This Study analyses the Cancelleria Reliefs (cf. here Figs. 1; 2) and tries to answer the question: to which monument or building did these panels belong? This structure was commissioned by the Emperor Domitian, whose other building projects at Rome are likewise discussed. The text is divided into Chapters I.-VI., and is supplemented by Appendices I.-VI., that are published infra, in volume 3-2. To some of these Chapters and Appendices belong separate Studies on specific subjects, inter alia on famous sculptures.
These four separate, but interrelated monographs have provided (in many cases unforeseen) new insights concerning Domitian, which is why they are published in this book on Domitian :
The text A Study on the consequences of Domitian's assassination is to be found in volume 3-2, the other three additional Studies are to be found below, in this volume 3-1.
To Chapter I.2. The amazon-like figure on Frieze A (cf. here Fig. 1): Dea Roma, not Virtus belongs:
A Study on 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 late October or at the beginning of November 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) 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 first Contribution by Franz Xaver Schütz, with The Contribution by John Bodel, and with The second Contribution by Angelo Geißen.
To Appendix I.g.4.) Domitian's sacellum of Iuppiter Conservator, his Temple of Iuppiter Custos, and his (fourth) Temple of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus belongs:
A Study on Domitian's cult-statue of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus (cf. here Fig. 10).
To Appendix IV.c.1.) Final remarks on Appendix IV.b) and Appendix IV.c): Hadrian's efforts to legitimize his reign at the beginning of his principate, as expressed in the Anaglypha Hadriani ... belongs:
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 on the reworking of the portrait of Hadrian (now Constantine the Great).
To Appendix IV.c.2.) The Ogulnian monument ... and the she-wolf suckling Romulus and Remus on a headless cuirassed statue of a Flavian emperor (Domitian?) in the Vatican Museums (cf. here Fig. 6, right) and on Hadrian's cuirassed statue from Hierapydna at Istanbul ... belongs:
A Study on Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (cf. here Fig. 29).
In six cases, I have followed the views of earlier scholars, that have been contested in the meantime:
1.) Filippo Magi (1939; id. 1945) in believing that the emperor, represented on frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs (cf. here Fig. 2; Figs. 1 and 2 drawing: figures 14 and 12), was from the very beginning Vespasian, and that the togate youth, standing in front of him, his younger son Domitian;
2.) I have followed those scholars, who suggest that Flavius Sabinus and his men comprising Domitian, when taking refuge on the Capitoline Hill on 18th December AD 69, did not withdraw to the Arx, as has been suggested, but instead to the Capitolium, that is to say within the area Capitolina;
3.) Instead of believing that Domitian erected his obelisk (cf. here Fig. 28) in front of his Templum Gentis Flaviae, as has been suggested, I have followed those earlier scholars, who were of the opinion that Domitian commissioned his obelisk for the square between the Temples of Isis and Serapis in the Campus Martius (i.e., the Iseum Campense), both built anew by the emperor after the great fire of AD 80. Domitian's obelisk is on display on Gianlorenzo Bernini's famous Fountain of the Four Rivers in Piazza Navona at Rome;
4.) Mario Torelli (1987) in believing that Domitian's sestertius of AD 95/96 (cf. here Fig. 30) and the "Rilievo Terme Vaticano" (cf. here Fig. 31) represent the Templum Gentis Flaviae, built by Domitian;
5.) Cécile Evers (1991) in believing that the colossal acrolithic statue of Constantine the Great (cf. here Fig. 11) in the courtyard of the Palazzo dei Conservatori at Rome was reworked from a statue of Hadrian;
6.) T.P. Wiseman (1987-2022) and Amanda Claridge (1998; ead. 2010; ead. 2014) in believing that Octavian/ Augustus, although the owner of the "House of Augustus", did not live there, but, when this house was hit by lightning in 36 BC, erected the Temple of Apollo Palatinus on top of it, which was oriented towards the north-east; and that the (real) House of Augustus, the former House of Hortensius, stood at the site of Domitian's `Domus Flavia´/ Domus Augustana.
For a discussion of the Cancelleria Reliefs; cf. infra, at Chapters I.; II.; III.; IV.; V.; VI.; for summaries of my hypotheses concerning point 1.), cf. below, at Chapters V.1.d; V.1.h; V.1.h.1.); V.1.h.2); V.1.i.3.) VI.3; and at The major results of this book on Domitian.
My hypotheses concerning point 2.), Domitian's escape from the Capitolium on 19th December AD 69, are to be found below, in Chapter Preamble; Section III., at point 1.); infra, in volume 3-2, at Appendix I.; Appendix IV.
