t pl. XX. S. Boucher, Recherches sllr les bronzesfigllris de Gall le pré-romaine et romaine (Paris 1976) p.106 ss.

Robert Turcan

56

d'Ottenhusen avec Trajan a lieu d'être discutée.36 Une statuette de Sévère Alexandre(?) en Hercule

Epitrapézios conservée au Musée de Belgrade offre l'intérêt majeur d'être appropriée

au décor d'une table,37 puisque cet Hercule préside aux banquets, et donc d'illustrer un rituel d'hommage convivial au prince, dontnous avons plusieurs témoignages.38 Mais, abstraction faite de tous les cas douteux, le problème de fond et de fait que soulèvent ces objets reste surtout celui de leur origine archéologique, des conditions et du contexte de la trouvaille, trop souvent inconnus ou mal connus.

n faut noter, toutefois,

que beaucoup de ces têtes

ou statuettes, quand elles ont un état civil, provierment de sites ruraux, loin des bourgs romanisés ou des centres civiques. C'est le cas des deux bustes en bronze d'Auguste et de Livie découverts à Neuill y-le-Réa[.39 C'est aussi le cas de quatre petits bustes livrés par le sol de la Bretagne

insulaire, et J.

M C. Toynbee40

"ail are from rural find-spots". Le Mercure Epitrapézios de Belgrade, qui est originaire de Tamnif

l'a justement souligné:

impérial d'Ottenhusen et l'Hercule

(region de Negotin), ont été trouvés hors d'un grand site urbain. Naturellement, on connaît aussi

un certain nombre d'exemplaires mis au jour en des villes: Camuntum,41 Lyon,42 Cherchel,43 Bavai;44 mais tous ces témoignages ne ressortissent pas uniformément à l'adulation ostentatoire et directement intéressée. D'ailleurs, si plusieurs de ces objets ont

pu

figurer dans des laraires privés ou du moins chez

des particuliers, mais évidemment en vue des serviteurs, amis ou visiteurs, il en est aussi qui ne se montraient pas aux vivants: je veux parler de ceux qu'on a relevés dans d es sépultures, comme la tête de Domitien dans une tombe d'Ostie ou celle de Trajan dans une tombe de Césarée en Palestine.45 Th. Pekary46 s'en est étonné ("wenig verstândlich ..."), notamment de l'imago de

Domitien, qui aurait donc eu des fidèles par delà même la mort! Mais, outre le fait que l'image des princes dans la masse de leurs sujets ne coïncidait pas forcément l'historiographie sénatoriale, ce document prouve qu'on attribuait à

avec celle de

l'imago impériale le même

pouvoir protecteur dans la vie posthume que celui d'un dieu comme Attis ou Osiris, et ce témoignage est d'autant plus significatif qu'à l'intérieur d'un tombeau, loin des regards humains et vivants, une tête d'empereur ne peut servir à l'ostentation courtisane, puisque de toute façon l'adorateur est mort. Dans le cas des laraires privés, l'imago impériale a une autre fonction que celle du Genius Augusti. Les représentations connues de ce Genius n'ont pas vraiment les traits individuels

36

37

38 39 40

41 42 43 44

4S

46

Catalogue de l'exposition Bronzes romains de Suisse (Lausanne 1978) p.37, nO 42. a. l. Metzger, "Merkur von Ottenhusen," Helvelia Archaeologica 55-56 (1983) p.205-216; A. Leibundgut, "Der 'Trajan" von Ottenhusen," J dI99 (1984) p. 257 ss.; H. Menzel, "Rômische Bronzestatuetten und verwandte Gerate," ANRWII.12.3, p.160 et pl. XVII.2. Catalogue de l'exposition Relratos antiguos en YugoslavÎll (Barcelone 1989) p.103, n° 95. Cf. D. Srejovic dans Bull. de l'Acad. Serbe des Sciences 22 (1958) p.8, fig.10; Ch. Picard dans RA 1961, 65-69, fig.6-7; ibid. 1%2, p.247 s. Fishwick, Imp.Cult II.1 p.375 s. Ibid. p. 535 et pl. XCIX. a. J. Corrocher et al., Carte archéologique de la Gaule, L'Allier 03 (Paris 1989) p.124, nO 260, avec bibl. antérieure. Art in Roman Britain (London 1962) p.124, n° 2 R. Fleischer, Die romischen Bronzen aus Osterreich (Mayence 1%7) p.224, n° 224 et pl. 114. K. A. Neugebauer, Führer durch das Antiquarium, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin!, Bronzen (Berlin 1924) n° 7093; Boucher (supra n.35) p.107 et pl. 40, fig.l79. Cf. infra n.98. E. Babelon, J. A. Blanchet, Catalogue des bronzes antiques de la Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles (paris 1895) p.368, nO 842. Faider-Feytmans (supra n.34). R. Calza, Scavi di Ostia V. l ritratti (Roma 1964) L p.46 s. nQ 64; Jucker (supra n.33) p. 89 s., fig. 11-12 (cristal). Supra n.31, p.54.

L

'omotion du sujet par le culte du souverain

57

indiscutables de tel ou tel empereur.47 Pour les Romains, le Genius naît avec l'homme (cum homine gignitur,48 ttna genitur nobiscum49), mais ne se confond pas avec l'homme, non plus que l'ange gardien avec l'individu dans la religion chrétielUle. En revanche, on a l'impression que, pour ces mêmes Romains et contrairement à ce qu'on a pu croire,le bénéfique

du

prince s'affirme dans

ntlmen directement efficace et l'imago de sa persoIUle unique et vivante. Sur ce point, il y a

lieu, je crois, de revenir à certaines dOIUlées de la tradition littéraire.

Pontiques écrite (avant le 13)5 1 pour être lue à Rome, à la cour, voire et surtout à l'empereur. Mais,

Le témoignage d'OvideS0 est a priori suspect dans une épître des triomphe de Tibère en

pour être cru, le poète doit aussi se conformer à certaines vraisemblances, c'est-à-dire référer le

lecteur ou l'auditeur à des réactions assez normales, sinon courantes de son temps, à Rome et dans le reste de l'Empire. A elle seule, l'hyperbole ne tromperait personne.

On

peut admettre, au

contraire, qu'Ovide fait comme tout le monde ou comme beaucoup des "sujets" de l'empereur. Autrement dit, ses déclarations en vers nous informent moins sur ses sentiments personnels que sur

une attitude fréquente chez ses contemporains.

Or, lorsqu'il reçoit les statuettes en argent d'Auguste, de Livie et de Tibère,

il

se dit heureux

de voir présents ces "dieux":

Est aliquid spectare deos et adesse putare et quasi cum vero numine passe loqui _.52

Quasi, mais le poète exilé insiste ensuite sur l'avantage de les avoir désormais "présents": Praesentes aliquid prasit habere deos!53

Sans doute vaut-il mieux voir .. .

non simulacra, sed ipsos ... corpora uera . . 54 Mais, après tout, on pro love forma IovisSS (c'est tout le problème .

ne voit pas non plus Jupiter, et les hommes adorent

de l'idolâtrie). L'empereur a l'avantage d'être un dieu "épiphane",56 et le visage d'Auguste en

(in imagine wltus, effigiem, facies in imagine),5 7 c'est en somme celui de Rome, de la patriae faciern.5 8 Quarante ans plus tard, dans son De clernentia, Sénèque exprimera la même idée: l'empereur personnifie depuis longtemps la république (in quern se res publica conuertit);5 9 depuis longtemps, il se confond avec elle (olim enim ita se induit rei publicae Caesar .. ).60 Cet homme en incarne donc les charismes divins, et sa présence, même en image, a déjà pour les contemporains d'Ovide quelque chose de sacré lié au numen, lequel passe pour avoir une efficacité manifeste: praesentia dicuntur numina deorum quae se potentiamque suam manifeste ostendunt.61 L'imago porte en elle, avec elle, une part du numen qui, comme elle, est un

image

patrie:

.

47 48 49

50 51

52 53

54

55

56

57

58 59 60 61

H. Kunckel, Der romische Genius (RômMitt Erg.20, 1974) p.26 55., 4655. Apul., De d. SOCT., 15, 151 (éd.J. Beaujeu, commentairep. 231). Cens or., De d. natal. 3.1 (éd.Jahn. p7, 1). a. la traduction annotée de G. Rocca-Serra (Paris 1980) p5 ( "il naît en même temps que nous") et p.41: "définition varronienne". Pont. 2.8. Cf. Pekâry (supra n.31) p53; D. Fishwick, "Prayer and the living emperor" in R. M. Wilhelm and H. Jones (édd.), The two worlds of the poet. New perspectives on Vergil (Detroit 1992) p.346-349. G. Wartenberg, Quaestiones Ovidianae (diss. Berlin 1884) p.88 (éd.J. André, p.65 55.). Pont. 2.8.9-10. a. Fishwick (supra n.50) p347. Pont. 2.8.52. Ibid. 2.857-58. Ibid. 2.8.62. Sur cette notion: Fishwick, Imp.Culll.1, p.28. Pont. 2.8.21, 60, 73. Ibid. 2.8.19-20. Sen., Clem . 1.4 . 3 = m.2.3 (éd. Pro!chac, p.18). Cf. P. Faider, Ch. Favez, P. van de Woestijne, Sénèque, De la clémence (Bruges 1950) p.5B. Sen., Clem.1.4.3. Porphyrion, ad HOT. C. 1.35.2. Cf. D. M. Pippidi, Recherches sur le culte impérial p.24, qui rapproche (p.23 n.3) CIL XII 354 (ob insignemcirca se numinis eius effectum). Il faut ajouter Censor., De d. natal 3.4 (éd.Jahn, p7, 17): numinumsuonun effectum repraesentant.

Robert Turcan

58

"signe". Aussi la matière n'importe-t-elle guère, mais bien le signe,

signum

ou

sigillum, ce qui

nous explique aussi que les plus humbles images en argile des princes aient pu figurer dans les échoppes, sur les comptoirs ou les fenêtres comme nous l'atteste Fronton,62 /utea immo Minerva

fictae: des sortes de porte-bonheur, au même titre qu'aujourd'hui encore les effigies peintes ou

les "chromo" de la Vierge ou des saints dans les boutiques ou dans les camions, en Italie et ailleurs. Qu'Ovide et Sénèque ne croient rien de ce pouvoir magico-religieux, la question est indiffé­

rente.

L'un

et l'autre reflètent les idées ambiantes qui seules nous intéressent au premier chef,

car elles nous aident à comprendre la présence de têtes impériales chez les particuliers et même

en compagnie des morts.

Elles nous expliquent aussi, au moins en partie, que l'image du prince, de l'impératrice ou des enfants impériaux déborde largement le cadre des

laraires et le genre des figurines en buste ou en

pied honorées comme des idoles.

On

songe d'abord aux intailles et aux camées, aux bijoux, aux pendentifs de colliers en verre

pressé, 6 3 qu'on trouve souvent aussi en dehors des villes, en des localités rurales ou dans des villas. En Gaule,64 on a recueilli des pierres gravées à l'effigie d'Auguste, de Uvie ou de Julie, de Caligula, de Marc Aurèle et de Faustine Jeune, de Septime Sévère et de Julia Domna, de

Caracalla, de Gordien III et de Tranquillina.

Le

fait qu'on ait éprouvé le besoin de porter en

bijoux ou d'adopter comme empreinte de sceau une attribuait la même importance,

la même fonction que

imago impériale donne à penser qu'on lui

celles des figures divines ou de symboles

magico-religieux. C'est en réaction contre cet état d'esprit que Clément d'Alexandrie6s

recommande aux chrétiens de ne pas prendre comme motifs pour leurs cachets des "figures

d'idoles", mais plutôt la colombe, le poisson, le vaisseau, l'ancre marine et autres motifs symboliques de leur foi. Sur ce chapitre, il faut évidemment rappeler que, portée au doigt,

l'effigie en or du prince conférait au temps de Claude le privilège de libre audience (/iberae admissiones); mais Vespasien, au dire de Pline l'Ancien,66 mit fin à cet abus, aequa liter

publicando principem. De toute façon, le problème ne se posait pas en dehors de Rome.

U

faut prendre en compte également non seulement tel anneau de bronze orné de bustes

impériaux, 67 les bagues en cristal de roche portant ceux de Domitia, de Faustine Mère ou de Faustine Jeune,68 mais peut-être aussi les monnaies d'or ou d'argent montées sur des colliers, des bracelets, en bagues ou en pendentifs. Dans le Digeste, S. Pomponius fait état de monnaies anciennes d'or ou d'argent qu'on emploie sur des bijoux comme des gemmes.69 On rétorquera,

certes, que de nos jours encore des hommes peuvent porter au doigt et des dames porter en broche

ou au bout d'une chaîne

62 63 64 6S 66 67

68 69

un

"Napoléon", sans pour autant vouer un culte à

la

mémoire de

Ep. ad M. Caes. 4. 12.6 (éd. Van den Hout, p.66.24 s. - 67.1 55.). Cf. Pekary (supra n.31) p.4, 42, 102 s.; Fishwick, Imp.Cult n.l, p.S33. M.-L. Vollenweider, Catalogue raisonné des sceaux, cylindres, intailles et camées IL Musée d'art et d'histoire de Genève (Mainz 1979) p.248 ss., nO 261·262. H. Guiraud, Intailles et camées de l'époque romaine en Gaule (Gallia Suppl. 48, 1988) p.143 5., 201 s; nombreux autres exemplaires dont la bibliographie est dispersée. Paed. 3.11.59.2. NH33.41.

Retratos antiguos (supra n.37) p.103, n° 94 (Split, Musée Archéologique); G Leroux, A. Provost, Carte archédogique de la Gaule, !.' Ille-et-Vilaine 35 (Paris 1990) p.247 (A. Bagues). Le cas des aurei sertis dans le chaton d'un anneau en or n'a rien d'exceptionnel. Lantier (supra n.33); Guiraud (supra n.64) p.203, n' 1012Ap. Dig. 7.1.28 (Mommsen L p.224, 38 s.): nomismatum aureonun vel argenteorum veterum quibus pro gemmis uti soient. Sextus Pomponius écrit à l'époque antonine: G. Wesenberg, RE 21 (1952) col. 2417. Cf. maintenant J.-A. Bruhn, Nummus pro gemmis: coin settings in Roman imperial jewelry (Ph.D. diss., Brown Univ.).

T

�

promotion du sujet par le culte du souverain

l'empereur. Mais les Anciens avaient une tout autre mentalité, et l'image du nllmen augus avait souvent pour eux valeur d'amulette propice. On sait bien, du reste, à quel point 7 caractère sacré de l'effigie impériale empreinte sur les monnaies o ou gravée sur une bagu

pouvait servir de prétexte aux procès de majesté. Mais, outre les

allTei sertis comme des bijoux, on n'a pas lieu de négliger le témoigna

beaucoup plus humble et commun (mais d' autant plus significatif) des pièces en bronze percE ou même de moulages monétaires en plomb, perforés pour être portés au bout d'une chaîne.72 l'occurrence, la matière (précieuse ou non) comptait moins que

l'imago du prince, d'un prir

défunt peut-être et même souvent, car ces pièces sont fréquemment usées. Elles ont dû ser' d'amulettes longtemps après leur émission ou leur reproduction dans un métal ou un alliage'

On

n'a sans doute pas prêté une attention suffisante à l'intérêt documentaire de ces objets, tr

négligés des numismates, mais qui attestent à leur manière les espoirs secrètement attachés F le sujet anonyme et ordinaire à l'iconographie du pouvoir souverain.7 3 Je fais naturellemE

abstraction des espèces d'argent et d'or surtout réutilisées à basse époque pour des parures bijoux, encore que le prestige de l'image impériale ait pu survivre à l'Empire d'Occident.

Il faut bien avouer que beaucoup moins éclairants pour notre propos sont l'orfèvrerie et

vaisselle appropriées à la représentation publique ou aux manifestations conviviales (no

dirions aujourd'hui "mondaines"). Mais elles nous instruisent à l'occasion sur certains aspects

1

loyalisme religieux. Dans le cas d'une parure de tête en or assortie de trois allTei de Vespasi. de Marc Aurèle et de Faustine Jeune,14 on peut s'interroger sur la signification de ce choix, si c'

est un. Elle me parait beaucoup plus évidente sur la fameuse patè re en or de Rennes dont rebord porte sertis

16 allTei

aux effigies d'Hadrien, d'Antonin, Faustine Mère, Marc Aurè

Faustine Jeune, Commode, Septime Sévère, Julia Domna, Caracalla et Géta,15 car nous avons

cette continuité héréditaire à laquelle tenait tant Septime Sévère, moyennant la fiction,

système adoptif. Le sentiment dynastique devait être assez fort dans les provinces, comme da l'armée.

TI

nous explique la place qu'occupent les princes héritiers, garants d'une successi,

directe et donc de la paix civile dans l'iconographie impériale des arts mineurs. On s; l'importance qu'acquiert au siècle des Antonins la fécondité de

l'AlIgusta

régnante qui fait d'e

une "mère des dieux",16 gage de la félicité universelle. Avec la vaisselle, nous abordons une autre série de témoignages, celle des objets usuels. TI fa exclure de la documentation le plat en argent d'Annecy qui est apparemment un faux Authentiques, en revanche, sont des pièces comme les deux plats d'Alexandrie centrés chacun s

70 71 72 73 74

75

76

77

Suet., Tib. 58.3. Sen., Ben. 3.26.1-2. Cf. par exemple R. Turcan, Nigra moneta (Lyon 1987) p.175, 177, nO 868. Valeur talismanique de l'effigie: E. Babelon, Traité des monnaies grecques et romaines 1: Théorie doctrine 1 (Paris 1901) p.683 S. M. Provost, Carte archéologique de la Gaule , Le Loir-et-Cher 41 (Paris 1988) p.114 n° 177. Trouvé, Danzé avec d'autres bijoux enveloppés dans un linge, ainsi qu'un trésor de monnaies. d'argent et bronze, le tout dans un coffre de bois. Parmi les bijoux comptait un coUier en or auquel pendait un carn gravé à l'effigie de Julia Damna(?).

1 (Paris 1887) p. 25 ss., pl. VII; Leroux Provost (supra n.67) p.198 ("Le trésor de la patère"). Dans le trésor d'Eauze G. Lapart, C. Petit, Ca: archéologque de la Gatde, Le Gers 32 [Paris 1993] p.160, fig. 70, et p.170, XIX), les trois aurei réunis collier correspondent aussi à une continuité dynastique (Héliogabale et Sévère Alexandre). R. Turcan, Numismatique romaine du cu/te métroaque (Leiden 1982) p.37, 39, 41 s. Il faut se rappeler J propos des soldats en faveur de Vespasian Gos., B,1 4.596): J1ÉTIO�OV yàp ôT) ltpOç àaq)(lMlaY eiptlv E. Babelon, Le Cabinet des Antiques à la Bibliothèque Nationale

" val �àç rv'1aiouç �Ô>v 13a"'�"'v ôlaôoxaç ...

Genève, Musée d'Art e t d'Histoire inv. 6787; W. Deanna, "Le trésor d es Fins d'Annecy," R A 1920 p.l25 SS., fig. 3-4; id., Choix de monuments de /' art antique (Musée d'Art et d'Histoire, Génève 1923) f 45-46. Mais d. K. Scott, "Mercur-Augustus und Horaz C.1.2," Hermes 63 (1928) p.25 s.

Robert Turcan

60

un médaillon représentant Livie en Junon et peut-être Agrippine en Vénus,78 ou comme le fameux

à omer une coupe, avec Géta ou plutôt Caracalla cornucopia de l'autre. Mais cette vaisselle d'apparat, sinon d'ostentation, reste bien évidemment sujette à caution, même si elle a pu et même dû avoir un rapport avec les rites de la table. 79 médaillon de Notre-Dame-d'Allençon destiné

tenant la Victoire d'une main et la

Ici encore, c'est à des monuments plus modestes qu'il convient de recourir pour comprendre ce que pouvait représenter dans la vie courante

On

l'imago impériale.

à penser que, normalement, en dehors des monnaies, l'image du prince demeurait plutôt étrangère aux realia de la vie quotidienne. Après d'autres, H Philipp 80 a montré à propos des poids et pesons combien il fallait relativiser et même réviser cette vision a eu tendance

des choses. En effet, c'est justement parce que cette image est sacrée et par elle-même porteuse d'un potentiel

divin ou,

tout au moins, d'une référence au

numen qu'on la trouve en dehors des

monnaies, des laraires ou des sanctuaires publics.

Le

cas de poids comme celui du Louvre,81 où l'estampille circulaire des bustes affrontés de

Marc Aurèle et L. Vérus est assortie de la légende KAICAPON, n'a rien de surprenant, puisque les empereurs sont garants des poids et mesures, comme

ils le sont de la valeur du numéraire.

Plus

instructifs me paraissent être les pesons de bronze représentant des empereurs ou des impératrices, debout ou assis, en pied ou en buste.

Le

British Museum possède même une tête de

Claude qui a été récupérée pour servir de peson.82 Naturellement, c'est un cas problématique.

à l' u tilis a teur ? Ou à l'effigie impériale? Mais

S'explique-t-il en fonction du fait que l'image est sacrée, donc bénéfique parce qu'on avait cet objet sous la main, sans égard singulier

d'autres pesons ont été façonnés et conçus au départ pour figurer le prince.8 3 Les nombreux exemplaires représentant Mercure,8. dieu des affaires, donnent à supposer que l'imago impériale a é t é retenue non seulement comme garante, mais comme protectrice d e s activités commerciales. Toute une séIie de pesons reproduit l'image d'un jeune prince cuirassé et couronné de chêne ou de laurier.8s Ce n'est pas un portrait; mais H. PhilippB 6 a conjecturé qu'elle pouvait personnifier l'institution, la fonction souveraine idéalisée et comme "infantilisée", qui patronne et sauvegarde la prospérité économique sur toute l'étendue de

l'Orbis RomanltS. La jeunesse de

l'imperator est comme une assurance pour l'avenir. 78 79

80 81

Z. Kiss, "Impératrices ou déesses?" dans

Ritralto ufficiale e ritratto privaJo (Roma 1984) p.349-353.

Fishwick, Imp. CIIIt II.1, 375 5. Cf. le médaillon en argent de Notre-Dame-d'Allençon qui peut avoir servi d'ornement cultuel au centre d'une coupe: F. Baratte, Le trésor d'orfèvrerie gallo-romaine de Notre-Dame­ d'Allençon (Ma ine-et-Loire) (Gallia Suppl. 40, 1981) p .37 SS., n° 6, et dans Trésors d'orfèvrerie gal/o­ romains (Paris 1989) p.lOo 5., n° 30: Caracalla ou Géta tenant une Victoire et une come d'abondance.

H . Philipp, "Zu einer Gewichtsbüste aus dem Kerameikos," AthMitt 9 4 (1979) p . 139 ss. K. Pink,

Riimische IInd ITyzantinische Gewichte in listerr. Samm/lIngen (Sonderschr. d. Ost. Arch. Inst. in Cf. Dar.-Sag. IV.l, p.559, fig. 5744, s. v. "Pondus".

Wien 12, 1938) p. 64 ss.; Philipp (supra n.8o) p . 155.

82 83

A. C. Ph. de Caylus,

84 8S

Philipp (supra n.8o) p.139, 152 s.; Menzel (supran.36) p.164. Philipp (supra n.8o) p.148 S5., 1 5 7 s. (nO 8-20), 159 ( n O 25, 29-30);

86

Miinzen IInd Medaillen (supra n.85) p .. 152: ... "unpersônliches Kaiserportrats ... nur die Institution des

Philipp (supra n.8o) p. 152, 159 (nO 31) et pl. 46.4.

Recueil d'antiquités égyptiennes, étnlsques, grecques, romaines et gall/aises (Paris Collection J. Gréall, Cata/oglle des bronzes antiqlles (Paris 1885) nO 318; Babelon et Blanchet (supra n.43) n° 841 s., B46 s., 953; H. B. Walters, Cata/oglle of the bronzes in the British Mllsellm (London 1899) n° 832. Cf. Philipp (supra n.8o) p . 157, rf 3 et 10; p. 1752-88) IV, pl. XCVI.3 et XCVII.1; W. Froehner,

158 n° 19; p.159 n° 27, 30-31.

p.98 n° 76. Pour le type cf.

1982)

Retratos antigl"'s (supra n.37) p . 3 8 et Miinzen IInd Medaillen A.G., AlIletion 60, Kunstwerbe der Antike 06-19 Sept.

(Basle 1982) p.73 s., n° 153 (Héliogabale?).

Kaisers wiedergibt ... den Kaiser wie Merkur als Schützer des Handels, als Garanten für unverfalschte Gewichte darstellen

_

das kaiserliche Bildnis in ein allgeme�er abstrahiert und idealisiert

Funktion des Kaisers ais Institution darzustellen ... " .

_

die

L.

:omotion du sujet par le culte du souverain

61

Dans le même ordre d'idées, mais d'une façon plus lâche et moins directe, on devrait tenir compte, enfin, des profils impériaux qu'on relève sur les supports d'ustensiles divers: sur un miroir en argent,87 sur les anses d'amphores en verre,sa sur certains médaillons d'applique de la vallée du Rhône,89 sur les disques de lampes en terre cuite,90 pour ne rien dire des moules à pains ou à gâteaux.91 L'empereur est partout présent, pour ainsi dire, dans la vie quotidienne des Romains. Tous les motifs du répertoire iconographique exploité par les céramistes n'ont pas nécessairement une connotation religieuse dans la stricte acception d u terme. Mais on ne peu t pas dire non plus que, dans cet éventail passablement disparate d'images et d'objets, les effigies des souverains aient toujours une valeur purement esthétique. Comme les images des dieux, elles y ont une fonction plutôt tutélaire et bénéfique. Sur les médaillons d'applique, elles vont aussi de pair avec les références d'ordre festif.

On

a l'impression que les producteurs de moules pour la

décoration des lampes ont réédité occasionnellement des motifs de la typologie monétaire, ce qui apparente ces témoignages aux documents qui relèvent de la numismatique à proprement parler.

il

est remarquable que le disque d'une lampe trouvée dans le théâtre de Sabratha nous

montre les deux bustes affrontés de Sévère Alexandre et d'Orbiane (ou de Julia Mamaea?)9 2 chacun sur un socle, c'est-à-dire tels qu'ils pouvaient se présenter dans un laraire, comme les bronzes de Colchester93 et de Neuilly-le-RéaI.94 Assurément, ces représentations restent plus difficiles a interpréter qu'une inscription ou qu'une idole officielle. Mais elles postulent très souvent un choix (même si certaines étaient moulées en série, comme les lampes ou les médaillons d'applique, ce qui démontre aussi, l'importance de la demande et donc la popularité relative de cette production). Surtout, cette imagerie suppose une relation particulière du sujet, en tant qu'individu, dans sa vie privée, quotidienne, familiale ou professionnelle, avec le double du numen qu'incarne le prince. M.-L Vollenweider9s a très justement caractérisé u n aspect majeur du portrait impérial dans la

87

M. Taddei,

East and West 17 (1%7) p. 41 ss.; M. Radn6ti-Alfôldi, "Silberspiegel mit Domitianportrat in Festoen opgedragen aan A. N. Zadoks-Iosephus litta (Groningen-Bussum 1976) p.15 55., pl.

Karlsruhe," A.1-2.

88 89

Vollenweider (supra n.63) p . 240 ss., n ° 250-256.

90

Catalogue of the Greek and Roman lamps in the British Musellm (London 1914) p.sa n' Lucerne greche e romane dei/' Antiqllarillm Comllnale (Rome 1962) p.37, vetr. X, n' 3 et pl. XIII.4 ("Marco Aurelio''); J. Deneauve, Lampes de Carthage (Paris 1%9) p.121 n° 371 (Antonia?); G. Heres, Die romischen Bi/dlampen der Ber· liner Antiker-Sammlllng (Berlin 1972) p.73 s., n' 450 (Marc Aurèle) et 451-454 Oulia Domna); E. Joly, Lucerne dei Museo di Sabratha (Roma 1974) p.71 et 142 n° 561, pl. XXII ("due figure _ corpi schematici": en fait, il s'agit de bustes sur leur piédouche); M.-C. Heilmann, Bibliothèque Nationale, Lampes anliques l, Colleclion Froehner (Paris 1985) p.16 s., nO 13 (Hadrien), pour ne citer que quelques exemples. A. Alfôldi, ''Tonmodel und Reliefmedaillons aus den Donaulandem," Laureae Aqllincenses memoriae V. Kuszinszki dicatae (Budapest 1938) p. 316-325; id., "Tonmedaillons und runde Kuchenformen aus Pannonien und Dacien," Folia Archaeologica 5 (1945) p.71 ss. A Piganiol a justement souligné (RH 186

P. Wuilleumier e t A . Audin,

Les médaillons d'applique gallo-romains de la vallée d ll RhOne (Paris 1952)

p.115, n' 199-200. H. B. Walters,

577, fig. 2 (Antonia?) et p. 209, n' 1386 (Hadrien?); L. Mercando,

91

92

[1930) p.318) l'exaltation particulière de Marc Aurèle. Joly (supra n.90). La conjonction de l'image impériale avec la lampe comme source de lumière est

93

S . A . Strong, " A bronze o f a Julio-Claudian prince (Caligula?) in the Museum o f Colchester," I R S 6

94 95

évidemment significative. (1916) p.27 sS., fig. 1 et pl i-II; J. M. C. Toynbee, Art

pl.

in Britain IInder the Romans (Oxford 1%4) p.4o s. et

I!I b ("Gaius"; trouvé avec une staniette de Jupiter et un masque de Silène à Colchester en 1845).

Supra n.39.

"Le développement du portrait glyptique à l'époque des Antonins et des Sévères," Ritrallo IIfficiale et ritrallo privato (supra n.78) p.88. Sur la fonction et la signification des camées: li Babelon, "A quoi servaient les camées? Les camées antiques de la Bibliothèque Nationale," Gazelle des Beaux-Arts 41 III.21 (1899) p.93 sS., 101 ss., et fig. 3 (tête d'Auguste sur monture en or filigrané, qui a pu servir de

Robert Turcan

62

glyptique:

" ._

on peut se demander jusqu'à quel point on peut désigner ces portraits comme

officiels . Déjà par leur petitesse, ces objets font plutôt appel à l'affectif. Ils établissent un lien de coeur, surtout si le souverain était un bienfaiteur, et cela beaucoup plus que les hermès et bustes érigés sur des places publiques, dans les portiques et les temples . . . " intailles et

a fortiori les camées ne peuvent être mis tout à fait

il

va de soi que les

sur le même plan que les effigies

moulées, voire surmoulées en nombre. Mais c'est le profil des princes qui importe et qui a de soi une valeur sacrée. Je serais donc tenté d'aller plus loin que M.-L. Vollenweider et de mettre l'accent sur la signification cultuelle de ces portraits, sur ce qu'en attendent les sujets en contrepartie de l'hommage qu'implique le souci de les avoir chez soi ou sur soi, en tout cas pour soi. " ... Surtout si le souverain est un bienfaiteur", écrit M.-L. Vollenweider. Mais en principe tout souverain est bienfaiteur ("sauveur", disaient les Anciens): le pouvoir et le devoir.

il

en a, au moins .

par

vocation,

C'est en considération du pouvoir surhumain de l'empereur, c'est à-dire du fait même qu'on

numen. Mais pour pouvoir sau­ de rester sain et sauf. C'est pourquoi on prie et consacre, dé­ "sauvegarde" (pro salute), qui sauvecarde la paix et la félicité romaines.

dépend de lui, que l'on compte sur la "providence" efficace de son ver, le souverain a besoin lui-même die et sacrifie pour sa

Ce n'est pas théologiquement contradictoire, ni vraiment contraire à la tradition religieuse

(mac tare) ne visait-elle pas primitivement à accroitre (mactus, magis auctus) 96 la force des dieux, pour leur permettre d'être encore plus dieux, comme l'implique aussi

romaine. L'immolation

une réflexion attristée de Varron surIes dieux qui meurent faute de service liturgique?97

Les dieux ont besoin d es hommes, comme les hommes ont besoin des dieux. Do lit des .. . Cette espèce de contrat cultuel qui lie implicitement le sujet à l'empereur fait aussi qu'ils existent solidairement l'un et l'autre, l'un avec l'autre et

par

rapport à l'autre. La religion du souverain

ne légitime pas seulement l'homme qui en est l'objet,

mais

corrélativement celui qui en est le

sujet actif. soit à titre personnel, comme individu, soit comme membre d'une collectivité urbaine et civique, ethnique ou provinciale. C'est pourquoi finalement Fustel de Coulanges98 pouvait affirmer de cette religion impériale, "qu'au premier abord on jugerait faite pour des esclaves", qu'elle .fut "au contraire un principe de liberté" et par consequent, oserai-je ajouter, un moyen de promotion à la conscience et à l'expression d'une identité.99

3, Rés. du Tourillon, F-69290 Craponne

broche pour fermer un manteau, découverte à Tirlemont, Belgique); H Miibius, "Sinn und Typen der

riimischen Kaiserkameen:' ANRW II.12.3, p.32 55., 40 s.; T. Gesztelyi, "Riimische Portriitgemmen:' Riimisches Portrat, Wege Zllr Forschung eines gesellschaftlichen Phanomens (Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt-Universitiit zu Berlin, 1982) p.193 ss.

96 97 98

Pauli exc. de lib. Pomp. Festi de significat. verbon/m, 5.11. mactus (éd. Lindsay, p. 112.13). Cf. J. Bayet, Histoire politique et psychalogique de la religion romaine (2e éd., Paris 1969) p.130. Apud Aug., CivD 6.2 = B. Cardauns, M. Terentills Varra Antiquitates Rerum Divinarllm (Wiesbaden 1976) J, p.15, fr. 2a; Il, p.137. Histoire des institutions de l'ancienne France J, L'empire romain (Paris 1875) p.106; La Gaule romaine (rééd. Paris 1994) p.152. Dans cette affirmation a priori paradoxale de Fustel, il faut évidemment faire la part des controverses de l'époque. fi réagissait contre un celtisme romantique qui, après 1870, faisait

99

plus ou moins bon ménage avec le nationalisme républicain que prêcheront les manuels d'histoire.

Au nombreux témoignages d e l a dévotion privée à l'empereur s'ajoute maintenant oeiui du trésor trouvé à Vaise (Rhône) en 1992. Outre des monnaies et des bijoux (parmi lesquels un

aureus de Gordien TIl

monté en médaillon à bélière pour être suspendu à une chaîne), on y a relevé de la vaisselle, des

(Fortuna, l'Abondance ou Pomone, Sol) et un buste en argent lauré, cuirassé, revêtu paludamentum, qui fait 17 cm. de haut J.-P. Lascoux, F. Baratte. C. Metzger, G Aubin, M.-Cl. Depassiot, Le trésor de Vaise, Lyon-Rhône (Lyon 1994) p.14 ss. J'aurais tendance à identifier cet

statuettes de divinités du

empereur avec Sévère Alexandre. On a l'impression d'avoir affaire aux élements d'un "sanctuaire

domestique, un laraire ... " (Baratte, ibid. p.35). G. H. Durand-Godiveau, "Le trésor de Lyon-Vaise:'

Archeologia 301 (mai 1994) p.18 (phot.) 55., 20.

Caligula's cult: immolation, immortality, intent c. J. Simpson Introduction This paper is concemed with three themes which I believe to have underlain the formal establishment of the cult of Caligula in Rome. They are discussed here under the headings Immolation, Immortality and Intent. Briefly stated,

I

argue that already by the time of

Caligula, blood sacrifices at Rome had been appropriated for the imperial cult; that our sense of Julio-Claudian 'divinity' needs to be re-examined so as to provide a better understanding of the strength of religious experience involved in it; and that Caligula had a definite purpose in promoting his cult, namely to cow the senatorial elite. Each of these arguments has a bearing on . the question of the extent to which Caligula had 'divine' pretensions. This paper is not, however, intended to be a comprehensive treatment of Caligula's 'cult'.!

I. Immolation At the outset of his brief reign in A.D. 37, Caligula forbade sacrifices to his

genius; thus he Pontifex

demonstrated a public restraint greater than did Augustus after he had become

12 B.C.2 By the time he was murdered in January 41, however, Caligula had given way to apparent excess; and his numen or his genius was honoured with priests and extravagant

Maximus in

avian sacrifices. Such 'aberration' was perhaps a sign of insecurity.3 The fact that CaJigula was probably his own priest and that he had enrolled his wife and uncle in the

nov u m

sacerdotium certainly suggests excess i n the cult practice.4 As for sacrifices, it seems that the only extant sculptural depictions of blood sacrifices in the imperial age in Italy in which the emperor was not the sacrificant represent other officials directly related to the cult of the emperor, the

vicomagistri and the Vlvi ri Augustales.5 This

A n earlier version of this paper was presented to the Faculty-Graduate Student Seminar of the Department oi Oassics at McMaster University, Ontario, on October 21, 1993. I thank the participants in that seminar for their comments, and also A M.

Small.

For cult of Caligula's nllmen and not of the emperor as a manifest god, see C. J. Simpson, "The cult of the

emperor Gaius," lAtDmIlS 40 (1981) 511; D. Fishwick, "Dio and Maecenas, the emperor and the ruler cult," Phoenix 44 (1990) 270. For Caligula's genills, see Simpson 1981, 509 f., n.60 and A A. Barrett, CaJigllla. The COTnlption of power (London 1989) 151-53. See generally the sources collected in P. Herz, "Bibliographie zum romischen Kaiserkult (1955-1975):' ANRW 11.16.2 (1978) 833-910 . Augustus' alleged restraint is now the topic of another brief note forthcoming in RBP H in 1997; see also W. Speyer, "Das VerhiHtnis des Augustus zur Religion," ANRW 11.16.3 (1986) 1777-1805.

A. Wallace-Hadrill, "Civilis princeps: between citizen and king," JRS 72 (1982) 37. He went so far as to punish those people who did not s wear by his genills: Barrett, Caligllla (supra n.2) 153. For the e;r:cogitatis simae hostiae: Suet., CaJig. 223. For the cult of Caligula's genills: Pers. 6.48; Petron., Sat. 53; Barrett, CaJigllla 15l. Cf. Suet., CaJig. 57.4; Dio Cass. 59.28.6. For the expensive priesthood, Suet., Clalld. 9.2, H. Smilda, C .

SlIetonii Tranqtdlli mta Divi Ciattdii (Groningen 1896) 3 6 ft.; Dio Cass. 59.28.5. According to Dio, the priesthood cost HS 10,000,000 to join; fer Suetonius, it was HS 8,000,000. Perhaps even Jncitatus was enrolled in the 'priesthood' but cf. H. Willrich, "Caligula," Klio 3 (1903) 445, n.5. Scott R yberg 81-103; R Gordon, "The veil of power: emperors, sacrificers and benefactors" in M. Beard and

J.

North, Pagan priests. Religion and power in the ancient world (London 1990) 205. Cf. also the

images collected in R Turcan, Religion romaine 2 Le culte (Iconography of Religions 17.1, Leiden 1988). The vicDmagistri were responsible for the regional Lares and Genills of the emperor. For the altars of the

c. J. Simpson

64

'imperial appropriation' of public blood sacrifice is apparent also

Brethren,

in

the

Acts of the Arval

whose sacrifices under the empire were given over to honouring members of the

imperial house.6 Indeed, even at the end of the

4 th

C., Prudentius inadvertently noted the

'imperial' exclusivity (or at least dominance) in particular forms of quadriped blood sacrifice.' Blood sacrifice in Rome was certainly a significant element in emperor worship, as Duncan Fishwick has pointed out.s But the fact that no Italian relief sculptures show blood sacrifices other than those by sacrificants related to the ruler-cult or by the emperor himself need not only be the result of an artistic convention which gave the emperor an 'ideal monopoly' of sacrifice in the iconographic record (as Gordon suggests)? It could well reflect the actual

appropriation of blood sacrifice by the emperor in the century after Augustus, at least in Rome, and perhaps throughout Italy.to While there may have been

continued to examine the

exta of

all

manner of private sacrifices, and

animal victims (cf. Tac.,

Ann. 15.47),

haruspices

may have

there are no grounds for

believing that under the Julio-Claudians public blood sacrifices did not have some dominant

association in Rome with the imperial family}1 Blood sacrifices seem either to have been performed publicly

in

state ritual by the emperor as

Pontifrx MRximus

or to have been made by

others on behalf of the emperor and members of the imperial family.u We should guard

against any preconception that such expensive blood sacrifices were a common, everyday event in Rome. This imperial appropriation of blood sacrifice merits further investigation.

It may

be

more apparent than real. For our present purposes, however, it is enough to observe that

Caligula's extravagant sacrificial victims may have been different from those of other emp erors but that they remained 'imperial' blood sacrifice

in

in

sacrificed, not the fact of blood sacrifice

lhe sacrificial victims Calig. 22.3). Why, apart

real terms within the tradition of pre dominan tly

Rome under the Julio-Claudians.l3 It was the nature of the birds

per se,

that sparked outrage.

were such animals as flamingos, peacocks, and guinea fowl (Suet.,

from their edibility, was it these birds that Caligula sacrificed

daily?14 Why, for Dio and Suetonius, were these sacrificial victims so worthy of mention? Here some speculation may be permissible.

u.res AlIgtlSti generally, see M. Hano, "A l'origine du culte ilY'P',rial: les autels des Lares Augusti.

Recherches sur les themes iconographiques et leur signification," ANRW !I.16.3 (1986) 2333-81.

And, it seems, a dominant characteristic of the literary record. See the other 'non-Caligulan' ""amples of avian sacrifice mentioned below. For the Acts of the Aroal Brethren under Caligula (really a 'college' of the imperial cult at Rome),. see E. M Smallwood, Docllments illllstrating the principat.. of Gaills,

Clalldius and Nero (Cambridge 1967); W. Henzen, Ada Aroalillm Fratmm

q"ae

slIpemmt (Berlin 1874);

J. Scheid and H. Boise, "Deux nouveaux fragments des Actes des Freres Arvales de l'annt!e 38 ap. J.-C.,"

MEF RA 92 (1980) 215-48.

Prudent., c. Syrnm. 126 f.: posteritas ... et flamine et aris

! Augustumcoluit, vituloplacavit et agno.

Fishwick, Imp. Clllt !I.l, 505-9.

10

Gordon 1990 (supra

n5) 205.

For blood sacrifices associated with the emperor, d. Vespasian and the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, Tac., Hist. 4.53.4; and see A. AlfOldi, "Die zwei Lorbeerbaume des Augustus," Antiqllitas I1I.14 (Sonn

1973) 41. For an opposite view, cf. OCD2 (1970 ) 943-45. Caution and Tert., De Spect. 10 -1 3, for

""ample, prevent a broader statement.

11 12 13 14

For the distinction between classes of blood sacrifice, see K. Latte, Ram. Re1. 379-81, and authorities

cited in the notes. Also, Turcan, Le cult. (supra n5) 9 f.

Or by the rex sacrorllm, his subordinate: A. Rosenberg, RE 2.1. (1914), s.V. 'Ra sacroTllm', 721-26.

Pliny, Pan. 52.1 explicitly refers to emperors before Trajan as being honoured grandioribll' victimis.

Suet., CAlig. 22.3: hostiae erant phoenicopteri, pavones, tetraones, numidicae, meleagrides, phasianae, quae generatim persingulos dies immolarentur; Dio Cass. 59.28.6. l.thank W. Slater for this observation.

Cf. Juv., Sat. 11.139-42.

Ca.

Ila's cult: immolation, immortality, intent

Koberlein has suggested that the exotic victims were "Vertreter des

I'horux"

65

to ensure the

emperor's continued existence, and were characteristic of what he sees as Caligula's

'Egyptianizing' tendencies.'s This explanation may be right for Caligula himself, even though

it must be said that there practice.

In

is

no record of specifically Egyptian ritual in Caligula's religious

the eyes of his Roman subjects, however, it is possible that the avian offerings

indicated his equality or even his open rivalry with Jupiter, whose eagle was such a famous

avian symbol.

In Roman 'still lifes' of the period, as Ling observes, the representation of an eagle "betokens the world of Jupiter".16 Zanker has noted that birds seem to have played a more general role in the sacred iconography of the earlier HeUenistic and Augustan ages.!' The continued evolution

of such iconography is to be expected. It was useful

in

ideological terms provided that its

meaning was intelligible to the contemporary observer. There is also the clear possibility here of a more overt

imitatio Augusti on the part of

Caligula, given that Apollo's bird, the swan, was a particularly well-known avian symbol.

is commonly used to explain the presence Ara Pads Augustae. la But the s:wan, precisely because of its

The 'special affinity' that Augustus had for this god of highly visible swans on the

associations with Apolline Augustus, may have been thought inappropriate for Caligula as a

sacrificial victim - as may Jupiter's eagle, the symbol of apotheosis after death (or of present or future might).19 Other birds, too, may have been considered inappropriate for imperial sacrifice in the Roman context. For example, chickens were associated with augury; crows and vultures with

bad or ambivalent omens; doves with Venus Erycina in Sicily. Still other birds were already

used for sacrifices, and so had no value for Caligula as extravaganzas. For example, hens were sacrificed to the

Lares and, perhaps,

to Tenninus; Martial records the immolation

of

a goose.

(Apart from the sacrifice to Terminus for which Prudentius is our only source, these were blood

sacrifices directly or explicitly associated with the emperor.20) As for the non-avian

they were already a factor useful to his purpose.21

IS

16 17 1B

in

hostiae,

state religious practice, not peculiar to Caligula, and thus less

E. Kiiberlein, C41igula "nd die ilgyptischen KII/te (Beitriige zur k1assischen Philologie 3, 1962) 47-49. R. Ling, Roman painting (Cambridge 1991) 153. The eagle stands as a symbol for Jupiter, especially when accompanied by a globe, sceptre, and thunderbolt but perhaps also when unaccompanied by such attributes. See below n.19. Zanker, Power of images 178 f. O. G. Williams,

The

third book of Horaee's Odes (Oxford 1969) 30:

"Romans were fond of aviaries". Zanker, Power of images 181, figs. 140 , 182; G. M. A. Hanbnann, Ro",an art (New Yor>: 1975) lOS, though Ling (supra n.16) 39 does associate these birds with an "Egyptianizing flavour". O. Kiiberlein (supra n.15). The house of M. Lucretius Fronto at Pompeii, possibly contemporary with Caligula's reign,

19 '"

has swans and eagles as decorative mural elements: Ling (supra n.16) 60.

C f. the eagle perched above the infant Hercules on a mural in the House ofthe VettiL Pompeii. llUs image either represented Hercules' father or potential might: Ling (supra n.16) pI. Villa (lacing 81). Crows: Dio Cass. 45.17.6,Macrob., Sat. 2A29. Vultures: Verg.,Aen. 6.597. Hens: Juv., Sat. 12.96,13.233; Prudent., c. Symm. 2.1008 (to Terminus - a unique reference and perhaps unreliable, b ut clearly

private). Goose: Mart. 9.31. C f. Latte, Ro",. Rel. 380. Martlal's goose, however, was considered only a small offering: ipse suas anser properavit laetus ad aras I etcecidit sanctis hostia parva focis (9.31.5f.).

21

For example, sllovelallrilia and sacrifices of quadripeds, a ram on 9 January or the October Horse. For the sacrifice of a ram to Janus at the Agoni""" Ovid, Fast. 1.317-36. The sacrifice here in the age of A ugustus, presumably following Republican practice, was by the rex sacro""". The Agoni"'" was also named in the Roman calendar on 17 March, 21 May, and 11 December. O. Platner-Ashby 441; elL [2

306. (Cf. Tac., Ann. 15.47: such victims may have been hosti.. for the ha"'spices.)

c. J. Simpson

66

Caligula's selection of uncommon avian victims, therefore, may have been a carefully contrived statement in the contemporary ruler worship, calling to mind the equally powerful deities who were currently associated with the most famous avian symbols, such as the eagle and the swan.

It

should be noted that, for Suetonius, the sacrificial victims were not so much

expensive as most carefully devised Much of this

is

were said by Dio

(excogitatissimae, Calig. 22.3).22

admittedly speculative, but the fact remains that the sacrificial victims

(59.28.6)

to be

emul.,ot

u . ..

Kat ItOA.U��T].rot by Dio. The reason for such eJ.i te. Outrage at sheer expense by

extravagance may simply have been to subdue the senatorial itself seems unlikely, however, and the avian

hostiae

I suspect that the symbolism

entailed in the immolation of

played some role in disturbing contemporary sensibilities, even though its

precise meaning is opaque to us today.

11.

Immortality

I

am concerned here solely with the consecration and 'divinity' of the Julio-Claudian

emperor and with no one else, neither the deified imperial women (Uvia under Claudius, or Drusilla) nor Germanicus who was not deified after his untimely death in 19.23 Our feted scholar has been concerned about

the

'ambiguous position' of the emperor and has

noted "incongruities" in the combinations of sacred terminology with secular titles tions. "Despite the level of the divine evoked by

sacrum" in

in

inscrip­

certain inscriptions, the emperor,

according to Fishwick, is still addressed in his human, mortal dimension.24 But such combina­ tions are only incongruous to us. To the composer of the inscriptions they more probably seemed like expected statements, unlikely to be considered excessive by the contemporary viewer.2S

In actual

practice, the Roman subject openly addressed the living

princeps with

procedures

reserved for the divine - wearing white robes, on one occasion, and burning incense}6This approach to the emperor as a god led to the practice of

p1'osicynesis

introduced to Rome by the

canny Vitellius during Caligula's reign. He came before the emperor as though before a god

deum)

and with head veiled

(ut

(capite velato).2'

How did the Roman or peregrine view the master of the world in the 1st c. A.D.? Augustus per flamines et sacerdotes (Tac., Ann. 1.10). 28 Claudius, Caligula's

wished to be worshipped

supposedly more restrained successor, was addressed as

Arval Brethren.

Nero, for all his apparent restraint

in

divinus princeps in

the

Acts of the

the Senate at Rome, was hardly self­

effacing or humble. He already hadJl amine s at Pompeii.29 Furthermore, the proposal that the

22

23

OLD 636. See most recently W. D. l.ebek, "lntenzione e composizione della 'Rogatio Valeria Aurelia'," ZPE 98 (1993) 77·95 and the a uthorities cited there. Also J. Gonzalez, "Tabula Siarensis, Fortunales Siarenses et Municipia Ciuium Romanorum," ZPE 55 (1984) 55·100; J. Gonzalez &: J. Arce (edd.), Estudios sobre la rabula Sia"nsis (Anejos de Archivo Espanol de Arqueologia 9, 1988); the authorities cited by H. G. Frenz, "Mainz· Kastel: N achtrag 1989," [RA 2 (1989) 416. Generally, C. Habicht, "Die augusteische Zeit und das erste Jahrhundert nach Christ Geburt" in Le culte des sOllverains dans I'mzpi" romain

24 2S

(Entretiens 19, FondationHardt, Geneva 1973) 41·99. Fishwick, [mp. Cult ILl, 439. Cf. F. Taeger, Charisma. Studien zur Geschichte des Antiken Herrscher­ /mltes 2 (Stuttgart 1960) 252 f.

Fishwick, [mp. Cult II.1, 439 citing CIL IT 2703, V 852, IX 1556; [LS 8895 and comparing these with ClL 11

5182, VIII 26518, XI 3040.

26

Suet., Aug. 98. Cf. Zanker, Power if images 236 f., who verges on a ne w understanding and has less

27

difficulty than most inrecognizingAugustus's divine aspect. For Vitellius' proskynesis, Barret!, Calig"la (supra n.2) 150 f., 236; Suet., Vit. 2.5; Dio C ass 59.27.4-6.

28

Cf. the temples allowed to peregrini after Actium, Dio Cass. 51.20.7.

29

.

For example,

ClL ill 3882, 3884.

C 'tgula's cult: immolation, inunortality, intent

in Rome was formally submitted in the Curia fc senatus consultum.3o The consul designate, C. Aniciu Cerialis, called on the Senate to recognize Nero's status as divus by voting on the erection of temple divo Neroni. His proposal carried with its mere mention a recognition of divinity. Th temple proposed in Cerialis' sententia was refused but the formal motion remained in th records of the Senate meeting, in commentariis senatus (Tac., Ann. 15.74). living Nero should receive a temple

senatorial debate and approval by

In

later years, the idea that the Senate (as mortals) made gods (immortals) was a matlE

for Christian scom.3! Nevertheless, even Tertullian asserted at the close of the 2nd c. th, there was an old decree that no god could be consecrated by the emperor unless the Senal a p pro ved.32

His

assertion affirms the paramount role of the Senate in the process (

deification.33 Christian scorn may have obscured a basic Roman sentiment. Consecration by the Senate wa not merely an element in an honorific process, for even the extravagant honours awarded t Germanicus as recorded

in

the

Tabula Siarensis and by Tacitus (Ann. 2.83) did not involv

consecration. As Fishwick has argued, in the perception of many Romans (and here we reall only have evidence for the literate, and perhaps sceptical, elite), consecration by the Senat

divi. Once created they were immortal and like dei wer divus Juliu Caesar and his declared apotheosis in 42 B.e . was a novelty in senatorial religious practic( followed until the reign of Caligula only by the consecration of Augustus in 14. Such apotheosi may actually have created deities,

considered to be capable of hearing and answering prayers.34 The creation of the

may well have evoked a sincere 'belief' .35 Christian scorn confirms the sentiment. Conventionally, divinity was only attained by the Julio-Oaudian ruler when he departe,

divus from the company of men; nam deum honor principi non ante habetur quam inte homines desierit (Tac., Ann. 15.74, Nero).36 Thus Horace's praesens divus (Carm. 3.5.1·4) was revolutionary concept during Augustus' lifetime, and the use of the word praesens confirms th. a divus was not normally thought to be present among mortals. In the general conception, th as

30 31 32 33

Though cf. Pliny, NH 34.30: populi aut senatus sententia; Tac., Ann. 15.74: reperio in comtnentarii senatus Cerialem Anidum consulem designatum pro sententia dixisse ut templum divo Neroni

so",,,r, oins (supra n.23) 13. Tert., Apol. 5.1: ... vetus erat decretum, ne qui deus ab imperatore consecratur nisi a senatu probatus.

Yesta only joined Augustus in the Palatine house after the Senate had given its approval. Ovid. Fos 4.960: ... sic iusti constituere patres. Constitution of sacred structures similarly required a Senat

decision. Cf. C.

34 35

qual

matw:rime publica pecunia ponaetur. Terl., Apo l. 5.1: ... apud vos de humano arbitru divinitas pensitatur. Cf. Bickerman in Lt cult. d.

J. Simpson, "livia and the constitution of the

Aedes Concordiae. The evidence of

Ovi,

Fasti 1.637ff.," Historio 40 (1991) 449 n2. D, Fishwick, "Senecaand the Temple of Divus Claudius," Britonnio 22(1991) 140. Cf. the lack

of sincere

belief' implied by F. MilIar, "Ovid and the Domlts Allg llsto: Rome seen fror

Tomoi," JRS 83 (1993) 8; D. e. Feeney, The Gods in epic, Poets ond critics of the Classicol troditio

(Oxford 1991) 188-249, passim. dted by MilIar, 8, n. 34. The essential problem of 'belief' is addressee in a fundamental study, by C. R. P hillips, "The Sociology of religious knowledge in the Roman Empire t A.D. 284," ANRW 11.16.2 (1986) 2697·2711: "Again, modern utilization of the term in describin classical antiquity reveals the false application of an admittedly dubious modern model belief/disbeliE to a period when no such dichotomy existed" (2702). See also infra n.45.

36

Cf, also, for example, Cicero's shrine for Tullia; Caesar (Dio Cass. 53.9.5). For expectation of divinit after death, cf. L R. Taylor, Th. divinity of the Romon emperor (1931) 162, 165; for Yespasian on

tu

death·bed (Suet., V.sp. 23.4). Cf. D. Fishwick, "Numen Augusti," Britonnio 20 (1989) 232. It i noteworthy that in Tacitus' account Nero does I)ot mention death per s. but merely the periphrasti 'departure from the company of men'. See below p.69, Ovid, Fost. 3.703.

C.]. Simpson

68

once-mortal

to day.37

divus

and the eternal

dellS

were probably much closer than is often allowed

I suspect that it was these factors - the competence of the senate and the sentiment of the

general public - and not some obsequious desire to award, or arrogant w· sh to receive, excessive honours that gave occasion for Drusilla's deification alleged threat against the Senate in

40

in A.D. 38

and, provoked

its sanctification after Apocolocyntosis.39

that an acceptance of this novel creation of immortality, and the Senate,

is

Caligula's

(Dio Cass. 59.25.5).38 Certainly it cannot be doubted

the underlying theme of Seneca's

debate by

Reception of 'divine honours' ,even in the age of Augustus,may well have been more common than their stated refusal.4o It is explicit

in

Ovid, Fasli

1.607

ff. and Dio Cass. 53.17.8 that the

name 'Augustus' signified something more than human.41 Tiberius' assertion to the senate that he was a mortal perfomting human functions, fictionally reported by Tacitus

(Ann.

4.38), may

have obscured the possibility that his refusal of the Spanish request to erect a temple to himself and Uvia was quite unexpected.42 Although perhaps certain of their own 'divinity' (and future immortality on some non­ corporeal plane), some Julio-Claudian emperors, like Claudius, may nevertheless have reacted with overt deference when formally offered divine honours by their subjects.43 It was, after all, under these Julio-Claudian

principes that

the concept and rituals of the Roman 'Herrscherkult'

were deliberately formed and quickly evolved to become, in Phillips' words, a "legitimate religious experience."" For some highly respected scholars, in earlier times the essence of Roman religious practice lay in action; the punctual observance of appropriate ritual was of paramount importance.4S the imperial period, after the creation of

divi,

In

there may well have been something more. The

possibility should not be too quickly rejected that the potential divus and his subjects accepted as conceptually valid the ruler's future immortal 'divinity'.

37

38 39 40

41

42 43

.. 45

Serv., ad Aen. 4.45: dei are perpetui; dim are ex hominibus facti but both are equal in their potential to act. Cf. C. J. Simpson, "Real Gods," Britannia 24 (1993) 264-65; J. c. Mann, "Numinibus Aug.," Britannia 22 (1991) 176; D. Fishwkk, "Templum Divo Claudio Constitutum:' Britannia 3 (1972) 169 n.37; id. 1991 (supra n.34) passim but especially 138 n.14; Latle, Rlim. ReI. 302, n.1. However, in pre-Augustari lyric, Catullus used divos in a context which suggests identity with dei (512). O. also Hor., Carm. 1225. For Drusilla and other women, Barrett, CaliguID (supra n2) 86-88. Cf., among others, P. T. Eden, Seneca ApoCDlocynt05is (1984) and S. Weinstock, Divus It,lius (Oxford 1971). Also Fishwick 1991 (supra n.34) 138; Feeney, Gods in Epic (supra n.3S) 207. Cf. also M. P. Charlesworth. "An Augustan formula. The refusal of divine honours," PBSR 15 (1939) 1lD. Earlier, if divine honours were formally offered, they were formally "refused, or accepted in modified terms": F. MilIar, "The imperial cult and the persecutions" in Le culte des souverains (supra n23) 155-56. Also Suet., Aug. 7.2 Elucidation of the name's significance is a well-worn topic. See, among many,R. J. Getty, "Romulus, Roma, and Augustus in the sixth book of the Aeneid," CP 4S (1950) 2; F. BOrner, P. Ovidius Naso. Die Fasten, II (Heidelberg 1958) 66. Tac., Ann. 4.38: Ego me, patres conscripti, mortalem esse et hominum officia fungi satisque habere si locum principem impleam et vas testor et meminisse posteros volo. Cf. Claudius and the A1exandrians his refusal of divine honours. Smallwood, Documents (supra n.6) 99-102, no. 370. Cf. F. MilIar, "Afterword (1991): in the footsteps of the Emperor," The emperor in the Roman world (31 RC.-A.D. 337) (London 1992) 638. Phillips 1986 (supra n.3S) 2772, agreeing with Price,Ritllals. Phillips 1986 (supra n.3S) 2697, n56, citing, among others, A. D. Nock, CAR 10.469, 2754 f.; Latle,Rlim. ReI. 61. See also 2754 f., nn243-44. Cf. R Syrne, Tacitus (Oxford 1958) 2.523: "The religion of the Roman state, being a system of ritual performances ... " O. Turcan, Le culte (supra n.5) 3-14; Mann 1991 (supra n.37) 174-75; Eur., Ion 1619 f. -

Cc

,ula's cult: immolation, immortality, intent

Ovid claims that it was merely the

3.703).

The claim implies that

divi

that fell to the dagger in 44 B.C.

Caesaris umbra

69

(Fasti

did not die, but were somehow translated to immortality.46

This was patently an acceptable public statement which cannot be dismissed as mere sycophancy. Our different, latter day understandings of 'divinity' and 'divine honours' do not fully address the Roman reality or a Roman subject's perspective. As Turcan, Price and Melior have observed, the whole modern conception of 'divinity' as an ineffable and superior 'godhead' relates awkwardly to Roman superstitionF Modem understandings should not be thrown back on to the religious systems of an ancient and alien society. Nor should we believe that the 'rationalism' of a Minucius Felix was universally held throughout the Roman empire or even, at an earlier time, by the mass of Senators themselves.48 The 'incongruities' noted earlier - the combinations of secular and sacred terminology­ are, to my mind, examples of a pagan Roman, pre-Christian and 'pre-Enlightenment' superstition. They represent an attribution of 'divinity' which was to be expected in honouring an emperor who had a "puissance universelle".49 Furthermore, that Augustus and Caligula are credibly said to have feted their contemporaries. so

In

numina, suggests that

this future 'divinity' was recognised by

sum, it seems that only a formal motion in the Senate could create a

minds of the pious, a

divus differed

from a

deus only

in

the fact

divus,

and that in the

of his creation.S1 After the first

two examples of consecration of mortals offered by the deification of Julius Caesar and Augustus, Caligula had a reasonable expectation of a ttai nin g divus sta tu s himself, by haVing that status bestowed on him by the Senate. The expectation of apotheosis, moreover, probably allowed some form of currently recognized 'divinity' to Caligula, which resulted in the cult of

his numen.

Thus, Dio's statement

(59.29.7)

that Caligula learned on

24

January 41 that "he was not a

god" may not really have been so ironic. 'Godhead' may have had a basis in 'popular belief'.s2

In 46 47

48 49

50

51

my view, the charge laid against Caligula was rooted more

in

a reaction to the excess of the

Bickerman in Le clllte des souverains (supra n.23) 16. Cf. Turcan, Le culte (supra n.5) 3-6; S. R. F. Price, "Between man and God. Sacrifice in the Roman imperial cult," JRS 70 (1980) 29. Cf. R. Mellor, "The local character of Roman imperial religion," Athenaeum 70 (1992) 387. Cf., for example, Minucius Felix, Qctauius 21.9,cited by Fishwick 1991 (supra n.34) 140,n.26. Fishwick, Imp. Cult 11.1, 439. Cf. Turcan, Le culte (supra n.5) 3: "Certes, les empereurs beneficieront d'une sort de veneration avantleur deification posthume, mais en consideration de leur function,de leur puissance universelle, pour les memes raisons en somme que les dieux. " Cf. Tert., Apol. 28.2. Also, for example, F. Coarelli, un Pantheon, l'apoteosi di Augusto e il apoteosi di Romolo " in K. De Fine Licht (ed.) CillQ. e architettura nella Roma imperiale (Anal. Rom. Suppl. 10, 1983) 44. However, in matters of deification it appears that the Senate was supreme. Fishwick 1989 (supra n36) 232: "In an extended sense, therefore, numen is practically synonymous with deity or divinity. " For the ara Numinis Augusti, see A1fiildi 1973 (supra n.13) 43-44; Caligula's templum ... ni/mini suo proprium, Suet.,Calig. 22.3. Cf.,however,Horace,Carm. 1. 2.25: Quem voce! divum populus ruentis / imperi rebus.1t is interesting to note that in the poet's conception, he also had to be a praesens diuus; not only to be effective but because there had already been created another in 42 s.c., who was not praesens Julius Caesar. Also, Gaius, Inst. 2.5; R. J. A. Talbert, The senate of imperial Rome (princeton 1984) 391; Fishwick (supra n34) 141, n. 29. For the date, D. Ward)e, "When did Gaius Caligula die? " Acta Classica 34 (1991) 158-65. For 'popular belief, Fishwick 1991 (supra n37) 140. Cf. the 'popular belief discussed by P. Brown, "The rise and function of the Holy Man in late antiquity," JRS 61 (1971) 81. -

52

c. J. Simpson

70

ceremonial and his Jovian pretensions, Le.,

of his religious ideas. 53

his rivalry with Jupiter, than against the substance

Ill. Intent Finally, it is legitimate to speculate as to the essential reason why Caligula not only accep­

his 'cult' toward the end of his reign. The several species of birds, after all, were sacrificed daily (Suet., Calig. 22.3). ted but actively promoted excess in the ceremonies associated with

I suspect that Ca ligula was simply demonstrating publicly his exceptional authority, his

power over his subjects - and especially, over the senatorial aristocracy.s4 The Senate was a

"numerically insignificant" elite.55 For all that, its prestige was enormous and the control of its

members was, therefore, important.

On this interpretation, the sacrificial offerings and the expensive priesthood were not

examples of 'aberration'. They were acts of apparent but intentional "unpredictability, whimsy and humiliation" with which the emperor sought to repress anticipated senatorial opposition.56 Wallace-Hadrill is surely correct when he refers to the "unbridgeable gap" that

they demonstrated "between sovereign and subject".S7 Observance of ritual, according to the anthropologist Rappaport, promotes "docility, compliance, cooperation, altruism, commitment, and enthusiasm". Perhaps these were what Caligula hoped for from his subject senators.58 It is noteworthy that in A.D.

40 Caligula threatened the Senate in Rome with destruction for

not v oting him fa ;'1t'P &v9pril1trov (Dio Cass. 59.25.5). Such honours were formally rejected by others because of the jealousy tha t they might evoke. 59 The opportunity to refuse them had

been offered in the Senate to Tiberius and would be offered again later to Nero.60 Caliguia had reason to be annoyed in August 40 since he had evidently not been honoured with . a similar

offer.

Nevertheless, it is certain that the cult of Caligula was formally established. Both

Caesonia, Caligula's wife, and Claudius, Caligula's uncle, were obliged to pay

su mma honoraria for the privilege of being candidates for the novum sacerdotium.61 Caligula is said to 53

54

For rivalry, d., among several other ancient accounts, Sen., de Ira 1.20.8 ... u1timae enim patientiae visum est eum ferre qui Iovem non ferret. Rivalry, not identification with Jupiter, seems to be indicated elsewhere as well - Simpson 1981 (supra n.2) 494-97. O. A. Ferrill, Caligula. Emperor of Rome (London 1990) 179, n.432. Contra J. RFear.;, 'The cult of Jupiter and Roman imperial ideology," ANRW II.l7.l (1981) 72-74; D. Wardle, Suetonius' Life of Caligula. A commentary (Coil. Latomus 225, Brussels 1994) 215 f. ; D. W. Hurley, An historical and historiographical commentary on Suetoni"s' Life of C. . Caligula (Atlanta 1993) 85. Cf. Barrett, CaliguJa (supra n.2) 291, n.56. The bridge in the Bay of Naples (d. Barrett, Caligula 212); the threats to replace the head of Olympian Jove; the plan to set up his statue in the temple in Jerusalem; and the proposal to make his hor.;e consul if historical - would be further examples of Caligula's demonstration of his ultimate supremacy. P. A. Brunt, Italian manpower, 225 B.C.-A.D. 14 (Oxford 1971) 383. S. Martin, "Images of power: the imperial senate," ]RS 75 (1985) 226. Fishwick 1990 (supra n.2) 270; Wallace-Hadrill (supra n.3) 37 and 47. RA. Rappaport, "The sacred in human evolution," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 2 (1971) 36: "The interests and needs of the society are presented to the individual as his own interests and needs, and his inconveniences and sacrifices on behalf of the society are rewarded symbolically. Recalcitrance, selfishness, and resentment thus are replaced by " But not always because they were inappropriate. See above, n.43. Fishwick 1990 (supra n.2) 271, nn.22-24. For a detailed discussion, Barrett, Caligula (supra n.2) 146 f., 151; Suet., Claud. 9.2; Dio Cass. 59.28.5. Supran.4. -

SS

56

57 58

.•

59

60

61

C;>ligula's cult: immolation, immortality, intent

have had at least one temple, and 'priests' of the highest rank, and he is reported to ha' sacrificed to himself. Thus we may believe that the senatorial elite was ultimately cowed.62 Certainly, the fact that Caligula was priest to himself (Dio Cass.

59.28.6) suggests that tl

offerings were not given to coerce, placate, appease or persuade an already manifestly 'divin recipient. More probably they had some 'informational' purpose.63 Like extravagant giJ

giving, the ritual killing of the rarest animals may also have s\!rved to inform the rest of

tl

elite of the sacrificant's rank and status, and of his family's superiority.

A modem rationalist might hold that Caligula's demonstrations of 'divinity' were weapOJ

in the 'psychological warfare' waged to ensure the emperor's dominance of the elite in Ron and confirm the taboo nature of his own person.64 They also encouraged a perception of h potential - and therefore, perhaps, current - 'divinity' among the general public. Some m,

have believed in it without question, others, the superstitious 'agnostics', may have acceptE it, perhaps, as a remote possibility; but the perception of his divinity may have been

powerful weapon in the arsenal of imperial control - alongside ridicule, torture and summal execution.

In the event, Caligula was assassinated. The violent curtailment of his reign and the murd,

of his priestly wife come as no surprise. Nor was another celebrant of Caligula's cult, Claudiu unreasonably afraid for his life in that liberating January of 41. Both he and Caesonia ha danced to Caligula's capricious but calculated tune in the company of a submissive and subdue

Senate.

Conclusions First, it was the sacrifice of particular avian victims, rather than that of the reguli

mammalian offerings, that caused senatorial outrage. Outrage surfaced because of tl symbolism patent in such sacrifices and perhaps, but to a lesser extent, at the expense sue sacrifices entailed. Second, dim as created by the senate were novel in Rome. The fact should lead us I recognize the strength of an irrational, religious sense in Rome during the first few decades , this millenium. This religious sense was fostered and shared by senators.

Third, while recognizing that Caligula may have expected posthumous apotheosis

(an

thus encouraged the public acceptance of his present 'divinity'), we should not ignore the fa,

that he deliberately exploited this 'divine' status. For Caligula, it served as a demonstratio of real and absolute power over his most immediate subjects,

the Roman elite.

the Senate and other members (

Wilfrid Laurier University, Ontari

62 63

64

Perhaps (Dio Cass. 59.28.8-9, the case of the Gallic shoemaker), CaJigula only bothered himself with potentially powerful 'upper class'. On the number of temples, Simpson 1981 (supra n.2) 504�. Rappaport 1971 (supra n.58) 28-30. For methods of "psychological warfare against senators", see Martin 1985 (supra n.56) 226.

Die Ikonographie des Genius Augusti im Kompital- und Hauskult der frühen Kaiserzeit Heidi Hänlein Schäfe .... In der archäologischen Forschung werden im aIIgemeinen zwei Darstellungstypen des Genius Augusti unterschieden. Danach erscheint der in augusteischer Zeit konzipierte Typus als togatus capite velato mit patera und Füllhorn.1 Der zweite Typus mit nacktem Oberkörper, Hüftmantel, Füllhorn und patera begegnet erst seit neronischer Zeit, und zwar nur auf Münzen. Er soll uns

in diesem Zusammenhang nicht interessieren, da er voHständig der Ikonographie des

Genius populi ROT1IQni angeglichen ist.2 Auch die Verkörperung des Genius in Form einer Herme

wird hier nicht behandelt. 3

Im Folgenden soll

vielmehr die anthropomorphe Bildgestalt des Genius Augusti

als togatus

näher betrachtet werden. Dabei stellt sich die Frage nach seiner Entstehungszeit sowie nach seiner spezifischen Ikonographie, da zumeist eine mit dem Genius des Hausherrn identische

Die Abkürzungen richten sich nach der Archäowgischen Bibliographie. Außerdem w erden benutzt: A. Alföldi, Di. zwei Larburbiium. d .. Augustus (Bonn 1973). Alföldi Bömer F. Bömer, Untersuchungen iiber die Religion der Sklaven in Griechenland und Rom I (AbhMainz 1957 Nr. 7). Boyce FeIletti Maj Fröhlich Hano

G. K. Boyce, " Corpus of the Lararia of Pompeii," MemAmAc 14 (1937). B. M. Felletti Ma� Lz tradizione italica nell'arte romana (Rom 1977). Th. Fröhlich, warien und Fl1SSIJdenbilder in den Vesuvstädten (RömMitt 32. Ergh., 1991). M . Hano, " A l'origine d u nute imperial: les autels des wes Augusti," in ANRW 1I.16.3 (1986) 2333 ff.

Hermann W. Hermann, Römische Gätleraltäre (KallmÜTIz 1961). Hölsch er, Staatsdenkmal T. Hölscher, StlUltsdenkmal und Publikum (Xenia 9, 1984). Hölscher,Augl/stlLS Kunckel

T. Hölscher in Kaistr AUglLStus und die verlorene Republik (Ausstellung

Berlin, 1988) 390 ff. H. Kuncke!, Der römische GenilLS (RömMitt 20. Ergh., 1974).

Niebling

G. Niebling, "Laribus Augustis Magistri Primi. Der Beginn des Compitalkultes der

Simen

Lares und des Genius AUgILSti," Historia 5 (1956) 303 ff. E. Rink, Die bildlichen Darstellungen des römischen GenilLS (Berlin 1933). E. Simon, AuglLStUS. Klmst lind Leben in Rom um die Zeitenwende (München 1986).

Wrede

H. Wrede, " Der Genius Populi Romani und das Fünfsäulendenkmal der Tetrarchen auf dem Forum Romanum," B]b 181 (1981) 111 ff.

Zanker

" P. Zanker, über die Werkstätten augusteischer Larenaltäre und damit zusammenhängende Probleme der Interpretation," BullCom 82 (1970/71) 147 ff.

Rink 13. Vgl. danach Kunckel 14 ff. 22 ff. Liste A und besonders Wrede 1 1 1

ff., sowie die neue Statue des Genius Augusti aus Scolacium: E. Lattanzi in Atti 28. ContI. Taranto 1988 (Taranto 1989) 556 Taf. 8,l.

Kunckel l6; Wrede 1 1 6 . J. Pollini i n K . A. Raaflaub,. M . Toher (Hrsg.), Bet""en Repuhlic a n d Empire (Berkeley 1990) 3 48 f . Abb. 16-17 hat diesen Typus des GenilLS vor kurzem in die Diskussion eingebracht. Er v ermutet, daß die ithyphallische Herme auf zwei nachaktischen MÜTIzstempeln den Genius Augusti meint: J.-B. Giard, Bibliotheque Nationale catawgue des monnaies de l'empire romain, J. Auguste ( Paris 1976) 68 Nr. 43-47; 49-5 1. Dafür könnte sprechen, daß auch die beiden Hermen des L. Caecilius Iucundus i n Pompeji Weihungen an seinen Genius darstellen: CIL X 860 mit p. 968; vgl. A. Mau, Pompeji in Leben lind Kunst2 (LeipzigI908) 464 f. mit weiteren Hermenweihungen tilr die Haush enn. Hinzu kommt eine inschrtitliche Weihung CIL XI 1324 aus L uni an eine J uno, die sich offenbar auf einem Hermenschaft mit Einsatzkopf befindet. - Grabstelen in Hermenform sind gerade in Pompeji mehrfach bezeugt: V. Kacke!, Die

Grabbauten vor dem Herkulaner Tor in Pompeji (Mainz 1983) 16 f ., 180.

Heidi Hänlein Schäfer

74

Erscheinungsform angenommen wird. Zunächst werde ich die Denkmäler des offiziellen Ko�pitalkultes behandeln, danach diejenigen des privaten Hauskultes.

L

DER GENIUS AUGUSlI

IM

KOMPITALKULT

1. Einsetzung des Kompitalkultes Der offizielle Staatskult der Laren und des Genius Augusti in Rom, von dem der Kaiserkult im Westen seinen Ausgang genommen hat, wurde durch Augustus selbst in verschiedenen

Etappen veranIaßt. Die Verehrung des Augustus bzw. seines Genius hatte bereits durch ein senatus consultum im Jahre 30 v.Chr. Eingang in den Hauskult gefunden.4 Darauf möchte ich später zurückkommen. Zunächst soll untersucht werden, wie sich die Verehrung des Genius Augusti auf den archäologischen Denkmälern des Kompitalkults in Rom selbst manifestiert.

Im Zuge der Neuordnung der

Binnenstruktur Roms ließ Augustus im Jahre

7 v.Chr.

in jedem

compttum der 265 Stadtbezirke eine Statue seines Genius zwischen den Laren aufstellen.s Der

neue Kult greift auf die republikanische Verehrung der Laren an den Wegkreuzungen zurück.6 Durch die sakrale Neuorganisation des Kompitalkultes mit jährlich neu zu wählenden vier

magistri vici aus den Reihen der Freigelassenen7 und vier ministri vici aus der Gmppe der Sklaven8 gelang es Augustus, auch die unteren Bevölkerungsschichten stärker auf eine loyale

Haltung gegenüber dem Prinzipat zu verpflichten. Er bot ihnen die gesellschaftlich anerkannte

Cass. Dio 51.19.7. - Zur göttlichen Verehrung Oktavians vor 30 v.Chr., s. Appian, Bell. Ci". 5.132,546 (c.35 v.Chr.); VergiI, Eelog . 1.6 ff. (41 v.Chr.); P. Lambrechts, NCli05 (1953) 6S ff. Saeellium AllgllSlum I! (Darmstadt 1988) 88 ff. - Kult des Genius Augusli: 1. Ross Taylor, "The worship of Augustus in Italy," TAPA 51 (1920) 128 ff.; ead., The dillinily 0/ Ihe Roman emperor (Middletown 1931) 181 ff.; Lambrechts NCli05 (1953) 75 ff. Saeculum Allgllslum II (Darmstadt 1988) 100 ff. Cass. Dio 55.8.1, 55.8.6, 55.9.1; Ovid, Fasl. 5.145 ff.; Suet., Allg. 31; Plin., N.H. 3.66; G. Wissowa in Rascher II 2 (1894) 1879 ff. s.v. Lares ; RE XII 1 (1924) 810 f. S.v. Lares (Boehm); Niebling 303 ff. mit ausführlicher Interpretation der Quellen. Wie Niebling 329 ff. richtig gesehen hat, sind Horaz, Od. 4.5.34 und Horaz, Ep. 2.1 nicht mit dem offiziellen Kompitalkult in Verbindung zu bringen und beweisen daher auch keineswegs die Einführung des Kompitalkultes mit dem Genill.5Augusli schon vor dem Jahr 7 v.Chr. vgl. auch F. Bömer, Alhenatum 44 (1966) 106 ff.; Fishwick, Imp. Culll.1,84 f.; G. Pisani Sartorio, B S l orArl 31 (1988) 23 ff. - Im Gegensatz zu A. v. Premerstein, "Vom Werden und Wesen des Prinzipats," AbhMiin che n 15 (1937) 170 f. scheint es mir auch nur schwer möglich, die bei Cass. Dio 53.20.2-3 geschilderte 'spanische Selbstweihung' der städtischen Bevölkerung bereits irnJahre 27 als Vorstufe zu dem späteren Kompitalkult zu verstehen, da sie aus einer anderen Tradition herzuleiten ist. Fest. 260 (ed. Lindsay) Naev., Com. 27. vgl. Wissowa (supra n.5) 1872 ff.; RE XIII (1924) 807 ff. 821 ff. S.V. Lares (Boehm); Niebling 307 ff. - Die Bezeichnung 'Lares Augusli' muß augusteisch sein und kann nicht auf die späte Republik zurückgehen, wie dies in der älteren Forschung aufgrund von GL 12 753 CIL V 4087 zumeist angenommen wurde, vgl. auch Alföldi 24. Dagegen schon Bömer 45 f.; Latte, R6m .· Rel. 307 Anm. 4; G. Alföldy, Gym nasium 98 (1991) 304. - In Rom und Italien sind keine bildlichen Zeugnisse des republikanischen Kompitalkultes erhalten; vgl. zu den Inschriften Bömer 43 ff. Immerhin sind die zwischen 125 und 69 v .Chr. entstandenen Sakralmalereien der Italischen Kolonie auf Delos auf den Kompitalkult zu beziehen, wie Ph. Bruneau, Recherches s ur Ies C!llles de Delos il /'epoque hellenislique el ill'epoque imperiale (Paris 1970) 589 ff. überzeugend gezeigt hat. Die Malereien befinden sich - ähnlich wie in Pompeji - bis auf zwei Außnahmen auf den Außenmauem der Häuser, in Wandnischen und auf Altären bei Hauseingängen. Sie zeigen Götter- und Larendarstellungen, Boxer sowie Opferszenen mit 2 oder 3 magislTi in loga praetexla; es sind liber/i mit griechischen Namen, wie die Beischriften auf der Fassade des Hauses gegenüber der Maison de la colline zeigen. Vgl. K. Meuli, Mus Hel" 12 (1955) 230 ff.; Bömer 44 f.; Abb. in BC H 89 (1965) 989 ff. und U. Bezerra de Meneses, H. Sarian, 1. Suppi. BC H 3 (1973) 77 ff. Abb. 1-30. bes. 21-22; U. Bezerra de Meneses, DAr c h 3,Ser. 2 (1984) 82 ff. Abb. 6-7. Vgl. FeIletti Maj 258 f.; Fröhlich 123 f. RE VIII A 2 (1958) 2480 ff.s.v.llici magisler (Bleicken). Bömer32 ff. =

=

=

=

Die Ikonog rap hie des Genius Augusti

Möglichkeit

einer

ehrenvollen Selbstdarstellung

und aktivierte

im

Hinblick

auf

,

Ausstattung der Heiligtümer und die Ausrichtung der Kompitalfeste zugleich die finanziel Möglichkeiten dieser Schichten im Dienste des Gemeinwesens.9 Die Kulteinsetzung selbst zeigt vermutlich die linke Nebenseite des zwischen 7 und 2 v.C im Belvedere des Vatikan.10 Der Kaiser, bekleidet mit der tc

entstandenen Altars, ehern.

capite velato und hervorgehoben durch seine Größe, begründet den Kult der Laren, indem ihre Statuetten drei ministri überreicht, die mit der Tunika und dem Fransentuch bekleil sind.

In

der Linken dürfte er eine weitere, heute fehlende Statuette gehalten haben, die

d

Genius Augusti selbst wiedergab.11 Vermutlich war hier nicht der normale Kompitalkult einem der Stadtbezirke gemeint, zu dem auch die übrigen Seiten des Altars keine Beziehu haben. Zudem wären dann wohl kaum die ministri in Tunika, sondern vielmehr die magis dargestellt, die die toga praetexta trugen und in Begleitung zweier sakraler Liktoren auftrel durften.u Die Szene schildertvieJmehr die Neueinsetzung des Larenkultes in dem von Augusl erbauten Larentempel auf der Velia.13 Auf dieses Ereignis muß auch die sog. Ara ( vicomagistri bezogen werden, die vermutlich bereits in tiberische Zeit gehört.14 Wieden tragen die ministri in ungegiirteten Tuniken die Statuetten der Laren sowie diejenige eines tO!

tus, der nur der Genius Augusti sein kann. Diese Darstellung läßt vermuten, daß die Statue des Genius Augusti auch auf dem Altar ehern. im Belvedere nicht gefehlt hat und we zusammen mit diesem darauf hin, daß der Larentempel auf der Velia zugleich auch dem Gen: Augusti gegolten hat. Mit der Neuordnung dieses zentralen Larenheiligtums unter Einbeziehu seines Genius hat Augustus offenbar das Vorbild für die 265 Bezirksheiligtümer geschaffen.

2. Kompitalkult in Rom: die Larenaltäre In

diesen compita waren Altäre aufgestellt, von denen mehrere erhalten geblieben sind.

!

zeigen Opferszenen, die zwei Lares Augusti sowie corona civica und die zwei Lorbeerbäume: die Herrschaftszeichen des Augustus. Außerdem erscheinen guttus, lituus, patera und simp vium. Die Bildmotive folgen zwar keinem festen Schema, doch variiert ihre Kombination n in einem engem Rahmen.!5 Als Beispiel dient ein bislang unpubliziertes Relief, das vermutli aus einem solchen Heiligtum stammt (Anhang

n

Nr.

16,

Abb.

die von den vicomagistri dedizierten Altäre (Anhang I Nr.

1). Auffällig ist 1-5) ein reicheres

immerhin, d Bildprogram

mit Opferszenen und Larendarstellungen zeigen, während die Altäre der dem Sklavenstal

10

11

12

13 14

15

Niebling 309; Alföldi 18 ff. Vatikan. Mus. Greg. Profano, Inv. 1115: eIL VI 876 :ILS 83; P. Zanker, RömMitt 76 (1969) 205 ff.; Ha 2344 Nr. 10; Hölscher, Augustus 394 ff. Nr. 223 mit Lit.; R. Cappelli, AnnPerugia 8 (1984-85) 91 deutet die Gruppe der Empfänger jetzt als Vestalinnen;dies scheint mir wegen derTrachtrricht möglid so 500tt Ryberg 57; Simon in Helbig 14 Nr. 255; V. v. Gonzenbach in Festschrift I<. Kerenyi (StockhoJ 1968) 98 und Kunckel 24. Die Statuette des Genius Augusti müßte dann allerdings im Unterschied : den Larenstatuetten und entsprechend ihrer größeren Bedeutung vollkommen freiplastisch gearbeil gewesen sein, da am Reliefgrund keinerlei Bruchspuren zu erkennen sind. Freilich sind auch c Statuetten in den Händen der ministri auf der QTa der vicomagistri weitgehend freiplastisch. - Ande jetzt SiInon 100; P. Zanker (supra n.l0) 216 f. und Hölscher, AUgtlstus 396, der glaubt, daß die Statue d Genius von einer anderen Instanz (Senat?) aufgestellt worden sein muß. Liv. 34.7.2: '" magistris vicorum, togae praetextae habendae ius permittemus; Ascon. 6: solebant aute magistri collegiorum ludos facere, sieut magistri vicorum faciebant, compitaJicios praetextati; Cass. D 55.8.7. - Bömer 41; Th. Schäfer, Imperii insignia. Sella curulis und /asees (RömMitt 29. Ergh., 1989)22 230; vgl. den Larenaltar vom VicuSAescletius (Anhang 1 Nr. 3). Mon. ancyr. 4.7; Hölscher, Staatsdenkmal 27; Hölscher, Augustlls 395; zur Lage des Tempels s. E. 1 Ruggiero, II foro Romano (Rom 1913) 138 f.; G. LugIi, Roma Antica (Rom 1946) 220. F. Magi in Lippold, Vat. Kat. m 2, 505 ff.; Hölscher, AUgtlstllS 396 ff. Nr. 224. Vgl. die synoptische Tabelle bei Hano 2352.

Heidi Hänlein Schäfer

76

angehörenden ministri (Anhang I Nr. 6-7) nur einfache Bildzeichen wie Lorbeerbaum, eorona und patera verwenden.16 Der in das erste Jahr der Neuordung auf das Jahr Sala delle Muse

im

Vatikan (Anhang I Nr.

1,

Abb.

2)

7

v.ehr. datierte Kompitalaltar in der

gilt als der einzige, auf dem auch der

Genius Augusti wiedergegeben ist. Die Vorderseite zeigt die beiden einander zugewandten

Laren vor zwei Lorbeerbäumen sowie links daneben den Genius Augusti

in

Frontalansicht als

togatus eapite ve/ato mit einer patera in der Rechten. Unter Berufung auf H Jordan wird dem Genius stets ein Füllhorn im linken Arm zugeschrieben, das heute abgebrochen seiP Allerdings geht die Ansicht, daß Jordans Beschreibung auf einer damals noch besseren Erhaltung des Denkmals beruhe, von falschen Voraussetzungen aus: der Altar stand zu Jordans Zeit bereits am selben Platz in der Sala delle Muse

im Vatikan wie heute,

so daß kein Grund zu der Annalune

besteht, sein Zustand hätte sich seitdem durch Verwitterung o.ä. verschlechtert. Bei näherer Betrachtung ist es aber bereits aus äußeren Gründen völlig =öglich, in dem linken

Arm

des

Genius ein Füllhorn zu ergänzen. Wie der Vergleich mit anderen füllhornhaltenden Genien verdeutlicht, müßte es nämlich weit über die Schulter des Genius Augusti nach oben hinausgereicht haben.1 8 Der Reliefgrund über der linken Schulter des togatus ist aber völlig glatt und zeigt keinerlei Bruchspuren, die bei einem abgebrochenen Füllhorn zu erwarten wären. Hinzu kommt, daß für ein solches Attribut auch der zur Verfügung stehende Platz bis zum rechten erhobenen Arm des Lar nicht ausreicht. Diese Beobachtungen sichern jedenfalls, daß dieser togatus auf dem Altar der Sala delle Muse niemals ein Füllhorn gehalten hat. Unabhängig davon bleibt seine Identifizierung als Genius Augusti bestehen. Dies beweist schon die unmittelbare Verbindung des togatus mit den beiden Laren auf der Vorderseite des Altares, die exakt die Dedikationsinschrift in Relief umsetzt.19 Dabei handelt es sich nicht nur bei den

Laren,

sondern auch

im

Falle des togatus um einen feststehenden, versatzstückhaft

eingesetzten Figurentypus. Dies bestätigt schon die nicht aus einem Handlungszusammenhang heraus zu erklärende patera in seiner Rechten, die eigentlich einen Altar erfordern würde. Um ein Mitglied der vier vieomagistri karm es sich andererseits auch nicht handeln, da diese

in

vollständiger Zahl je zu zweit auf den weitgehend identischen Nebenseiten erscheinen: sie opfern in Anwesenheit eines tibieen an einem bekränzten Altar. Die Rückseite zeigt die von zwei Lorbeerbäumen flankierte eorona civiea.

16 17

Bömer 42; Alföldi 3S f.: Hölscher,

Slaatsdenkma/29.

