Victory of Propaganda: The dynastic aspect of the Imperial propaganda of the Severi: the literary and archaeological evidence AD 193-235 9780860548461, 9781407349664

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Table of Contents
Preface
Chapter 1: Introduction
A) Problems, Definition of Terms, Methodology, and Goals
B) The Continuity of Authority in the Roman Empire
Chapter 2
A) Septimius Serverus and the gens Aurelia
B) Did Severus Prepare a Political Base for HIs Adoption?
Chapter 3: Macrinus and the gens Aurelia
Chapter 4: Elagabalus and the gens Aurelia
Chapter 5: Epilogue: Severus Alexander and the Gens Aurelia
Conclusions
Appendix I
Appendix II
Notes
Abbreviation
Bibliography
List of Illustrations and Photographic Credits
Plates

Citation preview

BAR S657 1996  BAHARAL  VICTORY OF PROPAGANDA

Victory of Propaganda The dynastic aspect of the Imperial propaganda of the Severi: the literary and archaeological evidence AD 193-235

Drora Baharal

BAR International Series 657 9 780860 548461

B A R

1996

Victory of Propaganda The dynastic aspect of the Imperial propaganda of the Severi: the literary and archaeological evidence AD 193-235

Drora Baharal

BAR International Series 657 1996

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 657 Victory of Propaganda

© D Baharal and the Publisher 1996 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9780860548461 paperback ISBN 9781407349664 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9780860548461 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Tempvs Reparatvm in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd/ Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 1996. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

EMAIL

PHONE FAX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

7a ffl'/d«vzea~

tJle'tadS~

The Victory of Propaganda The Dynastic Aspect of the Severans' Imperial Propaganda The Literary and Archaeological Evidence (193-235 A.D.) Contents: Preface

vu

Chapter 1: Introduction

1

A) Problems, Definition of Terms, Methodology and Goals

1

B) The Continuity of Authority in the Roman Empire

9

Chapter 2:

20

A) Septimius Severus and the gens Aurelia

20

B) Did Severus Prepare a Political Base for his Adoption?

34

Chapter 3: Macrinus and the gens Aurelia

43

Chapter 4: Elagabalus and the gens Aurelia

52

Chapter 5: Epilogue: Severus Alexander and the gens Aurelia

64

Conclusions Appendix I: Caracalla and Alexander the Great: A Reappraisal

67 69

Appendix II: Septimius Severus and the Egyptian God Serapis

84

Notes

92

Abbreviations

105

Bibliography

106

List of Illustrations and Phtographic Credites

114

Plates I-XL VII

117

manage the affaires of the Empire with orderly continuity. The administration of an Empire of that size was no simple

PREFACE

matter even in normal times, and all the more difficult at times of war. No ruling party could have expected to survive for such a long time unless it enjoyed the full loyalty of the majority of the inhabitants. It is clear that it was not merely achievements on the battlefield which ensured the survival of the Severan dynasty on the throne.

This book is based on my doctoral dissertation which was submitted to Tel-Aviv University in 1992. The thesis won the 1996 award for the best degree thesis written on a Severan topic by the International Centre for Severan Studies, Albano Laziale, Rome.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that there was contact between the ruler in Rome and the inhabitants of the Empire, who comprised many different nations, spoke many languages and belonged to various cultures. We may assume as well that the Emperor succeeded in persuading the inhabitants of even the farthest provinces that his reign was to their advantage and that they accepted his reign willingly.

Prof. Z. Yavetz said (quotation from the newspaper "Yediot Aharonot'', 10.6.88), that "Every historian of the past must be a citizen of the present. If reading history does not bring modem parallels to a historian's mind then history has not been written properly". The reverse also holds: "If current events do not arouse ancient parallels in a historian's mind, then history has not been written properly". The particular period of history when the Severi arrived at a position of power in the Roman Empire is a period very similar to our own in that there are great population movements, economic problems, mixing and clashes of different cultures and linguistic pluralism.

The success of Septimius Severus' reign may be attributed to a well-developed system of political institutions which was accepted by the population. Every sensible statesman would not only have been aware of the importance of the art of persuasion (=propaganda) as part of this system, but would also have used it sensibly through the means at his disposal so that it would be an efficient tool in his hands. In other words, as great a part as possible of the different populations would be exposed to the propaganda; the ruler would know how to present it in a positive light so that it would assist in promoting the issues for which it was employed.

Today there is great awareness of the development of mass media - radio, television, press, etc., which increase the number of people exposed to propaganda. Political ideologies based on persuading the masses to support them are a fact of our daily lives. These ideologies have made propaganda into one of the major phenomena in our political lives.

This work deals generally with the methods of disseminating imperial propaganda during the period of the Severan dynasty, and concentrates specifically on the place of the imperial portrait among the various mass-communication media available to the Roman government, and the roles it was meant to play.

The concept of an 'image', development of a public image, and public relations, are part of a world ruled by modem communications. However, it transpires that the concept of an image is not the invention of our era of press and television; the fostering of a popular public image was of prime concern to Roman emperors, and they took steps to project such an image by means of coins, portraits, statues and public monuments.

The very first point to stress is the major importance of the dynastic principle as a primary factor in the legitimization of Roman emperors, especially the attitude of the Roman soldiers to such legitimization, which was based on dynastic loyalty. Since the days of Emperor Augustus and his heirs, the dynastic standing of each one of the Roman emperors was one of the most prominent features of the legitimacy of his candidature. The use of iconography - portraits, statues, reliefs, paintings and coins - was intended to serve as encouragement of the ideology which was the basis of Septimius Severus' assuming power in the year 193 A.D., and his holding it, through his heirs, until the year 235 A.D.

Although the modem term propaganda derives from the Latin verb propagare, meaning "to spread", it does not appear in classical Roman literature in the sense in which it is used today. Neveretheless, even if the concept propaganda in today's meaning of the word did not exist then, it does not mean that the phenomenon itself did not exist. A qiuck glance at the extraordinary success of a usurper who became a legitimate emperor, and managed to establish a dynasty which reiged for over forty years, will suffice to prove this point. We refer to the Emperor Septimius Severus (193-211 A.D.). The Empire over which Septimius Severus and his heirs reigned embraced practically the whole of the known inhabited world of ancient times.

The research starts with a period rife with civil wars and bloody struggles for the throne waged by politicians and military commanders, none of whom had any family connection with the emperor who preceded him. It continues with the period of the Severan dynasty, in effect a usurper's dynasty, totally lacking in any imperial lineage. During this period it was vital that the propaganda message be aborbed by all strata of the population so that the imperial claimant would gain their loyalty. There is a difference between a propaganda campaign aimed at soldiers in the field of battle,

There are not many periods in Roman history in which the leader of the world power held his position for such a long time, especially when it was usurper who became the first citizen (princeps), completely legally, and who learned to VII

the purpose of which is to achieve immediate results quickly and efficiently, and one meant to immortalize the emperor's image as an ideal ruler.

of the whole Empire, who were particularly sensitive to the question of dynasty, and established a dynasty which did not just obtain official sanction, but held power for forty two years.

The development of the dynastic problem and the attempts to come up with a reasonable solution during the forty two years of the Severan dynasty are presented.

Septimius Severus' success in creating the dynastic fiction which justified his claim to the throne was astounding. He was accepted not only by his soldiers, but also all over the Empire. Severus was universally hailed as the son of Marcus Aurelius, and was regarded as the heir of the divine imperial dynasty rather than the founder of a new one.

The solution adopted by Septimius Severus, the first emperor of this dynasty, was to create a fictitious dynasty. He declared himself "the son of Marcus Aurelius", thereby also adopting the whole of that emperor's pedigree.

There were apparently a number of factors which prevented the dynastic fiction of Septimius Severus from failing due to its improbablity, turning it into a resounding success:

This was the most unreasonable and illogical idea that one could assume since Marcus Aurelius had already been dead for fifteen years when the adoption was declared. There is no evidence that Marus Aurelius actually did adopt Severus while he was alive, apart from which Marcus did have a son, Commodus, who reigned over the Roman Empire for twelve years after his father's death. Modem scholars refer to Septimius Severus' announcement of his adoption as "the fictitious adoption".

The preparation of a sound basis, Severus' understanding of the propaganda weapon, and his grasp of the way of thinking of the public to whom he was addressing his message. In the parlance of modem terminology, Severus had an excellent grasp of mass psychology. Apparently the appropriate timing, the sophisticated presentation of the information, the sensible utilization and correct choice of mass media available to Severus, as well as his understanding of the feeling and attitudes of the people to whom he was addressing his message, were the ingredients which made up his success. Reverting to modem terminology, Severus knew how to sell himself to his target public through the mass media via a well-planned and balanced advertising campaign.

It is worth noting that Marcus Aurelius was considered a good emperor even by his contemporaries, popular with all the inhabitants of the Roman Empire, and the period of his rule is called "The Golden Age" in ancient historical sources. From this time until the end of the period, this dynastic principle is expressed in an intersting way by emperors who had no connection with the Severans, or who were quite distant relatives who achieved power only by use of a propaganda message which concentrated on the family connection.

We can see the extent to which Severus understood the workings of mass persuasion. The propaganda channels he chose, and the visual means, i.e., protraits which he used to reach the populations at which his propaganda message was directed even at the beginning of his campaign, proved to be a wise choice and clever exploitation of the mass media common in imperial Rome.

For the first time in Roman imperial history, the claimant to the throne justified his right to it by claiming a family connection to the previous rulers. (Twice previously in Roman imperial history had a new dynasty taken power after a violent struggle or the murder of the emperor, but the new rulers in those cases felt no need to link themselves to their predecessors: they were Vespasian in 69 A.D., and Nerva in 96 A.D.)

This work contains new ideas on the scientific presentation and analysis of all types of evidence relating to the Severan period, especially on the central role played by the imperial portrait in imperial propaganda. The main contribution of this research is to improve our understanding of imperial propaganda, and the successful combination of the study of imperial portraits with information gathered from other sources.

For the first time in Roman imperial history, the portraits of the emperors played a central role in disseminating a propaganda message which concentrated on the dynastic aspect of their reign. The Severan rulers, who originated in distant lands of the Roman Empire, are shown in their portraits as very similar in appearance to a group of legitimate emperors from a very different family.

My guiding principle throughout this study has been the dynastic message of Severan imperial propaganda and its reflection in a variety of sources, particularly the imperial portrait, which serve to help us learn about this dynasty.

Moreover, right at the beginning of the power struggle after the murder of Commodus, it seemed that Septimius Severus was the contender with the least chance of winning the throne. Not only did he lacke any dynastic connection but he also lacked the support of the Roman Senate, the Roman people and the army (excluding his own soldiers). Nevertheless, he managed to calm Senate opinion and satisfy the army, the bulk of the people in Rome, and the inhabitants

However, I believe the contribution of this study to be greater than this, as any clarification regarding the Severan Dynasty may throw light on the Roman Empire. It has already been established that propaganda in general existed throughout the period of the Roman Empire; one may assume that the mechanism of propaganda

viii

dissemination was not discovered or created on the day in 193 when Septimius Severus was declared emperor, but had already existed for dozens of years.

My gratitude to all mentioned above can hardly be described in words. To all of them, and to any others I may have overlooked, my thanks.

Thus, understanding the mechanism of Severan imperial propaganda and its nature not only constitutes part of an effort to reconstruct a period not easily studied by means of available sources, but can also help us understand the mechanism of propaganda in general throughout the history of the Roman Empire.

*

*

Drora Baharal

*

The assistance of many people has enabled me to undertake this study and this is the place to thank them. My first debt of thanks is to my mentors and my supervisors, Prof. Israel Roll and Prof. Zeev Rubin, for their guidance and helpful criticism. I need, however, to stress that the interpretations offered here and responsibility for errors remain my own. My warmest thanks are due to The Open University of Israel which encouraged this research, and Mr. Issachar Goldrath, Director of Friends of The Open University, for the scholarship. Their help made the publication of this book possible. Work of this kind is only made possible by v1s1tmg the greatest European museums. I am very grateful to The Glyptothek Munchen, The Musee du Louvre Paris, The British Museum London and The Galleria degli Uffizi Firenze, for having liberally allowed me access to and use of their treasures, archives and objects not on display. Likewise, I would like to express my gratitude to The German Institute of Archaeology at Rome, for their hospitality and for having made my stay at Rome so pleasant. It is my pleasant task to thank Prof. Israel Or-Bach of BarBan University and Yonathan Schur for their firm and helpful encouragement. My thanks are also due to Mr. Alan Hercberg for helping with the translating; Mrs. Dana Har-Gil - with the editing; Mr. Yoram Wienberg, the devoted photographer, and Mrs. Bat-Chen Furst who helped me with the "mysteries" of Microsoft-Word. My greatest debt, however, must be to Tempus Reparatum for undertaking the publication of this scholarly work in the BAR International Series. Finally, I owe much to all my good friends at The Open University as well as at home, especially to my two sons, Ofer and Shachar, for their support and patience at various stages in the preparation of this study.

IX

Chapter 1: Introduction A)

Problems, Definition of Terms, Methodology, and Goals

"Propaganda outweighed arms in the contests of the Triumviral period", declared Sir R. Syme, in The Organization of Opinion, The Roman Revolution, 1939, p. 460. This statement points to the increasing tendency of modem research to agree that propaganda in ancient times was an essential tool both for a claimant to the throne and for its current occupant. Some researchers go further, and claim that the traditional means by which the Roman emperors spread propaganda also ensured its effectiveness 1• Before examining this subject, however, we must first define propaganda and explain its purpose and the means by which it was spread. We may then examine the basis on which we presume a certain idea to bear a political propaganda message. Although the modem term propaganda comes from the Latin verb propagare, meaning "to distribute", propaganda (propagare in its gerundivu pro gerundio form), did not have the same meaning in classical Roman literature as it does today (Sordi, 1975-76, esp. 3-11, 131-159, 252270).

Such finds may also bring new facts to light which differ from the historical picture presented by the literary sources, thus changing the generally accepted view of a particular period, a historical figure, or any other aspect of the period's history. Nonetheless, in the absence of proper literary sources, any topic presented in the visual media or in archaeological evidence must be intelligible, unambiguous, and clearly identifiable if it is to be accepted as proof, the missing link in written evidence. On the other hand, the literary evidence may appear perfectly clear and unambiguous, but the visual media or other archaeological finds may introduce an element of doubt. Thus we see that imperial propaganda, as derived from an analysis of ancient literary sources, and the methods by which such propaganda was spread throughout the Roman Empire, as reflected in archaeological finds, are actually two sides of the same coin. Therefore, when examining a concept which appears to be a subject of propaganda in ancient times, one must first ask the following: 1. What is the basis for deciding that a particular concept bore a political propaganda message? 2. What means could serve the Roman government spreading its propaganda?

m

There is no simple answer to these questions. Even though the concept of propaganda in this sense did not exist, it is possible that the function itself existed. If this is true, it is a difficult premise to investigate because of the nature of sources available on the history of the Roman Empire in general, and the reign of the Severan dynasty in particular. This presents us with a problem. On the one hand, ancient literary sources, without which it is impossible to understand the execution and motives of policy, do not explicitly mention the subject of imperial propaganda. On the other hand, archaeological evidence, including coinage, dedication inscriptions, works of art, various symbols in the plastic arts and other expressions in the visual media are not specifically defined as elements of propaganda or the means of its dissemination. Yet, one can find real clues to the subject of imperial propaganda by a careful analysis of factual descriptions of the political events described in literary sources. In addition, a clear reflection of these events on coins and in various legends, as well as their visual expression in the plastic arts, can verify the quality and nature of imperial propaganda, and suggest the means used to spread it. Generally speaking, when the existence in literary sources of a subject related to imperial propaganda has been proved in literary sources, one finds clear numismatic, epigraphic and visual reflections of it as well. On occasion, aspects which are unclear in the literary sources can be explained with the help of archaeological finds.

We must first define the term "propaganda", clarify its purpose, and examine the methods used to disseminate it. Political propaganda is a relatively new area of modem research. Basic questions concerning the definition of political propaganda today, its spheres of activity, influence, and means of distribution have become the subject of interdisciplinary research in recent years, occupying scholars from many fields such as linguistics, semiotics, literature, political science, sociology and social psychology. These scholars bring with them a variety of research methods: experimental and analytical, quantitative and qualitative. Nevertheless, propaganda of all kinds, especially political propaganda, has been part of history from ancient times. Both Aristotle in his Rhetorica, and Cicero in his De Oratore, noted three important factors: the speaker's character, the content of his words and the nature of his audience. The Commentariolum Petitionis attributed to Q. Cicero, offers advice to his brother Marcus on how to win votes for election as consul; the verb "to be seen" (videri) appears frequently, which is, in modem methodical research terminology, the means of persuading the target group.

The Encyclopedia Britannica, 1972, The Oxford English Dictionary, 1989, as well as modem research 2 define the modem term propaganda as "an organized scheme for propagation of a doctrine or practice, with the aid of mass

media, particularly for reasons of personal interest, in order to introduce a specific tendency, or in order to cause a specific reaction". The purpose of propaganda therefore, is "to direct a person's thoughts to subjective channels decided upon by the person using it".

necessary conditions for the existence of propaganda, but also highly interdependent3. The Romans did not have the means for disseminating propaganda available today. Nevertheless, the centralized Roman government was successful in creating an apparatus suitable for the spread of ideas in general, and the political programs of rulers in particular.

According to this definition, political propaganda was used as early as the fifth century BCE in the Greek city-states. In Athens, Pericles spoke, and the people listened and were persuaded. Thus Greek and Roman rhetoric was no more than a conscious attempt to mould or change people's way of thinking and behaviour, and as such, is not greatly different from modem propaganda.

Modem research on propaganda of the ancient word points to various ways of determining which ideas bore a propaganda message, and explains how the Roman government spread its propaganda. Until now, however, no decisive evidence has been found in ancient literary sources or archaeological finds proving either that a certain idea bore a propaganda message, and if it did, how it was disseminated. These are reflected only indirectly in the sources available on the history of the Roman Empire. Hence, most assumptions and conclusions made by scholars are of a hypothetical nature, based on analogies with modem means of communication and channels of present-day propaganda.

Today the main channels through which propaganda is meant to mould a person's way of thinking are the press, radio and television. Other forms of communication include advertisement, posters, personal gifts, etc. By these means the propagandist tries to ensure the exposure of a large proportion of the target population to the propaganda with decisive and effective results. Modem research has proved that the more a message is repeated, the more effective it is. We know that visual art has a psychological and social effect. The more convincing the visual message, the greater the chance that it will hold the attention of more people, influencing their point of view. In many instances, people who had been repeatedly exposed to a visual stimulation began to like it. Frequent exposure to the picture, and its ensuing familiarity, caused them come to like what they had seen.

Some scholars maintain that much may be learned about the nature of imperial propaganda from various Greek and Roman literary works such as autobiographies, biographies and historiographic sources, songs of praise to the emperor or anti-imperial libels. According to Syme (ibid.), however, "Poetry and historiographs are meant to influence the upper and middle strata of Roman society," so that it is reasonable to assume that literature and poetry were part of the cultural infrastructure of these classes. Prof. Yavetz (1992, 203) says that "the influence of these writings is indirect, as their contents were spread by the literate, and so one should not belittle the importance of written propaganda". Whether or not we accept this view, we must distinguish between the messages of imperial propaganda itself and flattery or censure expressed in the literary sources 4 •

Yet frequency in itself is not enough to create strong ties and attraction; the original opinion of the targeted person as regards the picture or image is also important. An attraction to the picture or image is stronger when the original evaluation is a positive or neutral one. In other words, the degree of sophistication of the message's presentation, and the choice of the appropriate medium at suitable times and frequencies, are of prime importance for the message to be absorbed and to be influential. Knowledge of the sensitivities of the target audience and of their opinions regarding the message one wants to put across, helps plan the message in such a way that it is influential and persuasive.

Some scholars are of the opinion that the rumours spread by word-of-mouth were a means of disseminating propaganda. Prof. Yavetz (1971, 160-164; 1966, 162-163; 1983, 202-209, 221-224; also Taylor, 1949, 140-157). claims that "In the days of the early principate, spreading rumours was a major political weapon, and basic information about rumours comes from contemporary sources". Prof. Z. Rubin (1980, 913) has prove recently that one of the channels used for propaganda during the period following the murders of Commodus and Caracalla was the spread of rumours, especially during the civil war. Prof. Rubin bases his claim on material found primarily in literary sources.

Thus, a propaganda campaign depends on the desire of the propagandist, or initiator, to project a particular message to a certain target audience with a specific purpose. The message, whether verbal (explicit or implicit) or visual, contains accepted symbols which the propagandist assumes are recognized by the target audience. If the initiator uses unfamiliar symbols, the target audience will not understand them and will not absorb the message the propagandist intended to convey. In other words, there is no communication between them. In addition, a medium is required to convey the message.

There is broad agreement in modem research that archaeological finds, in addition to being a field for research in themselves, are also a source of information and evidence which complements the written sources5.

In summary, there are six elements involved in the process of propaganda: the initiator, audience, medium, symbols or words, message and purpose. These elements are not only

The many inscriptions circulating throughout the Empire, especially those perpetuating imperial documents, and public monuments such as triumphal arches erected in public places 2

(specifically those erected at the decision of the central Roman government), acted as a means of conveying imperial messages; there is a tendency in modem research to view them as reflecting certain aspects of imperial propaganda.

One of the claims concerning coins, medallions, gems and public monuments as propaganda media is that they were merely a secondary reflection of imperial propaganda; the initial and direct approach would have been made by other means, whereas they served only to emphasize and support the message.

Coins, which constituted the basic form of payment in the Roman Empire, medallions and carved gems (which served mainly as personal gifts), were also used as mass media, publicizing slogans of the imperial government or official announcements. The abundance of Roman coins, medallions and gems, as well as the range of images stamped on them, testify to their wide circulation during the Roman period, especially during the heyday of the Roman Empire. The British Museum catalogue alone contains some 8,000 types of Roman coins minted during a 95-year period, most of them minted by the emperors from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius in the city ofRome 6 •

Another question raised by modern scholars is that if coins, medallions, etc. were indeed used to spread imperial message? did the emperor himself assume responsibility for the iconographic content or the inscriptions appearing in these media, either directly or through his close associates, and if so, to what extent, especially during a period of civil war? These, then, are some of the means by which modern research can be used to determine whether a specific concept bears a propaganda message, and which methods were used by the government in Rome during the reign of Emperor Septimius Severus and his heirs as part of the political apparatus to spread propaganda.

An image or portrait of the emperor or of a member of his family is usually found on the obverse of coins and medallions of the Roman Empire. Most of these coins and medallions also contain an identifying caption. The reverse contains simple, clear symbols accompanied by short inscriptions marking the occasion for which the coins or medallions were issued.

Even if we assume that the emperor or his close associates were able to ensure the correct execution of the inscriptions, the listing of the emperor's attributes and the various symbols in the workshops of Rome, to what extent were they able to control activity in all the workshops throughout the . ?8 emp1re.

Some researchers are of the opinion that during the period of the Empire, the reverse of the coin or medallion was more important than the obverse from the point of view of the style. Charleswoth (I 93 7), for instance, compares the use of Roman imperial coins to spread imperial messages with the current use of the press or advertisements. He claims that coinage could serve as official newspapers for provinces both near and far. In his opinion, the short legend on a coin could tell a whole story, while the picture which usually appeared on the reverse could be directed towards the illiterate. This assumption has been accepted by modem research, which examines Roman coins and medallions as a medium for propaganda 7.

The main subject of this study deals with the role of the imperial portrait in disseminating propaganda, and the functions it fulfilled. Before we examine this, however, we must first define the term "portrait". The art of portraiture includes two major types of portraits: the first type of "portrait" (imago in Latin and EtKrov in Greek 9) is the representation of the likeness of a person, mainly his face, expressed in an artistic, visual medium, while the second type is the "official portrait". In its widest sense, a representational portrait can be an unspecified representation of anyone, but in most cases it entails the drawing of a particular person's features, or of special individual traits of the subject as the artist sees them, resulting in a true-to-life picture of the person.

Jones (1956), however, doubts the validity of the claim that coins were used to spread propaganda, and compares the ancient use of coins with the today's use of postage stamps. We see, therefore, that the written word and visual means were used to convey propaganda messages in both ancient and modem eras.

Thus the portrait as an artistic creation reflects a particular model. In this sense it is not only an artistic creation per se, but also a depiction intended to convey information about the features of the subject, or his general appearance. There are those who regard a portrait as a visual document conveying information regarding visual aspects about the subject at a particular time.

The question arises, did the c1t1zens of the Empire understand the language and iconographic content of these media, and if so, to what extent? Some scholars maintain that these media could only reflect the official view of the Roman government. Jones (1956), for example, goes even further regarding the mentality of government clerks, particularly the lower grade clerks. Others claim that while we do not understand the significance of these symbols today, they were clear to the Romans and residents of the Empire, as they were both identifiable and familiar.

It should be noted that today, the Greek concept of an icon has been extended to mean a specific symbol - linguistic, graphic or vocal - which bears some similarity to a quality expressed by it.

3

In other words, any symbol which indicates a quality similar to the characteristic shown, is based on the traditional values of a particular culture.

uses the portrait to try to publicize a particular image, by which not only his present public but also future generations, may recognize and remember him. The official portrait may stress certain details, may hide others, may add and even distort certain characteristics, according to the demands of the client who commissioned it12 •

Generally, the use of a certain sign implies a measure of consensus, at least between the instigator and the target audience. If the sign is easily and quickly understood, it is considered "clear". In other words, it requires relatively little interpretation or involvement on the part of the recipient. This does not necessarily mean that a clear symbol is likely to arouse strong feelings of admiration, identification or excitement in the target. For example, a life-like picture which "photographs" reality qualifies as a clear sign, and may certainly arouse excitement or admiration in the viewer. The degree of codification (i.e., the transmission of information in code via a sign) may well change in the course of time. A sign which was at first unclear will most likely become understood and familiar after its use has become common and vice versa - a sign will become unrecognizable by at least part of society (McLuhan, 1971, esp. 21-42).

During the period of Roman Empire, official art was, in effect, imperial art, and the official portrait was normally the portrait of the emperor or members of his family. The term "imperial portrait" is used more commonly in the literature of modem research. The art of portraiture in general, and of imperial portraits in particular, is the outstanding achievement of Roman art. Archaeological finds indicate that the imperial portrait as a representative of the imperial imperium, and as a reflection of the official appearance of the ruler, existed during the period of the Roman Empire as a cliche of diverse meanings. The mechanism of the production of imperial portraits and distributing them throughout the Empire is not really clear, as the literary sources available to us provide very little information on this topic. To learn about this procedure we must tum to the portraits themselves. Archaeological finds indicate the existence of an enormous number of imperial portraits in every visual medium, which were produced and distributed throughout the Empire and during the entire history of Rome.

The representation of a person or his face is one of the constant themes throughout the history of art. Although the concept of the portrait has varied according to its role and purpose in various cultures and in different periods, maintaining a resemblance, bearing in mind the viewer's ability to identify the subject, was important, and was universal in all periods and in all cultures.

It is a general accepted hypothesis in the field of archaeological research that the emphasis in Roman portraits in general, and imperial portraits in particular, is placed on realism, preserving the characteristic features of the portrait's subject, i.e., a realistic depiction in the sense of a photographic approach.

The second type of art portraiture, the "official portrait", is one of the branches of official visual art. Official art is defined as works of art ordered by any governmental authority public body or private factor (henceforth "the client"), the main purpose of which is to convey specific information through a visual expression aimed at a broad . IO pu bl IC .

Thus, great similarity has been found between the imperial portraits of each emperor's reign, found in Rome or its surroundings, and portraits of the same emperor found in provinces adjacent to or distant from the capital. The similarity is not just in the facial features, but in the design of every curl of the hair or beard, or in the hairstyle of his family members.

The client wants to draw the viewer's attention to a particular message, or to convey information by means of certain formative individual symbols or a system of associations, accepted and recognized by both the artist who creates them and the public for whom they are created 11. What is special about the likenesses presented in this art form is that they are not merely visual, but also have a meaningful content or purpose. In using visual symbols, the client wants not only to direct the viewer's thoughts to a particular topic, but to let the viewer know that this was the client's objective as well.

It may be assumed that the great number of imperial portraits produced in every visual medium, and distributed throughout the empire during any one emperor's reign is evidence that the Roman emperors regarded the immortalization and circulation of their features as an important factor in the glorification of their reputations not only during their lifetime but afterwards as well; they took steps to ensure that their features would be familiar to every citizen and resident of the Empire in generations to come 13.

An official portrait is usually one of a ruler or public figure, officially ordered for various purposes. In most cases it is a portrait in which a likeness of the subject or his face appears, in a symbolic or characteristic manner, cloaked in the symbols of his office; the goal is to publicize the official appearance of the ruler according to the client's requirements. At least some of the special aspects or individual features of the subject must be conveyed in an official portrait, according to the client's demands. The ruler

Today, a major concern of politicians is the fostering of a public image in each of the mass media - the press, television, etc. Public relations are no less important than actions themselves. As has been said on more than one

4

occasion, there is no such thing as a bad politician, only bad public relations (Halperin, 1986, 13)14•

In the field of research which compares literary sources and archaeological finds relating to the goals of and means used for imperial propaganda during the Severan Dynasty, modem research is unsatisfactory. In particular, there is a lack of discussion on the topic of the imperial portrait, as a propaganda medium during this period in its own right.

The concept of image, however, is not the invention of the mass media era. According to Prof. Yavetz (1971, 131; 1983, 214-277; 1992 199-207. Also Taylor, 1949, 140-157) and other scholars 15, fostering an image was no insignificant matter in ancient Rome. The creation of an image was of the highest priority to Roman political leaders, and they made a point of using inscriptions, particularly on coins, to publicize it. One need only look at Cicero's Pro Plancio speech, and his above mentioned essay De Oratore, as well as the Commentariolum Petitionis on how to win votes attributed to Quintus Cicero, to learn not only about the Roman's awareness of the use of sound and movement in persuasion, but also the degree of importance to which Roman politicians attributed to their image in the eyes of the public at large.

On the one hand, archaeologists and art historians who specialize in unearthing finds, identifying them, dating them, and analyzing their style, while not ignoring the literary sources of this and later periods, hardly considered detailed and precise analysis of these sources important. On the other hand, historians whose archaeological-artistic trammg is usually minimal, while not ignoring archaeological evidence, occupied themselves primarily with analyzing the writings of ancient Roman essayists. Nevertheless, it seems that the link between political history and art history can help us understand the methods of propaganda used during the Severan Dynasty, and see the imperial portrait as art adopted for propaganda purposes, by examining the mechanism of spreading propaganda during this period, and the objective it was intended to achieve.

The art of imperial portraiture has always been a focal point for art historians and archaeologists. There are many iconographic problems encountered in studying Roman imperial portraits, a major one being the identification of the different imperial portraits discovered throughout the Roman Empire. Identification is generally carried out by means of comparison with coin portraits, as Roman imperial coins are still the only medium preserving the individual likeness of the emperor portrayed; in almost in every case, they carry an identifying inscription.

Did the Roman emperor, especially during the Severan Dynasty, have to take public opinion into account? Did the emperor, when ordering his portrait, have an interest in creating a recognized public image which would win him the support of the army, the masses, the Roman senate and people throughout the Empire?

There has been an increase in recently research into imperial portraits of the late second century and the first third of the third century. Because the period in question was characterized by political and social upheaval, creating difficulties in the study of art history, most discussions of it concentrated on identifying imperial portraits, dating them, analyzing their sty le and classifying the type of portrait. As a result, identification of each emperor in this period became an area ofresearch in itself.

