The major results of this book on Domitian
(preview from FORTVNA PAPERS 3)

 

The first part of this summary is dedicated to the Cancelleria Reliefs, which were commissioned by Domitian. Concerning their interpretation, I follow Filippo Magi (1939; 1945) and hope to be able to disprove the arguments of those recent scholars, who have rejected his hypotheses. I hope to further support Magi's ideas with some new evidence that has led me to suggest that these panels had originally decorated the passageway of one of Domitian's arches on the Palatine. Likewise new is the idea, pursued in this study, to compare the contents, visualized on the Cancelleria Reliefs with those, represented on the pyramidion of the Pamphili Obelisk/ Domitian's obelisk on display on top of Gianlorenzo Bernini's `Fountain of the Four Rivers´ in the Piazza Navona at Rome, and with the contents, formulated expressis verbis in the hieroglyphic texts of his obelisk. We shall see that in both monuments stress is layed `on the legitimation of Domitian's reign as emperor´. Then follows a short summary of the results obtained in this study, which concern Domitian's building projects at Rome. From this emerges that Domitian (or rather: all three Flavian emperors together) have caused the effect, `that Rome is still nowadays basically a Flavian city´. A third, much larger part of this summary is dedicated to Domitian's Palace on the Palatine, his Domus Augustana, concentrating on some of the finds, which Francesco Bianchini had excavated in the `Aula Regia´, published posthumously in 1738. The chosen artworks demonstrate ``Domitian's claim to possess the virtus `invincibility´´´, that `was on principle expected from all Roman emperors´ and which, in its turn, `guaranteed Rome's wealth´. The just-mentioned statements in inverted commas are quotes from scholars, who will be discussed in the following text.

 

Figs. 1 and 2 drawing. F. Magis drawing of Frieze A and B of the Cancelleria Reliefs, with numbering of slabs and represented figures. From:  F. Magi (1945, Tav. Agg. D 1 and 2). The slabs of both panels (A1-A4 and B1-B4) and the figures of both Friezes (1-17) are numbered, as in S. Langer and M. Pfanner (2018, 19, Abb. 2). 

 

Magi's two drawings show his reconstruction of the Cancelleria Reliefs; cf. F. Magi (1945, Tav. I), the display of the reliefs at the Musei Vaticani, Museo Gregoriano Profano, follows Magi's reconstruction. This display has been documented by the photographs here Figs. 1 and 2 (our Figs. 1 and 2 are not illustrated here).

 

I follow here Magi's reconstruction (1945) of the Cancelleria Reliefs, which is the most important prerequisite for our visualization of Figs. 1 and 2 of the Cancelleria Reliefs, drawing,`in situ´ (cf. infra).

 

            My thanks are due to Giandomenico Spinola and Claudia Valeri of the Vatican Museums, together with whom I could study the Cancelleria Reliefs in front of those panels on 24th September 2018, and on 8th March, 9th May and 19th September 2019. We found out that S. Langer's and M. Pfanner's (2018, 29-31, Taf. 10,1, Abb. 7a; 7b, pp. 50, 52-53, 68, 70) assumption of an additional slab between B1 and B2 on Frieze B is based on a number of errors: these errors concern some technical properties of the slabs B1 and B2, as well as misunderstandings of Magi's (1945) description of the Vestal Virgins on slabs B1 and B2. Langer and Pfanner (2018, 29, 73, 76) themselves regard their assumption that all six Vestal Virgins should be represented on frieze B as a support of their hypothesis.

            Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli (1946-48, 259) remarked on Frieze B that usually only five Vestal Virgins (as represented on Frieze B) could participate in public ceremonies, because the sixth Vestal Virgin had always to stay behind to keep the fire of Vesta going. I have, therefore, asked the religious historian Jörg Rüpke, whether this is reported by ancient literary sources, and how many Vestal Virgins we might expect to have usually appeared in public ceremonies. Jörg Rüpke was kind enough to answer my questions, and comes to the following conclusion: "Kurzum, denkbar ist die Pflicht, dass eine stets Feuerwache hatte" (`In short, it is conceivable that one [of the six Vestal Virgins] had always to watch the fire´). In addition to this, Rüpke has kindly allowed me to publish his E-mail as his first Contribution to his volume. Cf. The first Contribution by Jörg Rüpke in this volume on the question, how many Vestal Virgins we might expect to appear at public ceremonies, such as the one shown on Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs (cf. here Fig. 2).

 

Giandomenico Spinola, Claudia Valeri and Jörg Rüpke have thus greatly supported my efforts to verify Magi's reconstruction of the length of Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs.

 

            Cf. infra, at Introductory remarks and acknowledgements; and at Chapter V.1.d. The reconstruction, in my opinion erroneous, of the length of Frieze B by S. Langer and M. Pfanner (2018) and the correct reconstruction of the length of Frieze B by F. Magi (1945), whom I am following here (cf. here Figs. 1; 2; Figs. 1 and 2 drawing; and Figs. 1 and 2 of the Cancelleria Reliefs, drawing,`in situ´). With a discussion of how many Vestal Virgins we might expect to appear at public ceremonies, such as the one shown on this panel, and with The first Contribution by Jörg Rüpke.

 

Claudia Valeri and Giandomenico helped me also in solving the vexed problem, whether or not the head of Vespasian on Frieze B (cf. here Figs. 1 and 2 drawing: figure 14) is the result of a reworking process. This had first been suggested by Marguerite McCann (1972, 251 with n. 8; cf. infra, at n. 111, in Chapter I.1.), and later by Marianne Bergmann (1981, 24, infra, at ns. 111, 115, 190, in Chapter I.1.), whose hypothesis has been followed by many scholars (cf. infra, at Chapter I.1.1.). Stephanie Langer and Michael Pfanner (2018, 60 with ns. 49-52; cf. infra, at Chapter V.1.h.1.) state that both McCann's (1972) and Bergmann's (1981) hypotheses have been rejected. According to Bergmann's hypothesis (1981, 23-24, Taf. 11; 12; 9, p. 25), the emperor on Frieze B had originally been Domitian, whose head was allegedly reworked into the extant portrait of Vespasian.

            Langer and Pfanner have contributed new observations to this discussion which, in their opinion, prove that originally the emperor on Frieze B had been Domitian (cf. id. 2018, 57-58, 72-74, Abb. 22-24; Abb. 23: they demonstrate their observations by illustrating a photo of Vespasian's neck after a plaster cast, but note that all the details indicated by them look different on the original relief; cf. their Kapitel 2.9.4). Cf. infra, at Chapter V.1.h.2.

 

To show the results obtained by Giandomenico Spinola, Claudia Valeri and myself, when studying together Vespasian's neck in front of Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs, I anticipate in the following a text passage that was written for Introductory remarks and acknowledgements: 

            `The other detail I wanted to study again on 9th May 2019 in front of the original was the neck of the emperor on Frieze B. Langer and Pfanner (2018; cf. infra, at Chapter V.1.h.2.)) assert that Vespasian's larynx cuts through a wrinkle at the represented man's neck, an alleged fact, which in their opinion proves that this wrinkle belongs to a presumed earlier portrait, and that Vespasian's larynx was only carved at a second moment. Langer and Pfanner, therefore, conclude that Vespasian's entire head has been recut from this alleged earlier portrait. Their conclusion is based on a wrong observation though: in front of the original is clearly visible - with and without the aid of a lamp - that the wrinkle in question was instead cut after the larynx was sculpted. What we see is, therefore, the first and only larynx ever carved on this figure's neck - a fact, which proves beyond any doubt that the extant portrait of Vespasian is the original head of the emperor on Frieze B (cf. infra, at ChapterV.1.h.2.)).

            Consequently, also Magi's assumptions concerning the head of Vespasian prove to be correct, which he took for the original head of the represented emperor on Frieze B (cf. id. 1939, quoted verbatim infra, in n. 112, at Chapter I.1.; and id. 1945) [my emphasis]´.

 

Fig. 1. [here not illustrated photo] Città del Vaticano. Musei Vaticani. Frieze A of the Cancelleria Reliefs. Profectio of Domitian in AD 83, 89 or 92. After the emperor's assassination and damnatio memoriae, Domitian's face on Frieze A (figure 6) has been reworked into a portrait of the Emperor Nerva. Therefore, the panel now probably represents Nerva's (alleged) profectio to his bellum Suebicum in AD 97. Cf. infra, at Chapters I.-VI.; especially n. 232, in Chapter I.2.), and Chapters II.3.1.a); II.3.3.a). See also Appendix IV.d.2.e); Appendix IV.d.2.f): in my opinion, this relief represents Domitian's profectio: of AD 89; and in Chapters II.3.1.a); II.3.2.; V.1.b); V.1.c): for Nerva's motivation to usurp this profectio relief of Domitian.

 

Fig. 2. [here not illustrated photo] Città del Vaticano. Musei Vaticani. Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs. Adventus of Vespasian at Rome in the 1. half of October of AD 70, his coronation with the corona civica for having ended the civil war AD 68-69, and his investiture as the new Roman emperor. The fact that Vespasian lays his lifted right hand on the left shoulder of Caesar Domitian, who is standing right in front of him, means the legitimation of Domitian's future reign.

 

Figs. 1 and 2 of the Cancelleria Reliefs, drawing,`in situ´. Visualization created on the basis of F. Magis drawings (1945), here `Figs. 1 and 2 drawing´.

Based on hypotheses, suggested by A.M. Colini (1938, 270), H. Kähler (1950, 30-41), J.M.C. Toynbee (1957, 19), J. Henderson (2003, 249), and especially M. Pentiricci (2009, 61-62; cf. infra, ns. 262, 263, 264, in Chapter I.3.2.), this visualization intends to show the Cancelleria Reliefs, as if attached to the opposite, parallel walls in the bay of an arch, built by Domitian. It made only sense to try this reconstruction, because both panels certainly belonged together, a fact, which is inter alia proven by their equal heights. Since it is debated over which kind of building those panels may have belonged, we wanted to know, whether or not the compositions of both friezes were designed in order to stress relationships among the figures appearing on both panels, once mounted on opposite walls and viewed together. The prerequisite for this kind of inquiry was the correct positioning of both friezes, when both were attached to opposite walls in the bay of an arch. We knew that this could, in theory, be done for two reasons: a) both friezes were originally framed on all sides by identical projecting ledges; b) these projecting ledges are partly preserved on the right hand small side of Frieze A and partly on the left hand small side of Frieze B. We could, therefore, mount (first, in 2020, the photographs, here Figs. 1; 2), now the drawings of both panels, used for this operation by basing our reconstruction on this common axis of those two small sides of the panels which, in our reconstruction, now stand opposite each other. (In this illustration of our reconstruction those two small sides of both panels appear at the bottom of the page). For our reconstruction we used (first the photographs of Frieze A and B of the Vatican Museum, here Figs. 1 and 2, both of which follow Magi's reconstruction of 1945), now Magi's own drawings (1945) of both Friezes. In our visualization, these (first the photos), now the drawings are `lying on their backs´ in order to show, how an ancient beholder, passing through the bay of this arch, would have seen both panels. Both visualizations demonstrate a) that the beholder who passed through this bay must have had the impression of `moving together´ with the processions that are depicted on both friezes; and b) that there is indeed one such relationship amongst those two panels that we were looking for. The figures in question are the Emperor Domitian (now Nerva) on Frieze A (figure 6) and the togate youth on frieze B (figure 12) - when both panels are in situ, these two figures stand almost opposite each other. Prior to our reconstruction, this fact had not been observed. And because both figures are heading the two processions `that are moving on these panels together with the beholder in the same direction´ these two figures turn out to be the most important persons on both panels. Both facts support the assumption that the Cancelleria Reliefs had been the horizontal panels in the bay of one of Domitian's arches. Considering also that Domitian commissioned the structure in question, both facts support at the same time the hypothesis suggested here that the togate youth on Frieze B may be identified as the young Caesar Domitian, who is represented on Frieze B in his capacity as praetor urbanus.

I tentatively suggest, in addition to this, that the Cancelleria Reliefs may have decorated the bay of the `Arcus Domitiani´, which stood on the Palatine, in front of Domitian's Palace Domus Augustana and which, according to F. Coarelli (2009b, 88; id. 2012, 481-483, 486-491), Domitian may have dedicated to his father, Divus Vespasianus; or rather one of the three bays of the Arch of Domitian, which Coarelli assumes at the "Porta principale" of Domitian's Domus Augustana. Coarelli identifies this arch with the Pentapylon, believing that this was a triumphal arch (for the location of both arches; cf. here Fig. 58).

F.X. Schütz and C. Häuber 2022, reconstruction (cf. infra, at Chapters I.3.2.; II3.1-d); Section VII.; V.1.d); V.1.h.1.); V.1.i.3.);VI.3.; Addition; Appendix IV.d.2.f); Appendix IV.d.4.b)).

 

Fig. 28. Obeliscus Pamphilius/ Domitian's Obelisk. From the Iseum Campense. On display on top of Gianlorenzo Bernini's `Fountain of the Four Rivers´ in the Piazza Navona at Rome (photo: F.X. Schütz 5th September 2019).

 

In my earlier study on Domitian's obelisk (2017), I had come to the following conclusion:

 

"In the course of studying the Iseum Campense, some new arguments have been found, which, in my opinion, support the old assumption that Domitian had actually commissioned his Obelisk for this sanctuary, that is now on display on top of Gianlorenzo Bernini's famous Fountain of the Four Rivers in Piazza Navona [cf. here Fig. 28] ... In one of the inscriptions on his Obelisk, [the text is Egyptian,] written in hieroglyphs, Domitian formulates his hope that his contemporaries as well as posterity will always remember the achievements of his family, the Flavian dynasty, especially their benefactions for the Roman People. Domitian stresses that his family managed to consolidate the state, which had severely suffered from those `who reigned before´ (i.e., the emperors of the Iulo-Claudian dynasty)"; cf. Häuber (2017, 21; cf. pp. 158-168 for Domitian's obelisk and its inscriptions, my quote on p. 21 is inter alia based on K. LEMBKE 1994 and J.-C. GRENIER 2009). Cf. infra, n. 466, in Chapter IV.1., for those references in detail.

            For the pyramidion and the texts of Domitian's obelisk see also E.M. Ciampini (2004, 156-167; id. 2005, published again, infra, in Chapter IV.1.1.d); see also the complete Chapter IV. Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs (cf. here Fig. 2) and the Obeliscus Pamphilius/ Domitian's obelisk (cf. here Fig. 28), especially Chapter IV.1.1.a) - IV.1.1.h); and at Appendix II.a-e). Again on the Egyptianizing marble relief allegedly from Ariccia at the Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Altemps (Fig. 111) - a representation of the Egyptian festival of New Year?

 

As mentioned above, in this new study, the contents of Domitian's obelisk (of the reliefs represented on its pyramidion and of its hieroglyphic inscriptions) are compared with the contents of Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs, which were likewise commissioned by Domitian. In my opinion, both monuments express very clearly the same political message, and in addition to this, how Domitian saw himself.

            Concentrating predominantly on Domitian, this study tries to answer the question, why Domitian felt the desperate need to build `in such a pharaonic manner´, as has (similarly) first been suggested by Mario Torelli (1987, 575, quoted verbatim in this study, in n. 228, at Chapter I.2.). This notorious characteristic of Domitian has aptly been called "Bauwut" (`building rage´) by Stephanie Langer and Michael Pfanner (2018, 41 with n. 23); cf. infra, in n. 480, at Chapter VI.3.; and discussed in Appendix IV.d.4.b) Domitian's building project comprising the Campus Martius, the Capitoline Hill and the sella between Arx and Quirinal. With detailed discussion of the Templum Pacis.

 

Of course, Domitian's building policy has already been studied by many previous scholars. Personally I favour the following observations:

            Eric M. Moormann (2018, 162) mentions "three fields of interest in Domitian's building policy", as defined by Jens Gering (2012, 210-211): "personal grandeur, family memory and legitimization".

            This is exactly how, in my opinion, also the contents of Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs can be defined. And when we study the contents of Domitian's obelisk, we arrive, in my opinion, at exactly the same result.

 

To illustrate this last assertion, I will give you an example from one of the hieroglyphic inscriptions of Domitian's obelisk, and will compare that with the content of Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs. In my opinion, the subject of both is Domitian's legitimation as emperor, which he has received from his father Vespasian (and from his brother Titus).

            But there are two important differences: whereas on Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs Vespasian is represented as still being alive, in the hieroglyphic text on Domitian's obelisk he is called Divus Vespasianus; and, contrary to Frieze B, on which Titus does not appear (being at Jerusalem at that stage), this hieroglyphic inscription declares that Domitian has received his reign of the Empire also from his elder brother Divus Titus.

 

It goes without saying that in the case of Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs any interpretation of the represented scene depends on the identification of its two protagonists. I myself follow Filippo Magi (1939; 1945) in identifying those figures with the Emperor Vespasian and his younger son Domitian (cf. here Fig. 2; Figs. 1 and 2 drawing: figures: 14; 12).

 

I regard the hypothesis, according to which not only this hieroglyphic inscription on Domitian's obelisk, but also the iconography of Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs prove that Domitian ordered the relevant people involved in creating those artworks to address his legitimation as emperor, as the most interesting result of my book on Domitian. I have, therefore, chosen the following title for this study:

 

The Cancelleria Reliefs and Domitian's Obelisk in Rome in context of the legitimation of Domitian's reign. With studies on Domitian's building projects in Rome, his statue of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus, the colossal portrait of Hadrian (now Constantine the Great), and Hadrian's portrait from Hierapydna in Honour of Rose Mary Sheldon.

 

For those, who wonder, why the Emperor Hadrian appears likewise in the title of this study on Domitian: you will see that only by studying those subjects related to the Emperor Hadrian, have I managed to find important facts concerning Domitian. The study of the colossal portrait of Hadrian (now Constantine the Great in the Palazzo dei Conservatori; here Fig. 11) led to the identification of the statue-type of Domitian's (fourth) statue of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus (cf. here Fig. 10), and the study of Hadrian's statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29), via Hadrian's military campaigns, to Domitian's Dacian Wars and, finally, to my dating of the Cancelleria Reliefs. The latest additional study I have conducted, that on Hadrian's Temple complex in the Campus Martius, resulted in the (for me) surprising finding that Domitian's prevailing bad image has been `commissioned´ by Trajan. I anticipate, therefore, in the following a relevant passage from Introductory remarks and acknowledgements:

            `Studying Hadrian's military campaigns ... has also provided new insights concerning Domitian's Dacian Wars, and has procured the answer to the question for which of his military campaigns Domitian (now Nerva) is actually leaving for on Frieze A of the Cancelleria Reliefs (cf. here Fig. 1; Figs. 1 and 2 drawing: figure 6). Another result consists in the identification of the colossal statue of Jupiter in the Hermitage at St. Petersburg (cf. here Fig. 10) as a copy of the colossal (chryselephantine?) cult-statue of Jupiter in Domitian's (fourth) Temple of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus. This statue-type of Jupiter (and its variants) was extremely successful in antiquity and has also been copied in statuette format as Capitoline Triad, together with Juno and Minerva (cf. here Fig. 13). Most famous among these copies in statuette format is certainly the statuette of `Euripides´ in the Louvre at Paris (cf. here Fig. 12). As Hans Rupprecht Goette (forthcoming) has demonstrated, this was created at the order of Franceso Ficoroni by turning such a headless copy of Jupiter of a Capitoline Triad into the tragic poet.

            I am not saying that it would have been impossible to find out those new data about Domitian's military campaigns or concerning his cult-statue of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus otherwise, but, as a matter of fact, I found them this way´.

            See also the title of the latest study added to this book:

Chapter I.2. The consequences of Domitian's assassination:

Nerva is forced to adopt Trajan and Trajan creates Domitian's negative image to consolidate his own reign. With Hadrian's adoption manquée in October of AD 97, his 20-year long road to his accession and his thanksgivings for it, his Temple complex in the Campus Martius ...

 

Let's now begin with the hieroglyphic text on Domitian's obelisk that I have mentioned above.

 

Cf. Emanuele M. Ciampini (2004, 163-164). In the following quotation, I have left out Ciampini's drawing of the relevant hieroglyphic inscription and his transliteration of this Egyptian text, but quote only his Italian translation of it:

 

"Lato verso Corso Rinascimento (est)

Pyramidion - Domiziano di tronte [corr.: fronte] a Mut, seguito da un'altra figura

 

H22    Horo [i.e., Domitian]: Quello per il quale dei e uomini fanno lode;

 

H 23   quando riceve la regalità da suo padre Vespasiano il dio, [page 164]

 

H 24   dal fratello maggiore Tito il dio, mentre il suo ba si muove verso la volta celeste [the emphasis is by the author]".

 

 

Let's now turn to Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs.

 

In the following, I anticipate a text, written for Chapter I.2. The consequences of Domitian's assassination .... Introduction; Section I. The motivation to write this Chapter: ... and the subjects discussed here, as told by the accompanying figures and their pertaining captions.

 

The following text refers to our Rome map here Fig. 58.

 

`3.) Vespasian's 500 kilometre walk (?) on the Via Appia from Brindisi to Rome, where he arrived in the 1. half of October AD 70 at the Porta Capena in the Servian city Wall (cf. here Figs. 2; 58).

Vespasian's itinerary is likewise discussed in this study on Domitian, because I suggest that Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs (here Fig. 2; Figs. 1 and 2 drawing: figure 14) shows Vespasian who, coming back from Alexandria, and especially after this 500 kilometre journey on the Via Appia, all the way from Brindisi, has just arrived at his destination, the City of Rome.

            There he is solemnly received by the representatives of the City (from left to right): the city goddess Dea Roma, five Vestal Virgins, the Genius Senatus, the acting praetor urbanus (i.e., his son, Caesar Domitian) and the Genius Populi Romani. This panel shows at the same time how Vespasian arrived for the first time as emperor at Rome or, in other words, his adventus into Rome, which, as we now know, had occurred in the 1. half of October in AD 70´. - For this date; cf. infra, at n. 195, in Chapter I.1.1. In the following, I will explain my just-quoted interpretation of this scene in detail.

 

In my opinion, the emperor on Frieze B (Fig. 2; Figs. 1 and 2 drawing: figures 14; 12), and the togate youth standing in front of him, were from the very beginning the Emperor Vespasian and his son Domitian

 

I thus follow Filippo Magi's (1939, 1945) interpretations of the two major figures on Frieze B (cf. here Fig. 2; Figs. 1 and 2 drawing: figures 12; 14), and hope to be able to support in my book Magi's hypotheses with further facts. Apart from Diana E.E. Kleiner (1992, 191, Fig. 158, quoted verbatim supra, at n. 394, in Chapter III.), Stefan Pfeiffer (2009, 62, quoted verbatim infra, as epigraph of Chapter V.1.i.3.)), as well as John Pollini (2017b, 115-118, cf. infra, n. 72, in Chapter I.1.), as well as Giandomenico Spinola and Claudia Valeri (both Musei Vaticani); cf. infra, at Introductory remarks and acknowledgements; and at The Contribution by Giandomenico Spinola in this volume (quoted below), who likewise follow Magi, most other scholars have rejected Magi's relevant hypotheses and we shall see in this study that it will take some time to prove all the arguments of those scholars wrong.