Bei H. Jordan, AdI 34 (1862) 304 heißt es freilich noch anders: infra /ogatus vir capite vela/o dextrum pateram tenet, sinistrum braochium eo modo est comminutum, ut facile cornucopiae tenuisse putari possil. Jordan sagt damit lediglich, daß der lagalILS entsprechend seiner Atmhaltung leicht ein Füllhorn getragen haben könnte, nicht aber, daß er selbst noch Spuren davon gesehen hätte. Erst in Jordans späteren Arbeiten verfestigt sich seine Vermutung zur Gewissheit: id., "Vesta und die Laren," 15; id .,AdI

BtrlWPr 25 (1865)

44 (1872) 28 Arun. 3. Dem folgen dannScott Ryberg 59; Hermann 85; Simon in Helbig I' 66

Nr. 83: v. Gonzenbach (supra n.11) 98: Alföldi 31; Kunckel 25; Hano

2338. Nur Niebling 319 erwähnt

kein Füllhorn.

18

Anhang n Nr. 10,13; vgl. außerdem die Geniusstatuen in Rom, Berlin und Neapel, Kunckel Taf. 8-10, und

19

Siman in Helbig I' 64 ff. Nr. 83; P. Zanker (supra n.10) 209: Alföldi 32 u.a. folgen der von W. Henzen, CIL VI 445 nur hypothetisch vorgeschlagenen und von H. Dessau, ILS 3613 als völlig unsicher bezeichneten Ergänzung der Inschrift zu Lan"!ms Augllslis G{enis Caesan/m} sacr{um}. Gerade der Plural Genis entbehrt freilich jeglicher sachlicher Grundlage; "durch alte Abschriften vervollständigen" läßt sich nach Lippold nämlich nur sacntm, nicht hingegen Genis Caesan/m, wie Simon insinuiert; diese Ergänzung entstand vielmehr erst in Analogie zu den im CIL unmittelbar folgenden Inschriften449 IL S 3617 und 451 ILS 3618, die freilicherst aus domitianischer bzw. trajanischer Zeit stammen. H. Jordan (supra n.17) 15 hatte noch eine Ergänzung G{enia Caesarisl vorgeschlagen, möglich wäre aber auch G{enia AugllsliJ. Völlig unbegründet ist die Ansicht von Alföldi 32, die Inschrift enthielte die Widmung sowohl an den Genius des Kaisers als auch an die Genii u.,santm. vgl. Hano 2353 f.

infra 11.80.

=

=

Jie Ikono graphie des Genius Au gusti

Abb. 1: Privatbesitz. Relieffragment (Anhang

TI Nr.

77

16). Sotheby's Auktion 13" 14.7.1987 Nr. 435.

Abb. 2: Vatikan, Sala delle Muse. Larenaltar (Anhang I Nr. 1). InstNegRom 3 4.73.

Abb. 3: Rom, Antiquarium Palatin. Altar (Anhang I Nr. 13). Hano Taf. 3 ter, 7c.

Heidi Hänlein Schäfer

78

Ein Altar im Antiquarium des Palatin schließt sich hier unmittelbar an (Anhang

I

Nr.

13).

Die Rückseite zeigt ebenfalls die corona civica, auf den Nebenseiten ist jeweils ein Lar dargestellt. Auf der Vorderseite erscheint auf einer flachen Basis ein togatus capite ve/ato

(Abb.

3).

Der togatus vertritt den gleichen Figurentypus wie der Genius Augusti auf dem Altar

der Sala delle Muse (Anhang I Nr.

1,

Abb.

2).

Auch er hält kein Füllhorn im linken

Arm;

die

rechte Hand ist zusammen mit dem Attribut weitgehend zerstört2() Er erscheint ebenfalls in unmittelbarem Zusammenhang mit den Laren. Der emzige Unterschied zu dem Altar in der

Sala delle Muse besteht darin, daß die drei Figuren hier nicht nebeneinander auf einem einzigen Bildfeld erscheinen, sondern auf drei Seiten verteilt sind. Damit wird auch für den

togatus auf dem Altar vom Palatin eine Deutung als Genius Augusti

außerordentlich

wahrscheinlich. Den positiven Beweis für die Geläufigkeit dieses ikonograpischen Typus ohne Füllhorn liefert schließlich die Statuette des Genius Augusti, die zusammen mit den Lares Augusti auf der bereits genannten sog. Ara der vicomagistri in einer Prozession getragen wird. Bislang wurde nämlich nicht beachtet, daß auch dort der Genius Augusti keineswegs ein Fiillhorn hält, wie dies für seine Ikonographie zumeist vorausgesetzt wurde.21

Damit besitzen wir drei eindeutige Belege dafür, daß der Genius Augusti zumindest in der

frühen Kaiserzeit

im

Kompitalkult Roms sehr wohl ohne Füllhorn dargestellt wurde. Freilich

soll nicht geleugnet werden, daß es daneben auch den Typus mit Füllhorn gab. kleines Relief in der Villa Medici (Anhang II Nr.

2)

So

zeigt ein

den Genius Augusti mit patera und

Füllhorn zwischen zwei Laren vor einem Altar. Zwar spricht nichts gegen eine stadtrömische Provenienz, doch scheint es sich

im Gegensatz

zu den öffentlich aufgestellten und wesentlich

anspruchsvolleren Altären doch eher um ein bescheidenes Werk aus vielleicht privatem Umkreis zu handeln, das überdies erst aus der 2 Hälfte des 1. Jhs. stammen dürfte.22 Auf dem Altar

in

der Sala delle Muse (Anhang I Nr.

1) sind die vier inschriftlich aufge­

führten Dedikanten paarweise als Opfernde auf den Nebenseiten wiedergegeben. Auch auf dem

2-3

n.Chr. geweihten Altar vom Vicus Aescletius (Anhang I Nr.

3)

sind alle vier vicomagistri

inschriftlich genannt und wiederum erscheinen sie auch alle gemeinsam beim Opfer auf der Vorderseite des Altars. Außer von dem Kultpersonal und den Opfertieren werden sie noch von einem Liktor begleitet. Daneben gibt es aber offenbar auch Altäre, die nur von einem magister allein dediziert wurden. Ein solches Exemplar stellt anscheinend der erst

1985 von Panciera publizierte 12). Wiedergegeben sind ein

Altarblock im Cortile Ottagono des Vatikan dar (Anhang I Nr.

togatus capite velato vor einem Altar mit weiterem Opferpersonal und kleinem Stier. Der Genius Augusti kann hier jedenfalls nicht gemeint sein, weil hinter dem Opfernden ein Liktor mit einem Rutenbündel über der linken Schulter steht. Folglich muß es sich wie bei der Opferszene mit Liktor auf dem Altar vom Vicus Aescletius (Anhang I Nr.

3)

um einen

vicomagister handeln, nämlich den Dedikanten des Altars. Während Panciera noch offen ließ, ob

in

der Inschrift ein oder zwei Dedikanten erwähnt waren, vermag die Wiedergabe eines

einzelnen togatus beim Opfer diese Frage in Analogie zu den zuvor genannten Altären mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit zu entsclleiden. Auch hier ergänzen sich

20 21

also

Bild und Inschrift aufs

Möglicherweise war hier ein litlllls dargestellt,vgl. Matz-Duhn II199 Nr. 3649 und infra n.41. Supra n.17; dagegen aber die Beschreibung von F. Magi in Lippold,Vat. Kat. III 2,509. Das Fehlen eines Füllhorns ist gut zu erkennen auf den Abb. bei Th. Kraus, Das römische Weltreich (Propyläen

Kunstgeschichte 2, 1967) Abb. 190,und Kunckel Taf. 18. - Schon W. H. Gross,"lulia Augusta," AbhGöttingen 54 (1962) 77,80 hatte den Genius Augusti ohne Füllhorn definiert. Auf zwei anderen

frühkaiserzeitlichen Reliefs mit Larenprozessionen sind die Statuette d es Geni us AUgllSti zwar nicht

erhalten, aber ebenfalls vorauszusetzen,vgl. Seoll Ryberg 79 f. Taf. 20 Abb. 35 d-e; Helbig 14 Nr. 1021

22

(Simon); Alföldi 28 Taf. 7-8. Sozu Recht Felletti Maj 317 f . gegen die Frühdatierung von M .Cagiano d eAzevedo,Le antichitll d i ViU a

Medici (Rom 1951) 70 f.

Die Ikono g rap hie des Genius Augusti

Beste. - Die beiden Nebenseiten zeigen patera und guttus, so daß hier weder Laren, nocl Lorbeerbäume oder der GeniusAugusti auftreten. Nur die Rückseite stellt einen direkten BezuJ zum Kaiser her: die corona civica aus dem Jahre 27 v.Chr. wird verbunden mit dem simpuviu,

als Hinweis auf den Pontifikat, den Augustus im Jahre 12 v.Chr. angetreten hatte.23 Auf zwei weiteren. Altären aus Soriano und

im

Konservatorenpalast (Anhang

I

Nr.

10-11

erscheint ebenfalls nur ein einzelner togatus beim Opfer. In beiden Fällen galt er als ein Vertre ter des Kollegiums der vicomagistri.24 Bedenkt man allerdings die soziale Bedeutung des Amte für jeden Einzelnen des Kollegiums, sowie die Beteiligung aller vier Mitglieder beim Opfer au den Altären in der Sala delle Muse und vom Vicus Aescletius (Anhang I Nr.

1, 3), so ist eigent als pars pro toto des Kollegium: erscheinen sollte.2S Wenn man in den vorliegenden Opferszenen (Anhang I Nr. 10-11) dennocl vicomagistri erkennen will, dann nur unter der Voraussetzung, daß es sich ebenso wie im Fallt des Altars im Cortile Ottagono (Anhang I Nr. 12) um Weihungen einzelner vicomagistri han lich kaum vorstellbar, daß hier nur ein einziger vicomagister

delt, die sich dann auch nur alleine darstellen lassen. Dies ist keineswegs unwahrscheinlich da in einem compitum durchaus mehrere Ädikulen und Altäre stehen konnten.26 Zwar fehler auf den Altären aus Soriano und im Konservatorenpalast im Gegensatz zu dem Altar

Ottagono die Liktoren, doch sind diese nicht notwendigerweise

im

im

Cortih

Zusammenhang mit der

vicomagistri vorauszusetzen, wie die Opferszenen des Altars in der Sala delle Muse beweisen Inschriften fehlen, ist die Deutung auf vicomagistri allerdings nicht zu beweisen.

Da

Freilich wäre es durchaus möglich, daß die togati der Altäre aus Soriano und im Konserva·

torenpalast (Anhang

I

Nr. 10-11) gar keine vicomagistri sind, sondern den Genius Augusti selbsl

meinen. Diese Deutung ist bislang vermutlich deshalb noch nicht erwogen worden, da man stillschweigend von der falschen Voraussetzung ausgegangen war, daß der Genius Augusti stets mit dem Füllhorn verbunden sein müßte. Würden wir die togati tatsächlich als Kaisergenien verstehen, wären diese Opferszenen dann im Gegensatz zu der ausführlichen Schilderung auJ den Altären in der Sala delle Muse und vom Vicus Aesc1etius (Anhang I Nr.

1, 3)

lediglich

komprimiert - und zwar in der Weise, daß die eigentlich opfernden vicomagistri durch den

ohnehin schon im Opfertypus wiedergegebenen Genius ersetzt worden wäl1eI1. Der Vorteil dieser

Deutung wäre, daß der Genius dann immerhin selbst auf seinem Altar anwesend wäre. Die Wiedergabe des opfernden Genius ließe sich dann unschwer

als

Selbstdarstellung der eigenen

Göttlichkeit erklären: "der Genius vollzieht nicht ein Opfer für andere Götter, sondern er zeigt das Opfer an sich" .27 Die Laren mit den Lorbeerbäumen auf den Nebenseiten würden jedenfalls ebenso wie im Falle des Altars auf dem Palatin (Anhang I Nr.

13) gut zu einem Genius Augusti

auf der Vorderseite passen. Trotz einiger Wahrscheinlichkeit läßt sich allerdings auch diese Deutung nicht vollends sichern. Die nur auf dem Altar aus Soriano erhaltene Rückseite mit ihren Bildsymbolen liefert jedenfalls keine Entscheidung für eine der beiden Deutungen: neben der COTona civica erscheinen lituus, patera l.Uld simpuvium als Hinweis auf die Priesterwürden des Augustus als augur, septemvir epulonum und pontifex maximus.28

23 24

E. Zwierlein-Diehl in Tainia. Festschrift R. Rampe (Mainz 1980) 407. Zanker 148 f.; felletti Maj 261; Hölscher, Augustus 391 Nr. 218-19; Scott Ryberg 61 hält den Altar von Soriano für nicht stadtrömisch und denkt daher nicht an einen vicomagister, sondern an einen munizipalen Kaiserpriester.

25

26

27

28

Dieses Problem hatte ZaI1ker 148 bereits erkannt, ohne daraus jedoch die notwendigen Konsequenzen zu ziehen. VgL das Compitum Acli: H. v. Hesberg in Kmser Augllstus und die verlarene Republik (Berlin 1988) 398. Kunckel 21 nach N. Himmelmann-Wildschütz, Zur Eigenart des klassischen Götterbildes (München 1959) 3l. Soeben hat F. Fless, Opferdiener und Kultmusiker auf stad/­ römischen histarischen Reliefs (Mainz 1995) 95 aus anderen Gründen ebenfalls eine Deutung dE
Zwierlein-Diehl (supra n.23) 4 12.

-

Opfernden auf den Altären aus Soriano und im Konservatoren palast als Genien des Augustus vertreten.

Heidi Hänlein Schäfer

80

Der Altar des Vicus Sandaliarius von der ersten Hälfte des Jahres

(Anhang I Nr.

2)

2

v.Chr. in Florenz

hebt sich thematisch und qualitativ deutlich von den bisher besprochenen

Larenaltären ab. Nur die beiden Laren auf der rechten Nebenseite sowie Lorbeerbäume, corona

civica, patera und guttus auf der Rückseite weisen noch auf seine inschriftlich gesicherte

Bestimmung als

Larenaltar.

Insbesonders fehlen eine Opferszene sowie die immerhin

namentlich genannten magistri. Dafür erscheinen auf der Vorderseite über der tabula auf einer Standleiste drei Personen, deren Benennung allerdings umstritten ist. Der frontal stehende

togatus in der Mitte ist durch den lituus in seiner erhobenen Rechten sowie das zu seinen Füßen ihm zugewandte togatus zu seiner Rechten hat

pickende Huhn als augur gekennzeichnet. Der

ebenfalls sein Haupt verhüllt; in der Linken hielt er eine Buchrolle oder ein heute abge­ brochenes, längliches Attribut. Von rechts wendet sich eine durch Diadem und Torques als Göttin charakterisierte Frau mit acerra und patera dem mittleren togatus zu, der offensichtlich als Hauptperson zu gelten hat. Sein etwas bestoßenes Stimhaar erlaubt keine eindeutige Identifizierung, doch Wird die Benennung durch den lituus immerhin stark eingeengt: in Frage kommen nur Augustus oder Ludus Caesar. Während Augustus bereits seit zusammen mit der toga virilis am

17.

41

v.Chr. augur war, wurde Ludus diese Würde 2 v.Chr. übertragen.29 Ist Augustus der

März des Jahres

augur,3D muß man in dem togatus neben ihm mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit Gaius erkennen, für dessen Aufbruch in den Osten Augustus das augurium tripudium stellt.31 Gegen diese Deutung ließe sich lediglich einwenden, daß gerade in der ersten Hälfte des Jahres

2

v.Chr. Ludus nicht

fehlen sollte. Für eine Identifizierung des linken togatus mit Ludus Caesar32 lassen sich allerdings kaum sinn volle Argumente finden; um Lucius zu ehren, hätte man in dieser speziellen Situation zweifellos

ihm

und nicht Augustus den lituus in die Hand gegeben. Die zuerst von

Seott Ryberg versuchte Identifizierung des mittleren togatus mit Ludus Caesar wurde von Simon

aufgegriffen.33 Im Gegensatz zu Seott Ryberg erkermt Simon in dem linken togatus allerdings

nicht mehr Augustus, sondern Gaius Caesar.34 Das stabförmige Attribut in seiner linken Hand wäre dann analog zu dem lituus des Ludus der Rest eines simpuvium, das auf seine drei Jahre

zuvor verliehene Würde eines pontifex hinweisen würde 35 Immerhin ist die Wiedergabe von

Gaius und Ludus als principes iuventutis mit simpuvium und lituus ein Bildmotiv, das gerade im Jahre

2

v.Chr. auf Münzen und Gemmen so enorme Verbreitung gefunden hat, daß man es in

abgewandelter Form hier durchaus erwarten könnte.36

29

30

31 32

33 34 35

weibliche Figur rechts könnte dann

D. Kienast, Römische Kaisertabelle (Darmstadt 1990) 62, 75. W. Amelung, Fiihrer durch die Antikm in Florenz (München 1897) 73; G. A Mansuelli, Galleria degli U/fizi. Le scuIture I (Rom 19.58) 204; P. Zanker, Auguslt/S und die Macht der Bilder (München 1987) 128; Zanker 151 f.; Alföldi 32; Niebling 321; Hölscher, Staatsdenkmal 28. D. Mustill� Augustus (Rom 1938) 330; E. Simon, MainzZ .58 (1963) 10 f.; Hölscher, Staatsdenkmal 28; Pollini (supra n.3) 32 f. Amelung (supra n.30) 73; J. J. Bernoulli, Römische Ikonographie I11 (Berlin 1886) 45; E. Strong, La scultura romana I (Florenz 1923) 56, 94; Alföldi 32; Niebling 321; "zu ihm hält Augustus den litulls"; Hennann 86; P. Zanker, AbhGöttingen 85 (1973) 48 f.; Einführung des Lucius ins Augurenamt; abseitig für das Jahr 2 V.ChI. ist die von L. Polacco, II volto di Tiberio (Rom 1955) 74 ff. vorgeschlagene Identifizierung mit Tiberius. Scott Ryberg 60; Simon 70 f. 240 Nr. 87. Details bei Simon Abb. 87 und Zanker Taf. 57,2; Pollini (supra n.3) Taf. 14. Die Handhaltung der vorgestreckten Faust ist typisch für das Halten des simpuvium, vgl. Zwierlein­ Diehl (supra n.23) 417. Das einzige Problem an dieser Lösung besteht darin, daß das s impuvium normalerweise nicht in der linken, sondern der rechten Hand gehalten wird (Zwierlein-DiehI417 ff.); dieser Wechsel müllte dann durch die Komposition erklärt werden, bleibt aber mißlich. Simon 240 Nr. 87 schreibt daher auch, das simpuvium befände sich in der Rechten des Gaius, obwohl sich der Gegenstand sicher in der Linken befindet. BMCRE 188 ff. Nr. 513-43; J.-B. Giard, Bibl.Nat. Catalogue I (supra n.3) 226 f. Nr. 1648-66; Zwierlein­ Diehl (supra n.23) 413 Taf. 77. -

36

Die

Jie Ikonog rap hie des Genius Augusti

81

nach dem Vorschlag von Simon Iuventas sein, doch sind auch Livia und sogar Iulia als Tochter des Augustus und Mutter der propagierten 1hronfolger in ihrer Eigenschaft nicht auszuschließen, zumal

die letztere erst

als Venus

Genetrix

am Ende des Jahres 2 v.Chr. verbannt wurde.37

Insgesamt gesehen scheint mir jedoch die Benennung der mittleren Figur wahrscheinlichsten: der Kaiser stellt günstige Auguria

für

als

Augustus am

den in den Osten aufbrechenden

Gaius, Livia assistiert mit einem Opfer pro salute.35 Die Frage der Identifizierung der einzeInen Personen ist in unserem Zusammenhang letzlich.sekundär und soll daher nicht weiter verfolgt werden. In jedem Fall wird aber deutlich, daß das Bildprogramm dieses Altars offenbar stark vom Eindruck der Ereignisse des Jahres

2

v.Chr. geprägt ist, in denen die

präsumptiven Nachfolger des Augustus eine hervorragende Rolle gespielt haben.39 Wesent­ lich scheint mir daher die Feststellung, daß das aktuelle politische Geschehen für die doch eigentlich recht ambitiösen vicomagistri wichtiger sein konnte, als ihre Selbstdarstellung. Die

Frage ist allerdings, ob man zu Gunsten einer Augurszene den Genius Augusti als den

eigentlichen Empfänger des Opfers im Kompitalkult gänzlich übergehen wollte. Tatsächlich scheint es mir nämlich keineswegs unwahrscheinlich, daß die Figur des Augustus auf der Frontseite dieses Altares von den Zeitgenossen auch als Genius verstanden werden konnte. Entsprechende Vorschläge von Gross und von Gonzenbach wurden bislang mit dem notorischen

Hinweis abgelehnt, daß ein Personalgenius ein Füllhorn halten müsse.40 Aber auch wenn dieses Argument als nicht stichhaltig erwiesen werden konnte, so bleibt doch zu prüfen, ob der lituus einer zumindest komplementären Identifizierung als Genius im Wege steht und die ansonsten

ge wo lmte patera ersetzen kann . Hier ist no ch einmal an den Geni u s Augusti des Altars auf dem Palatin (Anhang I Nr. 13, Abb. 3) zu erinnern, der in der rechten Hand einen undeutlichen Gegenstand hält. Die von innen gesehene rechte Faust entspricht jedenfalls nicht der Art, wie sonst eine patera gehalten wird. Zudem ist unterhalb der Faust ein dünner, länglicher Fortsatz z u erkennen, der eher zu einem stabartigen Gebilde gehört haben dürfte. Tatsächlich haben Matz und Duhn daher auch in Erwägung gezogen, daß es sich hier ebenso wie auf dem Altar des Vicus Sandaliarius (Anhang I Nr.

2)

um einen lituus handelt.41 Eine solche Analogie würde es als Genius Augusti anzusprechen.42

jedenfalls erlauben auch den augur des Florentiner Altars 3. Der

Kompitalkult außerhalb Roms

Der Kompitalkult wurde auch außerhalb Roms gepflegt,43 doch sind davon nur sehr wenige bildliche Zeugnisse überliefert. Auf einer Reihe kleiner Reliefs

37 3B 39

40

41

42 43

in

Aquileia und Poetovio

Simon 71; P. Zanker (supra n.10) 210 f.; Zanker 152; Alföldi 32. Für Livia: Scott Ryberg 60; Niebling 321; Hölscher, Staatsdenkmal 28; Pollini (supra n.3) 31. Möglicherweise ist hier auch eine Angleichung von Livia und Salus beabsichtigt, vgl. zu Salus in Verbindung mit dem Genius Augusti infra n.123. Als duumviri aedi dedicandae waren sie im Mai 2. v.Chr. überdies maßgeblich an der Dedikation des Augustusforum mit dem Tempel des Mars Ultor beteiligt, vgl. zum Datum C] .Simpson, JRS 67 (1977) 91 ff. und G. Alföldy (supra n.6) 294 ff. mit der rekonstruierten Dedikationsinschrift; vielleicht sollen Victoria und trapaeum auf der Nebenseite auf dieses Ereignis anspielen, so K. Woelke, B]b 69 (1911) 191 ff.; Niebling 321. Gross (supra n.21) unter Hinweis auf die göttliche Sphäre, die besonders durch den Torques der weiblichen Gestalt angedeutet sei. Nach V. v. Gonzenbach (supra n.11) 99 deutet au f den Genius Augusti auch das Tropaion auf der Schmalseite, vgl. G. Ch. Picard, Les trophies romaines (BEFAR 187, 1957)266,287 f. Zurückgewiesen von Pollini (supra n.3) 30 Arun. 66. Matz-Duhn II1 99 Nr. 3649. Zur Bedeutung des Oberpontifikats des Augustus s. G. W. Bowersock in Raaflaub, Toher (supra n.3) 380 ff. Gross (supra n.21) 80: "Es gibt kein Bildelement, das dieser durch die Tracht unterstützten Deutung (auf· den Genius Augusti) entgegenstünde." Vgl. RE VIII A 2 (1958) 2480 ff. s. v. vici magister (Bleicken). Bei vielen Weihungen an den Genius des Kaisers ist nur aus dem Kontext zu entscheiden, ob es sich um private Weihungen handelt oder ob sie -

Heidi Hänlein Schäfer

82

erscheinen die vicomagistri beim Opfer, der Genius Augusti selbst ist aber nicht dargestellt (Anhang

II Nr. 10-12). Unsicher in II Nr. 6-7).

der Deutung bleiben das Relief in Canosa und der Altar aus

Tarent (Anhang

Kompitalmalereien in Pompeji Wesentlich besser vergleichbar mit den Bildmotiven der stadtrömischen Kompitalaltäre sind die Kompitalmalereien

in

Pompeji. Die Stadt war unterteilt in vici und pagi, die ebenso

wie in Rom von magistri und ministri aus dem Freigelassenen- und Sklavenstand verwaltet wur­ den.44 Auch hier läßt sich definitiv nachweisen, daß der neugeordnete Kompitalkult im Jahre

7 v.Chr. einsetzte.45 Die Kompitalbilder waren über aufgemauerten oder freistehenden Al­ tären auf die Außenwände der Häuser gemalt. Von den zehn bekannten Kompitalmalereien4 6 gaben mindestens

fünf

den von Laren flankierten Genius Augusti wieder, zwei dieser Bilder

zeigen außerdem die vier vicomagistri.47 Vier heute zerstörte Malereien zeigten nur die opfern­ den vicomagistri flankiert von den Laren.48 Auf einem Bild schließlich rahmen die Laren nur einen Altar, um den sich eine Schlange windet.49 Zwei der drei noch erhaltenen Kompital­ bilder zeigen zwischen den Laren den Genius Augusti in toga praetexta capite velato m i t Füllh orn i m linken

aus

Arm

und patera i n der gesenkten Rechten.so Auf der Wand IX.12.7 ist der

compita stammen: vgl. G. Wissowa (supra n.5) 1881 ff.; E. De Ruggiero, Dizionario epigrafico Iß Genius (Cesano). Zur Rolle der Augustales s. jetzt S. E. Ostrow in Raaflaub, Toher

(1922) 459 ff. s.v.

(supra n.3) 364 ff.

44 45

Bömer 105 ff.; P. Castren, Ordo

populusque pompeianus (Rom 1975) 72 f., 79,274 ff.

eIL x 924; Niebling 331; Castren (supra n.44}72.

46

Fröhlich 351 Katalogbeilage 4. - Die Zuweisung des Zwölfgötterbildes VIII 3: F 60 (Fröhlich 35

47

Fröhlich 309 (1.11 : F 8), 328 (VII.7.21 : F 52)

48

Fröhlich 312 (ll.2: F 17), 315 f. (Via di Nola, Regio III oder IV 29), 324 (Vll.1 = F 44).

49 50

Fröhlich 308 f. Taf. 53.1 (l.11

f.) zu

den Kompitalmalereien scheint mir 'etwas problematisch, da weder ein Altar vorhanden ist, noch der

Genius oder die Laren auf der Malerei erscheinen. vicomagistri?, 335 (IX.7.20 : F 65), 335 ff. Taf. 60.1-2, 61.2 (IX.11.1: F 66) vicomagistri, 339 Taf. 58.2 (IX.12.7 : F 71) vicomagistri.

Fröhlich 335 ff. (Ix.n.1: F

=

=

F 24), 317 f. (Via di Nola, VI o. V2

=

F

F 7).

66); 339 (IX.12.6 : F 71).

-

Das Kompitalbild F66 stellt nach Fröhlich 34 f,

70 ff. das einzige pompejianische Beispiel einer vor der Neuordnung 7 v.Chr. entstandenen

Kompitalmalerei dar. Zu Recht geht Fröhlich davon aus, daß das Geniusbild und das darüberstehende Zwölfgötterbild zur gleichen Zeit entstanden sind. Daher folgt er auch in seiner stilistischen Datierung des Geniusbildes um 20 v.Chr. der Ansicht von C Weickert (in f.), der sich sogar

für

Festschrift P. Arndt [München 1925) 56

eine Entstehung des Zwölfgötterbildes in voraugusteische Zeit ausgesprochen

hatte. Weickert gelangte zu seiner Frühdatierung allerdings durch die falsche Voraussetzung, das Bild mit

Genius und Laren sei nach rechts verlegt �orden und das neue Larenbild sei dann noch mindestens

sechsmal erneuert worden. Das Vicomagistribild ist jedoch kein Ersatz des Genius-Larenbildes und überdeckt jenes am Rand auch nur mit drei Schichten, vgl. unten. Da der

Genius Augusti aber erst nach im Jahre 7 v.Chr. an den compita mitverehrt wird, führt die FrühdatierU:ng des Bildes Fröhlich in das Dilemma, die Figur des Genius noch nicht als Genius Augusti benennen zu können. Sein sich daraus ergebender Identifikationsversuch mit dem Genius Iod ist freilich der Neugestaltung des Kompitalkultes

ausgesprochen unglücklich, da 'dies dann die einzige bekannte anthropomorphe Darstellung eines

Genius loci wäre und zudem noch die Ikonographie des Genius Augusti vorwegnähme. Tatsächlich widersprechen einer Friihdatierung aber bereits allgemeine Erwägungen. Sie würde nämlich implizieren, daß das bei der Auffindung vor 80 Jahren noch ausgezeichnet erhaltene, in der Zwischenzeit aber stark verblaßte Zwölfgötterbild zwischen seiner angeblichen Entstehung um 20 v.Chr. bis zum Untergang Pompejis niemals hätte erneuert werden müssen. Dies wäre aber gerade bei Fassadenbildem äußerst ungewöhnlich, deren vielfache Ubermalungschlchten Fröhlich 108 in anderen Fällen auch stets zu einer Datierung in den Vierten Stil veranIaßt. Tatsächlich stellte aber bereits M. Della Corte,

NSc 1911, 421

unmittelbar bei der Auffindung eine mehrmalige Erneuerung des Bilde; fest, die heute offenbar nicht mehr nachvollziehbar ist. Offenbar in frühflavischer Zeit wurde das Geniusbild im Gegensatz zu dem Zwölfgötterbild mit einer dicken Putzschicht überdeckt. Wie die darauf angebrachte Wahlpropaganda

Die Ikono g raphie des Genius Augusti

Abb.

4:

Pompeji

IX. 12.7.

Kompitalmalerei mit

Genius Augusri.

AFS

C

588.

Genius an einem tragbaren Altar opfernd dargestellt (Abb.4) . Das Bild IX.n.l zeigt d, gleichen Geniustypus, doch opfert er nicht an einem Altar, sondern tränkt aus der patera ei Schlange. Beide Figuren verkörpern den gleichen Typus wie der Genius Augusti auf d, stadträmischen Denkmälern und erweisen dank der Farbgebung die natürlich auch in Ro vorauszusetzende toga praetexta. Ge.nau wie auf dem Relief in der Villa Medici (Anhang II )\ 2) tragen sie ein Füllhorn und unterscheiden sich dadurch ebenso wie jenes von den augusteisch, Altarreliefs .

Auf beiden Darstellungen werden die an einem Altar opfernden vier Personen s tets <

v icomagistri51 bezeichnet. Diese Benennung berücksichtigt allerdings nicht, daß SIe affe: für C. Gavius Rufus (vgl. Castren [supra n.44) 171) beweist, sollte diese Putzschicht nicht , Untergrund für eine eigentlich zu erwartende Erneuerung des Geniusbildes dienen, sondern dies offenbar dauerhaft verdecken. Diese ungewöhniiche Maßnahme bringt V. Spinazzola, Pompei

alla I" degli scavi ,wou; di V ia delrAbbondanza I (Roma 1953) 183 mit der memoria damnata des Nero

Verbindung. zumal dessen Name in der gleichen Straße auch sonst mehrfach gelöscht worden i,

Offenbar verband zumindest das öffentliche Bewußtsein dieses Geniusbild mit Nero, eine entsprechen, Datierung liegt also auch VOn daher nahe. Ein sicheres Argument gegen eine Frühdatierung läßt si,

daraus freilich noch nicht gewinnen. da der

Genius sicher nicht die Porträtzüge Neros getragen hat w

natürlich auch noch aus claudischer Zeit stammen könnte. Für einen nicht zu späten Ansatz spric

andererseits, daß das Geniusbild an der rechten Kante von drei weiteren Putzschichten überlagert , sein scheint, deren oberste das Vicomagistribild trägt, vgl. Fröhlich 70. Insgesamt wird deutlich, daß eil Datierung in vor- oder frühaugusteische Zeit nicht nur technische, sondern auch graf interpretatorische Probleme mit sich bringt. Zusammen mit Spinazzola, Pompei alla luce 183 und Felle' Maj 333 halte ich daher auch für dieses Bild eine Entstehungszeit in den letzten Jahrzehnten Pompej am wahrscheinlichsten. SI

SO schon von W. Helbig.

13

f.

71).

Wandgemälde der VOm Vesuv verschiitteten Städte Campaniens (Leipzig 186 ff.; Fröhlich 335 ff. (lX.ll.1 F 66; 339 IX . 1 2.7

Nr. 41-45; Spinazzola (supra n50) 170 ff. 175

=

=

Heidi Hänlein Schäfer

84

sichtlich keine toga praetexta tragen, wie das entsprechende collegium i n Rom; vielmehr sind sie ebenso wie die stadtrömischen vicoministri mit der Tunika bekleidet. Wenn man davon ausgeht, daß sich Tracht und Insignien in der staatlichen und munizipalen Verwaltung prinzipiell entsprechen,52 müßten in Analogie zu den Darstellungen der Kultbeamten auf den stadtrömischen KompitaIaltären also auch hier vicoministri wiedergegeben sein. Ebenso wie in

Rom dürften sich die ministri auch in Pompeji aus dem Sklavenstand rekrutiert haben. Dafür

sprechen auch die auf dem Bild

D<.11.1

auf einer tabula angegebenen überwiegend unrömischen

Namen der ministri, die zudem keine Angabe einer Freilassung aufweisen.53

n.

DER GENIUS AU GUSTI

IM

HAUSKULT

Nach der Einnahme von Alexandria am

1

eine Reihe von Ehren. Unter anderem sollte

August 30 v.Chr. beschloß der Senat für Oktavian ihm bz w seinem Genius bei jedem privaten oder .

öffentlichen Mahl ein Trankopfer in Form von ungemischtem Wein dargebracht werden.54 Durch diesen Senatsbeschluß hielt der Genius Augusti offiziell Einzug in den Hauskult. Eine Vorstellung dieser häuslichen Kultstätten vermitteln die vor allem in Pompeji erhal­ tenen, gut dokumentierten Lararien.55 Grundsätzlich lassen sich zwei Typen unterscheiden: die relativ bescheidenen Lararien in Form eines einfachen Wandbildes oder einer bemalten Nische sowie die repäsentativeren Lararien, die in Form von Nischen, Ädikulen oder als sacella gestaltet waren.56 Diese repäsentativen Lararien befinden sich in den Wohnbereichen der großen Stadthäuser; sie tragen selten figürliche Bemalung, waren aber stattdessen mit Bronzestatuetten bestückt. Genius und Laren werden hier fast immer zusammen mit anderen Göttern verehrt, denen man als Penaten Schutzfunktionen für den Haushalt zuschrieb.

Ihre

reiche Ausgestaltung läßt vermuten, daß diese Kultstätten dem Hausherren sowie den freien Familienangehörigen vorbehalten waren.57 Die Lararien

52 53 54

in

Form von Wandbildern oder

Liv. 34.7; Gell. 16.13 u.a.; W. Langhammer, Die rechtliche und soziale Stellung der Magistra rus Municipales und der Decuriones (Wiesbaden 1973) 60; Th. Schäfer (supra n.12) 52, 197 f. Sucuussus, Axcliipiadüs, Victor, Cosstas. Vgl. H. Solin, Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom (1982)

356 ff.

Cass. Dio 51.19.7; Verg.,

Ecl. 1.41 ff. - Ovid, Fast. 2.633 fi., Horaz, Od. 4.5.31 ff. sowie die Vorgänge

beim Gastmahl des Trimalcho, Petron. 60, schildern den Brauch. I);e Akklamation richtete sich wohl direkt an Augustus, während die Libation seinem Genius oder Numen galt, vgl. Fishwick,

55

"Genius and Numen" in Imp. Cult 111, 375 ff. insb. Anm. 2. - Zur Chronologie s. V. Fadinger, Die Begriindung des Prinzipats (Berlin 1969) 305; M. Reinhold, From republic to pn·ncipate. An historical commentary on Cassius Dio's Roman HistDry Books 49·52 (36-29 B.C) (Atlanta 1987) 151. Boyce 21 ff. Nr. I-SOS; D. G . Orr, "Roman domestic religion," ANRW 11.16.2 (1978) 1575 ff.; Fröhlich 249 ff. Nr. 1-128. Außerhalb der vom Vesuv verschütteten Städte gibt es nur noch in Osba zwei relativ späte Malereifragmente des Geni u s / LarenkuJtes, die für unsere Fragestellung jedoch wenig aussagekräftig sind: 1. Südostecke des Mitreo dei Serpenti. Dargestellt sind unter Girlanden, in dichtem PflanzengestrUpp eine männliche und eine weibliche Schlange, die einen

Genius in toga praetexta capite velato mitpatera und FülJhornrahmen. Das Bild siammt aus der Mitte des 2. jhs. und wurde beim Umbau des Hauses in ein Mithräum in der Mitte des 3. jhs. an seinem Ort belassen: G. Becatti, Scavi di Os/iQ TI.I Mitrei (Rom 1954) 102 ff. Taf . 23, 2; C. Pavolini, Ostia (Guide arch. Laterza 8, 1983) 213; Fröhlich 167. 2. Ein zweites Fragment unbekannter Herkunft im Museum von Ostia zeigt einen Genius zwischen zwei Schlangen, Anfang 3.

Jh"

von B. Andreae in Helbig IV' Nr. 3188 fälschlich als Lar bezeichnet; Fröhlich

1 6 7.

56 57

G. Wissowa (supra n.5) 1884; Fröhlich 28 ff.; Boyce 10 ff . Wie mehrere hölzerne Exemplare aus Herculaneum zeigen, konnten solche repräsentativen Lararien sogar verschließbar sein. I);ese Maßnahme diente wohl zum Schutze der in ihnen aufbewahrten Statuetten und anderer wertvoller Gegenstände: in einem Fall fand sich sogar das Bleisiegel des Hausherrn in diesem Schrank vgl A Maiuri,

Ercolano (Rom 1958) 253 ff; Orr (supra n.55) 1585 Tat. 10

Abb. 20. - Petron. 29: praeterea grande annarium in anguJo vidi, in cuius aedicula erant Lares argentei positi ...

Die Ikono gra phie des Genius Augusti

bemalten Nischen befinden sich hingegen meist Villen,

im

im

85

Küchen- oder Gesindetrakt der upper-class

Wohnbereich kleiner, bescheidener Häuser sowie in Gaststätten, Hotels und

Gewerberäumen.

In

diesen überwiegen bei weitem die reinen Genius/Larenbilder. Sie waren

offenb ar in erster Linie die Kultstätten von Sklaven, Bediensteten und den unteren Bevölkerungsschichten.58 Entsprechend ihrer unterschiedlichen Benutzerkreise können beide Typen von Lararien auch in einem Haus vertreten sein.59 L Gemalte

Lararien: Genius des Hausherm oder Genius Augustt1

In Pompeji

und Umgebung sind bislang

159 gemalte Lararien bekannt. Auf 97 dieser Bilder 10 zeigen den Genius allein, 26 den Genius flankiert von zwei Laren, und Opferdienern, 4 den Genius nur mit Opferdiener und 17 den Genius

war der Genius dargestellt

40 den Genius mit Laren

zusamm en mit anderen Gottheiten.60 Unabhängig von der Anzahl der dargestellten Personen sind die Bilder nach dem gleichen Kompositionsschema aufgebaut6 1: vor einem einfarbigen, meist weißen Hintergrund sind die Figuren in einer Bildebene aufgereiht, Überschneidungen werden vermieden, zumeist sind die Abstände der einzelnen Figuren voneinander relativ groß. Der Genius steht fast Imm er an einem festen oder tragbaren Altar, über dessen Opferflamme er mit einer patera in der ausgestreckten Rechten das Trankopfer ausgießt.62 Kommen die sich

spiegelbildlich entsprechenden Laren hinzu, so rahmen sie den Genius. Auch die Opferdiener,

die einzeln, zu zweit oder zu dritt dargestellt werden, haben ihre festen Plätze. Der camillus

steht rechts neben dem Genius, der tibicen dem Genius gegenüber

links

vom Altar oder dahinter.

Der papa mit Opfertier erscheint entweder zwischen dem tibicen und dem linken Laren oder links neben diesem. Unter diesen Szenen erscheinen zumeist Schlangenbilder. Die Genien in

toga, capite ve/ato tragen auf den meisten Darstellungen in der Linken ein Füllhorn; lediglich auf drei Bildern ist es durch eine acerra ersetztp nur drei Genien halten kein Attribut.64 Mit dieser Ikonographie entsprechen die Genien der Hausaltäre exakt den Darstellungen des Genius AugusH auf den gemalten Lararien des Kompitalkultes. Dennoch wurden diese Genien in der Forschung bis

hin

zu der neuesten Bearbeitung der Lararienmalereien durch

Th.

Fröhlich fast stets als Darstellungen des Genius des pater familias bezeichnet.65 Zumeist wurde es gar nicht für nötig erachtet, eine derartige Identifizierung zu begründen, obgleich keine einzige Darstellung inschriftlich in dieser Weise bezeichnet ist. Es stellt sich daher die Frage, ob diese Genien nicht vielmehr Tatsächlich hatte bereits der Sala delle Muse

im

im Vatikan

Jahre

als

Kaisergenien anzusprechen sind.66

1862 H.

Jordan - ausgehend von dem Kompitalaltar in

(Anhang I Nr.

1. Abb. 2) und den Kompitalmalereien in Pompe­

ji - die Ansicht geäußert, daß auch die in den Hausaltären zwischen den Laren dargestellten

58 59 60

61

62 63 64

65 66

Fröhlich 2 8 f. Fröhlich 30 mit einigen Beispielen. Boyce 21 ff. führt in seinem Katalog jeweils alle in einem Haus sich befindenden Lararien auf. - Von religionshistorischer Seite hat F. Bömer den fundamentalen Unterschied zwischen den beiden Kulten herausgearbeitet: Bömer 56; id (supra n.5) 112 ff., 116. Fröhlich 343 H. Katalogbeilage 1-3. Fröhlich 111 ff. Der Altar fehlt b e i d en folgenden Darstellungen: Casa d e i Vetti VI.15.1 = Fröhlich L 70 Tat. 7 '· Casa d i Obellio Firma IX.14.2/4 = Fröhlich L 1 1 1 Tat. 48.1. Casa dei Vetti VI.15.1 = Fröhlich L 70; Haus VII.15.7 = Boyce Nr. 331; IX.1.20 = W. Helbig (supra n.51) . 1 8 Nr. 59b = Boyce Nr. 385. I.13.2 = Fröhlich L 29; VIJ.16.22 = Fröhlich L 94; Baseareale, Villa Rustica in Piazza Mercato = Fröhlich L 128 - Drei :weitere Bilder sind nur in Zeichnungen erhalten, so daß sich nicht überprüfen : laßt, ob das Fulihom Wirklich gefehlt hat: Casa dei Chirurgo VI.1.10 = Fröhlich L 56; Casa di Sallustio VI.2.4 = Fröhlich L 57; Fröhlich L 113. Infra n.72.

So jetzt Th. Schäfer,

Gnomon 65 (1993) 442 ff.

Heidi Hänlein Schäfer

86

Genien den Genius Augusti meinten. 67 Dem entgegnete bereits im folgenden Jahr A. Reiffer­ scheid, daß auf den Lararienbildem nur der Genius domus wiedergegeben sein könnte, da der

Genius Augusti und seine Laren eben nur Genius und Laren eines einzigen, nämlich des kaiser­

lichen Hauses seien. 68 Der Disput schien zugunsten von Reifferscheid entschieden, als

im Jahre

die Larenäclikula in einer Ala im Atrium des Hauses des M Epidius Rufus (IX.1.2) ausge­ graben wurde. 69 Auf ihrer Basis war eine Marmortafel eingelassen mit der Weihinschrift:

1867

Genio M(arci) n(ostri) et Laribus duo Diadumeni liberti.70 Ohne den Kontext weiter zu beachten

schloß man daraus kurzerhand, daß sämtliche häusliche Lararienbilder mit dem Genius

zwischen den Laren bildliehe Umsetzungen dieser Inschrift seien.71 Die daraus abgeleitete

Identifizierung des Genius mit dem Genius des Hausherm wurde von der Forschung sehr schnell als verbindlich übemommen.72

Dies gründete sich vor allem auf die Autorität G. Wissowas, der "An Stelle des einen Lar familiaris treten nunmehr auch im häuslichen Dienste die beiden Lares der compita, und zwischen ihnen wird, wie an den compita der Genius des Kaisers, so im Hause der Genius des bereits

1897

in Roschers Mythologischem Lexikon geschrieben hatte:

Hausherrn verehrt".73 Dieser Satz ist im Prinzip zwar durchaus richtig, bedarf aber einer

wesentlichen Differenzierung, da er sich letztlich auf das Lararium und die Inschrift im Hause

des Epidius Rufus stützt. Gerade diese Ädikula ist aber bezeichnenderweise gar nicht figürlich ausgemalt; vielmehr gehört sie zu den repräsentativen Hausaltären, die mit Bronzestatuetten

bestückt waren.

So

ist es bereits nach dem Typus des Larariums durchaus wahrscheinlich, daß

hier eine Statuette des Genius des Hausherm zusamm en mit den Laren gestanden hat" - und

daß sich die Weihinschrift natürlich auf diesen Genius bezogen hat.75 Die Benennung der

gemalten Genienbilder, auf die Wissowa seine Aussage bereits selbst übertragen hatte, ist

davon je denfalls überhaupt nicht betroffen. Wenn die Genien in den gemalten Lararien

hingegen wirklich den Genius des Hausherm darstellen würden, so müßte man sich fragen, wo und wie dann eigentlich der Genius Augusti

im

Hauskult verehrt worden wäre: schließlich ist

es doch kaum vorstellb ar, daß die Pompejianer das senatus tonsultum des Jahres 30 v.

67 68 69 70 71 72

73

74

75

Orr.

so

H. Jordan (supra n.17) 335 ff. A. Reifferscheid, AdI 35 (1863) 121 ff. bes. 1 3 2 f . S o dann auch H. Jordan (supra n.17) 15 f. Helbig (supra n.51) 18 Nr. 59b; J. Overbeck u. A . Mau, Pompeji4 (Leipzig 1884) 297 H.; A. Mau (supra 11.3) 277; vgI. auch A. Oe Marchi, n Cluto priva to di Romaan tica I (Rom 1896) 75; Boyce 79 f. Nr. 385. CIL X 861.

R Schöne, BdI 39 (1867) 45; H. Jordan (supra n.17) 30 f.; G. Wissowa (supra 11.5) 1883. Rink 15; Boyce 79 f. Nr. 385; Kunckel 29 H.; D. G. Orr (supra n.55) 1563 ff.; Wrede 118; Fröhlich 33. G. Wissowa (supra n.5) 1882 f.; unmittelbar zuvor schreibt Wissowa freilich auch: "Die Scheidung der Denkmäler des öffentlichen und des häuslichen Larenkultes in der Kaiserzeit ist darum so schwierig und bisweilen unmöglich, weil die von Augustus für den Dienst an den co mpita eingeführte Verehrungsform auch auf den Hauskult übertragen worden ist". Soschon Zu Recht Helbig (supra n51) 18 Nr. 59b. Die Inscluift bezog sich sicher nicht auf die Bilder zu beiden Seiten der Ädikula: nach Helbig 18 Nr. 59b und Boyce 79 f. Nr. 385 standen rechts ein togatus mit ace"a sowie ein weiterer vor einem Altar, auf der linken Seite ein Opferstier sowie Opferdiener. Erwägenswert wäre, ob in den beiden Togati der Genius des Hausherrn und der Genills AlIgllSti dargestellt waren; das Stierol'fer zumindest verweist auf den Genills Augllsti (vgL Schäfer [supra n.66] 445 Anm. 17). Analog mag dies für die übrigen, von Wissowa (supra n.5) 1883 herangezogenen Inschriften gelten. Im Falle von CIL II 4082 G. Alföldy, Die römischen Insch riften von Tarra co (Berlin 1975) 20 f. Nr. 37 handelt es sich um einen Weihaltar der 2. Hätte des 2. Jhs. aus dem Heiligtum der Tutela in Tarraco. Die andere in diesem Zusammenhang genannte Inschrift ist CIL X1 1324 aus Luni. H ier handelt es sich offenbar um einen Hermenschaft mit Einsatzkopf der Geehrten, auf den sich die Weihung direkt bezieht. Ähnlich die beiden Hermen mit Einsatzköpfen des L Caedlius Iucundus aus Pompeji, CIL X 860 mit p. 968; vgl. Mau (supra 11.3) 464 f. mit weiteren Hermenweihungen für die Hausherm und bes. E. Oe Ruggiero (supra n.43) 454, 456 ff. s.v. Genills (Cesano) mit Weihungen an private Genien und Aufzählung der typischen Inschriftträger. =

Die Ikono grap hie des Genius Augusti

völlig ignoriert hätten.'6 Bereits A. Mau hatte zu Anfang dieses Jahrhtmderts zu bedenken gegeben, ob auf den gema ten Lararienbildem nicht doch bisweilen der Genius des Kaisers wiedergegeben seiP Dafü

schien

ihm

die Darstellung auf dem Gartenbild des Hauses

VII . 1 1.14

zu sprechen, die Geniu

und Juppiter beim gemeinsamen Opfer an einen Rundaltar zeigt. Dazu schreibt Mau: "Es

ü

schwer zu glauben, daß man den Genius des Hausherm so dem höchsten Gotte gleichberechtig gegenübergestellt haben sollte, wahrscheinlicher, daß der Genius des Kaisers gemeint ist".'8 I

dem Genius des Vettierhauses erkannte er schließlich eine gewisse Ähnlichkeit mit Nero.

I Rink griff diesen Gedanken von Mau auf: Das einzige Kriterium, den Genius des Kaisers aus der großen Zahl der zwischen den Lare dargestellten Togati als solchen zu identifizieren, besteht in der Porträtähnlichkeit, die er m: demjenigen Kaiser haben muß, dem er als Genius zugedacht ist. Bei der teilweise schlechte Erhaltung und der oft nicht sehr sorgfältigen Ausführung der Sakralbilder dürfte es allerding schwierig sein, aus der Menge der togati zwischen den Laren mit Bestimmtheit, lediglich auf Grun, der Porträtähnlichkeit, Genien bestimmter Kaiser herauszufinden. So müssen wir es wohl dabE bewendenlassen, die Mehrzahl der Togati als Genien des Hausherrn anzusprechen.79 Die beiden Zitate belegen das deutliche Unbehagen von Mau und Rink hinsichtlich de

Benennung der Genien. Auf dem Wege über Porträtähnlichkeiten lassen sich die Genien freilicl nicht unterscheiden, da bei den oft nur sehr flüchtig gemalten Figuren keine Porträtmerkmal,

zu bestimmen sind. Unabhängig von dieser Schwierigkeit beweisen aber auch die groß

plastischen Darstellungen der Kaisergenien, daß ihre Bildniszüge trotz eines eindeutiger

Stirnhaarmotivs offenbar absichtlich jugendlich-allgemein

gehalten sind.BO Eine Unter

scheidung von Genius des Hausherrn und dem Genius Augusti kann also Grund der Tracht und der Attribute erfolgen.

im

günstigsten Falle au

2 TrlKht und Attribute

A. Toga praetexta Tatsächlich bieten die Malereien dank ihrer Farbigkeit die einzigartige Möglichkeit

Unterschiede in der Farbgebung der Tracht festzustellen. S o tragen auf den zwei erhaltener

Kompitalmalereien die Genien des Kaisers jeweils eine toga, die durch ihren roten Saum ein

deutig als toga praetexta gekennzeichnet ist (Abb. 4). 81 Viele der häuslichen Lararienbilde:

sind heute zerstört; leider wurde bei der Beschreibung dieser Genien aber nur selten erwähnt,

01

es sich um eine rein weiße oder eine rot abgesetzte toga gehandelt hat, da man sich de: möglichen Implikationen nicht bewußt war. 82 Folglich können wir uns nur auf diejenigen Fäll, stützen, in denen die Bilder noch erhalten, dokumentiert oder ausreichend beschrieben sind

Davon tragen immerhin

27 Genien mit

Sicherheit die toga praetexta (Abb.

5), nur drei sind ir

einer weißen toga dargestellt (Abb. 6). 8 3 Wie ist dieser Sachverhalt zu erklären?

76 n

78 79

80

81

82

83

Immerhin wurde in Pompeji bereits zu Lebzeiten des Augustus ein Tempel für seinen Genills errichtet vgl. H. Hänlein Schäfer, Veneratio Allgllsti (Rom 1985) 133 ff. A 5. Mau (supra n.3) 278. So auch Rink 21. Rink 19. Vatikan, Sala Rotonda 259 aus Puteoli. Helbig 14 Nr. 51 (v. Heintze); Kunckel 26 Taf. 8.1, 9.1. - Neapel. Mus. Naz. aus Puteoli. Spinazzola (supra n50) 1 184 Abb. 219-20; Kunckel 26 Taf. 10.1; - Berlin Staat!. Mus. 157 aus Puteoli. Kunckel 26 Taf. 82, 9.2; H. Jucker, Jdl 92 (1977) 226 ff. Nr. Q Abb. 13 f (Germanicus); Wrede 113. IX.11.1 Fröhlich F 66 Taf. 612; IX.12.7 Fröhlich F 71 Tat. 58.2 hier Abb. 4. Diese Beobachtung erst be i Schäfer (supra n.66) 1993, 443. Toga praetexta: I 7.10-12 Fröhlich L 5 Taf. 3.1; 1.7.18 Fröhlich L 7 Tat. 25.1; 1.8.8 Fröhlich L 8 Tat. 2.1; 1.8.? Fröhlich L 11 Taf. 26.2; I.14.6-7 Fröhlich L 33 Taf. 5.1; I.16.3 Fröhlich L 35 Taf. 5.2; 1.17.4 =

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

Heidi Hänlein Schäfer

88

Abb. 5: Neapel, MusNaz 8905. Lararienmalerei mit

Abb.

6:

=

Pompeji 1. 13.2. Lararienmalerei

Fröhlich L 37 Tai. 9.1; V.2.b-c

=

Genius Augusti.

Anderson 25709.

mit Genius des Hausherm. AFS D 3555. Fröhlich L 44 Tai. 31.2; V.4.b

=

Fröhlich L 54 Tal. 34.3; V1.2.4

=

Fröhlich L 57, 274 Abb. 3; VI.4.3-4 = Fröhlich L 60 = Boyce Nr. 151; VI.6.1 = Fröhlich L 61 Tai. 35.1; V1. l5.1 = Fröhlich L 70 Tai. 7; V 1.15. 11 = Fröhlich L 72 = Boyce Nr. 217 Tai. 22.2; V1.15.23 = Fröhlich L 73

=

Boyce Nr. 219 Tai. 15.2; V1.l6.15

=

Fröhlich L 75 Tai. 39.2

=

Boyce Nr. 224 Tai. 16.1; V1.17.42

=

Die Ikono g rap hie des Genius Au gusti

89

Bekanntlich wurde die toga praetexta nur von Knaben, Amtsinhabern und dem Kaiser selbst getragen.84 Wenn man also Genien

in toga praetexta

als Darstellungen des Genius des Haus­

herrn interpretiert, müßte man streng genommen annehmen, daß sämtliche Dargestellten offizielle oder halb offizielle Ämter

in

der Reichs-, Munizipal- oder Sakralverwaltung

innehatten. Da dies ausgesprochen unwahrscheinlich ist8S, bliebe nur die Möglichkeit, daß dem Genius des Hausherrn die toga praetexta nicht deswegen zugekommen wäre, weil sie dem Hausherrn

als

seinem realen Vorbild von Amtswegen zugestanden hätte, sondern lediglich in

seiner Eigenschaft als Opferndem.86 Damit hätte man den Genius des Hausherrn der geläufigen Ikonographie der Protagonisten von Opferdarstellungen angeglichen, die freilich Magistrate waren - oder aber, wie

im

in

der Regel

Falle der compita, eben des Genius Augusti. 8 7 Die toga

praetexta wäre dann allerdings nur noch als Chiffre für 'Opfer' zu verstehen und vom Amt oder der Position ihres Trägers völlig getrennt. Diese Annahme hätte jedoch recht problematische Konsequenzen. Genius Augusti und Genius des Hausherrn hätten dann nämlich spätestens seit der Einrichtung des Kompitalkultes eine völlig identische Ikonographie und ließen sich nur noch daran unterscheiden, ob sie außerhalb oder innerhalb eines Hauses dargestellt sind. Dies allerdings scheint mir für die Person des Kaisers

konzeptionell außerordentlich schwierig. 88 Gerade

Eingliederung des Genius Augusti

in

im

Zusammenhang mit der

den privaten Hauskult ist doch zu erwarten, daß man den

Unterschied zwischen Genius patroni und Genius Augusti auch erkennen konnte.89 Abgesehen davon ergeben sich auch in der Verwendung der praetexta bei Privatpersonen gewisse Probleme. Auf staatsrechtlicher Ebene orientieren sich Tracht und Insignien des Vertre­ ters eines Amts- oder Würdenträgers in der Regel unmittelbar an diesem selbst.9o Es liegt nahe, dieses Modell auch auf das Verhältnis von Person bzw. Personengruppen zu ihrem Genius zu übertragen: die Genien sind sinnvollerweise mit den jeweils typischen Merkmalen ausgestattet, damit sie eine sichere Zuordnung gewährleisten. Dementsprechend tragen der Genius Senatus toga und ca/cei senatorii, der Genius des Ritterstandes tra bea und ReiterstiefeI, der Gen ius

Fröhlich L 78 Tat. 42.2; VI!.2.20 = Fröhlich L 81 Tat. 4 1 . 1 ; VII.3. 1 1 - 1 2 = Fröhlich L 82 Abb. 4; VII. 11.11 - 14 = Fröhlich L 89 Tat. 42.4; VlII.2.39 = Fröhlich L 95 Tat. 44.1 = Boyce Nr. 349; VIII.5.37 = Fröhlich L % Tat. 8; VU-VIII = Fröhlich L 98 Tat. 10.2 = hier Abb. 5; IX.5.2/22 = Fröhlich L 105 Tat. 49.2; IX.9.2 = Boyce Nr. 454; IX.13.1/3 = Fröhlich L 109 Tat. 14.2; IX.14.2-4 = Fröhlich L 1 1 1 Tat. 48.1. Weiße toga: 1.13.2

=

Fröhlich L 29 Taf. 28.1-2

=

hier Abb. 6; VII.16.22

=

Fröhlich L 94 Taf. 8.2, 46.1;

Chicago. Field Museum of Natural History Inv. 24658 = Fröhlich L 128 Taf. 51.1 - Bei dem nur in einer Zeichnung (H. Jordan [supra n.17] 19 ff. Tat. B) erhaltenen Bild aus dem Backraum des Hauses IX.3.lO-

84 85

86 87

12 kann nicht entschieden werden, ob der Genius tatsächlich die weiße toga trug. T h . Mommsen, Römisches StaatsrechP (Leipzig 1887) 1 420, II 806; H. Gabelmann , Jdl lDO (1985) 510 ff.; H. R. Goette, Studien zu römischen Togadarstellungen (Mainz 1989) 4 f. So Schäfer (supra n.66) 443. Zur pmetexta bei Opfernden vgL Mommsen (supra 0.84) I 421 f. Wrede 118; Alföldi 56 und Fishwick, "Genius and Numen " in lmp. Cult 11.1, 376 Arun . 4 sehen eine enge Verbindung zwischen dem Kult des Paterfamilias und dem des Genius AUgllSIi u.a. auch darin, daß für den Genius des Hausherm die eigentlich dem Genius AUgllsti zukommende praetexta verwendet worden sei. - Das müßte freilich noch nicht notwendigerweise implizieren, <1.aß der Genius des Hausherrn erst nach 7 v.Chr., also nach der Neueinsetzung des Kompitalkultes seine Bildgestalt gewonnen hat; wenn es den Genius des Hausherm vorher schon in anthropomorpher Gestalt gegeben hat, könnte er freilich auch in weißer toga dargestelt worden sein.

88

VgL etwa den besonderen Wert, der auf die exakte Bekleidung von Kaiserstatuen gelegt wird, Suet.,

CaJig. 22.1, Nero 57.1 und bes. D. Fishwick, ZPE 73 (1988) 1 1 3 ff.

89

Selbstverständlich mußten hier die unterschiedlichen Ebenen deutlich voneinander abgegrenzt werden.

90

Th. Schäfer (supra n.12) 5 0 und passim.

Ein gutes Be.ispiel ist der Eid beim Genius des Kaisers, der zunehmend verpflichtend wurde; dagegen galt der Eid beim Genius eines anderen sterblichen Menschen als "Eingriff in die souveräne Stellung des Herrschers," vgL Mommsen (supra n.84) U 809 f.; F. Bömer (supra

n.5) 77 H.

Heidi Hänlein Schäfer

90

Augusti toga praetexta und caIcei patricii.91 Der Genius des Hausherrn müßte folgerichtig das normale Bürgergewand tragen, nämlich die weiße toga und einfache calcei. Genau dies scheint Ovid für den privaten Genius zu überliefern, wenn er von dessen vestis alba spricht9Z Demnach sollte man auch nur die drei oben erwähnten Lararienbilder mit dem Genius des Hausherrn verbinden, auf denen der Opfernde sicher eine rein weiße toga trägt Das Küchen­ bild aus dem Haus 1.13.2 zeigt eine singuläre Darstellung.93 Vor einem Altar erscheint eine G�uppe von insgesamt 16 Personen, bei denen es sich eigentlich nur um die Angehörigen der

familia handeln kann . Folglich wird der am Altar Opfernde in weißer toga capite veIato den Hausherrn oder seinen Genius meinen, der zusammen mit seiner Frau oder deren Juno das Hausgesinde anführt.94 Zwei weitere Bilder

in

Opfernde in rein weißen togae, deren Köpfe

Gegensatz zu den meisten anderen Darstellungen

allerdings nicht verhüllt sind.95

In

im

,Pompeji und aus Boscoreale zeigen ebenfalls

Analogie zu dem zuvor genannten vielfigurigen Bild wird

man wohl auch hier die Hausherrn selbst oder deren Genien beim Opfer erkennen dürfen. Bemerkenswert ist die Tatsache,

daß

die Opfernden nicht nur die weiße toga tragen, sondern

auch kein Füllhorn halten. Da diese Lararienbilder Genien in weißer toga zeigen, die offenbar auf den Genius des Haus­ herm zu beziehen sind, liegt der Schluß außerordentlich nahe, daß die übrigen Genien in der

toga praetexta nicht den Genius des Hausherrn, sondern den Genius Augusti meinen.

B. Füllhorn Das heute zerstörte Lararienbild im Haus

IX.9.13

zeigte über Eck zwei opfernde Genien, von

denen einer durch die Beischrift EX S(enatus) C(onsulto) als Kaisergenius gesichert war.9 6 Letzterer gilt als bildliche Umsetzung des senatus consuItum vom Jahre singuläre Darstellung des Genius Augusti

im

30 v.Chr. und damit als der bereits wenig detailliert, als daß

Hauskult Pompejis. Die Beschreibung

bei der Ausgrabung schon recht desolaten Malerei ist zu Unterschiede in der Tracht der beiden Geniusdarstellungen konkretisiert werden könnten.97 Immerhin unterschieden sie sich mit Sicherheit darin, daß der Genius Augusti

im

Gegensatz zu

dem des Hausherrn ein Füllhorn hält. Damit haben wir zumindest für dieses Bild eine klare Unterscheidung, die

für eine Benennung des Genius

mit Füll horn als Kaisergenius spricht

Das in einigen anderen Fällen zu beobachtende Fehlen eines Füllhorns muß freilich keineswegs bedeuten, daß es sich deshalb nicht um einen Kaisergenius handeln kann. So zeigen noch sechs weitere Darstellungen den Genius ohne Füllhorn; drei halten eine acerra in der Linken, den anderen fehlt jedes Attribut. Auf einem heute zerstörten Küchenbild

vrr . 15.7

im

Haus

scheinen zwei Opfernde an einem Altar dargestellt gewesen zu sein, von denen einer

die acerra hielt; die Beschreibung ist jedoch zu lapidar, als daß sich eine Aussage hinsichtlich

91 92 93 94 95 96 97

H. R. Goette, /d1 103 (1988) 452 ff. Einzelne Ausnahmen lassen sich offenbar durch den jeweiligen Kontext begründen. Ovid, Trist. 3.13.13. 113.2 = Fröhlich 261 L 29 Taf. 28.1-2. Vgl. Fröhlich 33 und Th. Schäfer (supra n.66) 443 Anm. 9 . VII.16.22 = Fröhlich L 94 Taf. 46.1. - Chicago, Field Museum of Natural History Inv. 24658 305f. L 128 Tat. 51.1.

=

Fröhlich

CIL N 5285. Mau (supra n.3) 278; Oe Marchi (supra n.69) 75, 94; Boyce 93 Nr. 466; V. v. Gonzenbach (supra n.1l) 100 f.; Alföldi 26; Fishwick, Imp. Cu/t 111, 376; Fröhlich 33 Anm. 154. Boyce 93 beschreibt den Genius Augusti "dad in white toga and pouring a libation upon a yellow

cylindricaJ altar with a fire; he is unbearded, in his left he holds a yellow comucopia". Den Genius des

Hausherrn beschreibt er "he pours a libation upon a tripod; 'he wears a wreath of leaves; the toga does not seem to be drawn over his head as usual, though the preservation of the painting is poor at this point; he holds IV) comucopia". Für den Genius Augusti erwähnt er eine weiße toga. Das muß allerdings nicht bedeuten, daß dieser keine toga prattexta getragen hätte, da Boyce auch in anderen Fällen die toga

praetexta nicht erwähnt: vgl. z.B. 17.10-12, V.2.b-c, VIII.5.37.

Die Ikono g rap hie des Genius Augusti

der Opfernden treffen ließe.98 Das gleiche gilt für die beiden Opfernden, die auf die War rechts neben der Larenädikula in Hauses des Epidius Rufus

von denl

wiederum nur einer die acerra hielt99 Das Lararienbild

schließli.

opfernden G e nius ohne Altar in toga

den

(IX.l.20) gemalt waren, im Vettierhaus l oo zeigt

pra etexta capite ve/ato mit pa t era und a cerr

Bemerkenswert ist, daß dies d a s einzige sichere Beispiel eines Genius ist, bei dem cale

pat ricii zu erkennen sind. Zusammen mit der toga praetexta rechtfertigen d i e doppE geschnürten Patrizierschuhe trotz des Fehlens eines Füllhorns eine Benennung als Genil Augusti.lOl So hält auch der Kaisergenjus auf der Mainzer Juppitersäule kein Füllhorn, sonde] stattdessen einen Lorbeerzweig (Anhang Während sich das Füllhorn also

als

II Nr. 9). außerordentlich häufiges, nicht aber als konstitutiv.

Element der Ikonographie des Genius Augusti erweist, deutet doch immerhin die toga praetex eindeutig auf den Kaisergenius. Folglich dürfen also nicht nur die Kompitalbilder Pompeji sondern auch der Großteil der häuslichen Lararienbilder als Zeugnisse der Verehrung des Gen us Augusti gelten. 10 2 Die auffällige und auch schon immer beobachtete Parallelität von Bil< elementen und Ikonographie in den Kompital- und Hauslararien Pompej isl 03 findet ihre natü liche Erklärung darin, daß in beiden Fällen der Genius Augusti Gegenstand der Verehrung ist Nur unter dieser Voraussetzung werden nun auch eine Reihe von weiteren Detai verständlich, die ebenfalls nicht zum Kult des Genius des Hausherm, dafür aber umso besser

i

den kaiserlichen Umkreis passen. - Ein wichtiger Hinweis auf den Genius Augusti sind zunächst die Lorbeerbäumchen, die al mehreren häuslichen La rarienbilden ersch e inen.1 04

- In

die kaiserliche Sphäre gehört auch ein weiteres Zeugnis.

Im

Haus

1.10.3

sind in ein.

Nische zwei Laren wiedergegeben, die seitlich eines Altars stehen. Hier kann es sic unmöglich um die Hauslaren handeln, da sie durch ein Graphito unterhalb des Bildes

Lariis Augustos bezeichnet sind. l OS - Auf mindestens

10

häuslichen Lararienbildern sind Altäre dargestellt, an denen Puppe

aufgehängt sind. 106 Dieser Brauch,

für jedes freie

Familienmitglied eine wollene Puppe un

für jeden Sklaven einen wollenen Ball zu weihen, wird von Festus und Macrobius aber nur

98 99 100 101 102 1 03

a:

iI

G. Fiorelli, Descrizione di Pampei (Neapel 1875) 311 erwähnt zwei Frauen. Boyce 72 Nr. 331 spriel von einem Mann und einer Frau, die beide in ein langes Gewand gekleidet sind. Supra n.74. VI.15.1. Fröhlich 279, L 70 Taf. 7. H. R. Goette (supra n.91) 452 ff Schäfer (supra n.66) 444 f. Vgl. Fröhlich 34.

10 4

Vgl. L8.? = Fröhlich L 11 Taf. 26.2; I 14.6-7 Alföldi 55 f. Fröhlich 127.

lOS

Pompeji 1.10.3. Boyce Nr. 47 Taf. 14.2 = Fröhlich L 13. eIL IV 8282: Lariis Augustos. - vg inschriftliche Erwähnungen der Lares Augusti auf Larenaltären: Altar. Vatikan, Sala delle Musl (Anhang I Nr. 1): eIL VI 445 = ILS 3613: Laribus Augustis Glenio Augusti ?] saa{um]; Altar vom Vicu Sandaliarius (Anhang I Nr. 2): eIL· VI 448

=

=

Fröhlich L 33 Taf. 5.1; VL6.1

=

Fröhlich L 61 Taf. 35.:

ILS 3614: Laribus Augustis; Altar vom Vicus Aescletiu

(Anhang I Nr. 3): eIL VI 30957 = ILS 3615: Larib(us) August(is); Altar von der Tiberinsel (Anhang I NI 6� eIL VI 446/7 = ILS 3612/a: Larib<us) Aug(us/is); Altar aus einem compitum der Regio VIII (Anhang

10 6

Nr. 8): eIL VI 30954: Loribus Aug(ustis) sacn'm; Altarfragment. Rom, Pal. Cons. (Anhang I Nr. 9: Larlibus Augustis]; Ptuj, eIL III 10873 (vgl. Anhang II Nr. 13): (LIar(i"us) Aug(ustis); Spalato, eIL Il 1950 (vgl. Anhang II Nr. 15): Lariibus) Aug(ustis). Fröhlich L 37 Taf. 9.1; VII.3. 11-12 Schlangenaltäre: I.12.3

=

=

Fröhlich L 82 Abb. 4; V II.4.20

Fröhlich L 24 Taf. 4.2; 1.12.8

=

=

Fröhlich L 83 Abb. 5-f

Fröhlich L 26 Taf. 26.1; 1.13.2 =' Fröhlich L 2'

Taf. 28.1; VI.6.1 = Fröhlich L 61 Taf. 35.1; VIL2.20 = Fröhlich L 81 Taf. 41.2; VII.16.22 = Fröhlich L 9· Taf. 46.1; VII oder VIII = Fröhlich L 98 Taf. 10,2. - vgL RE xn 1 (1924) 8J8 f. 814 f. s.v. Lares (Boehm: Fröhlich 34.

Heidi Hänlein Schäfer

92

Zusammenhang mit dem Kompitalkult Kompitalmalereien bezeugt. 107

für den Genius Augusti

erwähnt und ist auch auf zwei

- Sicherlich hat es private Vereine gegeben, die mit dem Kult des Genius des Hausherrn betraut waren und sich aus der fo milia des jeweiligen Hauses rekrutierten, auch wenn dafür gerade aus Pompeji die epigraphische Evidenz fehlt lOS Es scheint imme rhin fraglich, ob es

in all jenen Häusern ein so reichhaltiges Kultpersonal gegeben hat, wie es auf ihren privaten Lararienbildern begegnet. 10 9 Auf der anderen Seite belegt aber Tacitus, Ann. 1.73.1, daß es zumindest in allen großen Häusern solche Kollegien für den Kaiserkult gegeben hat: ...

cultores Augusti, q u i per omnes domos in modum collegiorum habebantur ... - D e m Genius des Pater

[amilias

werden Wein, Weihrauch und Blumen dargeb racht. 1 1 0

Dagegen zeigt eines d e r privaten Lararienbilder als Opfertier einen Stier, d e r natürlich nur dem Genius Augusti zukommen kann. 1 I I Auch di e Schweine u n d Schweineteile, d i e a u f 15 weiteren Wandbildern erscheinen, sind nicht etwa auf d e n Genius des Hausherrn zu beziehen,

- 17

sondem müssen

den Laren oder Penaten gelten.l12

Geniusbilder finden sich in Hotelzimmern, Gaststätten und Gewerberäumen. 11l Die schon

aus äußeren Gründen problematische Benennung des Opfernden als Genius des Hausherm vermochte ebensowenig zu befriedigen wie diejenige von Fröhlich, der an den Ge nius

decuriae oder ganz allgemein an Hausgötter dachte, in denen jeder Gast seine persönlichen Schutzgötter wiedererkennen konnte. 1 I4 Dagegen entfallen sämtliche Deutungsschwierig­ keiten, wenn es sich um Kaisergenien handelt. Zusammenfassend können wir festhalten, daß der Genius in toga pmetexta capite velato mit Füllhorn oder a cerra

im

linken Arm in der Regel den Genius Augusti wiedergeben soll. Die

zugehörigen Lararien befinden sich zumeist in den Gesindetrakten der reichen Häuser oder kleinen Häusern der unteren Bevölkerungsschichten. ten des gleichen Personenkreises, der auch

III.

für

Es

in

handelt sich hier also um die Kultstät­

den Kult an den compita verantwortlich zeichnet.

DIE ENTSTEHUNG DER IKONOGRAPHIE DES GENIUS AUGUSTI Der Genius Augusti begegnet sowohl

im

Hauskult, wie auch

im

Kompitalkult Roms und

Pompejis als opfernder togatus mit patera; seine das Hinterhaupt verhüllende toga läßt sich dank der Malereien als praetexta bestimmen. Das Füllhorn ist ein häufiges, aber nicht notwendiges Attribut, auf einigen Darstellungen sind calcei patricii zu erkennen.

10 7 lOS

10 9 110 111 112

Insula V.1 oder V.2 Fröhlich F 29; lX.l1.1 Fröhlich F 66. Fest 10827, 273,7 ff. (Lindsay); Macr., Sal. 1.7.34 f.; Bömer 34 f.; D. P. Harrnon, "The family festivals of Rome," ANRW 11.16.2 (1978) 1594 f. Fröhlich 32 f.; vgl jedoch Schäfer (supra n.66) 445. eIL ll 1980; IX 2996. Tibull 2 . 1 ff.; Ovid, Tri.t. 3.1 3.13 ff.; KunckeI 31; Orr (supra 11.55) 1571. lX . 1.2 0 Boyce 79 f. Nr. 385. VgL G. Henzen, AcIafraln/rn arvalillrn (Rom 1874) 57; Sc ott Ryberg 60, 81. Das Schwein war das beliebteste Opfertier im privaten Kultus : G. Wissowa, Religion li nd KIl ltlI . der Röm,,2 (München 1912) 441. - Schwein: V.2.h " Fröhlich L 46 Tat. 30.2; V.4.3 Fröhlich L 53; V.4.b Fröhlich L 54 Taf. 34.3; VIL3.11-12 Fröhlich L 82 Abh 4; Vll. 12.10 Fröhlich L 90 Taf. 44.2; Vll . 1 5. 1 2 Fröhlich L 93; Vll oder Vlll Fröhlich L 98 Tat. 10.2; Herculaneum Ins. Or. I L l a-2 Fröhlich L 119. Teile von Schweinen: 1.10.18 Fröhlich L 18 Taf. 26.3; 1.13.2 Fröhlich L 29 Taf. 28.12; Il.l.l Fröhlich L 38; V1.l5.11-12 Fröhlich L 72; VIL1 .25 Fröhlich L 79 Taf. 402; Vll.4.26-27 Fröhlich L 85 Abb. 7; IX.9.b-c Fröhlich L 108 Taf. 13.1; Herculaneum Ins. Or. ll.1 a-2 Fröhlich L 1 19; Via Nola, V.1 oder V.2 Fröhlich F 29. 1 . 1 . 2 Fröhlich L 1; L2.24 Boyce Nr. 16; 1.8.8 Fröhlich L 8; 1 . 1 1 . 1 Fröhlich L 19; V.2.b-c Fröhlich 267; V.2.13 Boyce Nr. 92; VL2.4 Fröhlich L 57; VI.4.3-4 Fröhlich L 60; Vll.2.3 Boyce Nr. 247; VII.3.8 Boyce Nr. 261; y!1.5.15 Boyce Nr. 285; Vll.1 1 . 1 1 / 1 4 Fröhlich L 89; Vll.12.7 Boyce Nr. 313; IX. 2.17 Boyce Nr. 398; IX.3.10-12 Fröhlich L 103; IX.3.13 Boyce Nr. 4 1 1 ; lX.8A Boyce Nr. 4 4 9. Fröhlich 36 f.; dagegen schon Schäfer (supra 11.66) 444 . =

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

113

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

'

1 !4

=

=

=

Jie Ikonographie des Genius Aug usti

93

Da der Kompitalkult in Rom, Pompeji und vermutlich auch in anderen Städten des lateini­ schen Westens

im

Jahre

7.

v.ehr. eingerichtet worden ist, stellt sich die Frage, ob der Genius

A ugus ti seine Gestalt auch erst zu diesem Zeitpunkt erhalten hat. Da je doch das senatus consultum v o m Jahre vorsah, scheint es

30 v.ehr. die Einbeziehung Oktavians bzw. seines Genius in den Hauskult mir notwendig, hierfür auch bereits eine entsprechende bildliehe Konkreti­

sierung vorauszusetzen. Anhand der Malereien Pompejis läßt sich dies allerdings nicht definitiv erweisen, da die meistenGeniusbilder aus der Spätzeit Pompejis stammen; nur ein ein­ ziges Lararienbild des Genius Augusti ist möglicherweise vor das Jahr 7 v.chr. zu datieren. l l5 Das Problem der Bildfassung des Genius Augusti ist m.E. eng verbunden mit derjenigen des Genius des Hausherrn; leider sind auch für diese Frage die archäologischen wie Hterarischen Quellen ausgesprochen dürftig. Rink war zwar mit Recht davon ausgegangen, daß die Wieder­ gabe des Genius Augusti als togatus unmittelbar mit dem senatus cOn5ultum vom Jahre 30 v.ehr. in Verbindung zu bringen sei, doch glaubte er, daß diese Ikonographie ab diesem Datum auch für den Genius des Hausherrn übernommen worden sei. 1I 6 Dies würde jedoch bedeuten, daß der Geni­

us des Hausherrn vorher nicht als togatus wiedergegeben war; da aber von einer sonstigen anthropomorphen Darstellung des Genius des Hausherrn - etwa als Jüngling - jede Spur fehlt, müßte er bis zum Jahre 30 nur in Schlangengestalt verehrt worden sein. 1I7 Dagegen spricht zu­ nächst ganz allgemein, daß auch andere Genien

-

wie

etwa der Genius populi Romani

-

gera­

de in der späten Republik anthropomorph gefaßt worden sind. l1 8 Vor allem aber gib t e s einige

Bronzestatuetten, die nur auf den Genius des Hausherrn zu beziehen sein können, da sie nach der ausgesprochen knappen Form ihrer togae noch in die Mitte des

L ]hs.

v.Gtr. gehören müssen.'"

Von besonderem Interesse ist in diesem Zusammenhang das Gedicht Tibulls zum Geburtstag seines Gönners M. Valerius Messala am

25. September 27 v.ehr. Darin fordert Tibull den

Os iris

auf, zum Fest zu erscheinen, dem Genius des Hausherrn Kopf und Hals ZU bekränzen, Wein über die Brauen zu gießen und das glänzende Stimhaar zu salben. 1 2o Dies setzt zweifellos eine anthropomorphe Gestalt des Genius voraus, den man sich wohl in Form einer Statuette zu denken hat. Entgegen der V orstellung von Rink lind Wrede scheint es mir daher sogar recht unwahrscheinlich, daß nur

3 Jahre nach

der anthropomorphen Konzeption des Genius Augusti

ein entsprechendes Erscheinungsbild auch für den Genius des Hausherrn bereits zur Selbstverständlichkeit geworden wäre. Dies würde nämlich in der Praxis bedeutet haben, daß

1 15

1 16 117

1 18

1 1.

1 20

Fröhlich 108. V on d en Genien in Praetexta könnte lediglich das Bild 1X .14.214 Fröhlich L 1 1 1 Tat. 48.1 in frühaugusteische Zeit gehören (Fröhlich 69 f.), doch reichen die Kriterien gerade im Falle der wenig anspruchsvoHen Lararienbilder für derartige Feindatierungen kaum a'!s. Rink 24 f. Zum Genius des Hausherrn in Schlangengestalt vgL die Schlangen im Hause der Gracchen, Cic., Div. 1.36, 2.62; Val. Max. 4.6. 1 ; Plin., N.H. 7.122; Plut, Graech. 1.4; Schlange auch als fa mulils des toten Anchises, Verg., Aen. 5.95 f Dazu Rink 10 ff.; F. Bömer (supra n.5) 97 ff., 100, der in augusteischer Zeit einen Wandel im Bild des Gonills konstatiert. Rink 43 ff.; J. Gage in Congr. intern. nllmismatiqlle 1I953] (Paris 1957) 11 219 ff.; Kunckel 33 ff.; M. H. Crawford, Roman rqmbliean eoinage (Cambridge 1974) Nr. 409; T. Hölscher in Proc. 9. intern. Congr. Nllm. (19791 (Louvain-la-Neuve 1982) 272 f.; Wrede III ff. Tat. 34.3. Kunckel 19 f. F 1 1 Tat. 37.1; F 1Il 1-2 Taf. 43.1, 44.1. Wrede 1 1 6 Anm. 42 hält die Datierung offenbar für diskutabel: "Träfe die Frühdatierung zu, so unterschiede sich der augustische Genius Augusti nicht vom Genius des Hausherrn, sondern wäre v on diesem veränderungslos abgeleitet. Das erscheint fragwürdig". Tibul! 1.7.49 ff.: huc ades et Genium ludis Geniumque chor eis I concelebrata et multo tempora funde mero; I illius et nitido stillent unguenta capilIo, I et capite et coHo molia serta gerat Ganz ähnlich auch 'der Genius in TibuH 2. 2.58: ipse suos Genius adsit visurus honores I cui decorent saneta molIia serta . comas. I i1Iius puro destiIlent tempora pardo, I atque satur Iibo sit madeatque mero. V gl. L. Koenen, IIIinoisClassStlid 1 (1976) 153 ff. -

=

=

=

Heidi Hänlein Schäfer

94

man die althergebrachte Vorstellung des Genius des Hausherm unter dem Einfluß des Genius Augusti nicht nur aufgegeben, sondern diesem in kürzester Zeit angeglichen hätte. Dies ist freilich bei dem gerade in religiösen Dingen notorischen Traditionalismus kaum vorstellbar.121

Demgegenüber scheint es mir wesentlich wahrscheinlicher, daß es sich im Falle des Genius Augusti in Gestalt eines opfernden togatus eben nicht um eine völlige ikonographische Neu­ schöpfung ex nihiIo handelt, sondern um die Adaption eines bereits durchaus gebräuchlichen Typus. Auch in anderen Bereichen entsprach es keineswegs dem Vorgehen des Oktavianl Augustus, alte, gewachsene Vorstellungen radikal zu verändern; vielmehr stellte er sich gern in die formale Tradition bereits bestehender Bräuche und Formen, veränderte und erweiterte sie dann aber inhaltlich in spezifischer Weise im Hinblick auf seine Person und Stellung. Die Wiedergabe des Genius des Hausherrn als togatus dürfte also primär gewesen und vermutlich im frühen 1. Jh. v.Chr. entstanden sein. Nach der Ubemahme dieses Typus durch den Genius Augusti im Jahre 30 v.Chr. war der kaiserliche von dem privaten Genius dennoch durchaus zu unterscheiden: der Genius Augusti trug die praetexta, der Genius des Hausherrn die rein weiße toga. Das Füllhorn ist für die Gestalt des Genius Augusti offenbar nicht konstitutiv. Interessanter­ weise fehlt es gerade auf den stadtrömischen Denkmälern der frühen Kaiserzeit, die sich auf den Kompitalkult beziehen. Erst auf dem vermutlich ebenfalls stadtrömischen Relief in der Villa Medici (Anhang II Nr. 2), das bezeichnenderweise aber erst aus der 2. Hälfte des 1. Jhs . . stammen dürfte, hält der Genius Augusti ein Füllhorn. Offenbar hat man also zumindest in Rom darauf verzichtet, dem Genius Augusti bei der Einsetzung des Kompitalkultes das Füllhorn als Attribut beizugeben. Möglicherweise ist diese Zurückhaltung damit zu erklären, daß man mit der Füllhornsymbolik zu eindeutig die Rückkehr des aureum saeculum und damit eine besondere Überhöhung der Person des Kaisers in göttliche Gefilde assoziiert hätte. 1 22 Wie die erst po stume Errichtung eines Kaiserkulttempels belegt, sollte dies im Rom jedoch gerade vermieden werden. Außerhalb Roms war man hier in jeder Hinsicht freier; die Kompitalbilder sowie die privaten Lararien Campaniens zeigen den Genius Augusti zumeist mit Füllhorn, doch scheint dieses Attribut gerade dem Genius des Hausherm gelegentlich zu fehlen. Ein schönes Beispiel für den Genius Augusti in toga capite velato mit patera, Füllhorn und Opferstier zeigt ein Altar aus Neapel (Anhang II Nr. 5), auf dem der Genius zusammen mit Merkur, Vesta und Salus erscheint.l 23 Die zweifellos sehr bewußte Übernahme der Ikonographie des Genius des Hausherrn durch Augustus hatte natürlich auch ihre inhaltlichen Implikationen: der Kult des Genius Augusti wandte sich offenbar gerade an die 'kleinen Leute', die er auf diese Weise an seine Person zu binden versuchte. Dies beweisen nicht nur die soziale Herkunft der für den offiziellen 1 21

Ohnehin scheint dieser Übergang nicht abrupt v or sich gegangen zu sein: eine Statuette verbindet die ältere Vorstellung des Genius des Hausherrn der Schlange mit der jüngeren des

togatus: Kuncke l 9 0 F I S

Taf. 36-37.

1 22

VgL die Ara des Divus Augustus in Praeneste: F. Zevi,

Prospettiva 7 (1977) 39 f. Abb. 4. Auf allen Seiten

erscheinen doppelte Füllhörner, die auf der VS eine Rundnische mit der fast rundplastischen Büste des Divus Augustus rahmen; darunter: DIVO AVG(usto)

SACRVM NS: pa/era und gllttus. RS: simpuvium. ActaAArtHist 1 (1962) 1 3 f. versteht das Füllhorn als Zeichen der Glorifizierung des fruchtbarmachenden Herrschers; vgl. A. Alföld� Hermes 65 (1930) 369 ff.: mit der Deutung des Füllhorns bei Augustus als Symbol für die Rückkehr des aurellm saecuulJtl; vgL zur Bedeutung auch RAC 16 (1992)

-

H. P. L'Orange,

541 f. s.v. Horn.

1 23

Die Verbindung des

Genius Augllsti mit Salus ist auch sonst belegt: CIL VI 8 1 1

Börner (supra n.5) 121 f.

Arun. 106-7 mit dem Hinweis,

=

ILS 192: 38 n Chr.; F.

daß die Arvalakten ab 58 n. Chr. das Opfer pro

salute Imperatoris mit dem Genius Augusti verbanden, vgI. auch Bömer ebd. 131.

-

Vor diesem

Hintergrund wäre auch die Benennung der weiblichen Gestalt auf der Frontseite des Altars von Vicus Sandaliarius (Anhang I Nr. 2) zu überdenken. Vgl. auch den Altar Gravisca: M. ToreIli,

NSc (1971) 207.

Die Ikono g raphie des Genius Augusti

Kompitalkult verantwortlichen magistri u nd ministri, sondern auch die Rezipientenschi6 der häuslichen Lararien in Pompeji. Zumindest im Hinblick auf die unteren Bevölkerung chichten absorbiert der Genius Augusti also Funktionen und Aufgaben, die in der Republik de: Genius des Hausherrn zugekommen waren. Der Kaiser wendet sich gleichsam als 'Hausvate an die Familie der Bürger und Untertanen.124 Augustinerstr. 4, D-37f1l7 Göttinge ANHANG I Inschriftlich oder ikonographisch gesicherte Kompitalaltäre (nur die Weihung ist angegeben)

Al

Dediziert von

coU.gill

der

"icom..gistri

CIL VI 445 ; ILS 3613: Laribus Augustis Glmio Augusti ?] sacrlum]. Genius, 2 Laren ; hier Abb. 2 rNS/INS: 2 togati beim Opfer, tibicen. Rs: aJrona ci"ica, Kilt. III 1, 63 ff. Taf. 31 (VS, rNS, INS); Seol! Ryberg 58 f . Taf. 16 Abb. ;

1 Altar. Vatikan, Sala delle Muse. v.Chr. VS:

Lorbeerbäume. - Lippold, Vat.