Was the imperial portrait affected by special requirements which the emperor himself, or his representatives, demanded, and if so, to what extent? What was the role of the imperial portrait in creating the emperor's image, what message was it meant to convey, what functions was it supposed to serve, and at whom was it directed?

Some aspects of the subject of imperial propaganda were discussed in special research projects related to different types of portrait. The role of official art as a visual expression of propaganda messages during the Roman Empire has also recently become a topic of research. These, however, are comprehensive, cross-sectional research studies which discuss Roman art in general, or specific aspects of it, and they rely mainly on archaeological finds 16 •

A careful examination of the portraits of the emperor Septimius Severus (193-211), for example, reveals clear similarities, both iconographic and stylistic, to portraits of the emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus ( 161-180), in every visual medium. Is this similarity between their portraits coincidental, or was there a guiding hand behind this visual expression? Can an explanation for this phenomenon be found in contemporary or later written sources? 18

The life and reign of each emperor during the Severan Dynasty has also become the subject of comprehensive essays and special articles recently. However, because of the nature of the ancient literary sources available on this period, discussions on Severan Dynasty history concentrate first and foremost on an analysis and careful examination of the quality of these sources, which raise a number of difficulties 17.

These are among the central questions in the study of Roman imperial portraiture as a propaganda medium during the Severan Dynasty which this study attempts to answer, using literary, numismatic, epigraphic and iconographic sources. Because of the nature of the subject, we have classified the sources available on the reign of each of the Severan emperors to be discussed herein, and the method of using these sources. 5

The sources relating to this period, as in all ancient periods, can be divided into two categories. The first includes the literary sources, which can also be divided into two groups:

dealing with the events after the year 180, less than two have survived in their original form: book number 78 and part of book number 79 (or 79 and part of 80), which cover the years 217 to 229. They are incomplete, however, describing the reign of Septimius Severus and his son Caracalla during the years 193 to 217, while books 74 to 77 (or 75 to 78) are known to us primarily through the Epitome of books 36 to 80, compiled by Xiphilinus in the eleventh century.

1. Contemporary sources. There are two major historical accounts covering the period until the end of the second century AD, and the first quarter of the third century: Roman History by Cassius Dio Cocceianus, and The History of the Post-Marcus Period (referring to Marcus Aurelius) by Herodian.

Xiphilinus' summary is not a reliable precis of Dio's words, but rather a selection taken from his "History". A large section of Dio's original works has disappeared without trace. On the other hand, Xiphilinus simply copied long sections word for word, thus rendering his summary a very valuable source regarding Dio's History.

2. Sources written some hundred years after the Severan Dynasty. One of these is the Scriptores Historiae Augustae (henceforth SHA), or, as scholars prefer to call it today, Historia Augusta (HA), which dates from the second half of the fourth century.

Moreover, details have been preserved which testify to Dio's standing during the Severan Dynasty, and to his relationship with its emperors. Apparently Dio too was aware that a historian of his status, especially when writing about his own times, could be affected by both his social standing and official propaganda, and he warns his readers that not everything he writes should be taken as gospel [53.19.1-6].

Apart from HA there are several other short treatises dating from the same period, the most important of which are: the Liber de Caesaribus by Aurelius Victor; the Breviarium ab Urbe Condita by Eutropius; and the Epitome de Caesaribus, whose author is unknown.

Although he did not personally witness all the events he describes, especially those which took place outside Rome, he nevertheless had access to official documents and to the emperor's reports to the senate. It should also be mentioned that an analysis of Dio's "History", and his relationship with each of the Severan emperors, will be dealt with in a separate discussion. We should, however, mention here that modem research holds that Dio's relationship with Septimius Severus, and with his government, was quite antagonistic, and was negative as regards Caracalla, Macrinus and Elagabalus 21•

The various types of archaeological find related to the reign of the Severan Dynasty belong to the second category. In this study we will refer to numismatic, epigraphic, papyrological and iconographic evidence. Regarding literary sources, it is generally accepted that the closer the source is in time to the events it describes, the more creditable it is. Later sources themselves use contemporary sources. Sources written at the time of the events, however, were exposed to the influences of the period, as well as the sensitivities of the writer, sometimes resulting in distortion or the destruction of evidence. As a result, a contemporary source is not necessarily more reliable than a later one. On occasion a later source may be preferable to a biased contemporary source, despite the fact that it may include misunderstandings or errors.

Herodian, a younger contemporary of Cassius Dio, wrote his eight volume "Roman History" on the period following Marcus up to the year 238, when Gordianus III took the throne. Herodian' text is the only source of that period to have survived intact. Although he claims to have been an eye witness to the events about which he writes, it is almost certain that he wrote only after the year 238; he most likely wrote his "History" after Philip the Arabian's reign (244249).

Another important aspect regarding the question of credibility of contemporary sources is the social status of Dio and Herodian, and their relationships with the persons and events they describe. The question of whether their writing was influenced by the extent of their proximity to the emperor or the center of events should be examined. A characterization of each of the writers will enable an assessment of the quality of information in their writings to be made; it will also allow us to determine the scales of value in differentiating between fact, flattery or denunciation. Due to the nature of the literary sources of this period, the degree of credibility of their information is a serious question 19•

Thus, in a literal sense, Herodian's "History" scarcely merits being considered contemporary history; apart from relying on his memory, he would have had to rely on other written sources as well. As there is a problem in identifying the sources of his information, and as in only one place does he explicitly mention Severus' autobiography [2.9.4] as one of his sources, it is generally accepted that as a contemporary historian, his contribution to the understanding of this period is rather modest. It should also be pointed out that his analyses of events which he describes, and his relationship with each of the emperors under discussion, is very similar to that of Dio. We will simply observe here that his attitude towards all these emperors was negative and antagonistic 22 .

Dio's "Roman History" is, as its name implies, a history of Rome from its establishment until the days of Dio's second consulate in 229. It was written in Greek in 79 volumes (80 according to Boissevain's division 20 ). Of the 8 volumes 6

Our analysis of contemporary written sources will concentrate on two basic questions: the first relates to the quality of the information in them; the second is what are the guidelines as to the topics of Severan imperial propaganda, the means of its dissemination, and its target population?

not, require Greek sources?24 Another question relates to his use of Latin sources. Although scholars agree that he apparently used an early third century Latin source or sources, the source or sources are subject to debate. Some are of the opinion that it was written by the imperial biographer Marius Maximus during the rule of Severus Alexander, while others claim that the author is an unknown biographer (lgnotus), who wrote soon after the death of Caracalla 25 .

The nature of the later source, Historia Augusta, is especially relevant to our purpose. The HA is a collection of biographies of the emperors and their co-rulers who did not succeed them, and of usurpers, from the year 117 to 284, from Hadrian to Numirianus.

It is not our intention to attempt a summary of the extensive research written on the HA, nor to discuss all the problems regarding this source, still subject to debate; it is also impossible to cite references by everyone who has dealt with these problems or referred to them. Because the discussion in this study deals with the early section of the HA, which has preserved valuable historical information in the Main Biographies, attention will be paid to separating the wheat from the chaff. References to that work will be made in light of the reservations arising from the fact that it is a source subject to debate; the discussion will deal only with problems directly related to the period of the Severan dynasty26 •

The literary style of these biographies matches that of the classical biographies which followed the Twelve Emperors of Suetonius. Scholars today agree that the HA group of biographies can be divided into two main groups: The earlier portion, from Hadrian to Caracalla, with some scholars of the opinion that Elagabalus' biography should also be included, but not that of his predecessor Macrinus; and the later portion, which describes the period from the year 235 to 284. The earlier part itself, however should be treated as two separate groups: The first, encompassing the biographies of the group's first nine emperors, from Hadrian to Caracalla, and those of Lucius Verus and Elagabalus, who, it has recently been proved, also belong to this group. This group is usually called the "Good Biographies", or the "Main" ones. Although not entirely free of falsehoods or fiction, the wntmg also contains accurate historical details. Nevertheless, these biographies are credible only as long as they are closely linked to a reliable historical source. The biography of Severus Alexander is accepted by researchers as one of the most questionable in the group, in spite of being the longest.

Other later sources, though both concise and general, and though written long after the death of the last Severan emperor, do contain accurate information. Moreover, one should not dismiss the information from these later sources, as they preserve various traditions. Nevertheless, one must take into account the great distance in time from the period they describe; it is certain they drew their information from earlier written sources 27 . Therefore, a critique of these lost sources - known to us only through later texts - is vital in assess in the degree of their credibility.

The second group includes all the other biographies of the earlier part of the HA, i.e., of secondary emperors and usurpers, commonly called the "Secondary Biographies" (or in German, "Nebenviten"). Although, also for the most part, these later biographies lack any historical value, they sometimes contain precise historical information.

Aurelius Victor, like Septimius Severus, was born in North Africa. Although his father was uneducated, he himself integrated successfully into the aristocracy of the later Roman Empire. Victor's survey, Liber de Caesaribus, is a collection of short biographies of Roman emperors from Augustus to Constantine, published around the year 360.

The HA, according to Syme (1971 b, 1, 9, 92-95) and other scholars23 , is the most mysterious surviving literary creation of ancient times. On one hand, it cannot be ignored, as it is the most detailed written Latin source to have survived, describing 167 years of Roman imperial history (117 to 284). On the other hand, these scholars go on to say that the HA is a historiographic fraud, apparently written at the end of the fourth century by one person, and not by six biographers in the late third and early fourth centuries. Even so, claims Syme (ibid), the HA warrants a place of honour among the best historical novels ever written, even though it was an act of deceit on the part of its author (or authors). This source presents numerous problems and raises many questions, yet is still one of the most hotly debated issues in ancient historiographic research.

Today it is almost certain that Victor's main source, unfortunately lost, is the one dubbed by modem research History of the Emperors of Rome (Kaisergeschichte, or KG for short28 ). It may also have been used by Marius Maximus29 for writing biographies, also lost, especially of the period during Septimius Severus' reign. It is generally agreed that Victor exhibited much interest in Septimius Severus, and held a supportive and positive attitude towards him. The work by Eutropius, a contemporary of Aurelius Victor, Breviarium ab urbe Condita, apparently published no later than 369, is a short description of Roman history from Romulus to Eutropius. In his description of the Republic (volumes 1 to 6) Eutropius made use of Livius' summary, while to describe the Empire (volumes 7 to 10) he used

One of these problems relates to the sources of information used by the author of the HA. For instance, did he, or did he 7

various sources, one of which was Suetonius, and another, the KG, as did Victor. The end of his essay appears to be based on his personal knowledge of the events3°. The anonymous author of the Epitome de Caesaribus was apparently a contemporary of Victor and Eutropius. This work, like that of Victor, presents short biographies of the emperors from Augustus to Theodosius, ending with the funeral of the latter in Constantinople on 8th November 395 (48.20). The main source of information for the Epitome is also the KG, either directly, or via Eutropius 31 • Our analysis of the later sources will concentrate on two major questions: the first, the degree of credibility of the later sources as historical sources for the Severan period, and the second, what information can we obtain from these sources about propaganda during the Severan Dynasty? Regarding the written sources, we should note that the efforts of today's most prominent scholars to answer these two questions will serve as a basis for discussion in this study. We have mentioned that archaeological finds belong to the second category of sources available on the Severan Dynasty. These can be divided into four groups: numismatic, epigraphic, papyrological and the plastic arts, which includes sculptured portraits, three-dimensional statues, reliefs and monuments. Catalogues normally accepted in modem research, e.g., the BMC, BMCG, RIC, CIL, ILS, IRT, as well as others quoted below (for example: Vogt, 1924; Kent, Overbeck, Stylow, 1973), will serve as a basis for analyzing the numismatic, epigraphic and papyrological evidence. Regarding the range of portraits, it is not our intention to add a further monograph to the many studies dealing with Roman iconography in the late second and early third centuries, but rather to select certain types of representative portraits of each Severan emperor, and to use imperial portraits which have already been absolutely identified by the best studies in the field of Roman iconography, such as: Bergman, Bernoulli, Budde, Felletti Maj, Fittschen and Zanker, Heintz, McCann, Nodelman, Soechting, Wiggers and Wegner, Wood. Others will be mentioned where appropriate. Their efforts, which have revealed information related to identifying the types of imperial portraits, will serve as a basis for the discussion of these portraits as an expression of imperial propaganda during the rule of the Severan dynasty.

8

the required behavior for a princeps, as quoted by Dio [52.31.1.2; 32.1.3; 52.36.1.3]4. "Our history is currently in decline, from a golden era to an iron and rusty era", said Dio, summarizing the reign of Emperor Marcus Aurelius [72(71).36.4). Nevertheless, no legal definition has been discovered which would provide a clear indication of how the princeps' power was transferred, as well as the legitimate source of his rule.

Chapter 1: Introduction

B) The Continuity of Authority in the Roman Empire 1

How, then, can we explain the fact that the regime endured for three centuries, when one of the basic principles of its continuity - the dynastic principle - was not embodied in the law, and was actually contrary to the spirit of Roman Government?

Governmental authority m the Roman Empire was not hereditary. In the year 27 BCE Emperor Augustus laid the foundations of the principate system which continued until the rule of Diocletian in the 3rd century AD. In theory, all the traditional institutions of the Republic 2 were maintained, and functioned, under this system, but in practice nearly all authority was in the hands of one man, known unofficially as the princeps, (meaning 'first', or 'first citizen'), from which the word principate is derived.

In order to find the answer, and to understand the problem of imperial succession - which was not officially hereditary, but whose continuity was ensured precisely by the particular dynastic standing of imperial candidates - we must first give a general description of the principate and its structure.

Theoretically, the highest sovereign bodies in the country under this regime were the senate and the Roman people, and the princeps was an official of the state whose authority was granted him by the Senate. In practice, ever since the days of Emperor Augustus and his successors on the throne, the regime was an autocracy, and the hereditary transfer of power was the principle which enabled the regime to continue for three hundred years. In other words, the dynastic principle was the main basis for the legitimate sovereignty of the Roman rulers and for the continuous succession of government in the Roman Empire. This was the situation despite the fact that the practice of bequeathing sovereignty was not based on written law, and was, in fact, contrary to the rules established by Augustus; it did, however, satisfy Augustus' desire to keep the office of princeps in his family3.

Augustus' principate and the fundamentals of the • 5 regime. In 27 BCE, 3 years after the battle of Actium, Octavian told a special meeting of the Senate that he was renouncing his dictatorship and returning power to the Senate and the people of Rome because of his desire to retire to private life. The senators would not accept his resignation. They awarded him the title 'Augustus', meaning exalted or august, called him 'princeps ', 'imperator' (a name given to a successful commander by his soldiers), and 'pater patriae,' and asked him to continue as head of the Republic. They also offered him a long list of powers and official positions. Octavian acceded to their request. It must be noted that in Rome, during the days of the

Republic, the leader, any leader, would not seize power by force, but would agree to become ruler when asked by the senators, not as a result of his thirst for power, but out of a sense of public duty. In the minds of the senators and the Roman populace, the concept of autocracy was closely associated with the period of the monarchy so hated by them.

Thus, when discussing the history of the Roman Empire, we speak of the reigns of the Julio-Claudian dynasty (27 BCE68 AD), the Flavian dynasty (69-96), the Antonine dynasty (96- 192), and the Severan dynasty (193-235). Furthermore, during the period of the Empire, the loyalty of army and soldiers to the ruler were the mainstay of the regime. The soldiers considered an emperor legitimate mainly on the basis of their dynastic loyalty.

The powers, offices, and titles accorded to Augustus by the Senate did, in fact, provide the basis of the principate regime, and all princeps (emperors) who ruled Rome after Augustus took their authority from them. Officially or legally, the emperors were, to all intents and purposes, public officials, as their authority came from the Senate and the people of Rome. The powers granted to a princeps show that, in practice, the army was his real source of power and the mainstay of his rule.

The general principles of Augustus' reign continued to serve as the fundamentals for the regimes of all his imperial successors, with very few exceptions, for over three hundred years. Augustus himself was considered a role model by the emperors who succeeded him, and his legislation and actions became binding precedents.

The title of 'princeps' which Augustus agreed to accept, was just that, a title; it did not confer any official authority, but it had real significance in the republican context. In the days of the Republic the eldest of the senators was called 'princeps senatus,' and was entitled to express his opinion first, before the other senators. Moreover, in the time of the Republic the

Roman historiography and literature abound with proverbs about good and bad emperors, such as: "May he surpass Augustus in happiness and Trajan in his good qualities," [Eutrop. Vlll.5.3), or the words of Maecenas to Augustus on 9

princeps had to serve the country and save it from tyrants through cooperation with the 'good' people, i.e., c1t1zens from the upper social strata, senators, and equites (equestrians). Thus, the title princeps has a double significance. The first is that the Senate is a partner of the princeps in power, and he does not rule over them; the second is that of guardian of the republic's tradition.

Imperator, Augustus, and pater patriae were also honorary titles which did not bestow any real authority on their holder (Hammond, 1959). The powers granted to the princeps by the Senate were as follows:

* The authority of a tribune - tribunicia potestas - for as long as he lived. This gave the princeps the right to involve himself in any issues of government, to legislate, to veto decisions of the Senate or officials, and to convene and direct the state's institutions. According to Tacitus [Anna/es, 3, 56], Augustus considered this authority "the most exalted status, so that he would not need to be known as king or dictator, yet he would be given a name which would place him above every other authority". * The authority of the high proconsular command imperium proconsulare maius - for as long as he lived. This granted the princeps supreme command over the provinces and the armies. * Head of state religion. As such he was also High Priest Pontifex Maximum - and a member of many religious colleges, granting him control over state religion and religious ritual. Of special importance was his membership in the college of the augures, who were responsible for interpreting omens. Omens, in the sense of divine confirmation which could appear in the form of miracles, dreams, prophesies or supernatural signs, testified to the gods' favourable inclination towards, and support of, the authority granted to the princeps. Omens were directed mainly at the soldiers, but also at the general populace in Rome and throughout the Empire, many of whom held superstitious beliefs, and at the educated, who viewed the favor of the gods protecting the princeps as self-evident 6 • These powers themselves bestowed on the princeps the ability to do as he pleased; as an autocrat he was in control of the country's army, civilians, and religion. Yet, even during the reign of Augustus, and afterwards, the princeps assumed additional important powers:

* Responsibility for the treasury (Aerarium): although this was under the supervision of the Senate in theory, instructions, in fact, came from the princeps' office. * Censorial authority: the censor was responsible for the population census, tax collection, the supervision of legislation and public morals. As such, the princeps could

punish anyone, including senators and equestrians, for criminal conduct. Thus, the office of censor gave the princeps the power to control the composition of the Senate. Augustus refused the title of censor, and Claudius was the first emperor to assume this authority. However, Suetonius [Divine Augustus, 27-5] reports that Augustus did have the permanent right to impose legislation regarding public morals, and Dia [54.10.5] claims that Augustus was appointed supervisor of morals and also assumed the role of censor. In addition to these roles, the princeps was also responsible for agricultural produce and supervision of the roads. The powers, offices, and titles which provided the foundation for Augustus' rule are essential for an understanding of imperial rule, which was in effect an autocracy; by virtue of these authorities the princeps was in practice an imperial autocrat. As Tacitus states explicitly: "... Augustus, as princeps, imposed his rule over the whole country ..." [Anna/es, 1, 1], and: "After the battle of Actium and the placing of all authority in the hands of one man ..." [Historiarum Libri, 1, 1]. Augustus' formula of the titulature which accompanied the princeps' name, except for the title 'princeps' itself, which was never included among the official titles of Rome's rulers, became fixed and obligatory. It was published in official documents throughout the Empire, and survived with no major changes until the end of the imperial period. The names Imperator Caesar Augustus became the first names of every princeps who succeeded Augustus. In addition to his status, his powers, and his lineage, the princeps' achievements were also included in the list, e.g., victories over the country's enemies, roads built, distribution of produce at harvest time, as well as his other qualities. In one aspect Augustus differed from his successors: his titulature included the claim that he was 'the son of divine Julius', as Julius Caesar had, in fact, adopted him and had also been deified after his death. From the days of Tiberius, the name 'Caesar' was firmly established among the emperor's names. It was taken for granted that a princeps who bestowed the name Caesar on someone and adopted him as his own son had indicated his choice of designated successor. The genealogy of all the princeps who succeeded Augustus has special significance in this formula, as it concerns the question ofheritage 7 . The system of government established by Augustus required that the head of state be the citizen most able to fulfill that exalted role. Such a citizen was appointed by the Senate on the basis of his qualities, qualifications, and activity on behalf of the state. Augustus based his regime and status on the concentration of nearly all state authority in his own hands, the control of the army, the loyalty of his soldiers, and his personal influence.

Tacitus [Anna/es, 1, 2] summarizes how Augustus succeeded in consolidating his autocracy: "When he [Augustus] had won the army over with gifts, the general populace with the produce he distributed, and everyone with the pleasantness of the peace, he started elevating himself gradually, and assumed the roles of the Senate, officials, and the law, and no one stopped him. For the mightiest of the noble have fallen, some by the sword and some by banishment, and the rest - the wealth and honour of those who hastened to become enslaved grew, and since their greatness derived from the revolution, they opted for the present and its calm rather than the old and its dangers".

support he paid them generously, and provided them with a sizeable grant upon their release from military service. Another factor in the system of institutions and values in the princeps' regime enabling the transfer of power on a hereditary basis was the worship of a divine emperor. This began with the death of Augustus, becoming official and obligatory in Rome and the provinces, and was expressed by the inclusion of the deceased princeps in the family of the country's gods by Senate decision. The title 'divine', divus, was added to the name of a deceased princeps, land for a temple was set aside, and a priest appointed to carry out the ritual. Worship of a divine emperor indicated loyalty to the princeps, and failure to carry it out was considered treachery. In the course of time, the posthumous deification of an emperor was not considered exceptional, although not every princeps was awarded such treatment.

Thus it seems that the Republic preserved its external form, with the Senate theoretically the highest sovereign body in the country from which the princeps derived his authority. (During the civil wars at the end of the period of the Republic, it was difficult to convene public meetings, and as the citizens of Rome did not tend to participate in them, most matters were left to be dealt with exclusively by the Senate.) According to the laws of the Republic, officials of the state could not bequeath their positions and authorities to their children or other relatives.

Augustus' methods of bequeathing power and ensuring the loyalty of the troops became the guideline for almost all princeps who succeeded him. After his reign, legal adoption as a son and partnership in the regime as indication of the intended heir became the norm. Augustus' attitude towards the troops also became one of the pillars of the princeps' regime.

Thus, inheriting power was contrary to republican law, and Augustus, who wanted to preserve its traditional framework, avoided stating expressly in his will, or by any other means, that he wanted a specific person to inherit his rule. No new title had been created in the country's legislation which legally established the princeps' status; no legal basis for the transfer of the princeps' power was established, nor was it determined how to decide which citizen was most suited to be princeps.

Nevertheless, the absence of a legal formula for hereditary transfer of power, and Augustus' arrangement for transferring supreme authority and command of the army, would create unending problems for future princeps, and were the source of civil strife and wars over the imperial throne in the years 68 and 193, as well as during the fifty years from 235 to 284, known as 'the period of military anarchy.' They also provide the key to understanding inheritance in the Roman Empire, which officially did not have hereditary emperors.

Augustus, however, wanted not only to choose his successor, but to keep the role of princeps in his family, and make it hereditary. He thus solved the problem of bequeathing power.

The period of the four emperors who succeeded Augustus Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero - was known as the Julio-Claudian dynasty, as they all belonged, either directly or indirectly, to Augustus' family. Tiberius, son of Livia Julia, Augustus' third wife, was adopted as Augustus' son; Caligula, son of Germanicus, the son of Tiberius' brother, was adopted by Tiberius; Claudius was Caligula's uncle; and Nero, son of Agrippina the Younger, Claudius' wife's first husband, was adopted by Claudius 8 •

Augustus legally adopted the man whom he wanted as his heir, and co-opted him into his regime, thereby establishing him as his intended successor. Augustus took steps to keep the position of princeps in the family by making a proviso that the future emperor would in due course adopt his nephew, and make arrangements to ensure that the latter would be his heir. "Tiberius Nero was Augustus' only stepson left, and everything would have fallen into his hands", recounts Tacitus [Anna/es, 1, 3], "He was adopted as his son, made a member of the highest governmental body and a partner in the authority of tribune, and presented to all the armies ... He commanded Tiberius to adopt Germanicus, although he, Tiberius, had a son who had come of age", and all this "so that there should be no doubt as regards the inheritance". [Tacitus, Ann ales, 1, 56].

The transfer of power according to Augustus during the Julio-Claudian dynasty, i.e., hereditary transfer, was possible due to Augustus' strong personality, as well as to the strong bond of loyalty between the Roman army and Augustus himself in the first instance, and by virtue of his bond to the members of his family after his death. The army remained faithful to these rulers even when they detested their actions as in the case of Caligula and Nero - because of their family relationship to Augustus. After the murder of Caligula, the Praetorian Guard proclaimed Claudius, a 50-year old cripple, Emperor, because he was the brother of Germanicus, so popular among the soldiers, and because he belonged to the family of Augustus. The Senate did not dare express

Yet all these arrangements were insufficient. The status of the army was crucial, and it was vital to ensure the soldiers' loyalty. Augustus realized that the princeps could not rely merely on their oath of allegiance; in order to guarantee their 11

opposition, and confirmed the Guard's choice. This is, in effect, the first clear proof of the army's power in the history of the Roman Empire.

Rome with his army, and killed Vitelius; the Senate rapidly convened and granted Vespasian the powers ofprinceps. Tacitus writing of this crisis [ibid., 1, 2], said "I tum now to a disastrous war-filled period, a chapter of dispute, rebellion, and cruelty. Four princeps died by the sword, and three civil wars raged ..." "Nero's demise", adds Tacitus [ibid., 4], "brought forth different emotions, not only in Rome, among the senators, among the people, and among the city's soldiers, but among all the legions and voters; the wellknown secret of power was that a princeps could be appointed outside Rome".

The Julio-Claudian dynasty ended with the death of Nero, as there was no other heir from Augustus' family. "The imperial family continued until Nero, ...after Nero came Galba. He had no familial links with the imperial household". This is how Suetonius begins Galba's bibliography [2, 1]. During the period from Nero's death in June 68 until the proclamation of Vespasian as emperor in December 69, three emperors ruled the Roman Empire one after the other; each one proclaimed emperor by his troops while outside the bounds of the city of Rome, and each was officially recognized by the Senate after the troops' declaration.

The "year of the four emperors", as the period from June 68 to December 69 is known, is clear and direct proof of certain problems (noted by Tacitus and Suetonius), which Augustus and his Julio-Claudian heirs realized could lead to civil wars.

The first was Galba, one of the military officers, stationed in the province of Spain at that time, and the representative of the aristocrats' opposition to Nero's policies. He "was without doubt of noble, ancient, and important lineage" [Suetonius, Galba, 2]. With the support of the Praetorians, Galba was officially granted the authority of princeps by the Senate. However, when he refused to pay the allowances he had promised to those who supported his revolt against Nero, he turned the support of the Praetorians and the troops to hate. Six months after being proclaimed emperor in January 69, he was murdered by the Praetorian Guard, which immediately declared Otho emperor. Otho's "ancestors were from an old, honorable family, ... he was well-liked by the emperor Tiberius, and his features resembled him to the extent that many took him to be the emperor's son; ...he was advisor and confidant to the emperor Nero ...", (Suetonius, Otho 2, l], and he offered the Praetorians generous financial pay. "The senators convened in a hurry and voted to place the authority of tribune in Otho's hands, and to bestow on him the name Augustus, and all the honours due to a princeps" [Tacitus, Historiarum Libri, 1, 4 7.] Although the Praetorians were devoted to Otho, hoping that he would fulfill his promises, the legions by the Rhine in Germany proclaimed their officer Vitelius emperor. Otho led his troops into battle against his rival, but was utterly defeated, and committed suicide just three months after becoming emperor. His army stopped fighting, and Vitelius and his supporters continued on to Rome. In Rome, with the news of Otho's death, "all the soldiers in the city swore allegiance to Vitelius, ...in the Senate all the honorable names from the long period of principate of the emperors and others were bestowed on him" [Tacitus, ibid., 2, 55]. In less than eight months after he became emperor, a revolt against Vitelius erupted, mainly due to his extravagant, wasteful policy, and his debauchery. The senators and the equites, who had placed their hopes in Vitelius, were disappointed, and were the first to join the ranks of his enemies. Vitelius neglected matters of state, wasted the treasury's money, and his armies were disunited and at odds with each other. The eastern legions, one of whose officers was Vespasian, and who had originally sworn allegiance to Vitelius, decided to subdue him by force. Vitelius' army was defeated in battle at the city of Carmona, and in December 69 Vespasian returned to

a) The absence of a legal system to determine a princeps' successor; b) The fact that the princeps' main power base was the army; c) The fact that troops had already used their power to determine the next ruler. This meant that a person ex se natus, i.e., a man of undistinguished birth, could rule the empire at the behest of the troops. In the words of Tacitus, "Henceforth, everything is done at the will of the soldiers" [ibid., 1, 46]. The civil wars of 68-69 began as protests against Nero's rule; many of Galba's, Otho's, and Vitelius' coins bear an inscription expressing a desire to return the situation to its proper state: freedom of the people, libertas populi, Rome reconstructed, Roma restituta, Rome reborn, Roma renascens, and peace of the world, pax orbis terrarum [BMC, pis. XLIX.LXIV]. Nevertheless, it soon became clear that the role of the Senate, theoretically responsible for bestowing governmental authority, was merely that of a rubber stamp to grant the authority of a princeps to any usurper who gained the support of his troops. Both Galba and Otho added Caesar to their princeps' titulature, although neither of them belonged to the JulioClaudian family or claimed descent from it. At first Vitelius "forbade people to name him Caesar ..." [Tacitus, ibid., 1.62], "and sent a message to Rome in which he deferred acceptance of the name Augustus, and refused the name Caesar" [idem, 2, 62], possibly because he wished to make a break from the Julio-Claudian dynasty, though apparently he did eventually "ask to be called Caesar, despite the fact that previously he had refused that title" [idem, 3, 68]. The extent to which Augustus' precedent of appointing his heir by adoption and making him a ruling partner took root is evidenced by Otho's hope that "Galba would adopt him as a son, and anticipated it every day. When these hopes were disappointed, he turned to the use of force" [Suetonius, Otho, 5]. Further, "Therefore, when Galba assumed power, Titus sent a greeting, and everywhere he went he corrected 12

the impression of those who thought that he had been called to the emperor so that the latter would adopt him as his son" [ibid, Divine Titus, 5]9.

Vespasian's reign, it was decided to send messengers to the princeps" [idem, 6]. Part of the original order recording the Senate's decision regarding Vespasian's wide-ranging powers has been preserved, and is in the form of a senatus consultum. Each section of the order ends with the words "as divine Augustus was empowered ...", repeated over and over again like a refrain [ILS, 244 and Brunt, 1977, 95].

Vespasian was the new princeps proclaimed emperor by the soldiers, and was perforce granted recognition by the Senate. Although he was already part of the senatorial class when these events occurred, he was, in fact, a usurper; this was the first time in the history of the Roman Empire that someone not of the ancient, patrician nobility, but of the middle class, a man from a plebeian family, incompletely educated, who barely knew Greek and who did not even have total mastery of Latin, was proclaimed emperor. "The regime which had long been unstable, passing from hand to hand due to the revolts and murders of three emperors, finally came to the plebeian family. This family is from dark origins, and has no good lineage ...". This is how Suetonius begins his biography of Vespasian [Divine Vespasian, 1].