For my hypotheses concerning point 3.), Domitian's obelisk, which he erected at the Iseum Campense, for my hypotheses concerning Domitian's Iseum Campense, and concerning Domitian's Templum Gentis Flaviae; cf. below, in Chapters IV.1.; IV.1.1.a-f); IV.1.1.h); and V.1.i.3.a); infra, in volume 3-2, in Appendix I.g); Appendix I.g.1.); Appendix I.g.2.); Appendix I.g.3.); Appendix II.; Appendix III.; and in Appendix VI., at Sections II.; and XII.
For a discussion of point 4.), that the sestertius, issued by Domitian in AD 95/96, and the "Rilievo Terme Vaticano" represent the Templum Gentis Flaviae; cf. below, in Chapters IV.1.1.h); V.1.i.3.a); and infra, in volume 3-2, in Appendix I.g.3.); at Sections I.-IV.; in Appendix IV.c.1.); in Appendix IV.c.2.); and in Appendix VI.; at Sections II. and XII.
For a discussion of point 5.), that the colossal acrolithic statue of Constantine the Great in the courtyard of the Palazzo dei Conservatori at Rome was reworked from a statue of Hadrian; cf. below, 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 on the reworking of the portrait of Hadrian (now Constantine the Great); at Part I.; and infra, in volume 3-2, at Appendix IV.c.1.); and Appendix IV.c.2.).
For a discussion of point 6.), the "House of Augustus", the Temple of Apollo Palatinus, the House of Hortensius and the (real) House of Augustus; cf. infra, in volume 3-2, in Appendix V.; at Section IX; and in Appendix VI.; at Sections I.-XII.
On 4th December 2022, Franz Xaver Schütz and I have published an earlier version of this Chapter on our Webserver as a Preview for this Study on Domitian:
Online at: <https://FORTVNA-research.org/FORTVNA/FP3.html>.
Only after having finished writing my text on the Cancelleria Reliefs, did I come across the research of Rita Paris (1994b) on the Templum Gentis Flaviae. Her findings, especially those concerning the relief, representing Vespasian's adventus into Rome in AD 70 (cf. here Fig. 33), which she discusses in context with Frieze A and B of the Cancelleria Reliefs (cf. here Figs. 1; 2), support my overall hypothesis concerning those panels. I have added the Chapter V.1.i.3.a) to my text, in which Paris's research is presented.
Even later than that, on 31st August 2019, John Pollini was kind enough to send me his article on the so-called Nollekens Relief (2017b; cf. here Fig. 36) which, exactly like the relief Fig. 33 from the Templum Gentis Flaviae, shows great similarities with the Cancelleria Reliefs. I have, therefore, also added Chapter V.1.i.3.b), in which Pollini's discussions on both subjects are summarized. Pollini's analyses of the Nollekens Relief and of the Cancelleria Reliefs corroborate likewise the here developed view of the Cancelleria Reliefs.
I had just found in John Pollini's article (2017b, 124, with n. 118) the famous line by Augustus (RG 13): parta victoriis pax, translated by Pollini as: "peace through victory", when I received on 2nd November 2019 the manuscript of the article by Rose Mary Sheldon, which has appeared in the meantime (cf. ead., "Insurgency in Germany: The Slaughter of Varus in the Teutoburger Wald", 2020). In this article, Rose Mary has greatly expanded her earlier relevant observations; cf. Sheldon (2001).
Rose Mary Sheldon (2020) thus provided me with a classic example of what Augustus's doctrine `peace through victory´ in reality may have meant. P. Quinctilius Varus, "the commander of the Rhine army" (R.M. SHELDON 2020, 1011), was precisely one of those men, who was supposed to provide Augustus's subjects in the provinces with `peace through victory´. For Sheldon's (2020) and Pollini's (2017b) observations in detail; cf. infra, in volume 3-2, at Appendix IV.c.1.).
Sheldon (2020) describes the events that led to P. Quinctilius Varus' catastrophic defeat in the Teutoburger Wald in AD 9 and to the destruction of his entire army, the battle itself, which she assumes at Kalkriese, and its extraordinary historical impact. There, to regain their liberty, Arminius, his Cherusci and their allies, destroyed Varus's three Roman legions, and the many Roman civilians acompanying them, in the course of three days. 20,000 Romans soldiers and 10,000 civilians perished in the Teutoburger Wald, comprising one tenth of Augustus's entire thirty legions; cf. Sheldon (2020, 1014, 1018, 1025, 1030). Sheldon (2020, 1013, with n. 25, quoting Tacitus, Annals 2,88) writes about Arminius: "no doubt, the liberator of Germany".