(rNS); Hermann 23 f. 84 f. Nr. 13; Helbig l4, Nr. 83 (Sirnon); Zanker 149

Arun . 8 Nr. 4. Tat. 56.1

(rNS); Alföl,

31 f. Taf. 1 1 .1 (VS); Kunekel 25 Taf. 17.3 (VS); FeIletti Maj 261 f. Taf. 46.1-2 (VS, rNS); Hölsche

Staatsdenkmal 27 Abb. 37-39 (VS, INS, rNS); Hana2338 Nr. 1 Taf. 11 (VS); 5.9 (rNS). 2 Altar vom Vicus Sandaliarius. Florenz, Uffizien Inv. 972 VS:

CIL VI 448

=

ILS 3614: Larwus Augustis. 2 v.Ch

C. Caesar, Augustus als augur, Livia. rNS: tropaellm, Victoria mit Schild. INS: 2 Laren. RS: aJrDna dvica, Lorbeerbäume, patera, urceus. - Seott Ryberg 60 f. Taf. 16 Abb. 31 (VS); G. A. Mansuelli, Galleria deg

Uffizi. Le scuUure I (Rom 1958) 203 ff. Nr. 205 Abb. 198a-d (alle Seiten); W. H Grass, "Iulia Augusta, AbhGöttingen 54 (1962) 76 ff.; Hermann 85 ff. Nr. 15; V. v. Gonzenbach, "Genius Augusti-Theos Sebastm in Festschrift K. Kirmyi (Stockholm 1968) 98 ff. Abb. 14a-b (alle Seiten in Zeichnung nach S. Reinacl Rep.Rel. III 31-32); Zanker 148 Arun. 8 Nr. 1, 152 Taf. 57.1-3 (VS, rNS); Alföldi 32 f. Taf. 121-2 (VS, RS Hölscher, Staatsdenkmal 28 Abb. 40-43 (alle Seiten); Hano 2338 f. Nr. 2 Taf. 1.2 (INS). 7.14 (VS). 8.16 (RS 11.25 (rNS); J. Pollini, The portraiture of Gaius and Ludus Caesar (New York 1987) 30 ff. 98 Nr. 12 Taf. 1 (VSund Kopfdetails).

CIL VI 30957 ; ILS 3615: Larw(us) Augustlis]. vicomagistri, tibieen, Liktor, 2 Kultdiener, Stier, Schwein. rNS/INS: Lar ac corona dvica. - Helbig 114 Nr. 1741 (Simon); Zanker 148 Arun. 8 Nr. 3, 149 Ta 55.2 (VS), 58.1 (Ornamente); Alföldi 33 Taf. 14.1-2 (rNS, INS); Hölscher, Staatsdenkmal 28 Abb. 44-46 (V� rNS, RS); Hano 2339 f. Nr. 3 Taf. 3.6 (rNS), 5.10 (VS), 920 (RS); Hölscher, Augustus 390 f. Nr. 217 (VS). Zur Compitum Aescleti und seiner domitianischen Arehitravinschrift, s. S. Panciera in L 'Ur!>s. Espace urbain , histoir< (ColEFR 98, 1987) 62 ff. 3. Altar vom Vieus Aescletius. Rom, Pal. Cons. Inv. 855.

n.Chr. VS: Opferszene mit 4 Podest mit Lorbeerzweig. RS:

4. Altarfragment vom Compitum Acili. Rom.

AE (1964) Nr. 77. � n.Chr. VS: aJrona dviCll . rNS: Lorbeerbaun BullCom 78-79 (1961-64) 159 ff. Abb. � (VS, Rekonstr.); Zanker 149 Arun . 8 Nr. 9; Han, 2341 Nr. 5. Zum Compitum Acili, s. A. M. Colini, BullCom 78-79 (1961-64) 147 H.; M. Dondin-Payre iJ L 'Urbs. Espaee urbain et histaire (CollEFR 98, 1987) 87 ff. (Architektur); H. v. Hesberg in Kaiser Augustus un, die verlorene Republik (Berlin 1988) 398 ff. Nr. 255 (VS, Rekonstr.).

- A.

M. Tamassia,

5. Altar v on der Via E. Morosini Rom, NM Inv. 58640. CIL VI 36851. Flavisch (zu Datierung vgl. C

Antike GrabaUiire al/S den Nekropolen Roms (Mainz 1 987) 32 bes. Nr. 908a. 920). V� RS: patera, ureeus. - Hermann 92 f. Nr. 24; Zanke 149 Anm. 8 Nr. 8; B. Candida, Altari e cippi nel Museo Nazianale Romano (Rom 1979) 102 f. Nr. 44 Taf. 3<

Bosehung,

Rankengerahmtes Jnschriftfeld. rNS/INS: Lorbeerbäume.

(INS, VS, rNS); A. L Lombardi u. M. Bertinetti, MNR 1/2 (1981) 330 Nr. 35 (VS, rNS); Hano 2340 f. Nr. 4.

B)

Dediziert von

collegia der vicoministri

6. Altar von der Tiberinsel (Compitum des Vieus Censori?). a) Rom, NM Inv. 34253.

CIL V I 446 ; ILS 3612 Larib(us) Al/g(ustis). b) Frankfurt, Liebieghaus Inv. 284. CIL VI 447 ; ILS 3612a: Larw(us) Aug(l/stis). ; v.Chr. Vorder- und Rückseite schon vor der Aufnahme in das CIL modem vom Altarkörper abgesägt: R

1 24

B. Kaeser

in Römisches im Antikenmuswm SMPK (Berlin 1978) 55. Ähnlich Wrede 118: "EJ

paralleliSierte das Verhältnis zwischen lar familiaris und lar
Heidi Hänlein Schäfer

96

Fabretti sah 1676 die Inschriften bei der Auffindung noch "binas in unica basi insculpta". Es handelt sich

also um einen einzigen Altar, nicht um Gegenstücke, so zu Recht Hermann 65; Candida (supra Anhang I Nr.5) 100 und Hano 2342, irrig Bertinetti (supra Anhang I Nr.5) 70. In der Lit gilt b) als verschollen und ist erst

wieder seit der PubL von Bol bekannt. Allerdings hatte anscheinend unbemerkt von Bol bereits 1973 AIföldi Taf. 15 beide Seiten nebeneinander abgebildet (nach Neg DAl Rom 56.722 und 59.62!) und sie als "Varianten eines Larenaltars" bezeichnet. - Vorder- und Rückseite unterscheiden sich nur in Details und in der

Anordnung der Namen in der Inschrift: der auf der einen Seite zuerst genannte minister erscheint auf der anderen als letzter. Inschrift gerahmt von Lorbeerbäumen, in denen eine Eichengirlande hängt. Lorbeer greift

auf die Nebenseiten über. - Hermann 85 Nr. 14; Zanker 149 Arun . 8 Nr. 7; Alföldi 36 Taf. 15.1-2 (a, b); B. Candida (supra Anhang I Nr.5) 101 f. Nr. 43 Taf. 35 (aNS); A. Manodori u. M. Bertinetti (supra Anhang I Nr.5) 70 f. Nr. 53 (a); Hano 2342 Nr. 7 Taf. 9.18 (VS); P. C. Bol, Liebieghaus - Museum alter Plastik (Antike Bildwerke I, 1983) 264 fi. Nr. 85 Abb. 85.1-2 (b:NS); Simon 100 f. Abb. 128-29 (a, b:VS). 7. Altar vom Vicus Statae Matris. Rom, Pal. Cons. Inv. 2144. CIL VI 36809 a, b

=

lLS 9250: Laril",s Augustiis.

2 v.Chr. VS: corona civica mit Inschrift. rNS/INS: Lorbeerbäume. RS: palera, Inschrift analog zur VS, Vicusangabe. - Hermann 88 Nr. 16; Zanker 149 Arun. 8 Nr. 5; Hölscher, Staatsdenkmal 29 Abb. 47-48 (VS, INS); Hano 2341 f. Nr. 6 Taf. 9, 19 (VS); Hölscher, Augustus 392 Nr. 220 (VS, INS).

C) Dedikation

an

die

Lar.s Augusti

ohne Angabe der Dedikanten

8. Altar auS einem compitum der Regio vm. Rom, Forum Romanum vor dem RomulustempeL CI L VI 30954: Laribus Aug(ustis) sacntm. VS: Inschrift. rNS: palera. INS: gldtus. RS: Nische (zur Aufnahme einer Statuette?) - G. LugIi, Roma antica (Rom 1946) 220; Hermann 117 Nr. 49; Zanker 149

Arun

.

8; Hano 2343 Nr. 9 Taf. 3.5

(VS). - Der Altar steht nach LugIi, Roma antica 220 auf einem Travertinfundament in Form einer cella in antis. Es handelt sich wohl um eine kleine Ädikula, von denen mehrere in einem compitum stehen konnten, vgL

das Compitum Acili (supra Anhang I Nr. 4). Wenn allerdings der von Augustus erbaute Larentempel in dieser Gegend zwischen dem Romulustempel und dem Haus der Vestalinnen lokalisiert werden muß (so F. Coarelli,

Roma [Guide arch. Laterza 7, Rom 1980] 79), dürfte die Ädikula mit Altar eher zu dem Tempelbezirk selbst

gehört haben.

9. Altarfragment. Rom, PaL Cons. Giardino Romano. Augusteisch. VS: Inschrift Lar[ibus Augustis} mit

Lorbeerzweigen. rNS: fehlt. INS: Lorbeerbaum. RS: Lorbeergirlande, 2 Il1Illae, situla. - C. Pietrangeli, BullCom 70 (1942) 127 ff. Abb.1-2; Hermann 89 f. Nr. 19; Zanker 149 Arun. 8 Nr. 6; Alföldi 36. Hano 2342 f.

Nr. 8 Taf. 10.21

(RS, INS).

Dl Altäre, die wahrscheinlich aus

compita

stammen

10. Altar aus Soriano. Rom, Pal. Cons. Inv. 3352. Augusteisch. VS: Opferszene, togahIS, tibicen, 2 Kultdiener, Stier. rNS/INS: Lar zwischen Lorbeerbäumen. RS: corona civica, lihms, palera, simpulum. - C. Pietrangeli,

BullCom 64 (1936) 13 fi. Taf.I-2 (VS, INS); Zanker 149 Anm. 8 Nr. 10, 147 f. Taf. 54.1-2 (VS, INS), 55.1 (RS); Alföldi 35 Taf. 13.1-3. (RS, VS, NS); FeIletti Maj 26i Taf. 45 Nr. 119 (VS); Hano 2346 f. Nr. 12 Taf. 6.12 (VS); Hölscher, AUgllStllS 391 f. Nr. 218 (VS), 11. Altarfragment. Rom, Pa!. Cons. Inv. 1276. Augusteisch. VS: Opferszene, togahts, tibicen, 2 Kultdiener, Stier.

rNS/INS: Lar und Lorbeerbaum. RS: fehlt Zanker 147 ff. Arun. 8 Nr. 11 Taf. 52.1-2 (VS; modeme RS), 53.1-2 (rNS, INS); FeIletti Maj 261 Taf. 46 Abb. 120 (VS); Hano 2347 Nr. 13; Hölscher, AugllShlS 391 f. Nr. 219 (VS). 12. Altar. Vatikan, Cortile Ottagono Inv. 958. Augusteisch. VS: Opferszene, togalllS mit palera, r. hinter ihm ein Liktor (das Rutenbündel von Panciera nicht erkannt) und davor kleiner Camillus; gegenüber tibicen, popa und Kultdiener mit Stier, darüber die Inschrift [.. .JRTIUVS M [... }I 5(. .) P( ...) 1(. ..>. rNS: gllttllS. INS: palera. RS:

corona civica mit sim puvium. - S. Panciera (supra Anhang I Nr3) 73 ff. Abh 8-11 (alle Seiten).

13. Altar. Rom, Antiquarium auf dem Palatin. Augusteisch. VS: tOgalllS capite velalo = hier Abb. 3. rNS/lNS: Laren. RS: corona civica. - Matz-Duhn III 99 Nr. 3649; C. Pietrangeli, (supra Anhang I Nr.10) 16 Nr. 2; Hano 2348 Nr. 15 Taf. 3 bis-ter, 7a-d (alle Seiten).

14. Altar. Rom, NM Inv. 49481. Augusteisch. VS: fehlt

RS: Zwei Laren. rNS/lNS: je eine Frau beim Opfer. ­

T. Hölscher, AA (1984) 291 ff. Abb. 5-7 (rNS, RS, INS) mit Verwechslung von Vorder- und Rückseite; Hölscher, Staatsdenkmal 29 Abb. 49-51 (ebenso); Hölscher, AU81tstllS 392 Nr. 221 (ebenso); Hano 2348f. Nr. 15 bis mit der falschen, von B. Candida (supra Anhang I Nr.5) 95 ff. Nr. 39 übernommenen Bezeichnung der beiden Fra uen als togati.

)ie Ikono g rap hie des Genius Augusti

97

ANHANG Ir Eine Reihe von weiteren Denkmälern gehört aufgrund ihrer Bildmotive in den öffentlichen oder privaten Gen ius/Larenkult.

1. Relieffragment. Rom, NM Inv. 478. Augusteisch. VS: Larenstatuette auf Podest, Kultdiener mit Schwein,

tibicen, Hand mit palera (eines abgebrochenen togatus). - Felletti Maj 260 Taf. 45 Abb. 1 1 8 (einzige

Abbildung); Hano 2347 Nr. 14.

2. Relief. Rom, Villa Medici, Gartenfassade. 2. Hälfte 1. Jh. n.Chr. Opfernder Genius mit Fülhorn hinter Altar mit Schlange zwischen zwei Laren. - M. Cagiano de Azevedo, Le antichitii di Villa Medici (Rom 1951) 7Of. Nr. 56 Taf. 32.51. FeIletti Maj 316f. Tat. 60 Abb. 148.

3. Altar des Manlius aus dem Theatervon Caere. Rom, Vatikan, Mus. Greg. Prof. CIL XI 3616 10 v.Chr. - M Torelli, Typology and stntelllre of Roman historical reliefs

=

ILS 6577. Um

Arbor 1982) 16 ff. Taf. 1.8; ' Hano 2345 f. Nr. 11 mit der von Alföldi 34 f . übernommenen irrigen Meinung, daß der Altar in Caere in sekundärer Verwendung aufgestellt worden sei; M. Fuchs in Caere 2. n teatro e il cic/o statllario gillJio-clalldio (Rom 1989) 89

ff. Nr.

(Ann

13 Abb. 88-89.

4. Rundaltar für die wes vicin(ales?). Ostia, Museum. aL XIV Suppl. 4298. Augusteisch. - Hano 2351 f. Nr. 18; Hölscher, Allgustus 393 Nr. 222 (Abrollung).

5. Altar. Neapel, NM . 147827 (Kunsthandel). 1.

Jh.

n.Chr. Die Breitseiten zeigen die thronenden Göttinen

Salus und Vesta, die Schmalseiten Merkur und den Genius Augusti mit Füllhorn stehend. A. Greifenhagen, RömMitt 52 (1937) 22B Nr. 12, Taf. SI-52 (alle Seiten); Scott Ryberg 62 f. Tat. 17 Abb. 33a-d (alle Seiten);

Kunckel 25 Anm. 60; Wrede 116; E. Simon, Die Göller der Römer (München 1990) 238, 308 zu Abb. 303-6 (alle Seiten).

6. Relief. Canosa, Grabkapelle des Boemondo. Claudisch. Zentralkomposition mit drei Togati und zwei Ministri; der mittlere, frontal wiedergegebene Togatus dürfte der Genius Augusti sein. H. v. Hesberg, RömMitt 87 (1980) 349 ff. Taf. 127-28. 7. Altar. Kopenhagen, Nat. Mus. Chr. VIII 314, aus Tarent. Augusteisch VS: Togatus capite veiato mit simpu­ vi um. INS: Victoria, rNS: Venus als Stammutter des iuJischen Hauses. RS: opfernder T ogatus vor Dreifuß. - P.

J. Riis, ActaArch 23

(1952) 147 ff. Abb. 1-4; H. v. Hesberg, RömMitt 87 (1980) 353.

8. Altar (verschollen). Codex Pighianus Fol. 43: VS: zwei Laren auf Podesten in Muschelnische. INS: sitzender Merkur. rNS: Herkules. - Scott Ryberg 62; Hano 2349 f. Nr. 16.

9. Juppitersäule. Mainz, Mittelrhein. Landesmuseum. Neronisch. Auf der 4. Trommel VS: Genius Augus ii Neronis, rNS/lNS: Laren, RS: Liber pater. - Kundel 78 A 4; G. Bauchhenß, Die grojJe IlIppitersäule aus . Mainz (CSIR Deutschland 11.2, 1984) 8 f., 19 Tat. 21-24. 10. Relief. Aquileia, Museum Inv. 377. 3. Jh. n.Chr. Drei vicomagistri beim Opfer. V. Skrabar, Ölh 19-20 (1919) 284 ff. Abb. 130; V. S. M. Scrinari, Museo ArcheolDgico di AqJlileia.. Catalogo delle seluture romane

(Rom 1972) 183 Nr. 561 Abb. 562.

1 1 . Relief. Ptuj, im Treppenaufgang zumStadtturm eingemauert. Opferszene mit drei togati. - V. Skrabar

(supra Anhang II Nr.10) 280 Abb. 126; M. Abramic,Poetovio (Wien 1925) 147 f. Nr. 174 Abb. 105.

12. Relieffragment. Ptuj, Stadtmuseum. Opferszene mit drei togati. - V. Skrabar (supra Anhang 11 Nr.8) 283 Abb. 127; M. Abramic (supra Anhang 11 Nr.10) 80f. Nr. 7B Abb. 21. 13. Relieffragment. ehern. Ptuj (verschollen). CIL III 10873: CL]arliblls) AlIg(ustis). - V. Skrabar (supra Anhang II Nr.10) 282 f. 14. Weihealtar eines collegium illventutis von Virunum für den Genius Allgusti. KIagenfurt, Landesmuseum

[nv. 114. CIL III 4779 = ILS 7305: Genio AlIg(IISti) sacr(um). Mitte 2. Jh. n.Chr. VS: Weihinschrift. rNS: opfernder togatus capite velato. INS: Minerva. - G. Piccottini, Die kultischen und mythologischen Reliefs des

Stadtgebietes von Vinmllm (CSIR Österreich 11.4, 1984) 12 f. Nr. 293 Tat. 1.

15. Spalato, C lL III 1950; Weihealtar des Eufrosinius für seinen Herrn Titius Valerianus. VS: Unter der Inschrift Altar mit Larlibus) AlIg(ustis). Auf beiden NS: Laren. - R Schneider, ArchEpigrMill 9 (1885) 72. 16. Relieffragment. London, Kunsthandel Untere Hälfte eines Reliefs (von einem Altar abgesägt?). H: 0.64 m;

Br: 0.98 rn. Seitlich stehen auf einer Standleiste zwei Lorbeerbäume mit Vögeln. In der Mitte erhebt sich ein hoher Sockel mit zwei tanzenden Laren zu Seiten eines brennenden Altars. - Sotheby's Auktion vom 13.14.7.l987 Nr. 435 mit Abb.

=

hier Abb. 1.

98

Heidi Hänlein Schäfer

17. Kleiner Hausaltar aus Terrakotta, Berlin. Laren, darunter Schwein und Schaf. antike Bildwerke Taf.

-

E. Gerhard, Berlins

64; A. Baumeister, Denkmäler des klassischen Altertltms 1 (München 1885) 56 Abb. 61.

18. Öllampe, Italien, 1 . Jh. n.ehr. Hannover, Kestner-Mus. Inv. 1226. Das Fragment des ovalen Henkel­ aufsatzes zeigt den Genilts Altgltsti mit Füllhorn am Altar opfernd, flankiert von zwei Laren. - A. Mlasowsky, Die antiken Tonlarrrpen im Kestner-MlIseum Hannooer (Hannover 1993) 298 f. Nr. 300.

The Imperial Cult Building in the forum at Pompeii JohnJ. Dobbins Introduction 1his paper examines the Imperial Cult Building on the E side of the forum at PomF 1). Two central issues are considered: its date and its patronage. In order to place the b accurately in the history of Roman architecture, in the evolution of the Pompeian forum.

the context of the imperial cult at Pompeii, the first step will be to establish its date

then can a patron be identified. I will argue that Nero and the architects in his circle a were responsible for the funds and the design that produced one of the unsung masterp

Roman architecture.

The conventional designation of the building (fig.

3)

as the Sanctuary of the Public

Le

never been argued in detail although it is the most commonly accepted attribution. Mau

correctly for the religious character of the building. Its location, large size, innovative

marble veneer, and niches for sculpture elevate the building to a special status. Howe'

suggestion that the building is the public analogy of the household lararium remai

convincing than Zanker's association of it with the imperial cult.2In whole or in p; other three buildings in this part of the Pompeian forum evoke Augustus, his fami

imperial patronage in Rome.

If

it would be the only building in

this building did not refer to the imperial family in SOil

this part of the forum that failed to do so.

In order to place the Imperial Cult Building

the east side of the forum (figs.

in its urban setting, we should look br 1-2) where four of the major buildings relate to the ir

family, though each poses specific problems. The Eumachia Building, probably constru

the first decade AD., alludes to the Augustan building program in Rome through its plan tural program, and dedicatory inscription.31he building clearly evokes the imperial but it is not a cult place;

it

The adjacent Sanctuary

lacks an altar and in function appears to have been a market.4

of

the Genius of Augustus5 presents problems of date, identif

patronage, and history of construction. Current archaeological thinking tends to ph

sanctuary in the Augustan period and to attzibute its dedication to the priestess Mamia from

CIL X 816.6 Fishwick and Gradel, however, argue

against assigning the sanctuary

As delivered at the conference, the paper advanced several arguments contained in my then forti"

article on the forum at Pompeii, "Problems of chronology, decoration and urban design in the P, Pompeii," AJA 98 (1994) 629-94. The written version summarizes much of that material and p

references to the article for a detailed discussion. See also J. J. Dobbins, "The Pompeii forum F lATH Research Reports, second series, 1994: World Wide Web, URL: http://jeffers o n .· virginia.edu/pompeii/page-lhtml Mau 18%, especially 299-301; Mau 1902, 102-5; P. Zanker, P ompeji: Stadtbilder als Spie Gesellschaft und Herrschaftsform (Mainz am Rhein 1987) 28; Zanker, Power of images 308; P.:

Pompei: socielll, immagini urbane e forme del/'abitare (trans!. A. Zambrini, Torino 1993) 103; Rid 273-75 considers the building to be a library. Dobbins 647-61. Richardson 194-98; L. Richardson, "Concordia and Concordia Augusta: Rome and Pompeii, (1978) 260-72Throughout this article I retain the designation Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus. This is don to remain consistent with my article in AJA and partly because it is uncertain just how one shou to it. It is dear, however, that our understanding of the sanctuary is rapidly evolving. For an Augustan dating and/ or an attribution of the sanctuary to Mamia: V. Kockel, "Funde und

John J. Dobbins

100

n

0

J

•

•

•

•

•

.

.

.

.

�

11:

•

•

•

.

.

.

.

.

7

· ·

• • •

.

.

oDooOoO

t11JJr

I

Fig. 1. Pompeii. Plan of forum. 1. Macellum; 2. bnperiaJ Cult Building; 3. Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus; 4. Eumachia Building; 5. Comitium; 6. Civic Offices; 7. Basilica; 8. Sanctuary of Apollo; 9. Temple of Jupiter. Genius on the grounds that

Augustan period.?

If

the

Genius was not worshipped at the municipal level during the

their assessments prevail, the sanctuary will require a new designation.

schungen in den Vesuvstadten," AA 1986, 457 n.52; Z.nker, Pompefi: Stadtbilder (supra n .2) 28-30; P . Zanker, Pompei: Societd (supra n.2) 103-5; Richardson 192-94; J. J. Dobbins, "Problems o f chronology, decoration, and urban planning on the forum at Pompeii" (abstract), AlA 93 (1989) 259; J. J. Dobbins, "The altar in the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus in the forum at Pompeii," RiimMitt 99 (1992) 25163 ; Dobbins 661�. These arguments return to G. Fiorelli, Descrizione di Pompei (Naples 1875) 261-62. l. Gradel, "Mamia's dedication: emperor and genius. The imperial cult in Italy and the Genius coloniae at Pompeii," AnalRom 20 (1992) 43-58, argues that the Mamia inscription is incorrectly restored and refers not to the Genius of Augustus but to the Genius of the Colony or the Genius of Pompeii. He considers that the incorrect restoration of the inscription has served as the basis for a mistaken belief that Augustus could not be worshipped directly in municipalities and was therefore worshipped in the fom; of his Genius. D . Fishwick (pers. comm. 1994) comments on the soundness of Gradel's argument and reiterates his own position (Imp. C1dt 1.1, 91-92 and 11.1, 511) that there is no evidence for the cult of the

perial Cult Building in the forum at Pompeii

33 cO [1J [1J [1J co [1J [1J 0 0 0 0

" " " 0

0 0 0 0 co co co 0

208 209

192

204

212

i

213

218 221

�

Fig. 2. Plan cL east side of Forum (region VU. insula 9) (the numbers are those used in this article).

101

John J. Dobbins

102

Fig . 3.

Plan of Imperial

Cult Building (preliminary

pIan

based

on work in pr ogress) .

be abandoned. The date 62, parallels to Augustan-period buildings in Rome, and the Augustan iconography of the

Their arguments do not require, however, that the Augustan date before

altar's sculpture all support an Augustan date.8There is no escaping the fact, however, that Fishwick and Gradel have presented Pompeianists with a topographical dilemma: if the sanctuary is that dedicated by Mamia, it requires a new designation;

if the sanctuary is not

that dedicated by Mamia, the location of her dedication becomes unknown, and the identification of the present sanctuary is thrown into doubt. There are two possible solutions:

1. If Gradel is right concerning ClL X 816, the present sanctuary can still be recognized as Mamia's dedication but should be redesignated the Sanctuary of the Genius Coloniae or of the Genius Pompeiorum; it would not be inconsistent for such a dedication to be expressed in Augustan visual language.9

2. Mamia's dedication would have been located elsewhere and the present sanctuary, now lacking a known patron, would be a dedication to Augustus himseU. Until evidence to the contrary emerges I am inclined to accept the first solution and associate Mamia, priestess of the Augustan period, with the Augustan sanctuary and altar.

Cenius Allgllsti at the municipal level and that the identification of the sanctuary at Pompeii as one to the Cenills Allgllsti is most unlikely. Fishwick re..,xamines the evidence in a forthcoming article in

Epigraphica. Dobbins 661-68; Dobbins, R6mMitt 1992 (supra n.6) 251-63. Contrary to Grade!'s claims (supra n.7) 48-49, his arguments do not preclude the possibility that the sanctuary was Mamia's dedication. 1n addition, Gradel's location of Mamia's dedication on the site of the imperial cult building is unconvincing and must remain conjectural until the area below the imperial cult building is fully explored.

Tr� Tmperial Cult Building in the forum at Pompeii

To the north of the Imperial Cult Building

is

the Macellum which contains at its

l'

E end

shrine that appears to have been dedicated to the imperial family. The shrine and i sculpture are discussed below by A. Small. Chronology It is well known that Pompeii suffered a devastating earthquake in A.D. 62. Th e extent. the recovery in the forum is much debated. I have argued elsewhere that the recovery wo

j befOJ

extensive and that the Imperial Cult Building was founded after 62, and played a major role

the post-earthquake reshaping of the forum.1° However, Mau and Maiuri favored a date

62;11 recently Zanker, Jongman, and Ling have accepted the possibility that the sanctual

dates before 62;12 and in their articles en the imperial cult

in

Italy and on opus testacewtl i

Pompeii respectively, Gradel and Wallat also prefer a date before 62,13 No single line of investigation leads irrevocably to the conclusion that the Imperial Cu Building is a product of developments in the forum after 62. Taken together, however,

th

evidence presented below strongly suggests that the Imperial Cult Building was constructe after the earthquake of that year. Structure and fabric The Imperial Cult Building

is

devoid of the kind of repairs that' characterize building

refurbished after the earthquake.14 Its structural integrity of the building argues that it wa not damaged by the earthquake because it did not exist in 62. By contrast, the other buildings 0 the E side of the forum display numerous signs of damage and repair.1S Decor ation There is no evidence of marble revelment in the forum prior t o the post-62 repairs. 1he fu revelting of the Imperial Cult Building's interior is not only consistent with the post-62 use ( marble veneer, but it constitutes the most lavish example of the practice.16 Structural relationships with contiguous buildings The physical relationships between the Imperial Cult Building and its immediatel adjacent neighbors offer important chronological clues for its dating. Fig.

4

presents th

relationship with the post-62 Macellum. Of particular interest is the fao;ade and portal projec (cross-hatched) which transformed the main portal, built several of the fao;ade shops, an. provided the Macellum fao;ade with its S terminationF Most important in the present conte� is the �tension of the fao;ade beyond the corner of the Macellum so that it overlaps part of th S perimeter wall of the Macellum and at the same time creates the large northern �edra of the Imperial Cult Building. The same structure serves two buildings and

10 11 12

links

(92

the two physi

Dobbins, especially 640-46, 685-94. Mau 1879, 255-56; Mau 1896, 287; Maiuri 1942, 53. Zanker (supra n.2, but not in his Power ofimages where he does not offer a date); W. Jongman, review c books by M. A. Levi, L. Richardson Jr and P. Zanker: IRS 81 (1991) 213-15; R. Ling, "The architecture 0 Pompeii," IRA 4 (1991) 253.

13

Gradel (supra n.7); Wallat 368-69. Neither argument is supported by a thorough architectural an,

14

structural reassessment of the building. Maiuri 1942, 50 comments on the unitary construction and makes similar observations, although h

15

concludes that the building was constructed before 62. Dobbins 629-94; almost every section of that article leads to the conclusion that all the buildings on th

16 17

E side of the forum, �cept the imperial cult building, experienced extensive rebuilding after 62.

Dabbins 687. The earlier fa�ade contained a triple arch whose central opening was blocked when the presen aedicula was installed; Dabbins 671-72, 680.

John J. Dobbins

104

L

cD cD cD cD o

cD

0 0

o

cD !lJ !lJ

0

o

!lJ

o

cD Q] Q] Q] Q] cD o o o o o o o o

Fig.

4.

Plan of the Imperial Cult Building and its relationship to the Macellum.

0

Th(

perial Cult Building in the forum at Pompeii

105

Fig. 5. Fa,ade of the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus. WI07.108/WI07.95. showing seam between opus testaeeurn and opus ineel1urn. from W.

Fig. 6. Detail of f ig. 5. rough coigning between opus ineerturn and opus testaeeurn.

�

'-<

�

':-

d

o cr' cr'

::r

rJ)

Fig. 7. Fa�ade of Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus, detail of fig. 5, painted plaster.

Fig. 8. Imperial cult building (the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus has been removed to reflect A. Mau's interpretation). AutoCAD model.

TJ- Tmperial Cult Building in the forum at Pompeii

cally and chronologically. As the Macellum's fa"ade project post-dates the Macellun repaired S wall, which it overlaps, the fa"ade project, and the Imperial Cult Building whi

is part of it, belong to an advanced stage in the repair of the forum after 62.

The juncture between the Imperial Cult Building and the Sanctuary of the Genius of August

5) 3.35

is more difficult to read, but equally important in establishing relative chronologies (fig.

The

opus testaceum fa.,ade of the sanctuary abuts a wall of opus incertum at a distance of

from the inner corner of the sanctuary's fa"ade (fig.

6);

the join produces a roughly coigned b

irregular enough seam to indicate that the two sections of wall are not contemporary. The op testaceum is the later of the two sections

of

wall, a relationship already recognized by Mau

Within the inner corner itself are two small pieces of painted plaster that also contribute the discussion of the Cult Building's chronology (fig. 7).20 The pairlted plaster was overlapp, by the setting-bed for the marble revetment that constituted the second decorative treatment the wall.

The

masonry at this juncture between the two buildings therefore reveals tv

building phases and two decorative phases. Mau believed that the opus incertum masonry and the preserved painted plaster belonged the exterior of the south exedra of the Imperial Cult Building (fig.

7).

For him the sea

between the opus incertum and the opus testaceum was the point at which the post-earthqual fa"ade abutted the pre-existing corner of the south exedra. Based on this analysis of the w, relationships Mau concluded that the Imperial Cult Building with its painted plaster was pr earthquake and that the brick-faced fa"ade and marble veneer were later than

62.

I dwell (

Mau's analysis because current assertions that the cult building pre-dates the earthqual appear to derive from it. Mau's interpretation has the advantage of being simple, but it is te good to be true. Several problems undermine Mau's interpretation. The first is that the corner of his .exedl is not a true corner. Corners were not built in opus incertum because the medium does not produ. a straight edge and

is not sufficiently stable to stand alone. If it had been a true corner, it et brick or stone coigns.21 An interpretation consistent with the

have been constructed

woul visib

masonry is that the opus incertum wall once extended further to the south where it terminate in a brick-coigned corner or door. That southern extension was replaced by the brick fa"ade , the sanctuary that now meets the remaining vestige of the earlier wall in the roughly coigne seam visible in fig.

18

19 20 21

22

5.22 This

reading sees the opus incertum wall as a vestige of the original fa

Dob bins 640-45. Mau 1879, 256. Mau 1879, 256; Mau 1894, 184; Dobbins 641-45; Wallat 370. Mauri 1942, 52 did not consider tl painted patches to be in a primary context. Fig. 7 shows only the lower of the two visible fragments. The NE exterior corner of this building illustrates the principle: a brick corner bonds with Opl incertum by means of coigning. Wallat 370 offers a problematic new reading of this junction. He refers to the coigning as regular an concludes that the opus incertum and opus les/aeeum are contemporary. This avoids Mau's corn. problem but has its own technical difficulties. First, the coigning is not regular. Regular coigning consis· of a consistent alternation of projecting and non-projecting courses (Dobbins 637). Compared to certai very ragged and/or non-vertical seams (Dobbins fig. 20), this interface may appear to be regular, b, when compared to regular coigning it is anomalous. Second, the brickwork forms a separate plane that : recessed c.0.03 m. behind the plane cl the opus incertum. This technical difference would not exist if th two parts of the wall had been constructed at the same time. The treatment at the inner corner proves th point. There the minimally exposed brick coigning is on the same plane as the opus incerlum of the tw adjacent walls (W107.93 and W107.95); the same situation obtains at the W end of W107.93 (fig. 9 These technical considerations help to associate the two stretches of opus incerium with their ow contemporary coigning and at the same time show that Wallat's "regular" coigning is, indeec anomalous.

John J. Dobbins

lOB

Fig. 9. Fa�ade of the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus. WlO7.93, view from S. �ade of the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus; the brick-faced wall is a replacement later than

62.

A second problem occurs en the adjacent wall

(W107.93,

fig.

2)23 where Mau's interpretation

Wallat bases his absolute chronology on a belief that the fragments of painted plaster (fig.

7) adhere to a

wall that is structurally part of the imperial cult building. In this he follows Mau. Although the pairited fragment is too small to allow its style to be determined, Wallat assigns it to the Third style and therefore offers an Augustan or Tiberian date for the imperial cult building (Wallat Accordingly he also dates the fa�ades of the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus and the

368-69).

Eumachia

Building to the same period because of the alleged bonding at the juncture just discussed. Furthermore, because of the similarities in the bricks between the imperial cult building and the Macellum, Wallat offers the same early date for much of the brickwork of the Macellum. There are problems. Wallat treats the bricks of the fa�ade of the Eumachia and the interior W wall of the Macellum as if each belonged to one construction period. In both cases, however, the bricks that Wallat discusses belong to the second of two phases of brick construction (Eumachia Building: Dobbins

647�1; 668-85). Additional evidence allows those secondary construction phases to be assigned to the period after 62 (Dabbins passim). Wallat appears to be correct in observing similarities

Macellum: Dobbins

of brickwork between buildings; however, once the t.,., lynch pins of his chronological argument are removed (i.e., the association of the painted fragments with the imperial cult building and the 'regular' coigning on the fa�ade of the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus), the Augustan/Tiberian dating for much of the Macellum, imperial cult building, the fa�adeof the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus , and the fa�ade of Eumachia can no longer stand. A date after 62 is preferable. This critique only challenges Wallat's

chronological

conclusions and suggests that different chronological pegs are needed to which he

can attach his brick groups; it does not undermine his catalogue of brick types. 23

Fig. 2 presents the numbering system employed for

all rooms and spaces in region VIl, insula 9. A short-

The

.")erial Cult Building in the forum at Pompeii

109

Fig. 10. Junction between Imperial Cult Building and the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus . Plan and isometric drawing representing 1. Dobbins' intepretation. 1: vestige of the original fa�de of the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus; 2: post-62 fa,ade of the same; 3: Imperial Cult Building. fails to explain the complexities of the masonry (fig.

9).

Brickwork above the incertum belongs

to the Imperial Cult Building where it forms the back of a statue niche. There are two anomalies. The first is that the brickwork associated with the in certum has been sliced off

vertically and replaced with brickwork that forms the

W end of the wall. This new brickwork

belongs to the Imperial Cult Building and is part of the construction that creates the statue

niche just mentioned. The second anomaly is that the new brickwork interrupts the earlier

coigning pattern in which

6

bricks project and

6

bricks recede to form the coigns. The regular

pattern of stones within the coigns is also interrupted. These technical observations lead to the conclusion that the brickwork of the Imperial Cult Building is different from and later than the construction that features opus incertum and brick coigning. Fig.

10

is a schematic drawing that represents my reading of the three elements comprising

this complicated juncture:

- 1. a vestige of the original precinct wall of the Sanctuary of - 2. the reconstruction of the sanctuary after 62, and - 3. the south exedra of the Imperial Cult Building.

the Genius of Augustus,

This fairly reflects the complexity of the masonry remains.

hand system of designating walls uses the letter W with the numbered space on each side of the wall in question. The first number indicates the side et the wall being discussed, when that is an issue. For example. among the north shops of the

MacelI urn W7.S refers to the wall between shop 7 and entrance S

wiIh particular attention to the side within shop

7. When seen from the opposite side. the same wall is WS.7. This is the system devised by L. F. Ball, "A reappraisal of Nero's Domus Aur ea " in Rom. papers (JRA Supp\. 11, Ann Arbor 1994) 234. n.119.

John J. Dobbins

110

When the exterior SE corner of the exedra clear that there

is

is

examined from within room

105,

it becomes

no true corner there either.24 The exedra was built against the already

repaired N wall of the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus. As it can be argued on other grounds that the sanctuary wall

is

later than 62, the exedra wall itself must be so too.25

The overall conclusion to

be

drawn from the structural relationships between the cult

building and the adjacent buildings

is

that the cult building

is associated with post-62

building

projects on the forum and is therefore itself a post-62 structure. Des i gn I have already argued that the Imperial Cult Building's relationship to the street grid and

its bold use of the building site support a date later than 62.26 While the plan of the Imperial Cult Building has no precise parallels in Rome, the medium of opus testaceum, its curvilinear design and creatively-shaped interior place the building in the context of the architectural developments that were taking place during the principate of Nero,21 The innovative treatment of interior space

links

the Imperial Cult Building to contemporary trends in Rome.

The Imperial Cult Building exists primarily as an interior. Its broad entrance replaced a traditional

fa�ade

and

its

highly

articulated

treatment

of

interior

wall

sur face

'dematerialized' the wall visually and replaced flat surface with sculptured interior space.28 The modulation of the wall surface is a precocious experiment that presages the Aula Regia in Domitian's Palatine palace. The Imperial Cult Building

is

so advanced

in its

Pompeian setting,

yet so compatible with the latest essays in the vaulted style in Rome, that it would be difficult to assign it to an artistic milieu other than that of design studios under the patronage of Nero.29 Geometric proportioningJO

As

the width from exedra to exedra almost precisely equals the building's depth, the most

significant interior dimensions generate a square that can be superimposed on the building (fig.

11). In addition, the apse is a segment of a circle whose diameter falls only a little short of the radius of the larger circle inscribed within the square.31 This suggests a precision in planning, 24

2S

26

27

28

29

30 31

Dobbins 642-4 3, Dobbins 666-67. Dobbins 687. For a cliscussion of the Roman architectural revolution and the roles played by the Domus Aurea and the Palace of Domitian, see W. L. MacDonald, The arc hitecture oft he Roman Empire I. An introductory study (New Haven 1982) 25-74. For a discussion of the imperial cult building in the context of these developments, see Dobbins 685-86, 692-93. In a strict technical sense the building does have a substantial exterior eastern side, but that part of the building was not accessible to the public and seen only by those whose business took them to the constricted spaces between the cult building and the atrium house that lies to its east. The high-walled apse exterior and the adjacent walls are merely the structural exigencies that accommodated the interior architectural design. I have already suggested that the imperial cult building occupied a developmental and a chronolOgical position between the octagon suite of the Domus Aurea and the Aula Regia of Domitian's palace (Dobbins 686). That view stresses that the imperial cult building exhibits a more advanced spatial design than Nero's octagon while anticipating the later developments of the palace of Domitian. The view expressed here probably better emphasizes the creative environment of the 60s in which several buildings (Domus Transitoria, Domus Aurea, Baths of Nero, and Baths of Titus if they were part of the Esquiline wing of the Domus Aurea) display features of the architectural revolution. The imperial cult building is more a contemporary of the entire group than a linear descendant of any one building. Much remains to be learned about the design of the building. The following are pre1iminary comments. The interior transverse dimension cited in Dobbins 686 as26.60 m was scaled from an existing plan and will be refined as new measurements are made on site.

Tb" T'l1perial Cult Building in the forum at Pompeii

Fig. 11. Geometric analysis of the Imperial Cult Building.

Fig. 12. The "sacred cut".

1

Fig. 13. The "sacred cue applied to the Imperial CuI Building.

John J. Dobbins

112

even if not in final execution, that is consistent with the Vitruvian dictum that temples should be designed in such a manner that the parts bear a proportional relationship to the whole just as the parts of the human form bear a proportional relationship to the human body.32

Is the 'sacred cut' as discussed by C. and D. Watts in evidence in this building?33 The sacred cut is a construction that establishes proportional relationships using a square and a circle. The starting point is a square (fig. 12a). With a compass placed at the corners of the square, arcs are drawn that pass through the centerpoint (fig. 12b). Lines are then drawn between points on opposite sides of the square where the arcs intersect the square (fig. 12c). The result is a square divided into 9 proportionally related units whose central square is a new 'regulating square' derived from the previous square and its arcs (fig. 12d). When this scheme is applied to the Imperial Cult Building the results are limited (fig. 13a-b). The walls defining the opening of the apse are arrived at, but no other major feature responds to the sacred cut. The kind of design issues being discussed compare well with architectural design discernible at the court of Nero. If correct, these observations establish a chronological and artistic context for the genesis of the Pompeian building. Can we go further? Similarities between the Imperial Cult Building and the Domitianic Aula Regia may suggest that the Pompeian interior looks forward to the interior designed by Rabirius. In addition, the preoccupation with circle and square as the basis for the design recalls the interplay of line and curve that informs the design of the Palatine palace. Whoever the architect may have been, the building is a worthy predece ssor of the achievements attributed to Rabirius. The patron

Who paid for the reconstruction in the forum at Pompeii? Three possibilities are private benefactions, the Pompeian treasury, and the imperial treasury. No written sources on this issue survive. Private monies may have been available, but it is clear that much private effort was committed to restoring private dwellings. In view of the scale of the reconstruction local civic funds must have been inadequate. The only remaining source was the imperial treasury. While no direct proof of such assistance survives, there are ample records of imperial assistance to towns that suffered natural disasters, especially earthquakes.34 Direct imperial interventions at Pompeii and neighboring towns are known on other occasions.35 It may be suggested that Rome provided both the inspiration and the revenue for the recovery at Pompeii and that the Imperial Cult Building had an imperial patron.

If the Imperial Cult Building belongs to after 62 and if it was the product of Roman funds and design, the two candidates for its patron are Nero or Vespasian. The Imperial Cult Building is so well integrated into the design of the forum after 62 that it should be seen as an integral component and not an afterthought. 32 33 34

35

Vitro 3.1.

C. M Watts and D. J. Watts, "Geometric ordering in the garden Houses at Ostia," IsAH 463 (1987) 26576; eid., ''The role of monuments in the geometrical ordering of the Roman master plan of G!rasa," IsAH 51.3 (1992) 306-14. F. MilIar has collected and commented upon many of the ancient references in Tk emperor in I he Roman world (31 BC-AD 337) (London 1977) 423-24. Augustan relief efforts at Paphos and many other cities after an earthquake are recorded by Dio Cass. 54.23.7-8. Nero suspended games in the amphitheater at Pompeii (Tac., Ann. 14.12); Vespasian restored the temple of Mater Deum at Herculaneum (CIL X 1406); an emissaty of Titus restored public lands occupied by private individuals at Pompeii (/Ls 5942); after 79, Titus sent a commission to oversee the work of salvage at Pompeii (Suet., Til. 8.3-4); in 82, Domitian helped to restore the !heater at Nuceria (see W. Johannowsky, "Terrae Motus: un'inscrizione nucerina relativa al restauro del teatro" in C. A. Uvadie [ed.], Tremblemenls de lerre, iruplions volcaniques el vie des hommes dans la Campanie anlique [Bibliotheque de l'Institut Fran�ais de Naples, ne serie, vol 7, Naples 1986]91-93).

TheT

)erial Cult Building in the forum

at

Pompeii

1 13

The forum at Pompeii was saturated with imperial allusions whose references were not exclusively to the emperor but to his wife and members of the imperial family. How should one evaluate the extensive imperial imagery expressed through architecture, sculpture, inscrip­ tions, and ritual? Was the Pompeian aware of the rich imagery of the forum or oblivious to it? The archaeological record provides only tantalizing suggestions. In the case of Eumachia, it is clear that Livia served as a modeL As I have argued elsewhere, Eumachia herself drew the analogy to Rome. It was she who expressed that she was to Pompeii as Livia was to Rome. The imperial model inspired her euergetism and permitted the Pompeian populace to conceptualize her local preeminence. Not only did Eumachia identify herself with Livia but the Pompeians did the same. Eumachia's co-opting of imperial imagery is an excellent example of the imperial cult in the service of the subject. The sovereign benefited in more general and less easily defined ways, but the benefit for her was local and immediate. It is difficult to believe that her dedication of a building worthy of Rome did not bring the benefits .that she anticipated. In the same category as Eumachia are to be counted Mamia (possibly) and Marcus Tullius.36 The dedications of Eumachia, Mamia, and Marcus Tullius amply document the role of the subject in promoting the ruler cult at Pompeii. The attitude of most Pompeians toward the emperor and his family must have been very different from that of Eumachia and the other filites who strove to emulate the imperial family and establish an identity with them. Public sculpture, inscriptions, rituals of worship and established priesthoods elevated the emperor to a status far above that of the local Pompeians who through these images, texts, and a ctio n s were encouraged to recognize the superhuman status of the princeps. The Imperial Cult Building must have played a role in perpetuating such an attitude. As Pompeii struggled to rebuild, N ero may have been a salvator urbis or a resti tu tor urbis whose contribution was pivotal in the civic recovery. The Imperial Cult Building was probably decreed by the decurions but the role of the emperor would have been evident. Even the rich and powerful at Pompeii would have recognized the superhuman ability of the emperor to extend a godlike hand into the rubble and raise a building like no o ther in the city. McIntire Department of Art, University of Virginia Aclcnowledgements I am grateful to Baldassare Conticello, Soprintendente alle Antichita di Pompei, and to the staff at the Soprintendenza Archeologica and the Direzione degliScavi for facilitating my work in the forum at Pompeii. Several Summe r Research Grants from the University of Virginia allowed me to conduct fieldwork at Pompeii. An appointment as a Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities at the University of Virginia for the 1993-94 fiscal year allowed me to work on 2-D and 3-D AutoCAD models of the fOnJm and to move the Pompeii Forum Project in new directions. The AutoCAD plans and models used in this publication were produced at the Institute with the help of Karim M. Hanna. Melissa Pinsley and Stephen French produced the computerized plan that appears as fig. 1. I am grat ef ul to m y colleagues, not least A1astair Small, and students who debated Pompeian issues with me. ABBREVIAnONS Dobbins J. J. Dobbins, "Problems of chronology, decoration, and urban design in the forum at Pompeii," AJA 98 (1994) 629-94. Maiuri 1942 A. Maiuri, L'ultima Jase edilizia di Prmpei (Rome 1942). Maiuri 1973 A. Maiuri, Alia r icerca di Pompe i preromana (Naples 1973). Mau 1879 A. Mau, Pompejanische Beitriige (Berlin 1879). Mau 1894 A. Mau, "Osservazioni sui creduto tempio del Genio di Augusto," Alii della Reale Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti 16 (1891-1893) [1894) 181-88.

36

Marcus Tullius (elL x 820) dedicated the Temple of Fortuna Augusta in the block to the north of the forum.

114

Mau 1896 Mau 1902 Richardson Wallat

John J. Dobbins

A. Mau, "Der staecltische Larentempel in Pompeji," RiimMiIIll (1896) 285-301. A. Mau, Pompeii; its life and art (trans. F. W. Kelsey, New York 1902) L. Richardson, Jr., Pompeii; an architedural history (Baltimore 1988). K Wallat, "Opus Testaceum in Pompeji," RomMitt 100 (1993) 353-82.

The shrine of the imperial family in the Macellum at Pompeii Alastair SmalP The Pompeian building generally known as the Macellum or butchers' market2 is situated 0 the E side of the Forum near its N end (VII.9.4-12). It was excavated rapidly in late March an early April 1822, and such details as we know of the excavation are recorded in brief entries i the Excavation Journal for 30 March and 2 April of that year.3 These reports are extremel inadequate, and much of importance has been lost beyond recall. We cannot now hope to kno' what architectural elements were removed with the debris of the building, or what potter and other artifacts were found in it. We are even uncertain about the extent of reconstructio carried out when the excavation was complete. Nevertheless, we may still hope to disentang: much of the building history from the surviving masonry, and there is an increasing body ( comparative material to help us to interpret the function of the building and the significance ( its sculptures. Here I will look at the shrine of the imperial family which was the focal pOll of the building at its E end (fig. 1). The interior of the Macellum now appears as a rectangular courtyard surrounded by stylobate measuring c.23.5 x 15.0 m, with a row of small rooms on its 5 side and three largE spaces at its E end (see Dobbins' fig. 4 on p.l04l The N and part of the W sides of the stylobal h ave slots at intervals of 2.35 m to receive columns (enough for 11 columns on the long side, 70 the short side), but the stylobate on the E and 5 sides is most probably a 19th-c. reconstructio (without slots for columns), and there is some doubt as to whether these sides of the portic were built, or even intended to be built.4 In the centre of the courtyard are 12 pedestals, origiI

!;ra

I am teful to the following for their help at various stages in the preparation of this paper. to Dol Baldassare Conticello, then Soprintendente for Pompeii, for permission to study inside the Macellum; I his successor, Dott. Pier-Giovanni Guzzo for permission to use the photographs of the buildin published here; Dott.sse Maria Rosaria Borriello and Paola Rubino for assistance in studying the tw lsculptures in Naples Museum and the DeutschesArchiiologisches Institut Rom for the photographs, them; Mar2ia Basile of the Accademia Canadese in ltalia for help in arranging permits; Christophc Rowell, Alastair Laing, Sarah Jameson, and Nickie Ingram of the National Trust for arranging for me I study the statue of Agrippinain PetworthHouse;Terence Cheesman for help with the coins; and Dunea Fishwick for his advice
116

Alastair Small

The shrli

·f the imperial family in the Macellum at Pompeii

Fi g. ! . The cult building at the ally covered

in

117

E end of the Macellum. seen across the central rotunda. Photo AM.S.

white marble,s which form the corners of a regular polygon. They probably

supported the columns of a rotunda, inside which there was a fountain (figs. 1-2 and Dobbins' fig. 4 on p.104). A drain ran from the fountain towards the SE corner of the courtyard, then turned through two angles below the colonnade so as to skirt the benches in the space in the SE corner (described below), before passing through the

S wall of the building near its E end. If

there is a ny ancient warrant for the stylobate which closes the courtyard on its E side, then it

must have supported a portico through which the three spaces at the

E end of the Macellum

were entered, as shown in the reconstruction (fig. 2). The shrine was a rather small building, measuring externally

c.8.5 x 10.0 m (including the

steps).6 It consisted of a rectangular cella with a wide doorway in its W wall, approached by a flight of 5 steps. These are flanked by bastions, measuring c.1.45 wide to the pilaster, 1.87 wide to the wall,

3.05 long, and c.1.04 m high, enclosed on the sides by high walls. Both steps and

bastions were clad in grey-veined marble, of which only fragments remain, relaid after the excavation. The walls beside the bastions continue the lines of the side walls of the cella and terminate

in

shallow

an/ae decorated with stucco fluting, which align with the pier or column If we are right in supposing that the portico continued around the E end of the courtyard, then the antae must have supported a lintel on which the E wall of the portico was carried. The space between the portico and the

bases that define the spaces to left and right of the shrine.

cella must then have been open to the sky so as to permit light to enter the cella. This would explain why the walls to the

E and W of the bastions were slimmer than the walls of the cella, this reconstruction, the steps

since they did not need to carry the weight of a roof. According to

and bastions were located outside the roofed structure, as one would expect in a temple of 'Italic' type. The resulting grouping of the buildings is unconventional: one would h ave expected the portico to terminate short of the function as an unencumbered focal point

like

E end of the building, allowing the shrine to

the temples which close the Forum Iulium and the

According to M. Callet, "Memoire explicatif de la restauration du Forum de Pompei, 11 Pompei pres Naples [1823]" in Pompei. Travallx e/ envois des archi/eetes fran,ais all XIXe siecle (Naples 1980) 297308. For a recent bibliography of the shrine, see C. De Ruyt, Macel/um. march. alimen/Dire d es romains (Louvain-la-Neuve 1983) 310-12, 373 ff.

Alastair Small

11 8

Forum Augustum in Rome;7but the reconstruction is probably correct since there is no wall against which the sides of

the portico could have terminated.

The entrance area of the shrine was lavishly decorated. The W faces of the

an/ae and the

walls flanking the bastions were decorated with Fourth-style paintings.B Below the bastions in front of the

antae there are two low bases, measuring c.0.90 E-W, 0.92 N-S, and c.0.20 m high,

which probably carried standing statues. Other statues may have stood on the bastions, as in the temple of Divus Augustus at Rome, which is likely to have provided a model for buildings of the imperial cult9 The fa.,ade of that temple was altered in Pius' reconstruction, but the placing of the sculptures may have been an original feature of the building. Certainly sculp­ tures standing on the bastions can be seen in representations on coins of other Julio-Claudian temples. 10 The cella itself is a perfect square with an internal measurement of

6.75 m. Its walls were

once covered with white marble, of which a small fragment still remains in place on the rear wall Beside it is the the 19th c.

base of a cult statue, made of masonry, clad in marble, heavily restored in

Two niches in each of the San d N walls evidently also held standing statues. Two were found in the excavation of the cella in 1822, lying on the ground on the Sside: a female statue in front of the first niche, and a male statue

in front of the second.ll Both are works of high

quality, perhaps by the same sculptor or workshop.l2 A fragment of a third statue, consisting of

an arm holding a globe, was found somewhere in the cella;13 it is principally on this that the identification of the building as a shrine of the imperial cult depends. It has, however, never

been published, and

I have been unable to trace it in Naples Museum, in spite of generous help

given by the director Dott.ssa Maria Rosaria Borriello. Nevertheless, something can be said about it,

in combination with the statue base.

A standard motif in imperial architecture. I am grateful to W. L.MacDonald for discussion on this point. Dimly visible in Bouchet's painting of 1826: Tra�aux el envois (supra n.5) 146, 160 no. 32 Mazois and Gau show Fourth style decoration in front of the piers and inside the entrance area: on the W faces of the entrance piers, a candelabrum in the principal panel, and a female figure in the dado below; above the N and 5 bastions, in the dado, a figure below garlands: F. Mazois and M. Gau, Les nlines de Pomp'i.

Dessimies el mesurees par F. Milzois pendQ111 les annees MDCCCIX - MDCCCX - MDCCCXI. Tome

ID II

12

13

III

(Paris 1829) pis. XLII, XLN; cf. Cell (supra n.2) 65 and pI. XVIII. These paintings cannot be used as evidence that this area was roofed, since even unprotected walls might be painted in Pompeii, e.g. the rear wall of the garden in the House of Sallust: L. R ossini, Le a1itichila di Pomptii delineale SIdle scoperle jalle sino a 111110 (anno MDCCCXXX (Rome 1831) pI. XVI and text ad loc.; CNerbeck and Mau (supra n.2) 304-5 and fig. 167. The evidence forthis is not entirely certain, but a group of sestertii minted under Antoninus Pius shows statues on and below the bastions, as in the arrangement suggested here: BMC N 352 no. 2064 pI. 50.2, well illustrated in]. P. C. Kent and M. Hirmer,Roman coins (New York 1978) no. 304 pI. 87. As on the Temple of Concord dedicated by Tiberius in A.D. 10. It had statues on, but apparently not below, the bastions: BMC 1137 no. 116 pL 241 4, .eslertills of Tiberius. The discovery is reported briefly in the Excavation Joumal for 2 April 1822, cited in PAH (supra n.2) ill 34. Cf. A. Mau, "Statua di Marcello nipote di Augusto," Sociela Reale di Napoli. Alii della Reale Accademia di Archeologia Lellere e Belle Arti 15 (1890) 133. Mau (ibid. n.3) follows Mazois and Gau (supra n.8) pI. 44 in saying that the niches were on lhe right side of the cella, and that the female statue occupied the first niche, and the male the sec ond. Mau here corrects Ni.ssen (supra n.2) 282, who says that they were found lying on the ground by the niches on the left of the entrance: the male statue ("the younger Drusus") by the first niche, and the female statue ("Livia") by the second. (Nissen may h ave been viewing the statues from inside the cella.) Cf. the remarks of A. de Franciscis, n TiITallo romano a Pompei (Naples 1951) 64. Mazois and Gau (supra n.8) 62; Bonucci (supra n.2) 167. Bonucci associates the arm with the central statue base.

The sh":

-�

of the imperial family in the Macellum at Pompeii

The globe came into ancient art in the Hellenistic period, reflecting the discoveries Hellenistic geography. It was associated especially with Nike, the goddess of Victory, w was frequently represented on coins and sculpture striding over the globe. H The motif ga powerful expression to the ideas of world conquest current at the time. Octavian set an image Victory astride the globe in the right hand of the statue of Caesar which he dedicated in t Forum after Caesar's comet had appeared at the L udi V ictoriae Caesaris in July of 44 B.C. appears on a denarius minted in 12 B.C. by L. Lentulus which shows Augustus in a toga settinl star on the head of the statue of

his deified father with his right hand. It is clear from t

coin image that the statue showed Caesar in the pose of a Hellenistic hero with his left 1 bent at the knee, his left arm holding a sceptre at his side, and his right arm outstretch holding the globe with Nike/Victory. He is naked except for a mantle draped around an d over

his left arm.15

his w a

When Augustus was deified, he too was represented holding the globe surmounted by Ni in his right hand, but seated like Jupiter. He appears

in this way on a coin (dupondius) fre

Tarraco with the legend deo Augusto;16 and he is shown seated, holding the globe (thouJ apparently without Nike) in a sculptured image of the Claudian period from Lepcis Magna. second statue from the same group at Lepcis showed Claudius in the same posture, probably al

holding the globe. It

is a sign of the rapid development of the emperor cult that this image w

sculpted in Claudius' own lifetimeP Bonucci, writing five years after the excavation, tells us that the arm with the globe w found close to the (central statue) base; and there is no reason to doubt that the figure hold;' the globe occupied the central position in the shrine. Zanker supposes that this was a seab statue of the well-known Jupiter type;18 but the dimensions of the base (1.20 high, 1.72 Ion and only 0.83 m deep) are better suited to a standing figure. It is likely, then, to have be< modelled on the lost statue of J ulius Caesar. According to one of the earliest published reports, a marble inscription was also found in It space, lying up-side down underneath the statues.19 None of the early sources transcribes tl inscription, but Mommsen supposed that it m ust be elL x 799 from an unrecorded location Pompeii. This reads: Augustae J ulia(e) Drusi f D iv i Augusti dd. ('to Julia Augusta daughter Drusus, widow of the deified Augustus, by decree of the decurions'). If Mommsen was right, v could infer that one of the statues in the four side niches was an image of Uvia, and perha) that the group as a whole was dedicated by decree of the city council. matter is far from clear.

In fact, however, tl In a paper given in 1822, Avellino, the inspector for antiquities in tl

Kingdom of Naples, discusses the statues which had just been found in the shrine and sa� specifically that the female statue was not accompanied by any inscription.2 o Nevertheles

14

IS

16

17 18 19

20

For Nike striding over the globe, see LIMC VI s.V. 'Nike' 882. BMC I pI. 4.14; K. Fittschen, "Zur Panzerstatue in Cherchel," JdI91 (1976) 187, and Abb. 10. R P C I 104 and IT pI. 16, n o. 222, cf. nos. 221, 223; C. Madema, Iuppiter Diomedes und Merkur • Vorbilder jiirromische Bildnisstahten (Heidelberg 1988) 46. The same coin shows the projected temple Divus Augustlls on the reverse: D. Fishwick "Coins as evidence: some phantom temples," Echoes, Monde Classiqlle/Classical Views 28 (1984) 266. Madema (supra n.16) 25, 166-67, 191-92, nos. IT3, Tal. 6.1 and IT 43, T af. 6.2. P. Zanker, Pompeji. Stadtbilder als Spiegel von GestllschaJt und Herrschaftsform (Mainz 1988) 28. A. de Iorio, Plan de Pomp.i (Naples 1828) 111. The information that the inscription was four 'underneath the statues' was added later in the Italian translation: A. de Iorio, GlIida di Pompei (Napl' 1836) 74. F. M Avellino, "Conghietture di F. M. Avellino sopra una statua di marmo recentemente dissoterrata Pompei, lette all' Accademia Ercolanese nella tomata de' 24 luglio 1822," Memorie della Rega Accademia Ercalanese di Archealogia 2 (1835) 10. Mau argues strongly against the association of tI inscription with this shrine: A. Mau, "Statua di Marcello nipote di Augusto," SocieIQ Reale di Napo Atti della Reale Accademia di Archealogia Lettere e Belle Arti 15 (1890) 135-51.

Alastair Small

120

Mommsen's view won acceptance, and the inscription came to be associated with the female statue, which had already been identified with Livia.21 As we shall see, that identification must be ruled out on grounds of style and date, but it remains possible, though unlikely, that the inscription belonged to one of the missing statues. 22 The surviving female statue (Naples, inv . 6041) is a portrait of an adult woman (figs. 7-8), at life size or a little more (1.81 m without the base). Her facial features have been to some extent idealized, but still retain some personal characteristics, especially in her narrow Cupid's bow lips and her high brow. Her hair is parted in the middle and arranged in loose rows of curls around her brow and temples. 1he coiffure can be seen in Fourth-style paintings at Pompeii, and was typical of the Neronian period. .

She is shown wearing the characteristic three-layered dress of a Roman matron. The outermost layer is a mantle (pa/la) with which she veils the back of her head. Below this is a sleeveless sto/a, which is held by a strap over the shoulders, and which falls in a broad V below her neck, revealing the sleeved tunic beneath it. The pose and the general pattern of the drapery are derived from the so-called Artemisia type of the Mausoleum at Halicarnassos,23 but the details of the dress, especially the strap-fastening of the stola, are typical of the second third of the 1st c. A.D.24 Her identity has given rise to much discussion.25 She was for long identified with Livia (hence the name Livia was incised on the statue base), but that must be ruled out, for the coiffure is too late for Livia and her physiognomic traits are different Attempts to identify her with other members of the imperial family have not won general acceptance.

21 22

23 24

text; Bonucci (supra n.2) 167; Finati in Real Museo Borbonico ill (Naples 1827) pI. 37 and accompanying others. de Jorio, Plan (supra n.19) 111; Nissen (supra n2) 283; Overbeck and Mau (supra n.2) 560, and on the Unlikely, because the absence of the term diva in the inscription is most easily explamed grandson assumption that the statue was dedicated before 42 when Julia Augusta was deified by her dated on Claudius. This would make it significantly earlier than the other two statues which must be is not stylistic grounds to the end of the Claudian or beginning of the NelOnian period. That difficulty ed to J uha insuperable, for there is some evidence to show that the epIthet dIva was not IIlvanabl� appl� that m Augusta even after her deification, at least in the Neronian period: cf. ClL XII 5842.11 IS pOSSIble the reign of N erothe cult of Julia as diva was not emphaSized.

Noted by de Franciscis, Ritrallo (supra n.12) 54. (W. The strap-fastening is discussed by Trillmich in connection with the bust of Agrippina from Milreu n.36). Trillmich, "En Bildnis der Agrippina Minor von Milreu, Portugal," MM 15 [1974]184-202, at He compares: . . . the (a) a private portrait of the Tiberian-Oaudian period in the Capitoline Museum, IIlV. 393, m whIch

stola is held by a single thin strap; the Copenhagen bust of Antonia(?) from Tralles in which the stola is held by two straps (V. Poulsen, Les portraits ramains I [Copenhagen 1973]77 no. 42, pis. 70-71); . .. n zur (c) a fragmentary statue in the Ambulacrum of the Vatican Museum (K Polaschek, Stud

(b)

lkonograpJrie der Antonia Minor [Rome 1973] 42 n.68 and 45 n.82); (d) our piece from Pompeii, which he thinks should be a little later than the bust from Milreu. We may add (e) a statue of Agrippina in Petworth House (M. Wyndham, Catalogue of the collection of Greek and R oman antiquities in the possession of Lord Leconfield [ L ond o n 1915] 4-5 and pI. 3),

and if) a statue of Livia, dated to the Oaudian period, in the Louvre, Ma 1245 (K. de Kersauson, Musee

25

du Louvre. Catalogue des portraits romains I [Paris 1986]100-1 no.

44).

Avellino (supra n.20) argued in 1822 that she must be Livia. Callet (supranS, 302) a year later stated

without discussion that she was Agrippina - evidently Agrippina Minor since he identified the male statue as Claudius. The identification is rejected by W. H. Gross, lldia Aug1lSta (AbhGott, Phil.-hist. )(].

52, 1962) 108-9. Others have suggested Julia the daughter of Drusus Minor, Octavia Minor, or Poppaea Sabina. For these identifications, see de Franciscis, Ritratto (supra n.12) 6�5.

The shrii

f the imperial family in the Macellu m at Pompeii

121

The male statue (Naples inv. 6044), which is also roughly life s ize (1.90 m without the base), is even more enigmatic. It represents an adolescent male with incipient beard and moustache. His features are more strongly individualized than those of the female sculpture, and they are treated with great sensitivity. His large hooked nose and stubby chin are evidently personal characteristics. His hair is bunched forward in a thick fringe forming an arc of locks which begin and end at a point mid-way between the ears and temples; the direction of the locks changes at a slight parting over the left eye. The coiffure is typical of the reign of Claudius (41-54) or of the first few years of Nero (i.e., 54-59). We may compare it, for example, to the hair style of Claudius on the statue from Lanuvium in the Vatican Museums which can probably be dated to

42_43.26

Three shallow holes (the largest

c.0.75

cm across) have been drilled into the left side of his

head immediately above the fringe of locks. They must have held a metal wreath which was attached on his right side by a single small

(c.O.25 cm)

hole above and to the right of

ear. The holes are so placed that the wreath would have rested

in

his

right

the depression between the

first and second rows of locks. The motif is familiar from numerous cameo portraits of the imperial family. The pose and the arrangement of the drapery are similar to those we have seen on the statue of Divus Julius as it appears on the denarius of 12 B.C.; and they recur on some images of Divus Augustus, as on the Ravenna reliefp and on the cwrass of an imperial statue from CltercheP8 The wreath, the heroic nudity, the pose, and the treatment of the mantle all associate the youth with the imperial family, and they suggest strongly that he has died and been at least informally heroized. But who is he? As in the case o f the female statue his identity has been much disputed. He was for long held to be Drusus the younger, son of Tiberius, or Marcellus, nephew of Augustus; but these suggestions must be ruled out since they do not swt the Oaudian date of the coiffure and portrait style of the head.29 Because of the difficulty of identifying either the female or the male statue with known portrait types of the imperial family, most recent writers have argued that they must be members of a local Pompeian family who associated themselves iconographically with the imperial cult Zanker, for example, has argued that the woman is probably one of the priestesses -

sacerdotes pub licae - who were so important as patronesses in the early empire. Zevi and de Vos say specifically that they are the founders (or re-builders) of the MaceUum;30

but there is no explicit evidence to support that argument

26

27 28

29

30

For the date, see D. Kleiner, Roman sculpture (New Haven 1992) 131. Much the same hair style is worn by Nero in portraits of. the first few years of his reign- down to 59 (cf. D. Boschung, IRA 6 [1993)76 Typus 6 7Zb). J. Pollini, "Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus and the Ravenna relief," RomMitt 88 (1981) 117-40, pIs. 3142.

For the type see H.-G. Niemeyer, Studien zur statuJ2rischen Datstellung der romischen Kaiser (Berlin 1968) 57f.. pI. 23-26; K. Fittschen, review of Niemeyer, BIb 170 (1970) 545. For theCherchel cuirass, see Pollini 1981 (supra n.27): Augustus; Fittschen 19;;t; (supra n.15): Divus Julius. Drusus: Avellino (supra n.20) 21-24 (disputed by J. J. Bernoulli, Romische Ikonographie II.1 (Berlin­ Stuttgart 1886) 171, 205, 253). Marcellus: Mau 1!OO (supra n.2O) 144 ft. Other identifications are listed by de Franciscis, Ritratto (supra n.12) 64-65, who suggests a member of the family of Poppaea Sabina. H. DOh! and P. Zanker. "La scultura," in F. Zevi (ed.), Pompei 79. RtU:colta di studi per il decimonono centenario dell'enlzione vesuviana (Naples 1979) 194; Zanker, Stadtbilder (supra n.18) 28; id., Power of images 322;id., Pompei (Turin 1993) 101; A. an d M. de Vos, Pompei, Ercolano, Stabia (Guide arch. Later­ za, Rome 1982) 44 (without argument); L A. Scattozza H6richt, "La scultura greco-romana," in Le col­ lezioni del Museo Nazionale di Napo/i 1.2 (Rome 1989) 3& Most recently Muscettola has argued that the two statues represent Alleia Nigidia Maia, StU:erdos of Venus and Ceres, and her father, Gnaeus Alleius Nigidius Maius: S. Adamo Muscettola, "I Nigidi Mai di Pompei: far politica tra I'eta neroniana e I'eta

Alastair Small

122

Certainly there was a widespread tendency for ambitious privati to imitate the coiffures, poses,

and drapery types that were devised for the imperial family.31 Private benefactors in the

might have honorific statues erected alongside those of theprincipes in public spaces, as

theatre of Caere,32 or in the larger of the two buildings opposite the so-called basilica at Herculaneum,33 or in the portico at Scolacium.34 A private family might even display its own images

in an apsidal chamber opening onto a public space, as at Roselle, imitating the

architectural forms and sculptural types of the imperial cult35 But none of these were temples for the worship of the imperial family. In the apsidal building at Misenum, which was certainly a temple, the images of

the municipal benefactors who rebuilt the pranaos in 161 were

displayed on the pediment, but the statues in the interior were of the imperial family and of

the genius of the Au gusta les.36 Similarly, the statues in the apsidal shrine of the Arval brothers on the Via Campana,37 and in the so-called basilica at Otricoli seem all to have been of members of the imperial family.38

It would be surprising, then, if the statuary group in the cella of the Macell urn shrine comprised both a cult statue of the emperor and statues of local privati. The theory would have important implications about the lengths to which local worthies could go in associating themselves with the imperial cult, and it deserves to be scrutinized again. A fundamental question is the date of the shrine. According to l\ilaiuri, the shrine and almost all of the Macellum post-date the earthquake of 62 which devastated Pompeii.39 After the earthquake there was a massive rebuilding program in which some of the city's buildings were completely rebuilt and many others were patched. The Macellum, if Maiuri was right, was one of the buildings most drastically reconstructed, and the rebuilding had not been completed at the time of the eruption in 79.

On this view, the eastem perimeter wall was thoroughly rebuilt 62; and our statues

after the earthquake; the shrine, which is attached to it, must date after must be of individuals who were likely to be honoured after that date.

There are not many women of the imperial family who would be suitable candidates for sculpture after

62: Agrippina, the mother of Nero, had been murdered on Nero's instructions in 59; and Claudia Octavia, the daughter of Claudius and first wife of Nero, was put to death in 62 Our portrait bears little resemblance to the coin portraits of Nero's next two wives, Poppaea Sabina and Statilia Messalina.

31 32 33

34 35 36

37 38 39

f1avia," Rivista deIl'lstituto Nazionale d'Archeologia e Storia deIl'Arte, 5.3.14-15 (1991-92) 193-218. I disagree with her argument at various points, but saw the article too late to take full account of it here. Cf. Fittschen, review of Niemeyer (supra n .28) 543-45 and many of the papers in Ritratto ufficiale e ritratto privato (Rome 1988). M. Fuchs, P. Liverani, and P. Santoro. Caere 2. 11 teatro e il ciclo statuario giulio-claudio (Rome 1989). A. Allroggen-Bedel, "Die sogenannte Forum von Herculaneum und die borbonischen Grabungen von 1739," CronErc 4 (1974) 97-109. Note, however, that the statues in the so-called basilica itself, at Herculaneum (in reality a portico with aedicula, in many respects similar to the macellum at Pompeii), were apparently all of members of the imperial family: id., "Dokumente des 18 Jahrhunderts zur Topographie von Herculaneum," CronErc 13 (1983) 148-54. C. Donzelli, "Su alcune sculture e decorazioni architettoniche da Scolacium," BdA 56-57 (1989) 63-90. P. Liverani, "II ciclo di ritratti dell'edificio absidato cli Bassus a Roselle: iconografia imperiale e glorificazione familiare," RomMitt 101 (1994) 161-73. This supersedes Un decennio di ricerche a Rosel/e. Statue e ritratti (exhibition catalogue, Florence 1990). de Franciscis, Sacello (supra n.2). The building, ambiente 2, seems originally to have held images of the Julio-Claudian family, but was partially reconstructed in the Flavian period to hold statues of Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. There were several subsequent changes. R. Lanciani, Storia degli scuvi di Roma ill (Rome 1907) 171 ft.; M Torelli and F. Zevi in EAA 6 (1965) 897-98: Roma 13.3, Santuario dei fratelli arvali; G. Dareggi (infra n.38) 10. G. Dareggi, "II ciclo statuario della "basilica" cli Otricoli: la fase Giulio-Claudia," BdA 14 (1982) 1-36. Maiuri, L',dtima Jau (supra n.4).

The sh"':

,

of the imperial family in the Macellum at Pompeii

1

Maiuri's dating of the Macellum has been widely accepted,40 but in fact it rests on rn principal arguments of very doubtful validity. One courtyard cuts shop walls which are decorated

is that the N wall of the Macellu in the 4th style. This argument requires us

suppose that the main N wall

of the building was demolished after the earthquake, leavir of the shops in position, and then rebuilt with the shop walls attached. 1claims that trial excavations in the foundations of these walls confirm this theory,41 but the: is nothing in the masonry visible above ground to support such an unlikely sequence. Indeed, tI the lateral walls

main wall appears to have been built first, and the lateral walls attached by semi-bonds (as Dobbins has recently argued42 ). Maiuri's second argument is equally suspect. He claimed that the E and N walls of

tl

building are in consistent masonry which shows no signs of earthquake damage, and which mu therefore post-date 62 (or 63).43 But a close examination of the masonry suggests that on th point too Maiuri was wrong. The E wall of the building, against which the imperial shrine is built, consists of piers , opus listatum in brick or (on the outside) in tufo and brick, bonded into a curtain wall of Opl incertum which was laid in two bands: a lower band of black volcanic lava, and an upper ban of limestone. Maiuri attached particular importance to this wall, claiming that it shows r1 signs of cracks from earthquake damage, or of the subsequent repairs that mark pos earthquake reconstruction. But in fact there is at least one large crack near the top left of

fr

wall, clearly visible in the outer wall-face (fig. 4), which stops at the line of 19th-c. repair. The evidence is still clearer at the E end of the N wall (fig. 5). Here too, the brick pi! which forms the corner of the building is quoined into the two bands of opus incertum, i volcanic lava and limestone; and dipping deep into the band of limestone incertum there is large area of patching

in coarser rubble. When was the wall patched? After the earthquake (

62? or in modem times to supportthe roof? On the other side of the same wall (fig. 6) one can SE the same patching, with clear traces of the semi-bond of a lateral wall which once emerge from it: the wall must have been patched before the cross-wall was built, so the patchin cannot be modem. It is most likely to be repair work dating from after the earthquake of 62.

Th

same story can be read all along the Nwall of the building on its outside. The perimeter wall ( the Macellum, at least on its N and E sides, dates from before not after the earthquake of 62.

It should also be noted that the side walls of the central shrine are integrated with th th

masonry of the rear wall. The evidence is not immediately obvious, but close inspection of

40

41 42

43

An exception is Zanker, who dates the reconstruction of the Macellum and the building of the shrine t

the period of Augustus, and the surviving statues to the Neronian period. But the opus mixtum used i the side walls of the shrine must be post-Augustan and probably dates to the3rd quarter of the cen� (It is normally supposed to be post-earthquake: A. Mau, Pompeii. Its life and art [transL F. W. Kelse� Washington 1899) 37-38; L Richardson, Jr, Pompeii, an architectural history [Baltimore 1988) 379.) agree with Zanker, however, that the statue of the emperor in the guise ofJupiter was in the shrine at th time of the earthquake: Zanker, Pompei (supra n.30) 99-101, with caption to fig. 42For Maiuri's trial excavations, and the sequence of the main and shop walls, see Maiuri, "Pompei saggi negli edifici del Foro," NSc 1942,253-320 (subsection I, Macellum,253-67); summarized in id L'ultimafase (supra n.4) p 56. J. Dobbins, "Problems of chronology, decoration, and urban design in the Forum at Pompeii," AlA 9 (1994) 629- 94. Maiuri, L'ultima fase (supra n.4) 56 , He describes the masonry ofthe east and north walls in these term: "Tutte queste strutture viste all'estemo, spoglie di decorazione, hanno carattere di grande freschezZi non hanno il minimo rivestimento di tectorio, neanche grezzo; hanno invece aneara i buchi d'andito, non presentano la benche minima traccia ne delle lesiON sismiche del terremoto, ne dei consueti restallJ di sarcitura e di robustamento. Quei due muri adunque, di uniforme omogenea struttura, si debbon indubbiamente al totale rifacimento dell'edificio dopo l'anno 63 ".

Alastair Small

124

Fig.

3.

The interior of the cult building. looking

Fig. 4. The

E

NE.

Photo A.M.S.

wall of the Macellum from the outside. looking SW. Photo A.M.S.

The shrit

f the imperial family in the Macellum at Pompeii

125

Fig. 5. The N wall of the Macellum. patched masonry. Photo A.M.S.

E

end. looking N from inside the Northern Cult Area. showing the

Fig. 6. T he N wall of the Macellum. wall from fig. 5). Photo A.M.S.

E

end. looking S across tahema VII.9.26 (the opposite side of the

Alastair Small

126

masonry inside the shrine shows that the junction is formed in

opus incertum which changes opus mixtum o f brick and tuio in the side walls after the corner. The change in masonry style should not be taken to indicate a difference in date.44 The opus mixtum begins only at the level of the statue niches; it was used because it was easier to form the angles of the niches in this material (fig. 3). The outer side of these walls is in opus incerlum consistent after a few centimetres to

with that of the perimeter wall. The shrine must therefore form part of the same building project as the E perimeter wall, and like it must ante-date the earthquake. We must conclude that, although the earthquake did some damage to the Macellum, especially to its N and W walls, none of this damage was beyond straightforward repair.

It should now be possible to r�onsider the question of the identity of the two statues from the shrine with the understanding that they too may ante-date the earthquake of

62. I shall

assume that they were commissioned at the same time for the same program. The attributes of the female figure should provide some clues (figs. 7-8). She was certainly a priestess, for she has her head veiled, and she holds a box containing balls of incense in her extended left hand. (We may ignore the patera in her right hand, since this is modem.) Moreover, the wreath of leaves and berries and the beaded ribbon below her veil, taken together, create a strong presumption that she was a priestess of the imperial cult (see further M. Kozakiewicz on p.135). The only member of the imperial family known to have been a priestess in this period is Agrippina H, mother of Nero, who was made priestess of her deified

his death in 54. Whatever her role in his cult vigorously and began building a temple to Divus Oaudius on the Caelian at her own expense.45 Her model in all this was Livia Uulia Augusta} who had become priestess of Divus Augustus after his death in 14, and had similarly begun to build his temple. At least until the time of her own deification by Oaudius in 42, Livia had regularly been portrayed as the priestess of her deified husband.46 If the figure holding the globe on the husband Claudius by decree of the senate shortly after

his death, she promoted

central statue base was the deified Oaudius, it would be entirely appropriate for Agrippina to be portrayed as

his priestess.

Recent studies of the portrait types of Agrippina by Trillmich and Zanker have resulted in the definition of four principal groups, defined primarily by hair styles.47 The portraits group­ ed in this way vary considerably in physiognomy, and it

is probable that considerable latitude skill of the sculp­

was permitted in the representation of the empress, depending partly on the

his intentions or those of his patrons. Most portraits show her with her hair into rows of curls over her temples. A spiralling lock of hair falls behind her ears onto her shoulders. This

tor, and partly on

parted in the middle, then lying flat just on either side of the parting before it turns

was a hair style which she copied from her mother, the elder Agrippina, and which empha­ sised, therefore, her importance as the direct descendant of AUgustus. She appears to have

44

45 46

47

According to Maiuri, all the walls of the shrine are in opus mixtum with alternating rows of tufo and brick. typical of the last building phase of Pompeii (Maiuri, L'ultima Jase [supra n.4] 58). But in fact the opus mixtum is not the whole cl the masonry: the rear wall is in opus incertum like the rest of the perimeter wall on this side, and the side walls of the shrine are in opus incerlum (in the same two bands of black lava and yellow tufa) up to the bottom of the niches. Tac., Ann. 13.2.3; Dio Cass. 61.35.2; Suet., Vesp. 9.1. In the Augusteum which Ovid se t up at Tomi, Livia was represented as a priestess beside the deified Augustus: Pont. 6.9.107 ff. For representations of Livia veiled as a priestess, see Gross (supra n.25) 11020. Trillmich 1974 (supra n.24) and id., "Ein Kopffragment in Merida und die Bildnisse der Agrippina Minor aus hispanischen Provinzen" in Homenaje a Saenz de BUTIIJJ ga (Madrid 1982) 109-26; Zanker in K. Fittschen and P. Zanker, Kala/og der riimischen Porlrlils in den Capito/inischen Museen Ill. Kaiserinnen- und Prinzessinnenbildnisse Frauenportrlits (Mainz 1983) 6-7, no. 5.

The ShIi�� of the imperial family in the Macellum at Pompeii

Fig 7. Naples 6044 (Agrippina II?). Photo DAI neg.76.1157. .

1:

Fig. 8. Naples 6044, detail. Photo DAI neg 76.1159.

mai.ntained this hair-style throughout the reign of Claudius, though there is considerablE varIation

in the way the curls are rendered.

There is, however, a loosely defined group of later portraits, probably

all made under Nero

which show a woman with a continuous row of curls, or with curls beginning immediately at thE central part.48 The physiognomy of these pieces varies to some extent, but all have imperia attributes, and most,

if not all, are likely to represent Agrippina. On some, as on the Petwortl1

statue,49 her features are heavy, showing, perhaps, assimilation with the portraits of her son

48

U.

Hausmann, Rornerbildnisse (Wiirttembergisches Landesmuseurn Stuttgart 1975) 33 inv. 68/2, witb reference to the Stuttgart head; Trillrnich 1974 (supra n24) 194; id. 1982 (supra n.47) 117; Zanker, ir1 Ftttschen and Zanker (supra n.47) 7, "Typus IV Stuttgart" (with reference to no. 5) , to which add" Zevi, Poes/urn (Naples 1990) 304, from Paesturn. Wyndharn (supra n24) 4-5 and pI. 3. .

49

Alastair Small

128

Nero. A few pieces, however, are much closer to our head in physiognomy. The closest in several respects is a basalt head in Copenhagen;50 it is similar in several facial features to ours, especially in Copenhagen head

the and

treatment of the lips, ours

the

and in the

cheeks

and

lower brow.

In

both

woman is represented as a priestess veiled for sacrifice;

the and It

both the spiralling side-locks found on most portraits of Agrippina are lacking, if for no other reason than that it must have been difficult for the sculptor to represent them below the veil. 1hey are similarly missing from other veiled statues, which probably also

represent

Agrippina, from Velleia and Herculaneum.51 1hey are, however, found on a statue from RoseUe which has some close similarities with ours, for it has three rows of curls with no central parting, and a beaded fillet passing below the veil. 52

It seems to me probable that our statue is also a portrait of Agrippina, more romanticized than the others of this group, showing her as the priestess of Divus Claudius. It is most likely to have been made between was then about tendency . .

40

his

death

in 54

and

c.56 when she began to fall from favour. She

years old, a not unsuitable age for our portrait, given its romanticizing

Who then could the adolescent male bf', assuming that the two statues are contemporary? 1here was only one adolescent male of importance in the imperial family (other than Nero himselO at the begiruting of Nero's reign, namely Britannicus, son

of

Claudius, who was born on

11 or 12 February 41, and died on 10 or 11 February 55 on the eve of his fourteenth birthday.53 This youth with his incipient beard could be an advanced fourteen-year old (figs. 9-10). No sculptural type has been ·established with certainty for Britannicus, but his portrait appears on various issues of coins from Eastern mints, and on two coin types (sestertii) with the legend se which purport to come from the mint of Rome, but are more likely to have been minted in 1hrace after the annexation of the province in

c.46. S 4 1he second of these types has the same Claudian hairstyle

should be dated late in Claudius' reign. It shows a youth who

as our sculpture, with the locks combed forward and cropped short over the brow, and arranged in a continuous wave behind the ears. 1he facial details are not close, particularly in the representation of the under-chin, but that may be explained in part by the conventional character of the coin p ortrait, and by the fact that

it

represents a boy at a less mature stage of

development 1he hooked profile of the nose is certainly less pronounced on the coin than on the statue, but that too may be attributed to the ·conventions of portraiture on coins.55 Claudius too is normally represented on coins with a straight nose, although on some sculptural images his nose is distinctly hooked.56 Although they do not provide conclusive evidence, it seems to me that these coin types at least do not contradict the identification of our statue with Britannicus. If this identification

can be accepted, then the heroic characteristics of the image, which imply that

50 51 52

53

S4

55

56

this was a p osthumous work,

I

have aueady discussed,

sculpted after he had probably been poisoned by Nero.

Poulsen, Porlrails I (supra n.24) '17 no. 62, pis. 104-5. Velleia: C. Saletti, II ciclo statuan·o della basilica di Velleia (Milan 1968) pis. V and VI; Herculaneum (Naples 5609): Le collezioni (supra n.30) 116 no. 122. The posture and drapery of this bronze statue are particularly close to those of our piece. E. Mangani in Roselle (supr a n .35) 94-95, pis. 39-41. The facial features are badly damaged, making a close comparison with our piece difficult, though the brow is lower. Mangani notes the general similarity to our piece (for which she accepts a late Neronian date), and leaves open the identification with Agrippina Minor. Tac., Ann. 13.15-17; cf. Suet., Nero 33.2 f.; Jos., Anl! 20.153. H.-M. von Kaenel, "Britannicus, Agrippina Minor und Nero in Thrakien," SNR 61 (1982) 127�6. Note Jentel's remarks in this volume on the substitution of a straight for an aquiline nose in some portraits of Livia on Alexandrian coins. Cf., e.g., Filtschen and Zanker (supra n.47) no. 16, pI. 15.

The shrin

Fig. neg.

In

9. Naples 6041 76. 1 1 52.

the imperial family in the Macellu m at Pompeii

(Britannicus?). Photo DAI

129

Fig. 10. Naples 6041, profile view of head showing attachments fer wreath. Photo DAI neg. 76. 1 1 56.

the last year of his life Claudius had wearied of Agrippina and Nero,

his toga virilis early, since he was mature.57 He would then have been freed

and

had arranged to

give Brita nnicus

tall enough to wear it, even though he was

not yet

from the shackles of Nero's

patria potestas,

and entered public life, and so have posed a threat to Nero which the emperor could not ignore. But is it credible that a statue would be erected to him after his death, especially

if he had Britannicus' death was the refuse him honours, and indeed we

been poisoned by Nero ? We must remember that Nero claimed that result of an epileptic seizure. There was no official policy to

know of at least one statue of him that was erected in the latter part of Nero's reign, at Amisus in Pontus.58 Many people in the circle of Britannicus might have wanted to erect a statue to

57

58

him

Dio Cass. 61.34.1; Suet., Clalld. 43. G. E. Bean, Turk Tarih KIlTtDII Il Bellelen 20 (1956) 215-16: an inscription from a statue base at Amisus in

Alastair Small

130

after

his

death, 59 among them the future emperor Titus who had been educated (by Sosibius)

in

the palace together with Britannicus and had been a close friend50 If the argument that I have put forward here

have

been

commissioned very early

in Nero's

is

right, the two statues are most likely to

reign, probably between the death of Britannicus

in February of 55, and the fall from favour of Agrippina in 56. The shrine is then most likely to

have been dedicated to Divus Claudius, and

the

central figure holding the globe was probably

Claudius himself. We can only speculate on the missing figures that once stood the

N

which

wall. One is likely to have

I

been

in

the niches of

Nero; the other might be Livia (if the inscription

have already discussed came from this building), or Claudia Octavia.

Several inscriptions from Pompeii point to the importance of the imperial cult in the city in the time of Claudius. 6 1 One reCords a priest Iflamen) of Claudius, en. Alleius Nigidius Maius, who gave a gladiatorial show on the oc�sion of the dedication of an altar for the health of the emperor and his children. 62 He was evidently a priest of Claudius during Claudius' lifetime, since the inscription does not refer to Claudius as

divus. Two

other inscriptions show

that D . Lucretius Satrius Valens was a perpetual priest of Nero while he was still only the principal heir to the throne. 6 3 Agrippina too probably had a priestess in the city, Vibia Sabina, sacerdos Iuliae Augustae, late in the reign of Claudius or early in that of Nero. 64

Our shrine is most likely to have been finished soon after the death of Claudius, and to have been dedicated when he was already

divus, but if I

am right that the sculptural program

belongs to the very beginning of Nero's reign, then it is probable that the rebuilding of

the

Macellum, of which it forms part, had already been begun under Claudius, and would have

been intended for the cult of the imperial family during

his lifetime.