The powers the Senate granted to Vespasian came within the framework of the precedent set by Augustus. It seems that the Senate realized by then that governing such a large empire required central government by one capable of dealing with the needs of the country, on condition that he ruled with the Senate's approval and counsel. And indeed, nearly all the princeps discovered that it was preferable to rule while on good terms with the Senate, and without diminishing its authority. In practice, the princeps could impose his will on the Senate. Although we do not know how Senate meetings were conducted (who spoke with whom behind the scenes, whether pressures were brought to bear openly or secretly by the princeps or those acting on his behalf), it is known that the members of the Senate never came to a decision which contradicted the opinion or wishes of the princeps, nor did they interfere with the way he governed the country.

After having been declared emperor, Vespasian's march to Rome with his army via Alexandria in Egypt, was accompanied by omens and miracles testifying to the gods' favour so as to strengthen and justify his claim to the authority of princeps. There is no doubt that these omens were directly mainly at Vespasian's soldiers, for the official princeps, Vitelius, recognized by the Senate, was still alive as they made their way to Rome. But even the educated, such as Tacitus and Suetonius, believed that "the many miracles proved heavenly favour and the gods' love for Vespasian, and that it was the gods' wishes, and the princeps was chosen to be in the hands of heaven" [Tacitus, ibid., 4, 81]. Suetonius believed that the heavenly favour accorded Vespasian via the miracles in Alexandria came to make up for the 'authority', auctorita, and exalted glory, maiestas, which he lacked. Following the miracles, "these too were quickly added", and the "notification thereof' spread rapidly throughout the empire [Suetonius, Divine Vespasian, 7]. Nor was this forgotten when Tacitus wrote his "Histories" during the reign of Trajan. "Eyewitnesses testify to this even now, when there is nothing to gain from lying" [Tacitus, idem. See also Dio, 66.8].

Vespasian's titulature is also consistent with the formula set by Augustus. Although Vespasian was not part of the JulioClaudian family and did not claim to be descended from it, maintaining his connection with the Flavian household, he too took the name 'Caesar'. Vespasian died in the year 70, and was succeeded by his son Titus. Titus died two years later of illness, and his brother Domitian replaced him. Domitian wanted to be known as dominus et deus [Suetonius, Domitian, 13; Dio, 67.4.7], in an attempt to emphasize the autocratic rule of the princeps in the state. He treated the senatorial stratum with contempt, in the manner of Caligula and Nero, consulted the Senate only rarely, and installed members in the Senate from the equestrian class equites - and from the provinces.

Vespasian, whose family name was Flavius, was the first of the Flavian dynasty. He did not hide his attitude towards the role of princeps, which he regarded as an asset to be passed on as an inheritance. Although the Senate did state that he had to adopt the man he thought most suited to succeed him as a son, Vespasian announced to them "with great insolence that either his sons would succeed him, or no one would" [Suetonius, Divine Vespasian , 24]. To remove all possibility of doubt, he made his firstborn son Titus his partner in government, and actually made arrangements in advance so that if the latter were to die heir less, his younger son Domitian would succeed him. The Senate bestowed on Vespasian "all signs of honour usually afforded a princeps", before Vespasian had even returned to Rome, "and were not slow to grant him honour, and ruled that Vespasian and his son Titus be given the office of consul, and Domitian the office of praetor and the authority of consul" [Tacitus, ibid., 4, 3]. "On the day the Senate made their ruling regarding

Domitian ruled the Roman Empire for fifteen years. From the outset he supervised the government of the empire, and ensured that the provinces were ruled justly and efficiently; no one questions his abilities in both managing the state and commanding the army. Throughout most of his reign he ensured that the borders of the Empire were safe. During his reign the borders of the Empire expanded in Britain, and he made peace with the Dacian tribes on the banks of the Danube. The troops were loyal to him, the main reason possibly being that he was the son of divine Vespasian. But Domitian was suspicious by nature. He expelled from Italy and executed many people who were innocent, including members of highest nobility. He instilled terror in Rome; no one was safe from his suspicions, especially the senators. He disposed of suspected opponents, by having them executed, and confiscated their possessions. His tyranny stirred the 13

opposition of the Senate, and eventually, in September 96, he was murdered by a member of his household in a conspiracy in which his wife Domitia, who also feared for her life, participated. The Senate immediately gave expression to its hatred of the tyrant emperor by voting damnatio memoriae, i.e., wiping out his memory, a punishment customary in Rome which entailed erasing the memory of those guilty of treason or declared enemies of the people, after their death. Such a person would have his name obliterated from all official documents, inscriptions, and public monuments; his sculptures would be destroyed, and his family not allowed to use his first name.

Nerva, who did not have sons of his own, but who did not lack other blood relatives, set a new precedent in the matter of succession by not considering family ties in selecting his heir. The Julio-Claudian dynasty chose its heirs from within the family and adopted them as sons; Vespasian chose his own son. Nerva made ability the determining factor in deciding who would become the next princeps. The next three emperors - Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius - who either lost their sons or did not have any, followed Nerva's precedent. Each one adopted a man with proven abilities, thus ensuring the transfer of power without taking family ties into consideration.

Because Domitian was childless and had not appointed a successor, the Flavian dynasty ended with his death. The Senate then appointed its choice of princeps, a respected lawyer and senior senator named Nerva, and power was transferred after Domitian's murder without the upheaval and civil wars which occurred in the year 68 10•

Hadrian, like Augustus and Vespasian, arranged the succession a generation in advance. He demanded that Antoninus Pius adopt Marcus Annius Verus - the future emperor Marcus Aurelius. Lucius Ceionius Commodus, Hadrian's beloved son, was adopted by Marcus Aurelius, becoming Lucius Aurelius Verus, Marcus' future partner in government.

The appointment of Nerva as emperor was the beginning of the period known as the rule of the 'enlightened emperors' because of their wise and efficient management. It is also called the period of the Antonine dynasty; contemporary historians referred to it as the 'Golden Age'. For almost a hundred years the Roman Empire flourished, experiencing economic growth, political peace, and relative quiet on its borders.

Marcus Aurelius also arranged the succession a generation in advance, but deviated from the path taken by his predecessors. In addition to Lucius Verus, who was his ruling partner as instructed by Hadrian, he also appointed his son Commodus as his designated successor. Following the death of Lucius Verus in the year 169, Commodus remained the sole heir to the princeps' authority, as Titus had been.

This era is also known as the rule of the adopted emperors, because the authority of the princeps was not bequeathed as an inheritance or from father to son. During his lifetime each emperor chose the person whom he considered the wisest, most capable and most suitable to be his heir, adopting him as his son regardless of his familial ties.

The "Enlightened Emperors" had apparently learnt the secret of government, and realized that it was better for them to govern the country while on good terms with the Senate. They tried to cultivate good relations and to return to the Senate the sense of partnership which had been seriously disturbed during Domitian's rule. These emperors would convene the Senate and pass on information regarding decisions they had made; they also presented laws and peace treaties to the Senate for approval. The Senate would conduct its meetings, and the princeps would cooperate. At the beginning of Trajn's reign, Tacitus wrote [Agrigola, 3], "although at the start of this happy period Emperor Nerva mixed things together which did not seem to be compatible, i.e., the principate and freedom, Trajan increased the blessings of the time every day, and the confidence of the public yielded not only hope and prayer, but also the faith in and realization of prayer". According to Tacitus, in other words, Nerva and Trajan returned the sense of freedom to the Roman Empire, though in practice, decisions were made by the princeps, and the Senate did not make rulings which contradicted his opinions or wishes. The latter continued to wield unlimited power, like Augustus and his successors, especially Domitian.

The emperors of this period were Nerva (96-98), Trajan (98117), Hadrian (117-13 8), Antoninus Pius (13 8-161 ), Marcus Aurelius (161-180), and Commodus (180-192). Commodus was an exception in that group of emperors. Although he was the son of Marcus Aurelius, and thus part of the Antonine dynasty, his reign is not included in the Golden Age, and he is not one of the enlightened emperors; he was considered a terrible ruler. The contemporary historians refer to the period of his rule as one of "iron and rust", and the author of the HA [Vita Marci, 29.1] remarks with sarcasm, "Had [Marcus Aurelius] been lucky, he would not have left a son". Nerva, who was 65 years old when he was proclaimed emperor, and who was not a military man, knew that he needed someone firm and with military prowess, trusted by both the troops and the members of the Senate. Following the precedent set by Augustus, Nerva chose a suitable candidate, Trajan, a capable commander. Nerva adopted him as his son, named him 'Caesar', and made him his partner in government.

During this period, the importance of two institutions stands out: the consilium principis, and the amici principis, both public bodies with an advisory role. Since the days of Augustus, the council consisted of the most senior senators; now experts on matters such as law and administration - only some of them senators - were appointed to the council. The 14

am1c1 princ1p1s, formerly a small council of friends, with

period, and the continued incursions by the tribes from time to time, the Empire's borders were well defended, no less so than at any time in the past.

new members, now saw their ranks increased (Crook, 1975). Yet this was not enough. The enlightened emperors knew that their main power base was the army, and the support and loyalty of the troops was no less important, and possibly more so, than cooperation with and respect for the Senate. This matter had to be dealt with carefully, however, The confidence of the troops had to be nurtured and strengthened without public expression of the emperors' dependence on the army - something which might anger the senators - while creating the impression that imperial authority actually did derive from the Senate and Roman populace.

Trajan introduced changes in the regime during this period, especially regarding the internal administration of the provinces. Many residents of these areas received Roman citizenship, the number of senators of provincial origins rose, and a considerable number of residents from the provinces served in imperial service. The origins of the emperors themselves may have played a part in the greater importance of the provinces and their inhabitants: Trajan and Hadrian were born in the province of Spain, Antoninus Pius came from a family originating in Germany, and Marcus Aurelius was born to a Spanish family. Nonetheless, it was Augustus who first became aware of the importance of the provinces, and their needs, and who made playing an active role in their complex problems, and not just supervising them from afar, part of his policy. The enlightened emperors continued with this policy (CAH, X, 182-216, 239-281).

The emperors therefore took care to treat the members of the Senate with respect, while distributing money to the troops; thus the entire Roman army stood by them. By cultivating good relations with the Senate, and by seeing to their needs and nurturing the pride of the army, while loyally guarding the borders of the empire, these emperors managed to avoid, for the most part, the atmosphere of intrigues and plots which had prevailed primarily during the year 68. Although the danger of a conspiracy led by one man, or rebellion by the troops, did not entirely disappear, it did not dog every step taken by the adopted emperors. The experience of the year 68 made every officer in the Roman army aware of the fact that the position of princeps was not a dream; there is even evidence of attempts to undermine the princeps during the reigns of Trajan, Hadrian, and Marcus Aurelius. These conspiracies met with little support among the troops, and were quickly surpressed. For the most part, the armies remained loyal to the princeps, and the insurgents' motive seems to have been personal ambition rather than the troops' dissatisfaction or political dissent 11•

Reforms in the field of law and jurisprudence (justice) introduced during Hadrian's reign constitute an important stage in Roman history in these spheres. Hadrian initiated the collection and codification of Roman and imperial regulations, as well as the publication of the finally accepted version of the edict, edictum, which incorporated all the rules for dispensing judgment. The task of interpreting Roman law and extending it was henceforth the responsibility of the princeps council, which consisted of jurists. The reorganization of the army and changes in its composition had began in Augustus' day, and was by now almost complete. The legions and auxiliary corps consisted almost entirely of soldiers from the provinces, many of them born in the districts in which their camps were situated.

During this period the borders of the empire became more secure, and Romans and other residents throughout the empire enjoyed a feeling of security, despite the fact that there were disturbances on the borders - in the east by the Parthians, and in the north by the Germanic tribes. Trajan extended the borders across the Danube into Dacia, and, towards the end of his rule, led a campaign against the Parthians, and established the Tigris as the Empire's eastern border. Hadrian, however, thought that the borders had been over extended and that it was too costly to defend them, and reverted to Augustus' system of stability. He entered into a peace treaty with the Parthians, built fortresses along the borders, and erected long walls in places which lacked natural boundaries, such as in Britain, and in Germany between the Rhine and the Danube. Hadrian's foreign policy proved successful throughout Antonius Pius' long reign. In the days of Marcus Aurelius, however, the situation deteriorated. War broke out again with the Parthians, ending with new border arrangements along the Euphrates. The Germanic tribes crossed the Danube, and Marcus Aurelius had the greatest difficulty in driving them back across the river; his death, however, in 180 meant that the wars were not ended conclusively. The final settlement with the Germans was reached in the days of his son Commodus. Nevertheless, despite the unrest in certain provinces in this

The period of the adopted emperors was also a blessed one economically, with the exception of agriculture, for the inhabitants of the Roman Empire, including Italy. Trade and industry flourished; paved roads on land and proper transport in the Mediterranean enabled convenient commercial links. It was also a time of prosperity for the cities of the provinces and Italy, though conditions in the villages, particularly in agriculture, deteriorated. The transition to a colonial system was not a new experience in Rome, but it resulted in many small farmers losing their farms. Large estates grew, and landlords would lease parts of them to tenants, called coloni (hence the name colony), most of whom were dispossessed farmers, though some of them were freed slaves, as well as some city-dwellers who could not make a living in the city. At the same time, urban growth aggravated the contrast between the urban and rural settlements. Despite attempts to ease the friction between the different social strata, the traditional division between the distinguished minority, which included senators, equestrians and members of the town councils on the one hand, and the mass of simple freemen who had never served in public office on the other, could not be abolished. The upper classes 15

did show generosity and concern, however, especially to the weaker strata, and tried to handle social problems personally. Nerva, for example, developed the system of aliment, alimenta, a fund for the support of children of the poor which began with grants made by private citizens. With the aid of imperial funds, he improved the supply of produce and water to Rome, and took financial responsibility for the Empire's postal services. Trajan expanded the system of alimenta, and Hadrian set up new funds for it.

especially because "the Empire was ruled honorably ...and the government was not absolute monarchy but aristocracy" during his reign [Herod., 1.2.1-5, 1.4.1-2, 2.10.3, 2.14.3] 13.

It seems that the two major criteria which determined whether a certain princeps was good or bad were his image and his policy. An emperor who pursued a policy based on preserving the constitutional nature of government - even though this nature was theoretical only, and cooperation with the Senate was merely for the sake of appearances - was considered good. A good princeps was one whose power base was not founded on force. He was moderate and wellbalanced; every action he took was based on law and approved by the Senate and the Roman people; it was particular important that his actions stemmed from public responsibility. In other words, he had to adhere strictly to the preservation of the framework already established for the transfer of imperial power, even if only for the sake of external appearances; he had to honour the Senate, and care for the troops; he also needed divine confirmation testifying to the gods' favour.

The official, traditional Roman religion continued to play an important role in the Empire's political framework. Although there was greater penetration of new religions into Rome, mainly from the east, the basic nature of Roman religion did not change, particularly matters related to superstitious beliefs, soothsaying, oracular prophecies, and omens auguring the gods' favour and protecting the princeps. The omens also served the emperors as a political propaganda tool, as with Augustus and his heirs, and in the days of the Republic the Romans treated traditional soothsaying seriously, clinging to superstition as part of the traditional Roman religion.

Indeed, all five of the enlightened emperors merited deification after their deaths, and joined the ranks of 'divine emperors'.

The enlightened emperors also preserved the exact official titulature accompanying the princeps' name, but it should be noted that Nerva and his successors also retained their family 12 gens .

The rule of these emperors ended with the death of Marcus Aurelius on March 17, 180. By his orders, his eldest son Commodus, who was then 19, became the autocratic ruler of the Empire. His father had bestowed on him various imperial titles while he was a child: the title Caesar in the year 166; imperator in 176; and in 177, the title Augustus, granting him the authority of tribune and consul, and making him a ruling partner with his father. In that same year, after marrying Crispina, a lady of noble birth, he joined his father in the second German war.

The period known as "The adopted Emperors" was not one of calm and quiet, and during the reign of Marcus Aurelius trends and symptoms came to light which were to damage the strength of the Empire, primarily because the country's expenses increased as a result of long-drawn-out wars. Nonetheless, in the consciousness of the generations to come, this period was considered the Golden Era, in which the inhabitants of the Empire lived in relatively peaceful coexistence, and in which there was less internal friction than at any other time.

Commodus did not continue the war against the Quades and the Marcomanni; he signed a treaty with them, withdrew from the conquered territories, and tried to guarantee the peace by paying subsidies, which caused dissent among the troops. Despite Commodus' peace policy, the problems of security remained unsolved. Tribes from Scotland invaded Britain, where a revolt broke out among the troops, apparently due to a delay in compensation payments to veteran soldiers completing their service.

The Senate awarded Trajan the title optimus princeps, and he is remembered thus by following generations. Plinius the Younger thanked Trajan in the name of the Senate for returning /ibertas to the state, and in a laudatory speech, stressed the constitutional nature of the government. Tacitus extolled the fact that during the reigns ofNerva and Trajan, a balance was struck between freedom and the imperium. The Senate awarded Antoninus the title Pius. During the reign of Antoninus Pius, Aelius Aristeides made his speech "To Rome", describing the Empire as a democratic framework of prosperous cities, in which everyone benefits from the best things in life under the protection of the princeps.

Commodus brought the policy of cooperation with the Senate which had been the norm with the previous Antonines to an end, thereby arousing the ire of the senators. He also transferred the top positions in the army to the equites. In the year 182, exposing a conspiracy against him, he engaged in a series of trials and judgments against senators, confiscating their possessions. He handed the command of the Praetorian Guard and the general running of imperial affairs over to a freedman named Claender. In fact, Commodus totally neglected his tasks in running the Empire, and spent his time at the theater and in games. He supported eastern cults, identified himself with Hercules, granted himself honours which determined his status as a god, and changed the name

Marcus Aurelius, the only emperor who was also a philosopher, was venerated as the wisest ruler of the five enlightened emperors, and became the model of the ideal ruler because "he held the Senate in great respect...", "made the senators and amici his partners in decision-making ...", "was courageous ...and behaved towards the soldiers as if he were one of them ...they put their faith in him ...", because he "instilled fear into the hearts of the barbarians ...", and 16

of Rome to 'the colony of Commodus', he even decided to appear publicly in the arena on 1 January 193, as both consul and gladiator. His capricious behaviour sparked a conspiracy by the commander of the Praetorians Laetus, his (Commodus') valet Eclectus, and his concubine Marcia, who complained that Commodus had stopped treating her well. On 31 December 192, Commodus was strangled in his bath by the gladiator Narcissus, who had been hired by the conspirators.

Pertinax paid with his life for his attempt to sort out the chaos left by Commodus. After three months, having failed to meet the demands of the Praetorians, Pertinax lost their support, and incited by Laetus, they murdered him on 28 March 193 [Dio, 73; Herod., 2.1-5; BMC, V, ix, 1.10; PW, Suppl., iii, 895]. Following the murder of Pertinax, Marcus Didius Julianus won the support of the Praetorians by promising them large bonuses. The Senate gave its approval, and he became emperor. Julianus was a wealthy senator who had served in the provinces of Asia, Africa, Germany, and Dalmatia during the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. The support of the Praetorians and the Senate notwithstanding, the armies in the provinces did not recognize him as emperor. The troops had their own candidates in three different regions of the Empire: the Syrian legions supported Pescennius Niger, the legions of Upper Pannonia backed Septimius Severus, while those of Britain chose Claudius Albinus. In a lightning campaign in June 193, Septimius Severus entered Rome without encountering any opposition. Didius was forsaken and executed by the Praetorians by order of the Senate, whose members immediately confirmed the proclamation of Septimius Severus as emperor [Dio, 73; Herod., 2.6.13; BMC, V, !xix, I 1.18; Birley, 1988].

Just as Caligula and Nero had ruled by virtue of their family ties to Augustus, despite the fact that their actions were considered despicable by the soldiers and senators, and as Domitian had ruled because he was Vespasian's son, Commodus reigned for 12 years, despite the dissatisfaction of the troops and senators, because he was the son of divine Marcus, and was a descendant of a dynasty whose lineage reached back to divine Nerva [Dio, 72; Herod., 1; HA, Comm.,]. And just as Caligula, Nero, and Domitian were posthumously sentenced to have their names removed from all public monuments, Commodus too, by Senate decision, did not join the ranks of divine emperors, but was condemned to damnatio memoriae 14 • Unlike his predecessors, Commodus did not select or appoint his heir to the throne, and for almost five years after his murder, until the year 197, the history of the crisis in 68 repeated itself, the main problem being the lack of a legal method for the transfer of the power. The Roman legions rediscovered the 'secret of the Empire', and fought among themselves over their candidates for the throne.

Gaius Pescennius Niger Justus was born in 135 to an equites family. He served in the army and became senator during the reign of Commodus. He was governor of Syria from 191, and on the murder of Pertinax in April 193 he was proclaimed emperor by his soldiers in Syria. When the Senate confirmed Severus as emperor, he (Severus) set out to confront his enemy in the east. When Pescennius realized he could not withstand Severus' advance, he tried to defend himself at Byzantium. Despite his popularity in the east, however, he and his soldiers were no match for Severus and his army, and in the winter of 193/4 he was defeated in battles near the cities of Cyzicus and Nicaea. He retreated to Antioch in Syria, and was routed again near the city of Issus. From there he tried to flee across the Euphrates, but was captured and executed in the spring of 194 (Quagliozzi, 1991; BMC, V, lxxvi ff.; Birley, 1988).

The anti-Commodus conspiracy was reminiscent of the circumstances in which Domitian was murdered. The conspirators settled the matter of an heir, and their candidate, Pertinax, who was Marcus Aurelius' right hand, was accepted unopposed by both the Senate and the people. Publius Helvius Pertinax was born in the year 126 to a family of low birth. After long and faithful service as an equestrian, he became a senator during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. As military commander under Marcus' rule, he distinguished himself in the battle of Raetia in the year 171. He was appointed deputy consul and governor of Moasia, Dacia, and Syria in 174. He also distinguished himself in the war in Britain in the days of Commodus. In 192 Pertinax became consul and prefect of the city.

Decimus Clodius Albinus was apparently born in the city of Hadrumetum in North Africa to a wealthy, aristocratic family. During Marcus Aurelius' reign, in the years 182-184, he distinguished himself in battles in Dacia and Germany, and was appointed governor of Britain before Commodus' murder. After the murder of Pertinax, he was proclaimed emperor by his soldiers in Britain. As he was a serious contender for the imperial throne, Septimius Severus first granted him the title Caesar. Following his defeat of Pescennius Niger, Clodius proclaimed himself Augustus because Septimius Severus had declared himself "son of Marcus Aurelius" and had bestowed the title Caesar and the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus on his firstborn son, Caracalla. In the year 196, Clodius took his army to Gaul, in hopes of ensuring the support of the legions in Germany before approaching Rome. Septimius Severus' responded by declaring him a public enemy, and on February 197, in a

The newly appointed princeps succeeded in holding the reins of power for just three months. During this time he attempted to reestablish the principles of the government which had prevailed at the time of Marcus Aurelius, to rebuild the financial market - which had collapsed during Commodus' reign - by reducing public and imperial expenditure, and by paying half the amount of the grants promised to the troops, especially the Praetorian Guard. He also tried to restore strict military discipline and to develop a good relationship with the Senate, thus endangering the position of Laetus, the commander of the Praetorians. 17

battle by the city of Lugdunum, Clodius was defeated and killed by Severus' troops [Dio, 73; Herod., 2.15, 3.7-8; BMC, V, lxxvi ff.; Birley, 1988].

basically vested in the army, which could force formal recognition from the Senate. As early as in the republican period, Roman troops felt personal loyalty towards their leaders and commanders, and perceived this loyalty as a personal choice. The Roman leaders and commanders knew that providing for the soldiers would strengthen their position, and that their troops would brave fire and water for the sake of suitable commanders.

At the time of Marcus Aurelius' death in 180, the era known as the principate - founded by Augustus in the year 27 BCE had prevailed in the Roman Empire for about two hundred years. One of the problems of this system of government which in theory was rule by the 'first citizen', all of whose authority was granted by the Senate - was the constant attempt to give the princeps and his family dynastic status, even though this was contrary to the rules of government and had no legal basis.

Even in the days of Augustus, the army was one of the emperor's main power bases, in times of peace as well as war. The significance of the army's role in determining the fate of claimants to the throne is evident from the "emperor's anniversary", the day on which the army proclaimed its candidate. For example, the first day of Vespasian's rule was 1st July 69, the day on which his legions proclaimed him emperor 15 •

Ever since the reign of Augustus, a set of rules had been followed as the accepted, obligatory, norm, even though it was never formalized or anchored in law. It enabled the hereditary transfer of power and continuity of government, and legitimized the rule of the princeps.

Moreover, although the Senate could indeed declare someone emperor, or officially approve the troops' choice, an emperor could only be overthrown by a military revolt or by a conspiracy, which, even if initiated by a Senate faction, stood no chance of success unless supported by the army. Thus, Suetonius [Galba, 10-11], Plutarch [Galba, 2], and Dio [63(63).23.1] testify that during the years 68-69, the army played a dominant role in proclaiming the emperor, though the Senate also made important contributions to events. Galba, Vitelius, and Vespasian, although they began their reigns prior to receiving the Senate's approval, did not consider themselves fully recognized as emperors until the Senate voted on their powers 16 •

There were three main principles underlying this system: * The first was the dynastic aspect, which was a central element in the framework of institutions and values enabling transfer of ruling authority and the continuity of this type of regime. From the time of Augustus and his Julio-Claudian successors, the dynastic principle of the imperial role was one of the most prominent factors in the legitimacy of the emperor's status. The dynastic consideration was also linked directly to the worship of divine emperors. Since Augustus' death, deification of a dead emperor was not an unusual event, but neither was it automatically granted to every princeps. Those whom the Senate hated, such as Caligula, Nero, Domitian, and Commodus, had their names obliterated in all public places after their deaths, by the Senate's order. The Senate could also be forced to carry out deification, as in the cases of Claudius, Hadrian, Commodus, and Caracalla. The son of a divine emperor, whether biological or adopted, was considered to all intents and purposes the legitimate heir.

Didius Julianus was proclaimed emperor by the Senate in 193, but this was not viewed kindly by the army. Three different army units from different parts of the Empire put up their own candidates independently - Claudius Albinus, Pescennius Niger, and Septimius Severus - against the Senate's candidate, but the lack of tribunal authority from the titulature of the first two proves they realized that without being officially granted tribunal powers by the Senate, they would be considered no more than claimants to the throne.

The dynastic consideration was also tied to divine approval. An emperor favoured by the gods would merit numerous favourable omens in the form of miracles, dreams, or prophesies, not only justifying his authority, but also strengthening and providing a basis for it.

*

* The second principle was the approval of the Roman Senate. Although this was a purely official step, it played an important role. Although the Senate had lost its power and authority as a political body as early as Augustus' reign, by officially granting power to a princeps it preserved the ancient republican traditions, hallowed in the eyes of the Roman people and the troops. The precise attention paid to external features was more important than preserving the content.

*

*

On 31 December 192, Commodus, son of Marcus Aurelius, was murdered without leaving an heir. His murder brought the Antonine dynasty to an end. After a period of almost five years of civil war and bloody strife over the throne between commanders who had no family ties with the emperors who preceded them, the new princeps to be given Senate recognition, the support and loyalty of the armies throughout the Empire, and the trust of its inhabitants, was Septimius Severus, founder of the Severan dynasty. Like Vespasian, he was, in effect, a usurper. He justified his claim to the role of princeps by

* The third, decisive factor on which the emperor relied was the support and loyalty of the army. This element was linked to the first one, dynastic loyalty, even when the dynasty was based on adoption, as in the case of the Antonines, and was 18

declaring that he was the adopted son of the divine Marcus Aurelius, and as such was the legitimate descendant of the Antonine dynasty whose genealogy stretched back to the divine Nerva. Due to the dynastic principle, the Antonine dynasty was legally continued until the year 235. The reputation of the Antonine dynasty for giving, caring for its inhabitants, securing the borders of the Empire and believing in a good future, was manifest in Roman tradition for many generations, thanks to the usurper Septimius Severus, who 'co-opted' the Antonines as his forefathers, extolled their deeds and actions, and used them as a model for his own rule in order to justify and strengthen the basis for his authority as princeps. The following chapters deal with the transfer of power from the Antonine to the Severan dynasty and explain how Septimius Severus, the usurper from North Africa who beat a path to the throne of princeps with force, succeeded in justifying his right and that of his sons to authority. These chapters will also discuss how Septimius Severus' heirs seized power after the murder of his son Caracalla - on the basis of family ties and the dynastic aspect of the Antonine dynasty - despite the fact that they had practically nothing to do with the Severans, being only distantly related to the Severan dynasty. They will also discuss how the Severan dynasty came to be considered the continuation of the Antonine dynasty for 42 years on the basis of a fictional family relationship.

19

and he established a special department to manage it, called Res Privata.

Chapter 2: A) Septimius Severus and the gens Aurelia*

Although he spent lavishly on the army, on many building projects, on monetary grants to the people, and on funds for the support of children of the poor, his income greatly exceeded expenditure due to heavy taxation and the many levies which he imposed on the inhabitants of the Empire.

Septimius Severus was born in the year 145 or 146 in the city ofLepcis-Magna in North Africa to an equestrian family with senatorial connections. His military career during the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus was distinguished, and he served in several provinces, including Sicily and Gallia Lugdunum, where he also acted as legate. In 190 he became consul, and then governor of Upper Pannonia. Following the murder of Pertinax, his troops proclaimed him emperor on 13 April 193 in the city of Carnuntum. He entered Rome in June of that year encountering no resistance. He dismissed the Praetorians who had murdered Pertinax, and then recruited soldiers from the provincial legions to take on the role of the Praetorians.

It should be noted that the funds for the support of children of the poor, the Alimenta, was first established by Emperor Nerva. These funds offered loans to landowners against land mortgages, and the profits from interest earned on the loans was distributed to support needy children. Many inscriptions throughout Italy provide evidence of these funds. In the year 208, Severus, accompanied by his wife and two sons, set out for Britain to end the invasions by the Scottish Caledonian tribes. By the autumn of 210 a sort of cease-fire had been reached. In the winter of 211, in modern-day York, Severus died of an illness, leaving his enormous wealth and the imperial heritage to his sons Caracalla and Geta, along with instructions, it is said, to live in peace and enrich the troops [Dio, 73-76; Herod., 2-3; HA, Sev.]1.

Septimius had two rivals in the struggle for the throne: Clodius Albinus in Britain, and Pescennius Niger in Syria. His first step was to award Albinus the title Caesar, and then set out eastward against Pescennius. He defeated the latter near Issus, executed him, and punished all those who had supported him, including the Parthians. To prevent a civil war, he divided Syria into two provinces.

At the beginning of his struggle for power after the murder of Commodus, Septimius Severus had the least chance of succeeding to the throne, in spite of the support of his troops, who proclaimed him emperor, and despite receiving official approval from the Senate which, according to Dio's [75(75).1.3-5] and Herodian's [2.14.1] descriptions of Septimius' first entry into Rome, was forced upon it.

Even before his return to Italy, Septimius declared that he was Marcus Aurelius' son, bestowed the title Caesar on his firstborn son Caracalla, and changed the latter's name to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. Albinus responded by proclaiming himself Augustus', and marched his soldiers towards Rome. Septimius declared Albinus to be an 'enemy of the public', and in February 197 he utterly defeated Albinus' army near the city of Lugdunum and killed him. To avoid a revolt he divided Britain, as he had Syria, into two provinces. He then took punitive action against anyone he thought had aided his adversaries.