To Arminius I will come back below (cf. at A Study on Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (cf. here Fig. 29); and infra, in volume 3-2, at Appendix IV.c.1.); Appendix IV.c.2.); and Appendix IV.d.2.d)). For the visit on 11th June 1999 of Rose Mary Sheldon, her husband Jeff Aubert, Franz Xaver Schütz and myself of the battle site at Kalkriese and the Varusschlacht-Museum; cf. infra, in volume 3-2, at Appendix IV.c.1.).
When this manuscript was about to be sent to the press, Franz Xaver Schütz alerted me to the following publication, some passages of which are quoted verbatim infra, in volume 3-2, at Appendix IV.c.1.):
ARCHAEOLOGIE-ONLINE.DE Metallurgischer Fingerabdruck weist Legion des Varus in Kalkriese nach. Neue wissenschaftliche Methode bestätigt Kalkriese als Ort der Varusschlacht. 21.11.2022. Online at: <https://www.archaeologie-online.de/nachrichten/metallurgischer-fingerabdruck-weist-legion-des-varus-in-Kalkriese-nach-5466/> [last visit: 15062023].
From this publication emerges that until recently, quite a few scholars have still doubted that the area at Kalkriese was indeed the theatre of "The Slaughter of Varus in the Teutoburger Wald", to borrow the title of Sheldon's (2020) article. Those scholars have suggested that the excavated archaeological finds at Kalkriese should instead be attributed to a military campaign, conducted by Germanicus six years later. As we have seen above, Sheldon (2020), on the contrary, had based her, in my opinion very convincing account, on the assumption that those remains, excavated at Kalkriese, may actually be attributed to Varus's famous defeat.
Excavated fragments of the equipment of the Roman soldiers, who were killed in the battle at Kalkriese, are on display in the Varusschlacht-Museum there. In this article in ARCHAEOLOGIEONLINE DE is described, how the metal of those finds has recently been analysed. The obtained results have not only been compared with those of all other contemporary Roman legions in the area, but, in addition to this, with finds from all those camps, where Varus's three legions had been stationed before AD 9. It could thus be proven beyond any doubt, that some of these items from Kalkriese had certainly been owned by soldiers of `Legio 19´, one of Varus's three legions, who perished `in the Teutoburger Wald´.
See below, at The first Contribution by Franz Xaver Schütz: Zur kartographischen Visualisierung historischer Landschaftselemente zwischen Rhein und Schwarzem Meer von Augustus bis Hadrian (cf. here Fig. 77).
The manuscript of Sheldon's article (2020) had reached me on 2nd November 2019 right in time to make me realize what it meant to the people in the Roman provinces, to be deprived of great parts of their income in form of taxes, because Augustus or later emperors, such as Domitian (or for example Vespasian, Trajan, Hadrian and Septimius Severus, whose relevant actions are also discussed in this Study), spent such enormous sums on their (building) projects.
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 infra, n. 228, in Chapter I.2.). Of course, Domitian's building policy has already been studied by many previous scholars. In the following, I, therefore, anticipate a conclusion, at which I have arrived below (cf. infra, at Chapter II.3.1.c)):
`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 the Cancelleria Reliefs can be defined. Contrary to all other scholars - the only exception being Wolfgang Kuhoff - I have concentrated in this Study on a comparison of the contents of Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs (cf. here Fig. 2; Figs. 1 and 2 drawing) with the contents of Domitian's obelisk, which the emperor erected at the Iseum Campense (cf. here Fig. 28): namely the contents of the representations on the pyramidion of this obelisk, as well as the contents of its hieroglyphic texts. And I happily confess that my research on this obelisk was only possible thanks to the generous support by the Egyptologist Emanuele M. Ciampini. To this I will come back below in a minute.
As I only realized after having conducted this research, a comparison between Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs and the hieroglyphic inscriptions of Domitian's obelisk has been drawn before by Wolfgang Kuhoff` (1993, 77 with n. 103, quoted verbatim in Chapter IV.1.), who mentions his findings in a footnote.
To attain this goal, two avenues of research have been pursued in this Study, at first was made a detailed analysis of the contents of Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs, and second, on the basis of this, a comparison of those contents with the contents of the representations on the pyramidion of Domitian's obelisk, as well as with the contents of its hieroglyphic texts, both of which have been analysed by Ciampini (2004; id. 2005. This article is quoted verbatim in its entirety; cf. infra, at Chapter IV.1.1.d.). See also The first Contribution by Emanuele M. Ciampini in this volume: La regalità domizianea: una nota egittologica.