            Two of the arguments against Magi's interpretation that Frieze B shows Vespasian's adventus in AD 70, has always been that those scholars could only imagine Vespasian in military garb, and accompanied by members of his victorious army, since he was at that stage coming back from his victories in the Great Jewish War. But precisely that was not true. I anticipate, therefore, a passage written for Chapter V.1.i.3.): 

 

`... according to Cassius Dio 65,10, Vespasian, as soon as he had landed in Italy at Brundisium (Brindisi) in AD 70, had changed from military into civilian garb - this is at least how Jocelyn M.C. Toynbee (1957, 4-5 with n. 1 on p. 5; cf. supra, at n. 201, in Chapter I.1.1.) and Elisabeth Keller (1967, 211; cf. infra, at n. 415, in Chapter III.), in my opinion convincingly, have interpreted this passage; Cassius Dio tells us also that Vespasian went from Brindisi to Rome. This means, by the way, that Vespasian has come down the Via Appia, and that, therefore, Frieze B is set at the Porta Capena in the Servian city Wall [cf. here Fig. 58] - without picturing this gate.

            That Vespasian is shown on Frieze B as wearing a tunica and a toga at the represented moment, is therefore historical, as well as the fact that he came to Rome in October of AD 70; even the most bewildering feature of Frieze B is true: we also know that Vespasian came back to Rome without his army (but see now above and infra, at Chapter V.1.i.3.a))´.

 

To the just-quoted facts we may add an observation, made by Rita Paris (1994b, 81-83), that she herself has also applied to the emperor, who is represented on Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs (cf. Fig. 2; Figs. 1 and 2, drawing: figures 14; 16). This emperor (figure 14) is crowned by Victoria (figure 16) with the corona civica : an honour only bestowed upon Augustus and Vespasian, because both had been able to put an end to a civil war. The emperor on Frieze B was certainly not Augustus (this has, of course, so far no scholar suggested), because the kind of toga he is wearing became only fasionable under Domitian; cf. Hans Rupprecht Goette (1990, 40, 41, Taf. 12, 5), and because Vespasian is also represented as wearing the corona civica on one of the reliefs from the Templum Gentis Flaviae (cf. here Fig. 33), also this emperor on Frieze B must have been from the very beginning a portrait of Vespasian, as rightly stated by Rita Paris (1994b, 82). I anticipate in the following the relevant passage concerning Rita Paris's observation from infra, Introductory remarks and acknowledgement:

 

`Besides, Rita Paris (1994b) had already found long ago an argument that proves beyond any doubt that the emperor on frieze B was from the very beginning Vespasian. In her discussion of one of the marble reliefs of the Templum Gentis Flaviae, which shows, in my opinion, Vespasian's adventus into Rome in October of AD 70, Paris mentions the corona civica Vespasian is wearing on this panel (cf. infra, in Chapter V.1.i.3.a) and here Fig. 33). Paris (1994b, 81-83), in her description of this relief, stresses that the decoration with this specific wreath was a) regarded by Pliny (HN 16,3) as "l'emblema più fulgido del valore militare" (`the most splendid symbol of military prowess´), highly superior to the decorations with all other known crowns granted for military victories, and b) that Vespasian had been honoured this way because, by conducting his victorious campaigns, he had put an end to the civil war of AD 68-69. - Exactly as Augustus before him, who had received the corona civica for likewise having ended a civil war (cf. infra, at Chapter V.1.i.3.a) and here Fig. 35)´.

 

Some scholars have, in addition to this, asserted that Filippo Magi was by no means first to realize that the emperor on Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs represents Vespasian, (erroneously) asserting that this had been first published by `S. Fuchs 1938´, but without providing a reference. Those scholars ignored the fact that, already in his article of 1939, Magi had identified the emperor on Frieze B with Vespasian (cf. infra, n. 112, in Chapter I.1., where the relevant passage of F. MAGI 1939, 205, is quoted verbatim).

            My thanks are due to Michaela Fuchs, who found this publication for me:  it is  Siegfried Fuchs 1937:  but the author did not mention the Cancelleria Reliefs at all. Not surprisingly, because the slabs B3 and B4 of Frieze B with the portrait of Vespasian should only be found in 1938 (cf. infra, n. 113, in Chapter I.1.)

            For a discussion; cf. infra, ns. 5; 113; 191, in Chapter I.1., especially at: The Siegfried-Fuchs-Saga. The entire story reminds me of a famous book by Carl Robert, to which my late supervisor Andreas Linfert (15th May 1942 -21st May 1996) had alerted me many years ago - the title of which has become proverbial:

 

Archaeologische Maerchen aus alter und neuer Zeit (1886)

(`Archaeological fairy tales from old and new times´)..

 

Already Magi (1945; like all later scholars) knew that the matter is further complicated by some decisions, obviously made by Domitian, who commissioned the Cancelleria Reliefs.

            Our extant literary sources describe, for example, in great detail Vespasian's arrival at Rome on that occasion; cf. Cassius Dio (65,9-10) and Flavius Josephus (BJ 7,2; 7,4,1). But these authors a) do not mention such a formal adventus ceremony at Rome, nor do they b) mention Domitian in this context at all (!). On the contrary, we know from those sources that the first encounter of father and son (which seems to be depicted on Frieze B), after four years of separation, had instead already occurred a couple of days (?) before, at Beneventum. In reality, Domitian must, therefore, have been among those people, together with whom his father Vespasian had arrived on that occasion at Rome; for all that; cf. infra, at Chapter V.1.i.3.).

 

Contrary to myself, most other scholars follow those, who have (in my opinion erroneously) asserted that the head of this emperor (or even the heads of both figures) on Frieze B have been reworked. I have discussed these scholarly opinions in great detail (cf. infra, in Chapters I.1.; I.1.1.; V.1.i.3.); VI.3.), in my opinion, these assertions have caused a great deal of confusion. To the effect that currently most scholars believe that Frieze B showed originally another emperor (most scholars believe: Domitian), in addition, many scholars believe that the togate youth in front of this emperor cannot possibly be a portrait at all.

            Against Magi's identification of the togate youth in front of the emperor of Frieze B with Domitian (here Fig. 2; Figs. 1 and 2 drawing: figure 12), scholars have mentioned three arguments; a) being a Senator (for that see below), Domitian should have been represented with the calcei patricii, the togate youth is only shod with the simple calcei that were appropriate for an eques; b) the facial traits of the togate youth are not those of a portrait; c) if the togate youth were a portrait of Domitian, it should have been destroyed after Domitian's assassination and damnatio memoriae.

            To illustrate point a), the `wrong´ shoes, Domitian is wearing on Frieze B, I anticipate here a text passage, written for Chapter I.2. The consequences of Domitian's assassination ...; Introduction; at Section XI.

 

`Elsewhere in this volume have been discussed the problems, caused by the fact that some of the 34 figures, that appear on the Cancelleria Reliefs (cf. here Figs. 1; 2), are represented as wearing the `wrong´ shoes.

 

Cf. infra, at Chapter: I.1. The discussion of the Cancelleria Reliefs, or the story of a dilemma: wrong shoes or wrong interpretations?

 

In that case, it took me a full year to analyse the discussion concerning those `wrong´ shoes. Only to find out (cf. infra, in Chapter I.1., at n. 144), as also suggested by Stephanie Langer and Michael Pfanner (2018, 76-77 with n. 123, quoted verbatim infra, in Chapter I.1., at n. 193), that all the resulting problems can be explained by assuming the simple facts that the artists had made mistakes. Langer and Pfanner (op.cit.) discuss the representation of the Genius Senatus on Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs (cf. here Fig. 2; and Figs. 1 and 2 drawing: figure 11), who is clad in the simple calcei (as appropriate for equites), instead of wearing the calcei patricii (as appropriate for Senators. For calcei patricii; cf. supra, in Chapter I.1., at n. 145).

            Langer and Pfanner (2018, 66, Kapitel 2.9.3) write: "Fehler finden sich oft bei den Schuhen (A: Figuren 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, 17; B: Figuren 8?, 12, 14, 15, 17; s. dazu jeweils im Kapitel 2.8 unter "Technisches"): Sei es, dass sie vergessen und nachträglich eingeritzt wurden, oder dass es Verwechslungen mit der anschließenden Figur gab ... [my emphasis]" (`errors are often to be found concerning the shoes´, mentioning the figures on Frieze A and B of the Cancelleria Relief which, in their opinion, are wearing wrong shoes, inter alia figure 12 on Frieze B; `see for those figures Chapter 2.8, under: `technical observations´. These shoes `have either been forgotten or have only been carved at a second moment, or they have been mixed up with the shoes of the next figure´. For a discussion; cf. infra, at ChapterV.1.d).

            Figure 12 on Frieze B, mentioned by Langer and Pfanner (2018, 66) in this context, is the togate youth, whom I myself identify with Domitian (cf. here Figs. 1 and 2 drawing). In their discussion of this figure; cf. Langer und Pfanner (2018, 55-56, Kapitel 2.8: "Figur 12 Junger Mann in Toga"), where they observe that this youth is shod with the "einfachen calcei" (`simple calcei´), the authors unfortunately do not address the fact (as we might expect after their statement on p. 66, quoted above) in how far, in their opinion, figure 12 is wearing the `wrong´ shoes.

 

Ad point a). Why the togate youth on frieze B is wearing the simple calcei,

and why he is the acting praetor urbanus and, therefore, Domitian

 

Personally I follow in this respect Erika Simon and Jocelyn M.C. Toynbee, who have observed that the togate youth, whom they themselves identify with Domitian, does not wear the `wrong´ shoes.

            Cf. Simon (1960, 134-135; ead. 1963, 10; quoted verbatim infra, ns. 175, 181, in Chapter I.1.). Acknowledging that the head of this youth is his portrait (and explaining, why he is wearing this kind of shoes), Simon identified this figure as Domitian, shown in his capacity as praetor urbanus (cf. infra), arguing that he could, therefore, receive Vespasian in this adventus ceremony because was the highest ranking magistrate currently present at Rome.

            And I follow Jocelyn M.C. Toynbee (1957, 7-8, quoted verbatim infra, n. 176, in Chapter I.1.) in assuming that this togate youth, whom she likewise identified with Domitian, is shod with the simple calcei, because he was also Princeps Iuventutis. To illustrate this point, I anticipate in the following a passage from infra, Chapter I.1.1.:

 

`If at all the current magistrate praetor urbanus is portrayed in the togate youth on Frieze B, as suggested by Erika Simon (1963, 10; cf. infra, at n. 181), this is only possible, as suggested by Jocelyn M.C. Toynbee (1957, 7-8), provided this praetor urbanus was Domitian in the year 70 AD. Only in his case, this magistrate, who belonged to the senatorial order, could nevertheless have been shown as wearing the `simple calcei´, which were typical of members of the equestrian order, because those shoes were appropriate for the Princeps Iuventutis, a title, which Domitian likewise held at that time [with note 186: `as suggested by J.M.C. TOYNBEE 1957, 7-8 (quoted verbatim infra, n. 176)´]´.

            Domitian held the office praetor urbanus consulari potestate since the 1st of January AD 70. We know also that already on 21st December AD 69, Domitian had received the title Princeps iuventutis (for both; cf. infra, at n. 189, in Chapter I.1.). Cf. Jocelyn M.C. Toynbee (1957, 8 with n. 11, quoted verbatim infra, at n. 205, in Chapter I.1.1.), who suggested that the togate youth on Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs represents the young Domitian in his capacity as Princeps iuventutis, "a title that marked him out from other senators as heir presumptive to the Empire [my emphasis]".

            To Simon's (1960, 134-135; ead. 1963, 10) observation we may add that only few Roman magistrates were allowed to welcome a newly elected emperor in an adventus ceremony, among them the praetor urbanus, which means that the represented age of the togate youth on Frieze B is decisive for the identification of this man. The other magistrates, who could receive an emperor in an adventus ceremony, were the prafectus urbi and the consules. The man, who held the office praefectus urbi, "was always a senator ... usually a senior ex-consul", as stated by Theodore John Cadoux and R.S.O. Tomlin (1996, 1239; cf. infra, at n. 183, in Chapter I.1.), who was, therefore, definitely much older than the togate youth. In the Republic the same had been true for the consules, but not for Domitian ! For a detailed discussion of this subject; cf. infra, in Chapter V.1.h.1.). I, therefore, anticipate here a text passage from this Chapter:

            `The just mentioned Republican "age limits" for all offices, inter alia that of the consules, "were often disregarded as imperial relatives and protégés were signalled by the bestowal upon them of the consulship"; cf. Peter Sidney Derow (1996, 384) ... With his above-quoted remark that the traditional age limit for the consulship was disregarded in the Imperial period, Derow was certainly right, as also the age shows, at which Titus (at 30?) and Domitian (at 19) first became consul ... his [i.e., Vespasian's] son Domitian (born 24th October 51 AD) became "cos. suff." for the first time in March-June AD 71 (at the age of 19); cf. Kienast, Eck and Heil (2017, 109, 110)´.

 

Ad points b) and c). The controversy whether the togate youth on Frieze B is a portrait or not,

the proof that he is Domitian, and the reason, why this portrait has not been destroyed

 

I myself follow in this study those scholars, who identify the togate youth on Frieze B as Domitian, but I have also in great detail discussed the arguments of those scholars, who deny this fact; cf. infra, in Chapters I.1.; I.1.1; V.1.i.3.; VI.3.). I see no chance to convince those scholars `of the other Camp´ of my own opinion by using the usual methods of scholars of `both Camps´: by describing the facial traits of the togate youth. I have, therefore, pursued a different avenue of research, namely by concentrating on contexts; there are two such contexts, which are of importance here. One context is the topography of the location at Rome, where the scene, represented on Frieze B, is set. We know that Vespasian, coming from Brindisi, at the moment, represented on Frieze B, has arrived at Rome on the Via Appia. The meeting place of Vespasian and Domitian, for a variety of legal reasons, must, therefore, be the Porta Capena in the Servian city Wall. The inherent problems for both, father and son, will be explained below.

 

The other context is the togate youth, seen in relation to the figures, represented on Frieze A. Franz Xaver Schütz and I have, therefore produced:

Figs. 1 and 2 of the Cancelleria Reliefs, drawing,`in situ´. Visualization created on the basis of F. Magis drawings (1945), here `Figs. 1 and 2 drawing´. See above, at the captions of these illustrations.

            We created this visualization, because we asked ourselves, whether the assumption that the Cancelleria Reliefs had decorated the opposite walls in the bay of an arch, could help us to learn more about those reliefs.

            Only after having created in 2020 our own first visualization of the Cancelleria Relief `in situ´, based on the photos here Figs. 1; 2, did I have a chance to study the similar visualization by John Henderson (2003, 249, Figs. 48; 49), which has been mentioned by Massimo Pentiricci (2009, 61 with n. 427). For a discussion; cf. infra, Chapter I.3.2., with n. 263. Henderson (2003, 249, Figs. 48; 49) based his visualization on Filippo Magi's drawings (1945 = here Figs. 1 und 2 drawing), but he confronted Frieze A with Frieze B "reversed right/left", that is to say: with a representation of Frieze B `back to front´. Henderson has thus likewise found relationships of the figures on the Friezes A and B. But because an ancient beholder could not possibly ever have seen Frieze B "reversed right/left", we maintain our own method to create this visualization. Now, in 2022, likewise on the basis of  Magi's drawings.

            Quite unexpectedly we thus found (first in 2020, by basing our visualization on the photographs here Figs. 1; 2) the context of the togate youth within this pair of panels. When these panels were in situ (cf. here Figs. 1 and 2 of the Cancelleria Reliefs, drawing, `in situ´) the togate youth on Frieze B (figure 12) stood almost opposite the figure of Domitian/ Nerva in Frieze A (figure 6). Both men lead the processions, which are represented on those friezes, and are, therefore, the main figures. Considering at the same time that it was Domitian, who commissioned the Cancelleria Reliefs, it is consequent to assume that the togate youth, leading the procession of the representatives of Rome to the meeting with the homecoming new Emperor Vespasian in an adventus ceremony, must, therefore, be the acting praetor urbanus, Caesar Domitian. To illustrate this point further, I anticipate here a passage from Chapter V.1.i.3.):

 

`If so, Domitian [i.e., the togate youth] is thus only recognizable on Frieze B because of a combination of his action - he heads the receiving party in an adventus ceremony - with the specific topographical context, where this action is staged, the meaning of which has just been analysed above [i.e., in Chapter V.1.i.3.); see here below].

            Although the fact remains that the head of the togate youth, figure 12 on Frieze B (cf. here Figs. 1 and 2 drawing), has not been destroyed, which is why some scholars have suggested that, therefore, it cannot possibly be identified as a portrait of Domitian, which should have been destroyed after the emperor's damnatio memoriae, of course.

            Whereas I myself have developed a scenario to explain this fact (cf. infra, in Chapter II.3.1.a) [see below], with reference to Chapter II.3.2.), John Henderson (2003) offers a different solution to this problem, which does not contradict my suggestion, since both hypotheses could be regarded as complementing each other.

 

Henderson (2003, 246) writes:

            "On Relief `B´, we recognise the features of dear old Vespasian in the front-rank figure to right who is being crowned by a Victory launch. And we wonder if (we can ever decide if) the young man he is paired with has an individualised, or blankly idealising, visage [with n. 54]: a youthful Domitian, or some worthy public servant? A Domitian, some agree (never, in any event, a square-jaw Titus) - a princeling Domitian re-imag(in)ed in a two decades retrospect from the meat of his reign, and hence a Domitian unlike his former self? So Magi reckoned, and `A´ is thus pinpointed as the start or finale of some (major? enough to call for massive sculpture ...) campaign under Domitian's auspices, while `B´ must B [corr.: be] a contemporaneous resuscitation of an occasion way back in Vespasian'a era - bringing together father and (second) son. If Nerva displaced the head on Domitian's neck in `A´, perhaps the dead and damned Domitian escaped defacement in `B´ precisely because he looks (so) little like Domitian? [my emphasis].

            In his note 54, Henderson writes: "His [i.e., of figure 12, the togate youth's] eyes bigger and deeper than the lictors' [i.e., of figures 1 and 10 on Frieze B], his face more individualised than theirs, at least (Simon [1960] 134; Bonanno [1976] 56)". - Note that Anthony Bonanno (1976, 56-57) mentions more arguments than the one, quoted by Henderson, which have led him to identify this head of the togate youth as a portrait of Domitian´.

 

To conclude this point: I myself ask in this study, whether Frieze B, when still in situ at the Domitianic building, to which it belonged, was accessible at all to people, who could have damaged it (cf. infra, in Chapter II.3.2.); whereas John Henderson (2003, 246), who takes for granted that Frieze B was accessible, asks, whether the togate youth was possibly not recognizable as Domitian, and therefore not damaged.

 

Why the head of the togate youth/ Domitian on Frieze B was not damaged

 

Most scholars, who discussed the Cancelleria Reliefs so far, ignored the fact that Nerva actually had (in theory) a reason to usurp Domitian's arch (provided, that assumption is true), for which the Cancelleria Reliefs were created: his victory in the bellum Suebicum. For the whole, very complex procedure; cf. infra, at Chapters II.3.1.a; II.3.2; II.3.3.a); V.1.c; V.1.i.3.).

            The governor of Pannonia, not Nerva had conducted this victorious military campaign, but because Nerva was the reigning emperor, this victory was attributed to him. The governor of Pannonia, therefore, sent Nerva in Rome a laurel wreath, as a sign of his victory, which Nerva dedicated in late October or at the beginning of November AD 97, in a solemn ceremony, to Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus; on the same day, likewise in a solemn ceremony on the Capitoline Hill, Nerva adopted Trajan, "whom he had previously appointed governor of Upper Germany, as his son, co-emperor, and successor" (cf. J.B. CAMPBELL 1996, 1038-1039; cf. infra, n. 322, in Chapter II.1.e)). Trajan was at Mogontiacum/ Mayence/ Mainz at that stage.

            Cf. infra, at Chapters II.3.2.); and II.3.3.a), and at The fourth Contribution by Peter Herz in this volume ("Wann wurde Trajan von Nerva adoptiert?"). See also Chapter I.2. The consequences of Domitian's assassination: Nerva is forced to adopt Trajan and Trajan creates Domitian's negative image to consolidate his own reign ...

 

As a consequence of both facts (Nerva's victory in the bellum Suebicum and his adoption of Trajan), the Senate granted in November of AD 97 both Nerva and Trajan for their victory in the bellum Suebicum the title Germanicus, which Nerva added to his official title, and which also Trajan accepted.

 

In my opinion, this sequence of events allows the assumption that Nerva, when learning the news of his victory in the bellum Suebicum, gave the order to rework the portrait of Domitian on Frieze A into a portrait of himself. As is plain to see (cf. here Fig. 1), this operation was never finished, which allows the further assumption that Nerva must have ordered the interruption of those works at some stage, possibly on the day, when he adopted Trajan. I further suggest that Nerva finally ordered the destruction of the building, to which the Cancelleria Reliefs belonged, at the latest after the Senate, in November of AD 97, had granted him and Trajan together the title Germanicus - for their (alleged) victory in the bellum Suebicum, at which neither Nerva, or Trajan had participated (!).

 

To further illustrate this point, I anticipate in the following a passage, written for another Chapter (cf. infra, at Chapter II.3.1.a) Nerva' victory in the bellum Suebicum October AD 97):

 

`If indeed Nerva had wished to refer to his own victory over the Suebi in Pannonia in AD 97, when he ordered to recut Domitian's face on Frieze A into a portrait of himself (cf. here Fig. 1; Figs. 1 and 2 drawing, figure 6), this idea was perhaps not so extravagant, as we might at first glance believe. Because, provided Domitian actually had commissioned Frieze A in order to commemorate his own victorious Sarmatian War, which the emperor had fought in person in Pannonia in AD 92-93 against the Sarmatian Iazyges, and likewise against the Suebi [with n. 345], as one scholar has suggested [with n. 346], Nerva's idea would become much better understandable (cf. infra, at Chapter II.3.2.)´.

            I myself suggest instead that Frieze A of the Cancelleria Reliefs shows Domitian's profectio to his (second) Dacian war in the spring of AD 89 (cf. infra, at Appendix IV.d.2.e); Appendix IV.d.2.f). Further down in this Chapter, I suggest that the Cancelleria Reliefs may have decorated the arch of Domitian, postulated by Filippo Coarelli (2009b; 2012) at the "Porta principale" (`main entrance´) of Domitian's Palace on the Palatine. If that is true, assuming at the same time that the Emperor Nerva resided in Domitian's Domus Augustana as well, it would be more than understandable that he had the intention to appear with a portrait of himself on Frieze A (cf. here Fig. 1, or, if possible, on both Friezes ?), which decorated after all the arch at the entrance of his Palace.

 

Cf. here Fig. 58, labels: PALATINE; DOMUS AUGUSTANA; "Porta principale"; Arch of Domitian ? / Cancelleria Reliefs ?

 

Contrary to all previous scholars, Massimo Pentiricci (2009) suggests the following. Most of the slabs of he Cancelleria Reliefs (cf. here Figs. 1 and 2 drawing) were found in what I call the `Second sculptor's workshop´, which Filippo Magi (1939; 1945) excavated underneath the Palazzo della Cancelleria, next to the tomb of consul Aulus Hirtius (cf. here Figs. 58; 59). Together with the Cancelleria Reliefs, Magi has found there architectural fragments, which belonged to an arch. Pentiricci believes that all those finds belong to the same context, which means that this Domitianic building must have been destroyed together with its pertaining Cancelleria Reliefs (cf. M. PENTIRICCI 2009, 61 with ns. 428-431; p. 62 with ns. 440-442, p. 162 with n. 97, p. 204: "§ 3. La ristrutturazione urbanistica in età flavia (Periodo 3)"; cf. pp. 204-205: "L'officina marmoraria presso il sepolcro di Irzio"). Cf. infra., Chapter I.3.2.), n. 297; at n. 261, in Chapter I.3.2; and at n. 334, in Chapter II.3.1.a).