The Claudian cult in Pompeii was not, of course, an isolated phenomenon.

J.

Reynolds has

noted the "greater complexity in the organization of the imperial cult" that appears to have taken place at Aphrodisias in Claudius' reign. 65 Menichetti and Zanker have drawn attention to the large number of portrait cycles of the imperial family created under Claudius. 66 An increasing body of archaeological evidence shows that many communities in Italy built new

shrines to the imperial family, or modified older ones by introducing new statues in this period. 67 Most of these buildings have an apse for the cult statue. Otherwise in size and proportions they are similar to our shrine

in

the Macellum. We may compare, for example, the

recently excavated shrine at Misenum which measured

c.7.5 long by 5.5

m wide. Like our shrine

it opened onto a porticoed courtyard.68 .There are other examples at Lucus Feroniae, Ostia,

59 60 61 62 . 63 64 65 66

67 68

Seo-

Pontus, datable on internal evidence between 63 and 65, recording the erection by the demos of statues of Nero, Poppaea and Britannicus. Tac., Ann. 1241 refers to centurions and tribunes who had been removed from the praetorian guard for sympathies with Britannicus, and to his youthful companions who were dining with him when he died. Titus subsequently set up a gold statue of Britannicus in the palace, and arranged for an ivory image of him on horseback to be carried in processions in the Circus (it still was in Suetonius' day): Suet., Titlls 2 F. Geiger, De sacerdotiblls AugustOTllm municipa/ibus (Halis Saxonum 1913) 9, 35; Magaldi 1937 (supra nol) 186; P. Castren, Ordo ptJpulusque pompeianus. Polity and society in Roman Pompeii (Rome 1975) 69. CLL N 1180. CIL N 1185 and 3884. CIL X %1·62: for the identification of Julia August. with Agrippina, see Castren (supra n.61) 72, 108. J. M. Reynolds, "The origins and begiruUng of the imperial cult at Aphrodisias," PCPS 206 (1980) 79. M. Menichetti, "n ritratto di Claudio," A nnPerugia 21 (1983-84) 208, following Zanker in K. Viemeisel and P. Zanker, Die Bildnisse des Augus!!Is. He"scherbild und Politik in k4iserlichen Rom (Munich 1979) 96. Oareggi 1982 (supra n.38). Forthe buildings of the Claudian period connected with the imperial cult at Herculaneum, see Allroggen.Bedel 1983 (supra n.33) 150. M. R. Borriello, "L'edificio degli Augustali da Miseno," in Domiziano/Nerva. La statua equestre da Mise­ no (Naples 1987) 13-24; also de Franciscis, Sacello (supra n.2). The shrine has a Julio-Claudian date but

The shY

" o f the imperial family in the Macellum at Pompeii

lacium., Tivoli, and probably Herculaneum. 6 9 That these buildings were places of cult, Augustea, seems guaranteed by their gener resemblance to small temples. This is especially clear in the case of our building at Pompe which stands on a podium well above the floor of the MacelIum, approached by a flight steps flanked by bastions. At Misenum, the religious function of the building is confirmed by tl

remains of a small altar erected in front of it, and by two inscriptions incised on statue bases the forecourt, which record the deliberations of the Augus tales, Miseni in templo aug(us.

quod est augustalium.70

Apart from the temple at Misenum,

the

remaining buildings of

this

group appear to ha'

had no permanent altar of masonry. There are, at any rate, no visible traces of an altar expected position

in

in tJ

the forefront of our shrine, although there are a ltars at the earii,

sanctuaries of the imperial cult

in

Pompeii, namely the Temple of Fortuna Augusta and

tJ

Temple of Augustus. 71 It seems probable that the reason is primarily architectural rather thi ritual. In the later (post-Augustan) buildings the shrine was usually approached through portico (as at Pompeii and Ostia) or through a basilica (as at Lucus Feroniae). Th arrangement allowed more space for the public attending ceremonies at the shrine, ar

provided cover for them in bad weather; but it left no place for an altar

in

the immedia

forefront of the shrine where the bulls required for the most important festivals of

tl

imperial cult could be sacrificed. The minor sacrifices of incense and wine were no doubt carrie out in front of the statues inside these shrines, 72 but the major sacrifices must have been hel

elsewhere. It is possible, as Mau suggested

in

the case of the Macellum/3 that they WeJ

carried out at a portable altar consisting of a bronze

depicted

in

pan

resting on a tripod, of the tyt:

imperial reliefs showing the emperor sacrificing in front of the army. But it is

possible that at Pompeii the animals were sacrificed at the large altar in the centre of Forum, as

D. Fishwick has suggested


to me.

The Northern Cult Area Immediately to the N of the shrine there is an open space (which I shall call the NortheI Cult Area) which must have been approached from the portico through an opening marked b

two bases for pillars or (more probably) columns (fig.

11).

The same architectural motif is foun

in Room D of the imperial cult centre at Scolacium.14 In our building, the area was linke visually with the central shrine by a bastion at its S end which matches almost exactly the I

69

70

71

72

73 74

was revetted in marble in the 2nd c. Dareggi 1982 (supra n.38) with references. Add DonzeUi 1989 (supra n.34) for Scolacium. The case , Cumae, argued by ]. R. Fears in "Cumae in the Golden Age," Vergi/il/S 21 [1975] 1-7 and Borriello 19E [supra n.68] on the basis of M. E. Bertoldi, "Recenti scavi a Cuma," BdA 58 [1973] 38-42), is I.., certain. De Franciscis, Sacello (supra n.2) 20, 43 (the altar); 22 (inscription of 102 on the base of a statue ( Asclepius); 27 and 84 (inscription of 113 on the base of a statue of Trajan). The forecourt was closed b colonnades on (probably) three sides but was open towards the temple. The word templurn in t� inscriptions probably refers to the whole precinct, of which the "temple" would be the aedes. I.e. the so-called Temple of Vespasian. For its date and problems of its identification, see J. Dobbin "The altar in the sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus in the Forum of Pompeii," RiimMitt 99 (1992) 25j 61, and this volume (pp. 99-114); Richardson (supra n.40) 191-94; I. Gradel, "Mamia's dedicatiOl emperor and genius. The imperial cult in Italy and the Genius Coloniae in Pompeii," AnalRom 20 (199; 42-58. For such sacrifices, and for the distinction between them and the major sacrifices of the imperial cult, se D. Fishwick, "Le culte de la domlls divina A Lambese," in IV' colloque SIlT l'histoire et l'archiologie cl I 'Ajriqlle dll Nord II (1988) 334-35. Mau, Pompeii (supra n.40) 99. r.'· �lli 1989 (supra n.34) 67 fig. 5.

Alastair Small

132

bastion beside the steps on the other side of the intervening wall (fig.

3).75

Both would have

been visible from inside the portico, and it seems probable that both were statue bases. As at Scolacium, there was another small shrine at the back of this area. The present structure is a secondary addition, in cruder brickwork, and was perhaps built after the earthquake.

In

front

of this, and clearly associated with it, there is a low altar of three slabs of stone, each inset from the one below. 76 The lower two slabs are of marble, but the uppermost slab is of black sandstone. Its upper surface is slightly hollowed as though to receive libations, as Overbeck and Mau suggested, 77 but the change of stone type to inflammable black sandstone suggests that it was also used for bumt offerings.

If

so, then this must have been an open area, which is

the more likely since there are traces of waterproof paving

(opus signinum)

all

still visible. It was,

however painted, though the details of the decoration are not preserved. 78 The nature of the cult practised here is uncertain, but the subsidiary cults found associated with the Augusteum iri Misenum suggest some pqssibilities: Asciepius, Apollo and Venus all had statues in the portico there. 79 Opening onto our area, near its NW corner, is a narrow enclosure where the remains of sheep are said to have been found.so They were perhaps being held there for sacrifice. The visual

links,

emphasised by the architecture, between the Northern Cult Area and the

central shrine, suggest that they had some related cultic function. Could this be the altar which en. AlIeius Nigidius Maius dedicated for the health of Claudius and his children?81

The Southern

Cult

Area (fig. 12)

Like the Northern Cult Area, the corresponding space to the south of the shrine was designed to be approached from the portico through an entrance with two columns, of which only the bases remain.8 2 As in the case of the Northern Cult Area, the walls were painted in

the

Fourth Style. Immediately inside

the

side

and

rear walls there is a reserved space o r

corridor, then a masonry bench which runs round three sides of the rectangle, with a narrow break in the middle of the

E side. The N side of the bench is longer than the S. The upper sur­

face slopes slightly towards the centre,83 and a gutter runs around the inside of the benches.

The

prop ortions of the benches resemble those of a

shorter than the

75 76

78

79 80 81 82 83 84

and the

lecti

tric/inium

in which the

leetus summus

is

are surrounded by a service passageway.84 Several

The bastion in the 'Northern Cult Area' measures 1.24 wide to the pilaster, 1.73 wide to the wall, 2.99 long, and 0.85 m high. The measurements are as follows: base slab 1.90 long x 1.63 wide x 0.15 m high; middle slab 1.51 long x 1.12 wide x O.19 m high; top slab 1.21 10ng x 0.63 wide x 0.10 m high withslight trough inside rim (total height 0.44 m). Overbeck and Mau (supra n.2) 125; Mau, Pompeii (supra n.40) 100. Mau reconstructed this space as a closed room: see 97, fig. 37. Mazois and Gau (supra n.8) pI. 42 shows remains of paintings on the E and lower part of the N walls. The decorative scheme had panels and a dado, but the drawing is too indistinct to show detail. According to Gell (supra n.2) 62, "The walls are decorated with sea-horses and griffins, dogs hunting stag., and a lioness hunting two bulls. The central panel is defaced. Many Cupids appeared on these walls, with and without wings, and a boy is seen feeding an eagle". De Franciscis, Sacello (supra n.2). Mau, Pompeii (supra n.4O) 96. Supra n.62. They measure 0.66 square and 032 m high. Dimensions of the corridor: S side 2.74 wide; E side 1.13; N side 1.18 m. Dimensions ofthebench: c. 0.85 high and 0.90 wide; length on N side 8.67, on S side 6.86 m. On the E side it is broken near the middle by an aperture 0.56 m wide; to the N of the aperture it measures 4.66; to the S,4.2 7 m. A comparable arrangement is found, for example, in the house i n Reg ])(.5.11: P . Soprano, " I triclini ail'aperto di Pompei" in Pompeiana. Raccolta di sltldi per il secondo cenlenario degli scavi di Pompei (Naples 1950) 303. =

77

/ectus imus,

The shri

Fig.

Fig.

If the imperial family in the Macellum at Pornpeii

1 1 . M acellum, The Northern Cult Are a.

Photo A.M.S.

12. M acellum, ?trielinium or pulvinar in the Southern C ul t Area. Photo A.M.S.

scholars of the 19th c. therefore believed tha t it was a

m wide, narrower than normal in a

85

133

triC/inium,

triC/inium. 85

But the

'leeti'

are only 0.9

and their upper surface slopes slightly

E.g. Overbeck and Mau (supra n.2) 125; P. Gusman, Pomp€i: la ville - les moellrS - les arts (Paris 1899) 1 14.

Alastair Small

134

downwards towards the centre, which would be unsuitable for diners reclining on their left elbow. The idea that this was a

As

triclinium has

therefore generally been abandoned.

already mentioned, the main drain cornmg from the fountain in the rotunda in the central

courtyard crosses the SW corner of this area and passes through its S walL Bonucci, Sogliano and Maiuri all record large quantities of organic matter in the drain, especially fish bones and scales, and some bones of cattle and smaller animals. 86 Presumably because the drain passes through this space, it has been Widely assumed that many of

the

bones must have originated

there, and that the area must have been a stall for meat and especially fish which would have been displayed on the sloping counters. Moreover, Mau and others have argued that the fact that the floor between the N bench and the wall of the adjacent shrine is floored with waterproof

opus signinum

is further proof that fish were sold hereF

However, it seems most unlikely that,

in

such a sophisticated piece of architecture, so

important a space would have been dedicated to this mundane purpose, especially when the other two spaces at the

E end of the compound were clearly designed for cult. Since the three

spaces form a coherent architectural group, they are likely to have had a related cultic function. And other explanations of the southern space are possible. It should be noted that the real function of the

opus signinum between

the N bench and the

wall of the shrine is much more likely to have been to catch rainwater falling from the roof of the shrine of the imperial cult,

than

to have had anything

to

do with fish sold. It begins 0.64 m

short of the SW corner of the precinct since the entrance area to the shrine was not roofed (see above). Once collected on the opus signinum floor, the water was channelled into a drain which passes through the . N bench near its

E end, and connects with a gutter which ran around the

inside of the benches to drain the rainwater falling on them. From here, the water was conducted through a channel below the S bench in to the main drain that led from the central rotunda and then out through the S wall of the building. All this would imply, of course, that this space, like the Northern Cult Area, was open to the sky. We should therefore seek an explanation for the Southern Cult Area which links it thematically with the adjacent shrine of the imperial cult, which warranted elaborate Fourth style decoration, and which required three benches laid out in the manner of a unroofed space. Could this not be an outdoor

triclinium

triclinium,

in an

for banqueting during feasts of the

imperial cult? 1he most serious obstacle to this view, already stated by Gell in 1826, only four

years after the excavation, 88 is the inward slope of the bench tops; but like some other features

of the restored Macellum, this slope may not be authentic. The present appearance of the benches (fig. 12) is misleading, since their upper part has been badly eroded: only a few patches of

opus signinum

surface remain, and even these may not be original. The condition of

the benches within a few years of the excavation can best be seen in two drawings published by Mazois in 1829. 89 Although they were done from a distant viewpoint, they clearly show a slope on the bench tops of no more than 3°. 1here seems to be a neat capping of plaster covering the top of the benches, and beginnin g at an irregular line which apparently corresponds to the top of the original masonry. 1his suggests that the bench tops had been reconstructed by the

86

87 88 89

Bonucd (supra n.2) 168 (a sump in the drain near the rotunda); Sogliano, "Pompei - Relazione degli scavi fatti nel mese di agosto 1898," NSc 1898 , 3 33·39 (below the colonnade); Maiuri 1942 (supra n.41) 260, 265 (near the colonnade). Mau, Pompeii (supra n.40) %; cf., e.g., de Vos (supra n30) 44. Gell (supra n.2) 62-63. Gell wrote the preface t o his 1832 edition, and apparently the description o f the Macellum, in 1826: ibid, ix. Mazois (supra n.8) pIs. 42, 44: Note that his pI. 44 must have been drawn earlier than Gell's general view (Gel! [supra n.2] vo!. II plate opposite p. 68) since it shows the perimeter walls of the Macellum before they were capped with tiles.

The shT'

' of the imperial family in the Macellum at Pompeii

1

restorers of the early 1820s who may have created the slope in the plaster capping to preve, rainwater from entering the masonry. Gell, like other foreign antiquaries, was prohibited fro studying Pompeian monuments until three or four years after they had been excavated,90 ar had no first-hand knowledge of the condition of the buildings at the time of excavation. Another objection to seeing this space as a

triC/inium, also noted by Gell, is the width of tI lecti of other tridinia in Pompeii, but thE especially if the cushions extended beyond the edg.

benches. At 0.9 m wide, they are narrower than the are not impossibly narrow for reclining on,

of the benches, supported, perhaps, on wooden frames. 9! They are long enough to have held least twelve guests, four on each

lectus.

The gutter which runs around the inside of the benches suggests that the originally fitted with water-spouts,

like

leeti

wel

those in the Portico dei Triclini at Pompeii where

water fell into a narrow basin at the foot of the

tl

leeti.n

If this space was indeed a trielinium, then it conforms not to the type of private triC/iniu best known in Pompeii, but to a larger and less intimate type which must have been mOl normal at public feasts, and which can be seen, for example, in the guild building of the Scho: del Traiano at Ostia. 93 In these more public triC/inia, the lecti were made longer so as to hold larger number of diners

than the customary nine, and they were more widely spaced, requiring lectus. In the Schola del Traiano the position of the leeti is marked b the pattern in the mosaic floor: as in the Macellum, there is a narrow service passage runnin between the benches and the wall, which would have allowed diners to reach or leave fr lecti without disturbing the tables, and would have permitted slaves to serve them withOl passing into the central space - although in the Macellum they would have had access to tI1 centre when necessary through the divide in the leetus medius. Like the room in the Macellun the tric/inium in the Schola del Traiano is entered from the courtyard through a portico with separate table for each

wide opening in its rear wall ornamented by two columns. Although the two rooms are about 15 years apart, these similarities strongly suggest that they served the same traditional functiOI In each case, the diners, reclining on their left elbows, would have looked out through screen of the portico towards the fountain in the centre of

th

the courtyard.

An alternative explanation which would also

link the arrangement of the benches with th pulvinar connected with the adjacent shrine. W know that the rituals of the imperial cult included supplieationes on special occasion (especially the birthdays of the imperial family), when the images or emblems of the dil

theme of the imperial cult is that this was a

would be displayed on special couches;91 and we know that these couches were often permaner structures presumably covered with cushions and fabrics when in ceremonial use.9

Supplieationes

often took the form of banquets. Could this be a

pulvinar

on which the images c

the imperial family were laid out as for a banquet, while those taking part in the ceremonJ perhaps the

Augustales

of the city, reclined on a temporary

tric/inium

below them, or in th

central courtyard? The fish bones and scales, and animal bones, found in the main

drain

of th

Macellum are at least as likely to be the debris of such banquets as they are to be the remains c raw fish and meat sold in the precinct.

90

Gell (supra n.2) Preface vii-ix.

91 92 93

I owe this suggestion to K. M. D. Dunbabin and W. J. Slater.

94

95

"11 Portico dei Triclini del Pagus Maritimus di Pompei," BdA 46 (1961) 202 Cf. K. M. D. Dunbabin, "Triclinium and stabadium" in W. ). Slater (ed.), Dining in a classical conte> (Ann Arbor 1991) 125; G. Becatti, Scavi di Ostia N: Mosaici e pavimenti marmorei (Rome 1961) 195 201, no. 379, pI. 88. The triclin ium is dated early in the 3rd c. For celebration of the emperor's birthday: P. Herz, "Kaiserfeste der Prinzipatszeit," ANRW 11.16.­ (1978) 1135-1200. For Caesar's statue on the puluinar in the Circus, S. Weinstock, Diuus fulius (Oxforo 1971) 185, 284. For p,duinaria as permanent structures, see DarSag s.v. lectistern ium; Weinstock (supra n.90) 284.

O. Elia,

Alastair Small .

136

Cult centre or butchers' market?

�

It is not po�i le here to consider the function of the rest of the Macellum, or its relationship to the cult bwldmgs at the E end. Suffice it to say that, while it is not unusual to find small shrines of the imperial cult in maeella,96 none of the arguments put forward by Nissen as

evidence that our building was a maeellum seems to me fully convincing. It should be clear,

ho� ever, that the shrine and the adjacent spaces at the E end of the building were not mere adjUncts to a butchers' market They were designed to be of major importance in the ceremonial life of the city.

All the buildings on the

E side of the Forum - the Temple of Augustus and the Eumachia

buil�ix:'g (bo� built under Augustus),97 the Macellum, and the so-called sanctuary of the Lares . PublICI (If this was a cult building of the Flavian emperors, as J. Dobbins has argued)98 - show

!

the increas ng intrusion of the emperor cult in the fabric and religious life of Pompeii. The Macellum illustrates a particularly interesting stage in

this development

Department of History and Classics, University of Alberta Postscript article on Pompeian This paper was written before I had the opportunity to see Kurt Wallat's important (which he argues on rather brickwork 99 As will be clear from what I have said, I share Wallat's belief the earthquake different grounds) that the main body of the Macellum, other than its W fa�ade, must pre-date period, as he supposes. of 62. 1 arn not, however, convinced that it is as early as the Augustan or Tiberian

style, which must have Wallat's date for the building (but not, of course, for its re-decoration in the Fourth on his interpretation of its followed its partial reconstruction after the earthquake) depends primarily Building) to the S. Since the relationship to the so-called Shrine of the Lares Publici (Dobbins' 'Imperial Cult fuJly in his recent article crux of this problem is addressed by Dobbins elsewhere in this volume, lOO and more (p. 359), the S wall of the in AIA, IOl I will only summarize the salient points here. According to Wallat Shrine of the Lares PubliCi, southemmost tabema of the portico of the Macellum (VI1.9.4) is bonded with the with the others in the and must be contemporary with it; and since this tabema is structurally identical of the Macellum) must be portico of the Macellum, the whole row of these tabernae (which form the W fa�ade which underlay the marble contemporary with that Shrine. But the Shrine has remains of painted decoration 359, 369) and therefore dates revelment in its external SW corner. Wallat attributes this to the Third style (p. period before the earthquake. the whole of the Shrine, and by implication the W fa�ade of the Macellum, to the fa�ade, he supposes that the Since he also believes that the main E part of the Macellum is earlier than the W Tiberius. original construction of the Macellum should fall within the reigns of Augustus or According to Dobbins, whose argument I accept on this point, the wall with the supposed Third-style . paInting m the SW corner of the Shrine was most probably built in connection with the so-called Temple of Vespasian (Dobbins' 'Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus'), and ante-dates the construction of the Shrine. It therefore has no value as a terminus ante quem for either theShrin e or the Macellum. In my view a date late in the reign of Oaudius remains most probable for the main part of the Macellum.

96 97 98 99 100 101

in macella at Aquinum, De Ruyt (supra n.6) 310-12 and 373-75. She notes shrines of the imperial cult Puteoli, Leptis Magna, and Perge. (supra n.40); For the dating of both the Temple of Augustus and the Eurnachia Building, see Richardson (which must be Dobbins 1992 (supra n.71) and id. 1994 (supra n.42) 629-94. For the Temple of Augustus divorced from the inscription of Mamia): Gradel (supra n.71). Dobbins 1994 (supra n.42) and this volume. K Wallat, "Opus testaceum in Pompeji," RomMitt 100 (1993) 354-82, pis. 76-81. See esp. his note 25 for a brief critique of Wallat' s argument.

Supra n.42.

Appendix: The headgear of the female statue Maria Kozakiewicz This paper deals with the iconography of the wreath and beaded fillet worn by the female statue (figs.7 and

8

above), with the aim of determining more precisely their significance in

cult.

1.

The wreath Only the front part of the wreath is visible, emerging from underneath the fold of the

mantle, immediately above the three rows of curls on the woman's forehead. The right side is less well-preserved than the left, and the central part has been reconstructed .The wreath is thick and bushy, with two or three rows of leaves and berries irregularly arranged along the horizontal line, twined vertically, but not constricted. The vertical twine passes across the stems of two or three leaves at a time, joining them together and twisting them slightly. A single vein runs along

In

each

leaf. The overall effect is highly decorative.

spite of the apparent realism with which the wreath is represented, scholars have given

differing interpretations of its foliage. Avellino believed it to be laurel and saw this as an indication that the woman was a priestess.1 He has been followed by De Franciscis and others.2 Laurel would certainly have been appropriate for a priestess since it was widely used in Roman religious ritual - both on serious occasions such as joyous ones, as at

is

ludi

lustratianes

and

supplicationes,

and on

and triumphs.3 But the leaves should be in scale with the statue, which

approximately life size, whereas these are smaller and slightly shorter than laurel leaves

usually are; moreover, they lack the laurel's somewhat uneven edges. They are unlikely, therefore, to be laurel. The wreath cannot be of myrtle either, as Muscettola supposes,4 because the leaves of myrtus

communis

are narrower and more pointed, and the berries are smaller.

In

the size and shape of the leaves, and in the general bushiness of the wreath, the foliage is most likely to be olive, and especially wild olive, which has smaller and more numerous leaves than the domesticated variety.

An

olive wreath might signify several things. It might indicate a cultic association with

Minerva, as do painted olive garlands in a Pompeian

lararium

where

Minerva was

worshipped,s and the olive wreath which adorns the head of Livia (as Minerva) on the so­ called 'marriage cameo' in Vienna.6 But the olive spray was also a symbol of Pax, and appears as such on some coins of Octavian? Olive wreaths were worn by

equitum Roinanorum probatio

on

the

equites

at the

lustrum

of the

Ides of July8 celebrated in honour of Castor and Pollux. The

cult of those chthonic gods was imported from Sparta where the olive was regularly used in the burial of the dead, as it was

in

Hellenistic Greece.9 Callimachus

F. M. Avellino, "Conghietture di F. M. Avellino sopra

(lamb.

4,

fr. 194,

6ff., 37-43,

una statua di marmo recentemente dissoterrata in

Pompei, lette all' Accademia Ercolanese nella tornata de' 24 luglio 1822," in Memorie della Regale

Accademia Ercolanese di Archeologia 2 (1825) 1-25.

De Franciscis, n ritratto romano in Fompei (Naples 1951) 63. Cf.

I. S. Ryberg. "Rites of the state religion in Roman art," MAAR 22 (1955) 47.

S. Adamo Muscettola, '1 Nigidi Mai di Pompei: far politica tra l'eta neroniana e l'eta flavia," Rivista

delnstituto Nazionale d'Archeologia e Storia delrArte s .3, 14-15 (1991-92) 193-218.

D. P. Harmon, "Thefamilyfestivals in Rome," ANRWIl.16.2 (1978) 1592-1603. D. E. Kleiner, Roman sculpture (New Haven 1992) 152. Rle I. 59 no. 252 pI. 5 with reverse type of Pax standing, holding olive branch and cornucopia; ibid. no. 253 with bust of Pax and ol ive spray on obverse. Both are datedc.32-29 B.c. Pliny, NH 15.19; H. H. SculIard, Festivals and ceremonies of the Roman Republic (London 1981) 164. M. Blech, Shldien zum Kranz bei den Griechen (Berlin-New York 1982) 93, with citations.

Maria Kozakiewicz

138

49-54) implies that it was normal for mourners to wear olive wreaths, and to lay olive fronds on (NH25.46) it was one of the plants used by

corpses at cremations and burials. According to Pliny

Pythagoreans to cover the dead, and other evidence suggests that the olive wreath came to have a specially Pythagorean significance. It was probably for this reason that Numa, who was popularly held to be a pupil of Pythagoras (Ck.,

(Aen. 6.809)

Rep. 2.28-29), is

represented by Virgil

as an old man distinguished by wearing an olive wreath, whereas other early

heroes of Rome wore crowns of oak leaves

(Aen. 6.770-72).

B.C. there was a strong revival of Pythagoreanism in an eclectic form in Rome,10 which is especially evident in several of Cicero's works,ll in the sixth book of Virgil's Aenei d ,

In the 1st

Co

and in Ovid's

Metamorphoses.

One of the leading Pythagoreans of the middle of the century

was P. Nigidius Figulus, who is praised by Cicero in his introduction to his translation to Plato's (Suet.,

Timaeus,l2 and who is said to have foretold a Aug. 94� Another prominent Pythagorean,

brilliant future for Augustus at

his birth

of the next generation, was Areius of

Alexandria, who wrote a work "On Pythagorean philosophy". He was the young Octavian's philosopher-companion, and had a profound influence on his pupil (Dio Cass.

51.16.4). So

widespread was Pythagoreanism that it seems probable that the olive wreath worn as a headdress had some connection with Pythagorean practices.

2. The beaded fillet The fillet is shown passing below the wreath, then disappearing under the veil to emerge hanging on both sides of the face. It appears to have consisted of at least five long strands of soft unspun wool set alongside one another. The sculptor has marked the strands with slight vertical grooves running down the fillet. The beads were presumably placed at regular intervals along the fill et, though only four can be seen on each side of the head. The first woman of the imperial family to be shown with a beaded fillet was Livia, after she had been adopted by Augustus in his will into the gens J ulia as J ulia Augusta (Suet., Aug.

101). The decree of the Senate which conferred deification on Augustus also made Livia his

priestess, and there is good reason to suppose that the fillet is a symbol of her priesthood. 13

One of the earliest extant portraits to show Livia wearing the fillet is a statue of unknown provenance, which probably dates from the first few years after A.D.

14.14 Her head is veiled,

and she wears a wreath of leaves, flowers, ears of corn and poppies - all symbols of Demeter. The beaded fillet is visible under the veil. She continues to be represented with the beaded fille t on posthumous portraits sculpted after her deification by Claudius, as on the monumental statue from the theatre in Lepcis Magna, which shows her wearing the mural crown of Tyche with the wreath of wheat ears

10

R. M. Ogilvie, A comm entary on Livy 1-5 (Oxford 1965) 88-91; E. Rawson, Intellectltallife in the late (London 1985) 291 fi. Notably in Cic., Tim. 1, Tltsc. 4.2-4, Rep. 2.28-29. Cic., Tim. l. See A. M. Small, "A new head of Antonia Minor and its significance," RiimMitt 97 (1990) esp. 277. Antiken alLS Rhein. Privatbesitz, Rheinisches Landesmltseltm Bonn (Fuhrer des Rhein. Landesmuseums 48, 1973) 216, no. 357, pI. 162; K. Fittschen and P. Zanker, Katalog der riimischen Port rats in den Capitolinischen Mltseen ill (Maim 1983) 4-5 n.9 (to no. 3). Other Tiberian portraits of Livia wearing the beaded fillet include: (a) a head in the Ny Carlsberg Glypthothek (V. Poulsen, Les portraits romains I [Publications de la Glyptotheque Ny Carlsberg VII, Copenhagen 1973] no. 618) with the beaded fillet below a wreath of corn ears,flowers and poppies; (b) a head in the HermitageMuseum,of unknown provenance,wearing the beaded fillet and a prominent wreath of fruit and ears of corn (0. Waldhauer, "A note on another portrait-head of Livia," ]RS 13 [1923] 190,pI. 15 ; A. Vostchinina,Le portrait romain: albltm et cataloglte illltstre de toltte la collection [de

Roman Repltblic

11 12

13 14

15

of Ceres/Demeter below it, tied with the beaded fillet.ls

•

"pendix: The headg�ar of the female statue

After the death of Livia in A.D. 29 there was probably no priestess o f the cult until Gai appointed Antonia Minor in one of the first acts of his reign.16 She died in A.D. 37, soon after 11 appointment, but she was commemorated posthumously in aureus struck in Rome in

this role by her son Claudius with.

A.D. 41-45.17 The obverse of the coin shows Antonia's bust drapE

facing right, with a wreath of wheat ears on her head, and the inscription ANTONI AUGUSTA.The reverse bears the legend SACERDOS DIVI AUGUSTI and a representation of tv lighted torches of Alexandrian type, joined with a long beaded fillet. Several portrait hea,

also show her wearing the beaded fillet, sometimes as her only attribute. IS

The sources do not tell us whether any woman of the imperial family was made priestess Divus Augustus after the death of Antonia. However, Valeria Messalina, wife of Claudius the time of his accession, is represented several times wearing it,19 and may well have held priesthood in the imperial cult. This is especially likely since Claudius actively promoted

tJ

cult, and deified his long-dead grandmother Livia. Agrippina the Younger, whatever oth duties she may have had as priestess of the deified Augustus or Livia or even Drusilla, becan the priestess of Divus Claudius immediately after her husband's death and deification 54 (Tac., Ann. 13.2.3). She too is shown in several portraits wearing the beaded fillet.2o

in A.I

Why, of all the available symbols, was the beaded fillet chosen to identify a woman i priestess of the im perial cujt? As a distinctive attribute it had to convey some special meanln appropriate for

this new, important priesthood, and this meaning must have been derived frOJ

traditional associations in order to be understood by the contemporary onlooker. The beaded fillet was not a Roman invention. It appears already in Greek art of the late 51 RC., and was especially popular in Magna Graecia. It frequently alludes to the cult of ApoU at Delphi, as on a red figure pyxis from Spina of c.430 RC. which shows a single beaded fill, c.

16

17

IS

19

20

la} Musie de rErmitage [Leningrad 1974] no. 9, pI. 10); (c) the statue of Livia as Ceres or Fortuna in the Louvre (K. de Kersauzon,Musee du Louvre. Calalogl des portraits romains I [Paris 1986] 102, no. 45; G. Caputo and G. Traversari, Le sculture del tealro , Leptis Magna [MAL 13, Rome 1978]76,no. 58, pis. 54-SS). It could be argued that Agrippina the Elder was also a priestess since a head of a woman wearing diadem and beaded fillet found in an unstratified context at Luni has been identified as a portrait of he A. Frova (ed.), Scavi di Luni: relazione preliminare delle campagne di scavo, 1970-71,1.2 (Rome 1973) 53: pis. 128.1-4; Fittschen and Zanker (supra n.14) 1II, 5 n.3 f.; S. Wood, "Agrippina the Elder in Juli( Claudian art and propaganda," AlA 92 (1988) 413. But Agrippina the Elder is not normally represente diademed,and the damage to the nose and a large part of the chin make the identification uncertain. I fact the piece is probably Agrippina the Younger. It can be compared with the diademed representatio of her on one of the reliefs from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias: R. R R. Smith,"The imperial reliefs frO! the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias," lRS 77 (1987) pis. 24.11, 25.2. RIC I, 124,no. 67, p!.15,rev. For a list and description of these sculptures; see Small (supra n.13). . For Messalina's (or Agrippina's?) portrait statue from the group in the theatre at Caere, now in th Museo Gregoriano Profano, see M. Fucils, P. Liverani and P. Santoro,Caere 2,11 teatro e il dclo staluari giulio-claudio (Rome 1989) 76,no. 8. It shows her as a young woman,unveiled,and wearing the bead", fillet as the only ornament on her head. Other examples include a diademed head in 'Sarsina (I< Polaschek, Portriittypen einer claudischen Kaiserin [Rome 1973] 28 f., pis. 12.1, 17.1 ) and a head i Munich (polaschek,Portriittypen 11 n. 2,pis. 2.1,3.1,4.1, 6.1, 17.2). Cf. supra n16. A head of Agrippina Minor in the Schloss Fasanerie has hair tied at the back with double beaded fillet: Polaschek,Portriittypen (supra n.19) 16ff.,pis. 2.2, 4.2,6.2,8.1; H. von Heintze,Di a ntiken Portriits der Landgriijlich-Hessischen Sammlungen im Schloss Fasanerie !rei Fulda.(Mainz 1968 33,100 no.23,pis. 40-41). Two cameos in Paris (Cab. Med. nos. 279,282) show Agrippina as Diana an, Ceres wearing a laurel wreath tied with a double beaded fillet: W.-R Megow,Kameen von AugllStus 'bi Alexander Severus (Berlin 1987) 167 f., A 22, pI. 10.13 (Diana); E. Babelon, Catalogt,e des camee antiques et modernes de la Bibliotheque Nalionale (paris 1897) 148, no. 282, pI. 32 (Ceres).

Maria Kozakiewicz

140

lying on the omphalos in Delphi21 A stater from Croton, dated to

420-380 B.C.,

shows Apollo

shooting python, and a tripod with a beaded fillet dangling from it22 Suppliants, especially

Orestes,

carry

an olive branch to which a beaded fillet has been tied, or wear a beaded fillet on

their arms, or around their heads, as on a red figure calyx crater from Paestum of

the

4th c.

B.c.23 The beaded fillet also adorns bucrania as on an Apulian bell krater from Agrigento of 360350 B. c .;24 and it occurs in several contexts associated with the Underworld and mystery cult

For example, a hero (Theseus?) shows a dangling beaded fillet to Dike in the Underworld on an Apulian/Tarentine amphora from Canosa;25 and several beaded fillets are shown hung as garlands on the Niinnion pinax from Athens in a scene representing the Eleusinian Mysteries.26

In

Roman art, the beaded fillet appears first early in the 1st c. B.e. on the Paris relief

belonging to so-called Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus, decorating the head of a sacrificial bull. The scene probably represents the

lustratio

after a censusP The beaded fillet also occurs,

together with other symbols of the cult of Demeter, suspended from the horns of a

hucranium in

the architectural decoration of the Lesser Propylea at Eleusis, which was vowed and

commenced c.51 B.C. b y Appius Claudius Pu1cher, consul of 54 B.e. and an initiate in the Mysteries.28 It decorates the heads of three oxen led in the triumphal procession depicted on

in the temple of Apollo Sosianus, dated to c20 B.c.;29 and it is represented, suspended bucranium, on a metope from the interior of the Basilica Aemilia belonging to the Augustan reconstruction after the fire of 14 B.c.3 D It appears in another sacrificial scene on a fragment of the so-called Ara Pietatis Augustae, erected by Claudius on the Capitoline hill to commemorate the Julian family and the newly deified Livia.31 This shows a lictor Vestalium the frieze

from a

carrying a flat sacrificial basket from which a long beaded fillet is suspended.32

The beaded fillet was represented several times in the House of Augustus, always in scenes

connected with the cult of Apollo. The painted frieze

in

the upstairs bedroom showed swans,

birds of Apollo, holding up beaded fillets suspended like garlands.33 The presence of Apollo in

the House was marked especially by a large betyl, symbol of Apollo Agyieus, which formed

the central decoration of the S wall of the Room of Masks. Its base was decorated with a dark­

the Room also has a beaded the House shows Apollo reclining

coloured beaded fillet The cult-pillar painted on the W wall of

fillet lying at its base.34 A fragment of wall painting found in

on a throne which has the omphalos as a seat, covered with a regular net of beaded fillets.35

21 22 23 24 25 26

27

28 29 30

31 32 33

34

LIMC II, 276, no. 476. LIMC 0,269, no. 1000; C. Kraay and M. Hirmer, Greek coins (London 1966) no. 267. LIMC m S.v. 'Electra', 715, no. 52 R. Vollkommer, HerakJes in the art of Classical Greece (Oxford 1988) SO, fig. 67, no. 377. U. Bianchi, TIlt Greek mysteries (Iconography of Religions 17.3, Leiden 1976) no. 69. Bianchi (supra n.25) no. 35. Kleiner (supra n.6) 49; Ryberg (supran.3) 27. Bianchi (supra n.25) 26, no. 41. D. E. Strong, Roman imperial sculpturt (London 1 961) no. 31. Strong (supra n.29) 17; P. Zanker, Fonlm Romanum (Tiibingen 1972) 23, pI. 36. Note that most of the bucrania represented on the Augustan andJulio-Claudian altars do not show the beaded fillet. They are usually decorated with plain, broad fillets as on Ara Pacis, or with a combination of plain fillets and garlands as on a funerary altar of Memmius lanuarius in the N y Carlsberg Glyptotek, dated to c.A.D.:30: Strong, ibid. no. 58. Kleiner (supra n.6) 143. M. Torelli, Typology and slnlctllrt if Roman historical reliefs (Ann Arbor 1982) pI. ill, no. 24. G. Carettoni, Das Haus des Augustus auf dem Palatin (Mainz 1983) 75, p1.14; R. Ling, Roman painting (Cambridge 1991) 39. Various symbols of the cult of [sis, such as urcei and situlat, also featured in the decoration ofthe cllbiauum, and signify the very eclecticprivate religion of Augustus. A much clearer representation of the betyl with a beaded fillet tied around it is found on a marble biga, now in the Vatican Museum, dated to the 1st c. AD; UMC 1l.1.2, 327, 'Apollon Agyieus', no. 16.

endix: The headgear of the female statue

141

Except on the portrait sculptures of some women of the imperial family, there are only a few

examples of the beaded fillet worn as a headdress.

In

each case the woman represented is a

priestess. The first three instances are wall paintings in the Third Style illustrating the myth of Iphigenia in Tauris.36 In each, Iphigenia is shown with a distinctive white beaded fillet

which must be a sign of her priesthood of Artemis. More significant, since it shows the beaded

fillet associated with the imperial cult at the local level, is a funerary reli ef of a Roman couple from Nimes, dated on the evidence of hairstyle to early in the Flavian period. The

woman wearing it, Licinia Flavilla, is described in the inscription as f/aminica

In

Augustalis.37

a few instances, the beaded fillet is associated with torches. I have already referred to

the coin of Claudius which clearly shows that . the beaded fillet and torches were symbols of Antonia's status as

Sacerdos Divi Augusti. In

addition, the funerary altar of Livia's freedman

Amemptus is decorated at the corners with two lighted torches with a beaded fillet tied to each of them;38 a wall painting in the atrium of the House of the Dioscuri in Pompeii shows

Demeter/Ceres holding a long torch of Alexandrian type twined with a beaded fillet;39 and a

relief from the tomb of the Haterii of the Trajanic period shows a funeral scene with two

lighted torches of Alexandrian type set up to right and left of the funeral couch: a beaded fill et is twined around the left torch.4o It seems evident that the association of the torches with the beaded fillet had a special significance, connected both with funerals and with mystery cult,

and usually symbolized the death and mystical rebirth of an initiate. When used on the coin as

symbols of the priesthood of Antonia, they may evoke the memory of Augustus as initiate in the Eleusinian Mysteries, and

link

his initiation with his status as Divus.

The Augustan religious revival led to the increased popularity of the Eleusinian and

Samothracian Mysteries and to the resurgence of eclectic philosophical ideas drawn from the

Orphic and Pythagorean traditions of South Italy. At the same time, Apollo, the chief god of

the Pythagoreans and Stoics, and the god of ritual purification, became the patron god of the

Princeps. The olive wreath and beaded fillet allude to both of these developments.

Initially the beaded fillet seems to have been reserved for priestesses related by blood to

the divine Augustus. With the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty it was adopted by the lower levels of the priesthood as well.

3S

36

37 38

39 40

University of Alberta

For another representation of Apollo with the omphalos adorned with fillets, see Le collezioni del Museo Nazionale di Napoli. I mosaici, le pitture . .. (Rome-Milan 1989) 128-29 no. 31, painting from Pompeii. Apollo holds a laurel branch tied with a beaded fillet and wears a laurel wreath tied with a short beaded fillet. In the tablinum of the House of Lucius Caecilius Jucundus (V.1.26) in Pompeii (Le collezioni [supra n.35] 134-35 no. 87); in the house of Pinarius Cerialis in Pompeii (G. E. R izzo, La pittura ellenistico-romana [Milan 1929] pL 29); in a Roman villa at Magdalensburg, near Klagenfurt in Austria, dated to the middle or later years of Augustus' reign (Ling [supra n.33]I71, fig. 182). E. Esperandieu, Recueil geniral des bas reliefs de la Gaule romaine I (Paris 1908) 318-19, no. 478; A. Rumpf, Antonia Augusta (Berlin 1941) 25. Strong (supra n.29) no. 53. The motifs include sacrificial implements and representations of Eros and Psyche riding male and female centaurs. The ensemble suggests that Amemptus was well versed in Platonic/Pythagorean ideas of the tripartite soul, consisting of a passionate part (expressed by the centaurs), a concupiscent part (Eras), and a rational, immortal, part (Psyche). The torches with the beaded fillet may indicate Amemptus' initiation into the Eleusinian (or some other?) mysteries. Le collezioni (supra n.35) 158-69 no. 253. The painting is in the Fourth Style, and must be dated after the middle of theIs t c. A.D. Strong (supra n.29) no.66. From the same monument comes a relief which represents the Great Gods of Samothrace: Hades, Demeter, Persephone and Hermes (W. Burkert, "Concordia discors," in N. Marinatos and R. Hagg (edd.), Greek sanctllaries: new approac�s (London 1993) 187. The argument is strengthened by a funerary relief from Samothrace showing two similar torches twined with fillets flanking'a closed door: W. Aitman, Die romisc�n Grabaltare der Kaiserzeit (Berlin 1905) 15, fig. 9.

Cult and Celt: indigenous participation in emperor worship in c entral Spain Leonard A. Curchin When we think of the imperial cult

in Spain, we are liable to recall Baetica's request

b

worship the living emperor Tiberius, or the temples at Tarraco studied by Duncan Fishwid The setting for these activities and monuments was the lowlands of Andalusia and Catalonia

In central Spain, the rugged upland plateau 0 The indigenous chiefdoms in this regiol (the Arevaci, Carpetani, Celtiberi, Pelendones, Turmogi, and Vaccaei) were all either Celti,

the homeland of the Romanized Iberians.

Castile, however, we find a rather different situation.

or strongly Celticized, as is clear from their personal nomenclature, place-names, and pre Roman theonyms. This largely Celtic population achieved a much lower level of Romanizatiol than the peoples along the coast,l and played a less prominent (or less recorded) role in th' �perial cult. My

aim is to exaInine how and why emperor worship was established in thi,

region, and to what extent it succeeded. Just as it is conventional to associate the success of the imperial cult

in the East with th,

precedent of Hellenistic ruler worship, so at the western end of the Mediterranean the origiru

devotio or fides Iberica, whereby the client! TT the words of Valerius Maximus, "The Celtiberians also considered it abominable (ne/as) te of emperor worship are uaced to the institution of

of a Spanish leader would accompany him into battle and forfeit their own lives if he died.

survive a battle when the man to whose safety they had vowed their lives had been killed."; An example of this

devotio in our region is seen in the story of Rhetogenes (or Rectugenus, as thE

name appears in Celtiberian inscriptions), the bravest of the Numantines. When Rhetogenei' made a

sortie from his besieged city in order to solicit aid from neighbouring towns, he too�

with him a squad of retainers to escort him through the Roman lines. Only after he was safely out of danger were these men allowed to return home. Later, when Numantia was about to fall,

all kill one another before he himself committed suicide.3 In fact, this custom ol

Rhetogenes (whether the same man, or another leader of similar name, is unclear) ordered his subordinates to

devotio was not confined

to Spain but was widespread through western Europe. Caesar refers to

an Aquitanian chief with

600 devoti, all of whom must die if their chief is killed; "nor," he

adds, "within living memory has anyone been found who refused to die upon the death of the man to whom he had vowed his comradeship.'" Posidonius perhaps alludes to this practice when he notes that the Celts, when they go into battle, take with them their personal companions, called parasites.s Likewise among the Germans, Tacitus records, "to have left the battlefield outliving one's chief is a mark of infamy

and reproach all one's life. To defend, to

protect him . . . is their highest vow. The chiefs fight for victory, the companions for the chief," Ammianus Marcellinus, too, says of the Germans, "they thought it a disgrace to survive their king or not to die for the king."6

On the level of Romanization among the 6 chiefdoms of central Spain, see L. A. Curchin, "From limes to Latinitas: Roman impact on the Spanish Meseta," Studien zu den Militiirgrenzen Roms ill (13. Internationaler Limeskongrefl, 1983 [Stuttgart 1986)) 692-95. For comparative data from the coast, see id., "Demography and Romanization at Tarraco," ArchEspArq 60 (1987) 159-71. Val. Max. 2.6.11; cf. Sail., Hist. 1.125. Serv. ad G. 4218 somewhat fancifully compares this custom with the loyalty of bees to their leader. App., Hisp. 94; VaJ. Max. 32 ext. 7. Caes., BG 3.22 Same story in NicoIaus of Damascus, fr. 80 Jacoby = Athen., Deip. 6249 a. Posidon. fr. 17 Jacoby (fr. (J} Edelstein-IGdd) =Athen, Deip. 6246 c-d. Cf. Caes., BG 7.40. Tac., Germ. 14.1; Arnm. Marc. 16.12.60. The same sentiment can be found in Anglo-Saxon poetry of the 10th c., though it need not imply a continuity of tradition from Roman times: R. Woolf, "The ideal of men

Leonard A. Curchin

144

Devotio to the leader was widespread in the lands settled or influenced by the Celts, yet to connect this with the imperial cult may seem to require a leap of faith. As M. Salinas de Frfas has pointed out, it seems ironic that R. Etienne stresses devotio as the origin of the imperial cult in Celtiberia when that cult is, by Salinas' estimation, only weakly represented in the region.' Nonetheless, it needs to be underlined that Celtic devotio is not solely of military character but has religious implications as well. The comrades or retainers are devoti, "vowed,

consecrated" to the leader as to a god; to abandon him is nefas. This religious attachment, amounting to a cult of the chief, would also have been transferred to Roman generals accepted as leaders by the Spaniards, such as Scipio Africanus and Sertorius. Both men seemed to enjoy divine favour - Scipio in the miraculous draining of the lagoon that enabled his troops to capture Carthago Nova, Sertorius with his white doe (supposedly a gift from Diana) which

brought him messages from the gods.

After the civil wars of the 40-305 B.C., Augustus emerged as the supreme leader (princqJs), not only asserting his control over the entire Roman world but even completing the conquest of Spain which Scipio had begun two centuries earlier. The inhabitants of central Spain, seeing Asturias and Galicia conquered to the north-west, Cantabria subdued to the north, Augustan

in Lusitania to the west, and the people of Tarraco to the east honouring Augustus with an altar like a god, can hardly have failed to be impressed and to show their own recognition of this omnipotent ruler. As Etienne remarks, "The example of Tarraco was contagious,"s though the forms of the cult found in individual cities have their �wn distinctive characteristics. In th is regard it is worth noting the spontaneity with which emperor worship was accepted, indeed initiated, in Spain. G. Webster's remark, that "Rome's main concern was colonies founded

_.

the imposition of the imperial cult", seems most inappropriate here.9

. W�at was the motivation of the indigenous peoples of central Spain for adopting the lml?enal cult? Today we may think of emperor worship as a means for the provincials to show therr loyal.ty to Rome,. �ut what. did Rome mean to the Celtiberians? Rome was recognized as a geograph1c a�d �)Qhhcal capltal, the centre of power, yet it lacked personal identity.

Attempts to g1ve 1t a persona had little impact there is only one statue of Dea Roma in all of cent��l Spain, and no epigraphic dedications to her. To the Spanish Celts, with their long . !rad1.hon of d�vOtlO to a leader, to an individual rather than a place, the imperial cult lIDplied comnutment to the emperor more than to the state. Another modem perspective is to see the imperial cult as a political rather than religious institution. However, as S. R. F. Price points out, this desire in our own minds to separate church and state is an anachronism.10 In ancient e yes the politic�l and religious aspects of the emperor were inseparable, just as the : pre-Roman 1dea of devotlO embraced both temporal and spiritual loyalties. The imperial cult, �e�, was not just a political device. The superhuman dimensions of the emperor entitled him to d1v�e �onours � paramount leader. Again from a modem perspective, to suppose that the pr�vmc1als gen�ely tho�ght of emperors as gods seems to impute to them a large dose of . nalvete. But beanng ID mmd that the Celts worshipped mountains, groves and streams as deities, it was entirely logical, to their way of thinking, that the emperor, who was more P?werful than a grove or stream, deserved divine worship. The fact that he would eventually die and be replaced by another was no obstacle; trees die and water flows away, but the sacred

la

dying for their lord in the Gennania and in The Battle of Maldon," Anglo-Saxon England 5 (1976) 63-81. M. Salinas de Frias, Conquista y romanizaci6n de Celtiberia (Soria 1986) 178. Etienne, Culte imperial 378. G. Webster, "Whatthe Britons required from the gods as seen through the pairing of Roman and Celtic deities and the character of votive offerings," in M. Henig and A. King (edd.), Pagan gods and shrines if the Roman empire (Oxford 1986) 57. Price, Rituals 18-19.

Cult and

H: indigenous participation in emperor worship

145

grove or stream is replenished and revitalized. In Roman terminology, the emperor dies but the numen or genius of the emperor is passed on to his successor. As in so many aspects of provincial life, it was the local elite who played a key role in the propagation of the imperial cult. Whether local magistrates were priests in the pre-Roman

period is unknown - there is little evidence for a priesthood in Spain to parallel the Druids of Gaul and Britain - but priesthood of the imperial cult was a frequent rung in the career ladder.

Flamines were elected by, and from among, the decurions.ll So, almost ex officio, the elite were leaders in their communities. And let us be in no doubt as to the nature of these communities. There was no colonization in central Spain, no significant level of immigration;12 we are speaking about indigenous communities with an indigenous elite which took up the imperial

cult on their own initiative.

The beginnings of the imperial cult in central Spain are not easily traced. Though none of the inscriptions from this region mentioning the imperial cult need be earlier than Tiberius, we

know that the living emperor Augustus was worshipped in Italy and the western provinces (though normally in association with Roma)p so why not in central Spain? In this regard, the

Sculptural evidence may be relevant, yet it contains an underlying problem: how legitimate is it

to assume that statues and busts of the emperor and his family refer to the imperial cult? The

simplest answer, if an evasive one, is that we cannot second-guess the intention of the sculptor or of the person or community that commissioned him. Like honorific inscriptions to the

emperor, imperial sculptures need not presuppose any religious purpose; yet there is often a religious undertone or subtext. In an honorific inscription an emperor may be designated "Divi filius", which suggests that he is at least of divine descent; and a portrait of a living emperor

or member of his house is liable to idealize his features to make him look more godlike, even if it is not intended to adorn a temple.

is the date of the sculpture. Was a particular bust of his deification? In the case of the sardonyx bust from

A further factor complicating the issue

Augustus made in his lifetime, or after Turiaso, in which the head

of Domitian has been recarved as that of Divus Augustus, a late

(probably Trajanic) date is indicated;14 but most examples are more ambiguous: And what of

his death, yet he was the his own lifetime in the provinces. The head

the head of Tiberius from Bilbilis?15 Tiberius was not deified after son of the god Augustus and was worshipped in

from Bilbilis was found in proximity to the temple, as also was a plaq ue dedicated to Tiberius, dated by his 29th tribunician potestas (A. D. 28).16 Thus Tiberius, though never deified, was closely connected with the imperial cult centre at Bilbilis. A bust of Augustus' grandson L.

Caesar at Ercavica might not have been linked to the imperial cult had it not been found, together with a bust of Julius Caesar, in a room adjoining the curia which may be a shrine of the imperial family. Likewise an inscription to Germanicus, found near Uxama, might seem to

11 12

13 14 15

16

Curchin, The local magistrates of Roman Spain (Phoenix suppl. 28, Toronto1990) 44. Despite the ingenious arguments of E. Haley, "Clunia, Galba and the events of68-69," ZPE91 (1992) 159-64, Clunia is not attested as colonia before Ptolemy, i.e. the Hadrianic period. This suggests that it was an "honorary" colony rather than a veteran settlement. R. Mellor, "The goddess Roma," ANR W 11.17.2 (1981) 983-84; D. Fishwick, "The development of provincial ruler worship in the western Roman Empire," ANRW11.16.2 (1978)1206. M. Beltran Lioris, "El retrato de 'Divus Augustus' del municipium Turi as o, " MM 25 (1984) 103-34. A. Balil, "Un retrato del emperador Tiberio procedente de Bllbilis," Papeles bilbilitanos 1 ( 982) 43-46, contra M. Martin-Bueno, "La inscripci6n a Tiberio y el centro religioso de Bllbilis," MM 22 (1981) 251-52 who thought it was Claudius. A bronze head from Termes was formerly attributed to Tiberius, but this now seems doubtful: Balll, "Retrato del emperador Tiberio, hallado en Tiermes," Celtiberia32 1( 982)111-24; J. Bergemann, Romische Rtiterstatuen (Mainz 1990)80-81. AE 1( 981)557. Prof. G. AIioldy kindly informs me that the last line should be restored: [ex teJstam[ento fieri iussit vel sim.J, rather than: [mun. Augu)starn [Bilbiliml as previously supposed. L. A.

Leonard A. Curchin

146

have no religious context since Germanicus was not treated as a god in the West, yet the same inscription, as restored by Garcia Merino, is dedicated to Pietas Augusta, recognized by Etienne as one of the manifestations of the imperial cult17 And we

know from the Tabula Hebana that

the Salii are to include in their songs the name of Germanicus, an honour which they gave also to C. and

1. Caesar. From later in the 1st c. a marble bust of Domitian, in private possession, has

been reported at Palencia. 18 Domitian was not deified after death but was treated as a god in

his lifetime; therefore this bust could hav e religious associations.

In addition to emperors and their sons, there are several monuments of imperial women in central Spain: heads of Livia at Seg6briga, Agrippina the younger at Ercavica, and Julia

daughter of Titus at Clunia,19 as well as epigraphic dedications to Diva Drusilla (Caligula's deified sister) at Valeria and Sabina Tranquilla (wife of Gordian 1lI) at Uxama.20 Several of these women were worshipped, at least briefly. Although the number of emperors and

their families actually receiving religious

dedications is quite small,21 there are several examples of syncretism, such as Minerva Augusta at Clunia (dedicated by the flamen

at Complutum.

Romae et Augusti), Mars Augustus and Pantheus Augustus As P. Godfrey and D. Hemsoll point out, pantheus need not refer to a collectivity

of gods but can be applied as an epithet to an individual god, stressing his wide powe,rs;22 thus "Pantheo Augusto" may not mean "to the Augustan pantheon" but "to the all-divine emperor."

We also find evidence for what Etienne called the cult of imperial virtues:

Seg6briga and

Concordia Aug. at Victoria Aug. at Palantia,23 both with numerous parallels in the rest of Spain.

The only syncretized deity to receive more than one dedication is Mercurius Augustus, com­ memorated by the seviri at Seg6briga, and also on a bronze-clad altar at Uxama set up by the

will of one Pompeia Modesta, with bronze plates on

each side and a bronze bucranium in each

corner. The farmer who discovered them sold them t o a metal dealer, who melted down part of the bronze fittings before the mayor's office intervened; but the bronze inscription from the face of the altar, dating to the Antonine period, surviv es.24 The cult of Mercury

is well attested i n

central Spain, with numerous inscriptions2s and statuettes.26 As in Gaul, the popularity of

17

18 19 20

21

22 23 24 2S

C. Garda Merino, "Una nueva pieza del relieve de armas de San Esteban de Gormaz (Soria), un fragmento de inscripci6n relacionable con cl culto imperial y varia de Uxama," Numantia2 (1986)28082; she thinks this inscription, and the reliefs of spolia from San Esteban, may belong to an altar commemorating Germanicus' conquest of the Germans. As for the restoration,the word 'Augustae' does not survive, and the inscription might rather read: German[ici Caesaris etc.] pietat[i --I, cf. I LS 283 (Rome): Pietati imp. Caesaris divi Nervae fil Nervae Traiani. B. Taracena, "La necropolis romana de Palencia," AEArq 21 (1948) 145. No illustration has been published. M. Almagro Basch, Seg6briga: gufa de /as ezcavaciones y museD (Madrid1978) pI. 44; M. Dsuna Ruiz, Museo de Cuenca (Madrid1976) 60-61; J. J. Femandez, Museos de Castilla y Leon (Salamanca1990) 21. G. Alf6ldy, Riimisches SUidtewesen auf der neulalstilischen Hochebene (Heidelberg 1987) 87 (without text); A. Jimeno, Epigrafta romana de la provincia de Soria (Soria 1980) no.128. On the cult of Drusilla see Dio Cass.59.1.3, lLS196-97. The numen Caesaris at Complutum (R. C. Knapp, Latin inscn'ptions from Central Spa;n [Berkeley1992) nos. 117, 174), the numen of Philip the Arab at Toletum (ClL 113073), and the numen of the sons of Gallienus at Ercavica (AE1987, 662). P. de Palol and J. Vilella, Clunia IT: La epigrafta de Clllnia (Madrid1987) n o. 18; CIL IT6305,3030; P. Godfrey and D. Hemsoll,"The Pantheon: temple or rotunda?" in Pagan gods and shrines (supra n.9)198. ClL 113090 : M. Almagro Basch, SegObriga 11: lnscripciones ibiricas, latinas paganas y latinas cristianas (Madrid1984) no.13; CIL II5761; cf. Etienne,Cult, imperial326-30. Hispania epigraphica2 1( 990) 380; CIL II2819; cf. account in N. Rabal, Espana, sus monumentos y sus artes, su naturaIeza e historia: Soria (Barcelona 1889) 114-15. AE1987,698 (Laminium); CIL 113099: Almagro, Seg6briga II (supra n.23) n o.3 (Seg6briga); Marques de Cerralbo,Arcobriga (Zaragoza1987) 20 and pI. 24 (Arcobriga). On a dubious dedication to Mercury

Cult ar ' ':elt: indigenous participation in emperor worship

Mercury may involve an

interpretatio romana of the pan-Celtic god Lug, who appears in

l'

Cl

region in the daiive case "Luguei" at Penalba de Villastar, and in the plural form "Luggove! at Uxama.27 The amalgamation of Mercury and Augustus i n our region might represent syncretism of Lug with the emperor.28 As A. King argues, "there was a deliberate policy OVE religion which included associating the imperial cult with the worship of Celtic deities."29

The firmest evidence for the cult in our zone is the inscriptions of priests. An examination ( their personal names reveals a strong indigenous element of seven localj/amines, two belong 1 the voting tribe Galeria and another to Quirina, granted by Augustus and VespasiaJ

respectively, to members of the local elite gaining Roman citizenship per magistratum.3 0 Or of these, Calvisius Sabinus of Clunia, gives his parentage as "Aiionis filius"; the use of a Celt

name instead of a Roman praenomen in filiation suggests that the father was a peregrine. n name "Aion" is already attested at this city, since two other men from Clunia give the

parentage as "Aionis (filius)".31 Nonetheless, Calvisius Sabinus may be a native of Uxam since he is honoured by its decurions in another inscription.32 Though the tribe Galeria coul

refer to either city, Sabinus may have begun his career at Uxama before advancing to tI­ conventus capital of Clunia. He is probably named after C. Calvisius Sabinus, a governor of th province who triumphed ex Hispania in 28 B.c. ; this example seems to show that new citizer could take any Roman name they liked.

Etienne has already called attention to priests content with local honours - "an oligarch

that does not dream of serving the empire at large; to whom uprooting would mean a loss (

power; men who wish to be first in their native city:'33 The attachment of these men to

tI­

local elite is shown by the fact that three of the seven are magistrates holding the duoviral or quattuorvirate. Another flamen, at Complutum, is magister. Thi s title is inappropriate for magistrate of a

municipium, yet there is no indication that he was magister of a collegiun

Alfoldy suggests he was either magister of a vicus in Complutum's territory (but in this cas, why is the vicus not named?) or magister i n Complutum before it became a municipium, an

flamen thereafter.34 Would not the same criteria apply then to Calvisius Sabinus at Cluni who is magister as well as j/amen? Since he is already linked to two cities, it seems superfluot

26

27 28 29 30

31 32

33

34

at Tennes, see J imen o, Epigrafta ( supra n.20 ) n o.73 . There ar e statuettes of Mercury from CubiIIas de Cerrato ( Palen cia), La Puebla d e Mon talban ( Toledc Lara de los In fan tes an d Ubiema (both Burg(5), an d an other from n ear Burg05 which is n ow in tI Museum of St- Germain- en- Laye; also a relief of him in a funerary con text ( Hennes Psychopomp05?) Complutum. Mercury is also depicted on lamps and gemston es from our region . Hisp. Ant. Epig. 792; CIL II2818. Cf. A. Tovar, 'The god Lugus in Spain," Bulletin of the Board of Cell Studies 29 1( 982) 591-99. Mercury is also equated with Augustus in Hor., Carm.1.2, on which see bibliography in ANRW II.1 6 (1978 ) 873. A. Kin g, "The emergen ce o f Roman D-Celtic religion " in T . F . C. Blagg an d M. Millet! ( edd.), The ear Roman Empire in the West ( Oxford1990 )22 0-41; the quotation comes from the editors' summary on 19 . (1 ) C. Calvisius Aiion is f. Gal. Sabin us, o f Clun ia: magister, flamen Romae e t divi Augusti (CIL II2782 Palol an d Vilella, Clllnia II [supra n.22) n o.28 ; ) 2 ( ) [. TuJrellius .[ f. G)al. Avitus, of Ercavica: flam. Antonini A[ugllsll7], llvir (Hispania epigraphica2 1( 990) n o.3 68 ; ) 3 ( ) Cn . Non ius C. . f Quir. Crescen s" Complutum: magister, flamen Romae et Aug.,sti (ClL II3033 = Kn app, Latin inscriptions [supra n 21 . ]n 120 ; ) 4 ( ) [. Va]lerius Vegeti[an us?], of Clun ia: flamen Romae et Augusti ( Palol an d Vilella, Clllnia II n 18 ; ) (5 ) [. Com?]elius T. f. [-]cus Priscus Co[mel]ian us Lepidus [-]ce(nsis?), of Segovia: flamen Ti/" Caesaris Augusti, !rib mil. (AA W., Los bronces romanos en Espana [Madrid 1990 ] n o. 81 ; ) ( 6) I Vale[rius Av]itus, of Valeria: lllIvir, flamen Romae et Augusti (AE 1987, 668 ; ) (7) C. Gra[ttius . I Nigrin us, of Valeria: IIlIvir,flamen Augusti ( ibid. 666). Hispania epigrap/rica 1 (1989 ) n o. 203; Palol an d VileIIa, Clunia II ( supra n.22 ) n o. 81 . CIL IT2822 = EphEp8 (1899 )41 6 n o.145. �tienn e, Culte imperial231 . Alf6ldy, Stiidtewesen ( supra n.20 ) 63.

Leonard A. Curchin

148

to postulate a

virus

municipal status to

origin as well, but perhaps he began his

cursus

before Augustus granted

his home town. Such an early chronology might explain his name - he ma y

have been born in the governorship of Calvisius Sabinus - and a lso why his father did not receive Roman citizenship. Local autonomy in the organization of the cult is shown by the variety of titles bome by the

flamen Romae et Augusti, one jlamen Augusti, one jlamen Romae et Divi Aug usti, one jlamen Tiberii Caesaris Augusti, one flamen Antonini Augusti(?). There is also a jlaminica perpetua at Laminium.3 5 The title jlamen Tiberii Caesaris Augusti at Segovia recalls once again the worship of the living Tiberius, and is exactly paralleled in an inscription priests: three are

from Pax Julia in Lusitania.36 Also at the local level we should note the presence of

seviri

and AugustalesP who in some

cases are demons�rably freedmen. The wealth and social position of both the priests and Augustales can be seen in the record o f their munificence. Calvisius Sabinus was honoured because he gave grain to the people when the price was high. The lone

flaminica,

at

Laminium, had also earned the gratitude of her municipality, since she was buried on land donated by order of the decurions. A for his office. Another

sevir of

Toletum provided

circenses

as a

summa honoraria

sevir,

at Duraton, dedicated a monument with an inscribed pillar. This last example calls into question Etienne's claim that AugustaIes are found only in places where slavery was well developed and wealth could be obtained;38 Duraton was not a major town (its ancient name is not even known) and no slaves are attested in its epigraphy. Rather more elusive

is the cult of the conventus. The provincialjlamen L. Antonius Modestus

from "conv. Cluniensis" exercised the office of

anantm,

sacerdos Romae et Augusti ararum August­

presumably at Clunia.39 At Segobriga, from a fragmentary inscription naming a mem­

ber of the

gens Octavia (a local elite family), with possible mention of "conv[entus]", Alf6ldy

conventus Carthaginiensis.40 However, the fragmentary state of the conventus cult which has not been sufficiently considered is that of the genius convenhts. As Etienne points out, there was sometimes confusion between the genius of the emperor and the genius of the town - e.g., seviri making dedications to the genius municipii because cities received their status and in some cases an imperial surname from the emperor. 41 Could not such a rationale also apply to the genius of the conventus, since the conventus system was also a creation of the emperor? Why else would there be, at the provincial capital Tarraco, statues of the genii of the seven conventus, several of assumes a

sacerdos

of the

text makes certainty impossible. Another

-

whose bases survive, except as a memorial to the greater glory of the regime?42

Although several men from central Spain advanced to the provincial £laminate at Tarraco, their

cursus honorum

reveal that most of them had a career restricted to the peninsula. Of the

four sequ ences of office-holding for flamines provinciae Hispaniae citerioris studied by Alf61dy, 4 3 none of the priests from central Spain belongs to type 1 (equestrian military background only) or type 3 (equestrian civil career). Only three men belong to type 2 (local

35

36

37

38 39 40

4I 42 43

CIL IT 3231. CIL 11 49. CIL II 2778 = PaIol and Vilella, Clunia IT no. 212 (Ounia); crL IT 3030 = Knapp, Latin inscriptions (supra n.21) no. 119 (Complutum, freedman); Knapp no. 2% (Duraton, freedman);Hispania epigraphir:D 2 (1990) no. 380 (Segobriga); CIL Il 5886c (Seg6briga; uncertain reading); CIL n 3112 = Almagro, Seg6briga ,Il (supra n.23) no. 34 (Seg6briga); AE 1986, 428 (Toletum). Etienne, Culte Imperial 265. CIL Il 6093 = Alf6ldy, Die romischen lnschriften [Ion Tarraco (Berlin 1975) 256. Almagro, Stg6briga Il (supra n.23) no. 43; Alf6ldy, Stiidtewesen (supra n.20) 83. Etienne, Culte imptrial 308. Alf6ldy, RTf (supra n.39) nos. 24-27. G. A1f61dy, Flarnines prOtlinciae Hispaniae citerioris (Madrid 1973) 28-43.

Cult

::It indigenous participation in emperor worship

anc

149

magistracy followed by equestrian military service)44 and another four to type 4 (local magistracy only):

this type dates to the 2nd c. or later.4S Four of these men belong to the tribe Quirina, again indicating peregrine families receiving citizenship through

Galeria and two to

local office-holding. The fact that three of the provincial priests come from Alaba, Attaccum

and Intercatia - small towns whose location is not even known - gives the lie to Salinas' assertion that the imperial cult is found only in the most Romanized municipalities.46 When these three men claim to have held

omnes honores in their home towns, it is probable that they

held local priesthoods as well as magistracies before advancing to the provincial priesthood; I

have demonstrated elsewhere that this formula can include religious as well as political officeF In three instances, all from Seg6briga, no previous offices are listed.48 There is also a provincial

fiaminica from Seg6briga.49

One striking feature is that the vast majority of priests (local or provincial) of the imperial cult come from the

conventus Carthaginiensis, i.e. New Castile (see fig. 1 ). In Old Castile there

is a handful of attested priests among the Arevaci (Clunia), only one from the Vaccaei, and none at all from the Turmogi and Pelendories. The reason for this apparent lesser interest in the imperial cult may be partly geographical: the Celtiberi, whose territory stretches from the Ebro valley south to

La Maricha, were just inland from the highly Romanized east coast, while

Carpetania was not far north of highly Romanized Baetica. Coastal influence can be seen, for instance, in the Tiberian coin of Turiaso (a town of the Celtiberi

in the valley of the Ebro)

depicting the deified Augustus seated on a throne, with sceptre, thunderbolts and radiate crown; this is very similar to coins from Tarraco and Caesaraugusta, but has no parallels further inland. The chiefdoms of Old Castile, where Celtic tradition was less affected by

Mediterranean culture, remained more insulated from Roman custom. I have shown elsewhere that the epigraphy of the Pelendones, Turmogi and Vaccaei reveals a high proportion of non­ Roman gods, while in personal nomenclature there are more instances of single name than of

tria nomina in these three tribes. 50 Moreover, since the Pelendones' chief town, N umantia, was famous for its fanatical resistance to Rome, it is hardly surprising that the people of this chiefdom were less than enthusiastic about worshipping the Roman emperor. While there is considerable epigraphic evidence for the imperial cult in central Spain, the architectural evidence is disappointing.

If we accept the premise that a flamen is in charge of

a temple, there should be temples of the imperial cult in several cities of our region. So far, however, not a single example can be cited with certainty, though there are remains of temples which might very well have been devoted to this purpose. OccaSionally scholars, reaping where they sow not, have adduced what D. Fishwick has called "phantom temples". Thus at the beginnin g of this century, the arches of the Romanesque church at Agreda

in Soria province

were believed to be the remains of the temple of Agrippina; but in fact there is no evidence of a building here before the 12th c., and the whole story clearly stems from the false etymology of Agreda < 'Agredina < Agrippina.51 On the N side of the Julio-Claudian forum at Uxama, Garcia Merino conjectured the existence of a temple, possibly of the imperial cult, but this side was not excavated and in any event any building here would have been obliterated by the later "House with Mosaics". 52

44

45 46 47

48 49

50 51 52

Ibid. no. 2 (Attaccum), 14 (Ercavica), 20 (Consabura). Ibid no. 3 (Seg6briga), 5 (Intercatia), 7 (Segontia), 11 (Alaba). Salinas, Romanizaci6n (supra n.7) 179. Curchin, Magistrates (supra n.lI) 39. Alf6ldy, Flamines (supra n.43) nos. 12, 30, 33. , Ibid. n o . 1 1 2 . Alf61dy n o . 102 (cont>. Cluniensis) is apparently not a provinCial priestess: AE 1986, 460. Curchin 1986 (supra n.1) 694 and figs. 4-5. N. Sentenach, "Los Arevacos," Retnsta de archioos, bibliotecas y museos 32 (1915) 478-79. C. Garcia Merino, "Noticias preliminares sobre el foro de Uxama Argaela," in Los foros de las provin-

Leonard A. Curchin

150

CENT R A L

S PA I N

Imperial Cult Officials PROVNOAL

LOCAL

t::, .A­ a 5

flamen flamini::a Augustalis

D •

sodales Clauda"

Fig. 1. Central Spain: imperial cult officials, local and provincial. Three other cities, however, do contain temples which might belong to the cult. One is the hexastyle Corinthian temple (16 x 13.8 m) on a high podium (45 x 20 m) atop the acropolis of Bilbilis, adjacent to a colonnaded, almost square (48.6 x 44.8 m) forum, which, as already mentioned, has yielded a dedication to Tiberius and part of a statue. Martin Bueno postulates a "religious centre of the imperial cult" here, built by Augustus and completed by his successors. 53

At Ciunia, the foundation of a building behind the basilica, enclosed by a wall and situated on the same axis as the supposed temple of Jupiter to the south, was at one time identified by the excavator (Pedro de Palol) as "surely a temple, surrounded by a large temmes," but now he sees it as an aedes Augusti, closely associated with the buildings of the forum. Although Balty has recently reinterpreted this building as the c uria, the evidence of Vitruvius and the parallel of a similarly positioned structure at Tarraco (formerly interpreted as a curia) suggest an aedes Augusti. S 4 On the E side of the forum, Palol asserts that three of the tabernae

53

S(

cias occidentales (Madrid 19 87 ) 147-51 . M. A. Martin Bueno et al., "Aportacones al conocimiento del centro religioso de culto imperial en B£lbilis," XVII Congre$<) nacional de arqueologfa (Zaragoza 19 85 ) 837 -40 ; Martin-Bueno, "Bilbilis Augusta (Caiatayud, Zaragoza)" in W. Trillmich and P. Zanker (edd.), Stadtbild und Ide% gfe (Munich 1990 ) 223 -35 . P. de Palol, Gufa de Cluma (2nd ed., Burgos 1969 )36-3 8; id., "El foro romano de Clunia" in Los faros (supra n.52 ) 163 ; I.-Ch. Balty, Curia ordinis (Brussels 1991 ) 340 . Q. Vitro 5.1.7 (shrine of Augustus

Cult ar

.

':elt: indigenous participation in emperor worship

1

comprise a triple religious edifice, with a central nave twice the size of the two flankir chambers. Here were found columns and statue bases, while an adjacent taberna yielded heal of Augustus and young Nero. Palol suggests that this is a shrine of the imperial cult, built the time of the Tiberian forum, and later renovated into a Flavian AU!'-lsteum. 55 Dominating the S end of the forum at Termes, a structure formerly identified as a basili, was re-excavated by Izquierdo Bertiz in 1982-84. It is a rectangular building (22 x 16.3 rr though only the foundations survive and all the corners except the NW have been robbed. In i centre is another, almost square enclosure (10.6 x 9.1 m). "1he outer perimeter of foundatioI would support a platform or podium with access by a staircase flanked by two projectir elements; upon this platform, today totally destroyed, would be raised the main body of tl building." Fragments of column capitals, drums, bases, pilasters and cornices were foun, According to Izquierdo, the building's function is unquestionable: it is not a basilica but temple, whose podium and cella are perfectly recognizable. Izquierdo and his associatE consider it a temple of the imperial cult.5 6 While there is thus a possibility of temples of the imperial cult at Bilbilis, Clunia an Termes, their identification remains problematic. There is, however, another possibility. Jl S. R. F. Price observes, the imperial cult was celebrated not only in sanctuaries but in all maje civic centres. There were sacrifices in the forum, an altar or shrine within the curia, an religious rituals performed in the theatre. In this regard, Price also stresses that the imperi, cult was not (as is often supposed) confined to the elite, but was a public religion whoo celebration involved the entire city.57 Price's ideas, published in 1984, seem vindicated by th publication two years later of the Lex irnitana, which shows that, at least in Flavia mun icipia, business was suspended during festivals in which the imperial house wa worshipped.5 8 This implies a public holiday which would be marked, like any importar festival, by theatre performances and public sacrifice. At Segobriga, the excavators hav concluded that the monumental complex comprising theatre, cryptoporticus, gymnasium an baths had a clear symbolic, ideological and functional association with the imperial cul 1hey note that the trapezoidal area in the postscaenium of the theatre may have served as temple, as at Tarraco. They also believe that the epigraphically attested sodales Claudian devoted perhaps to the worship of the living Claudius, are associated with the theatrE which was under construction in Claudius' day; however, none of the sodales inscriptions i known to have been found there. Among the sculptures of the theatre (completed in the lat 70s) is a head supposedly of Livia, dating after her death and deification; her hairstyle is c the Agrippina type and can be dated to the reign of Claudius.59 Also from the theatre comes headless marble statue of Dea Roma, of the "Amazon" type, similar in costume and stance b the Dea Roma in the "adventus" panel of Marcus Aurelius on the arch of Constantine at Rome;6 the close connection of Dea Roma with the imperial cult has already been cited. Moreover, aJ inscription from the Segobriga theatre, as restored by Alfoldy, may contain the phrase, "a(

55 56 57 58

S9 60

midway along basilica wall, aligned with the centre of the forum and the temple of Jupiter) and C Fishwick (s ee pp.1 70- 72 below) on the example at Tarraco. Palol19 87 (supra n.54) 163 . J. M. Izquierdo Bert iz, " El planeamiento urbano del centra monumental de Tiermes e n epoca juli' claudia," II symposium de arqueologfa soriana (Soria 1992 ) 787- %; J. L. Argente Oliver et al., Tiermes gltfa del yacimiento y museo (Soria 1990 ) 88. Price, Rituals10 8-9, 120. AE 19 86,333, § §3 1 ,92. M. Almagro-Gorbea and A. Larrio, Seg6briga Ill : La muralla norte y la puerta principal (Cuenca 19 89 1 82- 83 (temple),1 84 (Livia). J. M. Bh1zquez, "Esculturas romanas de Seg6briga," Zephyrus19 1( 965 ) 122-26; cf. I. S. Ryberg, Pane relrfs of Marcus Aurelilts (New York 1 %7) pI. 23.

Leonard A. Curchin

152

hoc [theatrum contulerunt

(vel sim.)]."61 As

for worship in the curia, I refer again to the annexe

next to the curia at Ercavica, containing a marble bust of

L Caesar and a bronze head and foot if by an

believed to represent Julius Caesar. The two bronze pieces are crudely made, as

inexperienced native craftsman, and both are perforated to fit onto a wooden-bodied statue of Celtic tradition, which would be draped to conceal the wooden core.62 This room with two representations of the Caesarian family ought to be a shrine or cult place of the imperial cult.

Indeed, if the bronze head and foot are correctly dated to the 1st c. B.C., they represent the

earliest material remains of the cult in central Spain. Some idea of the nature of the ceremonies may be gleaned from the art of the region. A

AD.) portrays a priest with covered head, holding a volumen in the other. While there is no guarantee that

bronze statuette from Seg6briga (1st c.

patera in his

right hand and a staff or

he is associated with the imperial cult, the large number of known local and provincial

j7amines

from this city and the fact that this sculpture, like the Livia and Dea Roma, was

found in the theatre, make such an ascription likely enough. Another possible reference to the

imperial cult is a bronze plaque (75 x 1 5 cm), perhaps an altar frieze, and the fragments of a second one, depicting liturgical elements - aspergillum, apex j7aminis, simpulum, patera,

praefericulum, bucranium.63 frieze

The same elements can be found, though in a different order, on a from the Temple of the deified Vespasian at Rome. Moreover, a 1 st-c . silver

praefericulum

(missing its handle) has been found at Seg6briga.64

To conclude: although the imperial cult in central Spain by no means supplanted pre-Roman cults, the Celtiberian custom of devotio with its emphasis on the cult of the leader must have considerably facilitated the transition to emperor worship in this provincial hinterland. The

cult officials were nearly all indigenous, as can be verified from their nomenclature and voting tribes, and many were also local magistrates. Although most of the attested priests come from the southem Meseta (New Castile), busts and statues of the imperial family are abundant in both north and south, and indeed the three likeliest candidates for temples of the imperial

cult are all in the north. This uneven balance shows that our evidence is still far from complete, though (as suggested above) part of the answer may be that cult ceremonies in some cities took place in public buildings such as theatres.

As in other provinces, the cult is attested

predominantly in urban contexts; however, it was not confined to the major centres and is attested in small towns as well. The variety of priestly and divine titles, and the lack of uniform temple plans or iconographic programmes, make it clear that the imperial cult was not imposed from above but was rather, in Melior's words, "a spontaneous local phenomenon" whose "multiplicity of ... forms demonstrates the independence of the cities in this regard."65 Nonetheless, the establishment of a cult of the Roman emperor, and of a hierarchy of priests unlike anything known here in the pre-Roman period, shows the extent to which this rather isolated region was increasingly being drawn into the Roman world. Likewise, portrait sculpture of deified emperors and empresses attests to the simultaneous Romanization of both religion and art. Despite our rather patchy evidence, Alfiildy's assertion that " the ruler cult in the cities of central Spain was set up .,. similarly to other cities of the Roman Empire"66 will probably prove to be correct.

61 62 63 64

65 66

Dept. of Classical Studies, University of Waterloo, Ontario

Almagro, Segabriga I I (supra n.23) no. 43G; Alf6ldy, Stiidtewesen (supra n.20) 8 3 n.272. M. Osuna Ruiz, "Ercavica: eI futuro del pasado," Revista d. arqll.% gia 152 (1993) 17, 24.

M. Osuna Ruiz, Ercavica I (Cuenca 1976) figs. 58-60. R. Cagnat and V. Chapot, Manlle! d'archi% gi. romain. I (Paris

Osuna, MlIseo de ClIenal (supra n.19) no. 2. MelIor (supra

n.13) 1004.

AIf61dy, Stiidtewesen (supra n.20)

117 n . 386.

1916) 568-69 (Vespasian frieze);

Du nouveau sur les débuts du culte impérial municipal dans la péninsule ibérique Robert Étienne Nous sommes réunis pour célébrer le soixante-cinquième anniversaire d'un savant qui honore depuis des décennies la science de l'Antiquité, et qui s'est plus particulièrement consacré à l'étude du culte impérial en Occident. Où est le temps où Kurt Latte m'écrivaitl que le culte impérial était une invention des pères de l'Eglise et des docteurs de la foi chrétienne? J'avoue avoir vite surmonté mon trouble et poursuivi mon chemin: l'œuvre de Duncan Fishwick est là aujourd'hui pour nous apporter le plus éclatant démenti à cette opinion réductrice. On peut dire que désormais toutes les sciences auxiliaires de l'Antiquité, au contraire, concourent à l'illustrer et à l'approfondir. Que Duncan Fischwick me permette de lui offrir quelques réflexions sur la triple présence dans la péninsule ibérique d'un temple périptère hexastyle tant à Mérida (Emerita Augusta) et à Barcelone (Barcino) qu'à Évora (Ebora), ce qui ne peut que nous apporter quelques nouveautés sur les débuts du culte (fig. 1).

J. Le temple d'Emerita Augusta Ce sont les fouilles menées par J. M. Alvarez Martinez en deux temps, de 1972 à 1975, et de cette date à 1986, qui ont permis d'élucider la structure du temple dit de Diane. La première tranche de travaux a été présentée par le fouilleur dans l'ouvrage collectif édité à l'occasion des bimillénaire de la fondation de la colonie romaine,2 la seconde a fait l'objet d'un article dans le volume publié par le collège officiel d'architecture de Murcie et par l'université de Murcie, pour célébrer le premier cours d'archéologie classique.3 Les progrès dans la connaissance du temple dit de Diane, ainsi faussement dénommé depuis le XVIIIe s. à l'imitation de celui d'Ephèse, ont été décisifs; aujourd 'hui, après une restauration libérant tout le pronaos (fig. 2) et respectant une grande partie de la maison seigneuriale qui l'avait enveloppé, le palais des comtes de los Corbos,4 il est possible de préciser ses dimensions et de répondre à un certain nombre d'interrogations - mais pas à toutes, en attendant des fouilles complémentaires.s Installé sur une petite éminence, proche de la rue Santa Eulalia identifiée avec le decumanus marimus, le templé est périptère et hexastyle avec une double colonnade de façade. Orienté

nord-sud, il mesure 31.80 m sur les longs côtés (40.75 m en comptant les escaliers) et 21.90 m suries petits. TI a été construit en granite qui vient des carrières voisines de "Cuarto de la Charca," "El Hinojal," et "Royanejos," et dont la taille définitive a été réalisée sur place à Emerita.

La colonnade s'appuie sur un haut podium de 3.23 m et comporte 11 colonnes sur les longs côtés, 6 sur les petits. u, parement est lui aussi constitué de blocs de granite isodomes dessinant un parfait opus qUi/dratum, recouvert d'une couche de stuc. Son couronnement est fait d'une corniche moulurée présentant un cyma inverse, que l'on retrouve à la base. Lettre personnelle du 9 juillet 1958.

J.

M. Alvarez Martlnez, "El templo de Diana dans Augusta Emeri/a," Adas dei Simposion internacional . conmemorativo dei Bimilenario de Mérida, 16-20 de Noviembre de 1975 (Madrid 1976) p.43-53 [= Augusta Emerita). J. M. Alvarez Martlnez, "El templo de Diana," dans Templos romanos de Hispania (Cuademos de 4 5

Arquitectura romana 1, Murcie 1992) p.83-93. de Laborde, Voyage pittoresque et historique en Espagne (Paris 1811). Alvarez Martlnez (supra n.3) p.83. Pour tous oes détails archéologiques nous dépendons des articles de J. M. Alvarez Martinez (supra n.23), vivifiés par ses commentaires oraux lors d'une visite effectuée à Mérida le 21 juin 1993. A.

Robert Étienne

154

o 1

c. Evora

b. Barcelone

a. Mérida

10 1

30

20

1

1

Fig. 1. Plan des Irois temples périptères (de gauche Garcia y Bellido)

à droite:

40 1

Mérida, Barcelone,

SOm 1

Évora d'après le plan de fl

,:"":""'····:<;�r:-·"'··,,'· .�;).>.:_� '"":t>-

Fig.

2 Temple de Mérida: façade

Les colonnes en granite reposent sur des bases attiques sans plinthe; bases et tambours étaient stuq"

Voici leurs dimensions: pour les bases,0.63 m de hauteur,1.43 m de diamètre; pour les tambours,1.32 m

bas,0.65 en haut, le diamètre moyen s'établissant à 0.85 m; la hauteur totale des colonnes atteint 8.69 m.

Les débuts r culte impérial municipal dans la péninsule ibérique

1

Quant aux chapiteaux corinthiens de 0.85 m de hauteur,ils sont taillés dans trois blocs de granite q

portent en bas la première corbeille de feuilles,puis au milieu la seconde et les caulicoles,et

hélices,les volutes et l'abaque.

la supérieure,1

En ce qui concerne la structure du temple,une nouveauté a été apportée par les fouilles: une seconde rang,

de colonnes double la première ligne hexastyle.7 Même si les recherches n'ont sur le

pas abouti jusqu'ici

à un pIan absolument clair, l'entrée au sud,qui doru

decurmnl/s rm:rimlls, se faisait,semble-t-i1,au moyen de petits escaliers latéraux aboutissant à w sorte de pulpi/um, incluant un autel au milieu; à partir de là,se plaçait le grand escalier entre la seconde et cinquième colonne de façade. Cette disposition rappelle œIIe du /emplum divi [uli à Rome,8 dédié le 18 ao(lt:

av. J.-c.

Les entrecolonnements de la façade étaient fermés par un chancel, sauf celui du centre qui, par s<

ouverture de 454 ni, permettait de saluer la statue impériale offerte au culte. La

cella était marquée par des demi-colonnes placées à l'alignement des sixième, huitième et dixièn

rangées de colonnes,mais aujourd'hui elle est ruinée du fait de la construction de l a maison du XVI" s. et (

l'établissement d'une grande citerne au milieu de son patio.

Autour du temple,une aire sacrée - sorte de jarclin intérieur - est délimitée par un portique conservé a

nord et à l'ouest. Sur les côtés ouest et est, deux bassins9 construits en brique et revêtus d'un enduit c tuileau,encadrent la construction; un piedestal au nord accueillait probablement une statue et à l'opposé u

escalier de 5 marches facilitait le nettoyage. Ces bassins sont-ils contemporains de la construction ou lui son

ils postérieurs comme à Évora?lo

Quoi qu'il en soit, le temple a suivi la fondation de av.

J.-c.

chapiteaux décorés d'acanthes années

la

c ol onie

d'Emeri/a Augusta, soit en 2

Peut-on serrer de plus près la chronologie? L'étude des chapiteaux

16-15

av.

J.-c.,

soit

la

à

à

ranger parmi

lE

gouttes type C défini par A. Roth-Congèsll nous conduit au

date de création de

la

disposerions du temple du culte impérial municipal de

province de Lusitanie.12 Ainsi nou

la

ville, hexastyle, tandis qu'un simpl

autel était le lieu de rendez-vous des cérémonies provinciales; créé avec la permissio d 'Auguste,13 il exalte la prévoyance, la providentia d'Auguste, cherchant à assurer un succession dynastique.14 Précisément cette propagande en faveur de lancée dès

17 av. J.-C.

par Auguste et vise Agrippa célébré

à

la

maison impériale e!