It was not just that he was neither a real nor adopted dynastic heir; what ranked against him were two contenders who had been proclaimed emperor by their troops. Although they had not been granted Senate approval, they had the advantage of broader support among large factions throughout the Empire:

After a brief stay in Rome, Septimius again turned to the east, conquered Mesopotamia, and organized it as a province.

Clodius Albinus, the legate of Gaul, enjoyed the support of many senators, as well as his soldiers. Both Dio [74(73).13.5] and Herodian [2.7.8-9; 3.5.2; 5.7.2] emphasized Albinus' popularity, especially in Rome.

In the next two years he visited Syria and Egypt. While in Antioch he granted Caracalla the title Augustus and made him joint-consul. Only then did he return to Rome, and only for a short period. In 203-204 Septimius visited North Africa and Lepcis-Magna, the city of his birth.

Pescennius Niger, the legate of Syria, enjoyed the support not only of the inhabitants of Syria, as well as his soldiers, but also of almost all the inhabitants of the eastern part of the Empire. Their support continued even after his death, and he was popular among many of the people in Rome, too.

Septimius instituted various reforms, apart from the changes in the recruitment of the Praetorians. In general he did not rely on the Senate, and preferred to appoint equestrians to the imperial administration. His main concern was to strengthen the army and the Empire. He raised the troops' pay, and made it legal for them to marry. He founded new colonies, especially in North Africa where he was born, and in Syria, the birthplace of his wife, Julia Domna. His cruel pursuit of his enemies enabled him to amass great wealth and property,

Septimius Severus bestowed the title Caesar on Clodius Albinus at an early stage [Dio 74(73).15.1; Herod., 2.15.3]. According to Herodian [2.15.5] the granting of the title Caesar to Clodius was approved by the Senate at the same time as Septimius Severus was recognized as emperor. The title Caesar also appears in the list of Albinus' titles on coins minted in of the year 193 and in inscriptions [for example, BMC, V, 666; ILS, III, 1,285].

20

Together with the title Caesar, Clodius Albinus also included "Septimius" among his names, apparently without any objections being raised by Septimius Severus, as the name Septimius continued to appear among Clodius' names on coins until he (Clodius Albin us) was defeated in 197. At first he appeared as "D. Clodius Septimius Albinus Caes.", and then as "Imp. Caes. D. Clodous Septimius Albinus Aug" [for example, BMC, V, lxxxii, ciii, cvi, 35, 63-71, 132, 155].

repeated on a gold coin of the same year with his seventh imperatorial acclamation [RIC, IV,l, 185, no. 8658; 187, nos. 700-702a; 188, no. 712]. A dedicatory inscription of Mauretania Caesariensis in North Africa, also from the same year, 195, ascribes a lineage of divine ancestors to Severus and incorporates the entire gens Aurelia genealogy as far back as the divine Nerva, referring to Severus as "the brother of divine Commodus" (DIV! COMMODI FRATRI) [CIL, VIII, 9317]. The deification of Commodus also appears on coins [RIC, IV,l, 99, no. 72a].

Septimius Severus apparently neutralized the potential threat of opposition from Clodius Albinus, by acquiescing to all the latter's actions and perhaps also by satisfying the Senate, as Albinus, entitled Caesar, was considered not only a ruling colleague, but also as one who could claim the inheritance for himself.

A letter from Septimius Severus to the people of Aezani in Phrygia (ILS, 8805), dated no later than the end of 1952 , commemorates the renaming of Caracalla as Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, and from the year 196 Caracalla was entitled Marcus Aurelius Antoninus on the reverse of coins (MAURANTONINUS) [RIC, IV,l, 83; Murphy, 1945, 104].

Relying on his pact with Clodius Albinus, Septimius Severus was now free to deal with his other adversary; he travelled at the head of his army to face Pescennius Niger. In a series of lightning strikes, which lasted until the end of 194, Severus inflicted a resounding defeat on Niger, killing him and driving his army across the Euphrates [Dio, 75(75).6.1-9.4; Herod., 3.2-7].

It would therefore appear that Septimius Severus presented himself as the direct successor of the Antonine dynasty, as the son of Marcus Aurelius, justifying and legitimizing his claim to the throne.

However, Septimius Severus was not interested in seeing Clodius Albinus succeed to the throne. It is almost certain that his ambitions were to ensure the throne for himself and his own sons.

The literary sources available for the study of Septimius Severus' reign also refer to his adoption into the gens Aurelia. Dio's "History" mentions Severus' adoption twice. On one occasion, during a session of the Senate in the year 197, Dio recounts [76(75).7.4] that Septimius Severus demanded that members of the Senate recognize him as Marcus' son and Commodus' brother, and bestow divine honours on Commodus. (It should be recalled that Commodus had previously been condemned by the Senate to a damnatio memoriae [Dio, 74(73).2.1].)

Septimius Severus knew that he was dependent on his troops' support to a great degree, and that he had to establish a firm base for their backing and strengthen their loyalty to him. It was only realistic to expect that, living during the period of

Marcus Aurelius, and witnessing the reign of Commodus, Septimius Severus should have been aware that the dynastic aspect of an imperial candidate was no less important than the support of the army, even if only because dynastic loyalty was largely the legacy of the troops. Septimius Severus, however, lacked this dynastic dimension, which was vital in order to strengthen his soldiers' loyalty to him, and to convince them of the justice of his claim to the throne and his sons' right to succeed him.

Although, according to this report, it appears that Septimius Severus' adoption occurred in 197, a careful examination of Dio's description reveals that though members of the Senate objected to Severus' claim, they were not surprised by it; apparently they were already used to the idea. Furthermore, the two words used by Dio [Joe. cit.,] in his description, dii;yi; and i:8t8ou, are in the imperfect tense, evidence that he was referring to a pre-197 period. Elsewhere, Dio declares that Severus simply listed himself in the gens Aurelia; the senator Pollenius Auspex congratulated the Emperor in that "at last he had found himself a father" [76(75).9.4].

Using the available literary, numismatic, epigraphic and artistic sources from Septimius Severus' reign, we will examine the measures he took to establish his position as sole ruler, and to ensure his sons' right to succeed him. The numismatic and epigraphic evidence shows that immediately following his defeat of Niger in the year 195, Septimius Severus, while still in the East, proclaimed himself "the son of Marcus Aurelius", thereby adopting the entire genealogy of the gens Aurelia. At approximately the same time, he changed the name of his first-born son, Caracalla, to "Marcus Aurelius Antoninus".

His self-adoption as Marcus Aurelius' son is also mentioned twice in the HA biography of Severus, in references similar to Dio's: "Some are of the view that the name Antoninus was bestowed on Caracalla as Severus himself wished to pass into the family of Marcus," states the author of the HA [Sev., 10.6].

On the reverse of the bronze coins of the year 195, the year of Severus' fifth imperatorial acclamation, he is entitled "the son of divine Marcus" (DIV! M Pl/ F). This title was

The HA author also writes [12.8] that Severus proclaimed Commodus' divinity to the Senate and to the Roman people. Although this section is combined with an account of the 21

Lugdunum, it still reports a real event, confirmed by Dio [76(75).6.1-8].

erected by Senate decree in the temple where Faustina and her husband were regarded as divine patrons [Dio, 72(71).31.1]. The hint is clear enough: the divine Faustina prepares the SaAaµoo- for Severus and Domna at the site where they had adored her and her husband as divine patrons.

Other literary sources, such as Herodian [3. l 0.5], Aurelius Victor [20.30] and Eutropius [8.19.2], mention that Caracalla was renamed Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, omitting the fact that this step followed the adoption.

Thus, not only was Severus' imperial future implied in a divine message but the divine Marcus and his wife divine Faustina actually accepted Severus as one of their family.

Furthermore, it is well known that divine sanction was an important element in the dynastic aspect, and that it helped establish the legitimacy of a contender's claim to the imperial throne, or strengthened the authority of whoever was already in power.

Severus' desire to establish and strengthen his association with the house of Marcus Aurelius is further reflected in the literary, numismatic and epigraphic evidence, and by his imitation of actions of Marcus Aurelius:

The relevant literary sources refer at length to divine confirmation granted by means of miracles, dreams and prophecies, which not hint only at Severus' claim of a divine pledge that he would occupy the imperial throne, but also at his associative connection with Marcus Aurelius and with his (Severus') adoption into the gens Aurelia.

* Like Commodus, whose father, Marcus Aurelius, bestowed upon him the toga virilis and at the same time appointed him as his colleague in the consulate long before he was legally of age [Dio, 72(71).22.2: HA, Marc. Ant., 22.12], Septimius Severus also bestowed the toga virilis upon his son Caracalla, who was only twelve years old, and appointed him fellow consul immediately after the imperial entourage had arrived in Antioch from Egypt [HA, Sev., 26.8].

The associative link, especially with Marcus Aurelius, was intimated in miracles. Dio [75(75).1.2; 3.1; 7.6-.7], Herodian [3.36-8], and the author of the HA [Sev., 9.9-11], tell of unusual climactic phenomena during military campaigns, which rescued Severus' army from certain defeat in critical situations during his war against Pescennius Niger, and during his first battle against the Parthians in the East.

* Like Faustina the Younger, who accompanied her husband on his military expeditions [Dio, 71(72).10; HA, Marc. Ant., 25.8], Julia Domna, wife of Septimius, also accompanied her husband on his Eastern campaigns [HA, Sev., 8.11].

These episodes were considered miraculous by Severus' troops, and were regarded as intimations of divine power.

* Like Faustina the Younger, whose husband honoured her with the title Mater Castrorum immediately after his victory over the Quadi [Dio, 72(71).10.5; HA. Marc. Ant., 26.8], Septimius Severus also bestowed the title Mater Castrorum on his wife Julia Domna immediately after his victory over the Adiabeni [Dio, 75(75).1-4].

Marcus Aurelius was known to have been granted divine sanction through climactic miracles which saved him and his army in critical situations, and which converted certain defeats into impressive victories [Dio, 72(71).8.1-4; HA, Marc., Ant 24.4.47].

* Like Faustina the Younger, whose title Mater Castrorum appears on her coins together with the seventh imperial acclamation [BMC, IV, 534, nos. 929-931, pl. 73.10; 541, no. 988], and also in the dedicatory inscriptions [CIL, XIV, 40], Julia Domna's title also appears on her coins, together with Septimius Severus' seventh imperial acclamation [BMC, V, 164, nos. 57-59, pl. 28.9.10; 305, no. 760+; 312, no. 789; 313, no. 792*; RIC, IV, I, p.83], as well as in various dedications discovered throughout the Empire [CIL, III, 5935; VI, 1035; XII, 4345; XIV, 120]. It should be pointed out that Faustina the Younger continued to hold this title on her diva coins as well [see for example BMC, IV, 650, nos. 1554-1556, pl. 86.5]5 .

The miracles which Severus' army experienced were similar to those of Marcus Aurelius in many ways3 • It would therefore be reasonable to assume that Severus would want to emphasize the similarities between the events that occurred to him and those experienced by Marcus Aurelius, to remind the troops of Marcus Aurelius' miracles, and to use this, not only as a sign of divine sanction, but also to strengthen the link between himself and divine Marcus. The omina imperii which points to Septimius Severus' imperial future is described at length in Dio [75(75).3.1-3]. There is at least one sign in the omina imperii of Severus described by Dio, associated with the adoption; Dio tells us [75(74).3 .1] that on the evening of his marriage to Julia Domna, Severus dreamt that Faustina, the wife of Marcus Aurelius, prepared the SaAaµoo- (nuptial chamber) of the couple in the temple of Venus on the Palatine [see also Dio, 72(71).31.1 J4_

* Like Marcus Aurelius' younger son, Annius Verus, referred to in some dedications as "son of Faustina" [CIL, VIII, 11323], Geta, the younger son of Septimius Severus, was called "son of Julia" [CIL, VIII, 9035]. It should be noted here that a dedication in which the son is identified by his matronymic, rather than patronymic, is seen for the first time in this dedication to Annius Verus6 .

It would appear that it was not a coincidence that Severus' dream occurred where it did. Following the apotheosis of Faustina, silver statues of Marcus Aurelius and Faustina were

22

* The title propagator imperii which accompanies Septimius Severus' name was discovered in several dedications in his honour.

The above evidence all renders the same clear picture; we can say that Septimius Severus' attempt to establish the legitimacy of his reign on his adoption into the gens Aurelia was one of the most prominent aspects of his propaganda.

Such a title accompanying an emperor's name was first found in dedications from Ostia from the year 166, with the name of Lucius Verus [CIL, XIV, 106]. This title was found also on a medallion dated in the years 178-180, depicting the busts of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus on the obverse, and the legend PROPAGA TORIBVS IMPERIi on the reverse [Gnecchi (1912), II.I, p.44, nos. 5,6].

We will now try to determine whether the dynastic aspect of Septimius Severus' propaganda is reflected in his and his family's portraits in each of the visual media, and if so, to what extent, within the framework of his plan to adopt himself into the gens Aurelia as the son of Marcus Aurelius. Every discussion of the Roman imperial portrait deals first and foremost with the identification of the portrayed character; generally, coin portraits provide the basis for such identification. Three major factors, related to the specific lines of most Roman imperial coins minted in the west of the Empire, provide the basis for identifying imperial portraits:

It is almost certain that the title PROPAGATOR which appears on coins of Caracalla and Plautilla fits into the same category7.

Many inscriptions dedicated to Septimius Severus have been discovered throughout the Empire; in all of them, Severus' list of titles includes all those connected to the gens Aurelia, emphasizing the dynastic origin of his title to the throne [for example, CIL, VIII, 1333, 5699, 5700; ILS, 418, 420, 422, 431, 448f., 454, 458, 1141, 1422]. Even in Lepcis-Magna, birthplace of Septimius Severus, where his real origins and his authentic lineage were well known, dedicatory inscriptions have been found which include all the titles associated with the gens Aurelia [IRT, p. 412-414].

First, the obverse of the coin usually consisted of the portrait of the emperor - or a member of his family, e.g., his wife or sons - who ruled at the time the coin was issued (with the exception of the divus coin, obviously minted after the emperor's death). It is therefore reasonable to assume that the portraits of imperial family members appearing on coins would be faithful copies of the subjects portrayed, or would at least contain the most distinctive features. Second, the obverse of the coin generally included the name of the emperor reigning at the time it was minted.

Although the idea of Septimius Severus' adoption into the gens Aurelia was accepted in Rome, it seems there were some reservations. These reservations are reflected in an anecdote, preserved in Xiphillinus' epitome, about a senator, Pollenius Auspex, who made fun of Severus, saying "at last he has found himself a father" [76(75).9.4]. Nor apparently, did Dio refer to the adoption in the legal sense of the term 8.

Third, coins were normally stamped with the year of minting, or with some other indication regarding the date 1°. An additional source used to identify an imperial portrait is the historical reliefs on public monuments, erected during the lifetime of an emperor; the identity of the subject of the portrait is ascertained by comparing it with coin portraits of the same emperor. A problem sometimes arises when it is not always possible to find the inscription on a historical relief indicating the date of the monument's erection; if such is found, its condition does not always allow it to be read with any certainty. As a result, public monuments cannot always be used for definite identification of the subject.

Similarly, in two inscriptions - one perpetuating the ludi saeculares [CIL, VI, 32327], and the other a dedication in the Argenturii Arch erected in Severus' honour in the year 204 [ILS, VI, 1035] - the list of Severus' titles does not include those connected with the gens Aurelia, although Caracalla is referred to as Marcus Antoninus Aurelius. On the other hand, Septimius is called the "son of Marcus", but not the "son of divine Marcus" in the dedication on the arch erected by the Senate in Severus' honour in the Forum Romanum in Rome in 203 [ILS, 425]. Although the absence of the word "divine" after Marcus may perhaps imply the Senate's reservations about the adoption, it nevertheless grants a measure of recognition to Severus as Marcus Aurelius' son 9 •

The coin portrait is therefore considered the most efficient means of identifying a portrait, as well as being reliable evidence of the appearance of an emperor or members of his family. Any identification and dating of a sculpted imperial portrait, or any other imperial statue, is generally based on its comparison with coin portraits. As there is normally a direct connection between a coin and a sculpted portrait, it is reasonable to assume that a sculpted portrait of an emperor would be the same as on his coins as regards their date, iconography and style. In other words, any change in the appearance of an emperor on his coins would be reflected in his portraits and statues in the round.

Thus the literary sources give clear evidence of Septimius Severus' attempt to adopt himself into the gens Aurelia, while the numismatic and epigraphic evidence not only confirm this evidence, but also reflect Severus' determination to affiliate himself with the Aurelian dynasty. In this respect, the literary and other sources are in perfect accord.

23

We have indicated that every imperial portrait in a visual medium is likely to serve as a means for disseminating ideas 11.

can be divided into three main groups, or types of portrait: early, middle, and late 13• In order to compare portraits of Septimius Severus and his family with those of Marcus Aurelius and his, we must first identify the characteristic facial contours of each of these emperors and their family members.

How, then, can the concept of belonging to a dynasty be expressed in a portrait, or in any other visual medium, especially if the major thread running through all Roman portraits is the realistic representation of the subject?

Let us examine the coin portraits of Septimius Severus in each of the three groups (Figs. 34, 35 - early type; Figs. 36, 37 - middle type; Figs. 38, 39 - late type):

To answer this question we must first turn our attention to hairstyle, and to the way it is represented in the plastic art of the Roman Empire. It should also be noted that hairstyle does not merely refer to the way the hair on the head is arranged, but if it was fashionable to grow a beard in a certain period, the beard's style as well, along with any other factor related to the hair.

* Each portrait depicts Septimius Severus as an early or late middle-aged man. * His facial structure is generally square, with a thick, fleshy neck. However, some portraits show his face as long and narrow, (for instance, Figs. 38, 39); the forehead protrudes slightly over the eyebrows, and there is a deep above the upper lip; there is usually at least one furrow along the forehead, his eye is large, and looking upwards; the nose is small, usually with a straight bridge, but occasionally shown as slightly bulbous at the tip (Fig. 39); a line from the side of the nose down to the end of the mouth creates the impression of a high, fleshy cheekbone.

The careful study of the hairstyles in Roman imperial portraits has given rise to two possible approaches to this subject in modern research: According to one approach, Roman imperial portraits present the changes in men and women's hair fashion in great detail. Thus, the appearance of a new hairstyle almost certainly indicates that a new fashion had been set. Such changes serve as a reasonably reliable yardstick for dating portraits of the imperial period.

* The hair on his head is a thick mane with curls spread about in rings. Some of the curls fall from the crown of the head towards the nape of the neck, and normally cover the neck, while others fall towards the face, falling over the forehead but leaving the temple bare.

The other approach sees in portrait hairstyles the lines characteristic of a specific style and fashion prevalent during a particular dynasty. Thus, a particular hairstyle which appears in an imperial portrait can help trace the origin of that style to a fashion prevalent in the court of a particular imperial dynasty. Such a fashion, however, cannot serve as a criterion for definite and precise dating of the portrait. Thus, certain portraits may be identified as belonging to either the Julio-Claudian or Flavian era 12 •

* One can detect differences in the length of the curls falling on the forehead and the way in which they fall. Sometimes they are short, and cover only the top of the forehead; sometimes they are long and cover at least half of it (compare Fig. 34 with Fig. 37). Generally they fall diagonally towards the bridge of the nose, though there are instances where single curls fall vertically down the forehead (Fig. 39).

Whichever of the above approaches is the more acceptable, it is reasonable to assume that dynastic aspects of imperial portraits would be reflected in some similarity of features to a particular emperor, either by a similarity in hairstyle, or by some other recognizable feature or characteristic attributed him (e.g., Alexander the Great's diadem, or Hercules' lion skin).

* The side burns and beard are full and curly like the hair on the head. * The curls separate below the line of the jaw. Each curl is styled individually like a spiral, with a tapered end.

In other words, if the dynastic propaganda of Septimius Severus was intended to spread the idea that he was the son of Marcus Aurelius, and that he and his family were the heirs of the Aurelian dynasty, we must examine whether the portraits of Septimius Severus and his family indicate changes in the style of the portraits, or whether they continue the tradition prevailing in Marcus Aurelius' court.

* The only significant differences in the style of the beard are its length and the direction of the curls under the chin. The beard is usually medium to long, but is occasionally short (Fig. 34). The curls under the chin normally jut forward markedly, emphasizing the curve of the chin (apparently the curls follow the shape of Severus' chin), but on occasion they fall vertically, giving only scant prominence to the projection of the chin.

The almost 19 years of Septimius Severus' reign present several types of portrait. As he was middle-aged when he acceded to the throne, his physiognomy did not undergo further changes (as opposed to portraits of Caracalla, which first appeared when he was 8 years old, and ended after his murder at the age of 29). The portraits of Septimius Severus

An examination of the relief portraits of Septimius Severus on the arch at Lepcis-Magna (Fig. I), on the Argentarii Arch in Rome (Fig. 2), and also of his painted portrait in the tondo 24

from Berlin (Fig. 41) 14, reveals that they all show the same lines listed above as typifying his features.

A comparison of portraits of Septimius Severus with those of Marcus Aurelius indicates several similar features. They do not suggest physiognomical similarities, but reflect certain individual characteristics which can be identified by the hair and beard styles.

An examination of Septimius Severus' sculpted portraits, conclusively identified by comparison with his coins, and dividable into the same three groups of portrait types (Figs. 42a and b - early; Figs. 7, 8 - middle; Figs. 43, 42 - late type), indicate lines which parallel those in coin portraits.

In addition, the depiction of the facial expression, referred to by modem scholars as the "philosophical expression", created by a large, round, slightly slanting eye looking upwards, and a long beard 15, reveal certain individual traits typical of the facial expressions characteristic of the Aurelian imperial family.

However, in the relief portraits, the Berlin tondo and especially the sculpted portraits, which can be viewed from at least two aspects - the front and side - we can see additional details in the representation of Septimius Severus' face which cannot be depicted in a coin portrait, due to the type of medium the coin represents, and the tradition of presenting a profile on the obverse of the coin.

Moreover, the overall impression of the facial structure indicates specific characteristics which prevailed in portraits of Marcus Aurelius, i.e., though Severus' face was square, as suggested by his first coin portraits (see, for example, Fig. 34), one of the technical means of creating the impression of a long face was a long beard. The combination of the two features described above achieved two objectives: Severus' beard is made to look similar to Marcus Aurelius', and it elongates his (Severus') face (see, for example, Figs. 36-40).

The sidewards and slightly diagonal tilt of the head is notable, particularly in the sculpted portraits; the large eye looking upwards is marked in all the three media mentioned above. The impression of a long narrow face is emphasized, particularly in the sculpted portraits, in the styling of the curls above the forehead. There are three different versions in each of the above media: a rounded triangular mass of curls covering between a quarter and a third of the forehead (Figs. 1, 43); ringlet type curls (Figs. 2, 44); raised curls leaving the forehead exposed (Fig. 42a). The beard is generally split into two separate groups of tapering curls (Figs. 1, 2, 43, 44).

Furthermore, study of the portraits of Lucius Verus (Figs. 15, 4 7), and those of Commodus (Figs. 16, 48), reveals that the style which attempts to emphasize the contrast between the smooth face and the hair, both of the head and beard, in which the contrast of light and shade stress the pictorialoptical element (referred to by modem scholars as the "Antonine style" 16), is also prominent in the portraits of these emperors.

Let us now tum our attention to portraits of Marcus Aurelius and identify the characteristics of his features.

Thus, as far as hairstyle is concerned, Septimius Severus' hair and beard are characteristic of the portraits of the Antonine emperors. The iconographic and the stylistic likenesses between Severus' and Marcus Aurelius' portraits are particularly manifest.

Marcus Aurelius' coin portrait (Fig. 45) shows a long, thin face, with a straight forehead. The wrinkled forehead is found only on portraits in which he appears older; a large upward looking eye; a straight back, slightly stretched at the end. A line from the side of the nose reaching the comers of the mouth appears only on the "older" portraits; the rich head of hair is styled in curls spread in rings around the head. Some of them fall from the crown of the head towards the neck and cover it, while some fall towards the face and forehead. Some rest diagonally on the forehead towards the bridge of the nose. The beard is curly, usually medium to long (in his youth the beard is shown as short). The sideburns match the style of the head curls. Each of the curls under the chin is styled separately, in the form of a tapering spiral, generally falling vertically without emphasizing the point of the chin.

It is also possible, however, that this similarity merely reflects the continuation of the fashion which prevailed at the Antonine court. If so, it is reasonable to assume that the characteristics of this

fashion can be found in other portraits of this period, as in that of Severus' rivals, Clodius Albinus and Pescennius Niger, as well as his predecessors on the throne Pertinax and Didius Julianus. Let us therefore examine coin portraits of Clodius Albinus (cf., Fig. 49 and Fig. 18), Pescennius Niger (cf. Fig. 50 and Fig. 17), Pertinax (Fig. 51) and Didius Julianus (Fig. 52). We find the following characteristics:

A study of the relief portraits of Marcus Aurelius (Fig. 46) and his sculpted portraits (Fig. 14) reveal some additional features: the head is tilted sidewards and slightly downwards; the upward diagonal gaze is stressed by the position of the pupil, which is close to the eyebrow; there are two versions of the curls on the forehead: in one the curls are raised, exposing the forehead, and in the other they fall onto the forehead in a single rounded triangular shaped mass; the beard is split into two separate groups of pointed curls.

* In Clodius Albinus' portrait, we see characteristic features of hairstyle and arrangement of the beard (Figs. 49 and 18).

In Pertinax' portrait, only the arrangement of the head curls is reminiscent of the hairstyle in the court of Marcus Aurelius (cf. Fig. 51 and Figs. 45-48). 25

* In Pescennius Niger's portrait, the arrangement of the curls of his beard below the chin hint at the style of beard in the court of Marcus Aurelius (cf. Figs. 50, 17 and Figs. 45-48).

appearance on coins (ibid., pp. 209-211). Toynbee claimed that such representations not only indicated the informal and personal nature of the medallions, but also reflected specific topics of imperial propaganda. One of the most prominent subjects appearing on medallions, continued Toynbee (p. 195 et seq.), was the legitimacy of an emperor's reign, both in peaceful, secure times, and in times of crisis. For example, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, both emperors by adoption, made every effort to refer to the dynastic aspect of their reign on coins as well as medallions.

* The hair and beard style in the portraits of Didius Julian us suggest the style in Marcus Aurelius' court (cf. Fig. 52 and Figs. 45-48). This is evidence that after the death of Commodus, hairstyles showed mixed tendencies. * Portraits of Pertinax and Pescennius Niger contain, on the one hand, features which reminds us of the hairstyle of Marcus Aurelius' court, while on the other hand, the subjects have their own individual, personal, characteristics.

Furthermore, claims Toynbee (ibid. p. 147 et seq.), there is nothing new in the scene presented on the medallions of Septimius Severus, either from the point of view of content or of iconography; most of them parallel those of the second century, specifically those appearing on medallions of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. Moreover, Commodus, the son and heir of Marcus Aurelius, is also featured on medallions of Lucius Verus.

* The portrait of Clodius Albinus shows a tendency to individualism.

* The hairstyles in the portraits of Didius Julianus and Septimius Severus are more in line with the hairstyle fashionable in Marcus Aurelius' court.

B.

Roman imperial engraved gems, which, judging by the stone from which they were carved, were certainly not intended as seals but as amulets or ornaments, were, like medallions, presented as personal gifts. One of the most important aspects of these gems, as with Roman coins and medallions, is the representation ofa "gallery of portraits", most of which can be identified with almost complete certainty by comparing them to coin portraits. Among these, and of particular interest here, are those series of gems which portray the emperor and members of his family, or as Richter describes them, the "family gems" 21 •

* In the case of Didius Julianus we lack the evidence which could indicate any particular trend in hairstyle.

Before drawing any conclusions, we should note certain additional points regarding Septimius Severus: A.

Several medallions showing Septimius Severus issued after spring 194, but no later than the end of 195, i.e., after his defeat of Pescennius Niger (Fig. 53) 17, depict a bust of the Emperor seen from behind, with his back bare, and with his head turned around revealing his profile. The right side of his back is completely bare, while the left is covered by armour held by a strap passing over the shoulder. His right hand grasps a spear (or scepter?).

One of the gems of Septimius Severus, apparently issued between the years 198 and 209 (Fig. 57)22 , depicts him facing two of his sons, Caracalla and Geta. All three portraits are seen in profile. Another gem presents Septimius Severus, this time with his son Caracalla facing him, both portraits in profile (Richter, ibid., 579). Yet another shows the entire imperial family, Septimius Severus and Julia Domna, and facing them, Caracalla and Geta. Again, all are in profile.

This type of illustration on the obverse of medallions was first issued during the second century on medallions of Marcus Aurelius, and then again on those of Lucius Verus and Commodus (Figs. 54-56) 18, with one small difference: the left side of the bust is covered not by armour, but by an aegis.

In general, the Roman gem intended to be used an amulet or ornament, bore a dedication, which would sometimes include the name of the recipient, and sometimes also that of the artist. It is not always possible to date the gems by means of these dedications. For example, the gem featured in Fig. 57, has been dated by interpreting certain aspects; Caracalla's head is laurelled, whereas Geta's head is bare. This would suggest that the gem dates from a time when Caracalla was already fellow-consul, but before Geta had been endowed with the title Augustui 3 •

The type of figure appearing on medallions of Severus seems to be an almost exact copy of that which first appeared on the medallions of Marcus Aurelius 19• The Roman medallion, according to Toynbee (1944, pp. 15, 73, 98 et seq., 193 et seq.}2°, was not minted to serve as money for trading purposes, nor was it intended for the general public, but was used by a certain sector of society as personal gifts. It could, therefore, reflect the various emperors' attitudes to specific topics more clearly, which did not feature at all on coins, or which appeared on them some time later. For instance, the appearance on medallions of foreign cult figures, such as Cybele and Isis, preceded their

An almost identical image of an emperor and his co-ruler is found on a gem of Marcus Aurelius engraved between the years 161 and 169. In it, Marcus Aurelius faces Lucius Verus. Both portraits are in profile (Fig. 58)24 •

26

The representation of the emperor and his wife or the emperor and other members of his family on imperial gems was not unusual in the Roman Empire. For example, engraved gems exist of Augustus and Livia, Claudius and Agrippina the Younger, Claudius and members of his family, Trajan and Plotina, Trajan and members of his family, Commodus and Crispina.

(Figs. 14 and 46), indicate surprising similarities in the style of the hair and beard, the eyes, the facial structure and expression. Moreover, without an identifying inscription, they could only be identified with certainty by examining them carefully and comparing them with coin portraits. In addition, even in sculpted portraits in which Septimius Severus is shown with individual curls falling down over the forehead (see, for example, Fig. 8), portraits which many scholars call the "Severus-Serapis" type of portrait, considered to be the par excellence portraits of Severus27 , the characteristic features of Marcus Aurelius are recognizable, such as the long face, the hair falling in ringlets from the crown of the head to the temples and ears, large eyes looking upwards, stressed by means of the raised pupil, the head inclined diagonally sidewards, and in some instances slightly downwards, the beard long and curly, split in the middle, tapering to two separate points.

Yet, among all the imperial gems discovered to date, the first depiction of an emperor and his co-ruler was that of Marcus Aurelius [Richter, 1971]. Furthermore, a careful comparison of the gems of Septimius Severus, shown on one with his son Caracalla, and on another with both of his sons, and those of Marcus Aurelius, shown with Lucius Verus, reveals similarities, not only with regard to style but also to composition, to the extent that it seems that the same artist could have engraved the gems of both Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus.