            For this `Second sculptor's workshop; cf. infra, in Chapters I.3.1.); V.1.a.1.).

            Stephanie Langer and Michael Pfanner (2018, 82), who do not discuss Massimo Pentiricci (2009) in this context, are likewise of the opinion that the Cancelleria Reliefs were destroyed together with the building to which they belonged. In addition to this, they have already suggested (for different reasons than I myself) that it could have been Nerva, who ordered the destruction of the building with the Cancelleria Reliefs; cf. infra, in Chapters V.1.a); V.1.b); V.1.i.1.).

 

In my opinion, Nerva ordered the destruction of this building comprising the Cancelleria Reliefs because, after the above-mentioned decision of the Senate, those Reliefs should, of course, have shown on Frieze A both Nerva and Trajan together, in their profectio ceremony for the bellum Suebicum. As is well known, the slabs of the Cancelleria Reliefs are much too thin to allow major changes of such a kind, for example, the carving of a second emperor next to Domitian/ Nerva on Frieze A, for example between Minerva and Domitian/ Nerva (cf. here Fig. 1; Figs. 1 and 2 drawing: figures 5; 6); cf. infra, at Chapter II.3.2.

            When trying to find out what had actually happened to the Cancelleria Reliefs after Domitian's assassination, we must also consider the fact that, like these panels (see for that below), also the building itself, where those reliefs had been attached and carved in situ (also the second carving phase of these reliefs; see below, and infra, in Chapters II.1.d; II.4.), was possibly not as yet finished. To further illustrate this point, I anticipate another passage, written for Chapter II.3.1.a):

 

`Nerva's victory in the bellum Suebicum October AD 97 ...

 

`Pfanner (1981, 516-517 with ns. 13-16, "Das Schicksal der Reliefs", quoted verbatim infra, n. 318, in Chapter II.1.d)) has proven, that Domitian's face on Frieze A of the Cancelleria Reliefs [here Fig. 1; Figs. 1 and 2 drawing: figure 6] was recut into a portrait of Nerva, when that panel was still in situ on its Domitianic building. Domitian was murdered on 18th September AD 96. As we will learn below (cf. infra, in Chapter II.3.2.), Nerva dedicated at the end of October or at the beginning of November AD 97 the laurel wreath to Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus on the Capitoline, which, as a token of his victory over the Suebi, had been sent to him from Pannonia - that victory, for which Nerva should receive, together with Trajan, the title Germanicus. When we combine these facts, it seems reasonable to assume that this Domitianic arch, at the stage of Nerva's victory in October of AD 97, had survived Domitian's assassination already by more that 13 months. If so, we can further assume that this arch, following Nerva's decision, to convert this monument into one that celebrated his own victory, had again become a building site.

            Perhaps we can even hypothesize something else: when we consider that the Cancelleria Reliefs were not finished, when Domitian died (many parts of them have not as yet received their final finish), the place may simply have remained, since Domitian's death, `an abandoned building site´. - Also Giandomenico Spinola writes in The Contribution by Giandomenico Spinola in this volume that, in his opinion, the building, to which the Cancelleria Reliefs belonged, had not been finished in Domitian's lifetime.

            For the fact that many parts of the Cancelleria Reliefs had not received their final finish; cf. also infra, ns. 135-137, in Chapter I.1; Chapter II.1.b); n. 340 in Chapter II.3.1.a); and Chapter V.1.i.1.).

 

Assuming that what was said above is true, I suggest in this study that Domitian's portrait/ the togate youth on Frieze B (Fig. 2; Figs. 1 and 2 drawing: figure 12) survived simply because it was not accessible to the public before the entire building, comprising the Cancelleria Reliefs, was destroyed - at the order of Nerva, as I believe; cf. infra, at Chapter II.3.2.

            And if also that should be true, the following seems to be obvious. Only thanks to Nerva's above-suggested decisions in AD 97, thanks to the fortunate find of the Cancelleria Reliefs in the 1930s, which are still extant, and Filippo Magi's exemplary publication of them (1939; 1945), we are today in the privileged position of having the chance to study those panels.

 

Let's now turn to the underlying `topographical context´ of Frieze B,

the Porta Capena in the Servian city Wall

 

In my opinion, the young Caesar Domitian is shown on Frieze B (cf. here Fig. 2; Figs. 1 and 2 drawing: figure 12) how he, in the 1. half of October of AD 70, in an adventus ceremony, and in his capacity of praetor urbanus, receives at the boundary of the City of Rome the newly elected Emperor Vespasian. Domitian held the office praetor urbanus consulari potestate since the 1st of January AD 70 (cf. infra, at Chapter V.1.i.3.)).

            But with the subject adventus of Vespasian, as Domitian wished his artists to represent it on Frieze B, were connected two problems: the praetor urbanus (i.e., Domitian) could only act in this capacity within the city of Rome, in addition to this we know that Vespasian was negotiating at that stage with the Senate to be granted a triumph for his victories in the Great Jewish War, from which he was just coming back (via his sojourn at Alexandria). For Vespasian's motivation to go from Judaea to Alexandria and for his actions there; cf. infra, at Chapter The visualization of the results of this book on Domitian on our maps; and at Appendix II.a).

            Vespasian's wish to celebrate a triumph, in its turn, meant (in theory), that he was not allowed to transgress the pomerium of Rome, the City's sacred boundary, unless the Senate had granted him this triumph. We also know that the Senate should only grant Vespasian (Titus, and Domitian !) the privilege of celebrating this triumph on the very morning of their triumphal procession, in June of AD 71 (!).

            In this specific case, the Senate granted all three of them - Vespasian and Titus for their victories in the Great Jewish War - and Domitian for his contemporary actions at Rome (and/ or for his military `adventure´ in Gaul and Germany in AD 70 ?) - three separate triumphs (so Josephus, BJ 7,5,3), which they decided to celebrate together: this happened in June of 71 AD. Cf. infra, at Chapter III., with n. 458, providing references; Chapters V.1.i.3.); V.1.i.3.a); and at Appendix I.c). - For Domitian's military `adventure´ in Gaul and Germany in AD 70; cf. infra, at Chapters I.1.; I.2, ns. 229; 230, n. 458 in Chapter III., Chapter V.1.i.c.3.) and Appendix I.c).

 

After what was said above, the scene, represented on Frieze B was, therefore, in my opinion, on purpose set at the sacred boundary of Rome, the pomerium. The Genius Populi Romani (cf. Fig. 2; Figs. 1 and 2 drawing: figure 13), who has come with Domitian (to the Porta Capena in the Servian city Wall) to receive Vespasian in this adventus ceremony, and who, on this relief, appears not by chance between father and son, therefore, sets his left foot on a cippus, which must mark the pomerium line. By positioning this pomerium cippus within the composition of this relief right there, the artist has divided the areas domi (on the left hand side of the relief) and militiae (on the right hand side of the relief) from each other, and that for the following reasons.

            Domitian in his capacity as praetor urbanus, and, on principle, the Genius Populi Romani, and likewise the city goddess Dea Roma, were not allowed to leave the City of Rome (i.e., the area domi), where all three of them, therefore, appear on Frieze B (cf. here Fig. 2; Figs. 1 and 2 drawing: figures 2; 12; 13). Outside the City of Rome (i.e., within the area militiae) we see on Frieze B, on the other hand, the homecoming victorious general Vespasian (cf. here Fig. 2; Figs. 1 and 2 drawing: figure 14), who is currently not as yet allowed to leave this area (i.e., by entering the City of Rome, that is to say, the area domi). And because we know that Vespasian had approached the City of Rome by coming down the Via Appia, father and son are obviously meant to meet on Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs at the Porta Capena within the Servian city Wall (cf. here Fig. 58), although the gate itself is not represented. For a discussion of all aspects of the Cancelleria Reliefs; cf infra, in Chapters I.-VI.; and at The Contribution by Giandomenco Spinola in this volume.

 

I myself follow Giandomenico Spinola's overall interpretation of Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs, and, therefore anticipate here a passage, written for Chapter III. (for the following see also The Contribution by Giandomenico Spinola in this volume):

            `Spinola's new addition to all this previous knowledge consists in the following observation. He has alerted me to the possible meaning of the gesture, which, on Frieze B, Vespasian makes with his right hand. The emperor lifts it and lays it on the left shoulder of the togate youth standing in front of him [in reality, Vespasian does not touch the youth's shoulder, but from a distance it looks like that] ... Since Spinola takes it for granted that Frieze B shows the original portrait of that emperor and, therefore, Vespasian and Domitian, he believes that Vespasian's gesture means that he thus bestows the (future) reign of the Empire on his younger son Domitian. Which, if true, would mean that Frieze B shows not only the very moment of the investiture of the Emperor Vespasian himself - as has already earlier been observed by many scholars - but at the same time the (future) investiture, or the "legittimazione" (so Spinola) of Domitian [my emphasis]´.

 

And because I follow Giandomenico Spinola's just-quoted interpretation of Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs, I suggest in this study, for which building Domitian may have commissioned the Cancelleria Reliefs.

 

 

For the reasons, discussed in the following points 1.) - 5.), I believe that the Cancelleria Reliefs may have decorated one of Domitian's two arches on the Palatine.

 

         1.) because of the date (`late Domitianic´), suggested for the Cancelleria Reliefs and/ or because scholars suggest that the workshop of the Cancelleria Reliefs was also active in Domitian's Palace on the Palatine, and in Domitian's Forum/ Forum Nervae/ Forum Transitorium (in the following called: `Domitian's Forum´).

 

Domitian's Palace on the Palatine was erected between AD 81 until around 92; cf. John Pollini (2017b, 120); and Françoise Villedieu (2009, 246), discussed infra, at Chapter V.1.i.3.b); Section III.

            Hans Wiegartz (1996, 172, quoted verbatim infra, at Appendix IV.d.2.a)) was of the opinion that the sculptural decoration of Domitian's Forum and the Cancelleria Reliefs were contemporary.

            Giandomenico Spinola was kind enough to tell me that, in his opinion, the Cancelleria Reliefs (cf. here Figs. 1; 2) are datable to the late Domitianic period (cf. infra, at n. 75, in Chapter I.1., see also The Contribution by Giandomenico Spinola in this volume).

            Pierre Gros (2009, 106-107, quoting P. GROS 2004) suggests that Domitian's architect Rabirius, who built his Palace on the Palatine, created at the same time Domitian's Forum; cf. infra, at Appendix IV.d.2.a); Appendix IV.d.2.f). Gros (2009, 106-107) reports also that, as a result of the recent excavations at Domitian's Forum, quoting for that Eugenio La Rocca (1998a, 1-12), "Le ricerche recenti hanno messo in evidenza tre fasi diverse di un cantiere che, cominciato nell'84, durò più di un decennio ...", quoted in more detail and discussed infra, at Appendix IV.d.2.a).

            Klaus Stefan Freyberger (2018, 97; cf. infra, at Chapter V.3.) observes that the architectural fragments, found together with the Cancelleria Reliefs (here Figs. 1; 2), were carved by a late Domitianic workshop that was also active in Domitian's Domus Augustana. In addition to this, Freyberger (2018, 97) compares on stylistical grounds the architrave block, carrying the inscription PP FECIT (CIL VI, 40543), that was found together with the Cancelleria Reliefs, with Le Colonnacce at Domitian's Forum (cf. here Fig. 49). To this I will come back below.

            For a discussion; cf. infra, at Chapter VI.3. Summary of my own hypotheses concerning the Cancelleria Reliefs presented in this study; Addition: My own tentative suggestion, to which monument or building the Cancelleria Reliefs may have belonged, and a discussion of their possible date.

            For Domitian's Palace on the Palatine most recently; cf. the last, posthumous publication (of 2020) on this subject by the late Ulrike Wulf-Rheidt (21st December 1963 - 13th June 2018). See also Aurora Raimondi Cominesi and Claire Stocks (2021); Natascha Sojc (2021); and Aurora Raimondi Cominesi (2022). My thanks are due to Hans Rupprecht Goette for sending me the article by Wulf-Rheidt (2020).

 

         2.) The representation of the Piroustae (here Fig. 49) in Domitian's Forum provides the date of the creation of  the Cancelleria Reliefs (i.e., post AD 89).

 

The representation of the Piroustae in Domitian's Forum (here Fig. 49) helps:

a) to date the sculptural decoration of this Forum itself; and -

b) because the same workshop created also the Cancelleria Reliefs (cf. supra, at point 1.)), it allows the hypothesis, that Domitian (now Nerva) on Frieze A of the Cancelleria Reliefs (here Fig. 1) is leaving in the Spring of AD 89 for his (second) Dacian War, which was victorious and that Domitian celebrated in December of AD 89 with a triumph at Rome `over the Chatti and the Dacians´. - If true, this fact may be regarded as a terminus post quem for the realization of the Cancelleria Reliefs.

            Cf. infra, at Appendix IV.d.2.f) Domitian's choice to represent the Piroustae (cf. here Fig. 49) in his Forum/ Forum Nervae/ Forum Transitorium and the date of the Cancelleria Reliefs.

            For Domitian's war of AD 89; cf. Peter L. Viscusi (1973, 58-60), quoted verbatim and discussed infra, at Preamble: Domitian's negative image; Section I. `The intentional creation of Domitian's negative image´, here presented by discussing relevant text passages from Markus Handy ("Strategien zur Legitimierung der Ermordung des Domitian", 2015) and from Peter L. Viscusi (Studies on Domitian, 1973).

 

---

Fig. 49. Rome, Domitian's Forum/ Forum Nervae/ Forum Transitorium, detail from the only extant part of the colonnade on the south-east side of the Forum, called Le Colonnacce. Photo: Courtesy F.X. Schütz (March 2006).

Marble relief of a female figure in the attic storey of Le Colonnacce, previously identified as Minerva but, as H. Wiegartz (1996) realized, actually depicting a representation of a people; as he observed originally 42 such representations of gentes had decorated this Forum. This figure represents the Piroustae, who, as Wiegartz observed, is also represented in the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias, where this representation is labelled as `Piroustoi´ (here Fig. 50). Photo: Courtesy H.R. Goette (May 2012).

The Piroustae  were an Illyrian tribe (also called a Dalmatian tribe and a Pannonian tribe), who lived in that part of the Roman province of Illyricum, which, after the division of this province (which probably occurred in AD 9), became the Roman province of Dalmatia.

 

Fig. 50. Aphrodisias, Sebasteion, Iulo-Claudian period. Marble relief depicting a representation of the same people as illustrated at Le Colonnacce, called in the pertaining inscription `Piroustoi´. Photo: Courtesy Aphrodisias Excavations (G. Petruccioli).

 

My thanks are due to Amanda Claridge, Hans Rupprecht Goette, Peter Herz, Eugenio La Rocca, Stefan Pfeiffer, Franz Xaver Schütz, Rose Mary Sheldon, and Bert Smith, whose combined efforts - during the pandemic, when all the libraries were closed - have helped me to understand this very complex subject.

            The enquiry began when I read a remark by the military historian Rose Mary Sheldon (2007, 199) on the effect his suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt may have had on Hadrian himself. Pursuing this question further had for me the unforeseen result that I have added to this book a detailed study on Domitian's building projects at Rome.

            Cf. infra, at Appendix IV.c.2.); and Appendix IV.d) The summary of the research presented in Appendix IV. has led to a summary of Domitian's building projects at Rome. - To this I will come back below.

            The reason being that I began to study the representations of `peoples´, wich decorated the porticos of the Hadrianeum (here Fig. 48), interpreted by Marina Sapelli (1999) as `provinciae fideles´, ending up with Domitian's Forum.

 

Reading Amanda Claridge's Rome guide (2010, 174-175), I came across an important finding, for which she herself did not provide a reference : at Le Colonnacce in Domitian's Forum "On the attic storey the surviving sculptured panel in the recess shows a helmeted [page 175] female carrying a shield, recently recognized (thanks to a labelled version found at Aphrodisias in Turkey) as the personification of the Piroustae, a people of the Danube".

 

When asking Amanda for advice, she thought to have found this hypothesis in a publication by R.R.R. Smith, sending me, on her own account, Bert Smith's article ("Simulacra Gentium: The Ethne from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias", 1988), but in which, as Amanda herself knew, the Piroustae are not mentioned. Also Stefan Pfeiffer (2009, 61-62) mentions the Piroustae (here Fig. 49) in his book on the Flavians, but quotes Hans Wiegartz for this identification, likewise without providing a reference. Unfortunately I could not ask any more Hans Wiegartz (23rd January 1936 - 27th March 2008) himself for advice, since he has passed away a long time before.

 

These figures of representations of `peoples´ in Domitian's Forum (cf. here Fig. 49), of which according to H. Wiegartz (1996) originally 42 had decorated this Forum, symbolized, according to Stefan Pfeiffer (2009, 61-62), `Domitian's "Sieghaftigkeit", which in its turn guaranteed Rome's wealth´. This passage is quoted in more detail infra, as the epigraph of Appendix IV.d.2.e). Elsewhere, Pfeiffer (2018, 189; cf. infra, in Chapter I.2.1.a)), by analysing the themes of Domitian's self-presentation, explains what he means with "Sieghaftigkeit": "1. It was a key issue for Domitian to show his virtus militaris and his victoriousness [with n. 85, providing a reference]". Domitian in his self-presentations thus claimed his `invincibility´.

            For a detailed discussion; cf. infra, at Appendix IV.d.2.a). - To this I will likewise come back below.

 

At my request, Stefan Pfeiffer was kind enough to write me the reference of Hans Wiegartz ("Simulacra Gentium auf dem Forum Transitorium", 1996), but because of all the articles of the periodical Boreas precisely that article is not available on the Internet, Hans Ruppreht Goette was kind enough to send me this article by Wiegartz (!). In addition to this, I may publish here with Franz Xaver Schütz's kind consent one of his photographs of Le Colonnacce (here Fig. 49).

 

And because Pierre Gros (2009, 106-107) had in the meantime returned to the older opinion that this `Piroustae relief´ in Domitian's Forum represents Minerva, (allegedly) following with this decision Maria Paola Del Moro (2007), I asked also the other above-mentioned scholars for help. As I should only find out much later, Pierre Gros (2009, 107), quoting for this opinion: "(Del Moro 2007b [i.e., here M.P. DEL MORO 2007], pp. 178-187)", erroneously asserts that it was Del Moro (2007), who has re-identified the `Piroustae relief´ (here Fig. 49) with Minerva.

            Hans Rupprecht Goette sent me, on his own account, his photo of the Piroustae at Le Colonnacce in Domitian's Forum (here Fig. 49), which I may publish here with his kind consent. He sent me also a reference concerning the Piroustoi in the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias (cf. here Fig. 50); cf. R.R.R. Smith (Aphrodisias VI. The Marble reliefs from the Julio-Claudian Sebasteion, 2013), and a photo of the Piroustoi there. I knew, of course, this relief at the Sebasteion (here Fig. 50), but had so far not realized that this relief and the Piroustae in Domitian's Forum (here Fig. 49), are copies of the same prototype (!).

            Because I wanted to know, whose idea it had been first, and because Pierre Gros (2009, 106-107) had in the meantime re-identified the `Piroustae relief´ (here Fig. 49) as a representation of Minerva, I asked R.R.R. Smith for advice. Bert Smith wrote me that it had been Hans Wiegartz (1996), who identified this representation as the tribe called Piroustae/ Piroustoi, a fact, which also he himself has stated; cf. Smith (2013, 91 n. 50). In addition, Bert explained to me in this E-mail that, for iconographic reasons, this relief at Domitian's Forum cannot possibly represent Minerva. With Bert's kind consent, I publish here his Email as ("The first Conribution by R.R.R. Smith on the iconography of the representation of the Piroustae at Le Colonnacce in Domitian's Forum/ Forum Nervae/ Forum Transitorium"). Bert Smith sent me also, on his own account, the relevant parts of his publication of 2013, and the photo of the Piroustoi at the Sebasteion (here Fig. 50), which I may publish here with his kind consent.

            Cf. infra, at Appendix IV.d.2.a) Who invented this iconography of defeated and pacified `nations´ and what does it mean? With The first Contribution by R.R.R. Smith.

            In this Chapter are discussed the publications by R.R.R. Smith (1988 and 2013), in which he has studied all representations of `nationes´, beginning with those of Pompeius Magnus in his theatre at Rome, but also those of Augustus's Porticus ad Nationes at Rome and those that derive from the `nationes´ of Augustus's Porticus ad Nationes : the ethne of the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias (here Fig. 50), the `provinces´ of the Hadrianeum at Rome (here Fig. 48), and the `peoples´ of Domitian's Forum (here Fig. 49). According to R.R.R. Smith (2013, 119), Domitian's Forum with its 42 representations of `peoples´, may be regarded as "... another porticus ad nationes". Thus referring to Augustus's Porticus ad Nationes; cf. Smith (1988, 71-72; id. 2013, 114-118). Cf. infra, at Appendix IV.d.2.b; and Appendix IV.d.2.f). To this I will come back below.

 

R.R.R. Smith (1988, 58 with n. 18) writes that the representations of `peoples´ in the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias, inter alia of the Piroustae, can be explained with relevant victories of Augustus : the representation of the Piroustae for example refers to the wars in the area in question in 13-9 BC and in AD 6-8. In his note 18, Smith mentions the relevant ancient literary sources: "... Piroustae ... - RG 26-7 and 30". Note that Augustus (RG 26-27, 30) mentions that he had incorporated the area, where the Piroustae lived, into the Imperium Romanum : he says that those victories had been won by Tiberius, but he does not explicitly mention the peoples, who lived there.

            See also R.R.R. Smith (2013, 91, n. 44) for the fact that Tiberius could only defeat the Piroustae, "when they were "almost entirely exterminated [my emphasis]" (!):

            "On Tiberius and the Pirousti in AD 6–9, the Tiberian historian, Velleius Paterculus (2.115.2-4) writes: `… This campaign brought the momentous war to a successful conclusion; for the Perustae and Desiadates, Dalmatian tribes, who were almost unconquerable on account of the position of their strongholds in the mountains, their warlike temper, their wonderful knowledge of fighting, and, above all, the narrow passes in which they lived, were then at last pacified, not now under the mere generalship, but by the armed prowess of Caesar [i.e., Tiberius] himself, and then only when they were almost entirely exterminated´ (2.115.4, transl.[ation] F. W. Shipley, Loeb 1924) [my emphasis]".

 

And because Pierre Gros (2009, 106-107) has (erroneously) asserted that Maria Paola del Moro (2007) had re-identified the Piroustae (here Fig. 49) with Minerva, I asked also Eugenio La Rocca for help, who was kind enough to send me the relevant article by Maria Paola del Moro. Del Moro (2007) does not say in her article that the `Piroustae relief´ (here Fig. 49) represents Minerva, but has instead further supported Wiegartz's (1996) relevant observations : in her excavations at Domitian's Forum, conducted in 2000, she found the fragments of some more of such very similar representations of `peoples´.

 

With Franz Xaver Schütz's and Rose Mary Sheldon's much appreciated help I could then study the Balkan Wars of Augustus, Trajan and Hadrian, which was necessary for me to understand Domitian's Wars there.

            Franz conducted a special research on the internet concerning the representation of the people called Piroustae at Domitian's Forum (here Fig. 49) and found, in addition to this, the following relevant publications on the internet, which turned out to be crucial for the effort to understand the design of Domitian's Forum.