Mérida en 16.15 Le théâtre lui e! dédié et proche du temple on a découvert une statue colossale du gendre d'Augustel6 dans 1

Calle de Sagasta. Il semble bien que désormais

le

temple municipal, réputé contigu, est

articul

Plan donné à la fig. 7 par J. Menendez Pidal dans

Augusta Emeri/a (supra n.2) p.214-215_ /opographical dic/ionary if ancien/ Rome (Oxford 1929),S.v. Julius, Div,. aedes, p.286-288; G. Lugli,Rorm an/ÎCa, n cen/ro monumen/ale (Rome 1946) p.198-201 avec les fig. 43-4 [= LugIi, Cen/ro monumen/ale]; P. Gros,Aurea /emp/a (BEFAR 231, Rome 1976) p.26, 57, 66, 85-91, 10; 103,108,153,200,210,276 [= Gros,Aurea Templa].

S.

B. Platner et Th. Ashby, A

Dimensions: 9.40 m en longueur; 3.75 en larg>!ur,1.82 en profondeur.

10 11

Voir infra p.161.

A. Roth-Congès, "L'acanthe dans le décor architectonique proto-augustéen en Provence," (1983) p.l09-134, 123

[=

Roth-Congès);

J.

L de la Barrera Ant6n, Los

RANarb l­ capi/eles romanos de Mérid

( Monografias emeritenses 2, Badajoz 1984) p.72, aurait tendance à les vieillir à l'époque tarda

12 13 14 15 16

augustéenne et tibérienne.

R. Étienne, "L'horloge de la (1992) p.355-362.

dvi/as [gaedi/anorum et la création de la province de Lusitanie," REA 9·

R. Étienne, Culte

impérial p.378-379. moneda hisplinica (Madrid 1926) [= Vivès] N, 65, n.46 (pl. CXUII, 6). Le monnaies sont des dupondii et non des as. Étienne, CI/lte impérial p.395. Alvarez Martinez (supra n.3) p.57; effigie de M. Agrippa, pa/ronllS coloniae, Ca/alogo Monumen/al d EspaRa [= CME] Badajoz, nO.7OS, 1021-26, 1037-38, 1047, 1485-1486 ) ; une représentation en habi

A

Vivès y Escudero, La

militaire, une autre en prêtre,un relief avec une scène de sacrifice dont M. Agrippa est le protagoniste

Robert Étienne

156

Fig. 3.

Mérida: portique du forum

avec un forum portiqué (fig. 3)17 dont a mis au jour la décoration architecturale: divers c1ipei portant la tête de Jupiter Ammon (fig. 4) alternant avec celle de Méduse, et des caryatides encadrant des togati dans des niches rectangulaires. Ces clipei imitent la décoration du forum d'Auguste à Rome.lB D'autres morceaux de sculpture découverts dans les fouilles en 1980 et 1986 confirment l'exaltation de la dynastie impériale et la double datation de l'ensemble. De l'épo­ que augustéenne date le premier portique, enduit de stuc, tandis que la décoration en plaques de marbre appartient à l'époque flavienne. Opfer," MM 27 w. Trillmich, "Ein historisches Relief in Mérida mit DarsteUung des M. Agrippa beim

17 1B

(1986) p.279-304 . Augusta Emerita," dans Pour les premières réflexions, voir J. M. Alvarez Martinez, "El fora de Homelll1je a Saenz de BUTUaga (Badajoz 1982) p.53-68. Laterza, Rome Lugli, Centro monumentale (supra n.8) p.26S et fig. 73; F. Coarelli, Roma (Guide arch. di lavoro sul 1981) p.lOS. Sur le rapprochement Mérida - Rome, voir M. F. Squarciapino, "Ipotesi En dernier lieu, gruppo di sculture da Pan Caliente," dans Augusta Emerita (supra n.2) surtout p.56-60. le J. M. Alvarez Martinez et T. Nogales Basarrate, "Schéma urbain de Augusta Emerita, portique du 1988 (Mayence Forum,· Akten des XIII Internationalen Kongresses fiir klassiscbe Arclrii ologie, Berlin 1990) p336-337 et fig. 1 [= Akten Berlin 1988J.

Les débuts dl:

Fig. 4.

M érida:

.;e impérial municipal dans la péninsule ibérique

157

clipeus à la tête de Jupiter Ammon

Quoi qu'il en soit, le temple municipal du culte impérial à Mérida était solidaire d'une scénographie habituelle dans les villes d'Occident. Nous disons bien temple municipal et non temple provincial, construit seulement sous Tibère en 15 av. ].-c. pour célébrer le culte de Divus Augustus.19L'édifice est curieusement dédié à l'Aelernitas Augusta;20 représenté tétrastyle sur les monnaies,21 il ne peut pas être confondu avec le temple hexastyle, sans que nous ne puissions proposer encore pour son emplacement un site précis.

IL Le temple de Barcino TI n'est que de lire le demier article22 consacré au temple romain de Barcino pour qu'éclatent ses multiples ressemblances avec celui d'Emerita Augusta (fig. 1). Connu depuis longtemps,23 il n'en reste plus aujourd'hui que l'angle nord-est du péristyle, conservé calle Paradiso (fig. 5) au Centro Excursionista de Catahuïa; des relevés plus anciens24 - peut-être pas totalement fiables - permettent d'en connaître les structures complètes, et une recherche plus récente le replace dans l'urbanisme de la ville antique.25 L'édifice, comme à Mérida, est situé sur la partie la plus haute de la cité, là où fut la Barcelone primitive, sur le forum, et sa façade, comme dans la capitale de la Lusitanie, donne surledecumanus maximus. En raison de son orientation nord-est/sud-ouest, on peut dire que le 19

20

21

22

CIL Il 471. Étienne, Culte impérial p.414.

Vivès (supra n.14) IV p.66, n59 (pL CXUV, 9); p.67, n.77 (pL CXLVl, 6); p.68, n.80 (pL CXLVI, 8). M. A. Gutierez Behemerid, HEl templo romano de Barcino. Analisis de la decoraci6n arquitect6nica,H dans Templos romanos de Hispania (supra n.3) p.9S-10S.

23

J. Puig y Cadafalch, HEl templo romà de Barcino: descoberta d'elements de la comisa," Am",ri Institut

24

Donnés par J. Bassegoda NoneU, El templo romano de Baralana . (Barcelone 1974); le plan du temple a été proposé par l'architecte Antoni Celles.

25

d'Estudls Catalans 8 (1927-31) p.89-97; id., L'arquitectura romana a Catalunya (Barcelone 1934) p.30S319; Étienne, Cu lte impérial p.219-220.

J. Gimeno Pascual, "Bareino Augusta. Distribuci6n de espados urbanos y areas centrales de la ciudad," dans Boletîn dei Museo ArqueolOgico Nacionol

[;

BoI.MAN] 1.1 (1983) p.9-30.

Robert Étienne

158

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

0

n

tJiU l \i

'

0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

o

0

0

0

Il Fig.

5.

Fig. 6. Temple de Barcelone: plan restitué

Temple de Barcelone: colonnes

par A. Celles

temple a été fondé au solstice de juin, dans le respect des préceptes vitruviens,26 et l'on peut

raisonnablement penser qu'il était dédié à Auguste_

TI s'agit d'un temple hexastyle périptère, construit en arénlsque, venant de carrières proches de Montjuich

et revêtu de stuc; on compte, comme à Mérida, Il colonnes sur les longs côtés et les antes (fig.

6).

6 sur les façades et deux entre

Ses dimensions (35 x 17 m) donnent à la longueur une valeur double de la largeur et le

pronaos mesure la moitié de la ce/Ja. Les entrecolonnements sont sur le long côté sistyles, équivalents à deux diamètres, sur le petit côté picnostyles, soit un entrecolonnement de un diamètre et demi. Le

podium est bâti en opus incertum revêtu d'opus quadratum et certains prétendent avoir retrouvé les podium

traces de la voûte qui aurait soutenu les 13 marches de l'escalier d'accès au temple. La hauteur du

équivaut au tiers de la hauteur totale de la colonne, y compris la base et le chapiteau. Il est couronné d'une corniche présentant un cyma inverse suivi d'un petit listel, comme au temple de Mérida, Encore, comme chez·celui-ci, les bases sont attiques et reposent sans plinthe. Les fûts mesurent 7.9 m de hauteur, soit dix diamètres, les tambours sont creusés de 20 cannelures et les chapiteaux corinthiens (fig. 7) ont une hauteur de un module.

Ils sont composés de deux

blocs de granite, parfois de trois et même de quatre.

J' résentent des digitations dessinant en négatif une flèche à plusieurs

Les acanthes à découpage symétrique pointes, nommées par A. Roth-Congès,

26

27

"harpon".

Vitro 4.5. Roth-Congès (supra n.11) type E: l'acanthe "à harpons," p.129-130 et n.109.

Les débuts dll .culte impérial municipal dans la péninsule ibérique

Fig 7. .

1�

Temple de Barcelone: chapiteau

L'architecture autant que la décoration permet de proposer diverses datations, mais i

la construction du temple est attribuable au demier quart dt le, s. a v. J.-c.p cette datation irait à l'encontre de la date de fondation de la colonia Barcino. 0, celle-ci est bien établie en 9/8}9 au moment où s'effectue le bornage de la via Augusta: lE parait difficile d'admettre que, si

quadrillage urbain a été alors parfaitement dessiné et l'emplacement du forum réservé.30 Now

devons à

J. D. Granados une proposition raisonnable: il fait du temple le centre d'un sectew

religieux du forum, qu'il entoure d'un portique délimitant ainsi un temenos sacré, à la façon dE

Mérida et dotant Barcelone d'une place publique dont le modèle est à l'époque augustéenne s présent dans les provinces occidentales et orientales.

En tout cas, tout est cohérent si nous nous attachons à cette datation de 9/8 av. J.-c.3! et tous le G. Behemerid s'inscrivent parfaitement à l'intérieur de cette chronologie.

"montages" de M.

28 29

30 31

Behemerid (supra n.22) p.102: la stylistique ne saurait l'emporter sur un fait historique bien établi.

J.-N.

Bonneville, "Aux origines de Barcino romain (Barcelone)," REA 80 (1978) p.37-{i8, corrigé par l, même, "Les patrons du municipe d'Emporiae (Amp"rias, Espagne)," REA 88 (1986) p.181-200, 195, n.61 ILER 1987 date de 9/8 et non de 8/7. J. O. Granados, "Notas sobre el estudio dei Foro de la colonia Bareino," dans Actas. Los Faros romano, de las prollincias occidentales (Madrid 1987) surtout p.68. Elle diffère de peu de la date de 15 av. Barcelona romana,"

roC,

proposée par F. Pallarès, "La topografia e le origini di

RSILig 36 (1973) p.63-102.

Robert Étierme

160

� ; w- :-:-:-:

. __________ _____ r--------------

i , _____ l

-

-

JIL

:

::

l

:

�J'

!

0) (;}

:

1 1

1 1

[ 1

1

!

:: ,t":)!

1

I

,

,1

,

'

:: ��J! Il l

Il

, ,

: 1 i

1 1 1

!

:1

:: :Il:

,

, ,

1

Il Il

Il Il 1 1 1

1

1

,

, 1 :

r�-��-=--=-:====:;_rl I 1 J ri 1 r Il [, ri Il

r

!

:

____ _________

'

, ,

- - .., [

--- -

- --- - -- --------------------------

(Jl

!

1 1

1

1'

1,

i l, 1 ��!I (,�! 1 .. ('.) {�� f::.J ti � J

i (_11 {{_"�_ _ _ r1 L _____sr. -------. f.: ; 1"',+."u.__ .. .,ç.""",-==-��, Il,':!,,m,,: ----- ..

... l�t]��

L�:I,�j JU!l�

i

i:1:.;:! � . L '�

_ ____________________

___

____________________ _

Fig. 8. Temple d'Évora: la

plan

de Th

Hauschild

Fig.9.

Temple d'Évora:

podium et

colonnes

du lo ng côté

les bases sans plinthe que les chapiteaux corinthiens à feuilles d'acanthe en "harpon". Toute la décoration prend place dans le style du second triumvirat tellement imité. Pour atteindre le dernier quart du 1er s. av . J.-c. et plus

aussi bien

structure périptère, le cyma inversé,

précisément la dernière décennie, nous devons tenir compte de retards culturels provinciaux.

Plusieurs influences concourent à

la vitalité d'une tradition antérieure et ce sont sans doute des fin de siècle:

équipes itinérantes qui les propagent; un atelier a pu exister à Barcelone dans cette les artistes et artisans avaient-ils déjà œuvré à Mérida?

III,

Le

temple d'Évora

toujours en cours de fouille Troisième et dernier temple périptère celui d'Évora (fig. 1 et 8), d�ecteur de antenne de par l'Institut archéologique allemand sous l'autorité du pre�er . Ltberahtas lulla, creé sans doute Lisbonne Th. Hauschild, il orne le forum du municipe Ebora une inventio� du XVIIIe, s. e pendant e second triumvirat.32 L'appellation temple de Diane est le plus eleve il ne peut qu'avoir été consacré lui aussi au culte impérial. S a. situation ,s� le pomt . de Merida et de Barcelone. de la ville lui donne un statut privilégié, comme pour les édiflces

.l'

i

�

Ses vestiges (fig. 10) sont aujourd'hui impressionnants et attirent les touristes. Le podium est conservé sur toute la surface: il mesure 3 m de hauteur. Les dimensions extérieures du temple atteignent 25 m en longueur et 32

Plutôt que par César: H. Galsterer, UnterslIchllngen zum ramiscben Stiidtewesen all! der iberiscben Halbinsel (Madrider Forschungen 8, BerIin1971) p.68, nO 7.

Les débuts du

Fig.

10. Temple d'Évora:

'te impérial municipal dans la péninsule ibérique

vestiges vus depuis

161

le mu sée

145 m en largeur: id la largeur est les 2/3 de la longueur et nOn pas la moitié. Construit en opus incertum le podium (fig. 9) devait être revêtu de plaques d'opus quadratum et était encadré à la partie supérieure d'une corniche à cyma inverse. Les 14 colonnes aujourd'hui conservées s'appuient sur de puissants blocs de granite; l'architecte avait prévu l'emplacement des colonnes en gravant des lignes de conduite sur le stylobate. Ainsi nous pouvons connaUre les entrecolonnements sud et nord: 2.60 Ill, et ouest: 2.25 m. Un entrecolonnement plus important marqué sur la surface au droit de la porte de la cella rappelle celui de Mérida. On compte 11 colonnes sur le long côté, 6 sur les petits, comme pour Mérida et Barcelone. L'originalité du temple d'�vora vient de ce que les bases et les chapiteaux sont en marbre blanc, tandis que le fût, l'architrave et la frise sont en granite, originellement couvert de stuc. Le diamètre de la colonne est de 0.90 Ill, la hauteur du fût de la colonne, 6.60 m, offrant une proportion réduite par rapport aux règles vitruviennes. Les chapiteaux corinthiens sont exécutés en deux parties; on y reconnaît deux étages de feuilles d'acanthe: elles se touchent sans se superposer et ce type d'acanthe à goutte nous renvoie au type C d'A. Roth-Congès.33 On ne peut pas donner la longueur de la cella en raison de l'état du monument et l'accès même au temple a posé des problèmes qui ne sont pas encore résolus en toute certitude: plutôt qu'un escalier central. il faudrait envisager, d'après Th Hauschild, comme à Mérida, deux escaliers latéraux.

n,

Une des surprises des travaux récents a été la découverte tout autour du temple, dessinant un d'un bassin de

1

m de profondeur, revêtu d'une couche épaisse d'opus signinum qui a cimenté 4 m.. Comment ne rappelerait-il pas la présence des deux bassins de Mérida?

aussi les trois côtés du podium, la largeur du bassin atteint

Hauschild34 met en question l'existence d'un portique entourant le temple: on peut

le

restituer

en toute certitude, tant le modèle de la capitale - Mérida - a pu influencer le dessin urbanistique du municipe. Nous pouvons aussi placer ce temple du culte impérial au fond d'une

33

34

Roth-Congès (supra n.ll) p.llS-l23. On ne saurait, comme le suggère Th. Hauschild, "El templo romano de Evara," 107-17 dans Templos romanos de Hispania (supra n.3), le rapprocher de celui de Barcelone, bien identifié comme type E (p.ll1). Hauschild (supra n.33) p.1l4.

Robert Étienne

162

place de forum, ce que semble également nier Th. Hauschild, sans en donner les raisons.

certainement dans le schéma desfora occidentaux d'époque augustéenne.

il

rentre

Une datation. précise semble pour l'instant difficile à établir. La "marmorisation" fournirait

éventuellement un indice; le travail des chapiteaux en marbre pourrait être plus tardif que celui

des chapiteaux en granite de Mérida et de Barcelone. Ne pourrait-on pas aussi bien envisager

une équipe d'artisans plus habiles, appelés par une municipalité plus riche et surtout disposant

à goutte sont 16/15 av. J.-C., et sur le front de scène du théâtre d'Arles, de même datation. Notons simplement les hésitations de Th. Hauschild qui à Berlin35 les estimait du milieu de l'époque augustéenne et dans une correspondance privée du 13 juillet 1993, d'époque post-augustéenne, probablement de la première moitié du 1er s. ap. J.-c. en abondance du marbre,

facile

à obtenir des carrières voisines? Les chapiteaux

présents à la porte d'Auguste à Nîmes, datée de

Quoi qu'il en soit, si à Arles l'utilisation du marbre atteste une main étrangère, il en irait de même à Évora. Ainsi le temple d'Évora n'est pas plus tardif que les temples de Mérida et de Barcelon·e.36

IV. Conclusions A la suite de cette triple analyse architecturale et historique une première certitude se

dégage: un même modèle a inspiré les architectes ou l'architecte de ces trois temples. Le tableau suivant justifie encore mieux cette affirmation.

�

ADiJl�� a[!:hiœs:tYüll�

�ituation dl/ temple: �truch"e dl/ temple: Wodium: olonnes:

lieu le plus élevé granite hexastyle: 6 x 11 colonnes périptère hauteur aux environs de 3 m corniche à cyma reversa bases attiques sans plinthe chapiteaux cornithiens

x x x x x x x type C Roth- Congés x x x double x x

entrecolonnement plus large sur façade latéraux Portique: délimitant une aire sacrée bassin Uen avec forum

�scaliers:

�

x x x x x x x typeE Roth-Congès x ?

Wm

x x x x x x x [marbre] type C Roth- Congés x x

?

x

?

enn

x

?

Certes subsistent encore quelques interrogations, essentiellement pour le temple de Barcelone

en raison de fouilles insuffisamment développées, ou même à Évora à cause de publications pas

aussi claires qu'on l'aurait souhaité. Toutefois la présence d'un modèle est absolument sûre, ce

Th. Hauschild les a 8).

qui entraîne des escaliers latéraux pour l'édifice de Barano, tout comme

installés à Évora, en se démarquant ainsi de

35 36

A

Garda y BeUido (fig.

1

et

Th. Hauschild, "Der peripterale Podiumtempel von Evora (portugal)," Akten Berlin 1988 (supra n.lB) p.S41. Hauschild, "Zur Typologie rômischer Tempel auE der Iberischen HalbinseL peripterale Anlagen in Barcelona, Merida und Evora," Hommaje a Satnz de BI/ruaga (supra n.17) p.14S. Rappelons pour mémoire notre propre datation trop tardive: Ile s., Étienne, CI/lte impérial p.22l; et celle, fin 1er -début du Ile s. ap. J-C . proposée par le Dr. C. Fabiao dans Histôria de Portl/gal primeiro volume: An/es de Portugal (Lisbonne 1992) p.233.

Th .

Les débuts.-l ,-:ulte impérial municipal dans la péninsule ibérique

La chronologie augustéenne des trois édifices est bien établie et c'est en

tude; certes

les

là

la deuxième cer

dates de fondation des deux colonies et du municipe ne fournissent qu'un repè

post quem et les chapiteaux, datés selon la grille d'A. Roth-Congès, apportent d'utiles pré< sions.

On

pourrait dans ce cas établir une certaine contemporanéité entre le temple de Mérida

16/15 av. J.-c. 9/8 av. J.-C.

celui d'Évora, malgré les différences du matériau travaillé. Les années convenir à leur édification, tandis qu'à Barcelone il faudrait attendre

On

pourraie.

ne saurait considérer ces trois temples comme des édifices isolés dans l'urbanisme d.

villes augustéennes. Les dernières découvertes de Mérida, tout comme les réflexions S1 l'emplacement du forum de Barcino, conduisent à mettre leurs deux temples en série avec cet

des colonies augustéennes de Gaule et de Cisalpine,37 c'est-à-dire qu'ils occupent sur un aJ sacralisant une partie d'un témenos portiqué: celui-ci fait face au decumanus maximus q'

traverse à

la

perpendiculaire

la place du forum proprement

dite, occupée symétriquement par

basilique. C'est là notre troisième certitude, qu'il faut étendre à Evora, et que des recherch.

ultérieures sur le terrain confirmeront.

Donc double modèle du temple hexastyle périptère et du temple lié à un forum portiqué.

cohérence chronologique illustrent les débuts du culte impérial colonial et municipal. qui

précédé l'établissement du culte impérial provincial. Que ces trois temples aient été dédiés à divinité impériale, il

Hauschild:

ils nous

y

a unanimité parmi les savants modernes de

J. Alvarez Martinez à 11

fournissent notre quatrième certitude. D'ailleurs un plan identique entraîr

l'identité des actes cultuels; les escaliers latéraux, les portiques jouent un rôle essentiel dans: chentinement des processions: Vitruve3B lui-même n'a-t-il pas, trop brièvement, lié archltectuJ

�

sacrée et liturgie? Le déroulement du culte par exemple exige une aire sacrée fermée.

l'archltecture religieuse est identique, c'est qu'elle préside à une liturgie unique. Installés sur

le

point

le

plus élevé de

la

ville suivant le précepte de Vitruve,39 ils font parti

des programmes architecturaux de propagande impériale, comme nous l'avons découvert

Conimbriga.40 C'est Rome qui en est l'inspiratrice; le modèle canonique des temples périptèrE

vient d'une interprétation italique à partir du pseudo-diptère sans opisthodome·! Précisémer

à

l'époque augustéenne,

IV' s. av.

J.-c.,

le temple d'Athéna à Priène,42 modèle du périptère ionique construit a la déesse Athéna. L'espace sacré se dilate jusqu'au

vénère l'Empereur à côté de

lintites d'un portique qui offre au temple un écrin digne de la majesté impériale. Les différence

de dimension des trois temples tiennent à

la

perception de hiérarchies diverses qu'elles soier

juridiques - temples coloniaux et temple municipal- financières ou technologiques. Tous

trois attestent par

la

présence de

la

statue du culte l'unité cultuelle et culturelle

qui

le 1

embrasse

capitale et les villes de l'Occident et illustrent l'universalité de la romanisation, dont ils so�

les instruments les plus actifs et les éternels garants.

Université de Bordeaux

37 38 39 40 41 42

D

G. A. Mansuelli, L'urbanistica e architettltra della Cisalpina romana fino al III secolo e.n. (Coll. Latomu

Ill, Bruxelles 1971). Voir aussi].. B. Ward-Perkins, "From Republic ta Empire: reflections on the earI­ . provincial architecture of the Roman West," JRS 60 (1970) p .3 -19 . Vitro 4.8.6. Vitr. 1.7.1. J. AIarcào et R Étienne, "Le forum augustéen et ses monuments," L'architecture (Fouilles de Conimbriga l' et 1"", Paris 1977) ch. Il: p .27-39. P. Gros, "Hermodoros et Vitruve," MEFRA 85 (1973) 137-161; Gros, Altrea ttmtpla (supra n.8) p.108 115 et pl. XV, n° 2 et 3. E. Akurgal, Griechische und romisch. Kllnst in der Türkei (Munich 1987) p.73, fig. 79: c'est un périptèr, avec 6 x 11 colonnes, qui mesure 19.55 x 37.20 m.

Four temples at Tarraco Duncan Fishwick The Roman colony of Tarraco, Caonia Iulia Urbs Triumphalis Tarraco, reached the pinnacle of its fame early in the reign of Augustus. 1he presence of the emperor, first in 26-24 B.C., when convalescing after the hard�fought Celtiberian wars (Dio Cass. 53.25.5-7), and possibly a second time, on his visit to Gaul and Spain between 16 and 13 B.C. (Dio Cass. 54.19, 23, 25), meant that Tarraco was briefly the seat of the imperial court, indeed for a moment the centre of the world. It was here that Augustus entered on his eighth and ninth consulships (Suet., Aug. 26.3); and to it came a string of foreign embassies, of which that of the Mytileneans led by Potamon c.26 B.C. is only the most famous (lG XII, 44 = IGRR N, 38).lThese few years of glory, never to be repeated, go far towards explaining the exemplary enthusiasm with which the city promoted the burgeoning cult of the emperor. The famous altar of Augustus, from which a palm tree miraculously sprouted, is mentioned by Quintilian (Inst. 6. 3 .77) and commemorated on local coins.2 Tacitus reports the request of the Spaniards in A.D. 15 to establish a temple at Tarraco to the deceased and recently deified emperor: templum ut in c%nia Tarraconensi strueretur Augusto petentibus Hispanis permissum datumque in omnes pravincias exemplum (Ann . 1.78); and later developments along the same lines suggest that at least four and in all probability five or more centres of the imperial cult eventually found a place in the city. 1he following discussion is mainly concerned with four particular temples: the provincial temple of Tarracon­ ensis, a supposed temple of Jupiter Ammon, the Capitolium and the municipal imperial temple. If the whereabouts of these can be determined, either gr05so modo or with some precision, the religious architecture of Tarraco should start to take on sharper definition. That such a project can be undertaken at all is due in very large measure to successful archaeological exploration of the city in recent years, notably on the part of the Taller Escola d' Arqueologia de Tarragona (TED'A). 1hanks to the published findings of these and other investigators, it is now possible to fill out and revise on points of detail the account given in The Imperial Cult in the Latin West 1.1,150-54, which was itself based on information available a decade ago.

The CapitoJium Logic combines with chronological priority to require that we begin with the Capitolium. The possibility that Tarraco will have possessed a Capitolium is put beyond question by the evidence.3 In alluding to Galba's avarice, Suetonius states that the inhabitants of Tarraco offered him a gold crown of 15lbs taken from the temple of Jupiter, whereupon Galba promptly melted it down and demanded the 3 ounces it feU short in weight: quodque oblatam a

Tarraconensibus e vetere templo Iavis coronam auream librarum quinde cim conflasset ac tres un cias, quae ponderi deerant, iussisset exigi (Galba 12.1). The term vetus templum Iavis surely implies a temple of long standing. To the literary evidence can be added the testimony of inscriptions. If in some of these all that is preserved is the dedication Iavi (RIT 28f.) or I( avi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) (ibid. 30), two record the payment of a vow to Jupiter Optimus Maximus (ibid. 31£.), while two others are particularly relevant to the possible existence of a Capitolium: a small altar dedicated Iavi Optimo I Maximo I Capitoli Ino sacrum (RIT 33), and a statue base inscribed I(avi) O(ptimo) Maximo), I Iunoni, I Minervae, I Genio praetorii I 15 (1978) 596; R. W. Parker, "Potamon of Mytilene and IUs family," ZPE 85 (1991) 117, dating the embassy to 25 B.C. D. Fishwick, "The altar of Augustus at Tarraco," in Fishwick,Imp. C,,/t 1.1, 171-79 with references. See now A. Bumet� M Amandry, and P. Pau Ripolles, The Roman provincial coinage (London-Paris 1992) l.l, nos. 218, 221, 225. M. Bendala Galan, "Capitolia Hispaniarum," Anas 2-3 (1989-90) 22. G. Alf61dy in RE Suppl.

Duncan Fishwick

166

consularis, I Diis P�'Jq!!�us, I T(irns) Fl(avius) Titianus I leg(atus) Augg(ustorum) pr(o) pr(aelore), I Postumia S[ilria(?) I eius I dicaverunt (RIT 34). Attention may also be drawn to the inscribed statue bai;e of L. Aemilius Sempronius Clemens Silvanianus, who after a normal municipal career held the post of curator [ClapitoIi before undertaking jury service in Rome (RIT 922). 1he significance of the office of curator remains to be considered.

If the existence of the Capitollum is beyond doubt, its location remains uncertain. In older literature one finds the Capitolium located at the centre back of the top terrace of the upper part of the city, within what is now known to have been the provincial' enclave of Tarraconensis.4 1he basis for this view has always been that in this zone were found fragments of clipei bearing the face of Jupiter Ammon (fig. 1), a feature which should in fact have excluded any connection with Jupiter Capitolinus (infra p.175 f.): Jupiter Ammon with his horned head is hardly Jupiter Capitolinus. The location might otherwise be thought appropriate as a sort of acropolis of Tarraco Martial refers to Tarraconis arces (10.104.3), and Ausonius describes Tarraco as arce patens (Ordo urbium nobiIium ll) but it is now clear from archaeological investigation that the area originally lay outside the old, lower city and was earlier the site of a military encampment. The excavations of Th. Hauschild have further revealed that there were no buildings at all in the upper city until after the reign of Tiberiuss For this reason too it is highly improbable that the Capitolium could be identical with what until recently was thought to be a second temple situated to the SE of the upper terrace, between the Calle de San Lorenzo and the CaUe de Santas Creus (fig. 2).6 -

-

Fi g. I. Clipeus with he. ad

of Jupiter Ammon. Photograph by courtesy

of Museo Arqueol6gico,

Tarragona.

TED'A, "El foro provincial de Tarraco, un complejo arquitect6nico de epoca fiavia," AEspA 62 (1989) 147; eid., Un abocador del seglo Vd. C. en el Forum provincial de Tarraco (Memories d'Excavaci6 2, Taragona 1989) 32, 35 f. with fig. 7. Th Hauschild, "Rornische Konstruktionen auf der oberen Stadtterrasse des antiken Tarraco," AEspA 45-47 (1972-74) 10 f.; TEn' A, "El foro" (supra n.4) 148 f. with references. AlfOldy (supra n.1) 600 f.; cf. H. Hanlein-Schiifer, Veneratio Augusti (Archaeologica 39, Rome 1985) 236. Vitruvius emphasises that the Capitolium should stand in excelsissiml loco unae moenium maxima pars conspiciatllr (1.7.1).

Four temples at Tarraco

2. Plan of Roman II. Plan 2.

Fig.

city

of Tarraco. Reproduced from G. A1fOldy. Die

It follows that the Capitolium must rather be placed

riimischen Inschriften von Tarraco

in the lower city, in all probability

beside the presumed site of the municipal forum, where a slight elevation would give it a

dominating position. Such an inference looks confirmed by the circumstance that it is precisely by the municipal forum at the nerve-centre of the city, that are situated the capitolia of the

Iberian peninsula which can be archaeologically documented with some security, in particular

those at Baelo Claudia, Clunia, Emporiae, Saguntum, and Pollentia on Majorca? It might be added that among surviving inscriptions of Tarraco relevant to the cult of Jupiter only 5 are of known provenance. These come from outside the city walls or from from the region of the municipal forum

(RIT 31).

the lower city, one in fact

of the city forum. In the of the city there survives a small plaza approximately 58 x 12.5 m surrounded by a portico some 6 m wide and comprising 24 columns; traces of several of these remain along with a This conclusion raises in turn the problem of the precise location

lower part

complete Corinthian capital and fragments of two others, as well as the bases of 13 statues,

three perhaps equestrian (fig. 3).8 Whereas J. Puig i Cadafalch identified this ensemble as a

macellum, J. Serra Vilar6 proposed that it was the municipal forum, a view which until very

Galan (supra n.3) 14 f., 22 f., 24-29. For a detailed picture see recently R Cortes, "Los foros de .Tarraco" in Los foros 13 ff. with references; R Mar and J. Ruiz de Arbulo, "La basilica de la colonia Tarraco. Una nueva interpretaci6n del Ilamado Foro Bajo de Tarragona" in Los foros 32 ff. with references. On the lower forum in general see the survey of recent research by J. L. Jimenez Salvador, "La multiplicaci6n de plazas p1iblicas en la ciudad hispanorromana," Emporia. 1 (forthcoming).

Duncan Fishwick

168

•

I:!

0

•

..

B

c

X

v

• J)

0 0 0 o 0

()

»

r r r>1

• I

o

®

� J

0 r>1 (')

r>1 ;0

@

.,.

� z

-j

1"1 V>

I I Fig. 3. Plan of municipal forum of Tarraco, according to Serra Vilar6. Reproduced from R. Cortes in Los foros romanos de fig. 4.

/as provincias occidentales 16,

Fig. 4. Hypothetical reconstruction of ex­ tant remains of 'forum': I) streets. 2) pla­ za of statues. 3} columned structure, accor­

ding to Serra Vilar6. 4) to.bemae. 5) monumental edifice . Reproduced from R. Cortes in Los foros romanos de las provincias

occidento.les 21, fig.

9.

recently has held the field. In the rear part of the colonnade are the remains of supposed tabemae w ith arched entrances along w ith a square room (c. 13 x 11 m) at the centre, which Serra took to be the Cllria.9 At the SE end, behind a wall which is open at the NE corner to provide access, is a paved plaza on which were found the sc attered remains of statues (f ig. 4). B. Hemandez Sa nahuja assumed this plaza to be an approach to the forum, but the view has now been rejected by Th. Hauschild followed by E. M. Koppet who take it to be the basilica, its Cf. Alf6 ldy (supra n.l) 606 f . w i th references.

Four temples at Tarraco

169

O

D

D

o

o

o

o

o

• •

•

•

•

•

/.

•

•

..

..

I � Fig. 5. Plan of excavated remains of forum. according to Serra Vilar6. Reproduced from R. Cartes in Los foros romanos de /as provincias occidentales 19. fig. 7.

Fig. 6. Hypothetical reconstruction of basilica based on data of Serra Vilar6. Reproduced from

R. Cortes i n Los foros romanos de provincias occidentales 18. fig. 5.

las

roof supported by columns, the plinths of which have 1eft indentations on the floor.1° At first sight their interpretation seems to be confirmed by a cycle of statues of the Julio-Claudian family which come from the SE end of the complex; such a gallery of imperial statues is commonly found in a cult room of the basilica, as at Beziers and elsewhere.ll The location of 10

11

Th. Hauschild, "Tarraco en la epoca augustea" in Cuidades augusteas de Hispania. Bimilenario de la Colonia Caesaraugusta (Zaragoza 1976) 214 f.; E. M. Koppel, "El foro municipal de Tarraco y su decoraci6n escult6rica," XVII Congresso Nacwnal de Arque%gia (Zaragoza 1985) 842 f. Koppel (supra n.lO) 842 ff., esp. 853 with references. See in general P. Gros, "Sanctuaires traditionnels,

capitoles et temples dynastiques: ruptures et continuites dans le fonctionnement et I' amenagement des centres religieux urbains," in

Los asenlamientos ilJericos ante la romanizacion

(Madrid

1986) 115 with

Duncan Fishwick

170

this

civic building at the SE end of

the plaza would then coincide with one of the commonest

types of forum in the western provinces. No traces of the presumed W part of the forum occur across the present-day Calle de Lerida (fig. 5), but in this sector Hernandez encountered in 1887 the remains of a large edifice constructed with walls of opus caementicium and massive blocks,

as well as part of a fluted column which has now disappeared. Given their location in relation to the supposed forum, these remains could theoretically be traces of a temple - E. M. Koppel suggests a municipal temple of the imperial cult, which is often associated with a forum.12 On the above argument the remains of a Capitolium might equally come into question.

On either

possibility we would have the classical scheme of temple-plaza-basilica stretching NW-SE.

The difficulty with this reconstruction has always been that the supposed forum is remarkably small for a capital city of the importance of Tarraco. Alba Fucens or Brixia, for

example, boasted fora three times the size, while that of Augustan Emporiae was double the width.13 Comparison with the forum of Clunia, which

is of the same chronological period, does

in fact reveal that the dimensions and lay-<>ut of the supposed forum at Tarraco correspond closely with those of the basilica situated at the NW end of the forum at Clunia. The same

point

is also true of the basilica of Augusta Bagiencorum, and to these examples can be added

the slightly smaller basilica of Sarmizegetusa recently identified by R. Etienne and Romanian colleagues.14 R. Mar and J. Ruiz de Arbulo have consequently proposed that what Puig i Cadafalch took to be a macellum and Serra a forum is in fact the substructure of a basilica (fig.

6), which will have been copied at Clunia, the capital of the conventus Cluniensis.ls On this revolutionary hypothesis the plaza surrounded by a portico would be a covered ambulacrum, 6.70 m broad by 3.90 m deep, its proportions corresponding very closely with examples

elsewhere of a basilica with ambulacrum.16 The supposed tabernae could be meeting-rooms or administrative premises, as suggested by G. AlfoldyF but

the central room would be not a curia

but an aedes Augusti of the kind Vitruvius describes at the basilica of Fano.IB It should be noted that at Tarraco this room was paved with marble, its stuccoed walls originally painted in red,

12

13 14

15 16

17 18

n.45 and references; id., "Theatre et culte imperial en Gaule N arbonnaise et dans la peninsule iberique" in Trillmich-Zanker, Sladlbild 384 with n.22 and references. Fishwick, Imp. Cull (supra n.2) 179; Koppel (supra n.10) B43 £ Cortes (supra n.8) 15 notes that, as described by Hernandez, the column is approximately two-thirds the diameter of the colulIU1S in the portico and had 20 flutings rather than 24, so was of considerably smaller proportions. Mar-Ruiz de Arbulo (supra n.B) 36. AAW., EI/o",m Toma d'EmpuTies lexcavadons d e l'any 1982). Una apToximacio aTqueologica al pToces hisloric de la Tomanilzacio al noTd-esl de la peninsula ibeTica (2 vols., Barcelona 19B4). P. de Palo� "El foro remano de Clunia" in Los foros 153-63; Mar-Ruiz de Arbulo (supra n.S) 3B. For the basilica between the civil and religiOUS fora of Sarmizegetusa see R. Etienne, L Piso and A. Diaconescu, "Les deux forums de la Colonia Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarrnizegetusa," REA 92 (1990) 277 ff. with figs. 1 and 2, 2B9 ft.; R. Etienne, "Les propylees du forum civil de Sarrnizegetusa (Roumanie)," CRA! 1990, 93 ft. Mar-Ruiz de Arbulo (supra n.13); cf. Cortes (supra n.B) 22 f. As shown by Mar-Ruiz de Arbulo (supr:a n.B) 32,37 f. See now J. Ruiz de Arbulo, "Edificios piiblicos, poder imperial y evoluci6n de las elites urbanas en Tamu;o (s. II-IV d.c.)" in Ciudad y comunidad c(vica en Hispania (Collection de la Casa de Vehizquez 40, Madrid 1993) 94 with n.4, stressing that the pub­ lished version of Cortes' paper has been adapted in light of the original idea of Mar-Ruiz de Arbulo. Aifoldy (supra n.1) 607. .•.• ne inpedianl aspeclllS pTonai aedis AUgllSti, quae esl in medio lateTe parielis basilicae conJocata speclans medium fo",m el aedem Iavis (Vitr. 5.1.7). Vitruvius places the lribunal within the Augusteum - not that it was always located there. Cf. Mar-Ruiz de Arbulo (supra n.B) 40f., suggesting that the magistrate's podium could be situated, as at Clunia, on one of the sides of the basilica. Cortes (supra n.B) places it at the extreme west of the building where it will have been destroyed on construction of Calle Urida. See in general P. Gros, "Les etapes de I'amenagement monumental du forum ... " in La citla nell'IlaJia sellen/rionale in ela Tomana (Coll.EFR 130, Rome 1990) 47 ft.

Four temples at Tarraco

Fig. 7. General view ofTarraco basilica. Reproduced from R. Cortes in Los foros romanos de las prOllincias occidentales 23, fig. 11.

Fig. 8. Municipal forum of Clunia. Reproduce< from P. de Palol in Los foros romanos de la prOllincias occidentales 156, fig. 7.

and that on a socle against the back waIl could have rested statues, a possibility supported b: numerous sculpted fragments, including a female head of the second quarter of the 1st c. A.D. an<

a nude male torso; to them can be added the remains of a bronze equestrian statue.19

As for th.

Plaza de las Estatuas, this was conceivably an enclosed space, associated with a structure bull

later than the basilica and housing the gallery of Julio-Claudian portrait statues, dating fron the mid-1st c. A.D. E. Koppel linked these with an Augusteum in the supposed basilica, bu

similar groups of statues can occur in other buildings.20

is that the basilica (fig. 7) will have occupied what i: the NE end of a very much larger plaza extending to the SW, beyond CaIle de

The key point for present purposes

presumably

Gas6metro (formerly Calle de Comandante Rivadula), in direct relation with the basilica anc

19

20

Cortes (supra n.8) 14, 23; Koppel (supra n.10) B45; Mar-Ruiz de Arbulo (supra n.B) 34, nn. 19·23 . Cortes (supra n.8) 23; Mar-Ruiz de Arbulo (supra n.B) 43 with n.S9, noting a parallel in the AugusteuII at Roselle in Etruria; cf. M. Torelli, Elntria (Guide arch. Laterza, Rome19BO) 273 f.

Duncan Fishwick

172

other constructions of the zone. Its boundaries can hardly be determined, but the possibility

that the area immediately south of the colonnaded plaza was originally an open area looks

supported by the fact that Hemandez found no archaeological remains here, though further

away he did note traces of monumental construction which he attributed to a supposed temple

of Venus. Serra suggested these were from the peristyle of a house built in the 3rd-4th c. with elements from earlier structures. To the east, on what would presumably have been the lower,

right-hand side of the forum, Hemandez encountered a series of vaults, now demolished, and

placed here part of a baths which he linked with a supposed gymnasium comprising Serra's

forum and the Plaza de

!as

Estatuas. It seems clear that construction did take place in this

general sector, but there is nothing to preclude the view that the municipal forum stretched south-west of the basilica beyond the Calle del Gas6metro.21 In that case it is reasonable to

suppose that at the bottom end of this very much larger forum, directly opposite to and on the same axis as the basilica, will have stood the old Capitolium. Such a location would give the same scheme as at Clunia (fig. 8) and accord with Vitruvius' statement that the

aedes Augusti

in the basilica of Fano looks towards the middle of the forum and the temple of Jupiter (see

above). Pres\lmably

it

is to this temple that the office of

refer. Suetonius describes the temple of Jupiter as repair by a

vetus

curator [C]apitoli (RIT 922) will

by the time of Galba, so its upkeep or

curator would be appropriate by the 2nd c. A.D., the approximate date of the

inscription.22

The Municipal Temple Closely connected with the site of the Capitolium is the possible whereabouts of the

municipal temple. That the colony of Tarraco will have had a civic temple of the imperial cult

can hardly be doubted. Lugdunum and Narbo both possessed a municipal temple in addition to

the provincial temple lying within the provincial enclosure linked with the city,23 and a similar scheme looks possible at Emerita and Corduba.24 Direct evidence is nevertheless

lacking at Tarraco. The suggestion has been made in recent years that the ''Temple of Augustus" mentioned by Tacitus (Ann. 1 . 78) could have stood on the lower forum, where there was considerable building activity under Augustus and Tiberius,25 yet a municipal temple lay within the jurisdiction of the civic authorities at Tarraco and would hardly have required

authorization by the senate and the emperor.26 The fact that an embassy of Spaniards - not of

21

22

23

24 25

26

For a detailed picture see Cortes (supra n.8) 23 f. with fig. 12 and references; Mar-Ruiz de Arbulo (supra n.43) 43 with n.58 and references. According to the Vitruvian formula the width of the forum should be two-thirds the length. G. Alf6ldy, ad RI T922, relates this Cllra to a general superintendence of the cult precinct on the upper terrace of the provincial centre. This seems unlikely if the Capitolium is to be located at the SW end of the mW1icipal forum in the lower city. J. Lasfargues and M Le Glay, "Dt!couverte d'un sanctuaire municipal du culte imperial a Lyon," CRAI 1980, 394-414; D. Fishwick, 'The provincial cult of Gallia Narbonensis: three temples at Narbo" in Fishwick, Imp. Cldt. 1.2. 240-56; id., "Un don de statues d'argent a Narbo Martius," CRAI 1992, 38140l. See J. M. Alvarez Martfnez, "El foro d e Augusta Emerita," in Home""je a S""nz de Bllruaga (Madrid 1982) 53-68; D. Fishwick, "The provincial centre" in Imp. Cldt. ll.1, forthcoming. TED' A, Abocador (supra n.4) 439 f. with references; X. Dupre i Raventos, "Forum Provinciae Hispaniae Citerioris," in Losforos 28 with n.ll and references; X. Aquilue, X. Dupre, J. Mass6, J. Ruiz de Arbulo, Tarraco. Gllide archlologiqlle (Tarragona 1993) 58. For the suggestion that two Flavian pedestals honouring Divus Augustus and Divus Vespasianus (IR T 65, 69) may originate from the municipal temple, see ibid. 56. Full discussion in D. Fishwick, "The 'Temple of Augustus' at Tarraco," forthcoming, arguing that the office of curator templi (R1T 264) implies the temple was provincial. Cf. Fishwick, Imp. CIIII 1.1, ISO, n.3. For local municipalindependencesee ibid. 91, 130.

Four temples at Tarraco

173

Tarraconians - was sent to Rome surely confirms that the temple for which permission was sought will have been provincial and located within the cult precinct at the provincial centre.

One may compare the similar request of an embassy from Baetica

in A.D. 25

to erect what must

have been intended to be a provincial temple, the centre of a provincial cult:

per idem tempus Hispania ulterior missis ad senatum legatis oravit ut exemplo Asiae delubrum Tiberio matrique eius exstrueret (Tac., Ann. 4.37.1; cf. 4.15.4). The incentive to build a civic temple of the imperial cult may well have been provided 40

years earlier by the presence of Augustus at Tarraco, an event that looks to have likewise

inspired the altar mentioned by Quintilian (supra p.165)P The famous decree of Mytilene, which honours Augustus with various

iao9to, nll,h and him "more of

anything can be discovered which would make

if IGRR IV 39),

promises further distinctions a god"

(OGIS 456

=

was in all probability handed over to Augustus .at Tarraco by the embassy of the Mytilenaens

led by Potamon (supra p.165). The decree prescribes that copies are to be displayed in the

temple of the League of Asia, currently under construction at Pergamum, and in various cities including Actium, Brundisium, and Massilia, as well as Tarraco - presumably included because

of the presence of the emperor. The natural place to post such a decree would have been at a

temple in these centres also - just as the

Res Gestae Divi Augusti, for instance, are inscribed on the walls of the temple of Roma and Augustus at Ancyra, or an inscription of Nero (IG il 2 3277) was placed on the epistyle of the Parthenon.28 As Tarraco could hardly have had a municipal

temple of the imperial cult at so early a date, it may be suggested that the requirement to

display a decree recording divine honours for Augustus could have prompted the decision by the

colony of Tarraco to construct a local imperial temple, in which case building might have been well advanced, if not completed, by the time of Augustus' death and the embassy of the

Spaniards in A.D. 15.

The one inscription that may refer,

if only

indirectly, to the municipal temple is a defective

ID 169 and pOSSibly to be [auJreis adorn[ato statuisJ (RIT 79). If SO, the reference would be to gold statues of the deified erri' eror that were caried in procession and normally kept in the pronaos of a temple. Such a rite is attested at the provincial centre by the commission of Cn. Numisius Modestus, who was elected by the provincial council ad statuas aurandas Divi Hadrian i (RIT 294). The fact that the dedication to Divus Verus was found near the dedication to Divus Verus erected at some stage after his consecration

restored in the third line

p

intersection of the Calle del Gas6metro and the Calle de Soler - that is, just by the forum in

the lower city - could imply a municipal version of the rite and point to the nearby presence of a municipal temple where the statues

will

have been housed when not in use. G. Alf6ldy

suggests that the inscription itself would originally have stood on the lower forum. Where then will

the

municipal temple have been situated?

As

P. Gros has recently demon­

strated, the earliest temples serving the municipal cult of the emperor as a rule were located by an existing Capitolium.29 At Emporiae the Capitolium seems to have been integrated into a

series of

sacella or aediculae dedicated to Roma and Augustus, Divus Augustus and other flank what is very likely the podium of the Republican Capitolium. At Luna ·a basilica, which has

deities. 3o At Pola two imperial temples, one certainly dedicated to Roma and Augustus,

yielded fragments of imperial statues conceivably housed in some sort of Augusteum, was

directly annexed to

27 28 29

30

the

Capitolium, which dates in its original form from soon after the

Fishwick, Imp. Cult (supra n2) 172 suggesting a date c.26 B.C. Haruein-Schafer (supra n.6) 189; Fishwick, Imp. Cult 1.1, 137, n. 275 with references. Gros 1986 (supra n.ll) 111-17 esp. 114 f., noting also that the temple of the Caesares at Nimes (the Maison Carree) was given a position and function comparable to that of a Capitolium. See further J. L. Jimenez Salvador, "Los modelos constructivos en la arquitectura forense de la peninsula ibenca" in Los foro. 175. For the forum see recently E Sanmarti-Grego, "El foro romano d e Ampurias," in Losforos 55-60.

Duncan Fishwick

174

founding of the colony in 177 B.C. 1he reason for this procedure must have been an early desire for temples serving the cult of the emperor to profit from the eclat of existing temples of Jupiter at a time when imperial temples were in the process of rivalling to some extent the local Capitolia.31 This seems to be particularly the case at Mintumae, where a temple of Rama and Augustus'was constructed - apparently during Augustus' lifetime - of equal dimensions with the restored Capitolium and lo�ated immediately beside it. Conversely, at a later stage of development, under way by the end of the 1st c. A.D., the cult of the Capitoline Triad was rehabilitate d in response to the increasing trend towards monarchy which restored to Jupiter the position that Zeus had once held as the guarantor of Hellenistic monarchies.32 The natural reaction was a renewal of interest in the construction of Capitolia, as perhaps at Clunia and Narbo Martius.33 It follows that the municipal temple at Tarraco ought to have been situated in the vicinity of the long-standing Capitolium, a conclusion which would appear to locate it in the area south of the Calle del Gasometro. As for the remains which Hermindez unearthed west of the present Calle de Lerida (supra p.170; fig. 5), these must be attributed to some other building as yet unidentified.

The Temple of Jupiter Ammon

sed once mo�e if we If this reconstruction seems reasonably cogent, the picture becomes conf� of the dialogue next to the testimony of P. Annius FlOlus. Only a fragment has survIved 12th c., reveal that Florus Vergilius oTatoT an poeta?, but the opening pages, discovered in the Domitian, probably in A.D. - an African poet who competed at the Capitoline games under . M ncan.· he was an Af' 94 when he was about 16 years of age, and was refused the prIze because Floru� fina!ly settled at Tarraco After wandering disconsolately through the Mediterranean so he says, by Its clImate, the honesty and the location is inferred but certain - attracted, vines. �ere he opened a sch�ol, where he its of quality the and inhabitants, the of kindness free bIrth and good education, and must was proud to earn his living by teaching children of which P. Jal dates to 102-3. As h� been in residence about 5 years by the time of the dialogue, . ·that was a stranger from Baetica a tOpIC th e title indicates, he is discussing with a cultivated dialogue is reported 1he art. Vergil's of favourite theme in schools of oratory: the exact nature . ' 1ogus d e OTaton'bus, ' Dla in structure and substance to TaCltus as of recent memory and relates later.3S years 4 about view, Syme's R. on shed, ubl i p turn

pre�tige: u:e In referring to the attractions of his new home Florus menti0n.s its military TTlumphahs. UTbs name, Its Tarraco gave that triumphs the and standards Caesar's of ence Tespi� � s, h �c the nobility of the city had also a foreign origin: Quippe si veteTa templ�

�� maTla lasclVlt, h,c '11 colitU T cornigeT pTaedo, qui Tyriam viTginem pOTtans dum peT tota oblitus subito nostTum litus. adamavit (V.O.A . .P . 2). The ;;;isit et substitit, et eius quam feTebat according to myth, made off WIth Europa, the �ald of Tyre, reference is to Jupiter Ammon who, - Florus clalIDs - and, then, after romping through all the seas, abandoned her here 31

32 33 34

Gros 1986 (supra n.ll) 113, noting that the Tarraconians presented Galba, their candidate for the throne, with a crown taken from the velus lemplum Iovis (supra p.161), also that the cult statue in the sanctuary of Roma and Augustus at Caesarea Maritima portrayed the princeps in the guise of Olympian Jupiter. Similarly coins issued at Tarraco show Divus Augustus as Jupiter. See in detail Fishwick, Imp. Cult 1. 1, 151; id., "On the Temple of Divus Augustus," Phoenix 46 (1992) 245; Burnett el aI., RPC (supra n.2) nos. 22 1, 222, 223, 224. Gras 1986 (supra n.11) 113; Fishwick 1992 (supra n23) 397 with references. For the temples on the forum of Clunia see Gros 1986 (supra n.11) 116; Gahln 1989-90 (supra n3) 22 with bibliography; Palol (supra n14). For Narbo Martius see Fishwick 1992 (supra n.23) 387 ff. P. J a!, P. Annius Flon,s 11. Vergilius oralor an poelQ? (Paris 1967) 97-107. For Florus' africanilas see ibid., 107 ff. R. Syme, Tadlus (Oxford 1958) 112 f., 116.

Four temples at Tarraco

1

forgetting whom he carried, stopped and suddenly fell in love with the Costa Dorada. T� pOints are worth making. In North Africa the Greco-Egyptian Ammon was fused with Ba' Hammon and widely worshipped there; in Virgil Iarbas is Hammone satus (Aen. 4.198).36 11 deity will therefore have been well known to Floms in his own patria. Secondly, as this seen to be the only instance in ancient literature where Jupiter Ammon is associated with Tarra( (he usually lands on Crete), the idea that he took up residence here must a figment of Flom imagination. One wonders, then, if there is an implied contrast between, on the one hand, tl failure of Florus at the games of Jupiter Capitolinus and his subsequent migration to Tarra( and, on the other, the success of Jupiter Ammon, who had carried off Europa and fathered thIE sons by her before supposedly settling, like Floms, at Tarraco. Whatever the possib: ramifications of peregrina nobl1itas, it seems clear that Floms took pride or comfort in tI­ honour paid at Tarraco to a god popular in his native Africa. The significance of the passage for present purposes is that it has usually been enlisted, evidence for a temple of Jupiter Ammon at Tarraco. In support of such an interpretation, tl1 reference to Ammon is brought into relation with archaeological evidence from the upper cit in the form of colossal c/ipei bearing the homed head of Jupiter Ammon (fig. 1).37 Fragments ( these masks, measuring c.1.50 m in diameter, have been found over the years at variou locations on the uppermost terrace, but the most spectacular came to light in the rear of tl1 mediaeval cathedral during the construction of a new seminary begun in 1883. That a temple ( Jupiter would have existed in this area had already been inferred from the combination c Suetonius' reference to a vetus temp/um lovis with the epigraphical evidence for the cult c luppiter Optimus Maximus, and to this was usually added the testimony of Floms cited abovl Hemandez had argued that this temple would have stood in the zone of the cathedral, a vie\ conclusively confirmed at first sight by tl1e almost miraculous appearance of c/ipei on th construction site of the seminary.38 What could be more natural, then, than to suppose tha these C/ipei Originally formed part of the decorated sculpture of the temple, qulte possibly it pediment? We have already seen that the passage in Suetonius and the inscriptions must refer to Jupiter Capitolinus, and that a Capitolium ought rather to have stood on the lower forum. Bu could the C/ipei in combination with the reference in Floms still provide evidence for a templ. of Jupiter Ammon on the uppermost terrace? Such a possibility has now been definitivel� excluded by the analysis of Th. Hauschild, who has demonstrated beyond further debate tha the c/ipei derive not from a temple but from an associated portico.39 The model for such at arrangement is the scheme at the temple of Mars Ultor, where imagines clipeatae werl attached to the attic along the long sides of the portico when the complex was constmcte( between about 15 and 2 B.C.4D Alexander had hung triumphal gold shields on the Parthenon iI commemoration cl his victory at the Granicus in 334 B.C., and it was evidently this arrangemen 36

The best general coverage is by J. Leclant and G Clerc in LIMC I. 666 ff., 684 ff. See earlier Roscher

Lexikon 1.2, 283-91 (E. Meyer). For the local cult of Jupiter Hammon in Libya, see recently R. Rebuffat "Divinites de I'oued Kebir (Tripolitaine)," in A. Mastino (ed.), L'Ajrica Romana. Atli del VII Convegn,

37

(Sassari 1990) 138 ff.

Hauschild (supra n.5) 37 f. with Abb. 32; J. L JiInenez Salvador, Arquitectura forense en la Hispanu Romana (Zaragoza 1987) 38 f.; TED'A, "El foro" (supra n.4) 164 with fig 11; eid., Abocador (supra n.4:

441.

38 39 40

For Hemandez's hypothetical reconstruction of the provincial precinct see TED'A, "El foro" (supr' n.4) 147 with fig. 3; eid., Abocador (supra nA) 35 with fig. 7. Hauschild (supra n.5) 38 with Abb. 28; TED' A, "El foro" (supra n.4) 165 f. The clipei show the head of Jupiter Amman alternating with caryatids, in other cases a head portraying perhaps Gaul or Germany. See P. Zanker, Fonlm Augustum: das Bildprogramm (Tubingen 1968) 13; V. Kockel, "Fragmente aus der Attika der Hallen; Karyatiden und Ammonskopfe," in lVIiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik (Berlin 1988) 192-94, noting that the Roman copies hold a libation bowl.

Duncan Fishwick

176

that Augustus imitated at the temple of Mars Ultor.41

In the Forum Augustum the motif is

clearly related to the imitatio Alexandri, but passers-by will surely have also inferred a

reference to the Roman conquest of Egypt in 31/30 B.C. after Actium. What has become increasingly clear in recent years, however, is that this innovation was rapidly transmitted and reproduced in the provinces of the West, particularly at sanctuaries of the imperial cult. At Merida, for example, fragments of similar clipei with the heads of Jupiter Ammon or Medusa are currently attributed to the portico of the "marble forum" that evidently stood to the NE side of the "old forum" on which the municipal imperial temple (the so-called "Temple of Diana") faces; W. Trillmich assigns this to the Claudian period.42 Similar remnants seem to be associated with imperial sanctuaries elsewhere, notably at Caderousse, Vienne, Versoix, Geneva and Avenches,43 and the same must be true at Tarraco, where the

clipei likewise copy the decorative scheme of the Forum Augustum in Rome.44 They therefore have no immediate connection with a temple at all, so the whole case for locating a temple of Jupiter Ammon on the top terrace of the upper city collapses. Whether Florus' remark could relate to a temple somewhere in the lower city remains to be seen.

The Provincial Temple The portico on which these decorative clipei were suspended must have been related to a temple stanwng somewhere on the top terrace of Tarraco. Evidence for the presence of a temple in this region has existed since the Middle Ages and steadily accrued in the intervening centuries.4s Marble fragments from the plaza o f Pescateries Velles and its vicinity are mentioned in a document of 1340 and it was here thatan omamented frieze with sculpted plants came to light c. 1849, followed early

this century by fragments of marble columns found nearby

on the Plaza del Foro. The sector of Pescateria was consequently thought to have been the site

of a temple; on this reconstruction one had a temple of Augustus situated at the SE of the top terrace in addition to the supposed temple of Jupiter at the centre back of the same area (fig. 2). This arrangement continued to be advocated in A. Schulten's important synthesis, first published in 1921,46 though the interpretation of the upper terrace was already complicated by other remains, the provenience of which was variously reported: notably a series of reliefs bordered above and below by a Lesbian cyma and showing bucrania with hanging oak swags, cult implements, and the apices of imperial jlamines (fig. 9). These precious relics had been built into one of the walls of the cathedral cloister in 1802. To this evidence could be added the

41

42

M. Venar, AventicIlm

n. Un

temple dll clIlte imperial (Cahiers d' Archeologie Romande 12, Avenches

1977) 34-36, noting that Marius had likewise set up C/ipei in the forum theOmbri.

of Rome

after his victory over

W. Trillmich, "Colonia Augusta Emerita, die Haupstadt von Lusitanien," in Trillmich-Zanker 310 ff.

For earlier discussion see Alvarez Martinez (supra n.23) 55; A. Garcia y Bellido, Escultllras romanas de Espafuz y Portllgal (Madrid 1949) 415, no. 417. I am indebted to J. M. Alvarez Martinez for help on this point. It should be noted that, in addition to the fragmentary clipei found at Pancaiiente, several

examples were recovered in 198) at a site in the calie de Sagasta; cf. Jimroez Salvador (supra n.37) 5 1

43 44

45 46

with n53; Trillmich-Zanker 311 with n.92. Verzar (supra n.41) 38 ff. For a list of clipe; see LIMC (supra n36) 672-74. E. M. ICoppel, "Relieves arquitectOnicos de Tarragona: in Trillmich-Zanker 332 ff., noting that three

types of the central emblem can now be identified on thereconstructed tondi, two of which bear the head

of Jupiter Ammon, one that of Medusa, and a third the representation of another bearded deity.

For the archaeological background see the comprehenSive survey of TED'A, "El foro" (supra n.4) 142-

49; Abocador (supra n.4) 2548; Mar (infra, addendum) 107-11.

A. Schulten, Tarraco (Barcelona 1921). For subsequent editions see TED'A, Abocador (supra n.4) 19. G.

H.

Hill, Notes on tire ancient coinage

of Hispania Citerior (Numismatic Notes and Monographs 50, New

York 1931) 47, follows Schulten in supposing two temples, in one of which Jupiter Ammon will have been worshipped.

Four temples at Tarraco

177

Fig. 9. Relief with apex of provincial priest. Photograph by courtesy of M useo Arque6logico, Tarra gona.

Fig. 10. Plan of remains of provincial complex of Tarraconensis . Reproduced from X. Dupre i Raventos in W. Trill. ." . . Fig. 11. COIn of Tarraco showmg :r emple mich and P. Zanker, Stadtbild und Ideologie 320, Abb. 78. of Augustus". Photograph from R. Etienne, Le culte imperial dans la peninsule iberique d'Auguste a Diocletien pl.Xll, no. 7.

testimony of coins issued at Tarraco under Tiberius showing an octostyle temple of Aetemitas Augusta standing on a wide stylobate with variously 2 or 4 steps,47 The attribution of the

temple to Augustan Eternity, like the legend DE O AVGVsrO on some obverses, presumably

reflects early uncertainty regarding the fo=ula appropriate to the deified first emperor (see below p.lS1).

47

Fishwick, Imp, Cult (supra n.2) 151 f. with n.B and pI. XXVII; TED' A, "El foro" (supra n.4) 153 f.; Bumett et al., RPC (supra n.2) nos. 219,222, 224. The pediment is surmounted by acroteria and adorned

Duncan Fishwick

178

Thanks to the recent progress of archaeological exploration, some at least of the uncertain­

ties raised by the conflicting evidence have been removed. It now seems clear that the

c.l! hectares occupying the three 10).48 The two upper levels, c.7.5 hectares in extent, were the site

provinciai centre at Tarraco consisted of a vast complex of terraces of the upper city (fig.

of a great enclosure, while on the third was later constructed a circus separated by the passage

of the Via Augusta from the habitations of the town. The cult precinct itself was located on the uppermost terrace and covered a rectangular area

153 m long by 136 m wide (more than 2 14 m wide. Here on this upper terrace,

hectares) surrounded on at least three sides by a portico

it is generally agreed, stood the "Temple of Augustus". No architectonic elements have been found in situ but there seems no reason to doubt that to this structure belonged numerous

fragments that have been recovered - some now lost, others conserved in local museums or even built into the cathedral wal1s.4 9 Two problems beset this temple: its site and its date. As regards the first, it can be noted that the provincial imperial temple cannot have stood in the sector of Pescateria since this

would place it outside the cult precinct enclosed by the portico.50 Presumbly the remains that came to light there originate from the adjoining section of the portico. As the archaeological

record now stands, two possible locations can be envisaged.51 On one scheme the temple will have been integrated with the portico on the plan of the Templum Pacis located at the top of

the Forum Traianum at Romes2 or (more pertinently for present purposes) the imperial temple

in the sanctuary of Cigognier at Avenches.53 Relevant to

this hypothesis is the presence of a

large room, 31 m wide and more than 20 m long, situated in tte centre of the portico along the rear wall of the precinct. Only the left wall is documented archaeologically but it was

bordered laterally by a socle of large stone blocks and covered by a flooring of white marble slabs, much of which survives. The alternative would be to suppose a free-standing structure extending into the centre of the

area sacra. In

that case, it has been suggested, the room in the

centre of the top portico might have served as the

48

49

so

51 52 53

54

curia

of the provincial counci1.S4

at the centre with a disk which has sometimes been erroneously linked with the Jupiter Ammon clipei. For further discussion see Fishwick, forthCOming (supra n.26). TED' A, "El foro" (supra n.4) 149 ff.; eid, Abocador (supra n.4) 435 ff.; X. Dupre i Ravent6s, "Un gran complejo provincial de epoca Flavia en Tarragona; aspectos cronol6gicos," in Trillmich-Zanker 31921; Ruiz de Arbulo 1993 (supra n.16) 98 H. Contra W. Trillmich, '''Foro provincial' und 'Foro municipal' in den Hauptstiidten der drei hispanischen Provinzen: eine Fiktion," in Ciudad y eomunidad (supra n.16) 115-24, disputing the existence of provincial fora. For a reply see D. Fishwick, "'Provincial forum' and 'Municipal forum'; fiction or fact?," Anas forthcoming. In addition to iconographic fragments relating to cult practice and ritual (above), several capitals are preserved which because of their proportions should be assigned to the portico rather than to the temple; there are also remains of marble fluted columns and fragments of marble cornices (presumably from the temple) as well as a considerable amount of unattributed architectonic remnants and sculpted reliefs which relate to the imperial cult. See TED' A, "El foro" (supra n.4) 160-64. Hiinlein-Schiifer (s upra n.6) 234. TED'A, "El foro" (supra n.4) 155 f.; eid., Abocador (supra n.4) 4 38 f.; Dupre i Ravent6s in Trillmich­ Zanker 319 f. For detailed discussion see Fishwick, Imp. Cult Ill . 1 forthcoming (supra n24). F . Coarelli, Roma (Guide arch. Laterza, Rome 1983) 1 1 9 f. R. Etienne, "Un complexe monumental du culte imperial 11 Avenches," Pro Aventieo 29 (1985) 5-26 with fig. 12; P. Bridel, Aventieum 1lI. Le sanetwire du Cigognier (Cahiers d' Archeologie Romande 22 , Lausanne 1982). TED'A (supra n.4) 155 f., suggesting possible parallels at Bagacum Nerviorum and elsewhere; but see P. Gros and M. Torelli, Storia dell'lIrbanistica (Rome-Bari 1988) 351 f. For the alternative hypothesiS that the soc1e is analogous to the continous base one finds in rooms used as libraries, e.g. in the Forum Traianum (supra n.52) or at Ephesus, see TED'A, "El foro" 190 f. The structure at Tarraco might then be related to the provincial record office (tabuJarillm: d. R1T SO, 242 f.). The fact that the middle rather than the upper terrace was evidently used for administrative purposes tells against this hypothesis.

Four temples at Tarraco

1

Regrettably, we have no information on the construction of the mediaeval cathedral

1 In the first place, the stri separation of the two plazas suggests that the upper precinct - at a higher elevation as on tl

Tarraco which might support or negate the view that the site had originally been occupied a free-standing Roman temple. Nevertheless, some points are clear.

scheme at Conimbriga,SS for example, and distinguished by lavish use of marble specifically designed as a

temen os

-

Wi

for cult purposes; whereas the larger plaza immediate

below is known from inscriptions to have provided a framework for administrative purposes. There is every reason to suppose, then, that the assembly room of the provincial concilium Wl also have stood on the middle plaza rather than in the cult precinct. Secondly, a vertical lir

drawn from the centre of the room at the top rear of the upper terrace would transverse

opposite side of the cult precinct where a stairway is believed to have provided access to

t1 t1

middle level and would then continue directly to the centre of the south side of the midd. plaza, exactly in the centre of what archaeological exploration has confirmed to be a curvet

into the circus towards the tribunal. R. Etienne has show axial path will have been particularly suited f( staging processions, and much the same situation has also been demonstrated by 1. Piso at fr sanctuary on the Pfaffenburg.57 This consideration strongly suggests that the chamber at tb

monumental flight of steps leading

that at Avenches and elsewhere such an

middle of the portico may be associated in some way with the provincial worship. If tll in fact the temple cella,58 the building will have projected outwards from tb

structure was

precinct to some extent, bringing it into proximity with the spot

NE of the cathedral where s If, 0

many architectonic remains were recovered during work on the seminary (supra p.175).

the other hand, the temple stood at the centre of the precinct, it is conceivable that the axii room might have been an exedra connected with cult ritual, more particularly as a rallyin

place, perhaps, for processions which could have been deployed along the porticoes, with me and women dividing left or right.59 A similar arrangement of a precinct with an

axial structur

in the rear section of the surrounding portico, seems to be associated with the Capitolium c Clunia and the sanctuary of Vaugrenier near Antibes, also with the area sacra at August

Treverorum and Bagacum Nerviorum, where the temple has been hypothetically located

i

the centre of the precinct.6O The final word rests with future archaeological exploration whic: might confirm the full depth of the structure and the existence or non-existence of a supportin

podium.

Next, the date of the temple. Until recent years the monumental complex on the uppe terrace was attributed to the second quarter of the 1st c A.D. mainly on the basis of materi.

55 56

57 58

59

60

J. Alardio and R. Etienne, L'architecture: Jouilles de Conimbriga 1 (Paris 1977) 85, 87 f. 111, 113. It seems clear from RIT 333 (cf. 349, 353 f.) that a growing forest of statues honouring imperial priest will have stood at a set place, doubtless on the middle terrace, where in fad the bulk of the survivin; statue bases were recovered. See G. Alfoldy, Flamines prO'lJinciae HispaniJJe Citerioris (Madrid 1973) 4 10; RE (supra n.1) 597, 604, 619. Other epigraphical records refer to the praetorium consulare (RIT 34: tabuIanum (cf. RIT 50, 242 f.), arca (RIT 235, cf. 238, 240) and possibly the assembly place of th conciIium (RIT 250 a-b, 251). Etienne (supra n53) 15; I. Piso, "Die Inschriften vom Pfaffenberg und der Bereich der Canawe Iegionis, Tyche 6 (1991) 165 ff. with Abb. 1. Hemandez earlier supposed a vu triumpha/is along the same am cf. TEn' A, "El foro" (supra n.4) 147 with fig. 3; eid., Abocador (supra nA) 35 with fig. 7. Contra Hiinlein-Schiifer (supra n.6) 233 f., suggesting that the structure is rather small to have served a a cella. But see TED' A, "El foro" (supran.4) 155; eid., Abocador (supra n.4) 438 f. Thesocle is of the typ, common in the interior et a temple ce/la - for example, those of the temples 0 f Venus Genetrix and M;u, Ultor - but also compares to the continuous bases found in libraries; see supra n.54. Th. . archaeolOgical data seem, on the face of it, to fit various possibilities. Etienne (supra n.53) 15; cf. Fishwick, Imp. Cult 11.1, 560. Gros-Torelli (supra n.54) 351 f. with fig. 202 (forum of Clunia). For a similar interpretation of the axia room at the top of the provincial precinct at Tarraco, see Gros-Torelli 282.

1 80

Duncan Fishwick

excavated by J. 5anchez Real in the garden of the cathedral cloister in 1955 and analysed by C Riiger. 6 1 Th. Hauschild in particular put the beginning of construction before A.D. 41, noting that a coin of this year was found in the lowest leve1. 62 Further excavations by X Aquilue in 1984 and 1986 at a site in the Calle Sant Lioren<;, along with a revised analysis of related pottery finds from the cloister garden, have now led the TED'A to argue in favour of a significantly later date at the beginning of the Flavian period 63 Construction of the provincial complex should in their view be assigned to the years 69·70, a date that coincides with the beginning of epigraphical evidence from the middle terrace. The temple which dominated the cult precinct will then have been built contemporaneously with the project as a whole.

1his hypothesis is open to question on several scores. In the first place it is unreasonable to suppose that work on the temple will have been deferred for more than 50 years following the successful mission of the Spaniards in A.D. 15 - especially in light of Tacitus' statement that the temple served as an example to all the provinces. Secondly, the temp le can hardly have been completed in just two years. The comparative data are mostly from Rome, bur construction of the temples of Divus Iulius, Apollo and Mars Ultor under Augustus, of Divus Augustus under Tiberius, of Roma and Venus under Hadrian, or the re-building of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus under Vespasian, suggest that the work would have lasted anything from 5 to 20 or more years. 64 To cite an extreme example, the Hellenistic temple of Apollo of Claros may have taken more than 100 years to achieve its final shape.65 A crucial factor to be weighed in the erection of a provincial temple such as that at Tarraco is the cost of construction, which presumably was born by the provincials. The likeliest scenario is that the pace of building will have been geared to financial resources, and that it will have taken time for funds to accrue. Iconographic, archaeological and numismatic considerations give further pause. On the basis of stylistic differencies isolated by comparison with surviving sculptures elsewhere - in the main portraits that can be dated with relative precision - E. M. Koppel assigns three of the C/ipe i to the Julio·Claudian era, another to a significantly later date. 66 Slight as it is, there is also definite archaeological evidence in support of the hypothesis that construction on the upper terrace began earlier than 69·70. That the project was initiated before the provincial forum took shape on the middle terrace could be indicated by a trench cut into the rock at different points cl the area sacra but left incomplete and later backfilled at the time of the 61

62 63

64

65

66

J . Sanchez Real, "Exploracion arqueol6gica en el jardin d e la Catedral de Tarragona," MadMitt 10 (1969) 276-95; C. B. Riiger, "Romische Keramik aus dem Kreuzgang der Kathedrale von Tarragona," MP.dMitt 9 (1968) 237-58; Koppel in Trillmich-Zanker 339 with n.70 and references. Full discussion in Fishwick, forthcoming (supra n.26). Hauschild 1972-74 (supra n.5) 40 f. TED'A. "El foro" (supra n.4) 158-60; Dupre i Raventos in Trillmich-Zanker 322 f. with references at 324. For a chart of more recent archaeological excavations within the provincial precinct see TED' A, Abocador (supra n.4) fig. 8 (facing p.38), especially nos. 2. 6 See further G Alf61dy, "Tarraco," Fontm 8 (1991) 46; X. Aquilue, La Sede del Collegi d'Arquittctes (Tarragona 1993). P. Gros, Aurea Templa (BEFAR 231, Rome 1976) 65-67; Fishwick, Imp. Cult 12, 197 with nn. 11 f., 16. A shorter lime would apply in the case of the temple of Jupiter Tonans, consecrated on 1 September 22 B.C., if work began only on AuguShlS' return from the West about the middle of 24 B.C. But the temple had been vowed by Augustus during his compaign against the Cantabri in 26 RC. and nothing excludes the possibility that the emperor could have communicated his wishes to the senate, the proper authority in such matters, whHe he was still at Tarraco in 26-24 B.C. (supra p.165). Though one of the foremost temples of the regime, a structure of modest proportions is suggested by the circumstance that it was of solid marble (Plin., NH 36.50) and that Augustus could claim it served as a door-keeper to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus (Suet., Aug. 91, cf. 29.1). Princeton encyclopedia of classical sites (1976) 226 (Robert). See recently J. de La Geniere, "Le sanctuaire d'Apollon ii Claros, deccuvertes recentes," CRA! 1992, 195-210. Koppel in TriIlmich-Zanker 336 ff.

Four temples at Tarraco

181

Flavian programme on th e level immediately below.67 The coins, in contrast, provide no help whatsoever (fig. 1 1 ) . These have sometimes been taken to attest a temple already in existence in A.D. 15 following the successful embassy of the Spaniards in that year, an impossibly short time for construction.68 New evidence that work on the uppermost level was not complete until the Flavian period, together with discrepancies in the way the temple is represented, confirm that the coins simply commemorate the fact that permission to build a temple had been granted and show an artist's conception of what the future temple might look like.69 Jn practice we have no idea how far the completed temple did or did not conform to the projected structure shown on the coins. Nevertheless, the pivotal difficulty remains the conflict between these considerations and the stratigraphic data recovered by excavations in the cloister garden and the Calle Sant Uorenc;. It now seems clear that a single stratum is to be identified at both sites and that the presence of pottery which cannot be earlier than 69 establishes a firm date at the beginning of the Flavian period?O As the material analysed comes from the fill used to support t h e paving of the precinct,71 it follows that the precinct can hardly have been paved before 70. That phase of the work is therefore Flavian and contemporaneous with construction of the forum on the middle terrace. But this circumstance hardly excludes the possibility that work on the temple (and part of the portico?) had long been in progress. Whether integrated with the portico or free-standing, the temple will have lain well away from the sites excavated - in 67

TED'A, "El foro" (supra nA) 157; Abocador (supra nA) 439. A. Beltran, "Los monumentos en l as monedas hispano-romanas," AEspA 2 6 (1953) 61�3, dates the coins to A.D. 15-16 "con absoluta seguridad" on the grounds that they celebrate the erection of the temple authorized by Tiberius. Hill (supra n.46) 48 takes the coins to have been struck under Tiberius at the time of the erection of the temple authorized in AD. 15. All that is certain is that they were struck under Tiberius. However, other coins from Tarraco associate Tiberius with Livia and the Younger Drusus (AD. 22) or show the heads of Drusus and Germanicus (before AD. 19), so it is not impossible that the series as a whole dates from the earlier part of Tiberius' reign. See Burnett et al., R PC (supra n.2) nos. 232, 233. 69 Burnett e t aI., RPC (supra n.2) assign the temple coins to two groups struck A D . 15-21/22 o r later. J. Gimeno supposes two separate emissions in AD. 15-22 and 22-23, "Plinio, Nat.Hist. Ill, 3.21: reflexiones acerca la capitalidad de Hispania Citerior," Latomus 53 (1994) 61 ft. That the coins could show a temple other than thatto which Tacitus alludes - a projected octostyle municipal structure? ­ seems most unlikely. Other consideratiom aside, such a temple of Aetemitas Augusta would be without parallel in the entire Roman empire. 70 For a summary of the data see Dupre i Raventos in Trillmich-Zal1ker. In addition to marble splinters and fragments of stone, the fill includes pottery dating from the early Flavian back to the Julio-Claudian period. The presence of a Claudian coin (supra p.180) does not establish an absolute date in itself, though if it was lost soon after its issue it could be contemporaneous with an early phase of construction on the uppermost terrace. R. Mar (infra, Addendum) 113 stresses the limited range of the evidence. 7 1 Dr. X . Dupre i Raventos kindly writes: "Los numeros datos estratigriificos obtenidos en los wtimos anos permi ten afinnar que el inicio de la construccion del gran proyecto arquitectonico destinado a ser la sede del Concilium prClVinciae H ispaniae citerioris tiene que fecharse en epoca de Vespasiano y no antes. Los materiales ceramicos que dan dich fecha se hallan, no solo en estratos por debajo de la pavimentacion de las plazas sin6 tambien en loo niveles inferiores de los grandes movimientos de tierra necesarios par la adecuacion urbanistica de la zona". Even so, this would still appear to leave open the poSSibility that large-scale earthworks accompanied construction of the precinct at a time when the temple was well under way. In that case the precinct itself would belong to the Fiavian period, as would completion of the provincial temple. It was noted above (p.l80) that Koppel takes one of the masks of Jupiter Ammon to be Flavian, the rest earlier. Pensabene (infra, Addendum) 95 assigns the two heads of Jupiter Ammon to the third quarter of the 1st c. but the fragments of the Medusa head to the Julio­ Claudian era. He also places (33-37, 101 f.) at least one Corinthian capital in the late Augustanl Tiberian period, three others underHadrian (cf. SHA, Hadr. 12.3). 68

Duncan Fishwick

182

fact,

if the

axial room at the back of the precinct was the cella, the temple will have projected

outwards from the

lemenos.

For the

area sacra

to have been levelled and paved at a late stage,

when construction of the temple was already well advanced, would make perfectly good sense, in which case the stratigraphic data by no means rule out a starting point under Tiberius. Precedent for such an evolution, it might be added, which was dedicated on

26

September,

46 RC.,

is provided by the temple

whereas the Forum Iulium

organic part was not completed until the reign of Augustus

(RG 20.3).

of Venus Genetrix,

of

which it was an

Flarus at Tarraca There remains the problem of Florus' allusion:

colilur corniger pmedo homed buccaneer

•.

quippe si velera lemp/a respic ias, hic iIIe

. . , : "if yo u look around a t the ancient temples, here is· honoured that

" . The passage has always been taken to attest the existence of a temple of

Jupiter Ammon, yet Florus makes no direct mention of such a temple. What he says

is that a

glance round the ancient temples leads one to conclude that Ammon is revered at Tarraco. It is difficult to see how this observation

is

consistent with a

s ing/e

instance of such a temple at

Tarraco. It might conceivably suit the presence of several temples of Ammon -.not that anyone has ever made such a suggestion; nor could he. For the fact of the matter seems to be that,

this

text aside, there is no evidence anywhere in the western Roman empire for a temple of Jupiter Ammon. We have herms,

c1ipei,

reliefs, candelabra, gems, vases, lamps, shields, phalerae,

jewels, coins; but temples seem to be restricted to the Greek world, as at Gythion, Sparta, Athens and Thebes.72 In view of these difficulties is it not possible that Florus refers not to an unparalled temple

by the

c1ipei

of Ammon but rather to

the homed masks which we have seen to be inspired

decorating the portico of the temple

of

Mars Ultor?73 So striking a feature will

certainly have given the impression that Jupiter Ammon was venerated at Tarraco.

If,

however, one problem has been disposed

velera lempla,

of,

whereas at present we know only of

we have created another. Florus refers

clipei

to

from the portico of the provincial

temple. Rhetorical exaggeration? 'General' plural for singular?74 Perhaps so; but another possibility deserves serious consideration. We have seen that at Merida

c1ipei

with the heads

of Jupiter Ammon and Medusa are now attributed to the portico of the 'marble forum', adjacent to the municipal imperial temple which stands on the 'old forum', and that similar remnants were associated with local municipal temples at important sanctuaries elsewhere in France and French Switzerland (supra p.176). There may be a further correspondence. Recent research has brought into focus the interesting circumstance that alternate heads of Jupiter Ammon and Medusa are commonly found in the forum Pola, Trieste, Aquileia and Concordia,

also

ci

ports in the North Adriatic, in particular at Zara,

elsewhere as at

ArIes,

which not only was a port

but became an artistic centre for sculpture and architecture in its own right?5 These motifs salient masks rather than

c1ipei

balustrade of the Capitolium

-

can decorate the lower part

at Zara,

of

a temple, for example the

the upper part of a portico or perhaps a temple podium

as at Aquileia, or the upper portico of the basilica as at Trieste and elsewhere. The question arises whether such masks could also have been a feature of the lower forum at the port of Tarraco, which would thus have paralleled in this respect similar centres elsewhere. It is true

72 73 74 75

UMC I, 671-80. Ruiz de Arbulo (infra, Addendum) 131 reaches the same conclusion independently but without comment on the plural form vetera templa. J. B. Hofmann and A. Szantyr, Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik (Handb. d. Altertumswiss. 11.2, Munich 1965) 16. M. C. Budischovsky, "Jupiter-Ammon et Mt!duse dans les forums du nord de I'Adriatique," Aquile .. Nostra 44 (1973) 201-20; Verzar (supra n.41) 38 f., 41-44 with fig. 9, cf. 38 f. Cf. M. Floriani Squarciapino, "Ipotesi di lavoro sui gruppo di sculture da Pan Caliente" in Augusta Emerita. Aetas del simposio internacional conmemorativo dtl bimilenario de Mirida (Madrid 1976) 59 f., noting that in these fora of the north Adriatic we have a sort of decorative koini.

Four temples at Tarraco

lE

that this type of decoration has usually been dated to the late 2nd c. and later, but at Trieste a any rate it seems to be of Trajanic date. Whatever the precise circumstances may have been a Tarraco, the presence of either

c1ipei

or projecting masks (possibly both?) in association witl

to vetera temp/i; is evident!: Presumably thi

one or more temples by the lower forum would accommodate Florus' reference

It might be noted in this connection that, while the beginning of the manuscript corrupt, the dialogue does seem to be set in the garden of a temple precinct76 was situated in the lower part of the

city,

though there is nothing specific to place it near th,

lower forum The obvious objection is that we possesss no tangible evidence for Jupiter

masks

at Tarraco elsewhere than

in

difficulty but hardly fataL Absence of evidence

c1ipei

AmmOI

the cult precinct of the provincial centre - a substantia

is

not necessarily evidence of absence. Th,

from the upper terrace have come to light by chance over many centuries, the mos

spectacular find coinciding by luck with the site chosen for the new seminary. From

the middl,

terrace we now have at least 33 bases of statues set up to imperial priests, yet not a single statu.

has survived. It

is

perfectly conceivable, then, that remains of

clipei

or projecting masks ar.

still to be found elsewhere, perhaps dumped in a drain as were the remnants found a Pancaliente, Merida.77

vetera temp/a

All

the same, the inference we have drawn from Florus' reference tc

can be no more than a hypothesis, a possibility that remains to be proved.

It is time to dress the balance, to add up the profit and loss of a wide-ranging reappraisal provisional and tentative as it must remain. We began with four temples at Tarraco. One, a supposed temple of Jupiter Ammon, has beer eliminated from the scene, its existence the result

cl

conflating misunderstood or misinterpretec

literary, iconographic, epigraphic and numismatic evidence. But have gained a portico, handsomely decorated with

c1ipei

if

we have lost a temple, w.

suspended from its attic, ar

arrangement that would become widespread in the western empire.

This

portico

in IT is

linkec

with the provincial temple, which on present evidence could have stood either on the site 0: the cathedral, at the centre of the precinct, or at the back of the top terrace; new evidence maj yet tip the balance either way. Down in the lower city the configuration of the municipal forum has changed dramatically What was at one time taken to be a basilica at the

NW

macellum

or a forum has now become the substructure of ,

end of a far larger, open area that extended SW beyond the Calle de

Gas6metro. Presumably at the bottom end of this plaza stood the Capitolium dating frolr Republican times, and close by it the municipal temple perhaps begun, if not completed, undel Augustus, Conceivably, the famous altar of Augustus, at which the miracle of the palm tool< place, may also have stood in the vicinity. Along with the Augusteum located in the basilica at the opposite end of the forum, we would in that case have no less than three centres of

thE

imperial cult in the lower forum - in addition to the provincial temple gleaming white atoF the acropolis of Tarraco. There will certainly have been others. Among the more notable advances in our knowledge of the ruler cult in recent years has been the identification of a cult place in theatres, where a

sacellum

can be linked with the

scaenae frons, summa ca vea or porticus post scaenam.7B

Tarraco,

like Merida, Orange, Hercu1aneum, Lepds Magna, Caesarea and elsewhere, might well have

76

77 78

Capienti mihi in templo et saucium vigilia caput plurimarum arborum amoenitate, euriponl1fl frigore, aeris libertate recreanti obviam subito quidam Juere, quos ab urbis spectaculo Baeticam revertentes sinister AJUJ ricae ventus in hoc /itus excus",rat (Flor., V. O.A. P . 1).

Squarciapino (supra n.75) 55-62. Gras 1986 (supra n.ll); M. Janon, N. Janon, and M. Kilmer, "Les irises d'Orange; le pouvoir mis en scene," in Spectacula II - Le theatre et ses spectacles (Lattes 1992) 149-62; W. Trillmich, "Un sacrarium del culto imperial en el teatro de Merida," Anas 2-3 (1989-90) 87-102. For the theatre at Tarraco see now Ruiz de Arbulo 1993 (supra n.l6) 95 if., noting the associated altar dedicated to the Nu men Augusti (RIT 48).

Duncan Fishwick

184

had such an imperial shrine within its theatre, which stands just E or SE of the presumed SW end of the town's forum - near enough to have been easily linked by processions with the municipal temple. Then there is

the macel/um,

A shrine of the imperial family stood in the

wherever it may have stood in the lower city.

macelltlm

of Pompeii, as A. M. Small demonstrates

( p . 1 l 5 ff.), so the possibility arises o f a parallel cult-place at Tarraco. Lastly, there is

considerable epigraphical evidence at Tarraco for the corporation of the seviri

Augustales (RIT

p. 508f.), who will certainly have had an altar with the imperial image or images within

their locale, located as a rule near the forum in the neighbourhood of the municipal altar or temple.79

The

recurring title

sevir magister La rum Augustalis

presumably shows that at

Tarraco as in other municipalities, this freedmen body supervised the cult of the Lares Augusti,

the Genius Augusti together with the Lares Compitales, images of which must have stood in .

shrines at the cross-roads.so

Such, in outline, will have been

the

disposition of some of the principal architectural fea­

tures of the colony about the time when Florus stayed his wanderings at Tarraco to enj oy the

sunshine and to drown

his

disappointment in the local wine and the fellowship of congenial

provincials; Yet what caught his attention when he looked around was the masks of Jupiter

Ammon, on full view within the provincial cult precinct but perhaps also displayed in the low­ er forum near the site of the dialogue.

In Florus' eyes the

masks were a reminder of a favourite

god, popular in his native Africa, and may have afforded some consolation for

his

own lack of

success at the Roman games of Jupiter CapitoHnus in 94. In the eyes of the·Tarr aconians, which must be our eyes also, the masks were rather a political statement, a declaration of loyalty to Rome by imitation of her monuments.S I an avowal of solidarity and sympathy with the ruling

power. What it all amounts to is a tremendous outpouring of that devotio lberica which R Etienne first identified some 35 years ago.82 Enlarging on Tacitus, one might justifiably conclude that the entire city of Tarraco was an

exemplum in omnes provincias datum.