Moreover, an examination of the portraits of Severus in the reliefs in the arch at Lepcis-Magna (Fig. 1), clearly indicates the use of the most characteristic features which appear in portraits of Marcus Aurelius (cf. Figs. 14 and 46), though one could assume that Severus' appearance, like his family connections, were well known to the inhabitants of Lepcis and its artists. The same applies to the inscriptions discovered in Lepcis, in which the titles of Severus include all those relevant to the gens Aurelia, even though his origins and family connections were well known in the city of his birth28 .

Neverov (ibid.) claims that such a portrait of an emperor and his co-ruler has special dynastic significance; according to him, the legend Concordia Augustorum on the gems of Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus testifies to this significance. Moreover, there was a special celebration m honour of joint rule, apparently held for the first time m honour of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus25 • C.

Statues, whether life-size or larger than life, as well as portraits, indicate an interesting phenomenon.

Further similarities can be seen between the portraits of Septimius Severus and those of Commodus. The most striking example is perhaps that of the sculpted portraits discovered in Marakuana, North Africa, in which the similarity between the portraits of Septimius Severus (Figs. 61) and Commodus (Fig. 62) is not only stylistic, i.e., the hair and beard style, nor is it merely technical, i.e., the technique of drilling to create the curls of the hair and beard; it is also physiognomical. It may well be that the artist used the same mould, or the same model, in this case, to make the portraits, just adding the curls on Severus' portrait to distinguish between them 29 •

Let us first examine the design of upright statues of Marcus Aurelius (Fig. 59) and Septimius Severus (Fig. 60). Both statues show the subject standing in exactly the same position, dressed in the same attire, and with the same characteristic features prominent: large, upward gazing eyes, a curly head of hair swept upwards over forehead and temples, and a beard of medium length ending in separate curls. Standing statues of Roman emperors were generally located in public places, such as the forum, temples and public bathhouses. These statues and busts of the emperors played a large and important role in Roman social and political life, a fact well documented by the thousands of surviving pieces from Rome and other parts of the Empire; new pieces appear every year, and have already been discussed in modem studies26 .

D.

An additional example worth mentioning is a comparison of the reliefs on the Ephesus memorial, dating from the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and the reverse type of an aureus of Septimius Severus, dating from 197. The Ephesus relief, erected in honour of Marcus Aurelius' Parthian campaign (161-165), depicts a figure in a soldier's uniform standing in a quadriga (a chariot harnessed to four rearing horses). The quadriga is driven by the personification of Rome; Sol, adorned with a radiate crown, stands by the side of the chariot; the image of Victoria floats above the horses, and Tellus kneels before the horses. The soldier's head is missing, but as the uniform he is wearing is that of a Roman emperor, and the other figures standing by the side of

Similarities in the facial contours and other characteristic features in portraits of Marcus Aurelius, Commodus and Septimius Severus are particularly marked in sculpted portraits. A superficial glance at some of the reliefs and sculpted portraits of Septimius Severus, especially those of the middle and late period (Figs. I and 7), and those of Marcus Aurelius 27

the chariot are almost definitely Lucius Verus and the child Commodus, modem scholars believe that the charioteer is Marcus Aurelius 30 •

193-194 show certain similar characteristics in the facial features of Marcus Aurelius and the coin portraits of Severus (see, for example, Figs. 34 and 35, cf. Fig. 45).

A scene very similar to the Ephesus relief appears on the reverse of the aureus of Septimius Severus dated 197, apparently issued to commemorate his easterly excursion during the second Parthian campaign. Here too, Septimius Severus, identified by his beard, is standing in a quadriga, with the difference that in the coin portrait Septimius himself has the attributes of Sol. As in the Ephesus relief, Tellus is kneeling before the horses, and the quadriga, as in the relief, is being driven by a figure holding a torch, though in this case the figure is unidentifiable 31 •

Even during the period in which Severus' reign was fully consolidated and uncontested, when it may be reasonably assumed that his imperial position was no longer in such pressing need of divine sanction as in the year 210, the same facial traits characteristic of the portraits of Marcus Aurelius continued to appear with even greater emphasis on Severus' coins (for example, Figs. 36-39, cf. Fig. 45). The portraits of Severus on the divus issued by his son also continued to stress the similarities to the portraits of Marcus Aurelius (Fig. 40, cf. Fig. 45).

E.

G.

Special note should be made of a reverse type of coin which appeared very often (3 7 examples have been found) in the years 206- 208 32 • The coin depicts a monumental statue of Septimius Severus riding a horse [for example, RIC, IV, 1, I 00, nos. 73-4]. The depiction of this statue on Septimius Severus' coins is reminiscent of the bronze statue of Marcus Aurelius as a horseman, which has survived till today, and stands in the Campidogli Square in Rome.

If we examine the portraits of Septimius Severus' predecessors on the throne - Vespasian, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius - we find that each of them displayed a new hair fashion 34 • The portrait of Septimius Severus, however, though the founder of a new dynasty, indicates not only continuity of the style prevalent in the court of Marcus Aurelius, but also a marked tendency to resemble the latter's portrait.

Dio [74.3.3ff.,] recounts a story related to Septimius Severus, about a horse and rider, while Herodian [2.9.6] tells of a giant bronze statue of a horseman standing at the entrance to the Forum Romanum in Rome.

H.

Members of Septimius Severus' family, compared to those of Marcus Aurelius' family, also show marked similarities in portraits.

A statue, called equus Constantini by modem scholars, was discovered at the site where the horseman statue was assumed to have stood, according to Herodian's description. Another horseman statue, identified as that of Septimius Severus, was discovered in Pavia, and is apparently a copy of the original standing in the Forum Romanum in Rome.

First, we will examine the portraits of Julia Domna, Septimius' wife, and compare them to those of Faustina the Younger, wife of Marcus Aurelius. The prevailing opinion among modem scholars is that on receipt of the title Augusta, Julia Domna initiated a new era of hair fashion among women in imperial society, as did the empresses who preceded her on the throne. This was expressed in the form of a coiffure different from that of Faustina the Younger. Moreover, she introduced a totally new element into the style, i.e., she used what is today known as a wig, in the tradition of Syrian women. Scholars claim that the wig was one of Julia Domna's oriental contributions to Roman social life. This scholarly view is based almost entirely on a comparison of Faustina the Younger's portraits with various representations of Julia Domna 35 •

In the light of archaeological discoveries, it seems that the reverse of many types of coin reflect original monuments and buildings which have not survived to our time; the coins depicting them are the only proof that they ever existed. In particular, the reverse of coins of the Severan period, minted in Rome, clearly point to the existence of public monuments and many works of art in Rome which have not survived 33 • It is therefore reasonable to assume that the statue of Septimius Severus described in the literary sources, and that depicted on coins of the years 206-208, is the statue of Septimius Severus riding a horse, on proud display in the Forum Romanum in Rome.

We must first examine the basis of modem scholars' predominant view regarding Julia Domna's hairstyle. We will look first at a coin portrait of Julia Domna in profile (Fig. 63), and compare it to one of Faustina the Younger (Fig. 64). It requires no more than a quick glance at the two to clearly see the difference in coiffures.

F.

We have noted a trend towards similarities between the coin portraits of Septimius Severus and those of Marcus Aurelius, but the following points are particularly noteworthy:

* In both profiles, the empresses' hair falls in elaborate waves alongside the face, covering their ears. However, while Faustina the Younger's hair (Fig. 64) is pulled towards

Although the designation of Severus as the "son of the divine Marcus" occurred only in 195, some of the coins issued in 28

the back behind the ear, leaving a single curl lying further down below the lobe, Julia Domna's hair completely covers her cheek, almost obscuring it, and is only pulled back when it reaches her shoulder (Fig. 63).

Before turning our attention to earlier portraits of Julia Domna from the period of Septimius Severus' reign, i.e., 193-211, let us discuss the problem of the wig. Many female portraits, primarily those of empresses, have been discovered in recent years throughout the Roman Empire, dating mainly from the mid second century, but also including some earlier ones. A number of these female portraits contain a continuous groove separating the hair from the forehead. The hair is made from a separate, detachable piece of marble, as ifit were a wig.

* Although the curls of both empresses are pulled back into closely braided and twisted chignons, Faustina the Younger's chignon is round and close to the nape of the neck (Fig. 64), while Julia Domna's is elongated, in a helmet shape, from almost the edge of the crown of the head to the nape of the neck (Fig. 63). These differences are even more noticeable in the sculpted profile portraits of the two empresses (Figs. 65 and 66); some differences in coiffure can also be discerned when we look at these portraits in frontal view (Figs. 67, 68). Furthermore, Faustina the Younger's hair seems to be a direct extension of her face, i.e., as if fashioned from one block of marble, while Julia Domna's hair seems to be separate from the face, making it look like a wig.

In some instances, remains of gesso, a type of plaster, has also been found, filling the groove separating the hair from the forehead; apparently its purpose was to cover the joints between the hairstyle and the face so that they would not be visible. Moreover, some headpieces have been discovered totally separated from the head. At first scholars thought that these were parts broken off a whole; careful examination of the hair pieces and of the faces reveal, however, that there is a perfect match between the grooves at the edge of the forehead and the pins in the hairstyle. This shows that a hair piece, sculpted separately from the face, was in fact intended to be placed on the head, just like a wig.

The design of Julia Domna's hairstyle is obviously different from that of Faustina the Younger. It is, however, unlikely that Julia Domna would deviate from the path of her husband's political propaganda, especially in the first years of his reign, in the light of Septimius Severus' indefatigable efforts to associate himself with Marcus Aurelius in every possible way.

Indeed, some scholars maintain that as hairstyles, especially women's coiffure, change very frequently, this technique, i.e., sculpting the hair separately from the face, was used for convenience. Thus the hairstyle could be altered according to the change of fashion with much greater speed and ease.

Severus needed, or was even compelled, to strengthen and consolidate his claim to the throne by a dynastic fiction, i.e., his attempt to affiliate himself with the gens_ Aurelia as Marcus Aurelius' son. It would be strange if Julia Domna were to appear with a hairstyle different from that of Faustina the Younger, while Severus appeared in his portraits with such striking resemblance to Marcus Aurelius.

These finds show that detachable headpieces were not uncommon in Roman female portraits, and even became a popular fashion, primarily from the mid-second century. If so, the wearing of a wig was not the innovation of Julia Domna, but of her predecessors, especially those who occupied the throne after the mid second century.

We should note here that the coin portraits of Julia Domna, such as in Fig. 63, or indeed any other of her coin portraits accepted by modem scholars as typifying her usual hairstyle, are dated no earlier than the year 211 36 •

Let us examine other examples of sculpted portraits of Julia Domna (Fig. 69) and of Faustina the Younger (Fig. 68).

As there is usually a connection between a coin die and sculpted portrait, we may assume that the sculpted images of Julia Domna referred to earlier (Figs. 65 and 67) or any other sculpted portrait attributed to Julia Domna and accepted by modem scholars as typifying her usual hairstyle, were not made before 211.

* In frontal view the remarkable resemblance between the coiffure in the two portraits is surprising; in fact, they are almost identical.

* The faces of both empresses are surrounded by thick masses of hair parted in the middle, cascading down in long series of deep, trained waves. Some groups of curls are arranged around the ears. These groups of curls may suggest the empresses' own natural hair.

It is also worth mentioning that the portrait of Julia Domna featured in Figs. 65 and 67, in the Glyptothek in Munich, is one of the most famous portraits of this empress, and is generally accepted as representing her characteristic . Ie37 . ha1rsty

One can make two observations technique used:

Thus we see that the dominant view among modem scholars of Julia Domna's hairstyle is based not only on a comparison of her portraits with those of Faustina the Younger, but also on portraits of Julia Domna dated after 211.

regarding the stylistic

1. Both portraits are made in the tradition of the Antonine empresses' portrait;

29

2. The portraits of both empresses are made according to the Antonine style, with the drill creating contrasts of light and shade, and with an effort made to highlight the contrast between the smooth texture of the face, like marble, and the rough, less polished texture of the hair, in which the play of light and shade emphasize the use of a pictorial-optical element.

according to the coin portraits of these two empresses, neither of them was blessed with a short, ideal nose. There are also other portraits of Julia Domna in which she is shown more realistically, as on her coin dies, just as there are more realistic portraits of Faustina the Younger 40 • The same hairstyle attributed to Julia Domna in frontal view in the bust from the National Museum in Rome (Fig. 69) also appears in the painted tondo from Berlin, dated 199-200 (Fig. 41 ), as well as in almost all the relief portraits on the Argentarii Arch from the Forum Boarium in Rome, dated 204 (Fig. 2), and the relief portraits from the Arch of Septimius Severus at Lepcis-Magna dated 206 (Fig. 74B).

A glance at the coin dies of the two empresses (Figs. 64 and 70) shows no difference between the style of curls which frame their faces and cover their ears. Even the single curl on the cheek appears on both coin portraits. There is a difference in the size and shape of the chignon. However, when dealing with coins, the different length of the chignon does not necessarily indicate different types of portrait, it may merely reflect the fact that the coins were from dies made by two different coin-engravers.

Plautilla, Caracalla's wife for three years, 202-205, i.e., during the reign of Septimius Severus, wore a hairstyle similar in design to Julia Domna's coiffure described above; thus it was also like that of Faustina the Younger [for example, cf. BMC, V, cliv, 234ff., pis. 37.18-20, 38.1-3; 237f., pl.38.5.8-11]41.

The profiles in the sculpted portraits of the two empresses does indeed show different lengths of chignon into which the hair is gathered but they also indicate a further important fact, i.e., in sculpted portraits, the pictorial-optical effect of the artist's work is especially obvious in the chiselling and styling of the hair. This effect is one of the most distinctive features of what is known as the "Antonine style".

The three-dimensional statues of these two empresses (Fig. 71 and 72), also show the close similarities in their hairstyles. * In both instances the empresses have similar head coverings, placed on the head in the same manner.

For our purposes it is important to note that portraits were generally made and designed, and, more importantly, placed, in such a way that they were seen in frontal view.

* If indeed there was any difference in the chignon at the back, this would be hidden by the head covering.

* Their postures in the two statues are identical, and they hold the same items in their hands.

It is important enough to reiterate that the frontal view of the empresses' portraits highlight the similarities between their coiffures (Figs. 68 and 69).

The viewer's natural tendency is to look at life-size statues from the front, as is the case with busts; from this angle, only the wavy hair falling around the face would be seen. From this perception, the likeness between Julia Domna and Faustina the Younger would be a very close one.

This is in direct contrast to the differences in hairstyle between Faustina the Elder and Faustina the Younger; in the former the hair was pulled into a very large, high chignon at the top of the head, which also looked like a crown in the frontal view.

There is no doubt that these statues were situated in public places, the significance and role of imperial statues in public places having been discussed in modem studies42 •

It should also be stressed that the front view of Julia Domna's portrait, like the bust in the National Museum in Rome (Fig. 69), is the one that appears on her coins (see Fig. 36), [also BMC, V, pis. 33.6, 73.5.6; Kent, Overbeck, Stylow (1973), pl. 93, no. 389]. Again, coins which served as a basic means of payment in the Roman Empire were also one of the instruments of dissemination of imperial slogans.

A pair of portrait busts discovered together recently, and displayed today in the Indiana Museum of Art, USA, makes a valuable contribution to our discussion; one is that of Septimius Severus, and the other, of Julia Domna. Very few pairs of sculpted busts portraying a man and woman together have survived. It is more usual to find married couples on sarcophagi.

A careful survey of the sculpted portraits of Julia Domna, dated 193-211, reveals that all the details outlined above relating to her coiffure were adhered to meticulously, in contrast to her facial features which portrayed changes according to her advancing age [for example, BMC, V, 13f., pl. 3.13-18; 27f., pl. 6.11-17; 203, pl. 33.6]38 .

However, an earlier example of a pair of imperial busts, similar to the Severan pair in Indiana, was discovered in the Villa Adriana near Rome, depicting Marcus Aurelius and his wife Faustina the Younger.

There are indeed some sculpted portraits of Julia Domna in which her features are portrayed idealistically. Her nose, for instance, is represented as being short and retrousse, similar to the idealized portraits of Faustina the Younger 39 , whereas

lfwe examine the portraits of Julia Domna's predecessors on the throne, we find that the most obvious and direct method of signifying their succession to the throne is a change in their hair fashion. 30

Each one of the earlier empresses apparently felt obliged to set the tone regarding hairstyle.

Plautilla, Caracalla's wife imitated her mother- in-law Julia Domna46 •

Even if the portrait of Faustina the Younger shows some stylistic continuity, i.e., there is no change in the typical pictorial effect of the Antonine style, the notable contribution distinguishing the hairstyle of Faustina the Younger from that of Faustina the Elder is the location of the twisted plait.

We should bear in mind that until the death of Septimius Severus in York, England, on 4 February 211, he had full control of the administration and management of affairs, whether directly or through delegates. There are clear indications of official appointments to supervisory positions for public monuments and works of art and their restoration, even during the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus [see, e.g., CIL, VIII, 1708, 9007, 31035], as well as during the reign of Septimius Severus [see, e.g. CIL, VIII, 1439; XIV, 154]47 •

The coiffure of Julia Domna in the earlier portraits, those dated between 193 and 211, as regards both the design and the change in hairstyle, indicate both continuity and a tendency to create similarity to, or imitation of, the portraits of Faustina the Younger.

It is thus reasonable to assume that the purpose of the resemblance to, or imitation of, the portraits of Faustina the Younger by those of Julia Domna was to rally Julia Domna's portraits to the support of the dynastic aspect of Septimius Severus' propaganda, intended to establish and strengthen the claim that Severus was, in fact, the direct heir to the Antonine dynasty.

A comparison of Julia Domna's portraits with those of Faustina the Younger's in the Capitoline Museum in Rome shows a striking similarity [Fittschen (1977-78), 28-43]. This study of Julia Domna's portraits dating from the period of Septimius Severus' reign, the years 193 to 211, as represented in the visual media, and their comparison with those of Faustina the Younger, indicate an obvious attempt to imitate, or create a hairstyle similar to that of Faustina the Younger.

I. The portraits of Septimius Severus' sons, Caracalla and Geta, dated to the period of his reign (193- 211 ), may be compared to the portraits of Marcus Aurelius' sons, Commodus (as a child, and as a youth), and Annius Verus.

Moreover, the portraits of Julia Domna on coins issued to commemorate her apotheosis, bearing the legend DIVA IVLIA AUGUSTA, portray her with her head covered by a scarf; thus one does not see the shape of the chignon [e.g., BMC, V, (Elag.), 9; RIC, IV, (Car.) 396, (Sev. Alex.), 715]. One of these coins depicts the apotheosis of Julia Domna borne on the back of a peacock, the symbol of Juno which also appears on the coins of Faustina the Elder [BMC, IV, 476], and those of Faustina the Younger, [BMC, IV, 1570. Also: Willmias (1902)]43 •

Caracalla: The first official coin portraits of Caracalla as a child were minted in the year 196, the year in which his father bestowed the title Caesar on him (Fig. 73).

These portraits are characterized by an oval shaped head, and childish features expressed in the form of a large, wide open eye, a short, round snub nose, full cheeks, and a slightly protruding chin. The hair is full and wavy, with long curls falling softly onto the forehead, covering the temple and half the ear. The long wavy curls fall in the same soft flow from the crown of the head in the direction of the nape of the neck and the cheeks. The hair resting on the neck is also full and curly.

It is also important to note that Julia Domna's appearance on her coins, as well as their dedications, prove that she was not granted any extraordinary divine respects - everything she received had been offered in abundance to her predecessors on the throne 44 • In the light of the literary, epigraphic, numismatic and visual evidence presented above, a consistent resemblance between the hairstyle of Julia Domna, dating 193-211, and that of Faustina the Younger, can be traced.

These same features, with the exception of some marginal changes in physiognomy to indicate Caracalla's maturing, such as a straight nose and less rounded chin and thinner cheeks, continue to appear on coin portraits until 204. The most notable sign of Caracalla' growing up are the whiskers which begin to appear in the coin portraits of 205. Despite the beard, however, Caracalla's features continue to look like those of a youth of sixteen or seventeen.

All the evidence presented above so far seems to indicate that this resemblance was not coincidental. It is more reasonable to assume that, like the similarity between the portraits of Septimius Severus and those of Marcus Aurelius, here too the resemblance was deliberate and premeditated.

Apart from the physiognomical changes, it does not seem that there was any change in the design of Caracalla's hairstyle on the coin portraits of the years 196 to 209. See, for instance, the year 196: BMC, V, 52-55, pl. 10.7-13; the year 198/9: Id., 171-174, pl. 29.9-16; the year 199/200: Id., 183-188, pl. 30.15-30; the year 20 l: Id., 204, pl. 33.8-12; the year 203: Id., 240-241, pl. 38.14].

The propaganda was apparently intended to create a resemblance between Julia Domna and Faustina the Younger, as if the daughter-in-law wished to imitate her revered mother-in-law, just as Chrisipina, Commodus' wife, imitated her mother-in-law Faustina the Younger45 , and 31

The child-type portrait of Caracalla on the coins of 196 to 205 also appears in the Berlin painted ton do (Fig. 41 ), and in the reliefs in the Argentarii Arch in Rome, while the portrait with the more mature features appears in the reliefs in the Lepcis-Magna Arch (Figs. 74A and B).

A comparison of sculpted portraits of Caracalla and Geta as children (Figs. 80, 81), with those of Commodus and Anni us Verus (Figs. 82, 83) merely emphasizes the similarities outlined above. The most striking similarity, however, is that of the rich textural design of the full, wild head of hair. All four of the children, Commodus, Annius Verus, Caracalla and Geta, have their heads surrounded by circles rich in long, wavy ringlets. Even technically, each curl is carved in a similar fashion. The sculptures of Caracalla and Geta are also characterized by smooth skin surfaces, and by the generous use of the drill for the details of the hair, highlighting the interplay of light and shade.

Only in Caracalla's portraits on the coins of 209 do we find striking changes, both in the facial features and in the hairstyle. These portraits show a longer face with a straight nose and an emphasis on prominent cheekbones, similar to the portrait of Severus (Fig. 75). The hair is still thick and wavy, but the longer curls have been replaced by short curls, round, closed and spread in ringlets over the head. This style is echoed in the curls of the beard, which now cover the lower jaw and chin completely [see also BMC, V, 358f., pl. 53 .5-7. Regarding the similarity to Septimius Severus' facial features, cf. Figs. 34-39].

These two elements, typical of the Antonine tradition, are characteristic of the sculpted portraits of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus as young men, and Commodus as a child and youth (Figs. 84-86).

Geta: The physiognomy and hairstyle of Geta earliest numismatic portraits which first appeared in 198 upon his receiving the title Caesar, are very similar to those of Caracalla; only the name verifies the subject's identity (Fig. 76).

Modem research agrees on the similarities, both physiognomial and stylistic, between the portraits of Caracalla and Geta as children and those of Commodus and Annius Verus.

The childish features begin to lose their softness and delicate childishness in the coin portraits of 205, while the hairstyle remains unchanged just as in Caracalla's portraits.

The current debate still raging among modem scholars regarding the identity of the child portraits of Caracalla and Geta on one hand, and Commodus and Annius Verus on the other, is proof of this. One of the difficulties in identifying the sculpted portraits is not just the physiognomial parallels between them, but the hairstyles, which are not merely similar, but identical48 •

And like Caracalla, the more mature portrait type appears in the dextrarum iunctio scene of the reliefs of the LepcisMagna Arch (Figs. 74 a and b) The notable changes in Geta's coin portraits occurred only in the year 209; the major characteristics attesting to Geta's maturity are the length of his whiskers and the closed style of the head curls (Fig. 77). [See also, for the year 198: BMC, V, 18lf., pl. 30.10-13; for the years 200-204; Id., 196-201, pis. 32.6-20, 331-3; for the year 208; Id., 273-275, pl. 42.1215].

If we look closely at portraits of children in Roman art, beginning with the period of the Republic and the Empire, we find that certain physiognomial traits recur in all such portraits: the profile of the nose, the line of the jaw and the shape of the cheeks. It is reasonable to assume that either a set formula or the

If we examine the coin portraits of Commodus as a child (Fig. 78) and those of Annius Verus [see Bernoulli (1894), 11,2, Munstaf. nos. 4.5; for those of Commodus see also BMC, IV, pl. 66, nos. 6-10; Kent, Overbeck, Stylow (1973), Taf. 87, no. 345], we find a physiognomical resemblance between Caracalla and Geta on the one hand, and Commodus and Annius Verus on the other, as well as similarities in their hairstyles.

same model was used to mould a child's face in order to differentiate it from that of an adult. Thus, when dealing with child portraits, hairstyle is of prime importance as a criterion for dating and identifying the portraits 49 • A comparison, therefore, of the portraits of Caracalla and Geta and those of Commodus and Annius Verus, in all the visual media, indicate clear parallels between them, both iconographically and stylistically.

The same transformation in the style of the hair curls of Caracalla and Geta as they pass from childhood to adolescence occurs in the coin portraits of Commodus as a youth. Furthermore, the same characteristics shown in the texture of hair in Caracalla and Geta's youthful coin portraits are found in the coin portraits of Marcus Aurelius as a youth as well (Fig. 79). [For portraits of Marcus Aurelius as a youth see also Kent, Overbeck, Stylow (1973), Taf. 79, nos. 315, 327, Taf. 80, no. 311.]

The following should also be noted: the obverse of a medallion depicting Caracalla's portrait issued in 199 (Fig. 87) shows his bust seen from behind, with bare back, his left shoulder covered only by a shield, held in place by a strap running diagonally across his back and right shoulder. Caracalla's head, turned in the direction of the viewer, is seen in profile [Gnecchi (1912), II, 77(1), tav. 95.2.4]. We have already encountered that Commodus is portrayed in a similar medallion (Fig. 56) [Gnecchi (1912), 53(12), 61 (88), tavv. 78.8, 84.1]. And we have also seen similar elements appears 32

in medallions of Severus, actually a variation of an image first used to portray Marcus Aurelius.

propaganda policy is clearly displayed in the portraits of himself and his family in every visual medium.

We should stress that despite the titles and co-reign of Caracalla and Geta, Septimius Severus controlled the administration and managed all affairs, whether directly or indirectly, until his death in York, England, on 4 February 21 I 50 . In the light of the evidence set forth above, it appears that the resemblance in Caracalla's and Geta's hairstyles and those of Commodus and Annius Verus were not coincidental, but rather the result of premeditated action used as an additional means of strengthening Severus' claim that he was indeed the direct heir of the Antonine dynasty.

His use of the Antonine dynasty in legitimizing his claim to the throne, both during his struggle to attain it and during his reign, was clearly reflected in the retention of the traditional Antonine hairstyle, as well as in the analogous iconography of portraits of Severus and his family, and those of the Antonine dynasty, specifically portraits of Marcus Aurelius, his wife Faustina the Younger, and his sons Commodus and Annius Verus. It is therefore apparent that the role of the imperial portrait in supporting Severus' claim to ties with the Antonine dynasty was quite important.

*

*

*

d. Severus' success in reaching his target population can be

attributed in no small part to his understanding of the role of propaganda, including the wise selection of channels and visual means, and the excellent utilization of the mechanisms of its dissemination, i.e., the mass communications system common in the Roman Empire.

Conclusions Since the period of Emperor Augustus and his heirs the Julio-Claudians, the dynastic problem, i.e., the dynastic aspect of imperial status, was one of the main factors in ensuring the legality of the Roman Emperors' claims. Even during the Antonine dynasty, whose hereditary line was considered completely constitutional, though based on the practice of adoptions, the Antonine emperors, especially Antoninus Pius, the adopted son of Hadrian and adoptive father of Marcus Aurelius, as well as Marcus himself, made every effort to use all the media available to proclaim their legitimate succession to the throne, and the continuation of their reign.

This leads us to the following conclusions: surviving sources for the study of Septimius Severus' reign i.e., written sources and archaeological finds, have enabled us to understand both one of the conspicuous subjects of imperial propaganda, and the methods used to spread it. According to this evidence, the process lasted a long time, beginning almost immediately with the struggle for the throne shortly after the murder of Commodus, and continuing throughout the duration of Severus' reign, and perhaps even afterward.

Emperor Septimius Severus was certainly not the most popular contender among the Senate, the people or the army, with the exception of his own troops, when he began his struggle for the throne following the murder of Commodus; he also lacked dynastic connections, even via adoption. Nevertheless, he succeeded in placating the Senate, the entire army, and the masses in Rome and inhabitants throughout the Empire, all of whom were sensitive to the principle of dynastic loyalty. He founded a dynasty which not only received official recognition, but held the reign of government for over forty years.

The intensity with which the message was transmitted via all available media was apparently intended to ensure its constant reiteration, and was one of the major factors in Severus' success in pressing his claim to membership of the

gens Aurelia.

In the light of all the evidence presented above, we can now draw a number of conclusions about the nature of Emperor Septimius Severus' propaganda and his means of disseminating it: a. An analysis of the factual descriptions of political events written by contemporary ancient historians, and found in later sources as well, shows that the dynastic aspect of his reign was one of the most prominent messages of Septimius Severus' imperial propaganda campaign.

b. A careful examination of other sources, i.e., numismatic

and epigraphic, indicates that they too clearly reflected this aspect. c. A detailed scrutiny of the art sources currently reveals that the dynastic aspect of Septimius Severus' political

33

In early January 193, following the murder of Commodus, Pertinax was proclaimed emperor. However, he too was murdered less than three months later, at the end of March 193. Almost immediately, the Senate proclaimed Didius Julianus emperor. At the same time, early April 193, three other men were proclaimed emperor by their legions: Pescennius Niger in Syria, Septimius Severus in Camuntum and Clodius Albinus in Gaul [Dio, 74(74).14.3-4; Herod., 2.9.11].

Chapter 2: B) Septimius Severus and the gens Aurelia. Did Severus prepare a political base for his adoption?

The Senate rejected Didius Julianus in early June 193, and sentenced him to death. He was executed by his Praetorian guards. At this stage Severus arrived in Rome. Surrounded by his loyal troops, he entered the city gates (it is not certain whether Severus was already in Rome at the time of Didius Julianus' execution. See pp. 37-38 below, as regards the date of Severus' arrival in Rome). The Senate bestowed official recognition upon him as the Emperor, though many senators actually supported Clodius Albinus, legate of Gaul [Dio, 74(73).13.5; Herod., 2.7.8-9]. In fact, based upon descriptions of Severus' first entry into Rome b_y contemporary historians, it would appear that this recognition was forced upon the Senate [Dio, 75(75).1.3-5; Herod., 2.14.1-5]. Severus bestowed the title Caesar upon Albinus [Dio, 74(73).15.1; Herod., 2.15.3; See also BMC, V, 666; ILS, III l, 285], thus dispelling Albinus' opposition and perhaps also the suspicions of the Senate, as Albinus was considered Severus' colleague in the consulship and actually entitled to claim the throne for himself after Severus' death [Birely (188), Chaps., 10, 11, 12].

As stated earlier, numismatic and epigraphic evidence show that during the course of 195, Severus made his first official and public claim to ties with the gens Aurelia as the son of the divine Marcus Aurelius, thus creating a fictitious imperial dynasty for himself, reaching as far back as the divine Nerva. Apparently, this public declaration surprised no one. With the exception of reservations among certain groups in Rome, the official pronouncement spread throughout the Empire without creating any turmoil or opposition. In fact Severus' success in creating a dynastic justification for hi; claim to the throne, as well as his sons' right to succeed him, exceeded all expectations. He not only succeeded to the throne and was accepted by his troops and the entire Empire, but was also universally hailed as the son of Marcus Aurelius, the heir to the old divine imperial dynasty, the Aurelian Dynasty, rather than the founder of a new one.