            Cf. Carl Patsch ("Archäologisch-epigraphische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der römischen Provinz Dalmatien, 1899; inter alia on the primus pilus Statius Marrax, who was highly decorated by Domitian), Géza Alföldy ("Einheimische Stämme und civitates in Dalmatien unter Augustus", 1963), Dragana Grbić ("Augustan Conquest of the Balkans in the light of triumphal monuments", 2011), and Alfred Hirt ("Dalmatians and Dacians - Forms of Belonging and Displacement in the Roman Empire", 2019). Since I had asked Rose Mary Sheldon for advice concerning the primus pilus Statius Marrax, she had alerted me to a publication, in which the relevant inscription is discussed, and Franz found it on the Internet; cf. Hans Krummrey (2003; Review of : Marco Buonocore, L'Abruzzo e il Molise in etá romana tra storia ed epigrafia, Vol. I-II (Deputazione Abruzzese di Storia Patria. Studi e Testi 21/1-2, 2002).

 

As a consequence of all these enquiries, Franz was kind enough to create a visualization of the area in question; cf. The Contribution by Franz Xaver Schütz in this volume: ("Zur kartographischen Visualisierung historischer Landschaftselemente zwischen Rhein und Schwarzem Meer von Augustus bis Hadrian"; and here Fig. 77). The purpose of his map here Fig. 77 is to support research that tries to understand the movements of those three men within this area, who are discussed in this study : Arminius, Domitian and Hadrian.

            We learn in those above-listed publications that the Piroustae lived in the area that should become the Roman province of Illyricum. At first (35-33 BC) Octavian/ Augustus, during his war in Illyricum, had fought there himself "against the Iapudes and Pannonians ... in 35 BC, and against the Delmatae in 34/3"; cf. John J. Wilkes ("Illyricum", in: OCD³ (1996) 747; cf. Dragana Grbić (2011, 132-136; cf. infra). Next Tiberius, under Augustus's command, had, as already mentioned above, at first fought against the Piroustae in his Pannonian War (12-9 BC), which resulted in the creation of the Roman province of Illyricum. Finally, in the Dalmatian-Pannonian revolt (AD 6-9, also called Bellum Illyricum), which occurred in the Roman province of Illyricum, Tiberius should have the greatest problems to suppress the uprisings of the local tribes, especially that of the Piroustae.

            This means that in the large group of `nations´ at Augustus's Porticus ad Nationes, the statue of the Pirustae represented a `nation´ pacified by Augustus. Cf. infra, at Appendix IV.d.1.); Appendix IV.d.2.d). I myself follow Dragana Grbić's suggestion (2011, 135) that in the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias "The inscription of the Pirustae (no. 3) symbolically represents the suppression of the Dalmatian-Pannonian revolt in 9 AD". For a discussion; cf. infra, at Appendix IV.d.2.d).

 

Nota bene. Already to Augustus his conquests in Illyricum and in the western Balkans were of the greatest importance, and Domitian, Trajan and Hadrian would use the resulting Roman provinces as a basis for their activities in Dacia. For a discussion; cf. infra, at Appendix IV.d.2.c).

 

Especially helpful for the subjects discussed here was Rose Mary Sheldon's study (2020a) of Arminius, chief of the Germanic Cherusci, who had served as an officer in the Roman army under Tiberius who, in AD 6-9, fought in the new Roman province of Illyricum against revolting tribes, inter alia the Piroustae.

            Rose Mary Sheldon mentions also a fact that I previously did not know : this very brave and desperate resistance against the Romans of those tribes (inter alia of the Piroustae), who lived in the area of the future Roman province of Dalmatia, became the motivation for Arminus, "son of Sigimer, the tribal chief of the Cherusci" (cf. R.M. SHELDON 2020a, 1012), why he, with his Cherusci and other allies, planned the only successful resurrection against the Romans (so R.M. SHELDON 2020a, 1025). As is well known, this ended with the defeat of P. Quintilius Varus in the Teutoburg Forest in AD 9. To this I will come back below.

            Cf.  supra, at Chapter What this study is all about; and infra, at Appendix IV.d.2.d) The meaning of the representation of the Piroustae within Augustus's Porticus ad Nationes at Rome. With H. Wiegartz's (1996) obervations concerning the Piroustae and their representations; and a summary of the revolt of Arminius in Germany, which he planned because he had fought under Tiberius to suppress the revolt of the Pannonian-Dalmation tribes, inter alia of the Piroustae.

            I had likewise so far ignored what Maria Teresa D'Alessio tells us (2017, 510 with n. 342, quoting ancient literary sources), likewise mentioned by the late Paola Ciancio Rossetto (16th October 1945 - 26th April 2022), one of the excavators of the Porticus Octaviae, with whom I, since 2018, have had the chance to discuss the Porticus Octaviae (cf. ead., 2018, 41, with n. 97, 98, quoting ancient literary sources) : Octavian's/ Augustus's triple triumph in 29 BC commemorated inter alia his victory over the Dalmatii in 33 BC, and with the booty from this war he should finance the Porticus Octaviae at Rome (!). Both scholars in their turn did not address in their publications the fact that the relief with the representation of the Piroustae of Le Colonnacce at Domitian's Forum (here Fig. 49) commemorates one of those tribes, whom Octavian/ Augustus had defeated in 33 BC. To the Porticus Octaviae I will come back below.

            For the Porticus Octaviae; cf. infra, at Chapter I.2. The consequences of Domitian's assassination ... Or: The wider topographical context ...; Introduction; Section I.

 

Bert Smith (2013, 119) asks, why Domitian may have decided to likewise represent the Piroustae in his Forum, given the fact that already Tiberius (in AD 6-9), under the command of Augustus, had conquered their territory and had turned that into the Roman province of Dalmatia; cf. infra, at Appendix IV.d.2.c).

            To answer that question, I have studied the iconography of the representation of the Piroustae; cf. infra, at Appendix IV.d.2.d).

The most important characteristic of the iconography of the Piroustae (here Figs. 49; 50), when compared with all the other ethne at the Sebasteion of Aphrodisias, is the fact that the military prowess of the Piroustae is stressed. This is first of all clear from the choice of the `Amazonian belt´ for the representation of the Perustae at Domitian's Forum and at the Sebasteion (here Figs. 49; 50). In addition to this, Hans Wiegartz (1996, 174) has observed that, among all other preserved ethne in the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias, the representation of the Piroustoi is the only one carrying weapons (!). This fact Wiegartz (1996) convincingly explained with Suetonius's judgement (Tib. 16), that the `Bellum Illyricum (AD 6-9), which Tiberius fought against the Piroustae, had been the most difficult war since the wars against Hannibal´ (!). Suetonius (Tib. 16) adds that Tiberius fought this war with 15 (!) legions and the same number of auxiliary troops.

            As we know from Rose Mary Sheldon (2020a, 1012, n. 19), among the latter were those of Arminius's compatriots, who should later in AD 9, and now under Arminius's command, defeat P. Quintilius Varus and his three Roman legions.

 

I suggest that Domitian ordered the representation of the Piroustae in his Forum because excellent soldiers from the Roman province of Dalmatia like T. Statius Marrax had served in his second Dacian War

 

After what was said above, the answer to the question, why Domitian decided to represent the Piroustae in his Forum (here Fig. 49) has, in my opinion, already been provided a long time ago.

            From Carl Patsch ("Archäologisch-epigraphische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der römischen Provinz Dalmatien, 1899) we learn the following. An inscription from Aquileia shows that T. Statius Marrax, primus pilus of the legio XIII gemina, who came from the Roman Province Dalmatia, had been highly decorated by an emperor, whose name is omitted in this inscription. In Patsch's opinion, this soldier had served under Domitian in his campaign(s) in Dacia and had been decorated by Domitian.

 

Cf. Patsch (1899, 268-269, Section: "VIII. Dalmatien und Dacien"): ...

2. Pais 1163 = Dessau [i.e., ILS, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 1892-1916] 2638 (Aquileia): T. Statius P. f. Serg. Marrax prim(us) pil(us) leg(ionis) XIII geminae, donatus torquib(us) armillis phaleris hasta pura bis coron[is] aureis quin[que]. Der Name Statius gestattet die Vermuthung, dass der primus pilus aus Risinium-Risano stammt, wo die gens Statia eine angesehene Rolle [page 269] spielte. Wie Marrax vermuthlich im dacischen Kriege unter Domitian [with note 2] so wurde ein anderes Mitglied derselben Familie von Traian anlässlich der dacischen Siege decorirt: C. I. L. III 6359 (vgl. p. 1491) ...".

            In his note 2 on p. 269, Patsch writes: "Der Kaiser, der die Orden verliehen hat, wird verschwiegen, war also damnatae memoriae [my emphasis]".

 

For the home town Risinium-Risano in the Roman province of Dalmatia of the soldier T. Statius P. f. Serg. Marrax, prim(us) pil(us) leg(ionis) XIII geminae, whom, as Patsch (1899, 268-269) suggested, Domitian had decorated for his services in his Dacian campaign(s); cf. here Fig. 77, label: Risinium-Risano. Statius Marrax was from the area of Salona, that is to say, from the area of the tribe of the Piroustae. As also mentioned by Patsch (1899, 269), another member of his family should later receive the same high military decoration under Trajan, for his services in Trajan's Dacian Wars.

            Between 7th and 19th October 2020 I had the chance to discuss with Peter Herz on the telephone- and in an E-mail conversations the controversy concerning the dating of the primus pilus of Legio XIII Gemina, T. Statius P. F. Serg. Marrax, who is known from this inscription at Aquileia. On 19th October 2020, Herz was kind enough to send me his second Contribution to this volume, which I publish here with his kind consent. In this text, Herz suggests that more arguments speak for the later date, therefore, Statius Marrax may actually have served in the Legio XIII Gemina at the end of the 1st century, that is to say, under Domitian, as suggested by Patsch (1899).

 

Cf. The second Contribution by Peter Herz in this volume : Anmerkungen zu Statius Marrax.

 

See also infra, at Appendix IV.d.2.e) Did Domitian intentionally represent the Piroustae in his Forum/ Forum Nervae/ Forum Transitorium? With The second Contribution by Peter Herz, and at Appendix IV.d.2.f). Domitian's choice to represent the Piroustae in his Forum/ Forum Nervae/ Forum Transitorium and the date of the Cancelleria Reliefs (cf. here Figs. 1; 2).

 

I, therefore, suggest, that Domitian ordered the representation of the Piroustae in his Forum, because soldiers from the Roman province of Dalmatia, like T. Statius Marrax, had supported him in one of his military campaigns.

            And because for a variety of reasons (discussed infra, at Appendix IV.d.2.f)), that can, in my opinion, only have happened in his second Dacian War of AD 89, I further conclude that Domitian's Forum commemorates Domitian's victory in this war, which the emperor celebrated with a triumph over the Chatti and the Dacians in December of AD 89. - It is, of course, in theory likewise possible, that Domitian's Forum commemorated all of Domitian's victories. To this I will come back below.

 

To illustrate the latter point, I quote in the following some passages from Appendix IV.d.2.f) Domitian's choice to represent the Piroustae (cf. here Fig. 49) in his Forum/ Forum Nervae/ Forum Transitorium and the date of the Cancelleria Reliefs (cf. here Figs. 1; 2) ...

 

`As we have seen above (cf. supra, at Appendix IV.d.1.)), within Augustus's Porticus ad Nationes the representation of the Piroustae may be understood as one of the `nations´ pacified by Augustus.

            In my opinion, in Domitian's Forum the Piroustae stood instead for one of the `provinciae fideles´ of the Roman Empire under Domitian - to borrow Marina Sapelli's booktitle (1999; cf. supra, at Appendix IV.d.1.)) - who thus testified to Domitian's good government.

            We have learned above from Alfred Hirt (2019, 17 with n. 100, quoted in more detail supra, at Appendix IV.d.2.e)) that it had been the Dacian king "Diurpaneus, who waged war against Domitian (Oros. 7.10.4; Jord. Get. 76, 78)". But, when the hostilities of the Dacians first started, the people living in the adjacent Roman province of Dalmatia did not take the chance to revolt against the Romans, some Dalmatians rather joined the Roman army who fought against the Dacians, and some of these soldiers were even decorated by Domitian in recognition of their services (cf. supra, point 7.) [i.e., T. Statius Marrax]).

            We have also learned above from R.R.R. Smith (2013, 121) that the Piroustae, exactly like many other comparable tribes, had also therefore been represented within the large number of `nations´ in Augustus's Porticus ad Nationes, because they lived on the borders of the Empire, and could thus "express the wide geographical extent of Roman rule".

            Considering this fact, I suggest that the representation of Piroustae was chosen by Domitian for his Forum/ Forum Nervae/ Forum Transitorium, because these people, now living in the Roman province of Dalmatia, had, under his command, successfully defended the border of the Roman Empire [my emphasis]´.

 

If true, this would prove Bert Smith's (2013, 119) above-mentioned hypothesis, according to which Domitian's Forum, with its 42 representations of `peoples´, may be regarded as "... another porticus ad nationes". For a discussion; cf. infra, at Appendix IV.d.2.b); and at Appendix IV.d.2.f).

 

            This triumph of November/ December AD 89 Domitian celebrated, together with the Roman people, at the Colosseum, where he staged in December of AD 89 a lavish banquet for his guests, showering them with generous gifts, as we know from Statius (Silvae 1,6: Saturnalia principis).

            What Domitian did on this occasion : inviting the Roman people to a lavish banquet and presenting his guests with generous gifts (although the costum was that friends exchanged gifts on that occasion), were typical costums at the Saturnalia; cf. infra, at Appendix I.f.1.)

            Given Domitian's choice of the date for this banquet at the Saturnalia, I myself believe that he wished to celebrate with his guests at the same time the Vicennalia of his fortunate escape from the Capitolium on 19th December AD 69; cf. infra, at Appendix I. For a discussion of this banquet in December of AD 89; cf. Lisa Cordes (2014, 355-356), quoted verbatim and discussed infra, at Preamble: Domitian's negative image; Section II. Conclusions: Domitian's representations of his miltary successes and his claims to be of divine descent and to possess a divine nature.

 

And because I follow those scholars, who believe that the workshop, which created the sculptural decoration of Domitian's Forum, carved also the Cancelleria Reliefs (cf. supra, at point 1.)), I further suggest that Domitian on Frieze A (here Fig. 1) is celebrating his profectio ceremony in the Spring of AD 89, when he left Rome for this war.

 

Interestingly, my good late friend Amanda Claridge (1st September 1949 - 5th May 2022) had already stated the following in her Rome guide (2010, 169):

"The Forum of Nerva (actually built by his predecessor Domitian in commemoration of his Dacian triumph of AD 89 ... [my emphasis]". For a discussion; cf. infra, at Appendix IV.d.2.a). When asking Amanda, whose idea that had been, she at first did not remember either. But in the midst of our long discussions of the above-summarized research, Amanda wrote me on 23rd July 2020 an E-mail (quoted verbatim infra, at Appendix IV.d.2.f)), telling me, to my great surprise, that she thought that it had been her own idea to suggest that Domitian's Forum could commemorate Domitian's triumph of AD 89; the reason being the representation of the Piroustae in this Forum. On 24th July 2020, Amanda wrote me an E-mail, allowing me to publish this in this book. For all that; cf. infra, at Chapter Introductory remarks and acknowledgements.

 

         3.) The suggestions of A.M. Colini (1938, 270), H. Kähler (1950, 30-41), Jocelyn M.C. Toynbee (1957, 19), John Henderson (2003, 249), and especially of Massimo Pentiricci (2009, 61-62, who discusses all those earlier hypotheses), that the Cancelleria Reliefs had decorated the parallel, opposite walls of the bay of one of Domitian's arches. Cf. infra, in Chapter I.3.2., with ns. 262; 263; 264.

 

         4.) Filippo Coarelli's (2009b, 88; 2012, 481-483) suggestion that Domitian could have dedicated the Arcus Domitiani on the Palatine to his father, Divus Vespasianus

 

The Arcus Domitiani/ of Divus Vespasianus ?, the Arch of Domitian at the main entrance of his Palace on the Palatine, the Domus Augustana, and Domitian's (alleged) Temple of Iuppiter Propugnator, the Temple of Iuppiter Invictus in front of his Domus Augustana.

 

Remains of one pylon of this Arcus Domitiani (dating to a later period) are still standing in front of Domitian's Palace on the Palatine, the `Domus Flavia´/Domus Augustana.

            That Domitian may have dedicated the Arcus Domitiani to his father, Divus Vespasianus, is part of Coarelli's (2009b, 88; 2012, 481-483) hypothesis, according to which a visitor to Domitian's Palace, coming from the Arch of Divus Titus on the Velia, would then pass under this Arch of Divus Vespasianus, and finally end at the "Porta principale" on the north side of Domitian's Palace, the Domus Augustana, where Coarelli assumes an Arch of Domitian. Coarelli (2012, 486-491) locates at this main entrance of Domitian's Domus Augustana the Pentapylon, only recorded by the Constantinian regionary catalogues, which Coarelli identifies with the just-mentioned Arch of Domitian at the "Porta principale", interpreting it as a triumphal arch.

            This northern part of Domitian's Palace, which has been called "no man's land" by Helge Finsen (1969, 8), is badly preserved, but there is no doubt that the main entrance may be located there; cf. Coarelli (2012, 487, with n. 479, providing references: U. WULF-RHEIDT and N. SOJC 2009, 268-272, Figs. 3; 4).

            Concerning this itinerary from the Arch of Divus Titus on the Velia, via the Arch of Divus Vespasianus to the Arch of Domitian, Coarelli (2012, 483) convincingly suggests:

 

"La scelta di `sacralizzare´ questo percorso con monumenti dedicati ai due primi imperatori flavi si spiega con l'assoluta centralità dell'elemento dinastico nella politica di Domiziano [my emphasis]".

 

Coarelli's (2009b; 2012) above-quoted assumption of these `three arches´ has been followed by Aurora Raimondi Cominesi and Claire Stocks (2021, 10), and by Raimondi Cominesi (2022, 109-110, with ns. 99-102), who assumes the main entrance to Domitian's Palace Domus Augustana at the same site as Coarelli (2012).

            In her last, posthumously published article on Domitian's Palace, Wulf-Rheidt (2020, 188) ignores Coarelli's (2009b; 2012) ideas concerning this Arch of Domitian at the main entrance of his Domus Augustana. She presents the results of her own research concerning this area, the above-mentioned "no man's land". Important for our discussion here are the facts that Wulf-Rheidt (op.cit) likewise assumed at this site an arch as the main entrance to the Domus Augustana, that this arch and the structure, to which it led, a large colonnaded court, interpreted by her as an atrium, were already built under Domitian, and that all this had been very much changed by later emperors, for example by Hadrian; cf. also Wulf-Rheidt (2020, 191).

 

Wulf-Rheidt (2020, 188) wrote: "I risultati delle ricerche sul palazzo flavio lasciano ricostruire il seguente quadro ... il visitatore venendo dal Foro accedeva all'entrata principale sul Clivus Palatinus mediante un arco, nel quale doveva essere il presidio armato della guardia imperiale (fig. 2a) [my emphasis]". 

 

Ricardo Mar (2009, 256, Fig. 3), Filippo Coarelli (2012, 484, Figs. 163; 164 [a plan by R. MAR 2005]) and Ulrike Wulf Rheidt (2020, 186, Fig. 2) integrated into their plans both pylons of the Arcus Domitiani, I myself refrain from integrating into our maps the second (eastern) pylon of the Arcus Domitiani for reasons explained infra, at ChapterVI.3.; Addition. This eastern pylon was found in an excavation underneath the Via di S. Bonaventura (cf. here Fig. 73). For a cornice of this Arcus Domitiani; cf. Kristine Iara (in: F. COARELLI 2009a, 505, cat. no. 108).

 

To the west of this western pylon of the Arcus Domitiani, we have copied from the map SAR 1985 two foundations, the identifications of which are hotly debated.

            Vincenzo Graffeo and Patrizio Pensabene (2014; id. 2016-2017) have re-excavated these foundations. My thanks are due to Patrizio Pensabene, who was kind enough to send me, by request, those two publications of their excavation. Graffeo and Pensabene identify these foundations as belonging to two different imperial temples, that were both oriented to the south, and have found within the eastern foundations, which is datable to the second century AD, two Republican phases of an earlier temple; cf. infra, at Chapter II.3.1.d); Section X.

            I, therefore, follow Graffeo's and Pensabene's (2014; id. 2016-2017) tentative identification of this temple as that of Iuppiter Invictus, founded in the Republican period, possibly in the 3rd century BC. For a discussion of the scholarly debate concerning the Temple of Iuppiter Invictus; cf. infra, at Chapter II.3.1.d); Section VII.

            Since its first excavation this, allegedly one (in reality two) temple foundation(s) have been identified differently; cf. here Fig. 58, labels: Temple of Iuppiter INVICTUS ? or of IUPPITER STATOR ? IUPPITER VICTOR ? IUPPITER PROPUGNATOR ?

            Because Filippo Coarelli (2012, 282-285, 482, with n. 468, p. 485, Figs. 164-166) (in my opinion erroneously) identifies this foundation with that of the Temple of Iuppiter Propugnator (which is only mentioned in inscriptions, dating to the Imperial period), (allegedly) built by Domitian, I have discussed all identifications of these (two) temple foundations in detail.

            Cf. infra, at Chapter II.3.1.d); Sections I.-XII. A digression on Domitian's intention to emulate Augustus and Nero. Domitian built his Palace `Domus Flavia´/ the Domus Augustana on the Palatine deliberately at the site of the (real) House of Augustus. As the `new founder of Rome´, and again like Augustus, Domitian emulated also Romulus (or else compared the achievements of his entire dynasty with those of Romulus). With summaries of the recent discussion concerning the following subjects ... a temple podium, which has been identified as that of the Temple of Iuppiter Invictus (but which has also been identified as that of the Temple of Iuppiter Stator, Iuppiter Victor, and as that of the Temple of Iuppiter Propugnator) ...

 

         5.) Paolo Liverani's (2021, 83-84) observations concerning the Arch of Divus Titus on the Velia:

 

"... the Arch of Titus in sacra via, [with n. 4], a monument whose construction was planned by the Roman Senate shortly before the premature death of Titus, but which had to be built and finished by his brother and successor, Domitian ... [page 84] For a better understanding of the arch's message, we have to consider that - although the honorand was Titus - the function of the monument fitted well with Domitian's program to strengthen his own legitimacy by showing as divi both his brother Titus and his father Vespasian. The latter was venerated in the temple he built at the foot of the Capitoline Hill, at the western end of the Forum Romanum [my emphasis]".

            For a detailed discussion of this passage; cf. infra, at Appendix IV.d.2.f). - The Arch of Divus Titus stood, of course, not on the Sacra Via, as (erroneously) asserted by Liverani (op. cit.); cf. Filippo Coarelli (2012, 480); Häuber (2017, 327). For the Arch of Divus Titus, the Sacra Via, and the Temple of Divus Vespasianus; cf. here Figs. 58; 71; 73.

 

 

Conclusions concerning the original function of the Cancelleria Reliefs

 

Taking the above-mentioned points 1.) - 5.) together, I tentatively suggest in this study that the Cancelleria Reliefs may have decorated the passageway of Domitian's `Arcus Domitiani´/ Arch of Divus Vespasianus ? on the Palatine, which bridges the "VICUS APOLLINIS ? / "CLIVUS CAPITOLINUS" (here Fig. 73), or rather one of the passageways of the Arch of Domitian, which Coarelli (2009b, 88; 2012, 481-483; cf. pp. 486-491) assumes at the "Porta pincipale" of Domitian's Palace, the Domus Augustana (here Fig. 58).