Department of History and Classics, University of Alberta, Edmonton

Addendum

The hypothesis that the "Temple of Augustus" will have been integrated with the N portico (supra p.l78 f.) is supported with new arguments by R. Mar, "El recinto de culto imperial de Tarraco y la arquitectura flavia" in R. Mar (ed.), EIs monuments provincials de Tarmco. Novts apor/acions al seu coneixement. Documents d'Arqueologia C/iissica (Tarragona 1993) 113-28. A location on the present Plaza del Forum, in contrast - away from the sector occupied by the provincial enclave and east of its central axis - is suggested (implausibly) by J. Gimeno, Estudios tit arquitectura y urbanismo en /as ciudades romanas del Nordeste de Hispania (Madrid 1 991 ) 269-99, 324; cf. id., Latomus 53 (1994) 68. His dating of elements of capitals from this zone to the Julio-Claudian epoch chimes with the date E. M Koppel assigns to several of the Jupiter Ammon clipei (supra p.180). However, the bulk of architectonic elements from the upper terrace are now assigned to the epoch of Vespasian by P. Pensabene, "La decorazione architettonica dei monumenti provinciali di Tarraco" in Eis monuments provincials de Ta"aco (supra) 33-105. For a global analysis of the lower forum, including the problematic location of the Capitolium, see J. Ruiz de Arbulo, "El foro de Tarraco," Cypse/a 8 (1990) 119-38.83 On the urbanization of Tarraco see now X Duprt! in B. Cunliffe and S. Keay (edd.), Social complexity and tire devt/opment if te",ms in Iberia (Oxford 1995) 35>69. 79

80 8I 82 83

D. Fishwick, "The Augustales and the imperial cult," in Imp. Cult Ill, 613, 615 with n.32. See now M . Silvestrini, "L'Augustalita alia lure d i una nuova iscrizione per i !a ri Augusti," Quademi

di Storia 35 (1992) 83-105.

Cf. the statue of Marsyas, which sometimes appears in provincial cities simply to emphasize a bond with Rome: M. E. Hoskins Walbank, "Marsyas at Corinth," AIN 2nd ser. 1 (1989) 81 ff. Etienne, Culte impirial 75 ff. For the above items I am much indebted to J. L. Jimo!nez Salvador, who kindly drew my attention to his survey of recent scholarship, "La multiplicac:i6n de plazas publicas" (supra n.8) forthcoming.

The politics and architecture of the Athenian imperial cult Michael C. Hoff As with most cities in the Greek world, Athens devoted much energy, many monuments and much expense toward the worship of the Roman emperors. Excavations have uncovered

abundant remains of dedications, statues, and altars consecrated b y the Athenians to the living

emperor, but we know little about the mechanics of emperor cult in Athens.

11tis

paper concerns

the development of the cult and its monuments in its nascent years - the Julio-Claudian period.

Based largely on epigraphic testimony, we know that there was an active emperor cult Athens with altars, priests, high priests, and

all

the other usual trappings of imperial cult'!

in

The Temple of Roma and Augustus The only known building dedicated to

the

imperial cult is the diminutive Temple of Roma

and Augustus on the Akropolis (figs. 1-2).2 The earliest notice of the temple occurred in 1436

when Cyriacus of Ancona copied its dedicatory inscription which he found carved on a curved epistyle block in front of the E fa.,ade of the Parthenon} Most scholars have confidently placed

the temple at the location where Cyriacus saw the epistyle block because of the discovery there of foundations of suitable size to fit the required diameter of the temple.'

In

addition,

the foundations are placed on the longitudinal axis with the Parthenon which suggests an

architectural relationship between the two structures that is characteristic of Roman building practice (fig. 3).5

Much of what we do know concerning emperor cult function and its officials is due to J. H. Oliver. See particularly The Athenian expounders of the sacred and ancestral law (Baltimore 1950) and the The civic tradition and Roman Athens (Baltimore 1983). Since Oliver, D. ]. Geagan, "Roman Athens: some aspects of life and culture. I. 86 B.c. - A.D. 267," ANRW 11.7.1, 371-437, has provided a useful summary on the imperial cult. G Kawerau, 'TIer Tempel der Roma und des Augustus aut der Akropolis ven Athen," AntDenk 1 (1888) 13; P. Kavvadias and G Kawerau, Die Ausgrabung der Akropolis (Athens 1906) 102; G. A. S. Snijder, "De Tempel van Roma en Augustus en het Erechtheum op de Acropolis te Athene," MededRom 3 (1924) 73-111; id, "Sur le temple de Rome et Auguste et l'Erechtheion sur l'Acropole d'Athenes," RA 19 (1924) 223-26; P. Graindor, Athenes sous Auguste (Cairo 1927) 30-31, 180-84; W. ]udeich, Topographie von Athen2 (Munich 1931) 256; G. P. Stevens, "The northeast corner of the Parthenon," Hesperia 15 (1946) 21; W. Binder, "Das Quaderfeld vor Ostseite Parthenon," ADelt 22 (1967) 21-24; id, Der Ro ma ­ Augustus Monopteros all!d e n Akropolis i n Athen u nd sei n typologischen Ort (Stuttgart 1969); ]. Travlos, Pictorial dictionary of ancient Athens (New York 1971) 494-%; R. Trummer, Die Denkmiiler des Kaiserkults in der riimischen Provinz Achaia (diss. Univ. of Graz 1981) 54-59; H. Hiinlein-Schafer, Veneratio Augusti. Eine Studie zu den Tempeln der mten riimischen Kaisers (Rome 1985) 156-59. For a general discussion of monopteroi see F. Seiler, Die griechische ThoIos (Mainz an Rhein 1986) 135-47. E. W. Bodnar, CyriaClLS if Ancona and Athens (ColI. Latomus 43, Bruxelles 1960) 164. On the excavation of the foundations see Kavvadias-Kawerau (supra n.2) 102; cf. Travlos (supra n.2) 494. The foundations consist of two courses of large poros blocks that on the N side rest directly on levelled bedrock while at the S side, packing material, including a geison fragment from the Erechtheien, was placed on the bedrock to level the platform owing to the slope of the Akropolis at that point. Binder, Monopteros (supra n.2) 31-32, has stated that the temple could not have stood upon the extant foundations primarily because the platform does not demonstrate an axial relationship with the Parthenon. Instead, Binder contends, the foundations exist as a structure independent of the Parthenon, possibly for a statue base. Binder suggests that a more suitable location for the Temple lay just E of the Erechtheion. These conclusions are untenable. A recent survey by the author of the area E of the Parthenon indicates that the foundations are oriented only 1.70" off parallel with the Parthenon's E

Michael C. Haff

186

Fig. I. Athenian Akropolis. Temple of Roma and Augustus, from the N. Photo: author.

Fig. 2. Athenian Akropolis. Temple of Roma and Augustus, epistyle with dedicatory inscription (lG2, 3 1 73). Photo courtesy DAr Athen.

Apart from the dedicatory inscription there i s no other mention of the temple, either liter­ ary or epigraphic. The temple appears to be represented, however, on two series of Athenian bronze coins from the 3rd c. A D On one series, the north side of the Akropolis is shown with the Panathenaic Way to the right approaching the Propylaea (fig. 4}6 Ihe prominent building in the center is undoubtedly the Erechtheion, as its masonry wa lls are clearly evident. The repre.

.

faYlde, and d";'iate from the longitudinal axis of the Parthenon by a mere

0.10

m. It is assumed that this

minimal deviation would have been corrected with the careful placement of the Temple upon the foundations. BMC Attica, nos.

801-5; J.

discussion of the roins see

130-31.

Svoronos, Les mannaies d'Athenes

M. J.

(Munich 1926) PI. 98,

Price and B. L Trell, Coins and their cities (Detroit

nos. 19-43; for a 1 977) 71-78, figs.

The pc1 " ' cs and architecture of the Athenian Imperial Cult

•

•

•

•

o

18

Michael C. Hoff

188

Fig. 4. Reverse of an Athenian imperial bronze coin showing the N side of the Akropolis with the Temple of Roma and Augustus at left. 3rd c. AD. Photo courtesy Trustees of the British Museum. sentation of the Erechtheion, which includes the sanctuary of Athena Polias instead of the more prominent Parthenon,

results

from its greater importance

in

the cult of Athena. The statue

of Athena Polias is represented between the Erechtheion and Propylaia. To the left of the Erechtheion

is

depicted a small, round structure with conical roof that can be identified only as

the Roma and Augustus Temple. One should not be tempted, however, to suppose that the temple was placed opposite the Erechtheion.'

As

is quite often the case in representations of

architecture on imperial coinage, perspectives can be mixed and structures foreshortened in order to emphasize certain architectural aspects.s In this case, the Roma and Augustus Temple should not be considered as physically near and

linked

to the Erechtheion, but represented as

simply being east of the Erechtheion The other series, which shows the south face of the Akropolis and particularly the Theater of Dionysos, clearly presents the temple to the right of the Parthenon.9 The temple is located

c.23 m from the stylobate of the Parthenon. Apparently the temple

was monopteral, as there are no indications of interior walls. The sty lobate, whose diameter measures

7.36 m, supported 9 columns.lO The main entry indicated by the inscribed epistyle and

wide intercolumniation was probably at the east but this cannot be known for certain. The architectural fragments of the temple demonstrate that it was constructed entirely with Pentelic marble. W. Binder has reconstructed the height from the stylobate to the sima to be 7.36 m, and postulates a low-angled, conical roo£.l 1

10

11

See Binder, Monopteros (supra n.2) 45-47. M J. Price, "Architecture on ancient coins," British MlfSI?fLm Yearbook 1 (1976) 33-46, in particular fig. 80. For a discussion concerning the inaccuracy of architectural representations on Greek coins in the Roman period see T. Drew-Bear, "Representations of temples on the Greek imperial COinage," ANSMN 19 (1974) 27-63. Price-Trell (supra n.6) 78, fig. 133. Binder, Monopteros (supra n.2) has aSSiduously catalogued and measured the extant architectural fragments of the Temple. My reconstruction drawing (fig. 3) is based upon Binder's measurements. I tentatively accept Binder's restoration of a two-step krepis instead of a single step as Kawerau restored it (AntDenk [supra n.2] 13; cf. Travlos [supra n.2] 494). I am hesitant because only two step blocks remain. Both blocks are in a battered condition, and accurate measurements are therefore difficult Binder, Monopteros (supra n.2) 191, fig. 56.

The poll

It

� and architecture of the Athenian Imperial Cult

has long been recognized that the Erechtheion apparently served

as a

189

model for much of

the architectural decoration of the monopteros.12 Since a geison fragment from the Erechtheion was uncovered in the underpinning of the temple, the discovery has led scholars to suggest that the Erechtheion was undergoing repairs at the time of the monopteros' construction.13 The decoration of the interior is problematic. Statues of Roma and Augustus are likely to have stood within the monopteros but it cannot be proven. Graindor suggested that the temple also housed a cult to Hestia and that her sacred fire burned continuously within.14 The placement of

this

small temple in apposition to the Parthenon is curious. Although the

'dedicatory inscription is intact, it offers no explicit reason for the construction of the monopteros. Neither does it provide a date for its building, but this is a result of our inadequate knowledge of the officials named on the inscription. Nevertheless, it may still be possible to discern from the inscription a likely date and also certain motivations behind the construction of the temple. We may feel fairly certain that this temple for a living emperor was constructed for a definite purpose, probably political. The text of the dedicatory inscription

(IG rr 3173)

for a few minor lacunae. It reads as follows: 15

on the epistyle is preserved

[ ' OI MjJ,o<; 0£iit 'Pro�Tl1 1Cai I[£ /l aa]t"n Kaiaap' Itpa[tll'Y]oilvto, 'O!rAimc; ITa�'�'EvOUC; toil Z "vco voc; Mapa9covi

;'"

Ol"

in toto except

t[o;,,]

i£ P ECdC; 0£CtC;

'pm,,'.,c; Kat l:£/laatoil l:cotf\poc; Elt' 'A KponoA£l Eltt i£pE"'C; 'A8'lVCtC; IT oAuiSoc; MEria",.

'tf\,

'AaKA'l"(SOu ' AAatEW, 0uyatp6c;

Ent apxovto, 'Ap"ou t[oil] 6copicovoC; ITa,av'EOlC;'

Religious offerings to Roma - whom the Greeks perceived as the personification of the Roman people - such as temples, altars, festivals, and statues were fairly common in the Greek East from the beginning of the 2nd c. B .c. 1 6 The cult of Roma was introduced into Athens shortly thereafter, perhaps during the first two decades of the 2nd c. 17 There must have been

an established cult of Roma by the mid-2nd c. as inscriptions attesting to her festivals, known

as Rhomaia, seem to indicate.1 a Worship to Roma was also added to the earlier cult of Demos

12

13

14

15

16

17

la

Snijder, RA (supra n2) 223-26. On the finding 0 f the Erechtheion geison fragment see Kawerau, AntD""k (supra n2) text to pis. 25-26; DOrpfeld, AthMitt 26 (1903) 466, assigns its original location to the W entablature. The block can no longer be found. G P. Stevens and 1- M Paton, The Erechtheum (Cambridge, MA 1927) 75 n.2, believe that it may have been reset into the N portico during a restoration in the early part of this century. The Erechtheion may have been damaged during Sulla's seige in 86 B.C. Graindor (supra n2) 153·55; the round fonn of the monopteros reminds Graindor of the Temple of Vesta in Rome. At least two cults of Hestia are known from inscribed seats for their priestesses preserved at the Theater of Dionysos; IG 1I2 5102 is reserved for 'Iepda, 'E a[t ia c; 'Pco]llaicov, and IG I12 5097 shows an Iep"ac; 'Eatiac; "t' 'AKponOA£l Kat Au/liac; Kat ·IouAiac;. Perhaps also associated with the cult of Hestia on the Akropolis is a cult to ITup'l'0P0C; Elt' 'A1CponoA£' known only from the imperial period (IG 02 5046). "The Demos (dedicates this) to the goddess Roma and Augustus Caesar when Parnmenes, son of Zenon, of Marathon, Priest of the goddess Roma and Augustus Soter on the Akropolis, was Hoplite General, and when Megiste, daughter of Asklepiades, of Halai, was Priestess of Athena Polias. In the Archonship of Areos, son of Dorion, of Paiania." Se e R . Melior, eEA PnMH. The worship oJ t he goddess Ra"", i n the Gred: world (Gottingen 1975) 14; id" "The Goddess Roma," ANRW I1.17.2 (Berlin 1981) 958-66. Se e J . Traill, "Greek inscriptions honoring prytaneis," Hesperia 40 (1971) 308 no. 9 , for a n inscription from the Agora attesting to sacrifices to the Demos of the Romans. A priesthood for the cult is mentioned in an inscription listing annual magistracies dated to 102/1; IG U2 2336 lines 45, 124 and 26L Judeich (supra n.2) 94, suggests this priesthood may have been localized on Delos. IG Il2 1938; see also Melior, SEA (supra n16) 102.

Michael C. Haff

190

and the Charites sometime 1he

after 167. 1 9

link between Roma

and Octavian/ Augustus among the cities of the Greek East followed quickly on the heels of Octavian's Aktian victory in 3 1 . 20 1he provinces of Bithynia and Asia received permission in

29

to dedicate sanctuaries to Roma and Octavian at Nikomedia and

Pergamon respectively. 21 These cities may not have

been

the first choice of the provinces'

administrators. As Dio mentions, sanctuaries to Roma and Octavian were meant for the worship of the Greeks; resident Romans were to worship at sanctuaries of Roma and Divus Julius which Octavian allowed Bithynia and Asia to establish at Ephesos and Nicea. The motives behind this subtlety were apparently due to Octavian's need to appear to the Romans less oriental than

his

immediate predecessor Antonius. With the precedent thus set at

Nikomedia and Pergamon, the Athenians were free, presumably with the leave of Augustus, to erect a temple and establish a priesthood for the worship of Roma and Augustus. 1he inscription mentions Pammenes of Marathon, son

ci Zenon, as hoplite

general and priest

of Roma and Augustus Soter. This Pammenes is well known, attested in a number of late Repub­ lican/early imperial inscriptions.22 We first hear of him participating in a re-establishment of the traditional sacred embassy to Delphi, which was composed of members of the priestly 37/6, perhaps when Antonius was in Athens.23 It

clan, the GephyraioL The decree is dated to

should not be surprising to see this awakening

of

an antiquarian spirit among the older and

wealthier families during the chaos of Antonian Athens; it becomes accelerated under Augustus.2 4 In addition to the connection with the Gephyraioi, Parnmenes also belonged to another wealthy and influential clan, the Erysichthonidai. His membership

among the

Athenian elite, therefore, placed him in a pOSition to hold a number of important public offices. One such office was the priest of Delian Apollo, an office which he held for most years of Augustus' principate.

19 20

21

23 24

of the

inscription at Delos from a dedication to Julia, daughter of

IG IF 5047; see also IG IF 3404 and 3547; W. Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens (London 1911) 366, 457; Mellor, eEA (supra n.16) 102-3. J. Oliver, Demo/cratia, the gods, and the free world (Baltimore 1960) 107, places Roma's entry to this cult in the reign of 1iberiUs. Augustus was not the first Roman imperator to be linked with Roma. Flamininus in Chalkis, and P. Servilius lsauricus, the proconsul of Asia in 46-44 S.c., were both connected to worship with Rorna, and Julius Caesar was linked to Roma Nikephoros at Myti1ene in 45; see Melior, "Goddess Roma" (supra n.16) 976. Dio Cass. 51 .20.6-8; Tac., Ann. 4.37. A distinction should be made, however, between provincial and civic cults. The provincial assemblies of Bithynia and Asia were most likely obligated to request permisSion aom the Roman Senate to erect temples to the imperial cult. Civil authorities, on the other hand, could erect monuments to the imperial cult without the approval of the Senate, although permission aom the emperor was probably expected; see Melior, eEA (supra n.16) 56; see also Price, Rituals 65-67.

22

An

On Pammenes see KirchPA no. 11520; J. Sundwall, Nachlriige zur Prosopographia (Helsinki 1910) 85, 140; Graindor, "Etude sur AtMnes sous Auguste. 1I. Les Atheruens 11 l'l!poque d'Auguste," MusB 27 (1923) 295 no. 401. Also, see now D. J. Geagan, "A family of Marathon and social mobility in Athens of the first century B.C.," Phoenix 46 (1992) 29-44. IG 112 1096; see B. Merritt, "Greek inscriptions," Hesperia 9 (1940) 86-% no. 17, and Oliver, "From gennetai to curiales," Hesperia 49 (1980) 40-43. A parallel may be noted from an inscription of the early Augus!an period aom Eleusis in which Themistokies, daduch in c.21/20, was honored for his efforts in restoring the patria of his genos which had become obsolete through the years; see 1 Threpsiades aplld K Kourouniotes, 'E).Et><1IVlalCa 1 (1932) 223-36; P. Roussel, "Un nouveau document concemant le genos des KHPYKEt" in Melanges Bidez, Annuaire de /'Institut de philologie et d'histoire orientales 2 (1934) 810-34; Oliver, Athenian expounders (supra nJ) 50-51; K Clinton, The sacred officials of the Eleusinian mysteries (TAPS 64.3, Philadelphia 1974) 50-52, 56-57. On the date, see Clinton 50 n.30,

The pol ; "�cs and architecture of the Athenian Imperial Cult

19

B.c. 2S It may dat· Julia accompanied her husband Marcus Agrippa to Asia.26 Other Delial inscriptions which name Pammenes as priest of Apollo Ihb. �{Oll seem to cluster in the last tw,

Augustus, names Pammenes as priest and has been dated between 21 and 12 perhaps to 16/15 when decades of the 1st c. 27

In addition, Pammenes

was appointed gymnasiarch on Delos sometimt

near the end of the 1st c.,2 8 and in Athens he was an agoranomos to whom a statue wa, dedicated by grateful merchants on account of

his apE�" and IitlCIXtOcruvTj.29 Pammenes may

als<

have been archon at some point during the early imperial period.3o

l he

dedicatory inscription indicates (lines 1-2) that Pammenes held the o ffice of hoplit.

general and priest of Roma and Augustus concurrently. That at the same time

is

he

was also priest of Delian Apoll(

unlikely, as the Delian inscriptions that attest to his priesthood date t(

later in his career. lhe tendency o f Athenian politics

in the post-Sullan era was an apparen

strengthening of the hold which the wealthier and more powerful families enjoyed in civil affairs. Certainly on e of the most powerful civic offices was that of hoplite general, and it i! probably no coincidence that the early priests of the imperial cult in Athens were also at thE same time hoplite generals.31 As power was in the hands of the hoplite general during thE

Empire, it seems natural for the incumbent to be also the chief priest of the cult of thE emperor.32 1hi.s concurrence is again found under the emperor Claudius when Demostratus, son oJ

is

both priest of the imperial cult and hoplite generaJ.33 Oliver ha�

The choice (or election)

of Panunenes to these two offices was crucial to Athenian relatiom

Dionysos from PeIlene,

shown that the personal financial cost of being priest of this priesthood was high, a responsibility therefore borne by the hoplite general.34 with Augustus. He belonged to an old and established family and, more importantly, was wealthy enough to bear the financial responsibilities of both offices. For obvious reasons Pammenes must also have been untainted from association with Antonius. If the Athenians

25 26 27

28 29

30

31 32 33 34

21 is the year of the marriage between Agrippa and Julia, and 12 is the year of Agrippa's death; on the Delian inscription see T. Homolle, "Dedicaces deliennes," BCH 2 (1878) 399-400 no. 7; IDlIos no. 1592. FHG Nic. Dem. fr.3, 350; d. Jos., Ant] 16.2; RE 9b (1917) 898, s.v. Iulia (Fitzler). On Pammenes as priest of Delian Apollo, see IDelos nos. 1592, 1593 = BCH 8 (1884) 155; 1594? = BCH 8 (1884) 154-55; 1605 = BCH 3 (1879) 153 no. 2; 1626 = BCH 8 (1884) 155-56; 2515; 2516; 2517 = BCH 53 (1929) 182 no. 2; 2518 = BCH 53 (1929) 181 no. 1; 2519? Roussel, Delos, colonie athenienne (Paris 1916) 198. Graindor, "Inscriptions attiques d'epoque imperiale:' BCH 38 (1914) 411-12 no. 20. Pammenes' name as archon appears on an Athenian decree concerning Rhamnous (EM 12665) that was found near the Roman Market at Athens; see Rhomaios, 'E,u'7Vuca 1 (1928) 233-43; and Roussel, REG 42 (1929) 188. Roussel, "Un sanctuaire d'Agdistis 11 Rhamnonte," RE A 32 (1930) 5-8, followed by Dinsmoor, The archons of Athens in the Hellenistic age (Cambridge, MA 1931) 294, believe that the inscription belongs to the Augustan period. There is another Pammenes, however, who as a boy is mentioned in the Pythais of 106/5 and again in 98/97; see BCH 32 (1908) 355 n.455, and BCH 38 (1914) 412. Roussel admits the possibility (p.6, n.2) that the Pammenes of the inscription could be the

earlier figure and that the inscription could date earlier than the Augustan period. J. Notopoulos, "Studies in the chronology of Athens in the empire," Hesperia 18 (1949) 7, assigns the archon year 83/82 to Pammenes. J. Pouilloux, La forteresse de Rhamnonte (paris 1954) 139-41, no. 24, suggests a date in the early 1st c. B.C. on the basis of Notopoulos and lettering style. Notopoulos' placement of Pammenes as archon in the early 1st c. B.C. is not supported by other sources; thus Pamrnenes' archon year could very well be placed early in Augustus' principate. Oliver, Athenian expounders (supra n.1) 84-86. For a general discussion of the Athenian hoplite general, see T. C. Sarikakis, The haplite general in Athens (princeton 1951) 11-21, esp. 77-78 on Pammenes. Much of the political power of the office of the hoplite general is due to the fact that it could be repeated, particularly in the Roman period; see Sarikakis (supra n.31) 15; also MelIor, eEA (supra n.16) 185. I G n 2 3242; Oliver, Athenian expounders (supra nl) 85. Oliver, Athenian expounders (supra 11.1) 84-86; see also Sarikakis (supra 11.31) 16, 19. The cost involved in being an imperial priest was also quite high; see the comments of Price, Rituals 62-64.

Michael C. Haff

192

in

were following the example of Bithynia and Pergarnon

requesting permission to dedicate a

temple for the worship of the emperor, they most likely approached the emperor by means of an embassy, perhaps led by Pammenes.35

Oliver suggests that Pammenes may have been a provide a significant

link between the Athenian nobiles

clie ns

of Agrippa.36

If

so, this would

and the imperial family - important

because there is no known direct relationship between Augustus and the Athenians, even though the emperor was quite familiar with the city. As Oliver notes, Agrippa became closely tied to the Athenians by

his

prior marriage to the daughter of T. Pomponius Atticus, the

wealthy banker and correspondent of Cicero.J7 Agrippa generously patronized Athens through the construction of the Odeion in the Agora;38 perhaps in gratitude for Agrippa's interest in the city, the Athenians re-dedicated to him the quadriga monument in front of the Propylaea.3 9

Perhaps it is not simply coincidental that several dedications on Delos to members of Agripp a's family also record Pamm enes' office of priest of Apollo.40 As a client of Agrippa, Pamm enes would have been in a powerful position to assume the offices of hoplite general and priest of

Roma and Augustus at this critical stage in Athenian-Roman relations.

Megiste, daughter of Asklepides of Halai, is mentioned as priestess of Athena Polias in the inscription. Although we possess no other information concerning this priestess, nor the date of her priesthood, there seems little doubt that, like Pammenes, she also belongs to an influential family of late Hellenistic Athens. It would appear that she follows a long and distinguished line of priests and priestesses within her family, as she

is probably descended

&om Demetrios,

son of Asklepiades, also from the Attic deme of Halai who was priest of Roma in

97/6.41

She

may also be related to Megiste, daughter of Zenon and aunt of Pammenes, who was kanephoros in the early 1st c B. c .42 The priesthood of Athena Polias was for lifetime tenure; the date of the inscription therefore is determined solely on the archon name and not the priestess. The link to the Parthenon.43

inclusion of the priestess's name must therefore be seen as a

The archonship of Areios cannot be confidently fjxed to one single year. dates before

17/16

His

office probably

as we are fairly well certain of the archons following that year.44 Thus the

dates within which the temple dedication probably falls range from received the name of Augustus, to

18/ 17.45

27,

the year Octavian

Most scholars accept the earliest possible date because the temple is thought to be part of the immediate post-Actium reconciliation. 46 While an early date is possible,

3S

36 37 38 39 40 41

42

43

44

4S 46

I believe

a case can be made for suggesting a later date. I have argued

One should note i n this regard that Eukles o f Marathon approached Augustus in an embassy in seeking funds to build the new Market; see IG n2 3175; and for a discussion see Hoff, "The early history of the Roman agora at Athens" in S. Walker and A. Cameron (edd.), Th£ Greek renaissance in the Roman empire . (BICS Supplement 55, 1989) 3-5. . Oliver, Athenian expounders (supra n.1) 92Oliver, Athenian expounders (supra n.1) 90-91; J. Carcopino, Les secrets de l a correspondance de Ciceron (Paris 1947) 302-4. H. A. Thompson and R E. Wycherley, Agora XIV, 111-14. IG Il2 4122; W. B. Dinsmoor, "The monument of Agrippa at Athens," AJA 24 (1920) 83. IDelos Julia: nO. 1592; Agrippa Postumus: no. 1593; posSibly Lucius or Gaius: no. 1594. KirchPA no. 3374; IG 1l2, 2336 line 265; see S E G 32 (1982) 218; also, S. V. Tracy, IG 11 2 233 6 : contributions offirst frl/its fo r the Pythais (Beitrage z ur klassischen Philologie 139, Meisenheim a m Glan 1982) 138. Demetrios' cousin is attested as priest of Dionysos in 101/100; Graindor, Chronologie des archontes atheniens SOUS I'empire (Bruxelles 1921) 35; id., MusB (supra n.22) 295 no. 401. KirchPA no. 9707; J. Sundwall, Nachtrage xur Prosopographia Attica (Helsinki 1910) 124 and stemma 85; also see 11 2 1034. Cf. IG 112 3277. Graindor, Chronologie (supra n.41) 34; id, BCH (supra n.29) 412; id, Auguste (supra n.2) 30-31. Areos is archen on one other inscription which names his clan, the Amynandridarae; see I G TI2 2338. Graindor, Auguste {supra n.2) 31; Travlos (supra n.2) 494.

The polit

and architecture of the Athenian Imperial Cult

193

elsewhere that relations between the Athenians and Augustus were chronically strained from the outset of his principate, and punctuated by episodes of civil disturbance.47 In an incident in 21 that occurred while he was in Athens, Augustus became angry at the Athenians, departed

the city, and imposed economic sanctions as a result. The sanctions had their intende d effect, because in

19,

when Augustus returned to the city, no mention is made of any unrest, and ties to

the city were renewed. It seems unlikely that permission would be granted a city to erect a temple dedicated to the imperial cult during a period of manifest resentment towards Augustus. Thus it appears that AugustuS' visit in

19 would occasion a more· appropriate opportunity to Price has suggested that the

offer cult honors to the emperor in the . form of a temple.

institutions of cult in the Greek East were often a complex and delicate balance of interactions between Greeks and Rome.

This system, as described by Price, involves a modified fOlm

of

gift­

exchange that might involve embassies which offer cult honors along with other requests such as

beneficia.48 An

embassy of Athenians did approach Augustus to request funds to complete the

long-standing project to construct a new market building that had been begun earlier by Julius Caesar, as the dedicatory inscription of the Market indicates.49 I have suggested that this

embassy was associated with the Emperor's visit to Athens in

19.50

It should be emphasized

that cult offerings by the Greeks should not be construed as an attempt to flatter, but rather the intent was to honor the emperor and recognize his power. The institution of the cult and temple to Roma and Augustus in Athens should be perhaps viewed as an overt demonstration of their

compliance. The placement of the Temple upon the Akropolis also deserves some consideration. The Akropolis is more than a sanctuary to the goddess Athena, but could also be viewed a s an all­ purpose panhellenic victory monument over the East. W. Gauer and K. Carroll have independently collected evidence that demonstrates this Eastern association.51 A few examples will suffice to prove this point. In addition to the ·Parthenon itself as a victory monument following the Persian war (e.g., Eastern themes represented on the metopes, the placement of Xerxes' Salamis throne inside the temple), the whole Akropolis was also utilized in a vigorous anti-Persian campaign from all periods, and not necessarily by the Athenians. Alexander sent

the shields captured from the Persians at the battle of the Granikos, and had them placed on the east epistyle of the Parthenon (Arr. 1 . 16.7). Attalos I of Pergamon dedicated a sculptural group around 200 B.C. commemorating his victory over the Gauls. On the monument were included scenes representing the battle of Marathon, thus equating Attalos' victory with the earlier Greek struggles over the Persians. Attalos' victory monument was still in place when Pausanias visited Athens in the 2nd c. A.D. (1.25.2). Antonius clearly had the idea of emulating Alexander and Attalos when he set out from Athens against the Parthians

in 36

(Plut.,

Ant.

34). He took with

him

a branch of the sacred

olive tree of Athena and water from the Klepsydra on the Akropolis. Unfortunately, his cam­

paign ended in disaster, and any idea of erecting his own victory monument on the Akropolis

vanished.

Augustus also sought to curb Parthian interference in Rome's affairs, but the encounter in 20 B.C. had a more positive result than Antonius'. Although the campaign - led by the young Tiberius - against the Parthians was in actuality more bluster than actual fighting,

nevertheless Augustus won a tremendous propaganda Victory with the bloodless return of the

47 48 4�

Hoff, "Civil disobedience and unrest in Augustan Athens," Hesperia 58 (1989) 267-76. Price, Rituals 65-77. Cf. F. MiIlar, The emperor in the Roman world (Comell 1977) 420-34. IG 112 3175. On the Market, see Hoff, "Early hiStory" (supra n.35) 1-8. Hoff, "Early history" (supra n.35) 3-6.

51

W. Gauer, Weihgeschenke aus den Perserkriegen (lstMitt Beiheft 2, Tubingen 1968); K Carroll, The Parthenon inscription (Durham 1982) 67-69.

50

Michael C. Hoff

194

lost standards.

In Rome, an arch was constructed by the Senate in the Forum to commemorate

the victory, and the representation of the standards' return was prominently displayed on the cuirass of the statue of Augustus from Prima Porta. 52

Soon after his victory, and after having wintered ori Samos, Augustus returned to Athens in

19 S.C. and participated in his second initiation in the Eleusinian Mysteries which, as reported by Dio (54.9.7-10), were held out of season on account of his attendance. It is po ssible, if not likely, that his visit following the victorious Parthian campaign presented the Athenians

with a timely opportunity to honor the emperor by erecting the temple, and its placement on the Akropolis echoes the visual allusions of historical Greek victories over the Persians.

Other possible monuments associated with the imperial cult The qualifying phrase Elt' 'AlCpoltoi.£t in the dedicatory inscription implies that there is at

least one other location for the imperial cult elsewhere than on the Akropolis. The cult to Augustus was highly active in Athens. Seventeen known or possible altars to the cult have been identified, almost all of which were found in the classical Agora or near the Roman Market53

In this connection, the excavators of the Agora have suggested that a small annex with double cella added behind the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios in the early 1st c. A.D. may have been

constructed for the imperial cult 54 They admit, however, that this attribution is tenuous.

Nevertheless, it is possible that some sort of activity associated with the imperial cult

occurred in the Agora annex, but not on the scale necessary for a major cult center. It has also been suggested that the Panathenaic Way served as a focus for the imperial cult, along which altars would have been placed.55 While I agree that some sort of focus for the worship of the imperial cult occurred, it is more likely that there was an architectural setting to the cult,

perhaps in the form of a

seba ste ion .

Literary and epigraphical sources are silent concerning a supposed existence o f a

sebasteion.

But given the quantity of altar bases to Augustus, and the epigraphical references to Augustan cult, it is difficult to believe that Athens was without a primary cult center to the Emperor. As some scholars have already conjectured, perhaps we should look in the vicinity of the Roman Market for a possible location of a Many of

sebasteion .56

the Augustanaltars were found in proximity to the classical Agora and the Augus­

tan Market, prompting their cataloguers to suggest that the cult center may be located nearby. In fact, not far from the Roman Agora was discovered in the last century an altar whose

inscription refers to the cult of Roma and Augustus Soter, the same titulature as on the Akropolis monopteros temple.57

52 53 54 55

56

57

On the propaganda imagery o f the Parthian victory s ee Zanker, Power of images 185-92. A. Benjamin and A. E. Raubitschek, " Arae Augusti," Htsperia 28 (1959) 68-85; see also J. Travlos and in the A. Frantz, "The church of St. Dionysos the Areopagite and the palace of the Archbishop of Athens 16th century," Hesperia 35 (1965) 164-65; O. A1exandri, ADelt 23 (1968) Ch ran. 70 and pI. 40b. H. A. Thompson, "The annex to theStoa of Zeus in the Athenian Agora," Htsperia 36 (1966) 171-87. D. J. Geagan, "Imperial visits to Athens: the epigraphical evidence" in llpalC'rIJCCJ foil H' d ,e8voii, Evvelipiou 'EN'.£v,K"Jj, mi "anv,';', 'EmrpaqllJr>i, (Athens 1984) 77. Benjamin-Raubitschek (supra n.53) 85. One possible location maybe at approximately the middle of �he south colonnade of the Market where there is a foontain complex. At least two phases of construction can be discerned. Originally, the W room of the complex that fronted upon the interior colonnade contained a large statue base, therefore suggesting use as an aediclIlllm. Later at some unknown date, the front of this room waS enclosed with orthostates and transformed into a fountain basin; see Hoft, The Roman agora at Athens (Diss., Boston University 1988) 208-12. IG U2 3179.

The F " tics and architecture of the Athenian Imperial Cult

But what exactly should we be looking for? Is the form of the cult center, if there is inde

an architectural form to it, necessarily a temple? Areas of special importance to the imper. cult are often called either kaisareia or seba sle ia . The terms are evidently interchangeab

The form

of the sanctuary and its architectural setting can vary enormously according to t

availability of space and funds. The kaisareion at Alexandria, for example, built by Cleopal and described by Philo in the mid-1st c. A.D., was "a very large enclosure adorned wi

porticoes, libraries, meeting rooms, gardens, propylaia, open terraces and hypaethral courts:

On the other hand, it could be a temple, a sanctuary without temple, simple altar, single

suite of rooms within or attached to a portico, or an independent structure such as a basili

that has been outfitted for cult purposes. 59 In short, a seba sle ion seems to be a designation f any focus for the worship of the emperor or the domus divina. One essential component comm. to most

sebasleia

seba sle ia

is a location near the agora, as found at Ephesos and Smyrna. Imperi

were also extremely common. S. R.

F. Price attests over 80 sanctuaries in 60 cities

Asia Minor.6O Yet only two are known in mainland Greece, Gytheion and Messene, and then 00 from epigraphical documents.61 It is possib i e that the Augustan Market, in addition to its commercial functions, served as

focus for the early imperial cult. Similar cult associations with agoras or civic buildings oce

in several other Greek cities, such as at the agora of Thasos, where temples to the Sebastoi

a:r

an altar to Gaius and Lucius were located, or Ephesos, where Augustus and Livia we worshipped in the Stoa Basilike along the N side of the City Agora. If there were cult aspe< to the Market, those areas have not yet been identified with any certainty. 62 Instead, anoth

Roman-period structure associated with the Augustan Market may have housed the appara!1 of imperial cult, perhaps functioning as a

sebasleion.

The W fac;ade of this building lies c . 1 7 m f rom the East Gate of the Market (figs. 5-8).

Only the E end of

this building is exposed, but its remains indicate a substantial structure.

1971, a segment of its N wall was found in an adjacent lot: combined with the preserved remaiJ

within the archaeological site, the building measures at least 44 m and continues eastward f,

an indetemtinable length. The walls have been placed directly upon an earlier road level, th apparently dates at least as early as the Hellenistic period. M Korres has identified tI

remains of a stoa, probably Hellenistic, that flanked this road which would have led toware

the classical Agora to the west. The Augustan-period market interrupts this road, accountir nicely for the odd off-center placement of the E and W gates (fig. 9). The stoa was lat. incorporated into the Roman-period building, perhaps as an annex. The W fac;ade of

this Roman building, 18.02 m long, was originally composed of three arche

marble lintels supporting an epistyle which carried a dedicatory inscription (fig. 8).

11

fac;ade was raised approximately 3.5 m above the earlier Hellenistic road, necessitating

flight of steps to reach the threshold. I have found no compelJjng reason why the structure w,

considerably raised other than to provide an architectural prominence over the lower Marke

which itself serves as a magnificent forecourt to the btrilding. Although the building has no

S8

59

60 61 62 63

Philo, De leg ad Gaium 22.150-51. On the varied form of the kaisareionlsebasteion see K. Tuchelt, "Zum Problem 'Kaisareion-Sebasteior Eine Frage zu den Anfangen des romischen Kaiserkults," IstMitt 31 (1981) 167-86; Price, Rituals 13 69. Price, Rituals, passim. Gytheion: S E G Il 922-23; Messene: IG V 1462. For possible cult worship within the Augustan Market, see Hoff, Roman agara (supra n.54) 208-18, ar Hoff, AA (infra n.63) 112. 1his structure has been fully studied in M. Hoff, "The so-called Agoranomion and the imperial cult J Julio-Claudian Athens," AA 1994, 93-117, which prOVides a fuller treatment of the imperial cult i Athens. .

Michael C. Hoff

196

Fig.5. We st fao;ade of the Arcuated Building. Photo courtesy DAI Athen.

been fully exposed, its long rectangular form calls to mind a basilica. Evidence also suggests

that the building was hypaethral. lhere is no doubt that this was a sizable building, and its position adjacent to the Roman Market suggests an important function during the Roman period. Its true identification has not been determined.64

lhree of the original seven epistyle blocks that made up the dedicatory inscription have

JI2 3183): [ - - - - - ] 'A9rjv,h 'Apl(TlYEtlOt "at S.oi<; 1:
survived. lhe preserved text reads (IG

lhe building, whatever its function, was apparently dedicated to Athena Archegetis and the lheoi Sebastoi. lhe use of plural Sebastoi, however, does aid in providing a date for the building, as most scholars agree that the formulaic use of lheoi Sebastoi occurs in state dedications only after Claudius deified Livia in A.D. 42 and elevated her to Augustan god. os The use of

the

the

status of an

plural Sebastoi on the Arcuated Building therefore points to a

date no earlier than Claudius for its dedication.

As

for the dedication to Athens and the lheoi Sebastoi, it can be argued that joint dedica­

tions involving the chief god of the city and the Roman emperor often suggest imperial cult activity. 66 lhe fragmentary state of the dedicatory inscription precludes any positive identi-

64

65 66

The building i s traditionally referred to a s the Agoranomion, or office of the Market officials, but this identification was based erroneously on an inscribed arched lintel that is similar to those extant upon the west fa�ade. See P. Graindor, "Antonin le Pieux et l'agoranomion d' Ath1mes," RBPhil 6 (1927) 754-

56; H. S. Robinson, "The Tower of the Winds and the Roman market-place," Travlos (supra 0.2) 37. Hoff (supra 0.63) 107-9.

AlA

47 (1943) 304; J.

See L. Robert, Etudes anatoliennes (Paris 1937) 34; cf. F. Felten, "Heiligtiuner oder Markt?" AntK 26 (1983) 102-3; see also J. M. Reynolds, "The origins and beginning of imperial cult a t Aphrodisias,"

peps 26 (1980) 73 , and Hoff (supra n.63) 1 1 5 .

The pal

s and architecture of the Athenian Imperial Cult

Fig. 6. Detail ofW fa�ade of Arcuated Building. Photo courtesy DAI Athen.

197

.... '"

00

\

D

� t"l

::r-

III (l)

-

A

/U

I

1 0

• B

�.:

::r: 0 ......J ::::.:

,

c

Fig. 7. Plan of the Augustan Market and associated structures. A: Market; B: Tower of the Winds; C: Arcuated Building; D: Latrine.

The pr " ' ks and architecture of the Athenian Imperial Cult r�

: ��.-,-,-.-�ro-.�----�--,

Michael C. Hoff

200

ATHENIAN AGORA ENVIRONS ca.

AD 14

Fig. 9. Plan of the C lassical Agora and Augustan Market at the end of the Augustan period. A: C lassical Agora; B : Augustan Market; C: Tower of the Winds; D: Stoa. fication of

the

structure. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that the primary location where

worship to the Augustan cult occured r may now be pinpointed. 1he numerous altars found in the vicinity, a lack of appropriately identified structures to the imperial cult, the dedicatory inscription, its basilica form, all point to this structure as a possible candidate for the focal point of cult activity to the Roman emperor. During the years of Roman rule, Athens' status was transmuted from having preeminence among the cities of old Greece into having a relatively minor role within the cosmopolitan patchwork that comprised the Empire. Athens, although bereft of much political importance, retained her claim to high status within the framework of the Greek East primarily due to her rich history and culture. 11u; monuments of Athens' past, which became objects of curiosity and tourism to the Romans, were promoted by the Athenians as visible reminders of their own proud history. Rome did not intrude heavily upon Athenian traditions and clearly paid considerable homage to the glory that was classical Athens. Nevertheless, Rome's own presence in the city was not a minor one, and that is a point that scholars continue to neglect The evidence presen­ ted here is testimony to a vibrant cult dedicated to

the

Roman emperor in what was arguably

the foremost among Greek cities. 1he material suggests that this aspect of Romanization constituted a much stronger force

than has previously been considered. Department of Art

& Art History,

University of Nebraska

Evidence for the imperial cult in Julio-Claudian Corinth Mary E. Hoskins Walbank In

the introduction to his major work on the imperial cult, D. Fishwick stressed the need for

a detailed investigation of emperor worship by individual province or city and for an analysis of the nature and extent of the practice at various levels of society. I hope to make a contribution in that respect by examining the early stages of emperor worship at Corinth prior

the

to the time when

city became a centre of

the

provincial imperial cult

Corinth was one of the few really prosperous cities of Achaia. It was a nexus of internation­ al trade and it organized the festivals and contests at Isthmia. Corinth was also a Roman colony founded on the site of the ancient Dorian city destroyed by Mummius in

146

B.C. 1he

differing elements in the city's background make its religious practices of particular interest Much of the evidence for the imperial cult in general is epigraphic and in this respect Corinth is peculiarly frustrating. 1here is a substantial body of inscriptional material, most of which has been published, but much of it is very fragmentary and it is often impossible to establish either the date or the original location of the inscriptions.

In

these circumstances,

other material remains at Corinth, including the numismatic evidence, assume even greater significance than usuaL Among religious features leading to a cult of the emperor and his family was the worship of Julius Caesar. His cult is attested by a single fragmentary inscription, which reads DIVO lUL(iol CAESAR! (sacrum) . l 1he letter forms indicate a date either in the late Republic or in the very

early Empire. The inclusion of Caesar in the dedication is unusual and suggests a date early in the life of the colony, before the new title, Divus Iulius, bestowed upon Julius Caesar at his deification i n January

42 B.C., had become familiar at Corinth. It is also possible that the his

Corinthians pre-empted this official ceremony in giving Julius Caesar divine honours after

death but before his apotheosis at Rome.2 Colonies were always centres of Roman influence, especially in matters of religion, and it is not surprising to find a cult of Divus Iulius at Corinth.

The refounding of the city in 44 RC was one of Caesar's most important projects, intended to provide for freedmen and the urban poor of Rome, although the plans were probably not implemented until after his death by Antony. Local tribes, such as Aurelia and Calpurnia, were named after Caesar's female relatives; and a number of the early

duoviri

owed their

enfranchisement or advancement to Julius Caesar. 1hat the Corinthians regarded Julius Caesar as the founder of their colony, in spirit if not in fact, is made clear by the foundation coin issue,

dated to 44-43

B.C,

which has the laureate head of Caesar and the exceptionally

T - Colanil

LAYS lULl CORI N

UlUS Iulia Corinthiensis -

on the obverse.3

full

ethnic

Corinth VIII.3, no. SO.

The decree of divinity accorded to Julius Caesar early in 44 B.C. had not been carried out see 1. R. Taylor, The divinity of the Rom.n emperor (Middletown 1931) 66-74. S. Weinstock, Div .. s l!l/illS (Oxford 1971) 299, implies a date for the inscription immediately following Caesar's deification in 42 B.C., but without explanation. Both M. Grant, FITA (1969) 266, and Weinstock thought incorrectly that there was a cult of Julius Caesar at Corinth during his lifetime, citing as evidence a coin with the bare

head of Julius Caesar on the obverse and a hexastyle temple containing a statue on the reverse, but there is no reason to attribute this coin to the Corinthian mint. See M Amandry, Le monnay.ge des dllbvirs

corinthiens (aCH Supplement IS, Paris 1988) 29, n .221 and RPC p. 250. RPC 1116 = Corinth VI 16.

202

Mary E. Hoskins Walbank

Another factor in the early establishment of a cult of Divus Iulius may have been the presence of Antony in Achaia. Antony had been active in promoting the worship of Julius Caesar prior to his death and was officially inaugurated as flamen of his cuIt at Rome in 40 B.C. It is less clear what happened after that date. It can no longer be held t hat Antony was personally responsible for setting up the cult and festival of Divus Iulius at Ephesus, as Weinstock thought, but the triumvirs did encourage the cult of Divus Iulius in the provinces.4 Antony had been given control of the eastern provinces after the battle of Philippi and set up winter headquarters at Athens. Corinth was his administrative base for the Peloponnese, as well as a strategic centre, and Antony's head appears on a Corinthian coin issue between 39 and 36 B.C. s It is a reasonable assumption that Antony would have favoured, or perhaps even initiated, the establishment of a cult of Divus Iulius at Corinth. The first coin issue under Augustus, between 27 and 26 B.C, is significant in that it combines the heads of Julius Caesa� and Augustus. The reference to the founder of the colony is obvious, but so too is the emphasis placed by the Corinthians on the link between Divus Iulius and the present ruler.6 Corinth was coining regularly between 43 and 27 B .C, but it is not until after Actium that the overt connection was made between the new princeps and the deified founder of Corinth, with the implication that Augustus as divi filius shared in his adoptive father's divine status. An indication that the cult of Divus Iulius was of lasting importance in Corinth comes from an inscription honouring the first high-priest of the provincial imperial cuIt of Achaia, which is dated to early in the reign of Nero. I t includes, among other honours, that of jll1fnen divi Iulii. 1his was not a common priesthood in provincial cities, even in colonies founded by Jullus Caesar, since the cuIt of Julius Caesar was usually incorporated fairly rapidly into the worship of the Domus Augusta. 7 The fact that at Corinth the cuIt had by then had a separate existence for about 100 years suggests that throughout the Julio-Claudian period it remained a separate and significant strand of religious belief. The existence of a flamen presupposes that there was an altar, or more probably a temple, dedicated to Divus Iulius. In my view such a temple is shown on a single, large issue of coins during the reign of Tiberius, all of which have on the reverse a hexastyle temple usually, but not always, inscribed with the words GENT(i) or (is) IVLI(ae) on the architrave (fig. 1). This inscription to the Gens Iulia is unique among the provincial coinages, including other Julian colonies. It must have had special meaning for the Corinthians.8

5

Weinstock (supra n.2) 402 thought that a fragmentary official document Cl. Ephesos VII.2, 4324) which mentions Mark Antony in the first line, sent from Rome to the city of Ephesus, showed that Antony was personally responsible in 41 B.C. for setting up the cult and festival of Divus IuJius to be celebrated by the Koinon of Asia Price, Ritllals 76-77, regards the inscription as the translation of an existing Roman law regarding the cult of Roma and Divus IuJius, and relates it to the establishment of the cult by Octavian in 29 B.C. for the Roman citizens of Asia. This is possible, but it is more likely, as J. A. North ("Praesens Divus," JRS [1975] 176) proposed, that the law, passed at Rome after 40 or 39 B.C., was of such significance for the prOVinces that it was set up in Ephesus at some time in the early 3Os. RPC 1 124 = BMC Corinth 490. RPC 1132 = Corinth VI, 34. This combination is common at Rome, but occurs much less frequently in colonies, Julian or otherwise, than is often implied Julius Caesar does not appear at all on coins of Carthage, planned at the same time as Corinth, nor with Augustus at, for example, the colonies of Parium, Lampsacus or AleXandria in Troas. The well-known coin of Philippi, founded by Antony in 42 B.C. and refounded by Octavian in 30 B.C, which shows Divus Iulius crowning a statue of Augustus, was issued in the latter half of Augustus' reign (RPC p. 308 and 1650� The best-known example is theflamen at Alexandria in Troas, but the inscription is Augustan in date (CIL ill 386 = ILS 2718� Otherjlamines, mainly in the West, are listed by Weinstock (supra n.2) 409-10. Various other readings have been cited: dive Iulio, di�o Augllsto, Caesar and Augllstus, but the coins have either been recut or cannot be traced. Grant's reference (Aspects of the principate of TiberillS

Evidf

e for the imperial cult in Julio-Claudian Corinth

2C

Fig. 1 . Coins of Labeo and Peregrinus showing Gem Iuia temple (courtesy Trustees of the British Museu! There are two versions of the temple: one with the columns evenly spaced and one with the

columns grouped on either side to indicate the existence of a cult statue within. All the coiru

bear the name or names of the

duoviri,

L. Furius Labeo and L. Arrius Peregrinus. There are fow

obverses: Tiberius laureate, the radiate head of Augustus, a recognizable portrait of Livia with

her hair in a nodu s, and a female veiled head usually identified as that of Livia as priestess. The duovirate coinage has recently been studied in detail by M. Amandry who has assigned

this issue to A.D. 32/33 or 33/34.9 Therefore, in the latter half of the reign of Tiberius, there was a temple in Corinth dedicated to the Gens Iulia which was considered sufficiently important to

be represented on a major coin issue together with the portraits of the

Domus Augusta.

The question is , why? A t the beginning o f his reign Augustus certainly fostered the worship

of the Gens Iulia and the divine connotations must have been there in the public mind because of

the association of Venus with the Julian family; they would have been heightened by the cult of Divus Iulius, particularly after the erection of his temple in the forum in 29 B.C. However, as Augustus' reign became firmly established, the concept

of the Gens Iulia as an object of worship

was absorbed into the worship of the Domus Augusta . Tiberius does seem to have emphasized the worship of the Gens Iulia as part of his policy, at least at the beginning of his reign. In A.D. 16 he set up a shrine to the Gens Iulia and a statue of the divine Augustus at Bovill ae, the

ancestral home

of the IuJii Tacitus also records that after the death of Germanicus only mem­

bers of the Gens Iulia were permitted to hold the priestly appointments previously held by Germanicus. 10 But the question remains as to why the Corinthians issued this coin type so late in Tiberius' reign. There must have been a special reason for

the emphasis on the Gens Iulia.ll

I suggest, first, that the Tiberian coins were an anniversary issue commemorating the

original dedication of the temple, not long after the foundation of the colony, at the time when the cult of

Divus Iulius was inaugurated. It would have been appropriate for his temple to be Gens Iulia, which would have also included his adopted son,

referred to as that of the

[ANSNM 116, 1950] 92) to a survival of the series under Gaius (E. Fox, "The Duoviri of Corinth,"

Journal international d'archeologie numismatique 2 [1899 ] 105, no. 30) is also incorrect. We are left with this one issue. See Amandry (supra n.2) 168-76 and pls. 19-23.

10 11

Amandry (supra n.2) 66. The duovirs responsible for issuing coins held office from 1 July to 30 June the following year. The date A.D. 32/32 or 33/34 has been questioned by C. J. Howgego ("After the colt has bolted: a review of Amandry on Roman Corinth," NC 149 [1989 ] 202-3). See the Appendix below for his argument and the implications. Tac., Ann. 2.41.1, 2.83.2. The phrase Gms Augusta is attested at Corinth only in the first year of Gaius' reign: see Corinth VIII .2, no.17 which has been restored to refer to Antonia, grandmother of Gaius, and Tiberius Caesar, grandson of Tiberius.

Mary E Hoskins Walbank

204

Octavian. Later, the temple would certainly have become associated with the worship of the imperial family in general. The obverses of the Tiberian coin make it clear that it refers to the

Damus Augusta: Divus Augustus,

Livia (now Iulia Augusta) in her dual capacity of widow and

priestess of the cult of Augustus, and TIberius, the reigning emperor, are all included. One might expect that on special occasions such as ann iversaries the temple would be the focus of celebrations of the local imperial cult just as, in the reign of Oaudius, sacrifices were made at the Ara Gentis Iuliae in Rome on the birthday of Augustus.1 2 Secondly, the Romans attached great importance to anniversaries and

the

year A.D.

33/34

was a significant one in the Roman calendar. 13 It was the 20th anniversary of the death of

Augustus and of the accession of Tiberius. It also commemorated the two most imp ortant dates in

the

reign of Augustus, namely the 60th anniversary of the

50th anniversary of the was dear to the Romans

ludi saecu lares

and

of

V

B.C.

It

respublica restituta in 27

was the

kind

B.C. and

the

of multiple anniversary that

it was widely observed both at Rome and on provincial coinages.

The Corinthians were, in fact, peculiarly attentive to the Julio-Claudians in this regard, faithfully recording events in the political and domestic life of the imperial family (indeed it is hard to separate the two) on the civic coinage. It would have been most appropriate for them to commemorate such an anniversary with a substantial coin issue combining portraits of the Domus Augusta and the Gens Iulia temple. The phrase Gens Iulia does not appear again either

on

the

coinage or in inscriptions. It is reasonable to

think

that it was eventually subsumed into

the worship of subsequent imperial dynasties and that the temple became the centre of the local ruler cult. Next, there is the problem of identifying the

Gens Iulia

temple. The hazards of identifying

buildings from coins are well-known All that we can safely deduce from the Gens Iulia coins is that the temple was hexastyle and, therefore, fairly large, with columns of the Doric order

along the fac;ade. It could have been either a crepidoma temple or built on a podium.14 Large areas of the Roman city are unexcavated, but surface surveys have been made and it is unlikely that a large building would have gone completely unrecognized.15 It should be sought city centre, where imperial temples

and

sanctuaries were usually located.

This raises one of the most difficult questions

in Corinthian

in

the

topography. The problem is

caused by Pausanias' comments in the late 2nd C.16 Included in his description of the city centre of Corinth is a reference to a temple of Octavia "beyond the forum". Most scholars have assumed that

this

was Temple E (fig. 2) and that it contained a cult statue of Octavia, sister of

Augustus. According to this argument, it was the main centre of the imperial cult at Corinth and so must be represented on the coins with the legend

Gens Iulia.

this cannot be so, partly because the numismatic evidence

I have argued elsewhere that

used

to support the argument is

unsound and partly because nowhere else in the Roman world is Octavia known to have been the recipient of a major cult. I prefer to identify Temple

E

as the Capitolium. The normal

position for such a temple or altar to the Capitoline Triad is either in or overlooking the forum. The site is carefully chosen so that either it is on a natural eminence or it is placed on a high,

12 13 14 15 16

Taylor (supra n.2) 227 regards the altar of the Numen Augusti dedicated by Tiberius soon after his triumph in A.D. 12 or 13 as identical with the Ara Gentis luliae In the Capitoline Hill, since the altar of the Gens was the proper place for the worship of the Geni us. M. Grant, Roman anniversary issues (Cambridge 1950) passim and esp. 31-33. Grant emphasizes that the Romans both anticipated anniversaries by several months and felt it justifiable to continue the commemoration for a year or SO after the main occasion. The Gens lu/ia coin type is sometimes referred to as an aedes or shrine, but any hexastyle building must,

ipso facto, be fairly large. M. E. Hoskins Walbank, The na ture and development of Roman Corinth from 44 B.C. to the end of the Antonine period (un pub. Ph.D. thesis, The Open University 1986), 294-389. Pa us. 2.45.

Eviden

_

_

for the imperial cult in Julio-Claudian Corinth

205

z <� · · fW

. . ... . . � Vi� . ..:.... . . . . . :) -:

. • .

. '- : : ., • ,

.

' . . ....--\ . ......d

•

, '3:' , , Fig. 2

" iI:: ; i

,

I

" ' 3:; " ' "

" " ij::i " " "

Plan of the central area of Ancient Corinth

i '>j,.

t

c.A.D. 50 (courtesy

"

"

"'T"'"T�rT" ,. r"T "'T""""T"": ::

Director of Corinth Excavations).

Mary E. Hoskins Walbank

206

artificial podium dominating the city centre. It would be extraordinary

if

Corinth, which

follows the conventional pattern of colonial settlement in so many ways, should have been the

exception

in this one respect

At Corinth the rise to

the

west of the forum provided

site, aocording to Roman thinking, and this was precisely where the Corinth (Temple E) was in due course erecte dY Another candidate for the

Gens lulia

main

the

perfect

temple of Roman

temple is the building known as the Archaic Temple.

It dates from the 6th c. B.C. and stands on high ground alongside the Roman Forum (fig.

2).

It is

usually thought of as the Temple of Apollo, but the evidence relates to the pre-Roman period

and we cannot assume that the Romans would have continued to practise the same cult after a

break of more than a hundred years. As far as they were concerned, the buildings still standing at Corinth would not necessarily have retained their original function and could be used as

required by the new colonists. However, in the Roman period Pausanias does mention a temple

the right of the road leading from the agora to Sicyon and then the Fountain of Glauke. His description fits the location of the

and bronze statue of Apollo on refers, a little farther on, to

Archaic Temple exactly and, despite the confusion caused by Pausanias elsewhere, there is no reason to question the identification in this particular case. 1 8

It has been assumed that the Archaic Temple suffered massive damage at the hands of

Mummius' troops during the sack of Corinth and that it was some time before it was put back

the temple was renovated earlier s. Robinson, who has conducted extensive investigations on Temple considers that the on ly damage inflicted by Mummius was the removal of

into use by the early colonists. However, it now appears that than

is usually

supposed. H.

Hill in recent years,

the roof-tiles to make use of the massive roof timbers. The subsequent damage to the fabric of the temple was the result of the weather and general neglect, and was less serious than has

generally been thought The major change made by the Romans was to alter the orientation of

the temple from E to W and to block the entrance to the temple precinct from the SE. 1 9 The

colonists retained and refurbished the exterior, probably opening up the quarry in the of the precinct for the purpose,

and

NE corner

they altered the interior to suit their own requirements. The

Doric columns of the original 6th-c. structure were removed from the interior to the

sw corner of

cellae remained as they were and were not thrown into Robinson also thinks that the statue base in the W cella is

the forum and re-used there, but the two

one, as previous excavators thought Roman, not Greek in date.2 o This could have been for the statue of Apollo seen by Pausanias. A possibility that has not previously been considered is that the two separate but related cults - that one

cella was

cellae

were used for

retained for the worship of Apollo and that the

other, perhaps the eastern one, was dedicated to the

Gens lulia.

Weinstock has pos tulated a

special relationship between Julius Caesar and Apollo, pointing out that Apollo was one of the ancestral gods of

17

18 19

20

the

Iulii. A few years later Augustus' adoption of Apollo as

his

patron deity

M. E . Hoskins Walbank, "Pausanias, Oelavia and temple E at Corinth, " BSA 84 (1989) 361-94. For Temple E as the temple of the imperial cult, see C. K. WiIliams II, "A re·evaluation of temple E and the west end of the forum of Corinth" in S. Walker and A. Cameron (edd.), The Greek renaissance in the Roman I!mpire (BICS Supplement 55, 1989) 156-62 Until further evidence comes to light, the arguments for both identifications are circumstantial. Paus. 23.6. H. S. Robinson in "Chronique des fouilles et decouverles arcMologiques en Grere en 1978," BCH 103 (1979) 550-53 and fig. 65; and id., personal commUIlication. Robinson dates the filling of the surrounding quarries to the latter part of the first quarter of the 1st c. A.D., but the temple could well have been in use while quarrying was going on and the precinct being constructed. The early Corinthians, like the inhabitants of any other new city, must have become used to living on a construction site. Corinth 1.1, 115 and fig. 82: statue b as e first noted b y Dorpfeld and un til recently always considered to be Greek.

Evid(

'e for the imperial cult in JuJio-Claudian Corinth

2(

Fig, 3. Coin issued under Claudius showing the temple of Aphrodite on Acrocorinth (courtesy Trustees c the American Numismatic Society). would have made the ancient temple even more appropriate for a cult of the ruling family.21

While it is just possible that a large, hexastyle temple was built specifically for the cult a a very early date, it seems more likely that the colonists would have made use of an existin:

building. The absence of major building projects in the early years suggests that the colony wa in straitened circumstances. Greece had become

the

battle-ground on which the opposing force

fought for control of the Empire, and Corinth was one of Antony's strongholds until it wa seized by Marcus Agrippa before Actium. Conditions generally in the last years of

the

RepubJi

were not conducive to economic activity and it would have taken time for the city to regain it ancient prosperity.22 The Corinthians made use of existing buildings and, in particular, the�

completely remodelled the South Stoa for their public offices. On the other side of the forum the rehabilitation of the Archaic Temple was probably anxious to pay homage to

their founder.

also

a priority for the first colonists

Other suggestions have been made. There was an important cult of Aphrodite in Greel

Corinth and it has been thought that the sanctuary of Aphrodite on Acrocorinth may hav, been the Gens Iulia temple. Strabo does refer to a vailhov of Aphrodite on the summit,23 but thi, can scarcely be the distinctive hexastyle temple of the Tiberian coins, still less the podiun

temple that appears so frequently from the Claudian period onwards (fig. on the coins of Claudius, which indicates that it was built in

his

3). This occurs firs

reign, and there is alway!

some feature to identify the temple as being on Acrocorinth, either the rocky base or th, distinctive cult statue. It seems that the ancient Greek cult of Aphrodite, with its Orienta

associations, was never equated at Corinth with the worship of Venus, the mother of Aenea! and the tutelary deity of the Gens

I u/ia. 24

On the other hand, there is a temple of Venus in the forum, Temple F (fig. 2), It is an elegan, and richly decorated small building with a pedimental dedication to Venus. 2 5 The mOSi

unusual feature is the niche or apse in the back wall of the cella, presumably for the cult statue

The temple is customarily dated to the early Tiberian period, but P. Gros, in his analysis oj apsidal temples, has proposed that

it

could

be

as early as Augustan. More recently

C

K

Williams has confirmed that, according to the archaeological evidence, Temple F is thE earliest of the small temples at the W end of the forum.26 Gros regards the Corinthian temple

21 22 23 24 25

26

Weinstock (supra n.2) 12-15. On temple-sharing between traditional god and emperor s ee Price, Ritl/llk 146-56. Strabo (8.6.20-23), who visited Corinth in 29 RC., implies that t h e colonists were still living in depressed circumstances. Ibid. On the cult of Aphrodite, see C I<. Williams 11, "Corinth and the cult of Aphrodite" in M. A. Del Chiaro (ed.), Corinthiaca, sh,dies in honor of DamU A. Amyx (Missouri 1986). Fragmentary inscription: Corinth VIII.3, no. 56. R. L. Scranton (Corinth 1.3, 57-70) identified the temple as that of Tyche as Venus Victrix. C. K. Williams ("Corinth, 1974: Forum Southwest," Hesperia 44 [1 975] 25-29) proposed a more satisfactory interpretation of Pausanias' description of the temples at the W end of the forum, identifying Temple F as dedicated to Venus. See Williams 1989 (supra n.17).

Mary E. Hoskjns Walbank

208

Fig. 4a (above). Coin isued in A.D. 68/69 showing Roma and on the reverse an unidentified temple. Fig. 4b. Coin issued under Hadrian showing Roma and on the reverse clasped hands holding corn ears and poppy (courtesy Trustees of the American Numismatic Society). as having been built in direct imitation of the Temple of Venus Genetrix at Rome, which had been dedicated by Julius Caesar in

46 B.C.

and was completed b y Augustus. The temple in the

Forum Iulum was, in Gros' view, the first to be erected with an apse on the

axis of the

building

facing the entrance. When one considers the origin of Corinth, its cult of Divus Iulius and the

Gens

Iulia, as well as the emphasis placed by Augustus on Venus as his divine ancestor, it seems

natural for the Corinthians, perhaps late in the time of Augustus, to have erected a temple to

Venus which was modest in size but richly decorated, and which reproduced the one really distinctive feature of the Temple of Venus Genetrix at RomeP A manifestation of religious activity associated with emperor worship that one might expect to find at Corinth

is Dea Roma. There is no inscriptional evidence of such a cult at

Corinth but Roma does appear on the coinage. It is generally assumed that

this

is simply a

Roman version of Tyche whose temple in the forum was mentioned, along with other shrines, b y Pausanias. Bu t work on the sculptural fragments by C. Edwards has shown that this goddess in the forum also had the attributes of Nemesis and was probably a deity of the underworld as well as being Tyche of the city. 28 In contrast, the legend ROMA or, more usually, ROMAE ET

IMPERIO on the coins makes it clear that this turreted head is the personification and symbol of

the

Roman state and is not to be confused with the Tyche of Pausanias. She first appears under

Galba (fig. 4a), replacing the imperial head, which no doubt reflects the general uncertainty of

the time. The reverses include a podium temple, which cannot be identified, and clasped hands with ears of corn and poppy head, a type which symbolizes a desire for peace. The implications of Roma's re-appearance under Hadrian (fig. 4b) are not entirely clear.

If

one bears in mind, however, that it was Hadrian who introduced the cult of Roma in Rome itself, then her appearance in a Roman colony at this time indicating that,

while

the

Greek past was being

is

not out of place. I interpret it as

consciously

revived,

Corinth

was

demonstrating its awareness of the fact that it was Roman. It is about this time that Roma also appears on the pedimental sculpure of Temple E (probably the Capitolium) overlooking the forum, and that a monument showing Roma seated on the Seven Hills was erected on the Lechaeum Road in the centre of the city.29 Another theme relevant to the development of the imperial cult is the relationship between the Corinthians and members of the imperial family. There is none of the special favour that Octavian personally expressed towards Aphrodisias; nor is there the extravagant

27 28 29

This

Callnot, however, be the temple of the Gtns Iulia On the coins since it would be contrary to normal numismatic conventions for a tetrastyle temple to be represented as hexastyle. C. M . Edwards, "Tyche at Corinth," Hesperia 59 (1990) 529-42. Roma: see Walbank (supra n.I7) 388 and n. 94.

Eviden

'or the imperial cult in Julio-Claudian Corinth

homage paid, for example, by

the Athenians

209

to Augustus' adopted son, Gahis Caesar, honouring

him as the new Ares.30 It is clear from literary sources that the majority of the early Corinthian colonists were freedmen and the urban poor of Rome with, possibly, a sprinkling of veterans. It is also likely that Augustus augmented the colony, as he did at Philippi, after

42

B.C. Some of the early duooiri, such as C. Julius Nicephorus and M. Antonius Theophilus, are

known to have owed their advancement to either Julius Caesar, Antony or Augustus, and, in

spite of Antony's defeat at Actium, power seems to have remained in the hands of the same

social group due, no doubt, to some fast footwork. The coins of M. Antonius Hipparchus, son of Theophilus, whom Plutarchrecords as being the most influential of Antony's freedmen, and the first to go over to Octavian, have the head of Augustus on one side and that of Julius Caesar on the other. Some of the tribes, such as Livia, Atia and Vinicia, are named after Augustus' relatives and close associates. Marcus Agrippa was certainJy patron of one tribe and may have been patron of the whole colony. As in other Julian colonies, freedmen could hold public office and they appear to have been proud of their origins. There

is

an intriguing inscription from the

cornice block of a small building or temple, probably Augustan in date, which begins UBERTI

QUI CORINTH! HABITAN[tj .31 1he

strong, quasi-religious bond between freedman and

patrcmus

would have made the payment of cult honours to members of the imperial family a natural development. Other prominent men, such as the Gellii, were distinguished citizens of Achaia admitted to Roman citizenship at Corinth. Later, members of the same families are found holding office, and this pattern of an hereditary upper class is well established by the mid1st c. There does seem to be a sense, on the part of the Corinthians at least, that the whole

colony was under the informal patronage of the emperor and his family.

This attitude comes out very strongly on the coinage, which was issued regularly at Corinth. In addition to the reigning emperors, Divus Augustus and Livia, particular attention was paid to the younger members of

the Julio-Claudian family, such as Augustus' heirs Gaius and Lucius,

and to the imperial women. 1hat this was deliberate civic policy is obvious from the way in

which Corinth responded to Augustus' reorganization of the succession in favour of Tiberius in

A.D. 4, as a result of which Tiberius was obliged to adopt his nephew, Germanicus, in preference to his own son, Drusus. Augustus, Tiberius, Germanicus and Drusus

all

appear on

the

coinage as

part of the same issue. So, too, for good measure does Agrippa Postumus whom Augustus adopted at the same time as Tiberius. It is an extraordinary issue which Amandry notes is without parallel in the official Roman coinage or in that of any other provincial city. Later, during the brief reign of Gaius, Corinthian coins posthumously portray his father Germanicus, his mother Agrippina, with her sons Nero and Drusus, elder brothers of the emperor, and Gaius' grandmother Antonia. Both Nero and Britannicus appear on the coins of Claudius as well as his wife Agrippina the younger. Agripp ina is shown again under Nero as well as his wife Octavia, daughter of Oaudius.32 The enthusiasm o f the Corinthian upper class for the imperial family is also manifested

in

the large collection of Julio-Claudian statues and portraits found in the big civic building at the E end of the forum, known consequently as the Julia:i1 Basilica (fig.

2). It has been suggested that

the basilica was a centre of the imperial cult. It is possible that there was an

aedes

in the

central exedra, but the evidence indicates that the function of the building was primarily

30 31 32

Aphrodisias: J. Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome O RS Monographs 1, 1982) doe. 10. Athens: IG 11 2 3250, dated to AD. 2. This inscription is probably linked with a 5th c temple transplanted to the Athenian Agora and rededicated to Ares in the time of Augustus (Agora XIV, 162-65). Corinth VIII.2, no. 121. RPC, under Augustus: 1136 (Gaius and Ludus), 1139-44 (issue of A.D. 4/5); under Gaius: 1174 (Agrippina the elder, Nero and Drusus), 1176 (Antonia), 1178 (Gerrnanicus); under Claudius: 1182 (Nero and Britannicus), 1183 (Agrippina the younger); under Nero: 1190 (Agrippina the younger) and 1191 (Octavia) .

Mary E. Hoskins Walbank

2 10

commercial The statues seem to have

the main

been

placed round the walls and between the columns of

floor. It is likely that most of them were the type of dedications to be found in many

public and semi-public buildings, for example, the Building of Eumachia and the Macellum at Pompeii. The quality and quantity of the statuary should be seen as evidence of the wealth of Corinthian businessmen. They were certainly expressing their loyalty to the imperial family and, at the same time, probably celebrating the political and economic stability that was the basis of their own prosperity.

In

the Roman world it was a short step between such public

acknowledgement and the offering of exceptional honours in cult form. As a number of scholars have pointed out,33 there is an enormous variety in the buildings devoted to the imperial cult, and

this

is certainly true at Corinth. For instance, a fragmentary

inscription on a large marble architrave block refers to an together with

10

aedes and statue

of Apollo Augustus,

shops, which indicates that the shrine was part of a larger building. The

complex had four donors, one L. Rutilius and three Hermidii. According to the restoration proposed by West,

L. Rutilius and and L. Hermidius Celsus were priests of Apollo Augustus. The L. Rutilius Plancus was ducroiT at some time between AD. 12 and 16, and L. Rutilius Piso was duaviT quinquennalis in AD. 66/67, Rutilii were an important family in Julio-Claudian Corinth.

when Nero arrived in Greece. Two Rutilii, presumably father and son, were

isagogeus at either

about the Hermidii. Presumably at the time they were

all

agonothe tes

and

the Caesarea or Isthmian games in the time of Claudius. Nothing is known

ci

this inscription, which is likely to be Augustan,

moderately prosperous citizens pooling their resources to erect a substantial

building which was beyond their individual means.34 At a lower social level we know of a dedication to the

LAres Augusti, a servile cult attended Prcroiden tia Augusti and of Tiberius, and a Claudian cult of Victoria

by minor municipal officials. There are a lso subsidiary cults such as

Salus Publica which probably date to th e reign Britannica, all of which can be related to the imperial

cult35 A n d there is a fair amount o f

epigraphic evidence (albeit fragmentary a nd hard t o date) o f the part played b y the

Augusta /es

in the community. I should like to draw attention to one particularly prominent

monument in the forum (fig.

2). It bears the dedication [divo a]VGV S [to] S A C RV M

[av] GVSTALES.3 6 The remains consist of a step nearly 3 m square of blue marble leading to a bench round the rectangular base, rising

1 .675

m above ground level and supporting a circular

white marble drum, on which the dedication is inscribed; it in turn supported a colossal statue.

n

has always been assumed, for no good reason, that the statue was that of Athena.3 7

However, the cuttings simply indicate that

the

statue had its weight on the right foot and was

probably holding a spear or staff in the left hand. Given

the

dedication, it must surely have

been a statue of Augustus and important evidence of the cult of DivusAugustus at Corinth. The

33 34

35 36

37

E.g., K TucheIt, "Zum Problem, Kaisareion-Sebasteion," IstMitt 31 (1981) 167-86; Price, Ritua/s 133-69. Corinth VIII.2, no. 120. Original provenance is unknown. First seen by J. Spon and G Wheler U. Span, Voyage d'ltalie, de Da/matie, tk Greee et du Leva nt [Lyon 1678] 2, 306; 3, 227) built into a Turkish house a short distance to the north of the Archaic Temple. Plancus, RPC 1145-48; Piso, RPC 1203 and 1205; C. Rutilius isagogeus, Corinth VID2, no. 82. Corinth VllI.2, nOS. 13 and 86-90Inscription: Corinth VIll3, no. 53. Description o f monument Corinth 1.3, 142-43. There is no specific indication of the date within the Julio-Claudian period. It was almost certainly erected after AD. 14, but the Corinthians did not always wait to give divine honours. Corinth VUI3, no.153, dated to c25, refers to a poetry contest at the imperial games in honour of Livia as Iulia Diva Augusta; similarly, Thea loulia Sebaste in Corinth VIII.1, no.19, well before her death in A.D. 29 or deification in 42. Scranton seems to have been influenced by Pausanias' reference (2.3.1), immediately after his description of the W end of the forum, to a bronze statue of Athena in the middle of the agora, which had figures of the Muses worked on the pedestal. However, quite apart from the dedication to Divus Augustus, the Augllsta/es base cannot be described as being in the middle of the forum. There are other bases in-the forum that could equally well have supported the statue of Athena

Evic

<:e for the imperial cult in Julio-Claudian Corinth

2

monument is placed at the E end of the forum, between the Lechaeum Road entrance and rostra, with the statue standing nearly

t 8 feet above ground level and facing west over ti

forum. It must have been an impressive sight The author of the final excavation rep'

comments that the extraordinary amount of wear on the marble shows that the seat was popular one, in use for a long time, -which is not surprising since it must have been an id. place for people to meet or just to pass the time of day. indication that the

Augustales

1hi.s

expensive monument is a fitfu

were prominent at Corinth and anxious to demonstrate public

their devotion to the cult of the emperor.

In

considering some of the local manifestations of the ruler cult at Corinth I have de1i

erately omitted comment on the Caesarea and other imperial contests, which began short after

30 B.C.

in combination with the Isthmian Games and .for which Corinth was responsibJ

The Caesarea may even have taken place at Corinth rather than at Isthmia, especially befo

the Isthmian Games were returned to Corinthian control sometime between 7

B.C. and A.D. 3. tI

Not only have the games have been discussed in detail elsewhere, but they relate to

practice of the ruler cult in a wider, inter-provincial context, and they were often official sponsored. Cities such as Corinth were largely independent

in

that they did not have to se<

approval from the emperor or the provincial governor for their cult activities.

In

conclusio

however, it is worth putting local activity at Corinth into the context of the provincial cult. There is ample epigraphic evidence that emperor worship had been taking place in mar individual cities in the Peloponnese, such as Gytheum, Epidaurus and Argos.

As

early as A.D.

the quaestor, P. Cornelius Scipio, was commended for his enthusiastic pro m otion of tl imperial cult in the province.3 9 This could also suggest that there was a need for offici

encouragement and that cities elsewhere were less enthusiastic than the Corinthians abo, emperor worship. An important development in the emergence of a provincial cult came durir the governorship of Memmius Regulus when an enlarged koinon, which still did not include

tI 37 at Argos to pay homage to the new emperor. However, eviden, of a formal provincial cult does not occur until the mid-1st Co, which seems surprisingly late i whole of Achaia, met in A.D.

comparison with other parts of the East.

B y a happy chance one of the few relatively complete Corinthian inscriptions refers to provincial cult and its first high priest40 It comes from a statue base erected by members of Calpumia tribe

in honour of

tI­ tI­

their patron, Gaius Iulius Spartiaticus, the distinguished Sparta

magnate who must also have been a Corinthian citizen. Spartiaticus was procurator of Caes� and Augusta Agrippina; he had been a military tribune, given equestrian rank by the divir Claudius, was

agonothetes

flamen

of the divine Julius, had served as

duovir,

twice

duovir quinquennali

of the Isthmian Games, the Caesarea and Sebastea, and was appointed hig

priest for life of the Augustan house, the first of the Achaeans to hold this office. The referenc to Nero and Agrippina dates the inscription to A.D.

54-SS,

when Agrippina fell from favour.

would have been most appropriate for the first provincial celebration of the imperial cult t have taken place on or soon after Nero's accession in

A D. 54.

The find-spot of the inscriptio!

together with the fact that it was dedicated by one of the Corinthian tribes, strongly suggesl that on this occasion the provincial cult was being celebrated at Corinth itself rather than � the Isthmus. It was also fitting that Spartiaticus, whose family had originally been give

38

39 40

In an article which did not become available to me until after my paper had been delivered, E. Gebhar ("The Isthmian Games and the Sanctuary of Poseidon in the early empire" in T. E. Gregory (ed.), TI Corinthia in the Roman period (JRA Suppl. 8, 1994), has questioned the orthodox dating of 7 RC. to AI 3. She concludes that the Corinthians took control of the Isthmian Games in the very early years of tl1 colony and that they were celebrated at Corinth rather than Isthmia until the mid 1st c. She also believE that the Caesarea were often, though not always, held at Corinth. SEG xxm 206. Corin!h VIII.2, no. 68.

Mary E. Hoskjns Walbank

212

Roman citizenship by Octavian and who was himself one of the most distinguished men in Greece, should have been the first holder of the priesthood. Presumably the choice was made at imperial level It is very likely that the Corinthians were given responsibility for organizing the imperial festivals because of their Roman origins and their frequently expressed loyalty, probably in addition to some intensive lobbying by their social elite. An interesting postscript indicates that this decision was not necessarily welcomed by other cities. There is a letter in which the Argives complain bitterly, presumably to the provincial governor, about exactions by the Corinthians. This letter is usually attributed to the emperor Julian, but L. Robert regards it as having been written in the late 1st c.41 The Argives are most indignant that they, together with many other cities, are having to pay to support festivals that are "neither Hellenic nor ancient". They are further affronted by the fact that the money is being used for vena tiones rather than for gymnastic and musical contests, and that the Argives are being forced to slave for a foreign spectacle held on the territory of others (1;EV\Kji Big Kal ltap'aAAOU; e,nOouAEuElV ava"'lKa�6IlEVO\). These are strong words, even allowing for the customary rhetoric. The Argive protests may have been 'sour grapes', for there were substantial advantages to be gained from hosting imperial games, but the letter can also be seen as evidence that the imperial cult at provincial level was much slower to take hold in mainland Greece than it was in other parts of the East. Department of Greek, Latin and Ancient History, University of Calgary, Canada 41

Dulianj Ep. 28 ( Loeb text). Accepted as 4th c. by J. L. Kent (Corinth VIII.3, 28). L. Robert (''Monuments de gladiateurs dans I'Orient grec," Htllemca III [Paris 1946]

B. Keil,

149 and n.2) confirms the dating originally

adding that the letter did not come from an emperor; as does E. Groag. Die riimischen Reichsbeamten von AciJaia bis auf Diokletian (Wien 1939) cols. 48-49 and nn . 195·96. given by

While this article was in press, A.

J. Spawforth published

a detailed analysis of this letter ("Corinth,

Argos, and the imperial cul� Pseudo-Julian, Lellers 198," Hesperia

63 [1994]

211·32) in which he

endorses Keil's early dating (towards the end of the 1st c . ) and concludes that the letter is best dated

between A. D. 80 and 120. In my view, the reference in the letter to the founding of the Roman colony of Corinth in 44 B.C. as a recent even� together with the information that the Argives, having been obliged to make financial contnbutions for the games to Corinth for seven years, were seizing the opportunity to appeal for the second time against the exactions to a new provincial governor, are arguments for

date, not long after the institution of the imperial contests

a Ist·c.

Evide

!

for the imperial cult in Julio-Claudian Corinth

213

Appendix: Date o f the coins showing a temple of the Gens Iulia M. Amandry (supra n.2) 61-69 has established a chronology for the coin issues from 44 B.C. to duoviri, by fixing first the dates of the coins issued every 5 years. He based this on the fact that in these years the officials were called duoviri qu in quenna les and that they normally had to wait 5 years before holding office again. Evidence for other issues, epigraphic or literary, ' could then be incorporated within the framework. Given the fragmentary nature of the evidence, some dates are inevitably speculative and problems remain, but the overall chronology is convincing. A.D. 69, which usually bear the names of the

Amandry's argument is that the Gens Iulia asses of Labeo and Perigrinus can be dated by association with a series of semisses which have facing busts of two youths (one of whom appears to be older than the other) and the legend C A E / G E M on the obverse. The identification of the busts, therefore, dates the whole Labeo/Peregrinus issue. 1he three most obvious possibilities are: Gaius and Lucius, adopted sons and heirs of Augustus; Germanicus and Tiberius Gemellus, twin sons of Drusus and Livilla and grandsons of Tiberius; and Nero and Drusus Caesar, children of Gennanicus and brothers of the future emperor Gaius. However, at Corinth Gaius and Lucius are clearly identified on the coinage by the letters C and L; Nero and Drusus are similarly identified by NE and D. Amandry put forward another solution. On the grounds that only true twins can be referred to as gemini, Amandry expands the legend to read CAESAR/GEMELLUS and identifies the busts as Gaius Caesar and Tiberius Gemellus, made co­ heirs by Tiberius after the death of his son Drusus in A.D. 23. C. Howgego (supra n.9) 202-3 does not accept this reading, pointing out first that 'Gemellus', the grandson of Tiberius, is referred to officially elsewhere as Tiberius Caesar (e.g., Corin th VIII .2, no. 17); secondly, that the use of gemini is ambiguous, since Augustus' heirs, Gaius and Lucius were referred to as Ozesares Gemini, and that this is the natural expansion of the legend on the Corinthian coin. Accepting the stylistic arguments for a Tiberian date advanced by Amandry, Howgego identifies the busts as those of the only true Julio-Claudian twins, Ger­ manicus and Tiberius, sons of Drusus and Livilla and grandsons of Tiberius, who were born in A.D. 19. Since Germanicus died in AD. 23, this would put the issue back to that year at the latest.

An objection to this argument is that the busts are those of boys or young men, rather than babies (they appear at Rome as iniants in cornucopiae on coins of 22/23) and that one appears to be distinctly older than the other, which would be appropriate since Gaius was seven years older than Gemellus. More important, on Howgego's own reasoning. there is no reason why the expanded legend CAESARES/GEMINI should not also apply to Gaius Caesar and Tiberius 'Gemellus', since they were the acknowledged heirs of Tiberius. Another consideration is that the lIDking of the CAE/GEM semisses with those bearing the names of Labeo and Peregrinus is based en the style of the Pegasus on the reverse, and stYlistic arguments must be treated with due caution, as Amandry acknowledges.

On balance, Amandry's detailed arguments for the A.D. 32/34 date are preferable. The earlier date of A.D. 23 advanced by Howgego would not, however, affect my thesis that the Gens Iulia temple coin is an anniversary issue; it would simply mean that it commemorated the 10th rather than the 20th anniversary of Augustus' death and Tiberius' accession, and the 50th anniversary of the respub/ica restituta in 27 RC. The earlier date would also fit neatly with the approximate date, towards the end of the first quarter of the 1 s t Co A.D., given by H. S. Robinson for completion of work on the precinct of the Archaic Temple, which would provide an additional motive for putting the temple on the coin.

Les em pereurs romains versus Isis, Sérapis Tran tam Tinh Par rapport à Isis et Sérapis, peut-on classer les empereurs romains en deux groupes,

1

adversaires et les sympathisants? La littérature historique semble privilégier une répon affirmative. Du côté des adversaires, on a rangé Auguste, Tibère; du côté des sympathisants ( dévots, Caligula, Vespasien, Domitien, Commode, Caracalla.l Cependant, des sources diff

rentes nous révèlent des éléments contradictoires, intrigants qui nous obligent à poser de nouve, ce problème et à en faire une analyse plus approfondie. Suivons le déroulement de l'histoire 1er au IVe siècle.

c

Les Julio-Oaudiens Auguste, par son bras droit Agrippa, refoula en pratique religieuse isiaque non seulement dans le

21 av. J.-C.

les cultes égyptiens, interdisant

pomeriu m de

Rome - comme lui-même l'ava

prescrit en 28 av. J.-C.2 - mais même à l'extérieur des murs, dans un rayon de huit demi stade! Pourtant ce même Auguste - caractérisé par certains auteurs modernes comme manifestant "tu

Nil"4 - se fit représenter comme pharac de la première cataracte, au début de la p' r omatUl instaurée par l'armée romaine, dans les années 23-10 av. J.-c. en mémoire des princi Pedesi et Pihor et en l'honneur d'Isis de Philae. Dans plusieurs tableaux, coiffé soit de la doub hostilité de plus en plus déclarée pour les dieux du

sur les murs du temple de Dendour, construit, au Sud

couronne, soit de la couronne. rouge ou blanche, soit de la couronne

a /et, et

intitulé "Roi de :

Haute et de la Basse Égypte, Seigneur de deux terres, Autocrator, fils de Rê, Seigneur dl couronnes, Caesar, vivant éternellement", l'empereur fit successivement des offrandes à Is. (fig.

1),

Osiris (fig.

2),

Khnoum-Rê, Horus et à d'autres divinités (fig.

3).5

Intéressante est

J

scène sur les murs du pronaos de ce temple où, conformément à la tradition pharaonique, il pori un plateau de fruits, à la tête d'une procession composée de Génies du Nil et de "belles déeSSE de la campagne" tenant chacune des produits du Nil (fig. 4).6 De même, pie d'Isis de Philae comme pharaon "aimé d'Isis" ou "aimé

de

il est

figuré dans le terr

Ptah et d'lsisH,7 et offrant à Is:

Citons en premier lieu F. Cumont "Le pas décisif fut presque aussitôt après la mort de Tibère. Caligul, sans doute en 38, construisit au Champ de Mars le grand temple d'Isis Campiensis ... Domitien fit ph

tard de ce sanctuaire un des monuments les plus splendides de Rome. Depuis lors, Isis et Sérapis jouim de la faveur de toutes les dynasties impériales,des Flaviens comme des Antonins et des Sévères " (L

religions orientales dans le paganisme romain [paris 1963] p.78-79, Panni les auteurs qui ont trait récemment ce problème, on peut mentionner M. Malaise,Les conditions de pénétration e/ de diffusion dl

cu/tes égyptiens en Italie (Leiden 1972) p,385-449; W. Hombostel, Sarapis (Leiden 1973) p.359-388; }

Turcan, Les cultes orien/auz dans le monde rommn (Paris 1989) p.90-95.

Dio Casso 53,2.4. Ibid. 54.6.6.

P. Lambrechts, Augus/us en de egyptische Godsdiens/ (Bruxelles 1956) p.34, cité dans Malais!

Conditions (supra n.1) p,387.

Pour échapper à la noyade ca usée parle barrage d'Assouan, le temple a été démonté,pierres par pierre! en 1963 et offert en 1965 aux États-Unis en reconnaissance de la contribution financière de ce pays a

TI a été a. c. Alfred,

sauvetage d'Abou SimbeL

New York en 1974.

ensuite remonté dans une nouvelle aile du Metropolitan Museum d

The Temple of Dendur (New York 1978). Sur les illustrations relative

à Auguste, voir fig. 14, 17, 18, 27, 29-33,

38, 39. Cf. aussi B. Porter-Moss, Topographical bibliography (

ancien/ hieroglyphic /exls, reliefs, and paintings (Oxford 1937) V.136 (1.2), (5,7). Cf. Alfred (supra n.5) fig. 24.