Severus remained in the capital only long enough to reinforce his position; when his control was secure he left Rome at the head of his army and moved against Niger. In a series of lightning encounters until the spring of 194, Severus defeated Niger and his troops, driving them across the Euphrates [Dio, 75(75)6.1-9]. Immediately afterwards, "Severus, out of a desire for glory, made a campaign against the barbarians - against the Osroeni, the Adiabeni and the Arabians" [Dio, 75(75).1.1-3; see also: Herod., 2.14.5-7].

How can Severus' extraordinary success be explained? How can the silent acceptance of his ascent by the troops, the people and the Senate, as well as inhabitants throughout the Empire, especially the people of Lepcis Magna, be understood? Was a legend on a coin that he, Severus, was "the son of divine Marcus" enough to establish the authenticity of his claim without any objections being raised?

While Severus was still in the East, coins appeared in the year 195 inscribed with a legend proclaiming him "the son of divine Marcus".

We will avail ourselves of the various types of sources related to the period in question. i.e., literary, numismatic, epigraphic and iconographic, in order to examine the following questions:

The war in the East occupied Severus throughout the year 196 as well; only towards the end of that year did he return to Rome.

a) Did Septimius Severus take any preliminary measures to lay the foundations for his fictitious adoption into the gens Aurelia?

It is not hard to understand the delicate political situation in which Severus found himself. He had relied on his pact with Clodius Albinus to defeat Pescennius Niger, and it was therefore essential that he should in no way arouse Albinus' suspicions regarding their joint rule. Nor could he arouse the suspicions of the Senate, which supported Albinus. At the same time, Severus knew that he depended on the support of his soldiers to a great extent, and that he must consolidate their support in order to reinforce their loyalty.

b) If so, when did he begin? c) What means did he employ to spread the idea of his

adoption in the early stages? To answer these questions we must first bear in mind the political situation during the years 193-I 95.

34

What could serve to reinforce the loyalty of Severus' troops and convince them that his claim to the throne was just, ensuring their continued support?

There is little doubt that the Severan government encouraged, albeit covertly, the publication of such pamphlets. Furthermore, Dio was doubtless one of many who placed their literary talents at the Emperor's service. The propagandist nature of Dio's composition is quite clear.

Severus, who lived during Marcus Aurelius' reign and witnessed Commodus' rule, had also spent most of his life in military service among soldiers, and knew that in the eyes of the soldiers the dynastic element was the hereditary principle which granted legitimacy to power, more so than official recognition by the Senate.

Although Dio's treatise about omens and prophecies of Severus' imperial future did not survive as an independent source, there can be little doubt that the list of the omina imperii, as it survived in Xiphilinus' epitome of Dio's "History" [75(75).3.1-3], is an extract from his early composition, nor is there any reason to doubt that he began writing his pamphlet as early as 193, and that it was published. Millar (1964, 29, 139) and Rubin (1980, 24-25, 42, 52-57) point out that the exchange of correspondence between Dio and Severus most likely took place during Severus' brief stay in Rome at the end of 196. A question therefore arises: if Dio sent his composition to Severus in 196, is the omina imperii as it appears in 75(75).3.1-3, the authentic text as written in the year 193?

Moreover, the era in which Severus lived was also a period of increased belief in the supernatural; thus he would have also known that divine sanction, manifested through miracles, prophecies, or dreams, was no less important in reinforcing authority, both of the claimant to the throne as well as whoever was currently in power. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that if Severus thought

divine sanction would persuade his troops of the justice of his claim, he would take the appropriate measures.

Rubin (op. cit.) claims that if the pamphlet listing omens was handed to Severus in Rome towards the end of 196, it is reasonable to assume that Severus' dream about Faustina the younger, in which she prepares the SaAaµoc; for the young couple, clearly impying a connection with Marcus Aurelius, as stated above, is Dio's later addition to the essay written in 193. Rubin further claims that more than two years (from 193 to 196) is an undeniably long time for the composition of a ~t~tAov, and that Dio would have known which way the wind was blowing.

As mentioned earlier, the literary sources available to us on Septimius Severus' reign contain numerous references to divine sanction of his reign in the form of miracles, prophecies and dreams. These clearly implied that Severus had been given divine support but they were also linked, by association, to Marcus Aurelius and to Severus' adoption into the gens Aurelia. For example: family ties with Marcus Aurelius were hinted at in a series of climatic miracles, considered by Severus' troops to be a message from a divine power [Dio, 75(75).1.2, 3.1; Herod., 3.3.6-8,7.6-7].

It is reasonable to assume that rumours were deliberately

spread by the Emperor or his close associates, and that practically everyone would have heard of them.

A description of these miracles also appeared in a later source [HA, Sev., 9.9-11], and were all similar to events witnessed by Marcus Aurelius' army years earlier [Dio, 72)71.8.1-4; see also: HA, Marc. Ant., 24.4.47].

Moreover, the fictitious adoption appeared on coins as early as 195. It would have been possible, and even desirable, to insert a suitable postscript to the original composition written in 193, adapting it to current imperial propaganda, especially as Dio intended to submit it to the Emperor. Severus, however, had to act with great caution, considering the political climate prevailing at the beginning of his rule, to avoid arousing the suspicions of Albinus and the senators.

There is little doubt that it was in Severus' interest to emphasize the similarities between these events in order to stress the connection between himself and divine Marcus. In another example, the list of omina imperii described by Dio [75(75).3.1-3] hints not only at Severus' imperial future, but also at Severus' connection with divine Marcus Aurelius.

What steps could Severus have taken in this situation to spread the concept linking him to Marcus Aurelius, without arousing suspicion?

Again, one may assume that Severus had a direct interest in spreading word of these omens and dreams, making sure they would not be easily forgotten.

There is no doubt that deliberate and widely circulated rumours provided an unofficial, yet efficient means of introducing ideas into a specific group. Indeed, literary sources confirm that rumours served as an efficient means of communication, and that pronouncements concerning the omina imperii and the miracles were deliberately spread. Dissemination of rumours and the cultivation of superstitions thus played an important role in laying the foundation for Severus' future adoption, and he used them early on in his struggle for the throne to emphasize the connection between Marcus Aurelius and himself.

Dio implies that writing his treatise on the prophecies and omens foretelling Severus' accession to the throne was entirely his own idea, and that he began writing as early as the year 193 [73(72).23.1-2]. He further adds [ibid.] that he sent his composition to Severus, who acknowledged it with an enthusiastic letter of thanks.

35

Yet, would mere rumour have been enough to persuade the troops, certain to be very knowledgeable about Marcus Aurelius and his family?

jaw and chin, the curls of Marcus Aurelius' beard fall down straight, without emphasizing the protrusion of the chin. The is difference apparently the result of physiognomic differences.

Let us assume that a plausible rumour, which could not be disproved, would be accepted, especially if the groundwork had been well prepared. The numismatic evidence, both coins and medallions, support this assumption with important clues.

The major characteristics of Marcus Aurelius' hair and beard in portraits are thus a thick, curly, long head of hair and beard, and colouful contrasts in the interplay of light and shadow.

Let us review the medallions of Severus, whose terminus a quo was apparently the spring of 194, i.e., after the defeat of Pescennius Niger, but whose terminus ad quern was no later than the end of 195, i.e., before Severus had explicitly and officially proclaimed himself the son of the deified Marcus Aurelius, and compare these to medallions of Marcus Aurelius.

The following points are also worth noting:

* The contour of Severus' jaw in his coin portraits is sometimes shown in a wide angle, giving the impression of a long narrow face, and sometimes in a narrow angle, making the face seem squarer. A similar variation applies to the neck: on some portraits it appears as thick and fleshy, while on others - long and narrow.

Some of Severus' medallions (Fig. 53) depict a bust of the emperor with his back bare and his head turned almost completely around, facing the viewer. The right side of his back is bare while the left is covered by armour secured by a strap over the shoulder. The right hand on this medallion holds a spear (or sceptre).

Marcus Aurelius actually had a long, narrow face, though it is shown as less narrow on occasions.

* Marcus Aurelius' beard is depicted in various lengths: long, medium and short, the difference in length reflecting the age at which is being portrayed.

As mentioned above, this type of medallion was first issued by Marcus Aurelius in the second century (Fig. 54), and was used again by Lucius Verus and Commodus (Figs. 55, 56), with one small difference: the left side of Marcus Aurelius' bust is covered not by armour but by the aegis. Severus' medallion portrait appears type seems to be an almost exact copy of that first depicted on Marcus Aurelius' medallions.

* Severus' eye in his coin portraits is large, and stares upward. One of the most prominent features of Marcus Aurelius' face in his portraits is his large eye, which looks upward. It seems that the earliest coin portraits of Severus, beginning in 193-4, pointed to similarities in style and iconography between his likeness and that of Marcus Aurelius

Let us now return in detail to two examples of Severus' coin portrait of 193-195, referred to by modem research as Portrait Type I, and considered to be his first official portraits. These portraits were already being circulated on coins in 193-194 (Figs. 34, 35).

A detailed comparison of the sculpted portraits of Severus, also referred to in current research as Portrait Type I, dating from I 93-195, (Figs. 7a,b; 42a,b) with those of Marcus Aurelius (Fig. 14), reveals that the same points noted in our discussion of coins also apply to the sculpted portraits, with some additional features:

The hair style is composed of round curls, sometimes styled into closed rings, and sometimes in open rings. These curls spread naturally from the top of the head towards the nape of the neck, usually covering the neck, and towards the face, covering the temples. The curls over the forehead tumble diagonally towards the bridge of the nose, the hair has a slight tendency to recede from the temples. Sharp contrasts of light and shadow in the curls create the impression of a full, thick head of hair.

* In some of Severus' portraits his curls fall onto the forehead in one uniform lock, with in others they are round or triangular, covering about a quarter to one third of the forehead, or are arranged in a number of single round curls facing different directions. Some portraits show the hair pulled back, leaving the forehead exposed. Portraits of Marcus Aurelius exhibit the same variety of styles.

The beard is usually short to medium in length. The style of its curls on the cheeks matches that of the head, separating beyond the curve of the chin into individual, coil-like tapered curls with a strong forward slant; sometimes they drop vertically below chin level towards the jaw, slightly emphasizing the curve of the chin. In both instances the curls end in sharply defined pointed edges.

* In Severus' portraits, his beard is sometimes uniform (Fig. 42a), but is more often shown with two separate groups of curls (Fig. 7a). In both types of portrait the curls end in sharp pointed edges. These features also typify Marcus Aurelius' beard (Fig. 14).

* In both his sculpted portraits and in his coin portraits Severus' face is generally wide and square, though occasionally narrower and longer (Figs. 7a). Marcus

These features, typifying Portrait Type I of Septimius Severus, also describe Marcus Aurelius' coin portrait (Fig. 45), with one exception: while Severus' beard falls below his 36

Beard: Long, composed of short, simple, heavy curls. A few curls jut forward below the chin. Both these and those below the jaw twist around, ending in sharp pointed edges.

Aurelius, as mentioned above, is usually portrayed as having a narrow, long face.

* Severus' portraits emphasize his diagonal, upwards glance while holding his head slightly to the side and diagonally down. Again, these last two observations apply equally to Marcus Aurelius' portraits (Fig. 14).

It would appear that the styles of hair and beard clearly suggest the fashion in Marcus Aurelius' court.

Clodios Albinos, bronze Severus, (Fig.49).

Not only were the first sculpted portraits of Severus similar in style to those of Marcus Aurelius, but suggested physical similarities to Marcus himself.

medallion,

194/5,

issued

by

Hair Style: Wide flat curls in the shape of leaves, brushed forward from the top of the head towards the face, falling onto the forehead diagonally towards the bridge of the nose, with a hint of the hair receding from the temples. The impression created by the interplay of light and shadow in the curls is that of less thick, perhaps even relatively thin, hair growth.

A claimant's connection to part of a particular dynasty would be used to justify and legitimize his possession of the throne, and would be reflected inter alia by his adoption of styles and iconographic features similar to those of the dynasty with which he wished to associate himself.

It is also possible that this similarity merely reflects the continuation of the fashions and hair styles of the Aurelian court.

Beard: Relatively short; the curls of the sideburns follow the curls from the head. The beard divides into separate "corkscrew" shaped curls with pointed edges, hanging straight down under the chin.

If this were the case, we could expect to find the main In the case of Albinus' portraits, only the style of his beard resembles the fashion in Marcus Aurelius' court.

features of this fashion in other portraits of this period, for instance in the portraits of Severus' rivals, Clodius Albinus and Pescennius Niger, as well as in portraits of his imperial predecessors, Pertinax and Didius Julianus.

However, the portrait of Clodios Albinos depicted on denarius, issued in Lugdunum in 195, (almost certainly produced in Albinus' mint [BMC, V, 69, #289. Also: McCann (1968), 63, pl. IV. Fig. 3]), shows the following features:

Let us compare the coin portraits of these four to those of Marcus Aurelius (Fig. 45), and Septimius Severus (Figs. 34, 35).

Hair Style: Wide curls in the form of very large coils, falling onto the forehead in a straight fringe, and covering the temples. The interplay of light and shadow in the curls creates the impression of a full head of hair, but not thick.

Pertinax, sestertius, 193, issued by Severus, (Fig. 51). Hair Style: Round curls in the form of styled rings, spreading naturally from the top of the head down towards the nape of the neck, and towards the face covering the temples. There is a slight tendency for the hair to recede from the temples. The locks above the forehead fall at an angle towards the bridge of the nose. The interplay of light and shadow in the engraving of the curls creates the impression of relatively sparse hair growth.

Beard: Very short, very close to the face, following the line of the jaw and chin. The coiled curls parallel the curls of the hair on the head. There are definate differences between the two coin portraits of Albinus, both in the hairstyle and in the style of the beard. The portrait on the Lugdunum coin bears no resemblance to the fashion in Marcus Aurelius' court. We may therefore assume that this paticular portrait depicts specific features of Clodius Albinus.

Beard: Full, with long hair, falling in long parallel waves, twisting around the protruding point of the chin, and continuing to fall vertically in parallel, uniform, waves. We see that only the style of head curls is reminiscent of the hair style fashionable in Marcus Aurelius' court.

Pescennius Niger, aureus, 193-194, Antioch(?), issued by Severus (Fig. 50).

Didios Julianos, aureus, 193, issued by Severus, Fig. 52). Hair Style: Very short, close-cropped hair, flat and close to the skull, styled in rows of short curls towards the face; incisions may be made by a pointed chisel. The lines of the hair continue diagonally down onto the forehead towards the bridge of the nose, with a hint of the hair receding at the temples. Niger's short haircut allows practically no interplay of light and shade.

Hair Style: Round curls in the form of styled rings, spreading naturally from the top of the head down towards the face, covering the temples and the back of the neck. The locks above the forehead fall at an angle towards the bridge of the nose. A slight tendecy for the hair to recede from the temples is discernible. Strong, colourful contrasts of light and shadow in the curls creates the impression of full hair growth. 37

Beard: Of medium length, composed of "corkscrew"-like curls. The curls separate below the chin, with sharp, springlike ends.

Furthermore, the political situation during the first two years of Severus' reign could suggest another explanation. As noted earlier, Severus had no interest in an open falling out with Albinus at this point in time, and so could not afford to arouse his suspicions regarding anything connected to their joint rule. Nor could he, Severus, arouse the suspicions of Albinus' supporters in the Senate. But he had to provide a solid foundation for his troops' support.

Thus, only the curls of his beard below the chin hint at beard fashions in Marcus Aurelius' court. In light of the above we see, on the one hand, that a tendency to imitate the hair and beard styles fashionable in Marcus Aurelius' court was evident in all likenesses for which Severus was responsible, whether it was his own portrait, or those of his rivals or predecessors on the throne. It must be stressed, however, that his own portraits more closely resemble those of Marcus Aurelius than do the portraits of any of his contemporaries.

The different versions depicted on coms and sculpted portraits could thus reflect Severus' policy of avoiding arousing the suspicions of the parties involved in the struggle. This explanation is plausible because the various images of this period indicate a trend common to most portraits produced at this time, i.e., similarities to the hairstyle prevalent in Marcus Aurelius' court.

On the other hand, there are clear variations in the styles of hair and beard on coins which were minted by Albinus in his own mint, either by himself or on his instructions. As these portraits show individual features different from those of Severus, it is reasonable to assume that they indicate Albinus' own features.

Moreover, the similarities were present not only in the portraits of Severus and Marcus Aurelius, but in the portraits of Severus' predecessors on the throne, as well as at his rivals. These similarities are most striking in those coins minted by Severus.

If we also examine sculpted portraits, thought by comparison with coin portraits, to be portraits of Pertinax, Didius Julianus, Clodius Albinus and Pescennius Niger (Figs. 17, 18), and compare them to sculpted portraits of Severus, accepted by current research dating from 193-195 (Figs. 7a,b; 42a,b ), and sculpted portraits of Marcus Aurelius (Fig. 14), we find that the characteristics mentioned above regarding the coin portraits also apply to the sculpted portraits.

If we are speaking of an initiative taken by Severus, we must still ascertain whether he had enough time during his first stay in Rome in 193 to deal with the matter of portraits. Was he in Rome long enough to give orders to the craftsmen of the mint and the sculptor, or, before leaving the city, to give instructions regarding certain prominent features to be stressed in his portraits, which would produce the particular image he wanted to engrave on the minds of his troops, the Senate and the inhabitants of the Empire?

This is not the proper stage to discuss the question of whether and how one can explain the different versions of coin portraits and sculpted portraits of 193-195, primarily because this diverges from our subject. A second, more important reason for avoiding this question is that there are conflicting opinions and much uncertainty in modem research about the mechanism by which emperors' portraits were created in all the visual media, as well as their distribution throughout the Empire. Ancient literary sources available to us for the study of the origins of the Roman Empire yield practically no information on this topic, and researchers must attempt to learn about the portrait production and distribution process essentially from archaeological finds. As a result, this subject abounds in assumptions and speculation, and any explanation of the different versions of portraits is merely hypothetical.

There is no doubt that Severus' first stay in Rome in 193 was a short one, and that he left the capital in a hurry to fight against Niger. He was in Rome for no more than thirty days, perhaps even less. But it is clear that his entry into Rome in 193, and his brief stay, made an impression on contemporary historians, who devoted long and detailed descriptions to his deeds in the capital during this short period [Dio, 75(75).1.35,2.1-6,4.1 ff.; Herod., 2.14.lff., 15.lff., as well as HA, Sev., 7.lff., 8.lff.). Based on sources available, the exact date of Severus' entry into Rome is not certain. It seems he entered Rome between the 1st and 9th June, 193 and that he was still in the city on 27th June. This last date is confirmed by the Codex Justinianus as regards the order of the City Prefect law codified by Septimius Severus [Cod. Just., 3.28.1: Praefectus urbis. Also Birely, (1971), 166-170; (1988), 89-107].

At the same time, we must bear in mind that this was a period of civil war and struggles for power, and such a climate could provide the explanation for this phenomenon. Because it was uncertain who would be victorious and which of the contenders would ascend the throne, the different portraits may merely reflect the doubts of the various artists and craftsmen, and indeed perhaps their desire to protect themselves. As the hair and beard styles were similar, any one of the different portrait types issued could fit whoever eventually became emperor.

According to descriptions in literary sources, Severus' organisational activities in Rome included the following:

* Appointment of magistrates for the following year, i.e., 194 [Dio, 75(75).5.2-3]. These were apparently colleagues of Severus, their chief function being to protect the Emperor's interests during his absence from the city. 38

* Introduction of the City Prefect law, and appointment of an advocate of this legislation, especially important during the new Emperor's absence from the city.

Because there is no further evidence, literary or archaeological, and especially as there is no way of proving this statue was ever circulated with his own, we are unable to answer this question. If (and we must stress that this is a hypothetical conjecture) we are dealing with the likeness of the infant Caracalla, and it was not intended for circulation, i.e., it was of a private nature, we may assume it was not, in fact, a tool of propaganda.

* Authorisation for the minting of coins of Albinus [Herod., 2.15.5]. Apparently Severus presented Albinus with one of the mints in Rome, in addition to the mint in Lugdunum [BMC,V, lxxviii; examples of such coins: BMC, V, 25-6, 35ff., RIC, IV, 1.44-53]. In any case, the first issues from the Roman mints were coins in the names of Septimius Severus and Albinus. The reverse of these coins emphasizes the generosity of the Emperor and the loyalty of the army [BMC, V, 20ff., l 17ff.].

Can this statue be viewed as a prelude to Severus' long-term plan, and the terminus ante quern of his intention, to use dynastic justification as the basis for his rule?

* It would appear that Severus used his short time in Rome to organise his affairs in an extremely efficient manner. Dio wrote that Severus "is preparing himself for the throne" [75(75).4.1], while Herodian testified that Severus "directed matters so that they would lead to his rule" and ensured that "everything was under his control" [2.15.5]. Only when everything had been arranged to his complete satisfaction did he leave for the East [Dio, ibid,; Herod., ibid.]. One of the key positions in the city, with control over imperial matters, was the responsibility for direct or indirect supervision over the mint. The portrait of the new Emperor had to appear immediately upon his ascension to the throne, so that the news could be transmitted as quickly as possible throughout the Empire. The coin was the fastest and most efficient medium for the transmission of such information.

*

*

Conclusions

Severus hurried to Rome immediately after Pertinax's murder, he stayed once there no longer than was necessary to gain control of the government's positions of power, i.e., he appointed his supporters to the key positions of government in Rome in order to look after his interests during his absence. Furthermore, he took control of the mints in Rome, giving one to Albinus as a sign of good will. Portraits of Severus began to appear on coins from the year 193, i.e., when the mints began to produce and circulate coins of Severus.

In the light of the above, we may assume that, despite Severus' short sojourn in Rome during June 193, he took control of the mints in Rome, leaving precise instructions on the supervision and implementation of his orders to his supporters in charge of the city. This may be what Herodian meant when he mentions both the authorisation given by Severus for the minting of coins of Albinus, as well as his "directing matters to result in his assuming power", so that "everything was under his control" [2.15.5], in one sentence.

There is a tendency to make his own portraits, as well as those of his rivals and his predecessors, resemble the likeness of Marcus Aurelius. In addition, the series of Severus' sculpted portraits can be dated to the years 193-195, based on a comparison of his coin portraits. As there is a link between the coin portraits and sculptures, this seems to be the period when sculpted portraits of Severus appear. These early sculptures of Severus, dating to the years 193-195, already reflected a resemblance to those of Marcus Aurelius. Indeed, sculpted portraits, naturally larger than coin portraits, offer greater opportunity to emphasize certain visual effects to be absorbed by the viewer.

At this point it is worth looking at the three-dimensional statue, currently housed in the Capitolini Museum in Rome, depicting the baby Hercules killing two snakes. Laboratory analysis has confirment that it dates back to the years 192-3; modem research accepts it as a representation of Commodus (also: Nodelman (1965), 329-332).

During his short stay in Rome in 193, therefore, Severus managed to give instructions regarding the type of representation, or the specific emphasis, he wished to appear on his coins and his portraits, and left the execution of his instructions to his deputies in Rome.

Nodelman (ibid.), surmises that there is a similarity between the first official portrait of Caracalla, sculpted when he was 8 years old in 196, and that of the baby Hercules in the Capitolini Museum. The latter shows a younger face than the first official statue of Caracalla. If, indeed, we are dealing with the statue of Caracalla as a child, there is almost no doubt it was not intended for circulation, and that it was made for private purposes. If this is the case, the question "cui bono?" arises. What could Severus hope to benefit from such a special statue at this early stage in his struggle for the throne, when any rumour of his plan for dynastic justification of his rule would result in its failure at the outset?

Severus' troops, as well as most of the people of Rome and the provinces, knew what Marcus Aurelius looked like. Severus disguised his plan for dynastic justification by presenting different versions of images. Among these versions was also one type of image of Clodius Albinus. In each of these different versions there is a deliberate effort to highlight similarities to Marcus Aurelius. 39

It is fairly certain that rumours of dreams and portents, foreseeing an imperial future for Severus, also began to spread at this time.

Severus then crossed the Euphrates into enemy territory, where the third "miracle" - "water in the desert" - took place [Dio, 75(75).2.1-2].

It could be claimed here that Severus actually started spreading rumours about his dreams as early as his first journey to Rome in 193, It is unlikely however, that Severus would take such a step while Didius Julianus was alive and still the official emperor of the Roman Empire. Even if Severus had planned his adoption program by then (which is unsure, as we can only judge by deeds and not by intentions), the spread of rumours regarding his adoption into gens Aurelia would have been premature during his first journey to Rome, especially in the light of his carefully considered measures in his propaganda campaign. Nevertheless, new evidence may come to light and, this possibility should not be rejected outright.

All of these events occurred before Severus publicly and officially proclaimed himself to be the "son of Marcus Aurelius". There is hardly any doubt that Severus used these events to make the connection between himself and Marcus Aurelius; this also appears to be the period when rumours about the miracles were given wide circulation. Immediately after Niger's defeat, but before the first Parthian war, Severus made his first official public claim. On the reverse of a bronze coin issued in 195, the year of Severus' fifth imperatorial acclamation, he is titled "the son of the divine Marcus" (DIV/ M PII F.) [RIC, IV, 1, 185, no. 868]. This title is repeated on a gold coin of the same year, with his seventh imperatorial acclamation [RIC, IV, I, 187, nos. 700702a, 188, no. 712].

The chain of events in 193 recounted above now allows us to answer the question of whether the omina imperii list described by Dio is the original list compiled in 193.

These "adoption" inscriptions on coins issued in 195 prove that, though war was raging and Severus was far from the capital, he was able to send instructions to Rome regarding which legends should appear on coins of 195.

The visual messages presented in 193 apparently gave Dio sufficient hint as to Severus' dynastic claim in his campaign plan; we may therefore assume that Dio's omina imperii is the original list written in 193.

Moreover, it is evident that the dynastic aspect of the message described above, though only implied, succeeded beyond expectations.

Severus', military campaigns against his rivals, initiated immediately after securing his control of the capital, fortuitously enabled him to highlight his ties to Marcus Aurelius by the miraculous events happening to his army, miracles fairly similar to those which saved Marcus Aurelius' army. The first "miracle of the rain" aided Severus' army right at the beginning of his war against Niger [Dio, 75(75).7.6-7; Herod., 3.3.6-8; re the "miracle of the rain" see: Dio, 72(71).8.1-4].

As noted earlier, public notification of the adoption made on coins issued in 195, came as a surprise to no-one, apparently giving mere official sanction to what was already well known. There were, indeed, certain groups in Rome which complained, and even expressed reservations about the idea of the adoption, but there was no single voice of protest or outright opposition. In addition, the 195 inscription from Mauretania Caesariensis, in North Africa, noting the official proclamation of Severus' adoption into the gens Aurelia, ascribed a lineage of divine ancestors to Severus, extending as far back as divus Nerva, and described Severus as Divi Commodi Frater as well. Above all, this inscription emphasized that this theme was already well known.

By the spring of 194, Severus had inflicted a shattering defeat on Niger and his army; Niger himself was killed and his troops driven across the Euphrates by Severus. Immediately after Niger's defeat in the spring of 194, medallions appeared in circulation similar to that first issued by Marcus Aurelius. The fact that these medallions of Severus appeared in the spring of 194 proves that, though Severus was far away from the capital, he was nevertheless able to send instructions to Rome as to which type of portrait to use on at least one of his medallions in that year.

The chain of events described here pointed to a process which almost certainly began at the outbreak of the contention for the imperial throne, i.e., a short time after the murder of Commodus. Thus, it would seem we are dealing with a plan which was laid, albeit in veiled form, due to the political circumstances of the period, as early as 193, when Severus first entered Rome and was proclaimed Emperor by the Senate. The plan was put into effect on a number of levels simultaneously: the spread of rumours, coin portraits and their legends, medallions and their types and sculpted portraits.

Moreover, the appearance of this particular type of portrait, similar to that which appeared first on medallions of Marcus Aurelius, seems not mere coincidence but a deliberate act, one factor in his preparations for adoption into gens Aurelia. Severus remained in the East in order to remove the threat from the Euphrates, but before the Euphrates war had even begun the "miracle of the thunder storm" killed three of the Scythian leaders [Dio, 75(75).3.1 ], similar to events which had aided the victory of Marcus Aurelius' army [Dio, ibid].

A period of two years seems to have been enough for Severus intensively to publicize the concept of his similarity to Marcus Aurelius, and for it to be absorbed in the mind of the targeted population. 40

It seems, therefore, that the spread of rumours and the encouragement of superstitious beliefs also played an important role in preparing the groundwork for Severus' dynastic message. No less important or significant was the role played by the portrait at this preparatory stage, while waiting for the right moment to make an official public announcement. Similarities between the portraits of Severus and Marcus Aurelius could be identified right from the outset.

Scholars point out that when a particular political situation, e.g., a civil war, requires an immediate response, especially when it takes place far away from the capital, the most efficient method is a direct approach to the troops or widely spread rumours. These scholars also claim that a series of coins cannot be issued at the same speed that rumours are spread. These scholars assume, therefore, that the role of coins, reflecting similar or identical themes of propaganda also present in literary sources of the same period, was to emphasize and highlight the themes of imperial propaganda, rather than constitute a direct channel of communication (for example: Rubin, 1980, 9-12; Sordi, 1975-76, 3-11, 131-159, 252-270).

The rumours of dreams and portents predicting an imperial future for Severus, as well as rumours of the miraculous events ensuring the success of his army, which paralleled those of Marcus Aurelius' army, added a further dimension to the comparisons between Severus and Marcus Aurelius.

In the light of the evidence quoted and examined above, it seems that the approach of Sydenham (ibid.) and Toynbee (ibid.) should be adopted as regards the type of coin and type of medallion of Severus minted during the first two years of his rule, i.e., 193-195, as well as the type of portrait referred to in modem research as Portrait type I of Septimius Severus.

All the above is evidence that the visual message transmitted through Severus' portraits, combined with the spread of rumours and the encouragement of superstitious beliefs, constituted the first stages in preparing the foundation, consolidation and realization of Severus' plan for his adoption into gens Aurelia.

The term propaganda, its role, and its method of implementation have been defined in the introduction. It should be emphasized here that those studying propaganda today stress two important fundamentals in the first stages of planning a campaign's message.

Sydenham [Introduction to Sydenham (1968)) offers three criteria related to the historical aspect of coins of the Roman Empire. One of these concerns examples of coins which apparently contradict historical fact. Sydenham believes [ibid.] these coins should be treated as if they had been minted in advance, in anticipation of expected, or hoped for, future events. Toynbee (1956, 205f., 221f.) claims that the language of pictures, especially in Roman art, is the visual expression of word, captions, sentences, etc. She goes on to claim that coins and medallions which officially portray likenesses of the emperors and their families were among the most important visual media, because coins and medallions enable one to understand the language of pictures more than any other medium, first and foremost because they are found in abundance, and because they can usually be dated.

The first is the spread of rumours. In order for a rumour to be reasonable and convincing, it should be linked to the names of trustworthy and well-known people, providing it with an aura of reliability. Further, certain events connected to these same well-known persons should be stressed by emphasizing the appropriate associations. The second fundamental is the graphic form and visual sophistication used in the presentation of the propaganda. The use of rumour as a front-line weapon and instrument for the spread of propaganda was well known during the Roman Republic, and particularly so at the beginning of the Roman Empire. The development of a popular public image was no small matter in Roman history. The projection of a "public image" stood at the forefront of issues requiring the attention of Roman political leaders, and they made sure to circulate this image by means of captions, especially on coins.