 

Cf. infra, at Chapter VI.3.; Addition; and at Appendix IV.d.2.f).

            But there is a problem concerning the first hypothesis : although Vespasian is represented on Fries B, which was the reason, why I made this suggestion in the first place, both Friezes (Figs. 1; 2) celebrate predominantly Domitian : his legitimation as (future) emperor (received from Divus Vespasianus; cf. The Contribution by Giandomenico Spinola in his volume, quoted verbatim supra), as well as his "personal grandeur" (cf. J. GERING 2012, 210-211) : on Frieze B we see how Domitian, already as Caesar, excelled domi, and on Fries A, now himself emperor, militiae.

            For discussions of the latter hypothesis; cf. infra, at n. 248 in Chapter I.2.1.b); see also Chapters V.1.d); V.1.i.3.); VI.3.

            If, on the other hand, this Arch of Domitian at the "Porta pincipale" of his Domus Augustana has existed, as suggested by Coarelli (2009b, 88; 2012, 481-483; cf. pp. 486-491), who identifies this main entrance of the Domus Augustana with the Pentapylon, identified by Coarelli as a triumphal arch, I rather believe that the Cancelleria Reliefs could have decorated one of the passageways of this arch, which, in case it has existed, had presumably been erected by  Domitian himself.

            If this `Arch of Domitian´, postulated by Coarelli (2012, 481-483, 486-491) was indeed the Pentapylon, only mentioned in the Constantinian regionary catalogues, this could mean that either the original Domitianic arch had been adapted by the following emperors to their own use, or that it had been replaced by a completely new arch. 

            For the Pentapylon; cf Emanuele Papi ("Pentapylon", in: LTUR IV [1999] 78-79), who summarizes the various suggestions to locate this monument on the Palatine.

 

My tentative attribution of the Cancelleria Reliefs to Coarelli's (2009b; 2012) `Arch of Domitian´ at the "Porta principale" of Domitian's Palace Domus Augustana (cf. here Fig. 58) may (in theory) be supported by the monumental block of an architrave, which carries the far right end of a dedicatory inscription (CIL VI, 40543: PP FECIT). This architrave probably belonged to an arch, was found together with the Cancelleria Reliefs, and has already been mentioned above, at point 1.). From this inscription it is clear that Domitian, who had received the title pater patriae already in AD 81, had erected the building in question himself, to which this inscription belonged; but note that also Nerva held the title pater patriae. For both alternatives; cf. infra, at ns. 81, 82, 87, in Chapter I.1.

            Also Markus Wolf suggests that Domitian had himself erected the building, to which the architrave with the inscription (CIL VI, 40543: PP FECIT) belonged; cf. Wolf (2015, 318-320, Figs. 6; 7 [the architrave], Figs. 8; 10 [his two reconstruction drawings of a freestanding arch and of an "ingresso monumentale", into which this architrave is integrated]; id. 2018, 91-94 with ns. 5, 15, Abb. 39; 40 [the architrave]; Abb. 42; 43 [his reconstruction drawings of a freestanding arch and an "Eingangsbau", into which this architrave is integrated]; and infra, at Chapter V.2.).

            As another argument in favour of the attribution of the Cancelleria Reliefs to this (lost) `Arch of Domitian´ at the main entrance to his Palace could be regarded the great similarities of the Cancelleria Reliefs with the Nollekens Relief (here Fig. 36). The reason being that Francesco Bianchini (1738, 68) had actuallly excavated the Nollekens Relief within the `Aula Regia´ of Domitian's `Domus Flavia´/ Domus Augustana, a fact that has been overlooked by all recent scholars. To this I will come back below.

            Cf. Fig. 58, labels: FORUM ROMANUM; VELIA; Arch of DIVUS TITUS; PALATINE; ARCUS DOMITIANI / DIVI VESPASIANI ?; "DOMUS FLAVIA"; DOMUS AUGUSTANA; "Porta principale"; Arch of DOMITIAN ?; Cancelleria Reliefs ?

 

 

Domitian's building projects in the city of Rome, considered in their entirety

 

But before presenting some new observations concerning Domitian's Palace on the Palatine, I wish to at least hint at the most important finding of my research, concentrated on Domitian's building projects at Rome.

            Beginning with Mario Torelli's remark (1987, 575, quoted verbatim infra, n. 228, in Chapter I.2.), who was first to describe Domitian's building project on the Capitoline Hill as `pharaonic´, I had at first thought that Domitian had initiated two such `pharaonic´, but `separate´ projects at Rome : `Capitoline and adjacent areas´ (cf. here Figs. 58; 59; 71; 73), that is to say, the area of the city (inter alia the Campus Martius), where Domitian not only erected new buildings but restored also many old ones that had been destroyed in the great fire on the Capitolium of AD 69 and the even larger fire of AD 80 that had destroyed great parts of the City of Rome; and the `Colosseum city´ (cf. here Fig. 72), which had already been started by his father Vespasian : here the Flavian emperors replaced Nero's Domus Aurea with buildings, erected `for the People of Rome´.

            The (at least for me) surprising result of this research was that both projects were interconnected. To illustrate this fact, I will quote in the following only the titles of the relevant Chapters. 

            On 6th July 2021, Eric M. Moormann had been kind enough to send me, on his own account, for a different book-project; cf. Häuber (forthcoming, FORTVNA PAPERS vol. IV on the Laocoon) two articles: by James C. Anderson Jr. ("The Date of the Thermae Traiani and the Topography of the Oppius Mons", 1985), and by Rabun Taylor, Edward O'Neill, Katherine W. Rinne, Giovanni Isidori, Michael O'Neill und R. Benjamin Gorham ("A Recently Discovered Spring Source of the Aqua Traiana at Vicarello, Lazio", 2020). From those publications it is clear that Domitian had - of course  - also already started to erect the `Baths of Trajan´ (!)

            Apart from the fact that this information was also crucial in the context of my book on the Laocoon that I was discussing with Eric Moormann at that very moment, this information reached me also right in time to change the title of Appendix IV.d.4.c). See for the context of this specific Chapter:

 

Appendix IV.d.4.) Domitian's building projects at Rome, discussed in this study;

Appendix IV.d.4.a) Domitian's building project `Colosseum City´;

Appendix IV.d.4.b) Domitian's building project comprising the Campus Martius, the Capitoline Hill and the sella between Arx and Quirinal. With detailed discussion of the Templum Pacis;

Appendix IV.d.4.c) Domitian's building projects at Rome. Conclusions arrived at in Appendix IV.d. With The Contribution by Eugenio La Rocca.

As a result of this Chapter it seems to be clear that Domitian, who destroyed the sella between the Quirinal and the Arx, in order to erect his huge forum there (now the `Forum of Trajan´), had used this excavated material to fill in a valley on the Mons Oppius. This finding invited the further assumption that already Domitian had planned to erect at this site great public baths, the now so-called `Baths of Trajan´. The confirmation that Domitian had actually started building those baths, reached me only afterwards [my emphasis].

 

To conclude this point, I anticipate here a passage that was written for Appendix IV.d.4.c):

`My assumption of Domitian's two different `pharaonic´ projects, was wrong, in reality: Domitian's vision comprised the entire city of Rome. When trying to come to a final judgement concerning Domitian's building projects at Rome that have been discussed in this study, I, therefore, suggest the following :

 

1.) These enterprises were without any doubt important accomplishments for the public good.

 

In addition to this, Domitian's building projects can be judged, in retrospect, not only as grand, or better, as grandiose, what their sheer size and artistic quality are concerned : we must also acknowledge that the conception of some of them was extremely far-sighted. With my latter judgement I refer to Domitian's projects of his Mega-Forum (the `Forum of Trajan´) and of his great public baths (the `Baths of Trajan´). The enormous success of both was first of all proven by the fact, that Trajan immediately `usurped´ both, as so many other of Domitian's (not only building) projects. See for example Eugenio La Rocca ("Traianus vs. Domitianus. Dalla rappresentazione del potere imperiale all'usurpazione dei monumenti pubblici", 2017).

            The latter is proven, in addition to this, by the facts that Domitian's first huge `Kaiserthermen´ were copied by the `Baths of Caracalla´ and by the `Baths of Diocletian´.

            Apropos my assertion that Domitian's building projects `were important accomplishments for the public good´: this was at least true in the understanding of the ancient Romans. - I am adding this reserve here because, as already said above (cf. infra, in Chapter II.3.1.c)): "In antiquity ... [the Colosseum] was a theatre of ritual death"; cf. Amanda Claridge (1998, 278; ead. 2010, 314). And I have written elsewhere : in the Imperial period were built at Rome theatres "für Aufführungen aller Art, wie z.B. [zum Beispiel] das Colosseum (in dem hauptsächlich Tierhatzen und Gladiatorenkämpfe, aber auch theatralisch inszenierte Exekutionen stattfanden)"; cf. Häuber (2013, 153).

            How Domitian himself saw the situation, we unfortunately do not know. Concerning Domitian's probable motivation to build in such indeed spectacular manner, was suggested above the following (cf. supra, in the Chapter What this study is all about):

`The extraordinary efforts that Domitian undertook served, exactly like the comparable ones in the case of Augustus, Vespasian, Hadrian and Septimius Severus (apart from the other two motivations in the case of Domitian: "personal grandeur and family memory"), the purpose of legitimizing Domitian's reign. The actions discussed here, especially the grandiose building projects of these emperors, served therefore the purpose that all of them should duly be acknowledged by their subjects for these achievements, and, in addition to this, favourably remembered by posterity´.

 

Domitian relevant actions proved to be extremely successful in all these respects, because:

 

2.) Thanks to Domitian's enterprises and those of his family, Rome is still nowadays basically a Flavian city.

 

I have borrowed the formulation of my 2.) point from the two epigraphs of Eric M. Moormann's (2018, 161) article, which read: "``A visitor to Rome today cannot avoid the Flavians´´ [with n. 1], and: ``To the modern visitor the centre of Rome presents itself as essentially a Flavian city´´ [with n. 2]". In his note 1, Moormann writes: "Darwall-Smith 1996, 17 ...". In his note 2, he writes: "Boyle 2003, 29 ..."´.

 

Also the way, how Domitian's building sites were organized, was innovative

 

For example the organization of the gigantic building site of the future `Forum of Trajan´. For that; cf. Patrizio Pensabene and Javier Á. Domingo (2016-2017). The same was true for the acquisition of the building material needed for Domitian's building projects, which was imported from all over the Mediterranean. Not surprisingly, most of those marble blocks, imported from far away marble quarries, that carry consular dates, and which were excavated at the quartiere Testaccio, at the place called La Marmorata, had been brought there under Domitian; cf. Pensabene and Domingo (2016-2017, 573 with n. 161).

            The area at the quartiere Testaccio, called in past centuries La Marmorata (cf. here Figs. 102; 102.4; 103), is located on the left hand bank of the Tiber, and to the south of the Aventine. Most scholars identify this area, in my opinion erroneously, with the Emporium, mentioned by Livy (35,10,12; 41,27,8) together with the Porticus Aemilia, which has been identified by the same scholars, in my opinion likewise erroneously, with the enormous opus incertum building at La Marmorata. In reality, we do not know the ancient name of this area.

            For a detailed discussion; cf. infra, at A Study on the colossal portrait of Hadrian (now Constantine the Great) in the courtyard of the Palazzo dei Conservatori at Rome (cf. here Fig. 11). With The Contribution by Hans Rupprecht Goette; Part II. La Marmorata. With discussions of the `Porticus Aemilia´ (in reality identifiable as Navalia) and of the Horrea Aemiliana.

 

 

Let's now turn to Domitian's Palace on the Palatine, his Domus Augustana

 

Apart from the findings discussed below, I myself do not add any new hypotheses concerning the importance of Domitian's overall design of his Palace. Fortunately this question is precisely what other scholars are interested in, for example the late Ulrike Wulf-Rheidt (2020), and Aurora Raimondi Cominesi (2022), both of whom approach this subject from different perspectives : on the basis of her own decade-long research on the subject, Wulf-Rheidt (2020) has documented the precise chronology of all the different parts of the Domus Augustana, whereas Raimondi Cominesi (2022), who does not herself discuss Wulf-Rheidt (2020), tries o judge all these building phases.

            Raimondi Cominesi (2022) comes to the, in my opinion, convincing conclusion that, when judged in retrospect, Domitian's design of his Domus Augustana as a `Palace fitting the needs of a Roman emperor´ has (likewise) proven to be extremely far-sighted. Having myself studied in this study almost all of Domitian's other building projects at Rome (cf. supra), Raimondi Cominesi's result does not come as a real surprise though.

            In addition, Raimondi Cominesi (2022, 115, with n. 122) makes the following important observation concerning Domitian's Palace: "In the Chronicle of 354, Domitian's house is cited as one of the emperor's public works [my emphasis]". For a discussion of this text of the Chronographer of AD 354, who refers to this building as to Domitian's "Palatium"; cf. infra, at Chapter IV.1.1.g).

 

Considering at the same time that all three Flavian emperors together reigned for less than 30 years, and Domitian for 15 years, I can only admire their achievements.

            Cf. infra, at Preamble ...; Section III. My own thoughts about Domitian; and Appendix IV.d.4.c).

 

 

The Nollekens Relief (here Fig. 36) leads us to some new results, presented in this book on Domitian,

that concern Domitian's Palace Domus Augustana on the Palatine, and which, in their turn,

 are inter alia based on finds, excavated there in 1720-1726 by F. Bianchini (cf. id. 1738)

 

Some measured reconstruction drawings

of Domitian's Palace Domus Augustana by the architect G. Leith (1913; cf. here Figs. 108-110)

 

a) See The Contribution by Amanda Claridge in this volume ("A note for Chrystina Häuber : Drawings of the interior order of the Aula Regia of the Palace of Domitian on the Palatine, once in the British School at Rome"); cf. here Figs. 108-110.

 

Figs. 108-110. Domitian's Palace `Domus Flavia´/ Domus Augustana on the Palatine. Measured reconstruction drawings, "in pencil, pen and black ink reconstructing in cross section the Aula Regia, Peristyle and Triclinium" (so A. CLARIDGE, op. cit.), by the architect Gordon Leith (1913), who integrated some of the originally 8 colossal statues that had decorated the `Aula Regia´ and some of the architectural fragments, excavated there and published by F. Bianchini (1738). Gordon Leith created these drawings, when he held a scholarship of South Africa at the British School at Rome in 1913. From: M.A. Tomei (1999, Figs. 225; 228; 229; 230. We have also copied the captions of her figures).

            My thanks are due to Francesca Deli, Assistant Librarian at the British School of Rome, for scanning these illustrations in Tomei's (1999) publication for me.

 

The `Domus Flavia´ and other modern names, attributed to parts of Domitian's Palace Domus Augustana

 

(In theory) I side with Filippo Coarelli (2012, 494) and T.P. Wiseman (2019, 34, both quoted verbatim and discussed infra, in Chapter II.3.1.d); Section I.) that Domitian's Palace on the Palatine was called `Domus Augustana´, and that the name `Domus Flavia´, attributed by many scholars to the western part of this Palace, is not only not recorded in our ancient sources, but, in addition to this, misleading. The reason being that, in reality, the (alleged) difference between those two parts, which many scholars assert, does not exist. For this older, but wrong opinion; cf. Wulf-Rheidt (2020, 186 n. 11, with references). What this point is concerned, also Wulf-Rheidt (2020, 186) had come to the same conclusion as Coarelli and Wiseman (op.cit.), but she nevertheless still used the term `Domus Flavia´.

            I say "(in theory)", because I have decided to add the lettering "DOMUS FLAVIA" on our maps, simply because most scholars (at least those, quoted in the following discussion) use this wrong term in their publications.

 

For all the (modern) names, attributed over time to the different parts in Domitian's `Domus Flavia´/ Domus Augustana; cf. infra, at Chapter V.1.i.3.b); Sections I.; II.

            Amanda Claridge's (op.cit.) decision to call these parts, reconstructed by Gordon Leith (here Figs. 108-110), "Aula Regia, Peristyle and Triclinium", reflects the current usage, as applied by Filippo Coarelli (2008, plan on p. 177), and by Natascha Sojc (2021, 134, Fig. 2, who calls the `Triclinium´ "Cenatio Iovis" though), and on our maps here Figs. 58; 73. Claridge herself (2010, 150, Fig. 57) referred to the so-called `Triclinium´ as to the "Banquet Hall".

            Important for the discussion of Gordon Leith's reconstruction drawings (here Figs. 108-110) is the fact that the `Aula Regia´ (which already F. BIANCHINI 1738 had called that way; cf. the lettering on his Tab. II, here Fig. 8) was excavated by Francesco Bianchini (1720-1726), whereas the `Peristyle´ and the `Triclinium´/ `Cenatio Iovis´ were only excavated by Pietro Rosa (1861-64), at the order of the French Emperor Napoleon III (therefore these digs are often referred to as to the `French excavations´, so for example in the title of M.A. TOMEI's article, 1999).

            For both excavations; cf. Silvano Cosmo (1990, Fig. 8 = here Fig. 39), and for the `French excavations´; cf. infra, at Chapter II.3.1.d) Section I.; and at Appendix I.c).

 

Concerning the reconstruction drawings by Gordon Leith, I anticipate here a passage that was written for the Chapter Introductory remarks and acknowledgements:

            `As far as I can see, the drawings (here Figs. 108-110) represent the only measured reconstructions of the interior order of the `Aula Regia´ and of other parts of Domitian's `Domus Flavia´ within his Domus Augustana (the `Peristyle´ and the `Triclinium´/ `Cenatio Iovis´), into which the colossal statues (that had originally decorated the `Aula Regia´), as well as some of the architectural fragments are integrated, that Francesco Bianchini had excavated (1720-1726) within the `Aula Regia´ (he found only two of those colossal statues in a secondary context immediately next to the `Aula Regia´) and published (posthumously) in 1738. The author of those drawings (here Figs. 108-110) is the architect Gordon Leith (1885-1965) from South Africa, who had in 1913 a scholarship at the British School at Rome ... For Bianchini's measured plans and some of the architectural fragments, excavated by him within the `Aula Regia´ of Domitian's `Domus Flavia´/ Domus Augustana on the Palatine and published by himself (1738); cf. here Figs. 8; 9.

            Cf. infra, at Chapter V.1.i.3.b) J. Pollini's discussion (2017b) of the allegedly `lost´ Nollekens Relief (cf. here Fig. 36), which he compares with the Cancelleria Reliefs (cf. here Figs. 1; 2; Figs. 1 and 2 drawing) and Domitian's `Domus Flavia´/ Domus Augustana. With The Contribution by Amanda Claridge´.

 

b) Francesco Bianchini (Verona 13th December 1662 - 2nd March 1729 Roma) excavated in 1720-1726 (published posthumously 1738) within Domitian's `Aula Regia´ the above-mentioned, in the true sense of the word spectacular sculptures and architectural fragments and published his finds (1738), accompanied by measured plans of the `Aula Regia´ (his Tab. II) and of the excavated area (his Tab. VIII; both here Fig. 8) and by beautiful engravings of some of his finds (his Tab. III; IV; here Fig. 9). For Monsignore Francesco Bianchini, who was an eminent scholar and since 1703 "Commissario alle Antichità di Roma"; cf. Paolo Liverani (2000, 67, quoted verbatim and discussed infra, at Chapter V.1.i.3.b); Section I.).

 

Fig. 8. F. Bianchini's (1738) measured plans of the `Aula Regia´ (his Tab. II), and of that part of Domitian's Domus Augustana, where he conducted his excavations (1720-1726; his Tab. VIII): at the `Basilica´, the `Aula Regia´ and the `Lararium´ (all located within the so-called `Domus Flavia; cf. here Figs. 8.1; 58). Note that on Bianchini's plans North is not in the middle of the top border, as on our maps. Our maps are oriented according to `Grid North´(cf. here Figs. 58; 73), as the official photogrammetric data of Roma Capitale (that comprise the current cadastre), on which all our maps are based. See for the orientation of Bianchini's Tab. II our Fig. 8.1.

 

For `Grid North´ (German: `Gitternord´); cf. Franz Xaver Schütz (2017, 696-704, Abb. 3; 4; 6); Häuber (2017, 62, caption of Fig. 3.5 [= here Fig. 58]. For the caption of our updated map Fig. 58; cf. infra, at The Consequences of Domitian's assassination ... Or: The wider topographical context of the Arch of Hadrian... ; Introduction; at Section I.

 

Fig. 8.1. Detail of our map Fig. 58, with georeferenced overlay of F. Bianchini's plan of the `Aula Regia´ (cf. id. 1738, his Tab. II = here Fig. 8). This overlay shows that Bianchini's plan Tab. II has to be rotated clockwise by circa 135<sup>0</sup> before it is possible to integrate Banchini's ground-plan of the `Aula Regia´ into our map Fig. 58, which is oriented according to `Grid North´. F.X. Schütz, visualization created with the "AIS ROMA" (22-I-2023).

 

Fig. 9. F. Bianchini's (1738, Tab. III and IV) show some of the architectural fragments, which he found in his excavations (1720-1726) in the `Aula Regia´. In the caption of his Tab. III, Bianchini mentions the author of the relevant drawing and etching: "Balthassar Gabbuggiani delin. et sculp."

 

Francesco Bianchini (1738, 50-54) described the unique size and decoration of the `Aula Regia´ (quoted verbatim infra, at Chapter V.1.i.3.b); Section III.). To this I will come back below.

 

 

New research on the Nollekens Relief, which Francesco Bianchini excavated in 1722 in the `Aula Regia´

 

c) John Pollini (2017b) `found´ the (allegedly) lost Nollekens Relief and publishes a photograph of it (of 1914; here Fig. 36), which shows it before the damages since World War II: then it still comprised the portrait of Domitian, which is now lost. John generously provided me with this photo, that I may publish here with his kind consent. Whereas Pollini (2017b) himself assumes an (erroneous) findspot for this relief within Domitian's Palace, I myself found the following. Bianchini (1738, 68; cf. his Tab. VI) writes explicitly that he excavated the Nollekens Relief in the `Aula Regia´ of Domitian's `Domus Flavia´. For Bianchini's excavations; cf. also Silvano Cosmo (1990, 837, Fig. 8 [= here Fig. 39]) and infra, in Chapter V.1.i.3.b).

            In order to present the recent discussion on the Nollekens Relief, I summarize some text passages, written for Chapter V.1.i.3.b) J. Pollini's discussion (2017b) of the allegedly `lost´ Nollekens Relief (cf. here Fig. 36), which he compares with the Cancelleria Reliefs (cf. here Figs. 1; 2; Figs. 1 and 2 drawing) ....

 

Fig. 36. The Nollekens Relief, on display above the fire place in the White Hall of the Gatchina Palace near St. Petersburg, marble, 88 x 139 cm. F. Bianchini (1738, 68, his Tab. VI) found this relief in 1722 in the `Aula Regia´ of Domitian's `Domus Flavia´; cf. S. Cosmo (1990, 837 Fig. 8); J. Pollini (2017b, 120, 124; cf. p. 98, Fig. 1. We have copied from this illustration Pollini's numbering of the figures). Pollini suggests (in my opinion convincingly) that it shows the togate triumphator Domitian, sacrificing in AD 89 just outside Domitian's Porta Triumphalis; after which, the emperor would begin his (last) triumphal procession. Photograph, taken in 1914, when the relief was still preserved in its restored state of the 18th century. Courtesy John Pollini.