Sur les empereurs qui portent le litre d"'aimé d'Isis" (Auguste, Tibère,Domitien,Trajan, Hadrien) 01 d"'aimé de Ptah et d'Isis" (Auguste, Tibère), cf. J. C. Grenier, Les titulaires des empereurs rommns dan

les documents en langue égyptienne (Papyrologica BruxeUensia 22, Bruxelles 1989) p.10-11, 17, 18, 2C 41, 49,54,58-59 et 100 Index.

216

Tran tam Tinh

Fig. 1. Auguste devant Isis (from A. Alfred, The Temple of Dendu, [New York 1978], reproduced by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art).

Fig. 2. Auguste faisant des libations devant Osiris et Isis (from A. Alfred, The Temple of Dendu, [New Yor k 1978]. reproduced by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art).

.5 emp ereurs romains ve rsus Isis, Séra p is

217

Fig. 3. Auguste devant Pedesi et déesse (from A. Alfred. The Temple of Dendur [New York 1978]. reproduced by permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art).

Fig.

4.

Auguste menant la procession des Nils et déesses de la campagne (from A. Alfred. The Temple of

Dendur [New York 1978]. reproduced by pemlÎssion of the Metropolitan Museum of Art).

218

Tran tam Tinh

des sistres, du vin, des miroirs, de la myrrhe etc.; à Osiris et à d'autres divinités égyptiennes de l'encens et des libations.8 A l'extérieur du Mammisi, sur les murs Est et derrière, Auguste mena aussi des processions des génies du Nil sous forme de Hapi et des déesses de la campagne portant des offrandes de la terre respectivement à Osiris et Isis et à Isis et Harpocrate.9 On le trouve dans des attitudes semblables de dévotion à Dendera, dans le temple d'Hathor10 ou dans le Mammisi d'Isis,n dans le temple d1sis à Sanhûr (entre Abydos et Thèbes),12 dans le temple de Bigeh, en Nubie,13 ou enfin dans le nouveau temple de Mandoulis à Kalabscha (Talmis) construit après la victoire des Romains en 24 av. J.-c. non loin de Dendour.14 D'ailleurs, plusieurs dédicaces de la vallée du Nil en l'honneur d'Isis, d'Isis Thermouthis et d'autres divinités égyptiennes15 ont été faites en son nom ou pour attirer des bénédictions divines sur sa personne. Tibère n'était pas tendre non plus envers Isis et Sérapis. A Rome en 19, il bannit à la fois les cultes judaïques et égyptiens, exila quatre mille hommes de la classe des affranchis,1 6 et plus tard, fit détruire le temple d'Isis, jeter sa statue dans le Tibre. 17 Et pourtant ce même Tibère dans le temple de Philae offre à Isis et Osiris gazelles et oie, miroir, uraeus et sistre.lB Comme Auguste, Tibère y conduit aussi une procession des GélÙes du Nil et des déesses de la campagne en l'honneur d'Isis et d'Osiris.1 9 Le rôle de Tibère est plus important encore à Dendera où

10

Il

12

13 14 15

16 17 18 19

Porter-Moss (supra n.5) Vl.209 (37-44); 221 (140, 143); 227 (209-218, 219-221); 245 (322-377); 246 (379-80, 382-383); 247 (384-387). On y compte environ 70 scènes où l'empereur se présente en sacrificateur ou dédicant; voir aussi H. Winter an! E. Junker, Das Geburthaus des Tempels der Isis in Philae (Vienne 1965) 323, 345, 359. D'ailleurs, la présence d'un temple en l'honneur d'Auguste dans l'île de Philae à côté de l'Iseum (voir E. Bernand, Les inscriptions grecques de Philae [Paris 1969) II.7276 n° 40) démontre une complaisance de la maîtresse du lieu envers celui qui est appelé soler el euergeles (sauveur et bienfaiteur) dans l'inscription grecque gravée sur l'architrave du temple. Porter-Moss (supra n.5) Vl.246 (379-380); 247 (386-387). Ibid. VI.76 (216-233). Ibid. V1.106 (1-3); 10 7 (9-10). Ibid. V.136 (1-7). Ibid. V.257 (1-7). Ibid. VII.ll (5-6); 13. Cf. A. Bernand, Les portes du désert (Paris 1984) n° 1 (en l'honneur de Hérésies à Antinoupolis); n° 2425 (en l'honneur d'Isis Thermouthis à Tentyris). Voir aussi la stèle votive de Soknopaiou Nesos au Musée du Caire inv. cat. 9202 (E. Bemand, Recueil des inscriptions grecques du Fayoum l. LA meris d'Heracleides [l.eiden 1975) n° 73; date 24 av. ].-c.). En tête de ces inscriptions, la formule de ces dédicaces commence habituellement par UJŒp suivi du nom de l'empereur ou d'un souhait - paix, concorde, salut, victoire, conservation de l'empereur. La formule ;,ltÈp est difficile à traduire dans une langue modeme et pourrait être traduite par "pour le salut de"­ "for, not la" (l'équivalent du latin pro salule) ou bien par "au nom de"- "on behalf of". Cette double signification est acceptée par la plupart des savants selon lesquels ;,ltÈp suivi du nom d'un souverain en génitif désigne la personne pour le bien de laquelle ou au nom de laquelle la dédicace ou l'offrande a été offerte à urie divinité (cf. A O. Nock, "Sunnaos Theos," HSCP 41 [1930) = Noçk, Essays p.220 sq.; E. Bemand, "É pigraphie grecque et architecture égyptienne à l'époque impériale," Mtlanges à Uu:ien Leral [Paris 1984) p.87; Fishwick, Imp. Cult 1.1, p.34). La mention du nom de l'empereur dénote une certaine complaisance de ce demier dans le geste dédicatoire de ses sujets. Sur les dédicaces en grec faites en Égypte sur les temples "pour" un empereur, voir Bemand, "Épigraphie" 73-89. Sur les bibliographies postérieures à DGIS voir E. Semand, Inscriplions grecques d'tgyple el de Nubie: réperloire bibliographique des DGIS (paris 1982). Tac., Ann. 2.85.5; Suet., Tib. 36.1-2; Jos., Ani! 18.65-80. Jos., Ani! 18.65-80. Porter-Moss (supra n.5) VI.208 (26-34); 222 (148-151); 226 (199-208); 245 (371-373); en tout plus de 509 scènes. Ibid. VI.222 (150-151).

-,es emp ereurs romains versus Isis, Séra p is

l'empereur offre du vin, des oiseaux et des sistres à Hathor et Horus.2o Sur une stèle en rel avec mention en grec de la reconstruction du temple d'Aphrodite et d'Isis pour (le salut 1 l'empereur Tibère, ce dernier, en pharaon, offre un vase à Hathor (Aphrodite), Horus, Isis Harsomtous.21 A Thèbes et à Louqxor, l'oeuvre architecturale du successeur d'Auguste grandiose aux temples de Mout et d'Amon-Rê à Karnak et au temple d'Amon à Louqxor. Sur tJ stèle, provenant de ce dernier site et conservée au British Museum, l'empereur fait une offran à Khonsou et à Osiris avec ces déclarations: "le roi de Haute et Basse Égypte, le seigneur double pays, Tibère, le fils de Rê, le maître des diadèmes, César Auguste .. . La récompense de part: une longue royauté sur le trône d'Horus, éternellement",22 Sur une stèle grecque au musée Caire, on le voit adorant Horus et Isis allaitant Harpocrate,23 Ces marques de culte public sc corroborées par une demi-douzaine d'inscriptions grecques à Dendera (Tentyris) et à Koptos les dédicants rendent hommage aux divinités égyptiennes en son nom ou pour son salut.24 Les sources épigraphiques tant hiéroglyphiques que grecques sont au contraire plui

discrètes à propos de Caligula considéré par la tradition littéraire moderne comme le prem empereur initié aux mystères isiaques, le constructeur du temple d'Isis au Champ de Mars l'inspirateur du décor de l'a llIa isiaca sur le Palatin.25 N'y figure pas non plus le nom l'empereur Othon, isiaque convaincu qui, selon Suétone, "célébra publiquement le culte d'Isis, habit de lin selon les rites" .26 Pour sa part, Claude, plus réservé en Italie, se montra plus "dévot" en Égypte. On en comJ plus d'une dizaine de scènes d'offrande dans le temple d'Hathor à DenderaP sur la façade 1 temple de Khnoum à Esna.28 On remarquera un document plutôt rare illustré par un bas -relief , style égyptien, sur le mur extérieur Sud du grand temple de Dendera, figurant Claude, pharaon offrant des fleurs à Khonsou-Nofré-Hotep et Seb, et accompagné d'une dédicace en gz "pour la paix et la Concorde de Tibère Claude César Auguste Germanique, empereur," l'an 2 ' Claude, "jour Auguste" (3 avril 42).29

La présence de Néron est aussi relativement fréquente dans l'imagerie égyptienne. TI me] une procession des Génies du Nil et des déesses de la campagne dans le temple d'Hathor Den-dera;30 il se fit souvent figurer en dédicant tant à Dendera qu'à Philae.31 20 21 22 23 24 25

26

27 28 29

30

31

Ibid. VI.44 (1, 8). Cf, Bernand, Por/es du déser/ (supra n.15) p.122-124, n02 7 pl. 22. H. d e Meulanaere, "L'oeuvre architecturale de Tibère à Thèbes," Orien/alia Lovaniensia Periodi" (1978) 69-73 pl.!. Voir aussi Porter-Moss (supra n5) 11.110, 197, 207, 316. Cf. J. G, Milne, His/ory of Egyp/ V.Roman rule (London 1898) p.27 fig. 17; V. Chapot in G. HanotaL His/oire de la nation égyptienne III (paris 1933) fig. p. 250. Cf. Bernand, Por/es du déser/ (supra n.15) n° 28, 30 (Tentyris); 59-62 (Koptos). Cf. E, Kobelein, OJligula und die aegyptischen Kulte (Meinsenheim 1962). II est intéressant de noter q les affirmations relatives à la dévotioo isiaque de Caligula sont basées plutôt sur des allégations amI guës de Suétone et une notice aussi peu claire de Suidas selon laquelle "il s'occupait des rites d'ini ation et accomplissait les mystères étrangers" (Suidas !.503). Les sources ..., mentionnent ni son édi cation du temple d'Isis, ni soo rôle dans le décor de l'aula isiaca. Sur l'ensemble du problème de l'égypt philie de cet empereur, d. Malaise, OJnditions (supra n.1) p.395-401. En tlgypte, Caligula est représen seulement dans le premier hypostyle du temple d'Hathor de Dendera; Porter-Moss (supra n.5) VI.4S. Suet" Otho 12.2. Porter-Moss (supra n.5) VUS (2-7); 75 (217). Ibid. VII.n1 (1). Bernand, Por/es du désert (supra n.15) n' 30. La pierre a été trouvée en 1895. Plusieurs lettres 1 l'inscription manquent. La précision de la date de l'anniversaire de naissance de Claude ("le 8 ( Pharrnouthi" = dies augus/a) indique l'importance que les dédicants attachaient au culte impérial CI Fishwick, Imp. Cult II.1, p.494-496). Porter-Moss (supra n.5) V!.78 (241). Ibid, V!.76 (213-215, 234-236); 208 (23-25).

Tran tam Tinh

220

Dans la numismatique alexandrine, si l'emblème isiaque est déjà présent sous AugusteP

il

faut attendre la troisième année de Oaude33 et la deuxième année de Galba34 pour que les bustes de Sérapis et d'Isis figurent respectivement sur les revers des monnaies.

Les Flaviens La sympathie des Flaviens envers Sérapis et Isis est bien connue. Vespasien, après avoir été proclamé empereur par les légions, se rendit dans le temple de Sérapis à Alexandrie comme pour obtenir les bénédictions du dieu;

là

il montra son pouvoir de thaumaturge avant de célébrer le

triomphe à Rome.3s Titus, après avoir pris Jérusalem, se rendit à Memphis et, coiffé du diadème, enterra solennellement le boeuf Apis.36 En 71, la veille du jour de triomphe tant attendu, Vespasien et son fils Titus passèrent la mùt dans le temple d'Isis au Champ de Mars37

qui sera reconstruit et embelli 9 ans plus tard par le futur empereur Domitien. Ce demier mérite un examen spécial. D'après Suétone,38 lors du conflit contre Vitellius, pour échapper aux soldats de ce dernier Domitien se déguisa en prêtre d'Isis. Si Auguste, Tibère, Claude se faisaient représenter en pharaon en Egypte, Domitien se fit proclamer à Rome, sur l'obélisque érigé vers

82

sur le Champ de Mars, "le Roi de la Haute et la Basse Egypte, Seigneur du double pays,

Maître des offrandes, fils aimé d'Isis".39

En 88/89,

de

Rê, Maître de deux diadèmes, Autokrator, Caesar Domitianus,

il fit construire un autre temple d'Isis à Bénévent, et sur les deux

obélisques consacrés à la déesse l'empereur se fit appeler aussi "Roi de la Haute et Basse Égypte, Seigneur du double pays, Fils du Seigneur de la Vie, aimé des dieux, Fils de Rê, Maître des diadèmes, Domitianus vivant étemellement".40 Dans un temple à Assouan, construit sous son règne, l'empereur figure plusieurs fois en adoration devant les dieux (Osiris, Isis, Khnoum, Anouket) ou en leur faisant des offrandes, officiellement en pharaon: "Roi de la Haute et de la Basse Égypte, Seigneur du double pays, Autokrator Kaisaros, Fils de Rê, Maître des diadèmes, Domitianus t y hw [sebast os J, Germanicus".41 Les mêmes attitudes et cartouches sont connues à

n

Dendera sur les reliefs du Propylon du temple d'Hathor où on Hathor et Horus, à Isis et Harsoumtus.42

le

voit offrant du vin, du lait à

C'est aussi sous les Flaviens que, pour la première fois, le temple d'Isis apparaît sur une émission de Rome avec le consentement du Sénat (fig.

5).43

Et à Alexandrie, c'est seulement sous

les Flaviens que commençaient pratiquement des émissions avec des thèmes iconographiques importants d'Isis et de Sérapis.44

32 33 34 3S

En Egypte même, plusieurs dédicaces ont été faites en

grec pour

G. Dallari, Monet. imperia/i greche. Numi augg. alexandrini (2 vols., Cairo 1901) n° 8 pl. 27.

BMC Alexandria nO 78 (buste de Sérapis). Dallari (supra n.32) n' 320, 323.

Tac., Hist. 4.81-82; Sue!., Vesp.7.2; Dio Casso 65.8; P. Derchain and

J. Hubaux, "Vespasien au

Sérapéum," Latomus 12 (1953) 38-52; P. Derchain, "La visite de Vespasien au Sérapéwn d'Alexandrie,"

CahEgypt. 28 (1953) 279; A. Heinrichs, "Vespasian's visit to Alexandria," ZPE 3 (1968) p.51-80. Ces

sources relatent des nùracles effectués par l'empereurdevant le Serapeion.

36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Sue!., Tit. S. Jos., Ant /6.123. Sue!., Dom. 1.4. E. Iversen, Obelisks in exile I. The ob.lisks of Rome (1968) p.80-92; M. Malaise, Inv.ntaire préliminaire des documents Égyptiens découverts en Itali. (Leiden 1972) p.203-207 nO 387. H . W . Millier, Der Isiskult im antiken Benevent u n d Kalalog der Skulpturen aus den iigyptischen Heiligtüml!Tn im Museo dei Sanna (Berlin 1%9) 10 pl. I-lU. Cf. C. De Witt, "Les inscriptions du temple de Domitien à Assouan," CahEgypte 35 (1980) p.l08-119. Porter-Moss (supra n.5) VI.43-4S.

43

RIC II,?O n° 453; A. A1fëldi, "Die alexandrinischen Gôtler und die vota publica," /bAC 8/9 (1965/66) 58 pl. 4.3; Malaise, Inventaire (supra n.39) p.208-21O pl. 19a; G. Clerc, "Isis-5othis dans le monde romain," in Hommages Vermaseren I (I.eiden 1978) p.255 sq., pl. 31. Voir aussi l'émission sous Donùtien

44

J. Vogt, Die a/exandrinischen Münzen (Stuttgart 1924) I , p.41-57; II, p.l4-23.

où figure pour la première fois à Rome vers 94-96 le temple de Sérapis (RICIl, p.345 n° 238 pl. 67.4).

J

Fig.

empereurs romains versus Isis, Sérap is

221

5. Temple d'Isis Campensis sous Vespasien (from G. Clerc. Hommages Vermaseren 1 [Leiden 1978]).

Vespasien45 et pour Domitien46 en l'honneur d'Isis et des divinités égyptiennes. Ces témoignages semblent ôter tout doute sur la sympathie isiaque de la dynastie flavienne. Cependant, beaucoup d'hlstoriens modernes ont posé

la

question pour savoir si cette sympathie

était une maneuvre politique habile ou une aff<ùre de coeur. Pour ma part, je dirais un mélange des deux.

En

effet, Vespasien proclamé empereur par les légions d'Égypte et de Judée, ne

trouvait pas de meilleurs moyens de s'assurer de la fidélité de l'Égypte, grenier de l'Empire, que de se placer auprès

du

puissant dieu alexandrin.

li

savait aussi exploiter habilement les

prodiges, les miracles qu'il a effectués à Alexandrie, son tête-à-tête avec le puissant Sérapis pour assurer son "autorité et sa majesté" et pour renforcer l'appui de l'armée. Quant aux réalisations égyptisan tes de Domitien,

il est

possible de les interpréter comme des

manifestations d'une dévotion particulière à Isis combinées avec une égyptomanie extravagante et avec une recherche d'un pouvoir divin semblable à celui des pharaons. Nul doute, la sympathie de ces empereurs aidait le développement du culte de Sérapis et d'Isis, mais il est difficile d'affirmer que les Flaviens·étaient déjà des dévots isiaques désintéressésP

Les Antonins D'après les sources grecques et latines - qui ne mentionnent aucun geste en faveur des divi­ nités égyptiennes - Trajan semblait plus "neutre" envers Isis.48 Pourtant, en Égyte, ses activités en l'honneur des dieux de la vallée du Nil sont notoires surtout à Panopolis, à Dendera, à Esna. il est figuré dansant devant les dieux égyptiens.49 Sur la paroi extérieure de

A Dendera,

l'enceinte du temple de Montou-Rê à Médamoud,

l'"Autokrator César Nerva, fils

de Rê, Trajan

Auguste, Germanique" conduit une procession composée de génies "qui font de la nourriture" et des "déesses de la campagne" poitant des plateaux chargés de volatiles et de fleurs.5o Dans le temple de MandouJis à Kalabsha, aux confins Sud de l'Égypte, Trajan mène deux processions des

45 46

47

48 49 50

Cf. Bemand, lG Fayoum (supra n.15) l, nO 87; SB VIII.9818, 10167 (Karanis). S B 1.5793 (Theadelphia); V.8830 (Ombos); VIII.9818 (Karanis). "0 semble que Vespasien fit preuve d'une piété personnelle, reconnaissante de l'appui accordé par les dIeux égyphens malS désormais désintéressée" (Malaise, Conditions [supra n.1] p.412); "Les Flaviens, Vespasien le premier, marquaient aux dieux alexandrins une dévotion particulière" G. Beaujeu, La religion romaine à l'apogée de l'empire [Paris 1955] p.48). Beaujeu (supra n.47) p.l02 parle de la "froideur de Trajan à l'égard de la religion égyptienne" et même de l'antipathie. Les documents invoqués par nous semblent démon!rer le contraire

Cf. Milne (supra n.23) fig. 39.

E. Drioton, Rapport s u r les fouil/es de MllÜlmoud (1925). Les inscriptions (Le Caire 1926) p.47-128, n0 121, 125, 128 et passim.

Tran tam Tinh

222

dieux Nils: dans la première, l'empereur offre deux vases "Hes" à Osiris Ounophris et Mandoulis et dans la seconde il fait la même offrande à Isis et Mandoulis.51 Plusieurs dédicaces grecques gravées dans des régions isolées, comme au Mons Porphyrites ou dans l'Oasis Magna, sont faites "pour la fortune de Trajan" en l'honneur de Sérapis et d'Isis. 52

En llO/ Il, une émission

alexandrine représente Sérapis couronnant l'empereur.53 Quelques années plus tard, dans une

autre émission, Alexandria fait le même geste en son honneur.54 C'est aussi sous Trajan que plusieurs thèmes iconographiques nouveaux apparaissent dans l a numismatique alexandrine, surtout Sérapis debout près d'une fontaine, Isis lactans, Isis Pharia, Sérapis Panthée, Sérapis

avec Isis, et Harpocrate.55 Quant à Hadrien, on en découvre plusieurs visages: "philhellène en pays grec, épris des

cultes égyptiens sur les bords du Nil mais champion de la religion traditionnelle à Rome". 56 Cette prudence politique se manifeste dans plusieurs de ses actions égyptophiles tant en Egypte

qu'à Rome.

Il visita l'Égypte vers la fin de juillet 130. Après une l'arrivée bien célébrée par des émissions monétaires tant à Rome - ADVENTUS AYGVSTI57 - qu'à Alexandrie,58 la réception à Alexandrie devait être grandiose, à en croire la numismatique locale.

Il entre en ville debout sur

un quadrige, salué par Alexandria.59 Cette dernière lui serre la main en lui tendant des épis de blé60 ou baise sa main.61 Hadrien remonta ensuite le Nil, s'arrêta auprès du colosse de Memnon

qui, après avoir gardé le silence le premier jour, a salué, le deuxième jour, l'impératrice Sabine

et l'empereur par des cris stridents.62 C'est lors de Ce voyage que son bien aimé Antinous se noya dans le Nil, et qu'est surgie, en l'honneur du jeune homme déifié, la ville Antinopolis. A-t-il

51 52 53 54 55 56 57

58

59 60 61 62

Porter-Moss (supra n.5) VI1.19 (50-65); voir aussi 14 (24-27): Trajan offrant du vin à Isis et Osiris. Cf. A. Bemand, Pan du désert (Paris 1977) n° 20 (temple d'Isis à Mons Porphyrites); SB V.8438 (temple de Sérapis et d'Isis à Kysis, Oasis Magna). Dattari (supra n.32) n° 792; S. Skowronek, On theproblems of the Alexandrian mint (Varsovie 1967) 47 pl. 9.4. Dattari (supra n.32) n° 782-783,785; BMC Alexandria n° 530-531; Skowronek (supra n.53) p.50 pl. 9.5; M.-O. Jentel," Alexandria," LIMC 1 (1980) n° 49", 50,51" pl. 371. Cf. J. Vogt (supra n.44) l, p.65-79; II, p�. Malaise, Conditions (supra n.l) 426; cf. Beaujeu (supra n.47) p.276-278. L'émission romaine dont il subsiste un aureus et quelques sesterces représente Sérapis accompagné d'Isis en face d'Hadrien et de Sabine, le dieu serrant la main de l'empereur, la déesse saluant les visiteurs royaux en agitant le sistre. La scène est illustrée de l'inscription ADVENTVI AVG. ALEXANDRIAE (BMCRE II, p.339, 489); Tran tam Tinh,Sérapis debout (Leiden 1983) p.252, n° V.21. Notons que le thème de l'ADVENTUS était utilisé aussi pour les voyages de œt empereur en Afrique et en Asie. L'empereur est représenté debout accompagné d'Alexandria, cf. J. G. Milne, Catalogue of Alexandrian coins (Oxford 1971) n° 1294-1304, 1315-1317 (l'an 15), ou fait une entrée triomphale sur un quadrige (cf. Milne,n° 1314). Tous les auteurs modernes s'accordent à souligner l'importance de ce voyage et la sympathie d'Hadrien vis-à-vis de Sérapis surtout après le noyade de son Antinous chéri (voir Beaujeu [supra n.47] 228-57; Hombostel [supra n.l) p.379-388; Malaise, Conditions [supra n.l) p.419-427). Cf. BMC Alexandria n° 868 pl. 27; Milne (supra n. 58) n° 1314; Skowronek (supra n.53) pl. 9.6; A. Geissen, Katalog Alexandrinischer Kaisermünzen der Sammlung des Instituts for A/lertumskunde der Universitiit zu Kain II (Kôln 1974) n° 1036-1038; Jentel, LIMC 1 n° 23" pl. 370. Cf. BMC Alexandria n° 669; Dattari (supra n.32) n° 1267-1270; Skowronek (supra n.53) 50 pl. 9.7; Geissen (supra n.59) n° 1026-1029; Jentel, UMC l n· 19", 20 pl. 370. Cf. Dattari (supra n.32) n° 1610-1611; BMC Alexandria n° 870; Milne (supra n.58) n° 1315; Skowronek (supra n53) p.sa, pl. 9.8; Geissen (supra n.59) n° 1034·1035; Jentel, UMC 1 n° 21,22" pl. 370. Ces événements sont raccontés dans 4 épigrammes de la poétesse Julia Balbilla, accompagnatrice de Sabine au cours de ce voyage (cf. A. & E. Bernand, Les inscriptions grecques et latines du Colosse de Memnon [IFAO 1960) p.80-100 n° 28-30). Sur le voyage d'Hadrien,voir aussi S. Follet, "Hadrien en Égypte et en Judée," RPhil42 (1968) p.5S-77.

T

=S

emp ereurs romains versus Isis, Sérap is

visité Philae où un linteau

de porte le représente faisant des offrandes à Osiris et Isis?63 Ce seu

document n'est pas suffisant pour l'affirmer, car Auguste, Tibère, Trajan, Gaude figurent aus� sur les reliefs des temples sans y avoir été. L'an

17 de son règne (132/33), on inaugura un

chapelle en son honneur - peut-être pour célébrer son passage à Alexandrie: sur une émissiOl monétaire, Sérapis est représenté dans un temple saluant l'empereur debout après d'une stH

portant le mot ADRIANON.64 Certes, ces émissions sont empreintes de propagande et d, promotion politique, mais leur signification est évidente pour le peuple, surtout quand Sérapi. présente à l'empereur une couronne avec taenia,65 ou lui tend un globe.66 Pendant son règne

plusieurs temples ont éte erigés en l'honneur de Serapis-Hélios en Haute Egypte "pour li conservation et la victoire éternelle de l'empereur Trajan, Hadrien Auguste".67 Les reliefs de temples égyptiens n'ont pas oublié de le représenter en dédicant à Esna,68 à Philae, et surtou

dans le temple de Sérapis et d'Isis à Qasr Dush dans l'Oasis d'El-Kharga où l'empereur est i genoux devant Sérapis(?), Isis et Horus.69 Même si Hadrien n'était pas devenu, à la suite de sor

voyage en Égypte, un adepte de Sérapis, néanmoins son court séjour en Égypte et à Alexandrie,

laissé dans la mémoire de l'empereur une empreinte profonde. Peut-être son égyptophilie est-elle née, dans son subconscient, avec ce voyage. C'est dans Sé villa de Tivoli qu'Hadrien pouvait laisser libre à son égyptomanie .empreinte de souvenirs dt

Nil. La reconstitution grandiose du Canope composé d'un ensemble architectural, d'un canal el

d'un bassin, le tout égayé par des dizaines de statues égyptisantes, semble rappeler le CanopE

situé à une des embouchures du Nil célèbre grâce aux temples de Sérapis-Hélios et d'Isi� Menouthis.7° Mais publiquement Hadrien était plutôt discret, prudent et peu bavard sur ses convictions religieuses.

il est intéressant de noter que c'est sous son Principat que se développaient d'une manière

intense le culte de Sérapis-Hélios déjà commencé sous Domitien et Trajan - et l'expansion des thèmes iconographiques isiaques au Proche Orient.

63 64

65 66 67

68 69 70

dans la numismatique autonome en Asie mineure, en Thrace

et

Cf. Beaujeu (supra n.47) p.228; Porter-Moss (supra n.S) VI254 (2-3). Datlari (supra n.32) n° 1944 pl. 29; 1946; BMC Alexandria 876, pl. 29; Milne (supra n.S8) n° 1377-1380 pl. 4; Geissen (supra n.59) n° 1084 -1 086; Tran tam Tinh, Sirapis debout (supra n.S7) n° 42 figs. 193-195. Sur la signification de la scène, des opinions diffèrent: pour les uns, il s'agirait d'une chapelle en l'honneur d'Hadrien, élévant ainsi ce dernier au rang desunnaos thros du dieu alexandrin (W.Weber, Untersuchungen zur �schichte des Kaiser Hadrianus [Leipzig 1907) p.261 sq.; J. M. C. Toynbee, Hadrianic Schoo! [Cambridge 1934) p.43; Beaujeu [supra nA7) p230; Hombostel [supra n.1] p.382; Malaise, Conditions [supra n.1] p.424); pour d'autres, il s'agirait d'une stèle érigé par les prêtres comme geste de gratitude envers l'empereur U. Vogt [supra n.44] I. p.69 et 366; Nock, Essays p216) ou en commémorant la réforme administrative selon laquelle les archives déposées dans le Sérapeum seront désormais transférées dans la nouvelle bibliothèque construite par l'empereur (S. Handler, "Architecture on the Roman coins of Alexandria," AJA 75 [1971] p.67-68). Cf. Datlari (supra n32) n° 1947 pl. 29; Tran tam Tinh, Sirapis debout (supra n.S7) p.133-134 n° le 31. Cf. Dattari (supra n.32) n° 1946; Milne (supra n.S8) n ° 1380 pl. 4 , Tran tam Tinh, Sirapis debout (supra n.57) p.188 n° IVB 42c. A Gebel Dokhan (Mons Porphyrites) 117-19 ap. J.-c. (Bemand, Pan du disert [supra n.S2] p.21); à Gebel Fatirech (Mons Claudianus) 118 ap. J.-C. (ibid. 42); à Louqxor, 127 ap. J.-c. (G.Wagner, "L'inscription grecque et le martelage du nom du préfet Titus Flavius Titianus," BIFAO 81 [1981] p.129-34). Voir aussi Bemand, "Épigraphie" (supra n.1S) n° 16-18. Porter-Moss (supra n.S) VII.l134 (10), 116. Ibid. VII.1S1 (5). Cf. S. Aurigemma, Villa Adriana (Rome 1961) p.lOO-l33; Malaise, Conditions (supra n.1) p.100-111; A. Roul let, The Egyptian and Egyptianizing monuments of imperia! Rome (Leiden 1972) n° 96-102, 104, 122-134, 141-142, 146-147, 149.

Tran tam Tinh

224

Fi g.

6. Sérapis saluant Hadrien (from Tinh, Sérapis F ig. 7. Sérapis et Isis accueillant Commode (from J. Beaujeu, La religion romaine [Paris 1955] pl. 11.30).

debout [Leiden 1983) fig.l95).

En parlant des empereurs isiaques, on pense, après Domitien, au demier des Antonins. Com­

mode était-il vraiment le dévot qui célébrait les rites sacrés d'Isis, qui se rasait la tête et por­ tait l'effigie d'Anubis dans les processions?71 Forçait-il ses coreligionaires à se faire de vraies blessures en se flagellant non avec des lanières de chanvre mais de cuir chargées d'osselets?

Frappait-il jusqu'au sang la tête rasée des prêtres isiaques avec l'effigie d'Anubis qu'il portait lui-même? 72 Les auteurs de la vie des Augustes ont mis l'accent sur sa cruauté dans sa folie religieuse en racontant des histoires dont l'authenticité a fait couler beaucoup d'encre. Ses amis,

parmi lesquels Pescennius Niger, devenu plus tard empereur, semblaient s'adonner à ces mêmes célébrations douteuses, curieusement non dans un temple mais dans les jardins de Cornmode,13 Les opinions divergent, mais des monuments archéologiques semblent confirmer sa profession isiaque, sans rien révéler cependant sur sa folie mystique.

A l'instar d'autres empereurs des dynasties julio-claudienne et antonine, Commode est représenté comme un pharaon 15 fois sur les murs intérieurs occidental et septentrional de la salle hypostyle du temple de Khnoum à Esna/Latopolis.1 4 A Kom Ombo, dans le temple de Haroeris,

il fit des offrandes

à Haroeris et à Tasennefert-Tefnout.1s Dans la numismatique

alexandrine, on le voit, dans une émission de 183/84, en habit sacerdotal sacrifiant devant un buste de Sérapis.16 Dans une autre en 185/86, Alexandria se met à genoux devant lui.77 Mais c'est dans les émissions à Rome même que se manifeste la politique religieuse de Commode. Ce dernier inaugura une série d'émissions de VOTA PUBLICA où l'empereur est figuré

sacrifiant au pied d'un phare dans un port où s'avancent deux galères dont l'une a, sur la poupe, un buste de Sérapis?8 Dans la même année (191), dans une autre émission, Sérapis-Hélios radié

71 72 73

74

7S 76 77 78

Sacra lsidis coillit lit et Cilput raderet et Anllbim portaret (SHA Comm. 9.4). Cf. SHA Comm. 9.4; voir aussi Carac. 9.11. SHA Pesc. Nig. 6.8: Pescennius in Commodianis hortis in portieu Cl/roa pictum de musio inter Commodi amicissimos videmus sacra lsidis jerentem. Voir à ce sujet, Beaujeu (supra n.47) p.387-388; Malaise, Conditions (supra n.1) p.432-436. Cf. S. Sauneron, Le temple d'Esna VI (Le Caire 1975) n' 494, 500, 511, 518, 525-528, 532, 537, 539; S. Bakhoum, "Commode: témoignage en Egypte et monnayage alexandrin," Mélanges Étienne Bernand (Paris 1991) p.3-11. Notons en passant qu'à Esna la majorité des scènes appartiennent aux Ile et Ille s.: 8 de Trajan, 15 de Commode, plus de 40 du temps de Sévère-Caracalla-Geta; 3 enfin du milieu du IIIe s. du temps de Decius (Sauneron vii). Porter-Moss (supra n.5) IV.186-87 (230-231). Cf. Dattari (supra n.32) n' 3845-3847 pl. 7; BMC Alenndria 1432 pl. 27; Bakhourn (supra n74) p.6 pl. I.1 (Bibl. Nat. Paris inv. 2723). Cf. Dattari (supra n.32) n' 3855 pl. 8; Skowronek (supra n.53) pl. 9.9; Jentel, LIMC 1 n' 24" pl. 370. F. Gnecchi, 1 medag/ioni romani II (Milano 1912) n' 172-176, pl. 89, 6-8; A1fôldi (supra n.43) p.56 pl. I.3b; Beaujeu (supra n.47) pl. II.32; Malaise, Inventaire (supra n39) n' 449, pl. 28b.

1

emp ereurs romains versus Isis, Sérap is

225

est proclamé CONSERVATOR AUGUSTl,79 comme si l'empereur se mettait désormais sous la pro­

tection du dieu alexandrin au lieu de celle de Jupiter. Dans cette même vision politique, Wl autre type monétaire de l'an 192 montre Commode, couronné par une Victoire et serrant la main de . Sérapis accompagné d'Isis qui agite un sistre (fig. 7). 80 Les Sévères Le fondateur

de la dynastie des Sévères, Septime fit

culturel en Égypte, à en croire

Hist oria Augusta .8l

Wl pèlerinage à la fois religieux et

Il montrait toujours ce double intérêt personnel. Alexandre Sévère se montrait aussi favorable à Isis et Sérapis.82 Parmi les Sévères, Caracalla semblait rivaliser avec Domitien et Commode. D'après

Spartien, Caracalla "installait ou transportait des objets sacrés d'Isis à Rome, construisait en l'honneur de la déesse partout des temples magnifiques; il célébrait les rites d'une manière plus solennelle qu'auparavant". 83 Cependant, pendant son séjour à Alexandrie en 215, cet empereur n'a pas pu, comme Vespasien et Hadrien, gagner à sa cause la sympathie du clergé et du peuple,

mais a perpétré de terribles massacres raccontés par les auteurs anciens.8• Venu à Alexandrie après l'assassinat de son frère Géta, pour demander à Sérapis la guérison du corps et de l'esprit, il séjourna dans le Sérapéum.85 Après le terrible carnage des notables et des jeunes alexandrins, il partit pour Antioche mais ôemble avoir eu l'intention de retourner à Alexandrie pour

participer aux alexandrine du

79 80 81 82

83 84

85 86

Sera peia du 25 avril 216. Malgré ces méfaits, dans une inscription votive 11 mars 216, on le proclama "kosmokrator" et "philosarapis".86

RIC IV n° 756, 834-835; Tran tam Tinh, Sérapis debout (supra n.57) p.192 n° IVB 48; Hombostel (supra n.1) p.152-154; Malaise, Inventaire (supra n.39) n° 449. RIC 751; 840, n° 706-8; Beaujeu (supra 11.47) 387 pl. II.30; Alfôldi (supra n.43) 57 pl. 3.1, 3 et 4. SHA �pl. Sev. 17.3.4: iucundam sibi peregrinationem hanc propler religionem dei Sarapidiset propler rerum an/Ïquarum cognilionem el propler novila/em animalium. A la fin de son article sur "L'empereur romain devant Sérapis: (Klema 1 [1976] p.145-166), J. Gagé a raison de poser ce problème: "Sérapis au temps des empereurs syriens; l'apogée ou le commencement de rivalités nouvelles" (162 sq.). En effet, la grande "vague sérapiste" soulevée par Caracalla et les Sévères semble avoir provoqué plutôt des conséquences néfastes à la fois à la famille impériale et aux dieux alexandrins. SHA Carac. 9. Ces temples ont été décorés de multiples statues par Sévère AI
Tran tam Tinh

226

Comme Domitien avant lui, Caracalla édifia à Rome un temple en l'honneur de Sérapis sur­ nommé invic lus , cependant cette fois-ci à l'intérieur du pomeriu m, sur le Quirinal.87 Plusieurs dédicaces votives en l'honneur de Sérapis ou des divinités égyptiennes ont été faites pour la victoire ou pour le salut de l'empereur. Sous son règne, tant à Rome que partout dans les provinces, on faisait des dizaines de dédicaces à Sérapis, à Isis soit pour SQn salut, sa fortune et sa victoire soit pour sa conservation, sa permanence, son retour, soit pour sa fortune.88 A Rome, dans la numismatique, Isis présente des épis à l'empereur en costume militaire debout sur un crocodile.B9 De 212 à 217, de nombreuses émissions romaines représentent Sérapis debout ou trônant,90 ce qui dénote un engouement extraordinaire jamais vu dans le monnayage impérial avant lui. A Alexandrie, dans deux émissions, l'une ayant sur l'avers le buste de Caracalla, la seconde, le buste de Julia Damna, l'empereur est couronné par Sérapis.91 La même scène apparaît sur les monnaies de Nicée92 et de Nicomédie.93 Dans les temples égyptiens, les représentations des Sévères sont plutôt rares excepté à Esna où sur le mur intérieur Sud du temple de Khnoum, la grande famille impériale au complet, Septime Sévère, Julia Damna, Caracalla et Geta, se présente devant Khnoum et Heka.94 Comme on l'a vu, Caracalla est proclamé - par ses courtisans(?) alexandrins - kosmokra lor el philosara pis ,95 pour sa part Sérapis porte lui-même l'épithète philoka isar à Koptos, au temps de son successeur Alexandre Sévère. 96 Des dédicaces grecques en l'honneur des divinités égyptiennes pour le salut et la victoire de Caracalla et de Julia Domna "mère des armées invincibles" abondent aussi, surtout lors du séjour de l'empereur en Égypte.97

B7 BB

89 90

O. L.

Vidrnan, Sylloge

Inscriptionllm Religionis lsiacae

Malaise, Inventaire (supra n.39) 119 n° 23. Rome: pour l e salut (SIRIS n ° 375),pour l e salut

et la

el

Sarapiacae [= SIRIS] (Berlin 1969) n° 374 =

(SIRIS n ° 370); à Smyrne: pour la (SIRIS n° 552); à Vienne: pour le salut (SIRIS nO 667); en Pannonie: pour le salut et la victoire (SIRIS n° 669-670); à Cyrène: pour la fortune et la victoire (SIRIS 805); à Koptos en Égypte: pour la permanence et la victoire éternelle (Bemand,Portes dll disert [supra n.15] nO 82); pour la victoire (ibid. n' 84). RIC IV.1 nO 257a,b = Malaise, Inventaire (supra n.39) n° 451a. Sérapis debout, cf. RIC IV.1 n° 193-194 (en 212); 208,497, 502,505 (en 213); 244 (en 214); 263, 561a-b permanence

(SIRIS nO 306); à Ostie: pour le salut

conservation

et le retour

(3n 215); 280a-c (en 216); 289a-f, 290 (en 217); Sérapis trônant cf. Mattingly IV.1 n° 291a-c, 292 (en 217). Sur les monnaies de Sérapis debout dans les provinces,sans parler d'Alexandrie, cf. Tran tam

Tinh,Sérapis debollt (supra n.57) n° lA 38 (Nicopolis); lA 39 (Amasia du Pont); ID 25 (Odessos,Thrace); III 26; I YB 72 (Perinthus, Thrace); IV A 18 (Néapolis, Palestine); IYB 54 (Sinope); IVB 62-63; IVC 39 (Nicée); I YB 64; IVC 40 (Nicomedia); IV 65 (Prusa); IVB 66 (Cius);

IVB 67

(Coetium); IYB 68 (Amisos);

IVB 69 (Aelia Capitolina, Palestine); IYB 70 (Stobi, Macédoine); IVB 71 (Marcianopolis); IVB 73

(Serdica,Thrace); IVC 38 (Trapezos du Pont); IVC 41 (Ptolemais en Palestine).

91

Dattari (supra n.32) n° 4052-4054; Geissen (supra n.59) nO 2284, 2297; W. E. Metcalf, "New and noteworthy from Roman Alexandria. PescenIÙus Niger-DiadumeIÙan" in O. M"rkholm and N. M. Waggoner (edd.), Greek 1979) p.181, n° 25 pl. 20.

92 93 94

nllmismalics and archae%gy. Essays in honor of MIlrgaret Thompson (Wetteren

BMC PontilS, Paph/agonia, Bithynia p.163 n° 73; W. H. Waddington, ReClleil généra/ des monnaies grecqlles d'Asie Minellre (paris 1912) 1.3, p.457 n° 468 pl. 79.12; SNG Capenhagen, Bosphorus, Bithynia n° 500; Tran tam Tinh,Sérapis debollt (supra n.57) p.241 nO IVC 39 fig. 248. SNG Copenhagen, BosphOrlls, Bithynia n° 571 pl. 14; Waddington, Reclleil (supra n.92) 1.3, p.546 pl. 94.21; Tran tam Tinh,Sérapis debollt (supra n.57) p.241 n° IVC 40. Sauneron (supra n.74) n° 496. Sur d'autres inscriptions mentionnant Geta, après l'assassinat de ce dermer, Caracalla "surchargea les cartouches de son frère" (ibid. vti); voir aussi S. Sauneron, "I.es

querelles impériales vues à travers les scènes du temple d'Esna," BIFAO 31 (1952) p.111-121 pl. I.2.

95 96

Cf. supra n.85. Dédicace faite par un membre d u Sénat d e l a ville d e Koptos e n l'honneur de Zeus Hélios-Sarapis,

97

Ibid. nO 82-85.

"protecteur de la ville", cf. Bernand,Portes

dll désert (supra n.15) n° 88.

- es emp ereurs romains versus Isis , Sérap is

2

Conclusion L'examen de ces documents littéraires, épigraphiques et numismatiques nous ramène quelques faits précis:

1. En Egypte, tous les empereurs sans exception, les soi-disant adversaires comme les S( disant sympathisants d' Isis et de Sérapis, adoptaient publiquement presque la même attitud ils encouragaient la construction des temples, surtout dans la Haute Égypte et en Nubie, E l'honneur des dieux traditionnels, ils se faisaient représenter comme d'authentiques pharaOI officiant devant les dieux en suivant le rituel requis. Dans la numismatique alexandrine, Isis . Sérapis ont une place privilégiée. 2. A partir des Antonins, sur les revers des monnaies autonomes ou pseudo-autonomes des àt. d'Asie Mineure et de Thrace, Isis et Sérapis apparaissent aussi fréquemment que les divinit. du panthéon gréco-romain Il est souvent difficile de savoir si ces émissions monétaires étaiel influencées par la politique des empereurs ou par les vagues religieuses populaires. À ROJr cependant, avant le IVe 5., seulement les monnaies émises sous les empereurs isiacophiles voire Vespasien, Domitien, Hadrien, Commode et Caracalla - portent les images d'Isis et d Sérapis. Une note discordante mérite d'être pourtant soulignée: au IVe s., sous les tétrarques • surtout sous les empereurs chrétiens, de Constantin à Gratien et Valentinien II - c'est-à-dil avant les décrets de Théodose 1er interdisant le paganisme - les images des dieux alexandrir continuent à figurer à une fréquence inattendue sur les monnaies frappées à Rome à l'occasion dE VOTA PUBLICA, comme l'ont démontré d'une manière convaincante des études d'A. Alftildi. 98 De ces constatations, on arrive à deux conclusions: 1. TI existait une contradiction notoire dans l'attitude des julio-claudiens. À Rome, Auguste ( Tibère essayaient de restaurer et consolider la religion traditionnelle en persécutant le isiaques, mais en Égypte ils se délectaient d'être de nouveaux pharaons - nouv, agathodaimon dans le cas d e Néron99 - accoutrés comme les anciens souverains égyptiens E jouant leur rôle de sacrificateurs en l'honneur des divinités qu'ils persécutaient en même temp dans la capitale. Statistiquement parlant, les reliefs religieux figurant Auguste et Tibère en vrais pharaom officiant dans des temples construits avec leur bénédiction, dépassent de loin ceux des empereur reputés comme isiacophiles des dynasties flavienne, antonine et sévérienne. Portant des titre "Seigneur de la Haute et Basse Egypte, fils de Rê, Seigneur des deux couronnes, ai mé d'Isis" remplissant leur devoir envers les divinités égyptiennes, y compris Isis et Osiris, avec le mêm sérieux comme s'ils officiaient sur l'autel de la Paix à Rome, ils voulaient montrer au; Égyptiens qu'ils incarnaient l'harmonie du ciel et de la terre, grâce à laquelle le Nil apportai les inondations bénéfiques et la terre remplissait les greniers dont bénéficiait largement Rome Alors que Agrippa, son lieutenant, chassait les isiaques de Rome, Auguste offrit à la déesse Isi: de l'encens, des oiseaux et des gazelles, des fruits de la terre à Dendera, à Philae, à Kalabsha Alors que les fidèles d'Isis de la capitale ont été envoyés en exil, Tibère présenta dévotément i la même déesse des offrandes variées dans les temples de Philae, de Dendera, de Thèbes.

On pourrait parler de "double language". On devrait plutôt expliquer ces politiques dans 1. cadre de la "raison d'État". En tant que successeurs des pharaons, les empereurs étaient des fil: de Rê, incarnant Horus et divinisés par Isis. Mais en tant qu'empereurs de Rome, ils restaien romains. Et comme au début de l'Empire l'aristocratie et même l'intelligentzia étaient encorE 98 99

Cf. A. Alfoldi, A festival of Isis in Rome under the Christian emperors of the IVth centllry (Dissertatione, Pannonicae 11.7, Budapest 1937); id. (supra n.43) p.53-87 pl. 16. OGIS nO 666.3 = A. Bernand, lA prose Sllr pierre dans rt.gypte hellénistique et romaine (Paris 1992) 1. p.122-123 n° 55; Dallari (supra n.32) n° 265 pl. 31; 267, 269; BMC AleXll n dria n° 17l pl. 26; 174-175. Milne (supra n.58) nO 142-144, 203, 204; Geiss en (supra n.59), n° 1 13, 131-132, 142.

�

0>

>-l

.... III

::l

..... III

:3

>-l

g:

Fig. 8. Isis et Sérapis derrière les Tétrarques (from H. P. Laubscher, Der Reliefschmuck des Ga/eriusbogens in Thessa/oniki [Berlin 1 975) pl. 58).

.; empereurs romains versus Isis, Sérapis

229

conservatrices, égyptophobes à cause de la mémoire d'Antoine, ces premiers empereurs avaient choisi, en quelque sorte, de jouer le double jeu. 100 Leurs représentations dans les temples égyptiens ne démonstraient nullement leur allégeance religieuse, mais plutôt une présence politique pour gagner le coeur des Égyptiens, et leur antipathie contre les fidèles isiaques dans la capitale était plutôt pour calmer les esprits conservateurs. A partir des Flaviens, les choses orit beaucoup évolué. L'Égypte, qui depuis toujours était le

grenier

de Rome, n'était plus le pays exotique réservé à l'empereur. Le culte d'Isis et de Sérapis

s'étendait partout et avait une clientèle populaire importante même dans la capitale. Vespasien fut le premier à "tenter le coup": fort de l'appui de ses soldats fidèles après la victoire de Jérusalem, il introduit officiellement Isis et Sérapis dans les émissions monétaires impériales à Rome. Domitien allait plus loin.

li fut

le seul à avoir construit ou faire construire

des temples "à l'égyptienne" sur le sol d'Italie, à Bénévent d'abord, à Rome ensuite.

Il

fut le

seul aussi à avoir inscrit ses titres pharaoniques en hiéroglyphes en dehors de la vallée du Nil

li se

fit ainsi consacrer "pharaon"'avec l'approbation "tacite" du Sénat et du peuple romain.

Relier le destin de l'Égypte à Rome en soulignant l'OMONOIA

=

CONCORDIA entre le Nil et

le Tibre est une idée ingénieuse manifestée sur une rare monnaie alexandrine de l'an 7 d'Antonin le Pieux (143/44) où les deux dieux fleuves se serrent la main.101 Quelques empereurs des dynasties des Antonins et des Sévères suivaient, à des degrés et des rythmes différents, la voie tracée par les Flaviens. Pour marquer son périple alexandrin,

Hadrien se fit représenter salué par Sérapis et Isis " en personne". Commode se fit co uronner par

la Victoire en compagnie d'Isis et de Sérapis, ou se plaça sous la protection de Sérapis-Hélios, proclamé CONSERVATOR AUGUST! (au même titre que Juppiter) . Caracalla se fit figurer auprès d'Isis qui lui tendait deux épis. Ces manifestations officielles avaient aussi un objectif de

propagande: l'empereur serrant la main de Sérapis ou couronné par celui-ci affirma sa "majesté divine", son égalité avec le dieu suprême des isiaques.

On peut

aussi accepter l'hypothèse de J.

Gagé selon laquelle "de par l'ampleur de sa théologie, de tendance hénothéiste mais ouverte aux équivalences, la religion de Sérapis était faite pour servir, lorsque les circonstances

politiq ues s'y prêtaient, un dessin universaliste" . 102

On peut

toujours discuter sur

la sincérité de

l'allégeance religieuse de Commode et de Caracalla, mais les témoignages de leur sympathie isiaque sont nombreux. Le cas des monnaies frappées au IVe s. à Rome est surprenant l'événement arrive juste au moment du déclin de l'Empire, comme si les empereurs essayaient de s'agripper à une bouée de sauvetage. Sur l'arc de Galère à Salonique, Sérapis et Isis en compagnie des Dioscures et d'autres Olympiens assurent la protection de Dioclétien et des Tétrarques (fig. 8) .1 03 Quant à Constantin et ses successeurs - à l'exception de Julien l'Apostat

- ils semblaient se préoccuper

plutôt de la nature divine ou humaine de Jésus que d'Isis et Sérapis. Et pourtant au moment où les ateliers alexand4Ïns fermaient leurs portes, ceux de Rome multipliaient des émissions en

l'honneur d'Isis, de Sérapis, d'Harpocrate et d'Anubis. Notons d'abord, à la suite d'Alfôldi,10 4 que ces monnaies frappées à l'occasion des VOTA

PUBUC A revêtent une signification

particulière pour les Romains pour qui ces voeux pour le peuple étaient placés sous l a protection

À titre d'exemple, au XIXe siècle, la Républi que française, fille de la Révolution anticléricale de 1789, favorisait volontiers - en tant que fiUe aînée de l' É glise - les miss i onnaires catholiques français dans les colonies (gesta Dei per Gallos) tout en réprimant l' Église dans la métropole. 101 Cf. D. Feuardent, Collection G. di Dtmetrio, Numümatique, Egypte ancienne (Paris 1870) n° 1654 pl.24; BMC Altxandria n° 1167 p1.31; Jentel, "N eil os, " UMC Vl, nO 48" pl. 428. 102 Gagé (supra n.82) p.165. 103 Cf. K. F. Kinch, L'arc de triompht dt Salonique (paris 1890) pl. 6; A. Alfôldi (supra n.98) 49; H. P. Laubscher, Da &/iefschmuck dts Galtriusbogen in Thtssaloniki (DA! Arch. Forsch. !, 1975) p.3 pl. 51 et 58; Tran tam Ti nh, Sérapis debout (supra n.57) p.262, et bibl., fig. 291. 1 04 Dans les lignes suivantes nous essayons de résumer des pages très denses d'Alfôldi (supra n.98) p.30-58. 100

Tran tam Tinh

230

des dieux dont l'empereur continuait d'être le par Théodose. IOS

pontifex max imus jusqu'à la suppression officielle

du paganisme

En

dehors d'Alexandrie où Isis et Sérapis dominaient les revers des monnaies de Vespasien

jusqu'à Dioclétien, ces divinités ne figurent sur les monnaies autonomes frappées en Asie Mineure, en Palestine, en Mésie, et en Thrace qu'à partir d'Hadrien

(253-268)

(117-138)

jusqu'à Gallien

avec une cadence plus dense sous Commode, les Sévères et Gordien. 106 A la différence

de Rome et d'Alexandrie, la présence de ces divinités sur les revers de ces monnaies pose le problème, souvent �oulevé, de la signification des figures divines dans la numismatique impériale. Reflètent-elles la dévotion de l'empereur envers ces divinités ou répondent-elles

à

un programme de propagande religieuse souscrite par l'empereur? Ou plutôt s'agit-il simplement de la volonté des autorités locales? Dans l'affirmative de la première hypothèse, pourquoi ces images ne paraissent-elles pas en même temps dans toutes les cités? Dans l'affirmative de la seconde hypothèse, pourquoi parad oxalement sont-elles absentes dans des cités où le culte était bien attesté et présentes dans des sites

où

le silence des autres sources est

total; et aussi pourquoi n'apparaissent-elles souvent que sous tel empereur ou sporadiquement que sous quelques empereurs? Une réponse adéquate manque encore.1 07 TI est néanmoins plausible de penser que si à Rome, c'est le

procurator a rationibus qui contrôlait la frappe

impériale, dans

les provinces la frappe ne dépendait pas de Rome, mais les sentiments de l'empereur ou de la familie régnante pouvaient influencer le choix des types monétaires.

2.

Comme nous l'avons démontré, pour étudier d'une manière systématique l'attitude des

empereurs romains versus Sér apis et Isis, les auteurs latins et grecs, si fiables soient-ils, ne nous fournissent pas des témoignages impartiaux, complets et ne reflétant pas en général toute la réalité historique. La numismatique, quoique sujette à des règles politiques tant impériales que municipales, est pourtant utile mais ne donne

pas

une certitude quant à la vraie politique

conjoncturelle de Rome. Surtout dans les provinces, il n'y avait pas de relayage direct entre Rome et les cités, et l'activité monétaire locale ne devait pas se soumettre au rythme de la dévotion de l'empereur. Les témoignages épigraphiques et iconographiques sont certes précieux. lis nous renseignent cependant non pas directement sur les sentiments religieux de l'empereur, mais plutôt indirectement, c'est-à-dire sur l'utilisation politique de son image, de son nom dans un domaine où jouait énormement non pas la dévotion personnelle du princeps, mais surtout l'impression qu'elle pouvait provoquer dans le peuple.

TI est vrai que plusieurs

de ces documents ont une valeur politique de propagande impériale

plutôt qu'une valeur hiStorique impartiale. Mais une bonne dose de l'ensemble de tous ces documents - voire de la richesse des sources épigraphiques égyptienne, grecque et latine, de l'extraordinaire abondance des témoignages iconographiques, tant religieux que numismatiques - peut nous donner une vision plus équilibrée, peut-être plus proche de la réalité historique relative à ces empereurs dans la mouvance

de

Sérapis et d'Isis. D'où l'importance de l'étude

systématique de toutes les sources, de leur concordance et de leur divergence. Cependant, la porte est seulement entr'ouverte. Nous espérons que les sources rassemblées seront analysées plus en profondeur, ce que nous n'avons pas encore pu faire

dans cet exposé.

Université Laval, Québec

Gratien était encore pontifex 1/UlXimu.s en 367 (cf. cn. VI.1175). Il semble qu'il renoncera ce titre quelque temps plus tard, en 375/76 ou en 382/83 (voir les arguments des auteurs cités par Alfôldi [supra n.98] p.36-37, n.44). 1 0 6 Cf. W. Drexler, "Der Isis und Sarapis-Kultus in Kleinasien," NZ 1889, p.1-234; D. Magie, "Egyptian deities in Asia Minor in inscriptions and on coins," AJA 53 (1957) p.163-187; F. Dunand, Le Culte d 'Isis dans le mssin oriental de la Méditerranée (EPRO 26, Leiden 1973) ru, p.1-135. Voir aussi J. P. CaHu, La politique monétaire des empereurs romains de 238 à 314 (BEFAR 214, Paris 1969) p.24. 1 0 7 Cf. G. G. Belloni, "Casi di identità, analogie e divergenze tra la testimonianza monetale romana imperiale et quello di altre fonti sulla religione et sui culti," ANRW Il.16.3 (1%8) p.1844-1876; C. H. V. Sutherland, "Purpose of Roman imperial coin types," � 25 (1983) p.73-82. 105

Les représentations des impératri ces romaines lIen Euthénia" sur les monnaies d/ Alexandrie: concept moderne ou réalité? Marie-Odile Jentel Lorsqu'on parle "d'art alexandrin", on évoque souvent des paysages pittoresques animés (

mystérieuses processions, des su jets charmants comme les enfants-coudées qui jouent au tour è

dieu Nil, ou encore des motifs exotiques, crocodiles grognant face aux hippopotames à la gueu

béante, sous l'oeil circonspect de canards mangeant des lotus. Ou encore on pense aux grand, divinités du panthéon égypto-romain, Sérapis et Isis. Je voudrais ici, en hommage au Professeur Duncan Fishwick, faire quelques réflexions sur problème des rapports entre les premières impératrices romaines et une personnification pE connue de l'�gypte romaine, Euthénia, sur laquelle je viens d'écrire un volume. On peut tirer c précieux renseignements des représentations au revers des monnaies. C'est donc de certain. figurations d'Euthénia sur des monnaies romaines d'Alexandrie que je parlerai ici.!

On sait que l'Égypte, en 30 av. J.-C., devint une province de l'Empire romain, mais son stan fut assez particulier. En effet, soit parce que l'empereur se méfiait des Égyptiens, soit a contraire parce qu'il ne voulait pas qu'on sache qu'il devait s'y adapter aux coutumes locales, 1 les sénateurs, ni les chevaliers n'avaient le droit de s'y rendre sans autorisation spéciale

è

l'empereur.2 Le système monétaire alexandrin n'a guère servi, sous l'Empire, qu'à un usa� interne en Égypte.3 Était-ce à l'empereur ou à son entourage que revenait le choix des motifs?

me semble intéressant de voir quel rôle ont pu jouer les représentations des premièrE impératrices et leurs rapports avec deux figures divines, Euthénia et Déméter. Leur choix n'e, pas fortuit, car toutes deux sont à Alexandrie, des déités agricoles qui représentent la richesse e blé de l' É gypte, dont les récoltes nourriront Rome sous la forme de l'annona. Or, si Déméte antique divinité grecque, est bien connue,4 qui n'apparaît qu'à l'époque d' Auguste.

Qui est Euthénia?

il n'en est pas

de même d'Euthénia, personnificatio

A l'origine, ce mot grec est un nom commun qui signifie "abondance en blé'

on le trouve, par exemple, dans la partie grecque

de

l'inscription trilingue sur la Pierre

d

Rosette. Comme nom propre, "Euthénia" n'est jamais mentionnée dans la littérature grecq ue 0

romaine.5 Seul un texte byzantin décrit, près de l'Hippodrome de Constantinople, un group

statuaire maintenant disparu: Euthénia, "l'Abondance", faisant pendant à Limos, "1 Famine". 6 Les seules sources épigraphiques sont deux inscriptions, toutes deux découvertes hO! d' Égypte: l'une à Anazarbos en Cilicie, datable de 99 ap. ].-c., où Euthénia est qualifiée d

Voir M.-O. Jente!, Euthénia, corpus dts monuments et étude iconographique (Collection "Hier pou aujourd'hui", Québec 1993) ['" Jente!, Euthénia]; voir aussi ead, "Euthénia," LIMC IV (1988) p.120-12' pl. 63-67; ead, "Euthénia, coudées et nilomètre," É chos du monde c/assiquelClassical Vitws 24 n.s. 1 (1990) p.173-179. Tac., Ann. 259. Voir par exemple E. Christiansen, The Roman coins of Alexandria (Quantitative Studies, Aarhus 1988) p.1l-12; II p.27, nO 15-19. Voir en dernier lieu L. Beschi, "Demeter", et St. de Angeli, "Ceres," LIMC N, p.844-908, pl. 563-6 11 [. Demeter /Ceres]. Jentel, Euthénia (supra n.1) p.25-27. Ce texte, attribué à Georgios Kodinos, date du XIVe s" Kodinos, De signis Constantinopolis 60.53. . (MIgne PG 157) '" Jentel, Euthénia (supra n.1) p.27-28.

Marie-Odile Jentel

232

"théa", déesse/ l'autre à Thyrea en Grèce, sur un relief du 1er s. av. J.-c. Ce relief semble avoir été recyclé et les inscriptions sont postérieures à la sculpture.s Les premières sources iconographiques identifiées par des inscriptions sont donc les

représentations au revers des monnaies impériales d'Alexandrie, à partir d'Auguste. On est surpris de constater que, au revers des monnaies non datées d'Auguste - les plus anciennes - ne figurent que des symboles: aigle et come d'abondance hérités du mOIlnayage des Ptolémées; vases rituels, Capricorne (le signe astrologique d'Auguste), bonnets des Dioscures, couronne de laurier

_.

9 La seule figure humaine, à part la tête de Gaius César, est un buste de jeune femme de 8HNIA. 10 Curieusement, ce buste est coupé sous la poitrine,

profil, encadré par l'inscription EY

la tunique sans manches laissant apparaître le haut des bras. Une draperie semble immobiliser les bras et est nouée sur la poitrine, formant un noeud qui sert à fixer un bouquet de trois épis. La manière dont les bras sont serrés par une écharpe le long du corps pourrait faire penser aux statues-piliers, comme l'effigie de Dionysos sur un stamnos à figures rouges du Musée National de Naples.ll Mais le diadème et le bouquet d'épis, la rigidité dynamique n'évoqueraient-ils pas une phase essentielle des mythes éleusiniens, l'anodos, la résurgence de Coré jaillissant du sol au printemps, après l'hiver infernal? Car cette figure nouvelle, cette allégorie divine a emprunté ses attributs aux déesses éleusiniennes: à Coré, le diadème d'épis,12 tel qu'on le v oit par exemple sur les monnaies de Syracuse; à Déméter aussi le diadème d'épis analogue à celui qu'on voit sur une ume cinéraire1 3 de la première moitié du 1er s. ap. J.-c., et le bouquet d'épis de blé dont elle a propagé la culture. 1 4 Quel rapport y a-t-il entre Euthénia et les impératrices romaines? En Égypte, une tradition était née avec les Ptolémées: la comparaison et l'identification des reines et princesses (et parfois même des princes) à des déesses grecques,1 5 parallèlement, bien entendu, aux

représentations de tradition pharaonique. Ainsi Arsinoé II a-t-elle été représentée, sur des oenochoès de faïence en "Agathè Tychè", avec la corne d'abondance, 1 6 Arsinoé m 17 et Bérénice !IlS en Déméter. Sur les monnaies d'Alexandrie, la première impératrice représentée fut, naturellement, Livie. Pourtant, parmi les nombreuses sculptures, bustes ou têtes qui la représenteraient, deux

7

G Dagron et D. Feissel, =

Inscriptions de Cilide (Travaux

et mémoires 4, Paris 1987) p.188-189, n' 109, pl.

Jentel, Euthénia (supra n.1) 28-29, 189-90, XIV B. Athènes, Musée National, inv. 1390. Voir en demierlieu L. Kahil, "Artémis," UMC 1, n' 740, pl. 505; J.­ 46

Ch. Balty, "Epiktesis," LlMC IV, n' 1

=

Jentel,

Euthénia (supra n.l) p.187-188, XIII.A, fig. 148-150 avec

bibliographie. Voir par exemple A. Geissen,

Katalog Alexandrinisches Kaisennünzen der Sammlung des Instituts fiir Altertumslcunde der URlversititt zu Koln 1. Augustus-Trajan (Nr.l-740), (Papyrologica Coloniensia V,

10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Opladen 1974) n' 1-6, 8-13. Ici Geissen, n ' 1 4 = Jentel, Euthénia (supra n.l) VIII.A.S; autres exemples: Jentel VIII.A.1-4; 6-12 figs. 125-128.

Naples, Mus.Naz. inv. H 2419

(c. Gasparri, "Dionysos," LIMC III.1, n' 33, p . 426; III.2, pl. 298).

Ici par exemple, l a Coré signée d'Eucleidas, entre 425 e t 413. "Demeler/Ceres," UMC IV, p.902, n ' 145, pl. 607 (avec bibl. antérieure� "Demeter/Ceres," LIMC IV, p.902, n' 145, pl. 607 (avec bibl. antérieure).

Ici, sur un cratère à volutes attique à figures rouges du Badisches landesmuseum de Karlsruhe, attribué au Peintre de Berlin: "Demeter," UMe IV, p.873, n' 340, pl. 585 (avec bibn Voir par exemple J. Tondriau, "Princesses ptolémaïques comparées ou identifiées à des déesses (lIIe-ler s. av. J.-C.)," BullSocRoyaleArchAlexandrie 37 (1948) p.13-33.

D. B . Thompson, Ptolemaic oinochoai and portraits in foience. Aspects of the nder-cult (Oxford 1973). S. Besques, "Deux portraits d'Arsinoe III Philopator," RA 1981, p.227-244. P . A. Pantos, "Bérénice II Déméter," BCR 111 (1987) p.343-352. J e dois cette référence à Isabelle Chabot, qui prépare un mémoire de maîtrise, à l'Université Laval à Québec, sur Déméter en Égypte.

Les rep rél

tations des im pératrices romaines "en Euthénia" 233

3 1. Monnaie d'Alexandrie, Livie; 2 Empreinte de camée, Livie; 3. Monnaie d'Alexandrie, Livie et Euthénia; Camée, Livie. (Fig. 3 est d'après Geissen [supra n.9]; fig. 1 d'après G. Dattari, Numi Augg. Alexandrini [Le Caire 1901] pl. 1 n' 72; figg. 2 et 4 d'après les empreintes dans la collection Cades. Figs. 2 and 4 by permission of the DAI Rom, neg. 51 56).

4.

seulement proviennent d'Égypte. 19 Le profil de Livie apparaît d'abord sur les monnaies de séries d'Auguste, qui ne portent pas de date. 2o Sur l'avers de ces monnaies de bronze, la tête de

l'impératrice est entourée de la légende grecque A IOY I A I:EBALTOy21 (fig. 1). Plus tard, de l'an J.-c.) à l'an 42 (12-13 ap. J.-c.), la tête de Livie apparaît seule, sans inscription.22

39 (9-10 ap.

Elle est toujours coiffée du chignon et du nodus sur le front, ce qui est sa coiffure habituelle comme on le voit sur ses portraits. Mais son profil est différent au nez délicatement aquilin, très caractéristique de la "beauté piquante" 23 de Livie, qu'on remarque sur la tête du Louvre sculptée d'ailleurs dans du basalte, un matériau souvent utilisé en Égypte24 - ou sur une

19

V. Poulsen,

Les portraits romains l, République

et

dynastie jlùienne (Copenhague 1973) p.65-71, n' 34, pl.

52-54: une tête actuellement à la Glyptothèque Ny-Carlsberg, n' I.N. 1443. Elle aurait été découverte au

XIXe s., avec un buste d'Auguste e t un buste de Tibère, dans u n amphithéâtre de Fayoum et fut acquise en �gypte en 1895; id., p. 66, B 3: tête en marbre, incomplète, provenant d'Égyp te, à Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum = P. Graindor, Bustes et statues-portraits de l'Égypte romaine n' 4, pL 4.

20

A. Geissen (supra n.9) n' 34-35 "2e série", Bumet!, M. Amandry, P. P. Ripollès, Roman

Vitellius

144

36

"4e série". Sur ces "séries", voir en demier lieu A.

provincial coinage l, From the death of Caesar ta the dl!11th o f

B.C.- A D . 6 9 (London-Paris 1992)

l, p.691-692. L a dernière série est datable, par

l'inscription lIATPO llATPlâOl: au revers, "père de la patrie", entre 1-5 ap. J.-C. selon Bumet!

Livie ne semble pas avoir été représentée à Alexandrie au revers de monnaies d'Auguste.

21 22 23 24

Geissen (supra n.9) n'

et ai.

34-36.

Geissen (supra n.9) n' 37-45. Poulsen (supra n.19) p.70. Louvre, Département des Antiquités grecques et romaines, Ma 1233: voir en dernier lieu K. de

Kersauson, Musie du Lal/Vre. Catalogue des portraits romains l, Portraits de la République et de l'époque julio-c/audienne (Paris 1986) p.43-44, n' 43 (avec bibl.).

234

Marie-Odile lentel

empreinte de camée de la collection Cades 25 (fig. nez droit

2), le graveur du coin alexandrin a substitué un

Sur l'une des monnaies les IIÙeux conservées, datable de l'an 40 (10-11 ap. J.-C), un très beau portrait de Livie sans inscription, à l'avers, fait pendant à un buste fémiIÙn (fig. 3) au revers, flanqué de l'inscription EYElHNIA. 26 Celle-ci est caractérisée par une couronne d'épis et un bouquet de trois épis retenus sur sa poitrine par le noeud du manteau. En

1982, 1. Kakésy

écrivait "On a remarkable piece the empress Livia is represented accompaIÙed by the legend Euthenia." 2 7 Pourtant, il n'y a, à première vue, guère de ressemblances entre la chevelure d'EutheIÙa, au revers, coiffée d'un chignon bas d'où sortent deux mèches ondulées, couronnée

d'épis, et Livie, telle qu'elle est représentée à l 'av e rs, coiffée d'un chignon bas sans mèches détachées et du nodus. Seuls, deux portraits attribués à Livie montrent des mèches à la manière d'Euthénia2B On a parfois eu un peu trop tendance à "reconnaître" Livie dans des effigies qui ne

lui ressemblent guère, comme la Justitia ou la Pietas au profil grec des monnaies de Rome de Tibère.29 Par contre, la Sa/us Augusta 3
25 26 27

28

29 30 31

32

33 34 35

Photothèque du DAI Rom, neg. 51569. Geissen (supra n.9) n° 41. Autres exemplaires cités dans Jentel, Euthénia (supra n.1) p.176-177, VIll.A, 13 (an 21), 14 (an 39), 15-16 (an 40), 18 (an 41). L. Kakosy, "The Nile, Euthenia and the Nymphs," IEA 68 (1982) 291, à propos de l'exemplaire du British Museum, BMC Alexandria p.28, pL 22 reproduit dans J. G. Milne, A history of Egypt under Roman nùe (Londres 1899) p.192 fig.76 = Jentel, Euthénia (supra n.1) p.57 n. 11; p.176, Vll!.A 7 fig. 125. On ne trouve guère ce type de mèches que sur le petit buste gaulois en bronze de Neuilly-le-Réal (pmÙ5en [supra n.19] p.68 n° 18; K. de Kersauson [supra n.24] p.94-95, n° 58), conservé au Louvre, Br 28. La base porte une inscription commençant par "LIVrAE AUGUSTAE ... " mais la formulation de l'inscription a suscité des doutes sur l'authl!nticité du buste. Cette coiffure est aussi celle d'un buste en marbre acquis à Constantinople, à la Glyptothèque·Ny Carlsberg I.N. 748 (poulsen p.71 n° 35, pl. 55-56) et identifié par Poulsen comme Livie, bien que le nez ait été refait. H. Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum 1 (Londres 1965) pl. "24.1 et 7. Mattingly (supra n.29) pL 24.2. Onyx. Florence, Mus. Arch. 26 "Ceres," n° 172, UMC IV, p.905, pL 609. Ici d'après l'empreinte dans la collection Cades, n° 474 (Photothèque DAI Rom, neg. 5156). Sur les couronnes d'épis des impératrices, voir P. Bastien, Le buste monétaire des empereurs romains n (Wetteren 1993) p.631-632 Grand Camée de France, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale ("Ceres," UMC IV , p.905, n° 174, p l . 610 avec bibl.). On ne peut tenir compte ici de la statue de Livie dite "Cérès Borghese" du Louvre, Ma 1242: elle porte une couronne de fleurs (en partie moderne) et son bras droit, avec les épis, est une restauration moderne (Kersauson [supra n.24] p.102-103, n° 45). W. Oberleitner, Geschnillene Steine, die Prunkkameen der Wiener Antikensammlung (Wien 1985) pl. 48, fig. 28. Mattingly (supra n.29) p.1 17; 91, n° 544, pl. 14.8; n° 545, pI.14.9: " ... on well-preserved specimens, the featuresoften c10sely resemble those of Livia, and there can be Iittle doubt that the type was intended to suggest her." Ces monnaies, non datées, semblent avoir été frappées entre 11-13 ap. J.-C. CIL XI 1.

Les rep � ' ''' entations des impératrices romaines "en Euthénia"

5. Monnaie d'Alexandrie, Agrippine ct Euthénia; 6. Monnaie d'Alexandrie, Domitien et Domitia (5 e d' après Geissen [supra n.9]. Fi gs 3, 5 and 6 by permission of the Institut fUr Altertumskunde ( Universitat Kain). .

Dès la première année du règne de Claude, MessaHne est représentée debout, avec de petites figures sur la main droite tendue, et dans la gauche un bouquet d'épis. Elle , entouréede l'inscription MEl:l:AAINA KAIl:APOl: l:EBAl:[TH] .36 Ici, l 'assimilation l'impératrice à une divinité, peut-être Déméter Karpophoros, semble manifeste en raison l'inscription et de la présence des épis. On connaît d'ailleurs, dans l'art officiel de la co impériale, d'autres représentations de Messaline avec les attributs de Déméter: elle porte u couronne d'épis et un bouquet d'épis et pavots sur un camée de La Haye37 célébrant le "triomp

britannique" de Gaude; un bouquet d'épis et de pavots sur le camée en sardonyx du Cabinet d Médailles avec Gaude en Triptolème.3 8 Il ne semble pas qu'Euthénia ait été représentée sur des monnaies de Claude à l'époque Messaline, mais dès la première année du mariage de Gaude avec Agrippine, de l'an 12 (5H à l'an 15, des monnaies sont émises avec, à l'avers, l'effigie de celle-ci et, au revers, un bUI d'Euthénia (fig. 5). Le diadème de la déesse est modifié, avec deux longues bandeletl descendant sur les épaules, quoique la coiffure au chignon bas soit identique à celle de l'époq

36 37 38

Ici d'après Geissen (supra n.9) n° 61. Il existe de nombreux autres exemplaires de cette monnaie. M. L Vollenweider, Der Jupiter-Kawo (Württembergisches Landesmuseum, Stuttgart 1964) pl. 6. "Ceres," UMe N, n° 176, p.90S, pl. 610. Pour E. Simon il s'agirait d'Agrippine 1 a Jeune.

Marie-Odile lentel

236

d'Auguste.39 Au contraire, Agrippine est coiffée d'une longue tresse relevée et doublée sur la nuque et attachée par deux longues bandelettes, comme sur des monnaies d'argent de Rome. Mais les longues bandelettes accentuent la ressemblance entre les deux bustes; l'impératrice et la déesse ont le même profil au nez pointu. A Rome, Agrippine a été représentée, sur la Gemma Oaudia40 et sur des monnaies,41 avec une couronne d'épis.

La dernière impératrice dont je traiterai ici est Domitia sur des monnaies de l'an 11 (90-91)

de Domitien. Au revers de ces monnaies de Domitien, elle est représentée trônant vers la gauche (fig. 6), entourée de l'inscription âOMITIA IEBAITH.42 EUe tient obliquement un sceptre de la main gauche et, de la droite, un bouquet d'épis. Malheureusement, les exemplaires reproduits sont en mauvais état Dattari et Poole l'ont identifiée comme "Domitia en Euthénia"43 parce que leurs monnaies étaient presque illisibles.

il est certain que l'impératrice porte le bouquet

d'épis des divinités à caractère agraire. Or il semble que les représentations d'Euthénia trônant commenceraient sous Domitien, en 91-92.44 Cette figure de Domitia semble plutôt inspirée du type de la Cérès trônant des monnaies de Rome. Plus qu'une ressemblance physique entre les impératrices et Euthénia, c'est peut-être un lien plus subtil qu'il faut reconnaître. L'empereur, successeur des pharaons, dispensateur du blé de l'Égypte, est parfois représenté sur les monnaies de Rome avec une couronne d'épis au lieu d'une couronne de laurier - par exemple, Hadrien sur un sesterce de Rome45 de

125-126 ap. J.-c. Alors

que déjà au revers des monnaies alexandrines les plus anciennes d'Auguste figurait un bouquet d'épis de blé, alors que dès 13 av. J.-c. à Rome la Tellus de l'Ara Pacis Augustae était accompagnée d'uil bouquet d'épis et de pavots, il ne faut pas s'étonner qu'à Alexandrie l'épouse

de l'empereur soit associée aussi aux prérogatives divines. Sur les monnaies alexandrines, les épis de blé pourraient être un message à double sens: message aux Égyptiens, dont Euthénia, à l'origine simple "divinité fiscale", fournissait à l'annona romaine ses stocks de céréales pour la capitale; message à l'Empereur pour souligner l'importance de la province d'Égypte pour l'économie du monde romain C'est d'ailleurs l'une des raisons pour lesquelles Auguste, Tibère et leurs successeurs jusqu'au Ille s. se sont fait représenter comme pharaons dans les temples égyptiens. La richesse en blé d'une région, c 'est la richesse de tout u n pays. Le symbole des épis est éternel. Ne figurent-ils pas encore dans le blason de l'Université d'Alberta, qui nous reçoit si généreusement? Université Laval, Québec

39

Geissen (supra n.9) p. l09-112; autres exemplaires dans Jentel, 21. Ici, la fig. 5 e s t d'après Geissen p.l09.

40 41 42 43

44 45

Vienne, Kunsthistorisches Museum, IX a 63

=

"Ceres," UMC

Euthéma (supra n.l) p.177-l78,

N, p.905, n" 175, pl.

VllI. C.l·

610.

Demer: Vollenweider (supra n37) pl. 9.2. Geissen (supra n.9) nO 384. Dattari (supra n.2l) n" 43l, pl.

vm; Poole, BMC Alexandria n"

Monnaie décrUe mais n o n réproduite p ar Mionnet, n O 471

=

292, pl. 22.

JenteI,

Euthéma

(supra n . l ) p.147, N.B.1.

Par ex. Hadrien, ici d'après une monnaie de Munich, Miinzsanunlung; Gall ien: B. M. Felleti Maj, "Gallieno""EAA Ill, p.766, fig. 941. Sur la signification de ces couronnes d'épis, voir la discussion dans

P. Bastien, Le

buste monétaire des empereurs ,omaines

1 (Wetteren 1992) p.l2l-l27.

Alexander in Islam: the sacred person a in Muslim rulership adab Earle H. Waugh Alexander of the

Qur'an and religious interpreters

The Qur'an, believed by Muslims to the infallible word of God, says: They will ask you about Dhu l-Qamayn, say: 'I will rehearse an account about him. We made him mighty in the land and gave him a pathway to all things; he journeyed in a certain direction until he reached the setting sun and found the sun setting in a muddy spring. Nearby he found a people. "Dhu l-Qarnayn," we said, "you must either chastise them or take a kindly demeanour towards

them"

He replied: "Concerning him who does

evil, we shall chastise him; then he shall be returned to his

Lord and He shall chastise him with a punishment beyond compare." He said, "Po:; for

him

who believes and does righteous deeds, we shall bestow on him a very

equitable reward and we shall convey to him our easy demands."

He then followed a road until he reached the sun rising upon a people for whom we had not

provided a screen to shade them from it. Thus it was; and we were completely cognizant of all his powers. Then he travelled along a road until, coming between two mountains, he found a people who could scarcely understand speech. "OM l-Qarnayn," they said, "Gog and Magog are defiling this land Let us pay you tribute in

recompense for building a rampart between us and them."

Lord has given me is better (than tribute). Aid me with strength 1 will construct a barrier between you and them. Bring me blocks of iron."

He replied: "The power which my and

Then, when he had levelled up the valley between the two outcrops, he said: "Blow (the

bellows)." Then, when the iron blocks were red hot he said: "Bring me, so that I may pour over it, molten brass."

So they could neither scale it, nor burrow through it. He said: "This is a mercy from my Lord. But when my Lord's promise comes to pass, He will tum itto dust; and my Lord's promise is ever true."l D ho l-Qarnayn (literally the 'two horned'2) w as generally held by Muslims to be Alexander the Great.3 Contextually, the above excerpt sits in a teaching section devoted to the 'signs' of God to humans. These signs proclaim God's control over nations and states. Thus Dho l-Qarnayn is either a prophet or a king raised up by God's hand to effect

His will.

Popular conceptions frame this view of Alexander. He had been raised up by God, had been made into an international conqueror, and had so pleased God that he found a place as a

FromSurat

a1-Kahf (18: 83-98).

Alexander sometimes appeared with horns, and

this

is one possible interpretation of the two horns.

Coins issued with the so-called horn of Ammon, including one issued by Alexander's successor Lysirnachus

c.280 RC., were probably based on his court artist's (i.e., Protogenes) composition. See R.

Lane Fox, The Williams.

W. M. Watt,

starch for Alexander

(Boston 1980)

200-1. 1

owe

this

citation to my colleague Dr. Marie

Encyclopedia of Islam (2nd ed., Leiden 19 54- ) [= E12l s.v. al-Iskandar. Other references are Encyclopedia of Islam (Leiden 1913-38) [= El). Western scholars have generally held

found in the earlier

that Arabs knew of Alexander through a recension derived from Pseudo-Callisthenes, his court

El, 'Iskandar Nama'). For the most recent analysis of origins, see M. S. Southgate Iskandarnamah: a Persian medieval Alexander-romance (New York 1978) 1-5. The 'seven

biographer (see (trans!.),

sleepers' story appears earlier in theSurah, and Moses' statements there parallel his statements in the

Alexander romances, leading to the conclusion that Arabs learned of Alexander through the romances.

Earle H. Waugh

238

Muslim and exemplar of history in God's own Book. Consequently, narrative stories

(qi�a�)

linked Alexander directly to Islam through Abraham, the revered ancestor of the Arabs, for Alexander was said to have been present with Abraham at the Kacba. Popular ideas had it that, by some undisclosed transference, Alexander had joined with Abraham and his son Isaac at the re-dedication of the shrine, at which time God had given Alexander the burden of marching to the four corners of the world to convert the masses to

the Friend of Abraham or send

them directly to their Maker. This 'special calling' made him one of four great world conquerors and, of course, linked Meccan worship with his achievements.4 The narrative stories in the Qur'an provide the best evidence that these stories not only existed but were widely known in pre-Islamic Mecca. We will not delay here to explore the development of this popular image. It is sufficient to note elements of various popular traditions found, for example, in the works of Ni+anu (d. 1203), which show different perspectives on Alexander. In one book, written in 1191 c.E.,5 Alexander, after having conquered the world, is sent by God as a prophet. In a second book, N i+runi follows another tradition about Alexander and makes him into a wise sage, presenting many pithy sayings. In one of Ni+i!mi's renditions, Socrates is invited to visit Alexander's court, which is really a court of philosophers, but Socrates declines, on the grounds that he is the servant of God. Apparently he would have become the servant of Alexander, had he done so. Alexander then goes to him. In another tale in Ni+'lmi's collection, when a visitor came from India and offered to become a believer if Alexander answered questions about the Creator, eteInity, and so on, Alexander answered them, and the guru converted. Alexander is said to have journeyed subsequently to India, destroying the temples of the idol-worshippers, and finally arrived in China where

he turned the ruler into a believer. Some of this popular

imagery did, however, find a place within religious sources, for it is reported that the Prophet, when asked about Dhii l-Qarnayn, said "He 1he religiOUS

is an angel who measured the earth by ropes."6

scholars were important in confirming Alexander's position within

institutional Islam. The exegetes represent the consensus among early Islamic intellectuals about the meaning of Dhii l-Qamayn. Although many only rehearse earlier views, some reflect new or revised thinking. They do not agree about the details of who he was; some CTabari, d.923; al-Baygawl, d.1480; al-Nlsabun, d.1427) saying that Dhii l-Qamayn was Alexander, one (Ibn Kathir, d.1372) holding that there were at least two Dhii l-Qarnayns, one a contemporary of Abraham, the other the Greek king, and one (Ibn al-Jawzl, d. 1200) affirming that there were four theories about his identity: Alexander the Great, cAbdullah ibn cAbbas, CAyyash, or al-Sa'b ibn Gabir ibn al-Qalmis. A modem fundamentalist reformer, Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966), said there was no relationship between Dhii l-Qarnayn and Alexander the Great, since the latter was an unbeliever and Dhii l-Qamayn was a Muslim.1 However, these debates are not the central issue here; rather it is the religious character attributed to Dhii l-Qarnayn by all the Muslim writers, regardless of how he is identified.

See R. F. Burton, The book of the thousand nights and a night (London 1885) V, 252, n.2. Burton does not say w ha t his sources may ha ve been for this iruonnation, but it was likely the Alexander romances. The Qur'ani cissue about whether he would kill the evildoers appears to refer to the quandary of killing or not killing. These remarks are based upon materia] found in Southgate (supra n.3 and sources therein) 173-78. For a survey of the life and work of llyas b. YiisufNi.?-ilml, seeJan Rypka and K Jahn (edd.), History of Iranian literature (Holland 1968) 210-13. See Ibn lsJ:l4q, Sfrat Rast11 Allah, A. Guillaume (trans!.), The life of the Prophet (Oxford 1955) 139. al-Taban, Jamic al-bayan Jr taJsfr aI-Qur'an (Beirut 1986) XV1, 7; al-Bay<;lawI, Anwar al-tanzrl wa-arrar al-ta 'wrl (Beirut 1988) 1,21; al-Zamakhshan, Kashf (Beirut 1986) 400; Ibn Kathrr, Tafsfr aI-Qur'an al­ cA,!,1ln (Cairo 1%9) Ill, 100; Muhammad cAlr al-Sabunr, (�aJwat al-taJsfr (Beirut 1981) II,203; Sayyid Qulb, Fr,!,ilal al-Qur'an (Cairo 1955) V, 2289.

Alexander in Islam

This selection of

23

the views of the exegetes includes the following emphases. First is the rol,

of God in Alexander's career. It is very clear that his rulership is given by God and that hi: accomplishments were the result of God's gifts. God knew the powers he had bestowed on him and obviously one quality

he had was that of marshalling forces to protect his subjects fron

raiders from the North. Second, the extent of his rule. al-Bay9.awI (d.1480) said he was ruler of both Persia anc Rome; the contemporary commentator al-�abiirii holds that he was the ruler of the whol. earth.8

In all cases, Alexander is considered to have exercised an international rule, spannin!

many peoples and nations. 1hird is the lesson to be drawn from his life. The exegetes here had a homilectic purpose. Ir the end, the wall constructed by Alexander would disintegrate into dust, just as all human wod would succumb. The implication is that one should put one's trust only

in God. There is also ar

eschatological purpose in the teaching, in that the peoples who threaten the North are helc

at bay by the skill of Alexander, but they remain there as a threat from God for the future since presumably they might one day scale the walls and destroy the Muslims of the North Thus there is an implicit element drawn from 'end-time' ideology which might be related te the apocalyptic Gog and Magog in the Book of Revelation.

In this connection we also have the work of Syriac Christian writers of the 7th c. lhey dk not regard Muhammad as a prophet or apostle; rather he was almost always seen as the firsl

king of the Arabs, a king over an Arab kingdom that was the direct heir of Byzantium anc Persia.9 A Christian named Methodios, writing in the last half of the 7th c., penned the apocalyptic interpretation of the coming of the 'Ishmaelites', seeing them as the scourge of Goo

to purge Christian sinfulness. This purging will be allowed for 10 apocalyptic weeks. Once the

cleansing is accomplished, the Greek king, genealogically connected with Alexander the Great,

will invade Arab territory from the Red Sea and crush them. This

is to

be followed by a seasoII

of peace, in which the Christians will no longer be taxed. Then all those nations broughl together by Alexander will be faced with an inundation of people from the North, who have been held back by Alexander's wall/gates, who will now burst through to wreak havoc for a 'week'. The Greek king will take Jerusalem, will place his, crown on a cross and, in true Christian humility, give his kingdom over to God.10 What this literature demonstrates, ir1 addition to the key idea that the Arab kingdom has superseded Rome and Persia, is the

eschatological potencies in walls or gates

the Alexandrian legacy, as well as a common belief ID the North. The Qur'an reflects all of these characteristics.

in Alexander's

Fourth is the theme of Alexander's travels. The selection from the exegetes has in it an element of fascination with fabulous lands, and implies confidence in the geographical

extension of Muslim power, in effect establishir1g the far reaches of the known world as Muslim. Regardless of how far the Muslim conquering armies go, they will find ground hallowed by their great spiritual ancestor, Alexander. Thus the excerpt from the Qur'an is used by the exegetes to justify bringing all lands under God's sovereignty because Alexander had already demonstrated God's power to

the people living'in them.

This selection appears to fit into a wider genre of travel texts and reports of anthropological and historical interest. It is beyond the scope of this paper. to examine this further, but Gerhardt, who has recently siudied the Arab travel motif, has shown that the far reaches of the earth are seen at an early date as having a potential for the Muslim explorer.ll The Qur'an

al-$abiinI 1981 (supra n.7) IT, 203.