Toynbee [ibid.], also states that the picture engraved on a coin or medallion is, in fact, a graphic representation of a written idea. Elsewhere, she claims (1944, 15, 73, 98f., 147f., 193) that Roman medallions were not minted to serve as money for trading purposes, nor were they intended for the general public, but rather were designed as personal gifts for a specific sector of the population. As a result, Roman medallions reflect more clearly the attitudes of different emperors towards various topics not given expression in the issues of coins, or which are presented at a later stage. Such presentations on medallions, Toynbee continues, can reflect ideas featured in imperial propaganda.

Visual art for various purposes, such as religious, military or political propaganda, has been in use since earliest times. The Bible states that "better is sight of the eyes than the wandering of the desire" (Eccles. 6.9). The concept "seeing is believing" can also be found in Chapter Eight of Herodotus' first book: "people's ears are not as reliable as are their eyes". Aristotle develops this concept in his Rhetorica, stating that "the principles and experience of drawing and the plastic arts should be applied to rhetoric".

One of the claims made by modem research regarding coins and public monuments as media of imperial propaganda, is that they are merely a secondary reflection of a message already publicized through different channels.

Moreover, the notion that sight is the most valuable of the senses is widespread in Roman literature. Cicero, in his De Oratore [II, 357], says that "sight is the keenest of our senses", and later adds that "every utterance is based on emotions, and these are reflected by the face and proved in 41

the eyes" [III, 221]. In addition, Commentariolum Petitionis, attributed to Quintus Cicero, contains advice on how to group votes necessary to be elected consul, and the verb videri is constantly repeated. Nor was this idea strange to Seneca. In Epistolae ad Lucilium, 6.5, he says that "people believe their eyes more than their ears". Aristotle's idea of applying the principles and experience of drawing and the plastic arts to rhetoric appears in Horace's Ars Poetica, as well as in Quintilian's Institutiones Oratoriae (The Elements of Oratory), all excellent examples of Rome's awareness of the importance of voice, movement and visual effect in persuasion. The first stages of Septimius Severus' propaganda reflect this awareness only indirectly and by implication according to sources available on the period of his reign. However, a careful, systematic examination of these sources, both literary and archaeological, not only testifies to the methods and means used by Severus to spread his message, but also proves that Severus began preparing the background and foundation for his adoption into the gens Aurelia in the first period of his reign, immediately after his first entry into Rome in 193. Thus the basic factors which converted an unrealistic dynastic fiction into an impressive success were Severus' careful and well-planned groundwork, his understanding of propaganda as a weapon and his knowledge of the mentality of his target population. In the terminology of modem research, Severus' success was due to his knowledge of mass psychology, appropriate timing, sophistication in the presentation of the information, and proper choice and utilization of the mass communication media at his disposal, as well as his familiarity with the sensitivities and attitudes of his public with regard to the information he needed to transmit. We should say that Severus knew how to sell himself to his target audience in a well-planned, well-balanced marketing campaign. Apparently Severus was successful in his mass persuasion. The propaganda channels chosen by him, and the use of visual means in preparing a fairly well-based foundation for the dynastic aspect of his campaign, were, from the outset, wise choices and sophisticated utilization of the mass communication media used by Roman emperors to reach their target populations. The conclusion, therefore, is that theory presented here best explains the phenomenon of a dynastic fiction converted into an impressive success.

42

Literary, numismatic, epigraphic and iconographic sources may be used to examine Macrinus' activities to see whether they indicate a well-planned program of political propaganda aimed at justifying his claim to the throne.

Chapter 3: Macrinus and the gens Aurelia*

There are several literary sources, both contemporary and from later periods. Marcus Opellius Macrinus was Praetorian Prefect when proclaimed emperor by his troops on the 11th of April 217, only three days after the assassination of Caracalla. The proclamation took place at a time when the danger of a Parthian invasion threatened the eastern boundaries of the Empire.

The two extant contemporary literary sources of information on the period of Macrinus' rule are Cassius Dio's Roman History and Herodian's account. The extant sources from a later period are the Historia Augusta (HA), and the short accounts of Aurelius Victor, Eutropius and the Epitome de Caesaribus. Like the literary sources which shed light on the reigns of Septimius Severus and Caracalla, these sources, especially those related to the vita Macrini in the HA, are problematic, and have much engaged modem scholars.

The Senate granted the new emperor immediate recognition. Macrinus, who belonged to the equester ordo, was a native of North Africa with no family ties to his predecessors on the throne, and was the first Roman emperor who was not a senator.

Dio's report on the reign of Macrinus, found mainly in the book 79(78), is worthy of note. Parts of this book have survived in the original, not only in Xiphilinus' Epitome. Although this book is fragmentary, due to poor preservation of the manuscript, it furnishes sufficient information to indicate that Dio knew Macrinus well, perhaps personally as a member of the consilium principis, and that he was not favourably impressed by him 3 •

As such he set a precedent m the history of the Roman Empire. Very little is known about the early stages of Macrinus' career, which apparently began in Mauritania. Because he had been trained in law, he was appointed Plautianus' financial agent. Upon the latter's fall from power, Septimius Severus appointed Macrinus curator viae Flaminiae. During Caracalla's reign, Macrinus served as procurator for short periods in various provinces, and was soon promoted to praefectus praetorio. While in this role, he earned the trust of Caracalla to such a degree that he was authorized to act according to his own judgment.

Herodian furnishes a full report of the period, but there are conflicting views regarding the validity of his statements. Where other sources substantiate the truth of Herodian's statements, his report does not necessarily negate the value of the information which he provides 4. A later very detailed report is furnished by the HA. Much has been said about this source, which occupies an extremely controversial place in modem research; the vita Macrini in the HA are at the center of the controversy between those who support the theory that Marius Maximus was the author's main source of information, and those who maintain that Ignotus was the main source. This biography of Macrinus is the first in the collection of the principle emperors which makes use of the distinct characteristics of secondary biography, i.e., fictitious names and personalities, fabricated documents, etc.

He progressed until he reached the position of captain of the praetorians, by virtue of his legal and administration training rather than a military background. During his long term of service, he made neither a negative nor positive impression 1• His reign ended with his execution after he was defeated in battle against the troops of Elagabalus on the 8th of June 2182, approximately fourteen months after having been proclaimed emperor.

There is a return to a primary type of biography, that of Elagabalus, following the biography of Macrinus. This fact has led the supporters of the Ignotus theory to assume that the source of the biographies at the beginning of the collection ended with that of Caracalla. They assumed that the vita Macrini was based on the writings of Marius Maximus, i.e., a secondary source discovered by the author of the HA after the completion of the first set of biographies ending with Caracalla's 5 .

During his fourteen months of rule, Macrinus never reached Rome. Actually, his reign is considered to have ended on May 16th, 218, when troops of the legio III Gallica proclaimed Varius Avitus, known as Elagabalus, emperor with the title "Marcus Aurelius Antoninus". This took place after A vitus' grandmother, Julia Maesa, circulated rumours that her grandson, Vari us A vitus, was the son of Caracalla. (Caracalla's father, Septimius Severus, had bestowed the title Marcus Aurelius Antoninus on Caracalla.) Elagabalus was apparently a direct descendant of the Severan dynasty, and Macrinus' reign may be regarded as a pause, albeit a short one, in the continuous reign of that dynasty.

Whether it is possible to find detailed and trustworthy information in the HA vita Macrini copied from a lately discovered source (which served merely as a secondary source), is an important question. Indeed, there is a long section in the vita Macrini based on Herodian6, while there 43

are other sections which point to the works of Victor, Eutropius and the Epitome because of their linguistic similarities7 •

It seemed to be the general consensus that there was no time to wait for the Senate's decision 11, and the troops proclaimed Macrinus emperor. Oclatinius Adventus, the second commander of the Praetorians, was appointed praefectus urbi by Macrinus, and was also made joint consul for the year 218, even before being elected to the Senate [Dio, 79(78).14.4]. Herodian [4.14.2] claims that Adventus, the older of the two, was the troops' first choice, but Macrinus, by dint of flattery and the promise of future favours, persuaded him to stand down 12 .

Brief reports of events during the period under discussion are found in Victor, Eutropius and the Epitome; all three made use of the Kaisergechichte (KG), and although modem scholars are divided as to the identity of the main source of information, Marius Maximus or Ignotus, in the KG, it was definitely a good contemporary source8 • Let us examine some of Macrinus' activities as documented by contemporary and later literary sources.

The Senate's recognition of Macrinus as emperor was not long in coming, apparently due more to joy at Caracalla's death than to enthusiastic support of Macrinus. Despite his hostility towards Macrinus, based primarily on the latter's membership in the equester ordo. Dio [79(78).9.1-3; 15.2-4; 41.2-4], leaves no doubt regarding the support given to Macrinus in Rome 13•

In spring of 217 Caracalla planned to renew military action in the wake of the Parthian invasion, after spending the winter of 216/7 in Edessa. On April 8, 217 Caracalla was murdered near Carrhae, Mesopotamia, by member of his military escort; Dio [79(78).4.1,5.4], Herodian [4.13.3], and the author of the HA [Ant. Car., 6.6] all write that Caracalla was on his way from Edessa to Carrhae, or from Carrhae to Edessa, when he was murdered by some of his escort.

Upon being proclaimed emperor, Macrinus was faced with a dilemma; lacking genealogical ties to the imperial dynasty, and being a member of the equester ordo, he knew that his hold on the throne at this critical time would depend primarily on the support of the troops. He was also aware of the love and esteem for Caracalla held by many soldiers. Nevertheless, Macrinus needed the support of the Senate and the people of Rome, whose hatred of Caracalla was an important factor.

Moreover, Caracalla's portrait appears on the obverse of a coin from the town of Carrhae issued in 217, while the god Sin, the god of healing, worshipped in Edessa, appears on the reverse, [BMCG, Mesopotamia, 82, no. 4]. [On Edessa as the last place where Caracalla camped see also: Victor, 21.5; Eutropius, 8.20.2; Epitome, 21.3.]

Thus, on the one hand, he had to clear himself of any vestige of responsibility for Caracalla's murder, and establish a firm foundation for the army's loyalty to ensure its continued support. On the other hand, it was of no less importance to gain the sympathy of the senators so that they would recognize the legitimacy of his reign.

It was customary to show a portrait of the god worshipped by

a particular town on the reverse of coins issued in the east of the Empire. This coin seems to prove that Caracalla passed through, or even stayed awhile in the town itself, as Herodian claims (ibid.), and that the coin was minted to commemorate the event 9 •

How could he achieve this double aim? Macrinus was suspected of having had a hand in Caracalla's murder, although he personally was not present at the scene. It would appear he had good reason to fear Caracalla's wrath; a message warning Caracalla against Macrinus was en route from Rome to Caracalla, but was delayed at Antioch and ended up in Macrinus' hands [Dio, 79(78).4.1-5; 80(79).1.12.6; Herod., 4.12.5-7, 13.1-2,7-8; 14.2; HA, Ant. Car., 6.6,8.9-10, 11.5; Macr., 2.1,4.7-8; Elag., 2.3]. Furthermore, Dio [79(78).4.5] writes of a prophecy by an Egyptian called Serapio, foretelling the imminent death of the Emperor Caracalla at the hand of Macrinus.

Macrinus was apparently born in the year 164. He would have been quite mature when the struggle for power after Commodus' murder took place, and he witnessed the success of Septimius Severus in gaining the throne. Although still a boy during Marcus Aurelius' rule, he may have admired the Antonine dynasty as a model of good government. Because his long imperial service, beginning in Septimius Severus' reign and continuing through Caracalla's, and because of the long period spent with the troops, he would have realized the significance attached by the troops to the dynastic principle, as well as the significance of supernatural omens and prophecies in strengthening the authority of a claimant to the throne.

Macrinus, however, denied having anything to do with the murder. A successor to Caracalla had to be found immediately because of the situation on the Parthian border, and the commander of the Praetorians seemed an appropriate choice to handle the urgent border problem. Although ancient literary sources appear to lay the responsibility for Caracalla's death at Macrinus' feet, they do not present this as a wicked crime, but as an act of self-defense. Moreover, Dio (ibid.) makes it quite clear that Macrinus' name was blackened by hostile propaganda and by his enemies after his death 1°.

Let us examine Macrinus' actions aimed at preserving his throne. A) Dio writes [79(78).16.4] that Macrinus sent a letter to the

Senate stating that he was now Emperor, and, in the same letter, and without waiting for the Senate's confirmation, he added the following titles to his name: Imperator, Caesar, 44

Severus, Pius, Felix, Augustus. In this section of his work, Dio states that Macrinus employed the exact terms in his letter used by the emperors before Caracalla, though Dio also suggests (ibid.) that in other propaganda messages to the soldiers he also said things which were not regular. Elsewhere [79(78).37.5], Dio mentions that he himself was present when the letter of Macrinus was read in the Senate.

17.4.20; HA, Ant. Care., 9.12; Maer., 5.2-4; Victor, 21.6; Eutrop., 8.20.8; Epit., 21.7]. Dio (ibid.) writes that Caracalla's body was transferred at night and buried in the Antoninic grave in Rome in complete secrecy, because of the hatred of the senators and the people of Rome towards him.

Herodian, too, mentions the letter to the Senate [5.1.8], and, quoting the letter, pointed out that Macrinus promised to return all the rights initially granted to the Senate by Emperor Marcus Aurelius, and which were taken away from them by Caracalla.

The author of the HA (ibid.) also describes the transfer of Caracalla's body, but suggests that the reason for secrecy was Macrinus' fear of the troops' anger, knowing as he did Caracalla's popularity among them. Victor (ibid.) and the author of the Epitome also write about the secret transfer of Caracalla's body to Rome, whereas Eutropius (ibid.) claims that Caracalla was given a public burial.

Modem researchers have no doubt that Macrinus' letter to the Senate, as reported by Herodian, was a fiction composed by the latter 14• But this letter, as quoted in Herodian, indicates an expectation that the new emperor would declare to the Senate his intentions of following in the footsteps of Marcus Aurelius 15 •

According to the author of the HA [Maer., 5.9], Caracalla was deified immediately after his death. According to other literary sources, however, it is not clear whether Caracalla was deified at that time. In any case, numismatic evidence points to Caracalla's deification during the reign of Elagabalus [BMC, V, 531, nos. 7.8, pl. 85.4], or perhaps even later, during the reign of Severus Alexander [RIC, 17 IV,2, 128, nos. 717-720] .

The HA [Maer., 2.1, 5.7, 7.2,5 11.2] also mentions the name Severus and the titles Pius Felix. However, no corroboratory evidence has been found to date that Macrinus indeed, at any time, made use of these names Antoninus and Pertinax as they appear in the HA [Maer., 2.1, 11.2]16. As regards Pius Felix, Commodus was the first emperor to use the two titles together [BMC, IV, xx, cliii, clxxv].

2. According to Dio [79(78).28.3, 34.3-4, 36.2-3] and the HA [Maer., 5.7.8], Macrinus promised his troops that he would not alter any of the privileges, especially the monetary gifts, granted by Caracalla. Dio (ibid.) confirms that at the beginning of his reign Macrinus seems to have met his committments to his soldiers.

B) Contemporary and later literary sources testify that Macrinus bestowed the name Antoninus on his son Diadumenianus [Dio, 79(78).19.1.3, 35. 7; Herd., 5.4.2,; HA, Ant. Care., 2.5, 5.1, 7.5; Diad., l.1; Victor, 22.3; Eutrop., 8.21; Epitome, 22.1]. Despite the fact that all four of the later sources mention Macrinus' son by the name Diadumenus, it seems that the origin of this mistake lies in the use of a common source by all of these authors.

3. Both Dio [79(78).23.1-6] and Herodian [4.13.8, 5.3.2] write that Julia Domna, and her sister Julia Maesa and their familes were in Antioch when the news of Caracalla's assassination and Macrinus ascension reached them. Macrinus apparently did not consider these two Severan women as rivals; he neither harmed the royal family nor confiscated their property, but ordered them to leave the royal court in Antioch and return to the town of their birth, Emesa, with all their property. Julia Domna preferred death. She apparently felt that Macrinus was her enemy, and feared her fate. Her body was taken to Rome and she was given a burial appropriate to her station, almost certainly on her sister's instructions, and with the tacit agreement of Macrinus 18• Julia Maesa and her family moved to Emesa, taking with them all their property, without interference from the new emperor.

C) Herodian [5.2.3-4] states that Macrinus, after being proclaimed emperor by the Senate and being granted all the honours due an Augustus, began to grow a beard while in Antioch. In the same passage, Herodian adds that the apparent reason for this was the fact that Macrinus wanted to imitate characteristics of Marcus Aurelius. In another passage [5.4.7], Herodian mentions that upon receiving word of his troops' defeat, Macrinus shaved his beard to avoid being recognized. Dio [79(78).39.2] also mentions that Macrinus shaved his beard, so we may reasonably accept this as being true. D) There is evidence in the literary sources that Macrinus took steps to placate the troops in the wake of Caracalla's murder, as well as to prevent any harm befalling the deceased emperor's family.

E) Dio [79(78).26.2.8, 27.1-5] reports that at the beginning of 218 the two adversaries, Macrinus and the Parthian king, reached a peace agreement. Macrinus agreed to pay a large sum in compensation, and made significant concessions in order to maintain the peace, an accord which Dio describes as "disgraceful". Dio (ibid.) also reports that after the peace treaty with the Parthians was signed, the Senate bestowed the title Parthieus upon Macrinus, but he refused to accept it. Herodian [4.1ff.] and the author of the HA [Maer., 22.13.6]

1. It was Macrinus who transferred Caracalla's body to Rome for a proper burial in the grave of the Antonines, and who assured that Caracalla would not be disgraced and would not be declared an enemy of the people [Dio, 79(78).9.1-3, 45

mention Macrinus' refusal to accept this title; nevertheless, there are dedicatory inscriptions which include Parthicus in Macrinus' titulature. [See, for example, the Mauritanian milestone, CIL, VIII, 22562.] 19

Macrinus name appears in the first issue of his coins in April 217, the name of Macrinus appears on the obverse as IMP C M OPEL SEV MACRINVS AVG. (lmperator Caesar Marcus Opellius Severus Macrinus Augustus). Upon being granted the title Caesar, his son Diadumenianus appears on the obverse of the coins as M OPEL ANT DIADVMENIAN CAES (Marcus Opellius Antoninus Diadumenuanus Caesar), while on the reverse, the legend PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS is inscribed [BMC, V, 508ff.; RIC, IV,2, lOlff.]. Dio [79(78).17 .1] recounts that after the Senate read Macrinus' first letter, it was decided to declare him a Patrician, whereas his son was proclaimed Caesar and Princeps Iuventutis. When his imperial father bestowed the title Augustus upon him, Diadumenianus' titulature on the obverse of the coins became IMP CM OPEL ANT DIADVMEN AVG (lmperator Caesar Opellius Antoninus Diadumenianus Augustus) [BMC, V, 511; RIC, IV,2, 118ff.].

Macrinus' refusal to accept the title Parthicus is reminiscent of Septimius Severus' refusal of the same title after his first war against the Parthians (Rubin, 1980, 14). It is reasonable to assume that both refusals stemmed from the nature of the peace accords signed. Accepting the title would have needlessly angered the Parthians. In addition, literary sources refer to omens and prophecies which suggest that Macrinus' rule and his ties with Septimius Severus had received divine sanction. Dio [79(78).4.1] mentions an African prophetess who prophesied that both Macrinus and his son Diadumenianus were to become emperors. In another passage [79(78).37.5] Dio notes that on receipt of Macrinus' first letter, notifying the Senate of his imperial ascension and including the name Severus among his titles, a pigeon flew into the Senate house and rested on Septimius Severus' portrait. Although Dio does not specifically state that this was considered a divine message, the fact is that he implies this.

One also finds the figure of Felicitas and the inscription FELICITAS TEMPORUM on the reverse of Diadumenianus' coins [BMC. V, lac. cit.; RIC IV, 2, lac. cit.]. Because the figure of Felicitas appears frequently on the reverse of Septimius Severus' coins, the possibility has been suggested that Felicitas, a theme commonly employed by the Antonines, was adopted by Severus on his coins to establish a parallel between himself and Marcus Aurelius (see esp. Rubin, 1976/77, 153-172). It is very likely that the depiction of Felicitas, with the legend FELICITAS TEMPORUM on Diadumenianus coins, belongs to the same category.

The literary sources appear to reveal clear indications of a prominent theme in Macrinus' propaganda policy, the primary purpose of which was to consolidate his rule: the creation of a public image intended to win the support of the troops as well as that of the people of Rome and the provinces, by appealing to their loyalty to the memories of Septimius Severus and Caracalla.

A similar picture becomes clear when we examine the titulature of various dedicatory inscriptions, of both Macrinus and his son. Macrinus' name appears in all the inscriptions as IMP CAESAR M OPELL/VS SEVERVS MACRINVS [CIL, III, 3714, 3720, 37242-5, 5708, 5728, 5736, 10618, 10629, 10635, 10637, 10644, 10647]. Diadumenianus' name appears as M OPEL/IVS ANTONINVS DIADVMENIANVS. [CIL, III, 5708, 5736, 8307 ,11841].

These sources also provide information on two important aspects of the mechanism of imperial propaganda, the target and the means. The primary target of the propaganda message was the troops, based on the assumption that once their support was common knowledge, the Senate's recognition would follow automatically [Dio 79(78).11.5, 12.1, 16.4, 19.1-2, 35.2, 40.1]. Dio [ibid., 11.5, 16.4] specifically mentions the communications with the troops, and the official letters sent by Macrinus to the Senate before he had been granted its official recognition, and the rumours, initiated by unofficial sources, spread in Rome [ibid., 12.1, 19.1-2, 35.2, 40.1.] 20 •

Macrinus also added the titles Felix and Pius to his name. These titles were used by all the Antonine emperors, as well as by Severus and Caracalla. These titles are also included in Macrinus' titulature found in various dedicatory inscriptions. [e.g., ILS, 426- 465], but the titles Felix and Pius are not found on Macrinus' coinage.

Let us now consider the numismatic and the epigraphic evidence, and examine whether these sources reflect descriptions by the literary sources regarding Macrinus' message, and if so to what degree.

Thus, numismatic and epigraphic evidence clearly reflects the practic of officially publishing a message intended to strengthen Macrinus' hold on the throne, i.e., his loyalty to the memory of Septimius Severus and Caracalla, a message compatible with the evidence of the literary sources.

There were two imperial mints during the reign of Macrinus: one in Rome and the other in Antioch 21 . On the evidence of the imperial titulature minted on his coins, it is possible to determine that during the fourteen months of his reign, four series of coins were minted: the first during April 217 for a short period; the second up to the end of 217; the third for a short term beginning on January 1st, 218; and the fourth for the remainder of his reign, until June 218 22 .

An examination of Macrinus' portraits is now in order, first to try to establish whether Macrinus' portraits verify Herodian's report [5.2.3-4] of his attempts to resemble Marcus Aurelius' portraits, and if so to what extent, as well as to compare Macrinus' portraits with those of Septimius 46

Severus and Caracalla. We will also Diadumenianus' portraits with those of Caracalla.

compare

minted in Antioch. He goes on to claim that from 217, and throughout Macrinus' fourteen months reign, both types of portrait were minted in both mints (e.g., BMC, V, 519, no. 119, pl. 82.8).

Two main portrait types were used on coins during Macrinus' brief, fourteen months, reign.

According to Mattingly, the version with the short beard is actually an amended, or corrected, version of the last type of Caracalla's coin portrait, resulting in the similarity between his and Macrinus' portraits. Macrinus' type 2 portrait, with the longer beard, apparently depicts Macrinus as the artist saw him, or is based on the officina in Antioch, i.e., the model of the new emperor which he wanted distributed.

The first type (Fig. 88)23 shows the following facial contours. A square face with short hair combed forwards24; a wide, wrinkled forehead, with a straight hairline; the nose inclined forward slightly; a curly beard close to the face, usually covering the cheeks and meeting the moustache (sometimes the side bums are shown in a straight line), emphasizing a square jaw and round chin. A short moustache, normally not covering the lips, reveals straight, narrow lips pressed tightly together (sometimes the moustache meets the beard); a large eye; the protruding, arched eyebrow is emphasized.

How can one explain the fact that two different versions are used to represent the same image? Any explanation of different portrait types is purely hypothetical. There is a lack of clarity; opinions in modem research are divided between the producing mechanism of imperial portraits in all visual media, and the method in which they were distributed throughout the Empire. Several aspects of this topic are shrouded in uncertainty. Ancient literary sources provide hardly any information on this issue, and scholars attempt to learn about the production mechanism of portraits and their distribution mainly from archaeological evidence. Hence, this subject provides a broad base for hypothetical assumption in modem research.

The second type (Fig. 89)25 shows a long face, with deep wrinkles on the forehead and protruding eyebrows and a fuller head of hair (as compared with the short hair on the first type). Although the hair is still short, the curls are longer and curly. A thick, curly beard covers the face, with the curls falling below the chin, wavy, separate, and tapered at the end. The remaining features are similar to those of the first type.

If we compare Macrinus' coin portraits having type I characteristics (Fig. 88) with those of Caracalla which belong to what is known as a "later type" (Fig. 24), we see that some features of both these emperors are very similar, in fact, are identical. The resemblance in their short cut hair, which earned the nickname "the military haircut", and short, curly beard, is conspicuous. Further similarities exist, such as a closed mouth, wrinkled forehead and a square chin.

The questions of who was responsible for the supervision and production of portraits and the minting of coins, and to what extent the authorities were involved in this matter, are central to this debate. Mattingly (BMC, V, xxvii, ccxiii) and McCann (1968, 60) claim that the phenomenon of similarities between portraits of a new emperor and those of his predecessor was common in Roman coinage. Vespasian's first coin portrait, for example, has the same features as Vetellius (BMC, II, pl. 1.3); Hadrian's the same features as Trajan (BMC, III, pl. 46.2); the child emperor Gordian Ill's coin portrait has the same serious expression as that of Balbinus and Pupienus [RIC, IV, 3, pl. 1.1]; and the portrait of Philip I has the same features as those of Gordianus III [RIC, IV, 3, pl. 5.5]. The source of this phenomenon, Mccann (foe. cit.) explains, apparently lies in the fact that the model of the new emperor's portrait was not yet ready, or was not yet in the officinae of the coins, while there was a pressing need to issue coins as quickly as possible at the beginning of the new I • 27 emperors reign .

Moreover, a portrait of Macrinus appears on the obverse of an Edessa coin from 217-218, in which he has a short beard like Caracalla's; in addition, the nose is different from that in his portraits on other coins (Bellinger, 1940, 50-52). On the obverse of another coin from Caesaria, Macrinus' paludamentum looks like various coins of Caracalla from the front (id., 98-101). A comparison of Macrinus' type 2 coin portraits (Fig. 89) with those of Marcus Aurelius and of Septimius Severus (Figs. 37, 45) reveals outstanding similarities. The most distinct feature common to all three is the long, wavy beard with well-defined, cone-shape curls tapering at the edge and extending below the chin.

Furthermore, Bellinger ( 1940, esp. 3 8-40, 45-48, 60-61, 8689, 98-101) claims that a careful study of the reverse coin types of Antioch and of Syrian cities from 213-217, and comparison of these coins with those of 217-218, prove that in the latter period the earlier mould of the reverse of the coins was reused.

A similarly styled and iconographic fashion of Marcus Aurelius' and Septimius Severus' beard, exists, especially on coins from 196. Again, there are close parallels in the rendering of the large eye and the long face 26 • Mattingly [BMC, V, ccxiiiff.], however, claims that coins bearing Macrinus' type 1 portrait with the square face and short beard, were only minted in the Rome mint, whereas type 2 portrait of Macrinus, with the longer beard, was only

Macrinus, from the time he was proclaimed emperor until his death, never reached Rome, spending most of his time as emperor in the east. Because both Dio [79(78).34.5, 39.1] 47

* A comparison of the profile of the Conservatori Museum's head (Fig. 90b ), with that of Caracalla's later portraits (Fig. 25b) reveals similarities between the hairline on the forehead, and on the neck, as well as the style of the ends of the hair of the head and the beard.

and Herodian [4.155.9] report Macrinus' sojourn in Antioch, it would thus appear that the idea of reusing the die from Caracalla's last portrait type is not unreasonable. On inspecting the sculptured portraits of Macrinus (Figs. 9092)28, one must note from the outset that these particular sculptured portraits are problematic due to his extremely short reign. So far only a few sculptured portraits have been found, none of which can definitely be identified as Macrinus, due both to their small number and especially to their poor state of preservation.

* There is also a similarity in the slightly displaced angle of the eyebrow, which throws a shadow over an eye sunk deep in its orbit; this, together with the tight-lipped mouth, creates an expression of anger or displeasure. * A frontal view of the head in the Capitoline Museum (Fig. 92a), shows that the end of the beard is divided into two. It should be recalled that the beards of Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus were characterized by being divided into two groups of curls (cf. Figs. 7 and 14).

Despite these reservations, there are three portraits generally agreed to represent Macrinus, based on comparisons with his coin portraits. They include a marble bust, currently in the Capitoline Museum in Rome, discovered near the Porta San Giovanni in Rome, and first identified as a portrait of Macrinus by Bernoulli (Figs. 92a and 92b ); a marble head, today in the Conservatori Museum in Rome (Figs. 90a and 90b ); and a bronze head discovered in 1969 near Belgrade, currently in the Belgrade Civic Museum (Figs. 91 a and 91b)29 •

* The Belgrade head (Figs. 91 a and 91 b ), representing Macrinus' type 2 portraits, is characterized by several prominent features: large eyeballs, wide open eyes looking upwards, arched eyebrows and a long face. The impression of a long face is created by joining the hair of the head with that of the beard, and by the long, vertical lines of the beard.

It seems that the sculpted portraits of Macrinus, too, can be divided into two main types. Type 1, the marble head with its short beard in the Conservatori Museum (Figs. 90a and 90b ), matches the military type as it appears in the coin-portraits (Fig. 88). Type 2, the Belgrade bronze head (Figs. 91a and 91 b ), matches the coin portraits which depict Macrinus with a thick, curly beard, with long hanging curls tapering towards the end (Fig. 89).

The combination of these elements reduces the strength of the angry expression, and gives the face an air of pensiveness. The length of the beard is especially prominent, with separate curls, each tapered at the end. The styling of the beard curls, their length and arrangement, recall the fashion prevalent in the art of Antonine portraiture, especially those portraits of Marcus Aurelius, Commodus and Septimius Severus.

The marble bust in the Capitoline Museum (Figs. 92a and 92b) may represent an intermediate type, with a medium length beard, though the curls of the beard reach below the chin. This intermediate version also appears in some of Macrinus' coin portraits. Nevertheless, Macrinus' sculpted portraits, as with his coin portraits, fall into two main categories, one with a short beard and the other with a longer beard, the curls of which hang separately.

The attempt to create a thoughtful impression in Macrinus' type 2 portrait by means of moving the large eyeball upwards, by the bow-shaped eyebrow and the wrinkles across the forehead, by turning the external angle of the eye slightly to the side, and by the bearded face, is also carried out according to the portraits of Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus.

The sculpted portraits show some additional features:

* In both of Macrinus' portrait types, the muscles of the forehead form a protrusion high above the eyebrows; this, together with the two wrinkles which slope outwards above the bridge of the nose, create a V-shape, or an inverted triangle, whose vertex is the bridge of the nose and whose base is the wrinkles of the forehead.