            The caption of Pollini's (2017b) Fig. 1 reads: "Photograph taken in 1914 of the Nollekens Relief ... [the author provides a reference for that on p. 107 with n. 47]. Note that only the heads of nos. 6 [i.e., of Domitian], 8 [i.e., of the Genius Senatus] and 10 [i.e., of a boy ministrant] in the foreground and of all the background figures are ancient [my emphasis]".

 

After discussing Chapter V.1.i.3.b) with Rose Mary Sheldon, mentioning to her that I still needed to check, whether or not Domitian held one of the consulships of AD 89, she was kind enough to answer me by E-mail: "Domitian was consul every year of his reign except 89, 91, 93, 94 and 96. Pat Southern [1997], Domitian, p. 35". See also Dietmar Kienast, Werner Eck and Matthäus Heil (2017, 110).

            Pollini suggests (2017b, 120 with n. 106; cf. infra, in Chapter V.1.i.3.b); Section IV.) that the Nollekens Relief shows Domitian sacrificing in AD 89. Pollini himself has not realized that, because of the representation of both consules (figures 7 and 9) on the Nollekens Relief, this is in theory actually possible, because, as mentioned above, in that year Domitian did not himself hold one of the consulships (cf. infra, at Chapter VI.3).

            Pollini (2027b, 118) writes: "To the left and right of the personified Senate [on Fig. 36], two figures in the background, nos. 7 and 9, are distinguished by their togas ... they are undoubtedly the two consuls [my emphasis]"; cf. Pollini (2017b, 114-115), where he observes that Domitian's two lictors (nos. 1 and 4 on Fig. 36) with "fasces laureati  which imperial fasces bore usually on the occasion of a triumph [with n. 76; page 115] ... Both lictors wear low, common-style shoes (calcei) ... Both are paludati, wearing not a civic toga but a tunic and a military cloak, fastened with a round fibula [my emphasis]".

            To this I should like to add that figure 7 in the background is indeed wearing a toga, the lower seam of which, as well as its lacinia are visible at the bottom of the relief, immediately above the lettering "7". This consul is, therefore, obviously wearing a similar toga as Domitian (figure 6), who is standing right in front of him. Of the toga of the other consul, figure no. 9, we see the folds of the umbo on his left shoulder. For the names of the different parts of the toga, for example lacinia and umbo; cf. H.R. Goette (1990, 3, Fig. 2).

            For a detailed discussion; cf. infra, at Chapter V.1.i.3.b); Sections I.; III.

 

Domitian [on the Nollekens Relief; here Fig. 36] is wearing a toga and is crowned with a laurel wreath, and the fasces (with axes attached !) of his two paludate lictors (that is to say, clad in military dress; cf. J. POLLINI 2017b, 118) are likewise adorned with laurels. Pollini, therefore, in my opinion convincingly, suggests that Domitian is shown in the course of performing this sacrifice just outside the Porta Triumphalis, and that immediately after that will begin Domitian's triumphal procession. In Pollini's opinion (2017b, 120 with n. 106, referring to Suet., Dom. 6,1), the sacrifice depicted on the Nollekens Relief must refer to Domitian's last triumph of AD 89 (for that; cf. supra, n. 232, in Chapter I.2., and infra, in Chapter VI.3.; Addition).

            Paolo Liverani (2021, 88) rejects Pollini's hypothesis: Pollini's "... triumphal connotation is based on weak evidence and must remain hypothetical [my emphasis]". Liverani (2021, 88) identifies the represented figures on the Nollekens Relief exactly like Pollini (2017b) himself, but he leaves out the figures in the background (cf. here Fig. 36: figure 3, a soldier, and figures 7 and 9, two togate men), whom Pollini, in my opinion convincingly, interprets as the consules.

            Liverani (2021, 88) has not realized that the figures, which he has mentioned, are positioned according to strict observations of their relevant spatial restrictions : the right-hand half of the Nollekens Relief represents the area domi (with the Dea Roma and the Genius Senatus, who are constrained to remain within the pomerium of Rome; not by chance the consules appear on that side of the relief), the left-hand half of the relief represents the area militiae instead (here we see the two paludate lictors, having axes attached to their rods, their fasces are adorned with laurels, as well as one soldier). Domitian thus stands on the Nollekens Relief `between figures that belong to the areas militiae and domi´.

            This the artist has shown by the distribution of the figures. In addition to this, Domitian, wearing a toga, is crowned with a laurel wreath, and is shown in the act of sacrificing. And because I believe (because of the presence of the two consules) that Pollini is right in suggesting that the scene, visible on the Nollekens Relief, shows an event of AD 89, I, therefore, wonder what else this panel could represent, than what Pollini (2017b) himself suggests.

            Liverani (2021, 88) also ignores the fact that Francesco Bianchini (1738, 68) found the Nollekens Relief in 1722 within the `Aula Regia´ (cf. infra, at Chapter V.1.i.3.b); Section II.). And because Bianchini documented in great detail the marble decoration of this hall (cf. F. BIANCHINI 1738, Tab. III.; IV. = here Fig. 9; cf. infra, at Chapter V.1.i.3.b); Section III.), we know also that `the major theme of the `Aula Regia´ was the celebration of Domitian's military victories´: so Eugenio Polito (2009, 506, quoted verbatim infra, at Chapter V.1.i.3.b); Section III.).

            To conclude. Also Pollini (2017b) himself ignores the fact that the Nollekens Relief was actually found within the `Aula Regia´. Considering at the same time that the overall theme of this magnificent hall was the praise of Domitian's military victories, which the emperor had celebrated with triumphs, I therefore maintain my earlier judgement. Namely that Pollini's interpretation of the Nollekens Relief, according to which it shows Domitian sacrificing in AD 89 at the Porta Triumphalis before beginning his (last) triumphal procession, is sound.

 

 

The architectural fragments, excavated by Bianchini within the `Aula Regia´: the famous `Trofei Farnese´

 

d) Some of the architectural fragments, found by Francesco Bianchini in 1720-1726 in the `Aula Regia´ and published by him (1738), are on display in the courtyard of the Palazzo Farnese at Rome. These are the famous `Trofei Farnese´ (cf. here Fig. 5.1.); cf. infra, at Chapter Preamble; Section II.; Chapter Introductory remarks and acknowledgements; and Chapter V.1.i.3.b); Section III.

 

Fig. 5.1. The two `Trofei Farnese´ in the cortile of Palazzo Farnese at Rome. These are two ensembles of architectural fragments, mostly found by Francesco Bianchini in his excavations (1720-1726; published 1738) on the Palatine, within the `Aula Regia´ of Domitian's `Palace Domus Flavia´/ Domus Augustana. Cf. K. Stemmer (1971, Abb. 1 [here on the left], with the fragment of the colossal cuirassed marble statue of `Domitian as Jupiter´, here Fig. 5), Photo: J. Felbermeyer, D-DAI-Rom 35.566. Cf. K. Stemmer (1971, Abb. 2 [here on the right], with a fragment of one of the slabs with a representation of a `province´, from the porticos of the Hadrianeum at Rome; cf. here Fig. 48), Photo J. Felbermeyer, D-DAI-Rom 35.567.

 

 

One of the fragments of the `Trofei Farnese´, possibly found by Bianchini in the `Aula Regia´,

belongs to a colossal cuirassed statue (8 m high), which represented `Domitian as Jupiter´

 

e) On the left hand photo of the `Trofei Farnese´ (cf. here Fig. 5.1) appears in the background on the right the fragment of a colossal marble statue, measuring 102 x 90 cm; cf. Klaus Stemmer (1971, 567). This fragment belongs to a portrait-statue of a man, wearing an incredibly rich decorated cuirass (here Fig. 5) with a huge gorgoneion on the chest, as well as a paludamentum, part of which is left on the man's left shoulder. - What its quality is concerned, this fragment (here Fig. 5) has certainly once belonged to one of the very best sculptures that I can present in this study.

 

Stemmer (1971) convincingly dates this fragment (here Fig. 5) to the Flavian period and identifies the represented man with Domitian; followed by Anne Wolfsfeld (2014; ead. 2021; cf. infra).

            My thanks are due to Hans Rupprecht Goette for sending me, on request, also this article by Klaus Stemmer (1971), as well as, on his own account, the relevant pages from Anne Wolfsfeld's book of 2021.

 

Fig. 5. Fragment of a colossal cuirassed marble statue of `Domitian as Iuppiter´ (102 x 90 cm). This statue was, according to K. Stemmer (1971), hollow and, provided Domitian was represented standing, it was originally circa 8 m high, and because of the huge gorgoneion on the chest of his cuirass, it showed the emperor assimilated to the god Jupiter.

This fragment is on display in the left  hand one of the`Trofei Farnese´ in the cortile of Palazzo Farnese at Rome (cf. here Fig. 5.1). It may belong to Francesco Bianchini's finds (excavated 1720-1726, published 1738) within the`Aula Regia´ in Domitian's Palace on the Palatine, the Domus Flavia´/ Domus Augustana. This has already been suggested by K. Stemmer (1971, 566, 579-580) on the basis of the documentation that is available for this fragment. See also F. Bianchini's (1738, 48-68, with Tab. II; VIII = here Figs. 8; 8.1) own documentation of his excavations comprising measured plans, and S. Cosmo's (1990, Fig. 8 = here Fig. 39) findings concerning Bianchini's excavations.

For the photos illustrated here; cf. K. Stemmer (1971, Abb. 3-8), Photos: G. Singer; D-DAI-ROM-71.175-71.178. K. Stemmer's (1971, 571, Abb. 7) reconstruction drawing of this colossal cuirassed portrait of `Domitian as Jupiter´ is here reproduced after A. Wolfsfeld (2014, 215, Abb. 6).

 

Stemmer (1971, 566, 579-580) has based his own, in my opinion convincing suggestion, that the fragment (here Fig. 5) was found within the `Aula Regia´, on the following documentation : ancient literary sources, information concerning the collections of  the family Farnese and concerning the provenance of the fragment (here Fig. 5).

            For the `Trofei Farnese´ (Fig. 5.1) and for this fragment of a colossal portrait of `Domitian as Jupiter´, possibly from the `Aula Regia´ of his Domus Augustana (Fig. 5); cf. also at Preamble: Domitian's negative image; Section II. Conclusions: Domitian's representations of his military successes and his claims to be of divine descent and to possess a divine nature.

 

As already Francesco Bianchini (1738, 50-54), also Natascha Sojc (2021, 234) stresses the fact that, when compared with all other rooms in the Imperial Palaces on the Palatine, the `Aula Regia´ is unique, both what its size and what its magnificent decoration is concerned: "The outstanding size and decoration of the Aula Regia, with columns of coloured marble, including pinkish pavonazzetto and yellowish giallo antico, and the 3.50 m high statues in green basalt, now in Parma, make it the most eleborate room of the imperial palaces on the Palatine known today. The hall also seems to have set new standards in comparison with public buildings existing in Rome at Domitian's time as it was only later surpassed in terms of size and splendour when the Basilica Ulpia was built in Trajan's Forum [my emphasis]".

 

To give an impression of the decoration of the `Aula Regia´, I quote in the following a passage that was written for Chapter VI.3. Summary of my own hypotheses concerning the Cancelleria Reliefs presented in this study; Addition: My own tentative suggestion, to which monument or building the Cancelleria Reliefs may have belonged, and a discussion of their possible date :

 

`Bianchini (1738, 68) says explicitly that the reliefs here Fig. 36 [i.e., the Nollekens Relief] and Fig. 37 were found in that hall of Domitian's Palace (called already by Bianchini `Aula Regia´), where also "the colossal basalt statues of Hercules and Bacchus/Dionysus with Pan (now in Parma's Galleria Nazionale)" were excavated, as Pollini writes (cf. id. 2017b, 101, n. 11, quoting for that, F. BIANCHINI 1738, 54 and 58) ... Bianchini's (1738) excellent etchings comprise also a measured ground-plan of the `Aula Regia´ (his Tab. II. = here Fig. 8; cf. here Fig. 8.1), a representation of a uniquely rich decorated marble column base (cf. his Tab. III. = here Fig. 9), belonging to a pair of giallo antico columns (cf. p. 50: "mai state osservate") that flanked the main entrance to the `Aula Regia´, as well as other finds from that hall (cf. p. 54): a detail of a marble entablature, decorated with a winged Victoria, who is crowning a trophy, and a marble relief, likewise decorated with trophies (both illustrated on his Tab. IV. = here Fig. 9 [to this I will come back below]). Bianchini's illustrations (1738, Tab. III. and IV. = here Fig. 9) therefore show that at least one of the iconographic themes of the enormous `Aula Regia´ was certainly the celebration of Domitian's military victories. According to Eugenio Polito (2009, 506, quoted verbatim infra, in Chapter V.1.i.3.b); Section III.)), this was the major subject of the `Aula Regia [my emphasis]´.

 

In addition to this, I anticipate in the following two passages, written for Chapter V.1.i.3.b); Section III. Does the design of the Nollekens Relief reflect the topographical context, for which Domitian had commissioned it ? :

 

`Bianchini (1738, 50-52) described and illustrated (cf. his Tab. III. = here Fig. 9) also the fact that the bases of the columns that flanked the main entrance to the `Aula Regia´ were decorated with trophies and with the corona civica. This iconographic detail may perhaps be read as Domitian's claim to have also had an important part in his father Vespasian's victory in the civil war of AD 68/69. Rita Paris (1994b, 82-83, quoted verbatim supra, in Chapter V.1.i.3.a)), actually gives Domitian credit for that [my emphasis] ...

            Bianchini (1738, 50-54) was especially interested in the weapons appearing on the marble reliefs, he discussed (cf. his Tab. IV. = here Fig. 9), attributing the represented trophies, inter alia woolen caps, to Germanic Peoples. Given the extremely high quality of those marbles, it is certainly worth while to study this topic in depth. Some of the reliefs representing trophies, `excavated´ and documented by Bianchini (1738) in the `Aula Regia´, are still extant and on display in the cortile of Palazzo Farnese at Rome, the famous `Farnese trophies´ (cf. here Fig. 5.1). They were also drawn by Giovanni Battista Piranesi; cf. Patrizio Pensabene (1979. Cf. M. DURRY 1921; P.H. von BLANCKENHAGEN 1940; and C. GASPARRY 2007, summarized by E. POLITO 2009, 509, quoted verbatim supra) [my emphasis]´.

 

The overall impression of the `Aula Regia´ must indeed have been overwhelming. Let's try to imagine for a moment what it has looked like : According to Bianchini (1738, 50) the ground-plan of the `Aula Regia´ has a larger width than the central nave of the Basilica of S. Peter in Rome, and the decoration of this hall was among the most luxurious ones known at Bianchini's time. The shaft of the columns, decorating the `Aula Regia´, were carved from different coloured marbles, the bases of those columns and the architraves, belonging to them, were carved from white marble and richly decorated with reliefs (unfortunately we do not know, whether or not those reliefs, in addition to this, had been painted). The walls of the `Aula Regia´ were covered with veneer of different coloured marbles and likewise exuberantly decorated with exquisite marble reliefs, as documented by Bianchini (1738, 48-68; cf. here Figs. 8; 9). To all this we must add in our imagination, as suggested by Stemmer (1971, 579-580), that the 8 m high cuirassed portrait-statue  of `Domitian as Jupiter´ (here Fig. 5) was on display in the southern apse of the `Aula Regia´ (i.e., exactly opposite the main entrance to the `Aula Regia´ on its north side (cf. here Figs. 8; 8.1; 58); note that Stemmer (op.cit.) calls this curved wall an "Apsis", whereas Bianchini (Tab. II; here Fig. 8) called this curved wall a "Tribunal".

            In the 8 niches of the `Aula Regia´ (here Fig. 8) stood originally colossal ideal statues, carved from green Basanite (basanites), a volcanic rock from the Wadi Hammamat in Egypt : the statue of Hercules is 3,73 m high (for all this information; cf. the Homepage of the Galleria Nazionale at Parma; see below). Bianchini (1738, 54, Tab. XIX; XX) found in his excavation in 1724 two of those colossal statues in secondary context immediately adjacent to the `Aula Regia´, and Gordon Leith has integrated into his reconstruction drawing of the `Aula Regia´ some of those colossal statues (here Fig. 108). As mentioned above, the two colossal statues, excavated by Bianchini, the `Dionysos, supported by a satyr´ (Inv. Nr. GN 969), and the Hercules (Inv. Nr. GN 970, carved from basanites, and 3,73 m high) are on display at the Galleria Nazionale of Parma.

Cf. online at:

<https://complessopilotta.it/opera/scultura-colossale-raffigurante-eracle/>;

<https://complessopilotta.it/opera/scultura-colossale-raffigurante-dioniso-con-satiro/> [last visit: 11-I-2023].

            Basanite is a volcanic rock; cf. Walter Maresch, Olaf Medenbach and Hans Dieter Trochim (1996, 108, 114, 118, 120, 122).

 

The colossal portrait of `Domitian as Jupiter´ (here Fig. 5) in the `Aula Regia´ and Statius (IV 2,41ff.)

 

Of course also Klaus Stemmer (1971, 579-580) has asked himself, which hall in his Palace Domitian may have chosen for his famous Coenatio Iovis, the banquet, described by Statius (IV 2,41ff.), to which Domitian had also invited his poet. Stemmer (1971, 579-580) suggests that the Coenatio Iovis had taken place at the `Aula Regia´.

            As the name `Coenatio Iovis´ for the `Triclinium´ (here Figs. 58; 73; 108-110) proves, most other scholars believe that the banquet, described by Statius, had instead been staged at  the `Triclinium´. See most recently Aurora Raimondi Cominesi (2022, 113 with n. 115): "The notorious banquet described by Statius, in which Domitian towers over his guests as Jupiter from the heavens [my emphasis]".

            In her note 115, Raimondi Cominesi writes: "Stat, Silv. 4.2. The hall in which the banquet took place is usually identified with the so-called Cenatio Iovis in the Domus Flavia ... ".

 

Interestingly, Ulrike Wulf-Rheidt (2020, 189) mentions that `it is very probable that all the major rooms of the `Domus Flavia´ were used for the great banquets´: "È molto probabile che gli ambienti principali della Domus Flavia venissero utilizzati per i grandi banchetti".

            Also Natasch Sojc (2021, 134) writes "that the Aula Regia was probably used ... for ... a large-scale banquet [my emphasis]". 

 

It is, of course, tempting to believe that the presence of this colossal portrait-statue of `Domitian as Jupiter´ (here Fig. 5), if that was actually 8 m high and indeed on display in the apse of the `Aula Regia´, as suggested by Stemmer (1971, 579-580), whom I am following here, could have influenced Statius's (IV 2,41ff.) text. If so, this could mean that Stemmer (1971, 580) was likewise right in locating the  banquest called Coenatio Iovis at the `Aula Regia´.

 

Interestingly neither Anne Wolfsfeld (2014; 2021), Ulrike Wulf-Rheidt (2020), Natascha Sojc (2021), Aurora Raimondi Cominesi and Claire Stocks (2021), or Raimondi Cominesi (2022) mention the overall iconographic theme of Domitian's `Aula Regia´: `the celebration  of Domitian's military victories´.

 

In the following will be discussed in detail the following statements : `the Romans believed, that their supreme god Jupiter granted them their military victories´, and that, at least in the case of Alexander the Great, `the theology of rule was based on the belief that the god and the reigning sovereign were identical´. In addition to this, it has been stated, ``that Domitian's virtus `invincibility´, which was on principle expected from Roman emperors, guaranteed Rome's wealth´´. To put on display the colossal portrait of `Domitian as Jupiter´ in the `Aula Regia´, the by far most magnificent hall of his Palace, where Domitian could also stage banquets, therefore made sense. Unfortunately we ignore, whom those 8 colossal statues in the `Aula Regia´ represented. But one thing is clear, the `Statue of Dionysos, supported by a satyr´ (i.e., showing the god being drunk?), would have been an excellent decoration for a hall, also used for banquets.

 

This fragment of a colossal cuirassed portrait-statue of `Domitian as Jupiter´ (here Fig. 5), has most recently been discussed in great detail by Anne Wolfsfeld (2014, 215, Abb. 6 [= here Fig. 5]; ead. 2021). Wolfsfeld (2014, 200; ead. 2021, 130-131, 308-310) does not add new information to the provenance of the fragment. Concerning Domitian's self-presentation on the other hand, she formulates, on the basis of her analysis of all of Domitian's cuirassed statues, the important observation of  Domitians `persönlicher "Siegesprogrammatik"´ (cf. A. WOLFSFELD 2014, 203).

            Wolfsfeld (2014, 203) herself does not address in this context the fact that Stefan Pfeiffer (2009) has already discussed this subject in detail. I, therefore, repeat here a passage that was already quoted above, at point 2.):

 

`Also Stefan Pfeiffer (2009, 61-62) mentions the Piroustae (here Fig. 49) in his book on the Flavians ... These figures of representations of `peoples´ symbolized, according to Pfeiffer (2009, 61-62), Domitian's "Sieghaftigkeit", which in its turn guaranteed Rome's wealth.

            Elsewhere, Stefan Pfeiffer (2018, 189) ... by analysing the themes of Domitian's self-presentation, explains what he means with "Sieghaftigkeit": "1. It was a key issue for Domitian to show his virtus militaris and his victoriousness ... [my emphasis]". Domitian in his self-presentations thus claimed his `invincibility´. For a discussion; cf. infra, at Appendix IV.d.2.a)´.

 

 

We have just learned from Stefan Pfeiffer (2018, 189 and 2009, 61-62) that Domitian's `virtus militaris and his victoriousness guaranteed Rome's wealth´.

In the following, we will turn to three different ways, how Domitian's claim to possess the virtus `invincibility´ was visually expressed: I.) by demonstrating Domitian's pietas towards the gods (cf. here Fig. 1); II.) by creating a meaningful topographical context : locating Domitian's Palace on the Palatine `opposite´ the Republican Temple of Iuppiter Invictus (cf. here Fig. 58); and III.) by identifying Domitian with the `invincible´ Alexander the Great, as is shown on the `Relief Ruesch´ (cf. here Fig. 7).

 

Ad I.) Domitian's claim to possess the virtus `invincibility´ by demonstrating his pietas towards the gods (cf. here Fig. 1; Figs. 1 and 2 drawing).

 

In this context, I anticipate here a text, written for Chapter V.1.b):

 

`I therefore rather maintain my own suggestion, made above, that Frieze A of the Cancelleria Reliefs [here Fig. 1; Figs. 1 and 2 drawing] visualizes the most important aspect of the one virtus, expected on principle from a Roman emperor: his invincibility [my emphasis] (cf. supra, at n. 282; C. HÄUBER 2017, 22, 520-521). - See also John Pollini (2017b, 124, quoted verbatim infra, at Appendix IV.c.1.)) ...

            because in this complex construction of an emperor's virtus, only his virtus - in the case of Domitian on Frieze A [here Fig. 1; Figs. 1 and 2 drawing: figures 6; 5], his pietas in regard to the gods, expressed on Frieze A especially by Domitian's [figure 6] relation to Minerva [figure 5], his personal patron goddess, who is therefore characterized by means of the composition as being `closest´ to him - can help him to successfully strive for, and finally attain victoria, or invincibility - but not without decisive and ultimate divine interference ! Because victoria could only be granted by the gods. - As already mentioned above: `At Jupiter's orders and under his guidance the Romans fought their wars, and to him they consequently attributed their military victories [my emphasis]´ (cf. supra, at n. 431, in Chapter III.) ...