See S. P. Brock, "Syriac views ci emergent Islam" in G. H. A. Juynboll (ed,), Studies on the first century oj 10 11

Islamic society (Carbondale, IL 1982) 14. Brock 1982 (supra n,9) 16-20,

M 1. Gerhardt, "I'M art of story-telling (Leiden 1963) 197-227. A survey. of geographical and travel mat-

Earle H. Waugh

240

provides,

in the passage on Dhu

I-Qamayn a mythic affirmation of

the

geographical extent of

the area which the Arab caliph could aspire to dominate, should he direct his energies that way. None of it was foreign or threatening for the victorious Muslim. This suggests that Alexander the Great is to be given a significant role in Muslim religious thought. But how did Muslims understand

ilia

nature of this role? Rather than follow the usual

practice of focusing on Alexander as part of popular literature, I wish to explore the way in which the Alexander persona played a role in the development of imperial valorization in Islam. We shall see that this resulted in a distinctive kind of imperial

numen

for Arab Muslim

leaders. The adab

of leadership a nd

the Alexandrian legacy

At first sight, the potential for finding anything like an imperial cult in Islam would seem very limited. Of all the traditions east of Rome, the least ideologically amenable to elevating a human being to the status of worship seems to be the Islamic. The Qur'ilin denounces any attempt to associate humans - or indeed any other beings - with God; a fundamental ideological principle of the Qur'lin is the equality of

all humans,

who are seen as categorically

different from and lower than God. Yet there is more to Islam than ideology, and one area in which this is most evident is in its long-standing problem of authority. Power came quickly for the Muslims, but learning its parameters was a long and troublesome proc e ss. The p robl em

is

pose d directly in the quotation

"God rules the world and all states"; it means that any human authority is provisional at best, or an interloper at worst. A state will only be righteous, and indeed legitimate, if its leader is authorised by God The application of the divine law

(shari
which is technically the ground rule by which

all people relate to God, requires someone to facilitate its proper application. Without a universally accepted religious authority, responsible for defining the intersection .of religion with non-religion, individuals might not know what is truly required of them. Most religions have solved this problem with a priesthood, but Islam has rejected such a solution. Thus political Islam wrestles with the problem of how to measure the true exponent of God's religion. Wary of the claims to superiority made by various clans on the basis of their past history, and evidently aware of the Christian problem with the separation of Church and state, the Muslims responded by constructing a theocratic state, with the ruler exercising power over the people as part of his responsibility to GOd.12 Still, God had not laid down more than general ideas for how this would work. What eventually developed was a kind of protocol code, informed by religion, but based on commonly accepted norms by the ruling classes, to which the population at large generally acceded. The Arabic word for this code is

adab.

This is a broad

term that covers many aspects of living and behaviour. At one level it was an aesthetic of ceremonial grace; at another the deftness of an appropriate turn of phrase. We will confine our remarks to the means by which a distinctive character was constructed for the Islamic ruler. For him

adab

was a sophisticated collection of rules, attitudes and symbols which assured

that the ruler of the state held the position of first among equals in Islam. It was, in essence, the Arab configuration of

erials can be found in (New York) 1

12 13

ff. A

paideiaP

Yet as it took shape, it was not exclusively Islamic.

15kandarnamah: a Persian Medieval Alexander-Rcmumce

In

its

(trans!. M. s. Southgate)

survey of legendary aspects of Muslim geography is provided by A. Miguel,

geographie lrumaine du monde musulman jusqu'au milieu dll 11 sitcle (paris 1975) 11, 483-513. M. G. S. Hodgson, The venture of Islam (Chicago 1974) 1,280-81. See l. Lapidus' critical article onadab, "Knowledge, virtue and action: the classical conception

La

of adab

Alexander in Islam

241

formation, it drew upon a diverse cultural environment taking elements from pre-Islamic Arab, Jewish and Christian communities and from past traditions of both Roman and Sasanian provenance. It is in that formation that Alexander plays an interesting role. Greco-Roman patterns

of rulership within the Arab milieu

There were early contacts between the Muslims and the Roman world. The Qur'an mentions that some wealthy Meccans took themselves to Rum 14 (the usual Arab word for Rome or Constantinople) for vacations. Muhammad himself led a trade caravan to Syria, where, according to Muslim sources, a Monophysite monk recognized him from a sacred text.1S Questions about Byzantine influence on Arab tribes immediately prior to the coming of Islam have been a highly sensitive issue because of the implications for the originality of Muhammad's message. Passages like the Alexander story in the Qur'an raise fundamental questions about the nature of revelation and the role of culture in material found in the sacred texts.16 For Muslim scholars, Islamic history is more like a

Heilsgeschichte

than a sequential

structure,17 and the Muslim requirement to make data fit a theological ideology may easily militate against objectivity. But it also has a bearing on how sources are to be treated.18 Thanks to much recent research, we know far more than we did in the early part of this century about the Greco-Romanl Arab interface. Rome had developed a defensive means of coping with areas of interface. Its policy was one of strategic control of the movement of goods and peoples through frontier areas. This strategy was inherent in

the

Roman concept of the

limes.

By'the end of the 1st c., the term

. primarily to the border between the Empire and the

Saracens: a history of the Arab jrontier,19

14

15 16

17

18

19 20

Barbaricum.

limes applied Romans and

Parker's recent

along with the slightly earlier work of Bowersock, 20

and the nature of religious fulfillment in Islam" in B. Daly Metcalf (ed.), Moral conduct and authority: the place if ADAB in South Asian Islam (Berkeley 1984) 38-61; P. Brown notes some similarities between the Graeco-Romanand Islamic concepts in "Late Antiquity and Islam: parallels and contrasts" in Moral conduct, 23-37, but the best description of paideia is in A. J. Festugiere, Antioche paienne et chrtitienne (Paris 1959) 217-24. For paideia in Julian, see P. Athanassiadi-Fowler, Julian and Hellenism: an intellectual biography (Oxford 1981), esp. chapt. 4, 'paideia'. FollOWing F. Rahman's interpretation of Qur'�n 106: 1-4 in Major themes of the Qur'an (Bibliotheca Islamica, Minneapolis 1989) 39. See Ibn Isl;ul:q 1955 (supra n.6) 79-81. Scholars often treat the Alexander stories as part of a widespread cultural tradition, e.g. F. Speigel, Di£ Alexandersage bei den Orientalen (Leipzig 1851) and F. Pfister, Alexander der Grosse in den Offenbarungen der Griechen, Juden, Mohammedaner und Christen (Berlin 1956), while the focus of the Qur'lin reinterprets cultural phenomenon in terms of the prophetic tradition. But why would God 'deliver' such legendary notions to the Prophet as if they were 'historical' events when they appear to derive from fabulous elements of popular provenance? Or are these stories evidence of the creative imagination and reconstruction of the Prophet's own mind? The nature of prophetic revelation is involved, as also the role the Prophet's mind played in the process. A stance that has become the subject of intense debate; see E. Said,Ori£ntalism (New York 1978). N6ldeke, a founder of the study of early Arab history in the West, had an injunction 10 accept only those elements from Arabic sources for pre-Islamic times which could be validated by Greek sources. Syrian sources were the next most reliable because they were closer to the events. Some of this discredit of Arab sources arises from the widespread antagonism towards the j�hiliyya culture by Arab Muslim culture. See Th. N6ldeke, Di£ Ghassdnischen Fiirsten aus dem Hause Gafna's (Berlin 1887). I. Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs in the fifth century (Washington, DC 1989) accepts his injunction but is not nearly so dismissive of Arab sources. Rather one has 10 "isolate solid spots, bypass the soft" to get to the core of the historical truth. See Shahid's "The last days of SalIl;t," Arabica 5 (1958) 156. S. T. Parker, Romans and Saracens: a history if the Arabian frontier (Dissertation Series 6, ASOR, Washington 1986). For example, G. W. Bowersock, Roman Arabia (Cambridge, MA 1983) and his earlier publications cited.

Earle H. Waugh

242

has confirmed the view that there was a continuous Roman presence in Arabia from the time of Augustus (30 s.c. - A.D. 14).21 Fortifications ran from Syria in the North to the Gulf of Aqaba in the South, although there were characteristic differences between the northern, central and southern sectors of the

limes. The limes,

several key forts within the the via

evidence indicates that Roman legions were stationed at and that

nova Traiana.22 After Trajan annexed

castella

and watch-towers were also built along

the Nabataean kingdom in 106 and the northern

section of the Hijaz became part of the Empire, the region became SO culturally integrated that a temple dedicated to Marcus Aurelius was constructed at Ruwwafa, and inscriptions were

raised bearing the names of the Roman governors of Arabia.23 The defensive organisation of the

limes

was necessary because of nomadic and marauding

Arab tribes who periodically swept out of the south, devastated sedentary settlement, and crippled the use of the

via nova Traiana

as a major caravan route. The northern Arab tribes

were as much opposed to this activity as any one, and Nabataean troops were incorporated into the Roman army as

cohortes Ulpiae Petraeorum.24 In

the mid-3rd c., the Roman influence was

destroyed by the Sasanians and the emperor Valerian himself was taken captive by them. This was followed by a rebellion of the client state of Palmyra under Zenobia, who defeated the Sasanians and temporarily overthrew the Romans.

In 273,

however, the latter defeated

Zenobia and destroyed Palmyra.25 This was achieved with the help of a local tribe. The alliance set a trend, and by the time of Diocletian the Northern Hijaz was given over to

joederati.26

Some tribes converted to Christianity, though they were apparently not reliable allies of Constantinople.27 Still, as late as Justinian the Ghassanids became clients of Byzantium and defended the south-eastern border; but Justinian's successors abandoned the

financial arrangements with the tribes, eventually weakening their defences beyond repair. The result was that there was little or no resistance to the explosion of Muslim forces into the region after 630. These contacts between the pre-Islamic tribes of Northern Arabia and the Eastern Roman Empire exposed the former to some of the Roman ideas of imperial ceremonial. MacCormack has pointed out the importance of both

adventus

ceremony and panegyric in classical antiquity.

She quotes Menander who had given indications of the critical role this was to play in setting the parameters of kingly rule:

[You say], for instance, "We have all gone out to meet yoU for your welcome, with our whole families, children, old men and men in their prime, the priestly families, the city council and the people at large. We were all glad in our hearts [and expressed it] with acclamations, calling you our saviour and wall, a most radiant star; and children called you their nourisher and the saviour of their parents. And if it were possible for thecities to send forth a voice and to take the appearance of women as in plays, they would say; 'Oh, for the exaltedness of your governance, the sweetness of the day on which now has come to us a light more radiant than the sun.' Now it seems to us that we look upon a bright day out of some c!arkness. Shortly we will erect statues; shortly poets, orators and rhetors will sing your virtues and hand them down to the whole of mankind. Let the theatres be opened ..' Let us hold festivals. "28

21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28

The Roman province of Arabia came into existence when the Nabatean kingdom was annexed by Trajan 106. See M. Sartre, Trois ttudes sur [,Arabie romaine et bYZlmtine (Brussels 1982) 17-75. Parker, Romans and Saracens (supra n.19) 6 ft. Ibid. 124. Ibid. 125. Ibid. 132Ibid. 143. J. S. Trimingham, Christianity among the Arabs in pre-Islamic times (London 1979) 94·95. Quoted in S. G. MacCormack, Art and ceremonial in /ate antiquity (Berkeley 1981) 20·21. For a sample of later panegyric, see S. N. C. Lieu (ed.), The Emperor J,dian: panegyric and polemic (Liverpool 1986). in

Alexander in Islam

There were protocols to be followed in addressing the ruler

in

the Mediterranean regior

Menander, for example, saw these as integrating the new emperor into the community an' setting up the consensual expectations of the people. These protocols were stylised into both process and a content: in process, the poet or orator spoke for everyone, the people, by thei presence, indicated their acceptance of the emperor as

their

ruler; in content, the countr)

family, deeds and virtues of the ruler were praised and stereotypical comparisons made to th great figures of myth and history.29 The panegyrist summed up the general consensus about th. success of the emperor when Maximian and Diocletian arrived in Milan in 291:

It was some divine impetus by which you suddenly came to one place from opposite cardinal point

... and some people could indeed believe that which is worthy of your majesty, that the two luminaries of the universe lent you their chariots of the night and the day. Yet, let us set aside thes, fables of the foolish and speak the truth: it was your piety, most holy emperor, that gave wings b your progress.30 By the time

(c.507)

that Ennodius was praising Theoderic, we find a theme in

full

bloom

that can be summarised as 'You ascribe your success to God but in your being you integrate bot! secular and religious functions.'

Your oonduct is such that you will be rewarded with prosperity, yet, having attained it, you ascribi everything to your Creator. By your strength, Vigilance, success, you appear as king; by yow kindliness as a priest.31 Thus MacCormack argues for a shift in ideas towards epic narrative and allegory, with thE interface of gods and emperors, supernatural and historical events, giving way by the 6th c. to, stylised juxtaposition of accounts of the two realms of Heaven and the Empire, each depicting, state of affairs which was believed to exist, regardless of what transpired in reality_32 It is within this context that Alexander is portrayed as a model king in ByzantinE panegyric; his image is infused with cosmic significance and he is pictured ascending to thE

chariot throne as a world conqueror and heavenly power.33 This epic model in turn undergird� the Qur'anic verses, suggesting that

adab

had available to it a rich collection of

topoi

by

which to understand its own ancestry and the potentials of office. Some of these we will meet in the developing ceremonial of the Arab Caliphs. Pre-Islamic Arab "urne"

Mecca and the northern Hejaz were not sheltered from the influences to the north but they did not accept these influences without modification. It is necessary to establish how the

ruler's relationship to the deities was perceived in the pre-Islamic Arab lands in order to understand the ruler's

"Ume".

Some sources suggest that Arab religious devotion had little

depth beyond recognizing the Gods of their ancestors. Hitti notes that pre-Islamic poetry has no references to genuine devotion to deities, and the sources reflect a strange attitude towards the gods, many of whom were considered to be embodied in rough stone.34 Muslim sources assert that Muhammad destroyed 360 deities in the haram of Mecca on his triumph. These had been collected together from nearby tribespeople before his time. Among these pre-Islamic 'deities' was one which was not destroyed. According to one

29

30

31

32

33 34

MacCormack (supra n.2B) 282, n.16. Galletier (ed.), Panigyriques /atins 3.8.3-4, trans!. in MacCormack (supra n.28) 24. Ennodius, Panegyrics 80, in MacCormack (supra n.28) 231. MacCormack (supra n.28) 275, n.27. See H. P. L'Orange, Studks on the iconography of rosmic kingship in the ancient world (Oslo 1953) 118 ff. Both the Black Stone, now kissed as part of the �jj rituals, and the river Zamzam were probably part r:i cultic worship by pre-Islamic Arabs. See El (supra n.3) and P. K. Hitti, History of the Arabs (London 1970) 26.

E.

244

Earle H. Waugh

had ilh, the Prophet laid his hand over a picture of the Virgin Mary with the Christ-child painted on the wall of the Ka'ba itself, indicating that the other deities were to be destroyed, but this was to be left alone.35 Does the Virgin Mary have the numinosity of a deity and at the very heart of pre-Islamic worship? If Mary was 'worshipped' there before the coming of Islam, how, and by whom? What other kinds of numinous humans were also worshipped? An image said to be of a human couple petrified in an erotic embrace was popularly worshipped at the Ka'ba presum­ ably as a symbol of fecundity, apparently with official sanction.36 Not all deities, however, had human connections and not all were images. Moreover, there is evidence of widespread syncretism in Arab lands during the Roman imperial period. Such deities did not always inspire the fear and devotion we might expect. In one story Imru' al-Qays, ancient hero of the Qays tribe, while pursuing his father's murderer is said to have stopped at a temple housing a deity embodied in white stone. Thrice the divining arrows indicated that he should abandon his quest, but rather than doing so, he railed against the god for not providing him with the desired results and threw the divining rods at the statue.J7 That deities were assumed to be tolerant of such behaviour indicates that their worshippers had limited fears of reprisal. This explains why the worship of a deity could be a matter of negotiation. A little known to the request of one tribe of Ta'if to be allowed to modify their prayer and to be granted a year's grace in which to abandon their worship of the goddess al-Lat.38 It would seem that transfer of loyalties among deities was a syncretistic commonplace of the era and the people of Ta'if were merely agreeing to such a process.39

had ith of the Prophet describes Muhammad's response

Another matter for negotiation was whether the tnbe of Ta' if would kneel in prayer. This would seem to indicate that it was not so much the deity per se which was the crux of the discussions but the nature of cultic rituals, and that these again were negotiable. The relative ease with which the defeated Meccans accepted the worship of Allah following the triumph of the Prophet testifies to the existence of a wide range of loyalties to deities, to say nothing of different conceptions of the deity's numen. Clearly even those deities which were held to possess the full faculties of the gods, that is, which were considered to be entirely numinous, did not inspire the decorums of worship that we would usually associate with divinities. Hence temple cultus alone cannot be considered to be the pre-Islamic measuring rod for what was considered religiously potent. The laissez laire commitment to the gods and goddesses signals that we should not look for the same kind of sophisticated religious conceptions encountered in the scriptures of the three Abrahamic religions, nor even, probably, for the complex cultus of the Greeks and Romans. Pre-Islamic cultus seems to be so diverse that visiting the shrines of gods cannot have been the only means of encountering the divine. Islam seems to have reacted against this diversified ritual activity by reducing the sacred 35

36 37 38 39

al-Azraqr mentions the picture of the Virgin Mary in the Kacba, AkJrb '�r MakJra, R. Malhas (ed.) (Mecca 1965) I, 165. Shahid (supra n.18) 380, holds its presence is indicative of a Christian presence in Mecca, especially since there is a record of a 'mosque of Myriam' in the vicinity of Mecca. O. Grabar, The formation of Tslamic art (New Haven 1973) 80, 83, thinks it may be the presence of foreign Kacba buildelS, such as Copts, since the structure was rebuilt in 60S = A.D. 1208. SeeA.J.Cameron,Aba Dharr al-Chif�rf:anl!Xllmination ofhis image in the hagiography of Islam (London 1973) 1l. See references in Hitti (supra n.34) 96. M. J. Kister, "Some reports concerning a1-Ta'if," Studies in ,ahi/iyya and early Islam (London 1980) chap!. 11,5 ft. J. Ryckman, U A bust of a south Arabian winged goddess with nimbus in the possession of Miss Leila Ingrams" in R. B. Serjeant and R. L. Bidwell (edd.), Arabian Studies 3 (London 1976) 67-78, esp. 7 5 .

Alexander in Islam

245

significance of the ritual form itself.40 Hence, we are justified in looking for a more diversified response to the sacred. This point leads directly to Muslim rulership adab. Muslim leadership's movement towards the numinous

In exploring the way ID which Islamic rulership developed a numinous content, we will give primacy to examining the shape of panegyric, although we will have occasion to point out also the significance of ceremonial. Among pre-Islamic Arabs, the leading individuals were heads of families, chosen from among their peers on the basis of recognized ancestry, present status and embodiment of contemporary tribal ideals. These men became the power brokers of pre-Islamic history. Death ended their importance, however, and it was rare for a son to inherit his father's power unchallenged. Because headship was so transient, there was no practical motivation to establish a cult around a leader. That does not mean, however, that the religious dimensions of power were not recognized and given shape. Indeed, there are numerous examples of that range of perceptions from genius to numen which is the central focus of Fishwick's analysis of the imperial cult.41 An essential ingredient of the early debates about power in Islam concerned questions about the necessity of the leader being Arab and who qualified as a 'pure' Arab. Suffice it to say that modem scholarship has identified a number of crucial elements in it. There is, firstly, Ishmaelism. Some A rabs believed that they were indeed sons of the Ishmael of Biblical tradition. Greek sources testify that Ishmaelism pre-dated Islam by at least two centuries. There are also good arguments for the existence of cultic Ishmael worship.42 Secondly, there were Arab tribal connections undergirding much of the population in the Prophet's time. All Arabs, however, were connected, in Muhammad's view, because they were 'sons of Abraham', a more comprehensive designation than 'sons of Ishmael'.43 The linkage was not just a turn of phrase. Individual families were members of an encampment (hayy), groups of encampments being members of clans (qawm) while related clans made a tribe (qabrl). Clan spirit ('�abiyya) was the heart of the system. Anyone without 'a�abiyya would be virtually non-existent in Arab society. Commitment to one's noble ancestors (nasab) was also an indestructible element of the culture.44 Identity could not be understood outside of these conceptual forms. Part of the loyalty to tribal ancestry was linked to the Alexandrian cycle: the great Lakhmidian king Mundhir is flattered with the name of 'Dhfl l-Qamayn: by Imru' al-Qays, the 6th-c. poet, who was reputed to have visited Constantinople.45 Thus, within a century before Islam, the spirit of greatness associated with Alexander was imported by the Arab poets into the meaning of 'a�abiyya.

40 41 42

43 44 4S

See W. A. Graham, '1slam in the mirror of ritual" in R. G. Hovannisian and S. Vyronis,Jr. (edd.), Islam's understanding of itself (Malibu 1983) 53-71. Fishwick, Imp. CuIt n.1 386 ff. Shahid (supra n.18) 179-80, 332-38, distinguishes between 'geneological' and 'cuItic' beliefs, the former (closer to ideological) as verified by Byzantine and Arab sources, by which some Arabs believed that they were descendants of Ishmael, the latter, by which they honored or worshipped their ancestor. Shahid calls himself a minimalist on the second, because he does not find the sources sufficiently conVincing for an elaborate cultic function. Shahid (supra n.18) 342. Hitti (supra n.34) 26-29. This is because he writes: wa-rakibtu aI-balfda, '1 mounted the balfd". Barid (Latin veredi) or 'horses', must have come into use in prt!-Islamic Arabia from the Roman imperial administration as the word for 'post'. See Shahid (supra n.18) 326, with references.

Earle H. Waugh

246

The qualities of nobility among the Arabs were not celebrated in the first instance with cultic rituals, but rather in panegyric poetry. As Hamori notes: But already in the sixth century before the coming of Islam. these poets, rather than myths or religiOUS rituals, served as the vehicle for the conception that sorted out the emotionally incoherent facts of life and death, and, by sorting. set them at the bearable remove of contemplation.46

Recent analyses of Arab panegyric poetry by Sperl and Clinton confirm the essentially ritualizing medium of the poems: Sperl suggests that panegyric poems of the 9th-c. court have a liturgical quality, and Clinton considers them to be ritual texts.47 The pre-Islamic panegyric available to us shows that this ritualizing tendency arose earlier than the Islamic context. As I have suggested elsewhere, it appears to have arisen out of the distinctive Arab conception of the heroic.48 lhe poems comprised, on the one hand, descriptions of sharing, of joyful drinking, of departure, of family pride, of the delight of a shady garden, musings of old age, remembrance of death and eulogy, and, on the other, praise. Sperl shows that the praise sections in the poems were not just standardized affirmations of greatness; rather, when counterbalanced with the other elements in the panegyric, listeners understood genuine messages of status to be expressed.49 Poetry was the principal medium through which honour was conveyed in pre-Islamic Arabia. lhis was partly because poets were conceived to have numinous powers. As Petersen notes with reference to Umayyad panegyric: The agitatorial cogency of the poetry must undoubtedly be seen in the light of old Bedouin conceptions which attributed supernatural powers to the r3:w'i whose principal duty was to defend the tribe's honour by his art or defame the adversary. The particular quality which the poetry thus acqUired gave it unique possibilities as a factor in influencing public opinion.50

One poetic practice, later extended beyond the limits of poetic discourse, was to use the language of deity in describing someone. In poetry ·such usage could be put down to the exuberance of the moment. But some people went beyond this to maintain that an individual actually possessed the 'essence' of the divine. lheodoret of Cyrrhus writes of Arabs who flocked to Simeon the Stylite some time before the saint's death in 459. lhey vigorously renounced their ancestral rites including those associated with Aphrodite, their ancestral deity, and participated in the Eucharist SI. Simeon's spiritual power to heal and work miracles was attested far and wide among believing Arabs,51 who responded to the saint with such enthusiasm that the Holy man became the focus of Arab cultic activity. Judging by the early stories told about him, the Prophet Muhammad was similarly an object of veneration - an issue of some sensitivity to Muslim theologians because of Islam's concern that none should usurp the place of God. Yet in the Muslim view, the first human embodiment of genuine religious power was the Prophet lhe power he had was still derivative, however, since the Qur'iin itself was the absolute expression of God's moral will and essence. This is crucial, for theologically this meant that no human could ever be offered worship. Hence the theological constrictions of the Qur'an became a crucial ingredient of the debate over the sacred character of leaders. One result of this debate was the adoption defacto of a special pious category to accommo46 47

A. Hamori, On the art of medieual Arabic literature (Princeton 1974) 22. S .SperL "Islamic kingship and Arabic panegyric poetry in the early 9th century,"

48 49 50

Sperl (supra n.47) 33. Petersen, 'AIr and Mu'Qwiya:

51

Journal of Arabic Literature S (1977) 22-35, and J. W. Cli nton, "Panegyric poetry," unpublished paper (1981). See The Munshidin of Egypt, their world and their song (Columbia, se 1989) 97-103, 114-16.

on early Arabic tradition; studies on the genesis and growth of Islamic historical writing until the end of the ninth centu,y (Copenhagen 1964) 47.

SeeShahid (supra n.1S) 149 f., with references.

Alexander in Islam

24

date the religious feelings concerning the Prophet's numinosity. Since the Qur'i'In was no collected until after his death, and the majority of Arabs did not have the benefit of all th recitations available to them, let alone the ability to read the written form, Muharnmad's lif. and rule were taken as the measure of the Qur'i'In's religious patterns. Ihus, for the unlettered religious power had only one form: the Prophet. Because he was the last of the Prophets, non. would carry the same power again. Tracking the growth of this special category would take us far afield. We see a process a work that would be increasingly utilized: adaptation of traditional language by adding i religious dimension to the meaning. It appears to begin from the time of the Prophet's first visi tation from Gabriel. A tradition records a conversation shortly after this between the Prophe and Khadlja, his first wife. He was worried about what had happened but Khadlja reassurec him saying "God will never disgrace you; you do good unto the kindred, bear the burden of tilt infirm, bestow alms to the poor, entertain the guest. And you help in cases of recurrin! obligations."s2 In essence, the validity of Muhammad's experiences is guaranteed because hE meets the standards of the exemplary traditional Arab. The language is derived froIl panegyric genres reflecting pre-Islamic values applied to great tribal leaders and theil generosity of spirit. Khad·Ija's argument is a moral one: Muharnmad was widely respected fO! his expression of Arab adab, so God would not dishonour him by giving him false messages.53 Here panegyric status validated divine revelation for the Prophet. As the Muslirr community developed, it did not take much to give the principle a twist to apply it te rulership: one had sufficient status in the community to gain the pOSition of ruler and that facl enabled one to claim God's authority for one's leadership. Ihe use of panegyric material in this manner demonstrates the extent to which panegyric writings were harnessed for religiOUS purposes. Muharnmad recognized the ability of the poe� to create mischief among the Arabs through the power of their poetry and he took a relatively negative view of them. Surprisingly, this restrained them scarcely at all. One poet whom the Prophet did tolerate, �Iassi'!n b. IMbit, wrote in elegy of Muhammad: He was the light and the brill iance we followed. He was sight and hearing second only to God.54

The forms and topoi in the poem are in keeping with other panegyric elegies, of both pre­ Islamic and Islamic times. But the formation of a special category of sacrality, 'second only to God', had to derive from a particularly Muslim devotional viewpoint. It reflects the shaping of a religious numinology that allowed the valorization of the religious figure without impinging on the sphere of God. In effect, everyone accepted that God was theologically so distinct that none of the usual terminology of 'relatedness' applied, even if the language seemed to imply it. This became a crucial protocol of Muslim adab. The legacy of the Prophet's sacrality was, for most Arabs; passed on to the first four Cal­ iphs, albeit in attenuated form. But their reigns were a period of intense jostling for authority and legitimacy. Numinous language suggested the existence of a permanent essence, even though everyone agreed that it was not supposed to be theologically significant. A survey of some of the crucial terms in Muslim leadership, such as prophet, caliph, imtrm , shay kh, Mahdi, say yid and a m ir, would all reflect religious nuances within the special category of numinosity 'second to God'. 55 While we cannot pursue this here, it may be noted that the category was open to a wide range of exemplary patterns and spiritual prerogatives. 52 53

54

55

al-Bukha:rr,

Sa/.! �, Bab kayfa kilna bad' .1·wa!IJI 13

(Cairo A.H. 1286).

M. J. Kister, "God will never disgrace thee," Jllhiliyya (supra n.3B) chapt. 7, 27-32 See I b n ls ha; q (supra n.6) 690 . See articles in

El and Efl

(supra n.3) s.v. 'KhalIfa', 'Im�ma', 'al-Mahd\', 'anur', See also H. A. R. Gibb

Earle H. Waugh

248

The most remarkable instance

be found among the

is to

rej ected by the growing moderate consensus

in

ghulat,

those people who were

early Islam. The name, which means

'exaggerators', was given to them by the less radical among the Shi'iS, that belonged to the party of The

Ali, but it was

is,

also used widely by Islamic heresiographers

those who

in

general.

were regarded as threats to the stability of Isl amic unity by both sides in the quarrel between Shi'is and traditionalists. 56 Briefly put, this argument focused on whether

ghu lat

Muh
'Aii,

the son-in­

law of Muhammad, who had supported the Prophet almost from the b eginning. 'Abd Allah b. Saba' apparently began the

ghul4t

tradition by declaring that 'AU was an

incarnation of GOd. 5 7 Such a claim would seem to vitiate the point made above that those humans venerated within Islam formed a special category.

In

reality, however, the

ghu lll t

tradition reflects the struggle to define the nature o f the special nllminous category. Apparently CAbd Allah did not accept the distinction between theological and panegyric language. His views were rejected by cAl, himself, and by a wide spectrum of religious and political authorities. But when cAl, was assassinated, 'Abd Allah declared that he would one day return in the clouds, with thunder as his voice and lightning as the radiance of his whip.58 Such religious idolization was regarded as too simplistic by the more sophisticated members of the ShI'a; still, for them the sentiments of heroic elevation towards cAlr were not out of place. They pointed to the primacy accorded to immediately recognizable spiritual power, an ongoing development within Islam of which the political leadership was very much aware. Even when Muslim loyalties to the state became more nuanced and diverse, the perception of the leader's sacred nature (or lack thereof!) continued to play a decisive role. Hence early Islam had to wrestle with the question of whether the power which leaders had to have was spiritual/religious in some specific sense, and, if so, how that power was to be reco

gnized and

passed on to the next generation of rulers. Out of this came the doctrine of elective succession, by

which the people were supposed to recognize a deserving aspirant. Determining the numinous in leaders was a very serious issue, because an accepted leader faced virtually no legitimate opposition, and he could leave a dramatic mark on the nature of the community.59 God had apparently given some men a remarkable amount of power, and successful contenders for that power assured the continuity of true Islam. It should not surprise us, then, that Muslim leaders took full advantage of ceremonial and panegyric traditions as a means of affirming their special numen. A telling measure of the impact of Byzantine tradition in this regard is the story of CUmar on his arrival in Syria after the victory of the Arabs. 'Umar was by all accounts the most resistant of the first four caliphs to accommodation with non-Islamic culture and

he fiercely

opposed

im-

and J. H. Kramers (edd.), Shartl!r encyclopaedia of Islam (lthaca 1953) s.v. 'wali' and 'shaikh'.

56 57 58

See Hodgson (supra

n.12) !, 265 ff. In this he is reminiscent of the reception Paul and Bamabus received in Lystra (Acts 14:11) when they

cried out, "These men are as gods!". M. Moosa, Extremist Shi'ites: the Ghul4t sects (Syracuse 1988), 69. Some ShI'l scholars reject the historicity of fun Saba', as, for example,

'AIr QulI

Qarll'i, ·'Orientalism and misrepresentation of Shr'r

history, ' AI-TawJ,rd 4.4 (1987) 153-77, esp. 158-60, although he is attested to by Muslim historians like Taba rr. 59

Th e Egyptian scholar �ad b.

cAIr

al-Maqrrzf (A. H. 766-845/ 1364-1442) looks t o the rivalry

between the two clans in early Islamic rulership and tries to work out how Islam could go so wrong, in his Kit4b al-niZ4' wal-taJch4sum (ed. G. Vas, Leiden 1988, Cairo 1937) . C. E. Bosworth has translated it as: al-Maqr�rs "Book of �ontentio" and strife concerning the relations between the Ba nll Umayya and

Bona Hashim" Goumal oi Semitic Studies Monograph 3, Manchester 1980).

Alexander in Islam

249

perial pretensions.60 Yet Ba�dhurI records local adven tus ceremonies on his arrival:

I was one of those who went with abu-CUbaidah to meet CUmar as he was coming to Syria As qJmar

was passing, he was met by singers and tambourine players of the inhabitants of Adhri'at with swords and myrtle. Seeing that, qJmar shouted 'Keep still, Stop them: But abu-CUbaidah replied

"This is their custom (or some such word like it), Commander of Believers, and if thou shouldst stop them from doing it, they would take that as indicating thy intention to violate their covenant: 'Well then', said CUmar, 'let them go on'61

His confreres among the Banii Umayya were not so concerned. They took over many of the royal appurtenances of the Byzantine court. These ranged from Hellenistic architectural styles adapted for use in palaces such as Q;!$r 'Amra and Mshatta62 to Byzantine symbols of power

such as lions supporting statues of the caliph,63 standards for use in battle,64 imperial swords and accoutrements,6 5 and the practice of having themselves represented in murals as being deferred to by great world rulers.66 A range of other activities reminiscent of Byzantine procedures emerged: a special ceremony of acknowledging legitimacy

(bayca);

claiming the

sword of the Prophe t as a symbol of legitimacy and authority; the development of a court mosque with a maq� (area enclosed by a grid for use by the ruler, and sometimes women) where the caliph could join in prayer; the lauding of the caliph in the Friday prayer along with the cursing of enemies; the power to make appointments and judgements on the basis of personal whims or insights; the adoption of Byzantine protocols for foreign embassies, and the luxurious courts of great kings. Essential to these last were panegyric poets and

literati

who

drew on the rich vocabulary of Byzantine and Arab history and vernacular tradition to create the imperial persona. Thus the poet Farazdaq would say:

rads) are the trustees of CUthman's heritage - an apparel of kings over them, not

They (ie., the Uma to be stripped off. 6

Marwan b. Ma:rwan wrote for al-Mutawakkil, "Yours is the inheritance of Muhammad, and

through your justice is injustice swept aside," 66 while Ibn Mayyada was flogged by the caliph al-W alld II for placing the family of the Prophet ahead of that of Ma:rwan (Umayyad) in

nobility. 69 Al-MaqrlzI, trying to make sense

of these developments six centuries

later, quotes in

disbelief Ibn Shafa:' al-l;limyarI's comment in 'Abd al-Malik's court: "The Commander of the Faithful

is

the caliph of God, and he

is

more noble in the eyes of God than

His messenger; now

you are a caliph, but Muhammad is only the Messenger of God. "70

60

H e was so wroth wi th a son who became involved i n th e fleshpots of Egypt that h e had him sent home. When he arrived, CUmar beat him to death. On the other hand, he was not above making some use of foreign ooncepts.

61 62 63 64

P. I<. Hitti, The origins of the !slamic state, being a translation from the Arabic of the Kitab Futal) al-Buldan of al-Imam Abil-I-'Abbils A�mad ibn Jabir al-Baladhurr(New York 1916) 214-1S. See B. Lewis (ed.), Islam and the Arab world; foith, people, culture (Toronto 1976) 20, pis. 9-10. Ibid.

It is probable that the carrying of standards in battle was something quite different than carrying standards in the pomp of court life. For example, part of the custodial responsibilities of the holder of the keys to the pre-lslamic Kacba was to carry the liwa', or 'standard ' in b attle. See A. J. Wensinck, A handbook of early Muhammadan tradition (Leiden 1%0) 187 ff. for sources. The responsibility had been part of �ayy's reforms; see E. sachau et al. (edd.), Ibn sa'd, Kitab al-'[abaqat al-kubrr (Leiden 19O5-40)

65 66

67

66 69

70

Li, 41-42, 4S.

F . Altheim & R stiehl, "Lanze und Vortragslanze," Die Araber in der antiken Welt (Berlin

O. Grabar (supra n35) pI. 3. See Bosworth (supra nS9) 17. Ibid. 21. Ibid. 18. Ibid. 69.

1964) 1S50-91.

Earle H. Waugh

250

Such comments were made against a background of determining who could legitimately claim the Prophet's

baraka

and thereby wield power. One panegyrist for the Umayyads

claimed that 'God's caliph' had true claim to the throne because he had overcome those, like cAll who would have severed Islam's unity. Moreover, he claimed cAll's diabolical motivation was proven when God allowed the Umayyad claimant to win the day at the battle of Siffin.71 The antagonists of the Umayyads who still questioned their legitimacy in the light of the

been converted very late, while members of the Prophet's own him almost from the beginning were repeatedly passed over,

fact that most of the family had

Hastrim clan who had supported

resorted to the notion of 'light of the caliphs'. This religious concept makes more sense when it

is understood that very early partisans of cAlr and the Hashim developed the argument that there was a luminous element that had existed

in earlier

prophets (one of whom, as we have

seen, some believed Alexander to be) which was fully manifested in the Prophet. This was

called the 'light of Muhammad'.72 In contrast, the Umayyads saw a divine nllmen

in

their own

leadership, which was proved in their governance and conquests. In this view also, Alexander as a Prophet was naturally important. It was no coincidence that the Umayyads expended a great deal of time and effort in locating and exploring the archaeology of Alexander: cAbd al­

Malik

himself went in search

of

the rampart built by Alexander?3

The CAbMsids were not shy in claiming the Prophet's mantle as their own. According to a report from Ibn cAbbas (d.

689),

whose line had a claim on the caliphate but was thwarted by

the Umayyads, more than just the headship of the Muslim community was at stake. cUmar asked

if he knew why the caliphate in the negative. Then cUmar

replied

was withheld from the house of the Prophet, to which he said:

The Quraish did not like that you may have both the prophethood and the caliphate and aggrandize

yourself at their expense. They have thus safeguarded their interests and chosen a non-Hashimite caliph and were right in doing 50.74

On another occasion when cUmar was

responding to

tre claim made by

Air that the prophet

C

wanted him to have the caliphate, cUmar's response is instructive:

be helped if God did not so want. The God wanted not to let him have it; the will of God

The prophet wanted something for him (CAil) but it cannot Prophet wanted to let him have the caliphate, but

materialised and that of the Prophet did not. Did everything the Prophet want materialise?75

lhese reports reflect the ongoing debate about the legitimacy of claims to the caliphate. But they also deal with the argument about the special numen of rulership . has power wields it for

God;

In effect, the

ruler who

by doing so, his 'chosenness' is regarded as indicative of a sacred

quality. The conception distanced the holder of power symbolically and religiously from the idea of the equality of all believers which lay at the heart of the Qur'an's original message, and imparted a numinous quality to the ruler. When the cAbMsids did come to power, they added to this nascent sacrality the aura of the imamate of the Shns. This panegyric

to

the

cAbMsid caliph al-Man�f1r should not, then, surprise us.

71

From the Christian poet al-Akhtal, in H. Lammens, Etudes sur le siecle des Omayyades (Beirut 1930) 233;

see Petersen (supra n.SO) 43-48. Western scholarly analysis on the early development of the caliphate

72

73 74 75

has been defined by P. Crone and M. Hinds, God's Caliph: religiaus authority in the first centuries of Islam (Cambridge 1986) esp. 24-42. See U Rubin, "Prophets and progenitors in early Shi'a tradition," Jerusalem studies in Arabic a n d Islam 1 (1979) 41 if; id, "Pre-existence and light Aspects of the concept of Nur Muhammed," Israel Oriental Studies 5 (1975) 64-11l. H. T. Norris, "Q�"" Elements in t h e Qur'an" in A F. L. Beeston et al. (edd.), Arabic literature to the end of the Umayyadperiod (Cambridge 1983) 254. lbn Abi l-I;Iadrd, Shar'; Nahj al-Balagha (Cairo 1353) ill, 107, K. A Fraiq (trans!.), A hist01Y of Arabic literature (Umayyad period) (Delhi 1978) 90. Ibid. III, 114.

Alexander in Islam

25

You alone, 'Abdallah, are worthy of this, God's viceregency, which He has given you, He chose you, He chose you for it, He chose you, For our age looked back to your forefather And saw that only you were suited for it. We are among your subjects since they are those who love you, Aye, and seek their protection in your seed .76

Here, the special feeling of adoration a·ttached to 'Air and members of the Prophet's famil combines with Islamic conceptions

of

the ruler as God's viceregent on earth and religiou

perceptions of 'chosenness' to form the numinous underpinnings of loyalty. Nor was it sulficier that the ruler alone should have this quality - it was passed on to his sons, as befitted lineage with sacred genealogical connections. It led to unrestricted power and a culture c absolute loyalty on pain of death. A t one level it is quite normal that the Arab poet should have written of his rulers in sue superlative terms: he was utilizing language laden with meanings drawn from a more gener. Arabian

adab.

Fierce pride, arrogant disdain for authority and Chivalrous loyalty lay at th

heart of the old Arab cultural system. Nevertheless, Muslim leaders fostered this old

adab

a

a means of incorporating its religious power into their persona, because cultural assumption concerning the power of poetry were still very evident. Even so, they had to do this withou appearing to contradict Islamic values. Poets developed their own cast of heroes and topei

in

the light of the ruler's requirements. 1

good example is provided by the panegyric of Abu I-Tayyib al-MutanabbI : I was summoned to you (he is addreSSing 'AIr a1-AntakI) by learning, prudence and sagacity, an,

these words, the ordered verses, and the gift, the scattering;

and the poem I have composed, when its verses are written, the ink becomes almost white from the; radiance, as if the meanings in the eloquence of the expression were the stars of the Pleiades, or your ow shining qualities ?7

To Sayf al-Dawla he wrote: The Arabs have raised with you the pillar (i.e., of a glorious house), and converted the tops of king: heads into kindling places of fires (wars); The genealogies of their glory accrue to you and only the genealogies of their origin to 'Adnan (i.e

he was 'true blue' as descended from the ancient ancestor of the northern Arabs).

Oh you, who slaughter whom you will with your sword, I have become one of those slain by you

l

beneficence, so that when I behold you, my e es are too dazzled to gaze on you and when I prais you my tongue is bewildered concerning you?

For our purposes a panegyric for Abu I-Falll Mul:tamm ad Ibn aFAmid is particularly tellin�

In it

the poet uses many

of the themes we have been discussing,

including that of the persona c

Alexander. Like that great king, Abu I-Fa� is a special creation by God himself, combining th cultural and intellectually superior qualities of Aristotle with the royal military dynamism 0 Alexander, both united with the learning of Ptolemy. At the same time the ruler is truly Bedouin Arab with all that implies, while fully able to take advantage of city IUe. For MutanabbI, and for the Muslim cultured classes of Arab rulership

his

al

time, this was the supreme expression 0

adab.

Your enviers call you the Ruler, and then refrain, but your creator has called you the greatest ruler.

76 77 78

J. A. Willliarns (lrans!.), al-Tabarr: the early cAbbDsid empire nabbr (C ambridge 1967) 40.

A. J. Arberry, P oems oj al -Muta Ibid. 88.

(Cambridge 1988) 199-200.

Eade H. Waugh

252

Your qualities are deputies for His words in men's eyes, like the writing which fills the ears of him who beholds it. Who will inform the desert Arabs that, after leaving them, I have beheld Aristotle and Alexander? I was weary of the slaughter of bearing camels, then I was given hospitality by one who sacrifices purses of gold to those he entertains; and I heard Ptolemy studying his own books, being at once a king. Bedouin and city dweller, and I met all men of learning, as if God had restored their souls and the ages.

The Umayyads realized very early the need to connect their rule to heroes and legevndary characters as exemplars for their regimes, and Alexander was particularly valuable in this regard. During the reign of Hisham (705-724), a secretary in the bureaucracy undertook a translation that, strangely, passed unnoticed by Arabists until Grignaschi published his studies in the mid-1960s on the only Arabic version of the siyasat- namah, a genre designed to give advice to the caliph on runnin g affairs in the way that a world conqueror should.19 It purports to be the epistles written by Aristotle to Alexander, along with the latter's requests and discussions for his mentor. The material encompasses such things as the philosophy of politics, congratulations on various victories and, most important for our purposes, "Alexander's request for general advice on the administration of the kingdom". Internal evidence shows that this was derived from a Greek original and that it represents the writing of one of the last adherents of hermetic doctrines; it also demonstrates that the Arab writer was familiar with Sasanian forms of government and literature, for the models often have a particular Persian colouring. BD A later work of the genre was the better known Epistles to Secretaries of CAbd al-Hamld al­ Ka:tib which outlines a code of conduct or adab which was to become the basis for government operations from that time on. Part of the introduction says: The Commander of the Faithful is pleased to lay on you an injunction _ wherein he imposes on you his adab and whereby he ordains for you his admonition, even though, praise be to God, your position in relation to his religion and his caliphate is such that you have been chosen by God for the heirdom, thereby being set apart by Him from your kin and sons of your father. 81

Alexander represents a model for behaviour and a position within the universe assumed to be paramount for a young prince. Along with this, of course, was assumed a certain kind of numen that resulted from being chosen by God, a mode of being at the pinnacle of the Muslim world at the time. At the same time, Alexander takes on the multiple roles that Muslims viewed as necessary for the leader if he was to spread the message of Islam: prophet, philosopher, ruler, religious proclaimer. Some elements of this popular conception rest upon ideas explicitly stated in the writings of al-Fara:bI (d.950), a hellenistic Arab philosopher at the court of Baghdad, which are summed up in the following: 50

let it be clear to you that the idea of the Philosopher, Supreme Ruler, Prince, Legislator and Imam but a single idea. No matter which one of these words you take, if you proceed to look at what each of them sigrifies among the majority of those who speak our language, you will find that they aD finally agree by signifying one and the same idea. 82 is

79

80 81 82

M. Grignaschi, "La 'NiMyatu-I-arab fr akhbari-I-Furs wa-I-c Arab' et les 'Siyaru sulilki-I-cagam' du Ps. Ibn al-Muqaffac:' BlIlletin d'Etlldes Orientales 26 (1973); id., "Les 'Ras!'il Aristi1t!lrya il!-I-Iskandar' de S!lim Abil-I-cAM' et l'activite culturelle � I'epoque omayyade:' BlIlletin d' Etlldes Orientales 19 (1967); id., "Le roman epistolaire classique conserve dans la version arabe de S!lim Abil-I_cAla' , " Le MIlseon 80 (1967). For an evaluation see J. D. Latham, "The beginnings of Arabic prose literature: the epistolary genre" in Beeston et aL (supra n.73) 155-64. Latham (supra n.79) 160. Ibid. 168. al-H r!bj� "The attainment of happiness:' M. Mahdi (trans!.), in R. Lerner and M. Mahdi (edd.), Medieval political philosophy: a sollrcebook (New York 1963) 79.

Alexander in Islam

253

Here was philosophical justification for the absolutism that the cAbbasid rulers applied in their le gislation, attitudes and architecture.83 Thus Islam, as it became ever more deeply engrained among the peoples of the East, carried with it a value system intimately connected to the Alexander numen. J. Becka sums it up: The oriental Alexander romances thus acquired more and more the character of a 'mirror of princes' and may consequently be regarded up to a certain point as a collection of maxims. This increases their importance, for they rate, not as monuments of literature but also as an important source of information about the development of political conceptions.M

1he ideology of state was not that far from what the ordinary lettered Muslim expected in the ruler. To judge from the literature, the adab of the ruler had strong resonances in the adab of Muslim high society. Still, the expectations among the pious population promoted by such numinosity were, as one might anticipate, not always met. This was specially true for the devoted religious scholar, aware of the contradictions between the values of panegyric poetry and those of Islam. The problem remained at the heart of the Arab Muslim leadership system. One scholar, al-MaqrlzI, looking back on the history of the caliphate from the vantage point of the 15th c., concluded that the system had failed. It is significant how he saw its failure: 50 the direction of the Muslim community's affairs did notpass to the just and pure ones; they were not governed by the ascetic and pious ones; and they were not ruled by the God-fearing and trusted ones. On the contrary, the caliphate was transformed into a despotism like that of the Persian Kisras and the Byzantine Caesars.85

And so rulership adab transformed the political heirs of the Prophet into urbanized Bedouin Byzantine Caesars with their own special kind of numen. Alexander in Islam: sacred persona and rulership adab

The evidence we have surveyed indicates that Arab Islam developed a conception of the ruler that was heavily interlaced with the numinous. This numinous quality grew in part because of certain Byzantine influences on the Umayyads, in p art for the glories of tribal C�biyya, and in part from the religious expectations set in play by the political conceptions of Islam and its ideology of prophethood. Islam's brake on cult worship did not impede the growth of a special sacred quality applied to caliphal leadership. The chann ed character of Alexander aided in that development by providing Muslims with a brilliant and acceptable model, one which combined all those features deemed necessary for reflecting the true Islamic shape of rulership. Muslim rulership adab rounded and deepened that perception in several ways. The view of the n uminous resonated in the population through stories, tales and poetics. Eventually, the sacred persona attributed to the ruler made other connections, as for example with Persian ideas of divine kingship. But that is another story.56 Department of Religious Studies, University of Alberta 83

84 85 86

See Hodgson (supra n.U) I, 281. For an interesting interpretation of the circular city of Baghdad as based on the ideology of the ByzantineI1imbus, see R Hillenbrand, ''Notes on the symbolism of the rayed nimbus in early Islamic art," unpublished paper (1985). J. Cejpek, "Iranian folk-literature" in J. Rypka and K . Jahn (edd.) (supra n.5) 628. Bosworth (supra n.59) 88. It will be apparent that I disagree with Hodgson (supra n.12) as to when Islamic rulership adopted its character of Sasanian 'divine monarchy'. While it is obvious that the Baghdad courtly circles were strongly influenced by Iranian culture, it seems to me that the egalitarian and anti-monarchical traditions of the Arabs militated against divinizing the ruler. It seems quite incompatible with the application of Islamic law underway at the same time. Hodgson's notion rests on his assumption that there is an essential unity of the Irano-Semitic culture, a perspective in my view needing further validation before it can be applied as an analytic principle to all Islamic structures.

Subj ect and ruler, subj ects and m e th o d s : an attempt a t a c o nclusion Geza AW:ildy "00 est le temps ou Kurt Latte m'ecrivait que le culte imperiale etait une invention des peres la foi chretienne?"1 These words of one of the most prominent

de l'Eglise et des docteurs de

investigators of Roman imperial cult, referring to a letter which he received from Latte in the

year when his work

Le culte imperial dans la Feninsule iberique d' Auguste a Diocletien (Paris 1958) was published, express very clearly the development, over the course of the last decades,

both of our knowledge about the cult of the ruling power in the ancient world, and of our attitudes towards it

This development can be illustrated by contrasting some original words of Latte, found in his

Romische Religionsgeschich te,

with the views of the man, who, during the last decades, has

contributed more than any other scholar to our knowledge of Roman ruler cult, and whose 65th birthday provides the occasion for the compilation of the present volume.2 At the end of Latte's chapter dedicated to the "Loyalitatsreligion der Kaiserzeit" we read:

FUr die seitdem 2.Jh. ansteigende religiOse Welle haben alle Formen des KaiserkuIts nichts bedeutet le unbestrittener das Kaisertum als politische Institution dastand, desto mehr werden auch alle damit zusammenhangenden Bekundungen zu gewohnheitsmalligen i\kten, die das Innenleben des einzeInen nicht mehr beriihren. Sie sind ein Bekenntnis zu der Kaiserherr-schaft, aber weder Ausdruck eines persiinlichen Verhalolisses zu dem augenblicklichen Trager der Gewalt, noch entsprechen sie einem individuellen Bediirfnis. Mit ihren eigenen Wilnschen und Sorgen wenden sich die Menschen an andere GOtter als den Kaiser _ Der Kaiserkult blieb, was es von jeher gewesen war, die Anerkennung des romischen WeItreichs in seiner gegenwartigen Form, eine konventionelle Geste ... Ihre religiOse Bedeutungslosigkeit zeigt sich am deutIichsten darin, daB sie kaum geandert von dem byzantillischen Hofzeremoniell iibemommen werden konnte.3

As a clear contrast to

this view, I quote here a few (cautious) remarks of D. Fishwick.

"The iuuliversaries of the ruler cult were more deeply ingrained in prOvincial life than might have been supposed."4 In fulfilling the rites of the imperial cult, "there is also the possibility that the cult image will have been adored."s "Sacrifice by individ uaIs" might have been dependent "largely upon support by local authorities, but this by no meanS excludes the possibility of individuals partici­ pating of their own accord, out of personal zeal or fervour."6 "Imperial busts were also in the , hands of colleges whose primary concern was not directly with the cult of the emperor., 7 "The reception of the imperial likeness ... had the character of a popular festival."s Not only banquets, but also other kinds of festival rites "contributed to feelings of joy;"9 they "produced a spirit of association and reconciliation among the populace. ulO

ID

R. Etienne, supra p.153. - I would like to express my gratitude for the invitation to the Edmonton Conference to the initiators of this colloquium and for the revision of my English to Professor M. Peachin and Professor A Small. His most important results and views are collected in: Fishwick, Imp. Cult 1.1-2 and 11.1-2. K. Latte, Rom. Rei. 326. Fishwick, Imp.Cult 11.1, 497. Ibid. 11.1, 527. Ibid. II.l, 531 Ibid. II.l, 538. Ibid. 11.1, 552. Ibid. 11.1, 584. Ibid. II.1, 585.

Subject and ruler, subjects and methods

In recent years, significant attention has been paid to the ruler cult in the ancient

most of all to that of the Roman Empire.1I 1he most important result of this work lies,

WOI

I thiJ

in what may have become clear already from the words of R. Etienne, or from the contrasti positions of K. Latte and D. Fishwick: the cult of the ruler was a central element of anci. religious life. I would even dare to suggest that under the Roman Empire, from the time Augustus to that of Constantine, the cult of the emperor was, according to the patterns 'religion' (not in a Christian sense but in the sense of Roman religion) the most important

of worship. 1 2 Three points make First, even

this clear.

ty

if worship of the emperor might upon occasion have amounted to nothing me

than adulation or political calculation, or even if it was sometimes mere hypocrisy, there c

be no doubt about the existence of a widespread conviction that the ruler was a god, or was

least something like a god. His insuperable and therefore divine power, at once a very real a present force for most of his subjects, was regarded by these people as the guarantee of th salus. Moreover, to secure the continual operation of this power, it was necessary to fulfill t demands of cult - with prayers, victims, and further rites - in the same way as one

rig

acquire the help of other gods. The only difference was that the emperor was also a hum

being, liable to illness and death, i.e., he could guarantee the

salus

of his subjects only when I

own salus was secured. Precisely this double nature of the ruler, however, magnified t importance of his cult. On the one hand, it was necessary to honor and adore him; but it w

also essential to sacrifice for but also for him as a man.

his safety. In oth er words, one sacrificed not only to him as a gc

Second, there is no doubt that the ruler cult, with its festivals, games, performana processions and public meals, must have been very attractive. 1here were also economic, soc1

and political advantages to be had in conjunction with the proceedings. We should by no mea perceive the imperial cult as merely a bothersome and obligatory manifestation of a pure

political nature, like enforced mass-ciemonstrations in the communist countries of our centUl

1here is no reason to doubt that, for the broad masses, the cult of the emperor was at least

popular as were other cults; perhaps because of its dimensions, it was even more popular most of those others.

tfu

Third, this cult was in a certain sense the most important cult of the Roman Empire befo

the triumph of Christianity. The other divinities of the Greek and Roman pantheon we exchangeable at the pleasure of the individual. Local cults in the provinces were normal

limited to only one town, one clan, or even one sanctuary; and the mystery cults attracted on small and particular groups of the population. 1 3 In the cult of the emperor, howeve practically everybody was involved. 1his is true in a double sense. Spatially, the ruler-cu

was carried out at Rome as well as in all the towns of Italy and the provinces, and even : private houses. Socially, it was spread through all classes and groups. The fratres Arvales all the

collegia

of

sodales Augustales, sodales Flaviales, etc. represented the participation of tI Jlamines or sacerdotes provinciae, coming from tI

senatorial aristocracy in this cult; the

equestrian order and other local elites, represented the whole population of their province;

tI

flamines of the towns represented the elites of the m unicipia and coloniae; the sevi A ugustales the 'second class' of the urban population, especially rich freedmen; th e magist and the ministri of the Lares Augustorum etc. were freedmen and slaves. 11 12 13

For an exhaustive bibliography for the period 1955-1975 see P. Herz in ANRW I1.16.2 (1978) 833-91 for a general bibliography see Fishwick, Imp. Cult II.2, 627-72An attempt at a definition of the the imperial cult: P. Herz, in D. Zeller (ed.), uMenschwerdung Gottes VergOttlichung von Menschen:' Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 7 (1988) 118-20. Cf. G. Alf6ldy, Die Kri.. des romischen Reiches. Geschichte, Geschichtsschreibung, Geschicht: betrachtung. Ausgewiihlte Beitriige (Heidelberger Althistorische Beitrage und Epigraphische Studien ! 1986) 364-68, with further bibliography.

Geza AlfaIdy

256

Two passages may illustrate how the ruler was viewed by Roman society. Herodian remarks on the passing of Marcus Aurelius: When the report of his death was known, the whole army that was withhim and the common people

alike mourned for him. There was not a single subject throughout the Roman Empire that did not

grieve at the news and join together with one voice to proclaim his praise. Some praised his kindness as father, some his goodness as an emperor, others his noble qualities as a general, still others his moderation and discipline as a ruler. And all spoke with complete sincerity.a

And

in the biography of Marcus Aurelius, written at Et parum sane fuit, quod

illi honores

the

end of the 4th c., we read:

divinos omnis aetas, omnis sexus, ollUlis conditio ac dignitas

dedit, nisi quod etiam sacrilegus iudicatus est, qui eius imaginem in sua domo non habuit, qui per

fortunam vel potuit habere vel debuit. Oenique hodieque in multis domibus Marci Antonini statuae

consistunt inter deos penates.15

Marcus Aurelius was, it is true, like Augustus, an extremely popular ruler. I assume, however, that less sympathetic or even 'bad' emperors (defined as such after their deaths by the conservative opinions of the senatorial aristocracy, and by history) were viewed in a more or less similar manner, and worshipped during their rule, at least by

the

masses, because of their

power. Put simply, in the religious feelings and behavior of his subjects, the Roman emperor was just as present as the other gods and goddesses, perhaps even more so. Before the victory of the Church, there was no other cult in .the Roman Empire which enjoyed such success. And this success was by no means due only to the cult's political context. The obligation of society and individuals towards the divine power - an obligation expressed by fulfilling the demands of ritual, in this case the ruler cult, which from the time of Augustus was perhaps the most important element of this political,

social,

Even if

religio

- was fundamentally a religious phenomenon, despite any

or ideological aspects that it may have acquired.

I cannot hope that everyone will share the views described above, they seem to

correspond more or less to a general trend in recent scholarship. But if this is so, it is questionable whether there really is much novelty

in

this area of classical studies, whether it

has been justifiable to collect scholars from different countries - from Canada, the United States, France, Great Britain, Germany - in order to devote several sessions of papers and a joint publication to the problems of

this

topic.

1hese days, with so many congresses, symposia and colloquia, and, at the same time, so much publication in special volumes edited outside normal journals or series, criteria for such an

undertaking must be applied, to my min<:l, in a very serious and stringent manner.16 To be sure, an important anniversary

in

the life of the most prominent living specialist in a given area of our

studies may already be a sufficient motive to organize such an undertaking. It is, in fact, not least of

all

the desire te honor a meritorious scholar

in

an adequate manner that calls for

certain conditions. The question is not just of the desirability of individual high-quality studies, which

theoretically could be published separately in various journals.

In

my opinion, a conference ­

and the publication of its acts - makes really good sense only when it represents, in a certain maI1ner, a turning point in the development of research in its area of concern. 1his means, in my view, fulfillin g the following demands. By the results of the various contributions, research in

14

15 t6

Herod. 1.4.8, in the translation of C R. Whittaker (Loeb). SHA, Marc.AuT. 18.5-6.

I had the occasion to put forward some ideas about the criteria which might justify congresses and the publication of their proceedings, in the preface to the Atti of the 10. Conveg1lD Intenzazionolt di Studi su 1992 (Sassari 1994) 5-11.

L 'Africa Tomano

Jubject and ruler, subjects and methods

257

the relevant special area must be carried forward as a whole, i.e., the collection of contri­ butions must have a certain coherence and must present a certain synthesis so that they are more than a collection of details which could be published better separately (or nowhere). The publication must take into account important new results. It also should include considerable methodological stimulation, or even new perspectives. Finally, the results must offer some­ thing for broader scholarly interests outside the small group of highly specialized colleagues. I am of the opinion that our conference, on the whole, has met these requirements. I think that we have here more than a mere collection of specialized studies, dedicated to different problems of detail, and without any common conceptual framework.

This is not to

imply, to be

sure, that the collected contributions of a conference ought to have the character of a manual, which one

finds

in

everything that is important for the general subject, systematically presented.

And it need not mean that all contributors treat fundamental problems as does, for example, P. Herz,

in his

examination of ruler-cult in the old cultures of the Orient and

in

the Hellenistic

world from a very broad perspective. Even the treatment of a single cult building, such as the shrine of the imperial family in the

Macellum

at Pompeii

(A

Small with an appendix

presented by M Kozakiewicz), may be justified, if it has consequences for our knowledge of the imperial cult in general. But when brought together, these must be parts of a coherent and systematic whole. 1he coherence and systematic character of the studies collected in the present volume seem to derive not so much from a clearly defined common

Fragesteliung,

such as one

might expe ct

from the title of the conference, "Subject and Ruler." To be sure, in a certain sense all the authors

here treat questions which are inseparable from the problem of the relationship between subject and ruler. 1his is true even if sometimes the study is focused only on the point of view of the ruler (e.g., Tran tarn Tinh), or only on that of his subjects (e.g., L.

A. Curchin).

The only contributor, in fact, who really took up the challenge of the title, "Subject and Ruler", was R. Turcan, even if he correctly emphasized that, at least in the theory of the Early Empire, Romans were not 'subj ects' of the ruler. I agree with his statement, which reflects fundamentally not only on

the

imperial cult but on the structure of the Roman Empire as a

whole: Les dieux ont besoin des hommes, comme les hommes on! besoin des dieux. Do ut des .. . Cette espece de

contrat cultuel qui lie implicitement le sujet � I'empereur fait aussi qu'ils existent solidairement I'un

et l'autre, I'un avec l'autre et par rapport � I'autre. La religion du souverain ne legitime pas seuiement I'homme q u i en est l'objet, mais com,lativement celui qui en est le sujet actif, soit � titre personnel, comme individu, soit comme membred'une collectivite urbaine et civique, ethnique ou

provinciale. 17

Let me mention here an inscription concerning Caracalla's birthday.1 8 It expresses the same truth. It is the emperor who exclaims to his subjects, is the subjects, who pray for that he

is

the

his

"Nox dea fit lux!" Sic die mea vota!

And it

own words, who enthusiastically proclaim

a god and must rule yet a hundred years more. This is the sense of the words Jelicia

tempora quattuor inse'luantur, 'officially'

emperor with

25

a good wish for the emperor who was, a t this moment,

years old). Both are legitimated b y the cultic act Caracalla as the lord of the

his subjects who adore him and receive his benefits, but also as firm position in Roman society, a position conferred by function and status, and

world; the dedicants not only as a group with a

sanctioned by its connection with the emperor. Reading this inscription, the senator Cassius Dio would have rejected such devotion to a murderer. I am convinced, however, that the

et urinatores 17 18

piscatores

saw things more or less in the same manner as they state in their inscription.

Turcan, supra p. 62. I presented the analysis of this inscription

(OL V I 1080 [cf. 1236] ; 40638

in the supplement about to

appear in 1996) at the conference in Edmonton, but it will be published in the volume Colloquium Historiae Barcinonense 1993 (in press).

258

Geza Alioldy

1he coherent and systematic character of the present volume see ms to be provided, first of all, by the diachronic and synchronic breadth of the contributions. The main theme is, of course, the cult of the emperor of Rome. This is, however, put in a broader historical framework. Our collection begins with the contributions of E. Badian, dedicated to "Alexander the Great between two thrones and heaven", and of P. Herz on the Hellenistic ruler, one might say, not between two thrones, but between two kinds of subjects. We return at the end to Alexander, with the study of E. H. Waugh, devoted to the survival of elements of ancient rulership in the Islamic world, and exemplified by the theme, "Alexander in Islam". Within this frame, there are to be found contributions on problems of the imperial cult under Augustus and his first successors from H. Hanlein Schlifer, on Caligula's concept of his position as a ruler from C. J. Simpson, and on the attitudes of emperors from Augustus to the Severi towards Egyptian divinities from Tran tam Tinh. There is a chronological spread from the beginning of the Empire to its end, or more exactly, from the origins of ancient ruler cult until its impact on Mediaeval Islam. At the same time, there is also a balanced presentation of questions on Roman ruler cult in a geographical sense. Italy, the West, and the East are equally represented. Problems of the imperial cult in Italy are exemplified by the treatment of buildings connected with that cult in the best known ancient Italian town, Pompeii, in tre contributions of A. Small and J. J. Dobbins. As for the Roman West, one may regret that Africa, Gaul, and the northern provinces are missing. There are, however, three studies of emperor worship in one of Rome's oldest overseas acquisitions, Spain. 1he first is presented by R. Etienne, on the origins of Roman ruler cult in the Iberian Peninsula in light of early temple architecture at Emerita Augusta, Barcino, and Ebora; D. Fishwick considers the problem of the identification and localization of temples at Tarraco; and L. A. Curchin looks at the participation of the native population in the worship of the emperor in central Spain. 1he Roman East is covered by the studies of M Hoff on the early imperial cult buildings at Athens, M. E. Hoskins Walbank on the worship of the Julio­ Claudian emperors at Corinth, J. Reynolds on ruler cult at Aphrodisias in the Late Republic and Early Empire, and M.-a. Jentel on "Les representations des imperatrices romaines 'en Euthenia' sur les monnaies d'Alexandrie".

In all these contributions readers will find plenty of important results. Through the thorough collection of different sources - e.g., the various representations of the Genius Augusti by H. Hanlein Schiifer - further research will be facilitated in several areas. There is also new evidence, provided either by sources recently detected, or by new interpre tations or dating of sources already known - see, e.g., the inscriptions of Aphrodisias treated by J. Reynolds, or the traces of imperial cult at Corinth, published long ago but never brought together in their logical and chronological context as M. Walbank has now done. There are many new insights into various local matters, as well as into more general prob­ lems. "Four temples at Tarraco" presents, without depending upon any new source, interesting facts concerning the architecture, topography, and history of the capital of Hispania Citerior. It is true that even D. Fishwick could not determine exactly where the famous temple of the provincial cult of Augustus or the Capitolium of Tarraco were. But all experts on the history, archaeology, and topography of Tarraco will be interested to note that, until now, no one (including the author of the present paper) has arrived at conclusions like those of Fishwick. We must now recognize that the famous 'Temple of Jupiter Ammon', heretofore taken for granted, never really existed. Between the time that Tiberius granted permission to the Spaniards in AD. 15 to build a temple at Tarraco for the provincial cult of Augustus, and that of the monumental constructions for the imperial cult on the upper terrace of the city under the Flavians, there is not necessarily a hiatus in cultic activity, because the construction of the temple certainly required several decades; furthermore, the square building on the NE side of

Subject and ruler, subjects and methods

the basilica of the 'lower town' must be an Augusteum. All this is not just convincing; from tJ: evidence we have, it is also almost self-evident The best ideas are often the simplest. Local affairs may seem dull to people interested only in broader topics (or even to thot interested in other, different details). General questions, however, cannot be solved - nor ca they properly be posed - without studies of individual details. This elementary truth is OftE forgotten in our day, in spite of what Ranke wrote over a century ago: "Aus dem BesonderE kannst du wohl bedachtsam und kiihn zu dem Allgemeinen aufsteigen; aus der allgemeinE Theorie gibt es keinen Weg zur Anschauung des Besonderen."1 9 First of all, only specialize studies like D. Fishwick's "Four temples" can show us what was local, and what was mOl generally the case. I think that one of the main results of the several detailed studies collecte in the present volume can be formulated in the words of this scholar, words which, in my vie� are as valid for the eastern part of the Roman Empire as for the Roman west: a result, the development of the Western ruler cult in its various manifestations takes on different character from area to area; the pattern of development is uneven and the nature of tI worship offered tends to vary from province to province. Or at least that is true of the Julil Claudian and Fiavian periods. Before the end of the Antonine era a more homogeneous pictul emerges, though innovation and deviation from the nOrmmay still be observed down to the middle I the third century ... By and large a uniform pattern of cult institutions was gradually to take hol with an organisation, worship and ritual that can be seen as broadly similar throughout most of tI Latin West.',20 "As

I think that this view is substantially corroborated by the present volume, which reveals 5 many local developments in various towns, and makes clear agai n and again that tl1 development points everywhere in the same direction: it runs from plurality to uniformity. The reader will also find in this volume treatments of truly general problems. The be: example is the contribution of P. Herz. He attempts not simply to describe the heterogeneOl nature of Hellenistic basileia, which was based both on Greek perceptions of the ruling pow. and on Oriental traditions, but also to establish different and common patterns in the ideas ( dynastic legitimation, and concerning what he calls the Modell des stellvertretende Herrschertums (i.e., the idea of the ruler as substitute for the god) i n the individual cultures ( the ancient Orient - in Egypt, Syria-Palestine, Mesopotamia, and Iran. Nobody can say th. the Edmonton Conference was only a meeting of 'positivists' (even if I might accept such description as praise). There is another field where I see important stimulation for further research: the u s e of tl1 sources. It is generally known that it would be impossible to write a history of ancient ruler cu based only on literary sources. Oearly i n the tradition of D. Fishwick, whose Studies in t1: Ruler Cult of tile Western Provinces of the Roman Empire is a masterpiece of what nowadays ; called interdisciplinary scholarship, the contributions in the present volume combine not onl the evidence provided by different sources, but also the different methods exercised b philology, epigraphy, numismatics, archaeology, and the history of architecture. This is tnJ not merely in the sense that specialists in these different disciplines came together. There ar. to be sure, authors who operate here mainly with the sources and methodological claims of single discipline. Representatives of single specialized disciplines, however, must be familic also with other sources, and especially with the historical context in which the informatio provided by a special type of source must be integrated. How this sort of procedure ought t work is exemplified by the paper of J. Reynolds, an epigraphist, who offers much more than a 'epigraphical' study. An archaeologist who deals, as did H Hanlein-Schiifer, with the stor of an iconographic type is obliged to consider statues, reliefs, painting, bronzes, terracottas, etl 19 20

L. von Ranke, "PoIitisches Gesprach" in Zur Geschichie Deutschlands u n d Frankreichs im 1 9 . ji (Samtliche Werke 49/50, Leipzig 1B87) 325. Fishwick, Imp. C u l t I . 1 , 93.

Geza A1f61dy

260

That a single scholar might be able to combine architectural, archaeological, epigraphic, and numismatic evidence is demonstrated masterfully by the articles of A Small, D. Fishwick, and M. Walbank. Indeed, these three papers also illustrate that the way to capture the importance of imperial cult in a town in Italy, the West, or the East must - in spite of differences of historical development in different areas - be fundamentally the same. The basic method must be the same, in that each particular kind of evidence must be taken into account, and all the special disciplines must be applied from the same perspective. History is the binding link and must always be considered. Isolated phenomena must be grasped as elements of a coherent general structure, and as products of a diachronic process which entails causes and effects. Here begin, no doubt, our problems.

Is it always possible to interpret

isolated sources and the data provided by them in a convincing historical manner? Is it possible to integrate them into a general structure or process in an adequate fashion? If there is sufficient evidence and a clear methodological concept, this is certainly possible. Thus I am convinced, for example, by

A Small's argument that the shrine of the imperial family in the Macellum at

Pompeii was constructed shortly after the death and subsequent apotheosis of Claudius, marking a new era of ruler cult in that town. All the sources point in the same direction, and multi pIe types of evidence have been put together in a convincing way. Unfortunately, things are not always so clear.

It may also be permissible to mention

suggestions which seem to me well-argued and plausible but not definitively proved. This can happen, first of all, when one has only a single kind of evidence, which is not sufficient As for

the three early temples in Spain (by R. "f:tienne), that of Emerita Augusta was, as we know from the coins, a temple of the Aeternitas Augusta. For the temples of Barcino and Ebora, we have no similar evidence. It is true that "que ces trois temples aient ete dedies a la divinire imperiale, il y a unanimite parmi les savants modernes de J. Alvarez Martinez a lh. Hauschild. "2 1 But how sure can we be? Nor is the coincidence of different sources always sufficient to establish a historical interpretation beyond doubt The 1mperiaI cult building' on the E side of the forum of Pompeii proves clearly the existence of an "extensive imperial imagery expressed through architecture, sculpture, inscriptions, and ritual" in the mid 1st c.22 But without clear literary,

epigraphic, or numismatic documentation, can one really go so far as to argue, as J. J. Dobbins does, that "the Imperial Cult Building" had an imperial patron (i.e., Nero or Vespasian)?23 I

hope that my colleagues will not be offended that I have chosen these two examples; there could be others, including my own reconstruction and interpretation of the inscription of "Caracalla's birthday," again using literary and numismatic evidence.2 4 Tran tam Tinh emphasizes correctly "l'importance de I' etude systematique de toutes les sources, de leur concordance et de leur divergence" - and he correctly adds that, by this, '1a porte est

seulement entr'ouverte ."2S lhis is true not only for

his own subject For the study of several

important and interesting problems, the door is, if at all, only half-open. That this will always be so is shown by the present volume. It is, however, our task to attempt to open the door again and again, until we let in more light That this is possible may also be demonstrated by the Edmonton·Conference. There will certainly be much more that should be discussed, or that might even be refuted.

This is, however, not a deficiency but a desirable result of the present publication: it will contribute considerably to further discussion of ancient ruler-cult by specialists and non­ specialists alike. How many questions are posed in the present volume which will also interest scholars who are not concerned specifically with ruler-cult! These questions cover a very broad

21 22

Etienne, supra p . 163. Dobbins, supra p. 113.

24 25

Tran tarn Tinh, supra p. 230.

23

Ibid. Cf. supra n.1B.

.::lubject and ruler, subjects and methods

261

area of history and archaeology. lhe span stretches from the concept of rulership under Alexander the Great to the idea of ruling power in Islam; from the topography of Tarraco to a picture of the Athenian Acropolis u nder the emperors; from the question of how to restore fragmentary inscriptions to the interpretation of architectural representations on coins, showing an 'artist's conception' of what a future building might look like.26 I hope that the contributions published here will be mentioned in future scholarship as studies which have stimulated discussion. Such would be the optimal impact of a scholarly conference.

If this should come to pass, the organizers and participants of the Edmonton also its ruler after a fashion- can suggest that it has been a success.

Conference - and the scholar who was both a participant as well as its subject, not to say

Seminar fur Alte Geschichte, Universitlit Heidelberg

26

Fishwick, supra p.

181.

Index of selected names and

terms

by Alastair and Carola Small

Ibbasid 250, 252

Beneventum 220, 229

chaemenids 12, 19-21, 26-27, 29-30, 35

Bithynia 190

eneas 44 etemitas Augusta 157, 177, 261 grippa 155, 191-92, 209, 215, 227

Britannicus 128-30, 209

Berenice

�bd al-Malik 249-SO

dab 240, 247, 252-53

grippina I 47, 127, 209 grippina II 60, 122, 126-30, 139, 146, 209, 211, 23536 and fig.5

huramazda 30-32, 34-35 lexander 1 1-26, 28-30, 175-76, 193, 237-53, 259 lexander Severus 56, 61, 225-26

lexandria 18, 49, 59, 195, 220-26, 231-36

.li 248, 250-51 mmon, Amun(see also Zeus A and Jupiter A.) 14, 1819, 20, 22, 25-26, 28, 175, 219

IHaHa 231. 236 [ltiochus 1 36 [ltiochos III and IV 27 [ltonia (Augusta) 47, 139, 141, UE [ltoninus Pius 59, 118, 229 [ltonius/Mark Antony 42, 190, 193, 201-2, 209, 229 [lubis 224, 229 phrodisias 41-50, 53, 55, 130, 208, 259 phroclite 41-42, 44, 47-48, 50, 219, 246 piS 220 polIo 29, 132, 139-41, 206, 210 (Apollo Augustus) rete 43-44 rsinoe II and

III 232

rtemision (Ephesus) 13, 24-25 rval Brethren 64, 66,

122. 256

;ia 43, 45, 173 (Koinon), 190 thens 185-200 and figs., 259; Agora 194; Arcuated

Building 195-200 and figs.; Panathenaic Way 194;

Parthenon 173, 185 and n.5; Roman Market 19296; Stoa of Zeus 194; Temple of Roma and

Augustus 185-94 and figs.

lia 47, 209 Itis 56

gllr 79, SO-81 gllstaies (see also set/iri) 131, 148, 210, 211 :gllsteum (see also sebasteiaH) 131, 132, 151, 171 n.20, 173, 183 �gustus/Octavian 42, 43, 45, 47-48, 51, 54, 56-58, 80-81, 94, 102, 137, 138, 145-47, 151, 155, 158,

165, 172-74, 176, 190, 192, 195, 202, 206, 208-9,

212, 215-17 and figs., 218, 220, 223, 227, 232-33, 236; as divus: 48, 67-69, 118-19, 121, 139, 145,

149, 157, 173, 203-4, 209-10 Ibylonia 28, 37, 40

trcelona (Barcino) 153, 154 fig. 1 , 157-60 and figs., 162-63, 259, 261 si/ells 37-38 y tree (laurel) 75-76, 79-80, 91, 137 aded fillet 126, 128, 137-41 :histun (inscription of Darius) 29, 34

IT 232

Bovillae 203

Caesarea (games) 211 Caesonia 70-71

Caligula/Gaius. 43, 47-48, 58, 63-71. 138, 209, 213, 215, 219 and n.25, 232, 259

cameos/intaglios 58, 62, 137

Campus Martius 215, 219, 220

Caracalla 58-60, 215, 224 n.74, 225-27, 229, 258, 261

Ceres: see Demeter

Cibira 41-42 Claudius 47-48, 55, 58, 60, 66, 68, 70, 120 n.22, 12930, 138-41, 204, 207, 219-20, 223, 235; as clivus: 126, 128, 130, 139 C/ipei 166 and fig.1, 175-76, ISO, 182, 184 Clunia 146, ISO, 167, 170, 172, 174, 179 Commodus 59, 215, 224 fig.7, 224 n,74, 225, 227, 229,

230 . campita/campitaiia/Lares Campitaies 74-98, 184 Constantine 1 .227, 229 Corduba (Cord ova) 172 Corinth 201-13 and figs., 259; Archaic Temple 206-7, 213; Julian Basilica' 209 and fig.2; Temple E (Capitolium) 204, 206, 208; Temple F (of Venus) 207 and fig.2; Temple of Aphrodite 207 and fig.3; Temple of Octavia 204 comucopia/FulIhom 60, 71, 74-98, 232 corona cit/ica 75-77, 79-SO

Cybele 42, 234

Cyrus 20, 22-23 Darius 1 22, 29

David (king) 30 Dea Roma/Thea Rhome 42, 44, 144, 151, 189, 208; with Augustus: 145-48, 173-74, 185-94 and figs.; with Julius Caesar: 190.

Decius 224 n.74

Demeter 45, 47 (Nea D:J, 138, 141, 231-32, 235-36 Demetrius Polyorcetes 39

Dendera 218-21, 227 Dendur 215, 218 devotia 143 DM I-Qamayn, 237, 240, 245 Dionysus 29, 48, 232 Dioscuri 137, 229, 232 Domitia 58, 235-36 Domitian 44, 47-48, 55-56, 110, 112 and n.35, 145-46, 215, 220-27, 229 DrusilIa 47, 68, 139, 146 (diva) Drusus (son of Tiberius) 46 fig.2, 47, 49, 209 Egypt 14, 27-29, 31-32, 37, 40, 51, 215-36 EIeusinian Mysteries 140-41 and n,38, 194, 232 Eleutheria 43-44 Emerita (Merida) 153-57 and figs., 162-63, 172, 176, 184, 259, 261

Index Ephesus 13, 190, 195, 202

26

184, 259; Augustalium 122; coloniae/Pompeiorum

lararia 55-6, 61, 84, 85-87 Lares 74-98; L Augusti 75-98, 184, 210 Lepcis Magna 119, 138, 184 Lepidus husband of Drusilla 47 lex [rnitana 151 lictors 75, 78-79, 140 Livia/Julia Augusta 45, 47-48, 56-58, 60, S 1 1 9-20, 126, 130, 138-40, 146, 151, 203232-35 and figs. ; as diva: 120 n22, 140, 195 Lucius Caesar 47, 80, 145-46, 152, 195, 209, 21 Lucus Feroniae 130 Lugdunum (Lyon) 172 Luna 173 Luxor 14, 219 Lysander 14 Lysimachus 28 Maccabees 37 Macedonian kingship 11

familias (Genius des Hausherrn) 85-94; populi romani 73, 93; senatus 89

Marcus Aurelius 58�0, 242, 257 Marduk 32-33

Eras 42

Eumachia (see also Pompeii) 113 Eumenes 28, 31 Euthenia 231-36, 259

Evora (Ebura) 153-54 fig.1, 160-62 and figs., 163, 259, 261 Fano 170, 172 Faustina I and II 58-59

fire 34-35 jla"unes 66, 145-49, 176, 202, 211, footstool 19 Fortuna Augusta 35, 131

256

Gaius Caesar 43, 47, 80-81, 146, 195, 209, 213 . Galba 165, 172, 208, 220 Galeri us 229

Genius: Augusti 51, 56-57, 73-97, 99-100, 102 n.7, 102; imperatoris 35, 63, 145; municipii 148; patris

Gens: Augusta 203 n.11; Julia 202-8, 213

Germanicus 47, 49, 67, 145-46, 203

Geta 59�0, 224 n.74, 225, 227

globe 1 1 8-19 Gordian 1lI 58 Gratian 227

Hadrian/Divus Hadrianus 54, 59, 173, 215 n.7, 222-

24 fig: 6, 225, 227, 229, 230, Harpocrates 218-19, 222. 229

236

Hathor 218-20 Hephaistion 25

Herculanium 122, 128 (,Basilica·), 131, 184 Hercules/Herakles 11, 16, 29, 56 Heroic honours 14, 25 hip mantle (Huitmantel) 71, 119

homonoia 42-43, 48, 229 Horos 215, 219-20, 223, 227 Hygeia (see also Salus) 43, 49 Iran 27-34 Isis 215-16 figs. 1-2, 218-20, 222-30 and figs. Islam 35, 237-53 isodaimon 15 isotheos 15, 17, 20, 22, 24, 26 Jaweh 30, 37-38 Jesus 30, 229 Juliadaughter of Augustus 81, 190-91 Julia daughter ofTitus 47; 146 J ulia Domna 58-59, 226 Julia granddaughter of Tiberius 47 Julius Caesar 42, 145, 152, 193, 206, 209; as divus: 67, 69, 119, 121, 201-3, 208, 211; with Roma: 190 Juno 60 Jupiter 57, 70, 119, 225; J. Ammon 156-57 fig.4, 166, 174-76, 181 n.71, 182-84; J. Optimus Maximus 165, 175 Kamak 219 Khnoum 215, 219-20, 224, 226 Khonsou 219 Koptos 219, 226

Mamia 99, 100 n.7, 102 and n.9, 113

Mars Augustus 146

Medusa 156, 176, 181 n.71, 182

Memphis 220 Mercury 55, 60, 94, 147; Mercurius Augustus 1 Mesopotamia 29, 32-33 Messalina 139, 235

Minerva 137; M Augusta 146 Misenum 122, 130-32 Muhammad 241. 243-44, 246-47, 249-50 Mundhir 245

Mytileneans 165, 173 Nabonidus 39 Nathan 30, 32

Nero 47, 55, 66-fJ7, 70, 87, 99, 110, 112-13, 12 128-30, 151, 173, 202, 209-11, 219, 227, 261

Nicea 190, 226

Nike/Victoria 42-44, 60, 119, 225, 229; V. A

146 Nikomedia 190, 226

Nile 215, 217 figA, 218, 222-23 Nizaml 238 Nubia 218, 227

nllmen 35, 50, 57, 59, 61-63, 145, 243-45, 253

Octavia (Claudia) 122, 130, 209 olive 137-38

Olympias 19, 30 Orphics 141

Osiris 31, 56, 93, 215, 216 fig.2, 218, 220, 222-2 Ostia 131; Schola del Traiano 135

Otho 219

Otricoli 122

Palestine/Judaea 29-30, 32-33, 37 Pantheus Augustus 146

Pasargadae 20, 22, 24 fig.1 Pax 137

Pedesi 215, 217 fig.3 Penates 84

Pergamon 190 Persepolis 19, 20-22

264

Index

pharaoh 14, 18, 29, 31, 33, 36-37, 215, 219-21. 224, 229 Philae 215, 218-19, 222-23, 227 Philip Il 11-13, i 6 pietas 51. 54 , 146 (P. Augusta), 234 Pompeii 66, 82-93, 95, 99-114; Eumachia Building 99, 100 fig.1. 136, 210; Macellum 100 fig.1, 103-4 fig.4, 107, 115-36 and figs., 184, 210, 258, 261; Portico dei Triclini 1 3 5 ; 'Sanctuary of the Lares Publici'/Imperial Cult Building 99-114 and figs., 136; Temple of Augustus/Sanctuary of the Genius of A 99-100 fig.1, 106-10 and figs., 131. 136; Temple of Fortuna Augusta 131 Pompey 54 Pontifox MaximllS 64, 79, 230, 234 Potamon 165, 173 proskynesis 14, 17, 21-22, 24, 35, 66 Providentia Augusti 210 Ptah 28, 215 Ptolemies 27-28, 37, 232 Ptolemy 1 28, 36-37 plllvinar 135 Pythagoreans 138, 141 n.38 Qur'an 237, 239-40, 243, 246-47, 250 Rome: Ara Pads AllglIstae 65, 227, 236; Ara Pietatis AllgllStae 140; Aula Isiaca 219; Forum Augustum 118, 156, 1 76; F. Iulium 53, 117, 182, 208; Hadrianeum53-55; House of Augustus 140; Temple of Divus Augustus 118, 180; T. of Divus Julius 180; T. of Divus Vespasianus 152; T. of Mars Ultor 175-76, 180, 181 n.69; T. of Roma and Venus 180; T. of Venus Genetrix 182, 208. See also Dea Roma Raverma relief 121 Re 215, 219-21. 227; R.-Horus 31 Res Gestae Divi AlIgtlSti 51, 173 Roselle 122, 128, 171 n.20 Ruwwafa 242 Sabina (wife of Hadrian) 222 Sabina Tranquilla 146 saeerdDtes 66, 121. 130, 139, 256 sacrificial implements 75, 79-80, 152, 176 Salonika/Thessaloniki 229 Salus 43, 94, 234 (5. Augusta), 256 Samothracian Mysteries 141 Sardis 34-35 Sasanids 30, 253 n.86 SCipio Africanus 144 Scolacium 122, 130-32 sebasteion (see also allgllstellm) 44-45 and fig. 1. 46 and fi�, 47, 53, 55, 194-95 Sebastophant 48 Segobriga 146, 148-49, 151-52 Seleucids 27-28, 37 Seleucus I 28-29 Senate 67-71 septemvir eplt/onllm 79

Septimius Severus 58-59, 224 n.74, 225-26 Serapeion 220, 225 Serapis 215, 218, 220-30 and figs. Sertorius 144

seviri 63, 146, 148, 184, 256

ShlcIs 247, 250 Simeon the Stylite 246 snakes 82-83, 85, 93 Sulla 42 sun disk 34 sllpp/ieatiDne� 135 Susa 24 synthrDnos (Philip Il) 13 Syria 29, 30, 32 Tabae 41-42 Tarraco 119, 144, 149-50, 165-84 and figs., 259; Altar of Augustus 165, 183; Basilica 167-72; Capitolium 165-67, 172, 183-84, 259; M unicipal Forum 167-72 and figs.; Municipal Temple of the Imperial Cult 172-74, 183; Provincial T. of the Imperial Cult 17682;· 'T. of Jupiter Ammon' V4, 259 Teos 48 Tetrarchs 227-28 fig.8, 229 Thasos 195 theatres 122 (Caere), 151 (Segobriga), 183 and n.78 . Thebes (Egypt) 219, 227 Theodosius I 227 Theoi SebastDi 196 theos/deus epip/umes 30, 57 Tiberius 44-45, 47-48, 53, 57, 68, 70, 143, 145, 150, 172-73, 202, 204, 207, 209, 215, 218-20, 223, 227, 234 Tiberius Gemellus 213 Titus 55, 112 n.35, 130, 220 Tivoli 131, 223 toga 87-90; t. praetexta 75, 82-84, 87-90 torches 139, 141 torques 80 Trajan 44, 56, 215 n.7, 221-24 n.74 trielinilon 132-35 and fig.12 Triptolemus 235 Tyche 34, 208, 232 cUmar 248-49 Umayyad 246, 249, 250, 252-53 Valentinian Il 227 Velleia 128 Venus 132, 203; V. Genetrix 42, 44, 81 Verus, Lucius/Divus Verus 60, 173 Vespasian 58-59, 112, 215, 220-21, 225, 227, 229-30 Vesta 94 vieD magistri/magistri vid 63, 74-98, 256 vieD ministn/ministri vid 74, 84, 95, 256 Victoria: see Nike Vicus Sandaliarius, altar 80 Vistaspa 30 Vitellius 66 Vitruvius 1 12, 150, 158, 163, 170, 172 weights 60 wreaths 121. 126, 137-38, 236 Xvaranah 3-5 Zeus (see also Jupiter) 19, 29, 57; Z Ammon 18, 29; Z Baradates 35; Bel Z. 27; Z Helios Sarapis 226 n.96; Z. Nineudios 48; Z. Patroos 45, 47, 48; Z Philios 41; Z Philippios 1 3