As a result of this comparison, I suggest that exactly the same themes (as on Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs) are also formulated in the representations on the pyramidion and in the hieroglyphic texts of Domitian's obelisk.
The contents of Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs are hotly debated, and what I am presenting here is my own opinion.
For a summary of the relevant debate by other scholars; cf. infra, at Chapters I.1.; I.1.1.; VI.1.; and below, in Chapter The major results of this book on Domitian.
The contents of the representations on the pyramidion of Domitian's obelisk are likewise debated, but the hieroglyphic texts of Domitian's obelisk, on the contrary, have the great advantage that here Domitian's propaganda is formulated expressis verbis. See for both Ciampini (2004; id. 2005); cf. also infra, at Chapter IV.1.1.f)); and at The first Contribution by Emanuele M. Ciampini in this volume: La regalità domizianea: una nota egittologica), as well as my own comments on all those subjects (cf. infra, in Chapter Preamble: Domitian's negative image; at Section II. Conclusions: Domitian's representations of his military successes and his claims to be of divine descent and to possess a divine nature; at Section III. My own thoughts about Domitian; at Chapters IV.1; IV.1.1.a); IV.1.1.b); IV.1.1.c); IV.1.1.d); IV.1.1.f); VI.3.); and at The major results of this book on Domitian.
Whether or not I have been able to define correctly: 1.) the contents of Frieze B of the Cancelleria Reliefs; and 2.) the contents of the representations on the pyramidion of Domitian's obelisk, as well as of the hieroglyphic texts of Domitian's obelisk, can both only be judged by other scholars.
But one thing is clear. Egyptologists are certainly able to add many more insights to this complex subject, when studying in-depth the hieroglyphic texts on Domitian's obelisk - as well as other Egyptian texts that have been created at Rome in the Flavian period. On 28th October 2022, after this Chapter was written so far, reached me an E-mail by Emanuele M. Ciampini, who kindly informed me that the paper, prepared by himself and by the Egyptologist Federica Pancin, has been accepted for a Conference, which has the following title: The Damned Despot : Rethinking Domitian and the Flavian World", and was held at Rome from 18-21 January 2023. This Conference was organized by Antony Augoustakis, Emma Buckley, Nathalie de Haan, Eric Moormann, Maria Paola del Moro, Massimiliano Munzi, Claudio Parisi Presicce, Aurora Raimondi Cominesi, and Claire Stocks.
In their paper, Ciampini and Pancin have presented precisely that, the results of their current research on the Egyptian inscriptions, created at Rome in the Flavian period, comprising those on Domitian's obelisk. The title of the paper by Emanuele M. Ciampini and Federica Pancin is:
"`And may the land be prosperous in the time of the dynasty whose name is Flavii´. Thoughts on the Egyptian Domitian [my emphasis]". The first part of the title of their paper is, of course, a quote from Domitian's obelisk; cf. E.M. Ciampini (2004,159, H.7).
Assuming for the time being that my above-mentioned observations are correct, I have in this Study, concerning the "three fields of interest in Domitian's building policy", as defined by Gering (2012, 210-211): "personal grandeur, family memory and legitimization", concentrated on Domitian's aim of `legitimization´ - (so my first aim). These activities of Domitian can be compared in this Study with the relevant efforts reported for Augustus, Vespasian, Trajan, Hadrian and Septimius Severus. The summary will show (cf. infra, in volume 3-2, at Appendix IV.d) The summary of the research presented in Appendix IV. has led to a summary of Domitian's building projects at Rome) that also Gering's `other two fields of interest in Domitian's building policy : personal grandeur and family memory´, have in the end likewise been discussed in this book in detail. Again assuming for the time being that my relevant observations are correct, my answer to the above posed question - why Domitian felt the desperate need to build `in such a pharaonic manner´ - is therefore:
The extraordinary efforts that Domitian undertook served, exactly like the comparable ones in the case of Augustus, Vespasian, Trajan, 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 these emperors should duly be acknowledged by their subjects for these achievements, and, in addition to this, favourably remembered by posterity.
Rose Mary Sheldon (2020, 1011 with n. 12) succinctly defines the underlying conflict of the above-described situation from the perspective of those subjects in the Roman provinces, who had to pay the taxes, with which those emperors financed all these formidable activities: "Florus rightfully points out that it is easier to subdue a province than to retain one.
The simple truth is that no one likes being occupied [my emphasis]".
In her note 12, Sheldon writes: "Florus, Epitome of Roman History, 2.30.29 ...".
Datenschutzerklärung | Impressum