            I have elsewhere regretted the following fact: "Roman `pagan´ religion was not codified, nor was the complex rôle of the Roman emperor", and find that it is tempting to regard the above-mentioned construction of the emperor's virtus, in its distinct reciprocity with the gods, as part of the `theology of the rôle of the Roman emperor´, especially, when we consider that some scholars have already coined the term: ">theology< of the imperial cult" (cf. for both quotes, C. HÄUBER 2014a, 728, 720 with n. 284, providing references). As I have only realized after this Chapter was written, already Tonio Hölscher (2009b, 59-60, quoted in more detail supra, in Chapter IV.1.1.) writes about Alexander the Great: "Die Theologie der Herrschaft hatte die Identität von Gott und Herrscher zur Grundlage" ([`The theology of rule was based on the identity of god and sovereign´] my emphasis)´.

            Hölscher's (2009b, 59-60) just-quoted observation concerning the doctrine of `identity of god and sovereign´, leads us to the comments made by Mario Torelli (1987, 579) about the Flavian emperors, to which we will now turn.

 

Ad II.) Domitian's claim to possess the virtus `invincibility´ by locating his Palace on the Palatine `opposite´ the Republican Temple of Iuppiter Invictus (cf. here Fig. 58).

 

Mario Torelli (1987, 579) on Domitian's claim to possess the `quality´ invincibility´ as his permanent virtus

 

Torelli's findings, discussed in the following, have been overlooked by recent scholars: for example by Anne Wolfsfeld (2014; 200 with n. 96, Abb. 7; ead. 2021), who, like Klaus Stemmer (1971, 573-579), discusses in great detail Domitian's notorious colossal equestrian statue called Equus Domitiani, asserts like Stemmer (1971, 575), (erroneously) that the Flavian emperors Vespasian and Titus did not commission colossal portraits of themselves.

            For the Equus Domitiani; cf. also Cairoli F. Giuliani ("Equus: Domitianus", in: LTUR II [1995] 228-229, Figs. 77-80, and supra, at n. 267, in Chapter I.3.2.); cf. also Lisa Cordes (2014, 346-355); Eric M. Moormann (2018, 168 with ns. 46, 47; id. 2021, 46 n. 12); Jane Feijfer (2021, 78); and infra, at A Study on the colossal portrait of Hadrian (now Constantine the Great) in the courtyard of the Palazzo dei Conservatori at Rome (cf. here Fig. 11). With The Contribution by Hans Rupprecht Goette.

            For the reworking of Nero's colossus at the order of the Emperor Titus, mentioned by Torelli (1987, 579) in the below-quoted passage; cf. Claudia Lega ("Colossus: Nero", in: LTUR I [1993] 295-298, esp p. 296).

            Eric M. Moormann (2018, 164 with ns. 18, 19, pp. 166, 168-169), although he likewise quotes Lega (1993) in his note 18, does not address the fact that, according to Cassius Dio (LXVI, 15, 1), the face of the Colossus Neronis, which had at first the facial traits of Nero, then, under Vespasian, represented the god Sol, had been reworked under Titus into a portrait of himself. 

 

In the following, I quote some passages, written for Chapter II.3.1.d); Section VI.

 

Torelli (1987, 578-579) discusses the itinerary of a visitor, coming up from the Velia, with the colossus of Nero/ Titus and the Arch of Divus Titus, to the Arch of Domitian (interpreted by COARELLI 2009b; 2012, supra, at point 4.) as Arch of Divus Vespasianus, whom I am following here) and the (presumed) Temple of Iuppiter Victor immediately to the west of it, both of which stood right in front of the façade of Domitian's `Domus Flavia´/ Domus Augustana (cf. for both here Fig. 58).

 

Torelli (1987, 579), like later also Filippo Coarelli (2009b; 2012; discussed supra, at point 4.)) assumes arches of all three Flavian emperors in this area, all of them standing, according to Torelli (op.cit.), next to a Temple of Jupiter: the Arch of Titus (next to the Temple of Iuppiter Stator), an Arch of Vespasian (next to the Temple of Iuppiter Propugnator) and an Arch of Domitian (i.e., Coarelli's Arch of Divus Vespasianus, next to a Temple of Iuppiter Victor). Then Torelli (1987, 579) analyses the `message´ of this third, just-described topographical context in regard to the reigning Flavian emperor, who resides in this Palace, Domitian.

 

As already said above at point 4.), the identification of the temple podium in front of Domitian's `Domus Flavia´/ Domus Augustana (here Fig. 58) is hotly debated; I myself identify this podium with that of the Temple of Iuppiter Invictus, which was first erected in the Republican period, and had also Imperial building phases; cf. infra, at Chapter II.3.1.d); Sections IV.; VII.; IX.; X. 

            The same is also true for the locations of the Temples of Iuppiter Stator, Iuppiter Victor, and Iuppiter Propugnator, mentioned by Torelli (1987, 579), all of which are now located elsewhere than assumed by Torelli. For a detailed discussion; cf. infra, at Chapter II.3.1.d). The Turris Chatularia, for example, to the south-east of the Arch of Divus Titus on the Velia, which Torelli (1987, 579) took for the Temple of Iuppiter Stator, cannot possibly be identified with this temple; cf. Häuber (2017, 327); and infra, at Appendix V.; Section IV. The (now six) different locations of the temple of Iuppiter Stator, marked on the map Fig. 73.

 

Torelli (1987, 579) interprets the topographical situation, which he describes (Arch of Titus/ Temple of Iuppiter Stator; Arch of Vespasian/ Temple of Iuppiter Propugnator; and Arch of Domitian/ Temple of Iuppiter Victor) as follows.

 

The "triumphatores Flavi" identified themselves with Iuppiter, and by means of the epithet `Victor´ of the Temple of Jupiter on the Palatine Domitian claimed the `quality´ invincibility as his permanent virtus:

 

`"La triplice presenza di Iuppiter presso questi congerie verrebbe a sancire l'identificazione dei triumphatores Flavi con la somma divinità del pantheon romano: in particolare, l'epiteto di Victor del tempio palatino verrebbe ad assumere il significato di una ``qualità´´, di una permanente virtù, dell'imperatore vivente [i.e., Domitian], che sembra - al pario della statua colossale del Sol, opportunamente riadoperata - presagire ancora una volta le tendenze ideologiche tardo-antiche [my emphasis]".

            With the "statua colossale del Sol, opportunamente riadoperata", Torelli (1987, 579) referred to the colossus of the Emperor Nero, at first on display in the vestibulum of his Domus Aurea. At the order of the Emperor Vespasian, Nero's facial traits of this colossal bronze statue had been changed after his death into those of the god Sol.

            Like Torelli, and contrary to other scholars, I believe that this statue, which was 100-120 Roman feet high, had already been finished in Nero's lifetime; cf. Häuber (2014a, 704 with ns. 100-103). Torelli (1987, 579) further refers to the assertion that, at the order of the Emperor Titus, the head of Nero's colossus (currently having the facial traits of the god Sol) had been reworked into a portrait of Titus. To this we will now turn.

 

In her discussion of the colossal head of Hadrian (now Constantine the Great; cf. infra, at A Study on the colossal portrait of Hadrian (now Constantine the Great) in the courtyard of the Palazzo dei Conservatori at Rome (cf. here Fig. 11) ..., Cécile Evers (1991, 796) writes:

 

"L'existence d'un si gigantesque portrait d'empereur au IIe siècle [i.e., of Hadrian] - la tête seule [i.e., here Fig. 11] fait 1,74 m, l'ensemble dépassait probablement les 9 m peut surprendre. Cependant les statues colossales sont loin d'être une innovation du Bas-Empire. L'une des plus célèbres, on s'en souviendra, est celle de Néron mesurant plus de 30 m de haut [with n. 65] et qui a subi de nombreux avatars. L'empereur lui avait donné ses traits et l'avait placée dans le vestibule de son palais. Vespasien l'avait transformée en Sol, et son fils Titus, si l'on en croit Dion Cassius [with n. 66], l'aurait affublée de son propre portrait [my emphasis]".

            In her note 65, Evers writes: "J. GAGÉ ... [i.e., here J. GAGÉ 1928] 106-122; Th. PEKARY ... [i.e., here T. PEKARY 1985] 81". - See also Claudia Lega: "Colossus: Nero", in: LTUR I (1993) 295-298.

In her note 66, she writes: "DION CASSIUS, LXVI, 15, 1".

 

Although I myself, contrary to Mario Torelli (1987) ... believe that the temple podium in question did not belong to the Temple of Iuppiter Victor, but instead to the Republican Temple (with several Imperial building phases) of Iuppiter Invictus (cf. here Fig. 58), Torelli (1987, 579) is nevertheless right with his just-quoted suggestion, what the presence of this Jupiter Temple in front of the `Domus Flavia´/ Domus Augustana may have meant to Domitian's self-presentation: standing immediately next to the Arch of Domitian/ the Arch of Divus Vespasianus ?, and erected, as it was, at a site, which a visitor of Domitian's Palace would have reached shortly after having seen the colossus of Nero/ Titus on the Velia, and the Arch of Divus Titus on the Velia (cf. here Fig. 120).

            I suggest that Torelli's (1987, 579) just-quoted interpretation may also be applied to the Nollekens Relief ([discussed above] cf. infra, at Chapter V.1.i.3.b) and here Fig. 36), and likewise to the 8m high colossus of `Domitian as Jupiter´ (here Fig. 5), discussed here, the iconography of which thanks to Torelli's above-quoted observations (1987, 579) has become much better understandable now´.

 

If Nero's over 30 m high (gilded ?) bronze colossus, glittering in the sun, had indeed received the facial traits of Titus, Domitian's Equus Domitiani appears in a very different `light´. Domitian's Equus Domitani may thus have been designed to `counterbalance´ Nero's/ Titus's colossus, compare the relevant observations by Eric M. Moormann (2018, 168-169 with n. 48), but Moormann (2018, 164 with n. 18) takes for granted that the colossus represented the god Sol at that stage.

            If, on the other hand, the Emperor Titus had indeed ordered that the head of Nero's colossus, at that stage representing the god Sol, was reworked into a portrait of himself, the situation changes accordingly. Some visitors to the Forum Romanum and to the Velia (here Figs. 58; 73), who had been impressed there by these colossal statues of the Flavian Emperors Titus and Domitian, had perhaps afterwards the chance to visit Domitian's Palace on the Palatine. Those people might even have thought that Domitian's 8 m high marble portrait of  himself `as Jupiter´ in his `Aula Regia´, when compared with those two other colossi, seemed a relatively `modest´ statement about himself. 

 

Let's now return to Domitian's claim to possess the virtus `invincibility´.

 

Despite Domitian's negative image, created at the order of Trajan, recent scholars were able to demonstrate the in reality great importance of Domitian's victorious military campaigns.

 

            Cf. infra, at Chapter Preamble : Domitian's negative image; Section I. `The intentional creation of Domitian's negative image´, here presented by discussing relevant text passages from Markus Handy ("Strategien zur Legitimierung der Ermordung des Domitian", 2015) and from Peter L. Viscusi (Studies on Domitian, 1973).

            Considering at the same time what John Brian Campbell (1996, 491) writes: "Domitian was the first reigning emperor since Claudius in 43 to campaign in person, visiting the Rhine once, and the Danube three times", we my conclude the following.

            It is first of all no wonder that, at Domitian's Palace on the Palatine (here Figs. 8; 8.1; 9; 58; 73; 108-110), `the major theme of the `Aula Regia´ was the celebration of Domitian's military victories´, as Polito (2009, 506) has observed. Although in the `Aula Regia´ Domitian is not himself portrayed as the victorious general of his military campaigns. His victories are instead - at least in the case of those fragments of its sculptural decoration that had survived until Bianchini excavated them (cf. here Figs, 8; 9) - `alluded to´ by the choice of the sculptural decoration of this hall that comprises trophies of various kinds. But we may just as well imagine that there existed also representations of the victorious general Domitian `in action´. If some more of such representations (apart from the Equus Domitiani) had existed somewhere, they were probably, like the Equus Domitiani, destroyed by those, who, after Domitian's assassination and damnatio memoriae, created Domitian's negative image. I myself know of only one such surviving representation of the victorious general Domitian, the `Relief Ruesch´ (cf. here Fig. 7), in which Domitian's head has not by chance been defaced after his damnatio memoriae, and to which we will now turn.

 

Ad III.) Domitian's claim to possess the virtus `invincibility´ by identifying himself with the `invincible´ Alexander the Great, as is shown on the `Relief Ruesch´ (cf. here Fig. 7).

 

The `Relief Ruesch´ will be discussed in the following for three reasons: a) it shows Domitian's Alexander imitatio, b) it proves that this kind of innovative composition, hitherto attributed to the Trajanic/ Hadrianic period, was - of course - likewise already invented at the order of Domitian, and c) its current state of preservation seems to illustrate the title of the current exhibition on Domitian at Rome, called: Domiziano imperatore. Odio e amore.

 

To begin with the above-mentioned current exhibition on Domitian at Rome : the accompanying catalogue with the same title is edited by Claudio Parisi Presicce, Massimiliano Munzi and Maria Paola Del Moro (2023).

 

In order to summarize the scholarly discussion of the `Relief Ruesch´ (here Fig. 7), I quote in the following some passages that were written for another Chapter, in which I have discussed this relief in great detail (cf. infra, at Preamble: Domitian's negative image; Section III. My own thoughts about Domitian).

 

Ad a) The `Relief Ruesch´ and Domitian's claim of invincibility by imitating Alexander the Great

 

`Dietrich Willers (2021, 81, 86-87 with n. 40, Taf. 11,1 [= here Fig. 7]), in his discussion of the `Relief Ruesch´, which shows Domitian in a battle scene, without wearing a helmet, points out that not wearing a helmet ... has been interpreted by ancient and modern commentators inter alia as follows: Alexander the Great and other commanders, who followed his model, thus stressed their invincibility [my emphasis] ...

 

On 14th of October 2021, Hans Rupprecht was kind enough to send me, on his own account, an article by Dietrich Willers, in which the author discusses the `Relief Ruesch´, a marble relief that represents a cavalry battle of Romans against Germanic troops ("Relief mit Reiterschlacht", 2021, with his Taf. 11; Taf. 13 [= here Fig. 7]). Willers (2021) reports that the collector Arnold Ruesch (1882-1929), best known for the `Guida Ruesch´ (1908; 1911), the excellent guide of the Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Napoli, which he edited, had acquired the `Relief Ruesch´ in 1920 at an art dealer's in Rome. Ruesch himself, as Willers writes, had already realized that the design of the central group on the `Relief Ruesch´, a cuirassed Roman imperator, wearing the paludamentum, and a German immediately opposite him, both on horseback, shows striking similarities with the two protagonists on the famous Alexander Mosaic from the `Casa del Fauno´ in Pompeii, now at the Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Napoli. This extraordinary fact led Bernard Andreae (1956) to assert that the `Relief Ruesch´ must be a modern forgery, to the effect that henceforth this relief was not discussed by archaeologists any more. As a matter of fact, I myself had not even known of this relief.

            Willers (2021) reports that Ruesch had built a villa at Zürich to accommodate his collection. After his death his antiques were sold and dispersed, and in 1977 his villa was destroyed. Fortunately in 2019 the Antikensammlung Bern of the Universität was able to acquire as a loan from a private collector some of the antiques formerly in Ruesch's collection (comprising the `Relief Ruesch´, here Fig. 7), in addition, the owner had obviously agreed that the `Relief Ruesch´ could recently be restored.

            This restoration of the `Relief Ruesch´ has proven that already in antiquity the face of the Roman imperator on the `Relief Ruesch´ had deliberately been destroyed. Willers (2021, 79, 83-84, 89, 94), who is able to disprove that the `Relief Ruesch´ can possibly be a modern forgery, follows the judgement of earlier scholars by dating it Domitianic, inter alia by convincingly comparing it with the Cancelleria Reliefs (here Figs. 1; 2; Figs. 1 and 2 drawing). And, as already suggested by Arnold von Salis (1947, 99-100), Willers (2021, 89-90, Taf. 11; Taf. 13, 2-5 [= here Fig. 7]) is able to demonstrate that the head of this rider was originally a portrait of Domitian, whose face had obviously been destroyed as a result of the emperor's damnatio memoriae. Domitian is fighting against Germanic soldiers, identified by Willers (2021, 90) with the Chatti, whom Domitian defeated in AD 83.

 

Fig. 7. `Relief Ruesch´, ex collection Arnold Ruesch (Zürich), who bought it in 1920 at an art dealer's in Rome (provenance unknown). Cavalry battle of a Roman imperator (Domitian) against Germanic soldiers (the Chatti ?). Marble, 74 x 108,8 cm. Domitian's head was defaced because of his damnatio memoriae, but the relief has nevertheless been re-used in antiquity. Private collection. On loan at the Antikensammlung Bern of the Universität. From D. Willers (2021, Taf. 11; Taf. 13,1: detail of the imperator, Taf. 13,2-4: details of the head of the imperator; Taf. 13,5: right profile of the bust of Domitian, Rome, Musei Capitolini, inv. no. MC 1156)´.

 

            `Dietrich Willers (2021, 74 n. 1) writes that the Antikensammlung Bern der Universität is planning "eine Sonderausstellung mit Dauerleihgaben aus dem einstigen Bestand der Sammlung Ruesch". And in an E-mail of 20th October 2021, he mentioned to me that he has sent an offprint of his article (2021) to Bernard Andreae, who answered Willers that he agrees with him that the `Relief Ruesch´ (here Fig. 7) is ancient. On 24th October 2021, Dietrich Willers has kindly granted me the permission to mention our correspondence here.´ ...

 

`Apropos, the striking similarities of the composition of the `Relief Ruesch´ and of the Alexander Mosaic. I am, of course, aware of the fact that, for chronological reasons, Domitian and his artists could not possibly have known the Alexander Mosaic at Pompeii, but rather either its prototype, a famous painting, which Willers (2021, 81) dates to around 300 BC, or else other copies of this prototype.

            Between February 4th and 24th 2022, and again on the 1st of January 2023, I could discuss with Andrew Stewart in E-mail correspondences the `Relief Ruesch´ (here Fig. 7) and the Alexander Mosaic. As Stewart wrote me, the prototype of this mosaic was a (now lost) painting, which, being a "four-colour-painting", is clearly datable in the fourth century BC, and was, in his opinion, still created in Alexander's lifetime. Later it was brought by the Romans as war booty from Macedonia to Rome, "after 168 or after 148 BC", as Stewart suggests, where it was henceforth copied in a variety of media; cf. Stewart (1993, 133 with n. 37). Andrew was also kind enough to provide me with his relevant publication; cf. Stewart (Faces of Power: Alexander's image and Hellenistic politics, 1993, 130-150, Chapter: "2. The Alexander Mosaic: A Reading").

            On the 1st of January 2023, I had written Andrew Stewart again, asking him, whether the date "after 148 BC" could possibly mean that he assumed that this Greek painting had been on display at the Porticus Metelli (the later Porticus Octaviae), but Stewart was kind enough to answer me immediately that he himself has never suggested this.

            For the Porticus Octaviae; cf. supra, at point 2.).

            On 14th January 2023, I was told by Kris Seaman that Andrew Stewart had passed away the day before. What his own scholarly production is concerned, which was thus prematurely interrupted, this clearly means a great loss to the entire scholarly field of archaeology. But this loss is especially felt by his friends and colleagues, who had the privilege of knowing him personally, and with whom Andrew used to share his vast knowledge so generously.

 

Likewise since February 2022, I had the chance to discuss with Filippo Coarelli the `Relief Ruesch´ (which he actually knew, but of which he ignored, of course, its current whereabouts) and the Alexander Mosaic. Coarelli told me that he is in the course of preparing an exhibition on Alexander the Great, to open at the Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Napoli in May of 2023; the Alexander Mosaic will be restored on this occasion.

 

I am not a specialist in militaria, but I wish at least to mention a fact that other scholars, more knowlegeable in this field, might like to study in more detail. I am referring to the soldier, to the right of Amanda Claridge's (2013) (alleged) Hadrian (of his portrait-type Delta Omikron (Δο); here Fig. 3) in Scene LXXII of Trajan's Column (here Figs. 4; 4.1), who (like Willers's 2021 Chatti on the `Relief Ruesch´; here Fig. 7) is only wearing long trousers and is armed with a shield. This soldier on Trajan's column (here Figs. 4; 4.1) according to Karl Strobel (2017, 318) may be identified as a "Markomanne" or as a "Quade", who, in Trajan's First Dacian War (in 102 AD), which is represented in Scene LXXII on Trajan's Column, belonged to Rome's auxiliary troops; so also Willers (2021, 90 with n. 90). - To this relief and to Hadrian's portrait-type (here Figs. 4; 4.1; 3) I will come back below.

            If those Germanic soldiers on the `Relief Ruesch´ (here Fig. 7) really were Marcomanni or Quadi, not Chatti, those were Germanic tribes, whom Domitian had only to deal with in AD 89, as we will learn below from Peter L. Viscusi (1973, 53-63), who discusses also the fact that Domitian celebrated in AD 89 a double triumph over the Chatti and the Dacians. If the Germanic soldiers, visible on the `Relief Ruesch´, were those of the later war, this relief could be dated `after AD 89´, exactly as, in my opinion, the Cancelleria Reliefs (cf. supra, at point 2.) and here Figs. 1; 2; Figs. 1 and 2 drawing), with which Willers (2021) himself compares the `Relief Ruesch´.

            For Domitian's campaign against the Marcomanni and Quadi (in AD 89), and Domitian's double triumph over the Chatti and the Dacians in AD 89; cf. infra, at Preamble: Domitian's negative image; at Section I.

 

 

In the following, I allow myself digressions on Amanda Claridge's (alleged) Hadrian on Trajan's Column, Scene LXXII (here Figs. 4; 4.1), in reality a slinger from the Baleares, and on the portraits of Hadrian of the portrait-type Delta Omikron (here Fig. 3)

 

Amanda Claridge (2013, 12) commented on Scene LXXII of Trajan's Column (here Figs. 4; 4.1) as follows: "Band 11: lxxii Trajan surveys the last battle of the First [Dacian] War. Focal point: Stonethrower [my emphasis]". Claridge (2013, 13 with n. 80, pp. 14, 15, her plate 15 [= here Fig. 4]) tentatively identified this "Stonethrower" on here Figs. 4; 4.1 with Hadrian, represented in the here-so-called portrait-type Delta Omikron (Δο) (cf. here Fig. 3).

            Although the head of this man strikingly resembles portraits of Hadrian of this portrait-type (here Fig. 3), I do not follow Claridge's (2013) identification.

            Scene LXXII of Trajan's Column (here Fig. 4.1) represents the decisive third battle in the third campaign of Trajan's First Dacian War, an event that took place in AD 102. Hadrian was a Senator, who, if represented on Figs. 4; 4.1, should have been depicted as wearing the calcei patricii; he had served from AD 96 on as senatorial tribune of Legio V Macedonica in Moesia Inferior, and from November AD 97 until January 98 as senatorial tribune of Legio XXII Primigenia at Mogonticacum (Mainz) in Upper Germany. Since AD 100, Hadrian was married to Trajan's great-niece Sabina. In Trajan's First Dacian war, Hadrian was Trajan's comes expeditionis Dacicae (since 101 AD), and he would earn the dona militaria in this war.

 

Apart from the fact that we should ask ourselves in the first place:

 

1.) whether or not Hadrian could have appeared at all in a similar context as the "Stonethrower" in the battle, represented in Scene LXXII of Trajan's Column. Personally, I rather believe that we should expect him to appear in Trajan's entourage, but in all of these scenes Hadrian is conspicuously absent, as most scholars agree;  and -

 

2.), in addition to this, whether Hadrian could have acted as a "Stonethrower", as Claridge (2013, 13 with n. 80, pp. 14, 15, her plate 15 [= here Fig. 4; cf. here Fig. 4.1]) refers to him, that is to say, as a slinger, a specialized weapon type, which Hadrian was presumably not trained in.

 

The "Stonethrower", as Claridge (2013) refers to this man on Figs. 4; 4.1, is fighting bare-headed and with bare feet. Amanda Claridge's suggestion to identify this man (and some other figures on Trajan's Column) with Hadrian has been rejected by Karl Strobel (2017, 65 with n. 48). I myself follow those scholars, who identify this man as a slinger from the Baleares (of whom altogether four are represented on the entire frieze; cf. here Figs. 4; 4.1; 4.2; 4.3, all of them fighting bare-headed and with bare feet). Cf. Jonathan Coulston's Website (2013; quoted by K. STROBEL 2017, 309, n. 2); Tonio Hölscher (2017, 28), and Christian Heitz (2017, 131, with n. 16).

 

Fig. 3. Above: portrait of Hadrian of the Delta Omikron (Δο)-type. Villa Hadriana near Tivoli, Museo (inv. no. 2260). Left: From: H.R. Goette (2021, 113, Abb. 46a (III Nr. 3); Photo: G. Fittschen-Badura); in the middle and right: Photos: D-DAI-ROM 72.635; 79.17774 (G. Fittschen-Badura).

Below, left: bust of Hadrian of the Delta Omikron (Δο)-type. Columbia, Missouri, University Museum (inv. no. 89.1). From: H.R. Goette (2021, 108, Abb. 44a (III Nr. 1)).

Below, in the middle: portrait of Hadrian of the Delta Omikron (Δο)-type Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado, inv. no. 176-E.), found in Italy. Photo: D-DAI-MAD-WIT-R-20-91-05 (Witte).

Below right: bust of Hadrian of the Delta Omikron (Δο)-type. London, private collection. From H.R. Goette (2021, 112, Abb. 45 (III Nr. 4)).

 

Figs. 4. Scene LXXII on Trajan's Column. Amanda Claridge's (2013, 12, 13) "Stonethrower", whom she tentatively identified with Hadrian, represented in the here-so-called portrait-type Delta Omikron (Δο) (cf. here Fig. 3). In reality, this man is a slinger from the Baleares. To the right of this slinger appears a Marcomanne or a Quade, wearing long trousers, who is armed with a shield. From A. Claridge (2013, 15, pl. 15).

 

Fig. 4.1. Scene LXXII on Trajan's Column. Amanda Claridge (2013, 12) commented on Scene LXXII of Trajan's Column (here Figs. 4; 4.1) `as follows: "Band 11: lxxii Trajan surveys the last battle of the First [Dacian] War. Focal point: Stonethrower". Claridge (2013, 13 with n. 80, pp. 14, 15, her plate 15 [= here Fig. 4)]) tentatively identified this "Stonethrower" on here Figs. 4; 4.1 with Hadrian, represented in the here-so-called portrait-type Delta Omikron (Δο) (cf. here Fig. 3).

From: <http://www.trajans-column.org/?flagallery=trajans-column-scenes-xlvi-lxxviii-46-78#PhotoSwipe1673612947018> [last visit 13-I-2023].

 

Fig. 4.1.1. The Column of Trajan, seen from the south (with the columns of the Basilica Ulpia in the foreground). Photo: F.X. Schütz (March 2006).

 

For all that; cf. infra, at Chapter I.2. The consequences of Domitian's assassination :

Nerva is forced to adopt Trajan and Trajan creates Domitian's negative image to consolidate his own reign. With Hadrian's adoption manquée in October of AD 97, his 20-year long road to his accession and his thanksgivings for it, his Temple complex in the Campus Martius. Or:

The wider topographical context of the Arch of Hadrian alongside the Via Flaminia which led to the (later) Hadrianeum and to Hadrian's Temples of Diva Matidia (and of Diva Sabina?). With discussions of Hadrian's journey from Moesia Inferior to Mogontiacum (Mayence [Mainz]) in order to congratulate Trajan on his adoption by Nerva, and of Hadrian's portrait-type Delta Omikron (Δο) (cf. here Fig. 3).

With The fourth and the fifth Contribution by Peter Herz, with The Contribution by Franz Xaver Schütz, and with The Contribution by John Bodel; at the Sections IX. and XI. in the Introduction; and in this Chapter, at Section VI.1. My 2. Conclusion: In this context it is interesting to analyse the process by which Hadrian finally became emperor; at Trajan's adoption by Nerva and Hadrian's Parforceritt from Moesia Inferior to Mogontiacum [Mainz] to congratulate Trajan on his adoption; at The circumstances that had brought Trajan to Mogontiacum and Domitian's negative image, created by Tacitus and Pliny at the order of Trajan to legitimize his own accession; at Trajan presented Hadrian in AD 106 with the signet-ring that he himself had received on the occasion of his adoption by Nerva. With a discussion of the meaning of this gesture; and at Sections VI.2.; VI.2.1.; VI.2.2.; VI.2.3., and VI.2.4. A. Claridge (2013) has identified the head of the "Stonethrower" in the battle Scene LXXII on Trajan's Column (here Figs. 4; 4.1) as a copy of Hadrian's portrait-type Delta Omikron (Δο) ...

 

In order to summarize my own research on Hadrian's portrait-type Delta Omikron (Δο), I quote in the following only the titles of the just-mentioned Sections VI.2., VI.2.1., VI.2.2., and VI..2.3. in Chapter I.2., adding to these titles some comments:

 

`Section VI.2. Hadrian's portrait-type Delta Omikron (Δο). The Emperor Hadrian issued coins with this portrait-type in AD 117 on tetradrachmas at Alexandria (cf. here Fig. 137) and on aurei in AD 138 at Rome [so my own hpothesis], inter alia with his DIVIS PARENTIBVS on the reverse (cf. here Fig. 139), on all of which Hadrian looks straight ahead. This portrait-type is also known from two marble heads and two marble busts (cf. here Fig. 3). In all of them Hadrian turns to his left. The date of those marble portraits is debated. Concerning this portrait-type we need to answer the following questions, 1.) when exactly was this youthful likeness of Hadrian created? This is connected with the further question: had Hadrian commissioned its prototype in order to commemorate a specific event in his youth?; and 2.), what was Hadrian's intention at the end of his life [so my own hypothesis], when he ordered for the first-time marble portraits in the round of himself of this portrait-type?´

 

For the tetradrachmas, issued by the Emperor Hadrian at Alexandria in AD 117 (here Fig. 137), on which appear for the first time Hadrian's portrait-type Delta Omikron (Δο) (here Fig. 3), see also The first Contribution by Angelo Geißen in this volume : Bemerkungen zur frühen Münzprägung Hadrians in Alexandria.

            For the aurei, issued by the Emperor Hadrian at Rome (here Fig. 139); cf. Martin Beckmann ("The Gold Coinage of Hadrian AD 130-138", 2019), quoted and discussed by Hans Rupprecht Goette (2021, 24 n. 67, p. 124, Abb. 56, pp. 25-27). According to Beckmann (2019, 151), the aurei (here Fig. 139) were issued: "presumably around mid-138"; cf. Cf. Beckmann (2019, 152): on here Fig. 139: "The inscription on the obverse clearly labels the portrait as that of Hadrian ... The die analysis shows that two of the three known dies bearing this youthful portrait were used at the very end of Hadrian's coinage; the links do not rule out a posthumous issue, though they do not prove it either".

            Note that Martin Beckmann (2019, 152) himself observes that the meaning of the series of aurei, to which Hadrian's aureus (here Fig. 139) belongs, is "dynastic", but without drawing himself the obvious conclusion from this statement. - To this I will come back below.

 

`Section VI.2.1. H.R. Goette's (2021) discussion of Hadrian's portrait-type Delta Omikron (Δο) (cf. here Fig. 3). Concerning the 1.) question, Goette chooses the fact that in AD 106, during the Second Dacian War, the Emperor Trajan presented Hadrian with the signet ring, which he himself had received from Nerva on the occasion of his adoption by him [in late October or at the beginning of November of AD 97]; concerning the 2.) question, Goette suggests that those marble portraits (cf. here Fig. 3) were commissioned by Antoninus Pius, who, with the left turn of those portraits, a possible Alexander imitatio, honoured the newly created Divus Hadrianus, who was intentionally represented young´.

 

See also The fourth Contribution by Peter Herz in this volume : Wann wurde Trajan von Nerva adoptiert ?

 

`Section VI.2.2. Additional information that is of importance for the discussion of Hadrian's portrait-type Delta Omikron (Δο) (cf. here Fig. 3); Hadrian and Alexander the Great; Hadrian's adoption by Trajan, as propagated by Hadrian; The tetradrachma issued by Hadrian in AD 137/138 at Alexandria to commemorate his adoption of Antoninus Pius (cf. here Fig. 138)´.

 

In the following, I anticipate a passage from Section VI.2.2.:

`The tetradrachma, issued by Hadrian at Alexandria in AD 137/138 [here Fig. 138] has been discussed by Angelo Geißen in his article ("ΑΙΩΝ - AETERNITAS. Welche numismatischen Zeugnisse reflektieren die Vollendung der Sothis-Periode unter Antoninus Pius?", 2010). See for the coin (here Fig. 138) also Andrea Carandini (2019, 92: § 121, Fig. 33).

            According to Geißen (op.cit), this tetradrachma commemorated Hadrian's pronoia/ providentia for the continuitas imperi, because it referred to Hadrian's adoption of (the future) Antoninus Pius who, in his turn, and following Hadrian's wishes, had immediately before adopted (the future) Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus´.

            Concerning the apparent paradox that Hadrian could announce with the coin-type (here Fig. 138), issued at Alexandria in AD 137/138, his adoption of Antoninus Pius, that would only take place on 25th February AD 138; cf. the following: we know that Augustus, with his correction of Julius Caesar's calendar reform (cf. infra, n. 545, at Appendix II.c)), had fixed 29th August as the official date of the Egyptian New Year.

            This tetradrachma (here Fig. 128) has so far not been discussed by those scholars, who are interested in Hadrian's portrait-type Delta Omikron (Δο) (here Fig. 3) discussed here.

            The providentia of the reigning emperor for the continuitas imperii appears on coins since Nerva. This may be traced back to the habit to represent the ara Providentiae on coins, which had exactly the same meaning; cf. Mario Torelli ("Providentia, Ara", in LTUR, IV, 1999, 165-166, figs. 66-67); Häuber (2014a, 712 with n. 199).

 

`Section VI.2.3. My own interpretation of Hadrian's portrait-type Delta Omikron (Δο) (cf. here Fig. 3). Concerning the 1.) question, I suggest that Hadrian (who, in my opinion, looks in this portrait-type like a circa 20 years old man) commissioned his Delta Omikron portrait-type at an unknown date. He thus either wished to commemorate his circa 1900 km long Parforceritt in November of AD 97 from Moesia Inferior to Mogontiacum (Mainz), which he undertook (together with some `companions´) to congratulate Trajan on his adoption by Nerva, or else the beginning of the resulting 20 year-long cooperation with Trajan (that ended with his adoption? by Trajan, and with his own accession : on the 9th and 11th August of AD 117, respectively). Concerning the 2.) question, I suggest that Hadrian ordered the marble copies of this portrait-type (here Fig. 3) as part of the propagation of his providentia for the continuitas imperii : Hadrian's adoption on 25th February AD 138 of Antoninus Pius (immediately after Antoninus Pius, in his turn, had adopted Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus). I suggest this because Hadrian commemorated his adoption of Antoninus Pius also with his tetradrachma, issued at Alexandria in 137/ 138 (here Fig. 138). I regard, therefore, the assumption as plausible, although it is currently not provable that, as a part of this propagation, Hadrian had still himself issued in AD 138 the aurei with this portrait-type and his adoptive parents (`DIVIS PARENTIBVS´), Trajan and Plotina (here Fig. 139). These aurei, like the marble portraits (here Fig. 3), apart from hinting at the fact that Hadrian had now himself adopted a son, hinted also at Hadrian's own adoption manquée (his own `missed´ adoption: by Trajan, immediately before Nerva had adopted Trajan) in October of AD 97. And because of `the turn to their left´ of those portraits (here Fig. 3), a possible Alexander imitatio, Hadrian may also have claimed to have decided (in November of AD 97), at the age of 21, `to conquer for himself his Roman Empire´, similarly as Alexander (together with his hetairoi - and his soldiers) had conquered his, starting at the age of 20´.

            For the above-mentioned dies adoptionis and the dies imperii of Hadrian; cf. infra, n. 331, at Chapter II.2.; and at Appendix IV.c.1.). See also The fifth Contribution by Peter Herz in this volume : Der Ritt Hadrians nach Mogontiacum, as well as at The Contribution by Franz Xaver Schütz in this volume : Zur kartographischen Visualisierung historischer Landschaftselemente zwischen Rhein und Schwarzem Meer von Augustus bis Hadrian (cf. here Fig. 77).

 

 

Let's now return to the Relief Ruesch (here Fig. 7).

 

Ad b) The `Relief Ruesch´ shows that this kind of composition was already commissioned by Domitian

 

`In addition, Willers (2021, 84, 91, 93, 98) convincingly points out that the `Relief Ruesch´ proves that still another artistic innovation, commonly attributed to Trajan (or rather Hadrian?), had already been invented at the order of Domitian - as we might perhaps not otherwise expect, after having read this entire study. - Willers thus refers to the famous relief representing a battle scene that shows Trajan in exactly the same iconography as Domitian on the `Relief Ruesch´ (here Fig. 7).

            For "The Great Trajanic Frieze. Trajan [now Constantine] on horseback, early Hadrianic. Rome, Arch of Constantine ...", also for the other relief, inserted into the opposite side of this central passageway of the Arch of Constantine, representing the adventus of Trajan [now Constatine]; cf. Diana E.E. Kleiner (1992, 222, Figs. 185 [= here Fig. 7.1]; 186). For `The Great Trajanic Frieze´, Trajan [now Constantine] on horseback; cf. also Willers (2021, 84 with n. 21); and R.R.R. Smith (2021, 24-25 with n. 97).

 

Fig. 7.1. The `Great Trajanic Frieze´, Constantine on horseback. Rome, Arch of Constantine. The relief had originally shown Trajan, whose portrait was recut into one of Constantine the Great. In the central passageway of the Arch of Constantine the inscriptions LIBERATORI VRBIS and FVNDATORI QUIETIS were added to these reliefs of Trajan/ Constantine, which refer to Constantine (in recognition of his defeat of Maxentius at the Pons Mulvius in AD 312). Photo: C. Faraglia, Neg. D-DAI-Rom 37.328. - Diana E.E. Kleiner (1992, 222, Fig. 185) dates both reliefs: "early Hadrianic".

            Cf. Ian Archibald Richmond, Donald Emrys Strong and John Robert Patterson ("pons Mulvius", in: OCD³ [1996] 1219 [the emphasis is by the authors themselves])".

 

R.R.R. Smith (2021, 24-25 with n. 97) convincingly points out that the representation of Trajan in `The Great Trajanic Frieze´ (here Fig. 7.1), when compared to the `real actions´ of an emperor during a war, turns out to be extremely unrealistic.

            In his note 97, Smith writes: "The Great Trajanic Frieze (re-used on the Arch of Constantine [= here Fig. 7.1]), with the emperor leading a cavalry charge in battle himself, is a rare example of a clearly ‘unreal’ monumental narrative: Touati 1987. On such public narratives of imperial action, Fittschen 1972; Hölscher 2003; 2019: ch. 4 [my emphasis]".

            My thanks are due to Bert Smith for sending me on 11th January 2022 his above-quoted article ("Maiestas Serena: Roman Court Cameos and Early Imperial Poetry and Panegyric", 2021).

 

I myself would call the iconography of Roman emperors, as pictured on (Figs. 7; 7.1), as that of `a dashing hero on horseback, like Alexander the Great´ ...

 

 

Ad c) The `Relief Ruesch´ has been reused in antiquity. All its phases taken together possibly illustrate the title of the exhibition on Domitian, currently on display at Rome in the Musei Capitolini, Villa Caffarelli: Domiziano imperatore. Odio e amore; cf. C. Parisi Presicce, M. Munzi and M.P. Del Moro (2023)

 

`Much debated in the past, and also discussed by Willers (2021, 79 n. 6, pp. 93-94), is the fact that the `Relief Ruesch´ (here Fig. 7), although fragmentary, and with Domitian's portrait defaced, was nevertheless re-used in antiquity. This assumption is based on two facts: the breaks of the relief were smoothed and the great holes, one of them in the middle of the relief, wich were made in antiquity, but at a second moment (i.e., in the course of the reworking), were created in a way that the figure of Domitian, and of the horse he is riding, remained intact.

            Willers (2021, 80 with n. 9, p. 94 with n. 82) is able to disprove the hypothesis of earlier scholars, according to whom the `Relief Ruesch´ had been created as a "Brunnenverkleidung" (`a decoration of a fountain´), apart from its iconography, which does not suit such a purpose, its holes were obviously made at a second moment. Most importantly, the `Relief Ruesch´ was definitely not exposed to water, because that would clearly be visible; cf. Willers (2021, 80): "Spuren von fliessendem Wasser sind auf der Reliefseite der Platte nicht vorhanden".

            Willers does not discuss the suggestion, formulated in the sales catalogue of the Collection Ruesch, Katalog Fischer 1936 (which Willers himself quotes), where the `Relief Ruesch´ has the catalogue number 238. The author suggests: "Nachträgliche Verwendung dieses Reliefs als Brunnenverkleidung" (`secondary use as decoration of a fountain´), which I find (in theory) plausible, although the fact remains that the relief does not show any traces of such a use.

            Willers himself, who ... compares the `Relief Ruesch´ with the Cancelleria Reliefs (here Figs. 1; 2; Fig. 1 and 2 drawing), concludes that we ignore for both (i.e., the Cancelleria Reliefs and the `Relief Ruesch´), to which buildings they may originally have belonged. Willers (2021, 94), therefore, ends his article with an admonition regarding the need to further study `Domitian's Rome´:

 

"Es bleibt die Aufgabe, die Begehungen des domitianischen Roms zu intensivieren [my emphasis]".

 

I can only agree and have ... chosen Willers's phrase as the first epigraph of this study; cf. infra, at Chapter I.1.

            Contrary to Willers, who does not suggest where the building may have stood, to which the `Relief Ruesch´ originally belonged, nor what its purpose was, when the relief was re-used, I myself have an idea concerning both subjects. Since I follow Filippo Coarelli (2009b, 88; id. 2012, 283, 286-291, 481-483, 486-491; cf. supra, at point 4.)) in assuming that the Domitianic arch in front of Domitian's `Domus Flavia´/ Domus Augustana on the Palatine was possibly dedicated to Divus Vespasianus, I suggest that the Cancelleria Reliefs decorated either the opposite walls in the passageway of this arch, or, because of the content of both Friezes, possibly rather a passageway of the Arch of Domitian, which Coarelli postulates at the "Porta principale" of Domitian's Palace Domus Augustana on the Palatine (cf. here Figs. 1 and 2 of the Cancelleria Reliefs, drawing, `in situ´ and Fig. 58)´ ...

            `Provided my hypothesis is true that the Cancelleria Reliefs decorated one of Domitian's two arches on the Palatine, and considering at the same time Willers's (2021, 79 n. 6, p. 83, n. 18) observation that the Cancelleria Reliefs (here Figs. 1; 2) and the `Relief Ruesch´ (here Fig. 7) show great stylistic similarities, I suggest as a working hypothesis that the `Relief Ruesch´ (the provenance if which is not recorded) may also have been found on the Palatine.

 

            As is well known, Domitian had friends, who remained faithful to him after his assassination.

 

One such proof of fidelity is Domitian's famous portrait in the Musei Capitolini, Palazzo dei Conservatori (inv. no. MC 1156), which appears on the cover of the essay volume God on Earth : Emperor Domitian, edited by A. Raimondi Cominesi, N. de Haan, E.M. Moormann and C. Stocks (2021), and on the cover of the exhibition catalogue Domiziano imperatore. Odio e amore, edited by C. Parisi Presicce, M. Munzi and M.P. Del Moro (2023)

            Elsewhere, I was able to find the findspot of this portrait of Domitian in the Via Rattazzi on the Esquiline; cf. Häuber (1991, 57-58 with n. 251, by identifying this bust with find reports, published in NSc 1898, 391, and BullCom 26, 1898, 350; cf. p. 351: "Tutti gli oggetti di questa sezione sono conservati nel Magazzino Archeologico all'Orto Botanico; cf. HELBIG⁴ II (1966) Nr. 1752, "Fragmentierte Büste des Domitian" (H. v. HEINTZE): "das Bildnis war früher im Antiquarium auf dem Caelius").

            Dietrich Willers (2021, Taf. 13,5; cf. Taf. 13,2-4 [= here Fig. 7]) has compared a photo of this portrait of Domitian with the head of the Roman imperator on the `Relief Ruesch´ in order to prove that the protagonist of this relief is likewise Domitian.

            Another example is Domitian's nurse Phyllis, who, thanks to her prudent actions, even secured Domitian a burial in his Templum Gentis Flaviae, literally `together´ with his beloved Iulia Titi, the daughter of his brother Titus, in the same cinerary urn (!). Phyllis had educated both Domitian and Iulia Titi (Suet., Dom. 17; 22); Diva Iulia Titi had been first, whom Domitian had buried in the Templum Gentis Flaviae. Phyllis cremated Domitian's corpse in her Villa on the Via Latina; she then secretly carried Domitian's ashes to the Templum Gentis Flaviae, where she mixed them with those of Iulia Titi (Suet., Dom. 17).

Online at:  <https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Domitian*.html#17>

[last visit: 31-XII-2022]. 

            Cf. Filippo Coarelli ("Gens Flavia, Templum", in: LTUR II [1995] 368); Coarelli (2009b, 94 with n. 309); Eugenio La Rocca (2009, 228 with n. 45); Häuber (2017, 167; cf. infra, at Chapter IV.1.1.h). Dietmar Kienast, Werner Eck and Matthäus Heil (2017, 109) comment on Domitian's death and burial as follows: "18. Sept.[ember] 96 Tod: Ermordet (Suet. Domit. 17, 3). Heimliche Beisetzung im templum gentis Flaviae [my emphasis]".

 

I, therefore, add something else to my working hypothesis concerning the `Relief Ruesch´ (here Fig. 7). For the time being we cannot know, whether the person, who re-used the `Relief Ruesch´, knew that, in its original state, it had represented Domitian. Nor, if so, whether or not this person was hostile to Domitian. Although all of this is so far unknown, the following possibility remains. Perhaps it was another person, faithful to Domitian, who took the `Relief Ruesch´, after Domitian's portrait had been defaced, thus possibly preventing its complete destruction, kept it as a memory of Domitian, and, by means of those holes, put it on display somewhere´.

 

Wie man an diesem Kapitel The major results of this book on Domitian (`Die wichtigsten Ergebnisse dieses Buches über Domitian´) sieht, bleibt noch viel zu tun, wenn wir Domitian und seinen Bauten in Rom gerecht werden möchten.