Thus, even if we accept that the die of Caracalla's later portrait type was reused in the production of coins, it is quite certain that it was altered to match the portrait of Macrinus. Moreover, the sculpted portraits support the explanation that two main types of Macrinus' portrait were distributed throughout the Empire, and that in creating Macrinus' coin and sculptured portraits, an attempt was made to combine the Antonine style with the basic mould (schema) of the last type of Carcalla's portrait. This combination is most apparent in the intermediate version of the portrait (Figs. 92a,b).

The V-shape formation and the emphasis on the width of the forehead, are not merely two of the elements typifying Caracalla's later portraits, but actually recall his appearance (cf. Fig. 25a).

* The head in the Conservatori Museum (Fig. 90), representing the first type of Macrinus' portraits, is typified by narrow, tightly closed lips.

Furthermore, the discovery of a portrait type of Macrinus with similar features to those of Marcus Aurelius confirms Herodian's statement [5.2.3-4] that Macrinus grew his beard in order to look like Marcus Aurelius. 48

Examination of Diadumenianus' order.

* The profiles in the coins of the years 202 and 218 also reveal differences in the formation of the nose, its shape, and size.

coin-portraits m now m

The first portrait of Diadumenianus was apparently minted immediately upon his proclamation as Caesar in 217 (Fig. 93)3°. The portrait on these coins seems to be of a child, little older than eight or nine year old, though the round profile of the head indicates a shape more characteristic of a young person than an adult. The hair is short, with thick locks; the forehead curved. The eye is large, with an arched eyebrow; the nose is prominent and roundish at the end; the lips curve downwards slightly at the ends, and the upper lip protrudes beyond the lower. The chin juts out slightly, and upwards, but is made quite gentle and round; the jaw is round, as are the cheeks; the neck is thin.

* Caracalla's neck in 202 is thicker and fleshier, whereas Diadumenianus' is thin. Furthermore, on the tetradrachm from Gaza from 217-218, Diadumenianus' portrait, like the coin portrait of Macrinus from Caesaria, appears in frontal view, exactly as those of Caracalla on coins from 215-217 (Bellinger, 1940, I 02-103).

It would seem that the resemblance between the coin portraits of Caracalla (of the years 196 and 202) and Diadumenianus (of the years 217 and 218), is not purely the result of a similarity in hair style, but is also due to similarities in physiognomy 33 .

Another portrait of Diadumenianus was apparently minted on coins when he received the title Augustus, in 218 (Fig. 95)31. This portrays a lad older than ten years. The hair is still short and styled similarly, but the locks are longer than in the earlier portrait. The head is laureate, as is usual for an Augustus. The forehead is straight, and joins the bridge of the nose, which is short and rounded at the end. The eye is large, as in the earlier portrait. The narrow lips are straighter; the chin no longer juts out, but is still round and gentle. The line of the jaw and cheeks has not changed.

Likewise, the possibility that the die used in the portraits of young Caracalla was reused cannot be ruled out, especially in the view of the fact that Diadumenianus, like his father, never came to Rome. Although the coins under discussion are those of the emperor's son, it would seem that there was no real reason to mint them in haste, unless it was done to create an illusion of dynastic continuity. In the light of the fact that the child Diadumenianus was about the same age as Caracalla when he received the title Caesar, and that he was granted the title Antoninus by his father, the reuse of the die was apparently justified.

If we examine the first coin portraits of Caracalla as a child, minted in 196 (Fig. 94), as well as those minted in 202 (Fig. 96), we immediately notice similarities between them and those of Diadumenianus: short hair in thick locks; a curved forehead; a large eye with arched eyebrow; a prominent nose, rounded at the edge; the line of the lips slanting slightly downwards, with the upper bulging over the lower; the chin curved and jutting slightly upwards; a curved jaw and cheeks, and a thin neck.

We will not discuss the sculpted portraits of Diadumenianus, since none of those portraits discovered so far can definitely be identified as his, while the number of opinions on the identity of these sculpture portraits far exceeds the number of . d. 1scovered34 . th e portraits

Differences between the portraits are only discernible through a thorough, careful study of these portraits with a magm.fy.mg g Iass 32 .

A survey of the iconographic evidence reveals a clear resemblance between the portraits of Macrinus, Septimius Severus, Marcus Aurelius, and Caracalla, as well as a marked similarity between the portraits of Diadumenianus and of Caracalla as children.

* The profile of Carcalla's coin portrait of 196 (Fig. 94) seems younger than that of Diadumenianus of 217 (Fig. 93), whereas Caracalla's portrait of 202 (Fig. 96) seems older than that of Diadumenianus (Fig. 95).

From the visual perspective, a pretender's affiliation to a particular dynasty, as justification of his legitimate claim to the throne, would be reflected in the stylistic formation of his image, as well as in certain iconographic similarities between the portraits of himself and his children on the one hand, and those members of the dynasty to which he wished to belong, on the other. It is therefore clear that the portraits of Macrinus and his son reflect Macrinus' attempt to create a continuity between the Severan and Antonine dynasties, in order to justify his claim to the throne. In other words, the portraits clearly indicate that the message of Macrinus' propaganda was indeed a dynastic one.

* In Caracalla's portrait of 196, the nose is shorter, the eye smaller and narrower, and the chin is thicker than in Diadumenianus' portrait of 217, and the upper lip does not protrude.

* Caracalla's forehead in the portrait of 202 is lined with two deep furrows, while Diadumenianus' forehead in 218 is smooth. * In his portrait of 202, Caracalla's jaw tends to have the squarer shape, while that of Diadumenanus in 218 is round.

49

Conclusions

Furthermore, Macrinus bestowed the name Antoninus on his son. This action could be interpreted in two ways: first, since Caracalla was highly esteemed by his soldiers, this gesture honoured his memory. Second, since the reign of the Antonines had been accepted by ancient historians as the "Golden Age" [see for instance: Dio, 71.36.4], one may assume that by adding this name to his son's titulature, Macrinus wished to recall the Antonine dynasty 36 •

Marcus Opellius Macrinus was proclaimed emperor by his troops immediately after Caracalla's murder, when the eastern border of the Empire was threatened by a Parthian invasion. His reign ended with his murder some fourteen months after his proclamation, but the end of his reign can be seen effectively in the proclamation of Elagabalus, apparently the direct heir of the Severan dynasty, as the Emperor of the Roman Empire.

Moreover, it is certain that the success of Septimius Severus' dynastic fiction was remembered; Macrinus did not for a moment forget that the principle of dynastic devotion among soldiers and officers was an important factor in Caracalla's success in holding on to the throne. Macrinus understood that the addition of these two names, Severus and especially Antoninus, laden with memories, provided continuity of the former dynasty and provided a semblance of legality to his rule.

By examining the sources available on the period of Macrinus' rule, we have tried to ascertain whether certain of Macrinus' actions could be regarded as a program of political propaganda whose dissemination was intended to tighten his grip on the throne. Literary sources provide clear hints of the prominent incorporation of a message in Macrinus' propaganda policy, focusing on the dynastic aspect of his reign 35 • The numismatic and epigraphic evidence not only confirm this, but also reflect Macrinus' desire to spread this message; the iconographic sources give clear proof that the visual message was indeed a dynastic one.

* Just as Septimius Severus was blessed with miracles, dreams and omens implying that his rule was based on divine sanction, and suggesting close ties with Marcus Aurelius, it seems that Macrinus, too, was blessed with prophecies and omens predicting his rule and suggesting his ties to Septimius Severus.

Macrinus spent most of his life in the imperial service of the Severi. He clearly had the opportunity to learn Roman political conduct at first hand, as well as a military mentality and ways of behaviour. He would have learned from colleagues, particularly drawing conclusions particularly from significant events in the immediate past.

* Like Caracalla, who considered the investment of money in the troop worthwhile in order to ensure their support [see for instance: Dio, 78(77).10.1.4, 11.l ], Macrinus promised his soldiers that all privileges and the monetary grants extended to them by Caracalla would remain in force. * Like Septimius Severus who, on the reverse of his coins made use of subjects commonly found on the reverse of Antonine coins, Macrinus, too, made use of at least one subject which commonly appeared on the reverse of Severus' coinage.

There is little doubt that Macrinus, the Praetorian Prefect, knew that the urgent need for an army commander to handle the Parthian border problem was an important element in the soldiers' decision to proclaim him emperor. Macrinus also knew that without the army's support in imposing formal acceptance of him on the Senate, his chances of maintaining the throne were nil. It is very likely that Macrinus knew that, because of his membership in the equester ordo, the Senate accepted him, both because of the problems on the eastern border, and because the dislike of the members of the Senate towards Caracalla was greater than their sympathy towards him, Macrinus. The decision of the Senate was merely a formality.

* Like Septimius Severus and Caracalla, who added titles employed by each of the Antoninierulers to their titulature, Macrinus, too, adopted this measure.

* Like Septimius Severus whose portraits, in any medium, show a very close likeness to those of Marcus Aurelius, Macrinus' type 2 portraits are similar to those of Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus, whereas the type I portraits are similar to those of Caracalla's.

In the light of the evidence cited above, Macrinus' conduct throughout his short reign proves that the period of Septimius Severus' struggle for the throne, and his success in holding on to it, was one of his major considerations, as well as the reign Caracalla who was extremely popular among his soldiers. Macrinus learned from his predecessors, and tried to apply these lessons.

* Just as Septimius Severus ensured that his children's portraits would resemble the portraits of Marcus Aurelius' children throughout his reign, there was an attempt by Macrinus to create a similarity to Caracalla's portraits in those ofDiadumenianus. Macrinus, in order to strengthen his grip on the throne, was determined to legitimize his rule, employing measures similar to those used by Septimius Severus which had already proved their ability to persuade supporters. It seems that Macrinus, too, understand how to behave towards his troops, who had already demonstood their great importance

* Like Septimius Severus, who added the name Pertinax to his titulature at the beginning of his reign, Macrinus added the name Severus to his titulature, so as to imply that he honoured the memory of Severus, just as Severus had honoured the memory of Pertinax. 50

in consolidating and enlarging a circle of loyal, faithful supporters.

to membership of the gens Aurelius, as was the case with Septimius Severus.

Furthermore, Macrinus had wisely learned the potential of verbal and visual expression in transmitting propaganda, using traditional vocabulary and symbols well known to his target audience. The public's verbal and visual memory is evident in light of Di o's note on Macrinus' letter to the Senate and the titles he added to his name, and Herodian's short statement about Macrinus' beard, and the discontent stirred up by his granting the name Antoninus to Diadumenianus [see for example: Dio, 79(78).19 .3-4].

Although, however, the adoption of the names Severus by Macrinus and Antoninus by Diadumenianus, appears to be a means of paying tribute to the loyalty by Macrinus towards Severus and Caracalla; the question is whether this step can be viewed as an allusion to his ambitions as well. We have seen that Macrinus, as noted above, took similar steps to those taken by Septimius Severus in the area of propaganda upon being proclaimed emperor. Septimius Severus himself did not claimed to be "the son of Marcus Aurelius" upon being proclaimed emperor by his troops, not even after he was recognized by the Senate. He waited two years before the time was ripe and circumstances were appropriate before taking such a step. Macrinus had no such an appropriate moment, nor did he have enough time to prepare the groundwork - his reign was too brief.

Yet, if Macrinus employed methods similar to those used by Septimius Severus and Caracalla in the area of propaganda, why did he fail where they succeeded? It must be remembered that the elements of success and failure of any propaganda campaign do not necessarily depend on the content of the propaganda message and its method of distribution. There are additional elements, objective and subjective as well, responsible for the success or failure of such a campaign.

In the eyes of his troops, Macrinus was the right candidate at the right time - when the Empire was under threat. However, the moment rumours spread that Caracalla had a son, albeit illegitimate, i.e., a true heir to the dynasty, Macrinus, not only a member of the equester ordo, but lacking family ties to the royal family, either through adoption or a fictitious affiliation, subsequently lost his soldiers' loyalty. This Joss of faith took place because of the troops' dissatisfaction with the "sickly conquest" of Parthia, as well as their complaints over Macrinus' economic cutbacks, that is, the reduction in their pay [see for example Dio, 79(78).28.1-3], and of the very severe disciplinary measures taken by Macrinus in putting an end to the privileges granted by Caracalla [see for example Dio 79(78).20.4]. Finally, the troops resented Macrinus' bestowal of the name Antoninus his son Diadumenianus.

One major factor is public opinion. A wise statesman, on the basis of past information, can attempt to win the support of the target audience, but he cannot predict the path which public opinion will follow. He may be able to do so if he is attuned to changes in public opinion, but he must be aware that he cannot dictate the people's thoughts. The most he can do is try to influence their way of thinking, and, as a result, their response. Although Macrinus followed in his predecessors' footsteps, his situation was unlike that of Septimius Severus, and definitely unlike that of Caracalla.

They looked longingly at the heir they considered most suitable to occupy the imperial throne, hoping that, as Caracalla's son, he would restore conditions in the army to the status quo ante of Caracalla's reign, the emperor so esteemed by them all.

Macrinus' background and social status must be emphasized. Dio [mainly 79(78).41.1-4] describes public opinion regarding Macrinus' social standing, particularly the opinion of the senators, although this may also have been the attitude of the majority of the public, both within and outside Rome. According to Dio, Macrinus' only mistake was "having grasped at supreme power before he had even the title of senator" [Dio, loc. cit., 4].

Furthermore, as noted above, the two most important elements in planning a propaganda campaign and ensuring its success are the time factor and the intense dissemination of the message, in order to guarantee its continuous renewal. These two elements are strongly interrelated.

Yet, his membership in the equestrian ordo would not, of itself, have prevented Macrinus' success had there not been other factors contributing to his downfall.

Unlike Septimius Severus, the short time period at Macrinus' disposal in planing his policy (See also Mattingly, 1953, 963-969), was the major element which dictated his moves, and was also apparently the source of his troubles.

It is important to understand the power of the principle of dynastic loyalty in the eyes of Romans in general, and of the troops in particular, as well as their sensitivity to this issue, especially to the name Antoninus, originally borne by Caracalla 37 •

Thus, the objective element, the lack of time together with the subjective elements, lack of affiliation with the imperial family, membership in the equester ordo, dynastic loyalty of the troops, disregard of the soldiers' needs, contributed to Macrinus' problems.

According to the sources at our disposal, Macrinus never claimed that he was the son of Severus, thus granting the name Antoninus to his son would not seem to imply a claim 51

Maesa would have known about the attitude of Romans in general, and of soldiers in particular, to the dynastic aspect of an emperor's rule, especially after many years of the closest contact with the rulers, having lived with her sister Julia Domna at court in Rome during the reigns of Septimius Severus and Caracalla [Dio, 79(78).30.3; Herod., 5.3.2, 8.3], where she had ample opportunity to observe political processes and political intrigues. She would also have understood the significance of the army's support, without which any claimant to the throne had no chance of success.

Chapter 4: Elagabalus and the gens Aurelia

Varius Avitus, known as Elagabalus 1, the fourteen-year-old son of Julia Soaemias, was proclaimed emperor under the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus by the soldiers of the legio III Gallica encamped near Emesa. He owed his reign to the memory of Caracalla, and to the influence and efforts of his grandmother Julia Maesa.

Under these circumstances, Maesa apparently decided to exploit the situation to further the cause of reinstating her family to the throne [Dio, 78(77).31.2-4]. Realizing that, as a woman, she could never become empress, she knew that she would be in a position, nevertheless, to exercise great influence in matters of state, as had Julia Domna during Caracalla's reign [Dio, 79(78).18.1-3] complains that Julia Domna would organize receptions for all important citizens just like the Emperor himself]. If she could establish her fourteen-year-old grandson on the throne as a puppetemperor, she would, in effect, be the power behind the throne governing the Empire.

The purpose of this discussion is to understand, with the aid of the available sources, the circumstances leading to Elagabalus' proclamation as emperor under the name Marc~s Aurelius Antoninus, and the measures taken to preserve his control of the throne 2 • Macrinus' troubles began while trying to establish his claim to the throne. Following what Dio describes as the "shameful peace treaty" with the Parthians [79(78).26.2-8, 27.1 ], Macrinus' troops began to show signs of dissatisfaction with their emperor-commander. Their agitation grew when Macrinus tried to reimpose strict traditional military discipline by abolishing certain privileges which Caracalla had granted. It reached a peak when Macrinus se~erely ~ut their pay, and abolished the generous monetary gifts which Caracalla would distribute among them. These unpopular measures reinforced the soldiers loyalty to the memory of Caracalla, their "colleague in arms" [Dio, 79(78).3.4.9.2, 12.6, 15.3,17.3, 20.4, 28.2f; Herod., 5.2.7].

In order to win the support of the troops, her first priority, Julia Maesa spread the rumour that her eldest grandson, Varius Avitus, destined for high-priesthood of the god Elagabalus in Emesa, was actually the son of Caracalla and her daughter Julia Soaemias. She also let the troops know that if they supported her, a large part of her family fortune would be distributed among them; furthermore, the severe army discipline imposed by Macrinus would be eased [Dio, 79(78).31.3, 32.3; Herod., 5.3.10-11].

On Macrinus' instructions, Julia Maesa had returned to Emesa, the city of her birth [Herod., 5.3.2; HA, Macr., 9.12]. Upon her arrival, she learned of the inhabitants' resentment towards Macrinus, as well as their suspicions of him. Caracalla had raised Emesa to the status of a colony. The inhabitants feared that if Macrinus were to take the throne their fate would be the same as that of the inhabitants of Pergammon, whose rights, granted by Caracalla, were abolished by Macrinus as punishment for their criticism [Dio, 79(78).20.4]. Because of her contacts with the soldiers in Syria, she may also have heard that Macrinus was unpopular with the troops from the very beginning [Herod., 5.3.9, speaks of Maesa's otKEtot among the soldiers encamped in Syria].

At dawn on the 16th of May, 218, Julia Maesa and her family reached the camp of the legio III Gallica, near Emesa. They crept into the camp, apparently by prior agreement; Elagabalus wore the purple robes worn by Caracalla as a child; for additional security they brought pictures of Caracalla as a child with them. The soldiers assembled, and apparently accepted the story. They immediately called Elagabalus by his "father's" name, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, and carrying him around the camp on their shoulders together with the picture of Caracalla as a child, to display the physical similarity between the young Elagabalus and Caracalla, proclaiming Elagabalus to be the true son of Caracalla, with the sole right to inherit the throne. The opposition of a few centurions and junior officers, unwilling to accept the situation, ':as soon quashed by the soldiers' threats, who had been promised that, should they kill the rebels, they would receive the victims' property, as well as their military ranks. Elagabalus then delivered an enthusiastic, pre-prepared speech to the soldiers, in which he praised his "father", as he had began to call him.

Julia Maesa's family had wielded political influence in Emasa even before Septimius Severus became emperor [Dio, 72.14.1-3; HA, Comm., 8.2-5]; in fact, the Julii family could trace its roots back to the period of the Republic, in the first century BCE3 • In the city of her birth, Julia Maesa was surrounded by faithful friends. She was also richer than ever before, and enjoyed high social status [Herod., 5.3.2]; thus she could rely on the support of her friends, as well as most of the wealthy and influential families.

He promised that all those deserting from the army would have their property returned to them, as well as their civil rights. He even promised to return all the exiles, and to grant each soldier a special bonus [Dio, 79(78).31.4, 32.2-4, 33.152

2; Herod., 5.3.11, 12, 25-26, 4.4; HA, Care., 9.2, 11.7; Macr., 7.6; Elag., 1.4-7, 2.1-2].

Felix, Augustus5, proconsul with the authority of tribune, was Emperor. He also promised that he would model his administration on that of Emperor Augustus and the beloved Marcus Aurelius [Dio, 80(79).1.2, 2.2-3].

Dio actually attributes the action in the camp near Emesa to a man called Eutychanus, described as an actor and athlete [79(78).31.1]. Herodian, on the other hand, makes no mention of Eutychanus, and places full responsibility on Maesa [5 .3.1Off.]. In either case, it is almost certain that Eutychanus was no more than a messenger, ordered to carry out a particular mission, and his links with the family were of no special importance in the events of the overall conspiracy.

Indeed, the name Elagabalus appears on the obverse of coins from 218, minted in Rome and in Antioch, as IMP CAES M A VR ANTONINVS A VG (lmperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus), the exact format used on the coins of Caracalla. The obverse of aes coins of that same year contains greater detail: IMP CAES M AVR ANTONJNVS AVG PIVS AVG; inscribed on the reverse is, PM TRP COS PP [BMC, V, ccxxxi, 530ff., 542ff.]. Following the defeat of Macrinus, in the same year, the reverse of the coin shows Victoria with the legend VICTORIA ANTONINI A VG [BMC, ibid.].

Dio further recounts (ibid.) that it was the promises to the soldiers regarding the relaxation of military discipline and special grants which persuaded them that Elagabalus was indeed Caracalla's legal heir. These promises actually reflected Caracalla's military policy as regards easing conditions for deserters and returned prisoners. Dio [78(77).3.3] says that Caracalla, in celebrating his survival of his brother Getta's plot against him, announced a pardon in the Senate for all those sentenced to exile, with the exception of Getta's supporters and those he suspected of involvement in the conspiracy. Such a pardon was contrary to the traditional ius postlimini, the custom since the early days of the Empire, when prisoners and deserters were dealt with most severely, even occasionally executed4; the relaxation of strict military discipline was completely contrary to Macrinus' approach.

At the beginning of 219, the legend on the obverse of coins minted in Antioch was changed to ANTONINVS PIVS FEL(JX) AVG [BMC, ibid.]. This inscription was also used on the coins of Rome, but these were undated [BMC, V, ccxxi, ccxlii-ccxlvi; RIC, IV, 43]. Elagabalus' name sometimes appears on coins from Antioch and Edessa, as M ANTON(JNVS) AVR(ELIVS) SEV(ERVS} and sometimes as M AVR(ELIVS) SEV(ERVS} ANTON(JNVS) [e.g., BMCG, Syria, 197, 379]. The latter is the exact formula which appears on Caracalla's coins from these same towns [e.g., BMCG, Berytus 74, nos. 148-153; 75, nos. 156-159].

Numismatic evidence confirms that as early as 218, when Elagabalus was proclaimed emperor, but before his arrival in Rome, the promise of special monetary grants had been honoured and repeated a year later when he entered Rome [BMC, V, 546, 66lff.].

Moreover, Caracalla's and Julia Domna's deification was celebrated on coinage as early as the year 218. The obverse of coins in honour of Caracalla's deification show his portrait with the legend DIVO ANTONINO MAGNO [BMC, V, ccxxxi; 531, 589]; the obverse of coins in honour of Julia Domna's deification show a bust of her with the legend DIVA IVLIA A VGVSTA [BMC, ibid.]6. A remarkable undated issue from Rome and Antioch bears the legend DIVO ANTONINO PI! FIL [RIC, IV,2, 39, 40ff.] on the reverse.

Herodian [5.5.8, 6.6-9] adds that Elagabalus also provided the inhabitants of Rome with much entertainment and lavish parades to win their support. Preparations at the Emesa camp were put in motion for the confrontation with Macrinus. Macrinus, then in Antioch, would soon hear the news that Elagabalus had been proclaimed Emperor; meanwhile, the new imperial family remained in the camp for their protection, should it become necessary [Dio, 79(78).31 .4, 32.2, 34.1; Herod., 5.3.24f., 5.3.26].

Some dedicatory inscnpt10ns go beyond describing Elagabalus as son of the divine Antoninus the Great and grandson of Septimius Severus, and describe his entire genealogy, including all relevant titles, as far back as the divine Nerva [ILS, 292-294; CIL, III, RT, 1, 3118, 3121; VIII, 8322, 10347; XVI, 137-139].

On June 8, 218, less than one month after the proclamation in the Emesa camp, Macrinus was soundly defeated in battle near Antioch after most of his soldiers deserted [Dio, 79(78).31.4- 34.5; Herod., 5.4.1-12; HA, Macr., 8.3, Elag., 1.4,5.1].

Apparently, the emphasis placed on his forefathers, apart from being an ancient Roman custom, was an attempt to prove the legality of an emperor's reign by stressing his dynastic heritage. There is no doubt that the link with names of other divine emperors represented an approach to the common people and to troops, to whom it was of primary importance that Elagabalus be the son of Caracalla, and, as such, related to the Aurelian, as well as the Antonine, dynasties (see also Hammond, 1957, 17-64, esp. 58f.).

It was imperative that the news of Elagabalus' proclamation as Emperor be spread speedily throughout the Empire; in particular, it had to reach Rome as quickly as possible. Without his waiting for the Senate's approval, two letters were dispatched in Elagabalus' name, one to the Senate, and the other to the troops. Both stated that he, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, son of Antoninus and grandson of Severus, Pius,

Similarly, Herodian [5.5.6-7] recounts that an order was given to issue a vast number of pictures of Elagabalus 53

dressed in his official robes so as to familiarize the Senate and the people of Rome with the appearance of the new emperor. These pictures were dispatched to Rome and throughout the Empire, especially to army camps. He commanded that one picture should hang in the Senate above the altar of Victoria. Indeed, continues Herodian [ibid.], when Elagabalus eventually arrived in Rome more than a year later, after spending the winter of 218/219 in Nicomedia, the inhabitants of Rome were not surprised, having grown accustomed to the new emperor image from the numerous pictures, and perhaps through the golden statue of Elagabalus, which, according to Dio [80(79).12.22], had been erected in Rome and which was distinguished by its great size and variety of adornments.

When Maesa realized that Elagabalus would insisted on continuing his religious policy despite her counsel that the patience of the troops was wearing thin, and that his cousin, known by Dio as Bassianus [79(78).30.3], and by Herodian as Alexianos [5.3.3], was very popular, particularly among the troops, she prevailed upon Elagabalus to adopt his cousin as his successor, and bestow the title Ceasar on him. Upon his adoption, Bassianus was given the name Marcus Aurelius, as well as Alexander. Maesa also began to encourage the rumour that Severus Alexander too was a son of Caracalla [Dio, 80(79).19.4; Herod., 5.3.10, 7.3]. Literary sources contain two different accounts regarding the granting of the title to Marcus Aurelius Alexander. Dio [80(79).17.2-3, 19.4] writes that Elagabalus, accompanied by his mother and grandmother, took his young cousin to the Senate, where the adoption ceremony took place, but makes no mention of the title Caesar being granted. Herodian [5.7 .1-7] confirms Dio's account, and goes on to report that as heir designate, the youth was given the title Caesar and made joint consul. He also reports the rumours that Marcus Aurelius Alexander, too, was Caracalla's son, Herodian states that this took place in the year 221, while the author of the HA [Elag., 5.1, IO.I; Alex., 1.2, 8.1], Aurelius Victor [23.3], and Eutropius [8.23] all declare that the Senate bestowed the title Caesar on Alexander upon Macrinus' death, i.e., in the year 218.

During the first two and a half years of his reign, Elagabalus managed to arouse the enmity of the populace, the senators, and especially the troops. His fanatic religious policies towards his god from Emesa, the ceremonies in his honour, on a scale for beyond that to which the inhabitants of Rome were accustomed, his public conduct running counter to the accepted norms of that period and his open contempt of Senate, met universal disapproval [Dio, 80(79).3 .4-5, 4.1, 11.3-12, 13.2-16, 17.2; Herod., 5.7ff.; HA, Elag., 4.1-2, 5.1, IO.I, 11.1, 12.1-4, 16.5]. Dio, Herodian, and the author of the HA, all report the appointment of slaves, freedmen and dancers to positions reserved for members of the Senate. Julia Maesa realized that Elagabalus' hold on the throne must be strengthened if it were to be kept in the family and the imperial position improved [Herod., 5.7.1]. First, she would have to restrain her grandson, or at least reduce his aberrations to a minimum.

Was Alexander indeed given the title Caesar and appointed joint consul at the same time, as Herodian claims? According to coin legends, the title Caesar was bestowed on Alexander before he was appointed consul designatus. On coins depicting Marcus Aurelius Alexander, minted during Elagabalus' reign, he is shown as M A VR ALEXANDER CAESAR without the addition COS DES [BMC, V, ccli]. However, as these coins are undated, they do not help us determine the date of the event.

She tried to persuade Elagabalus to moderate his religious activities and to wear Roman apparel, rather than the colourful robes considered effeminate by the Romans. She also appointed a freedman, by the name of Gannys, as her personal representative to supervise the Emperor's behaviour in public. Elagabalus, however, did not approve and ordered Gannys' murder [Dio 80(79).6.1-3].

Papyrological evidence comes to our aid on this point; in addition to confirming the information in the literary sources, it also assists in the dating this event. On page II of Feriale Duranum, lines 16 and 17, the date of Marcus Aurelius Alexander's appointment as Caesar and his receipt of the toga virilis is given. Line 18 gives the date of his appointment as consul. The former had been erased and is illegible, whereas the latter date, I July 221, has been reconstructed 7 •

In order to strengthen the link with Marcus Aurelius, Julia Maesa, in the year 220, arranged Elagabalus' third marriage to Annia Aurelia Faustina, whose lineage showed she was part of the Aurelian dynasty [Dio 80(79).5.3-5; Herod., 5.6.2]. Coins from Alexandria, dated 220, confirm Elagabalus' marriage to Annia Aurelia Faustina. The obverse shows a bust of Annia Aurelia Faustina, with the standing figure of Concordia, or the Emperor and his wife clasping hands on the reverse; the legend CONCORDIA appears on both versions [BMC, Alex., 198, nos. 1548, 1550-1556]. Septimius Severus often used Concordia as the subject of his coins, and as this was one of the most common topics of coinage during the Antonine dynasty, it was used as a basis for comparing him to Marcus Aurelius (Rubin, 1966-67, 153-172; above Chap. 2(A), p.26).

A number of dedicatory inscriptions, dated the beginning of July 221, confirm this. The inscription ILS, 446 = CIL, VI, 2001, is dated 2 July 221, and CIL, VI, 2009, 10 July 221. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that Alexander's

adoption by Elagabalus, and his acceptance of the title Caesar, preceded his appointment as consul, which apparently took place at the end of June or beginning of July, 221.

54

In dedications dated to Elagabalus' reign, Marcus Aurelius Alexander's name appears as M AU[relli Antonini F., divi Antonini} [divi Severi Pii pron] [see: CIL, III, p. 1998 D LXXXV]. In another dedication, both Elagabalus and Severus Alexander appear as Caracalla's sons [CIL, XVI, 141; see also ILS, 292-294].

primarily built by Antoninus Caracalla, the portico was left unfinished, it was continued, after his death, by spurious Antoninus, and actually completed by Alexander". The declaration that Elagabalus' temple still stood during the writing of the HA biographies, is suspect. Although Dio [80(79).21.2] reports that every trace of Elagabalus was removed from Rome immediately after his murder, numismatic evidence indicates that, approximately two years after acceding to the throne, Severus Alexander converted Elagabalus' Palatine Temple into a temple to Jupiter Ultor. This temple is known to have been destroyed before the year 304 BCE9 •

The choice of the name Alexander was probably made with the troops in mind, and is evidence of their attitude towards the dynastic aspect, which gave legal backing to the emperor's reign. Herodian suggests [5.7.3] that Alexander was named after Alexander the Macedonian, not in order to liken him directly with Alexander the Great, but rather to associate him with the memory of Caracalla. Like Elagabalus himself, Marcus Aurelius Alexander now claimed to be Caracalla's illegitimate son.

The author of the HA could not see the temple on the Palatine, but he knew of its existence; the caution he exercised regarding the name of the temple raises the possibility that he possessed a good, contemporary source of information.

Herodian's explanation thus confirms that in coins minted in 218 in honour of Caracalla's deification (see above Chap.3, p. 44). The title MAGNUS, which appears on these coins at such an early stage of Elagabalus' reign, may indicate that though a number of years had elapsed since Caracalla's murder, Alexander the Great and his exploits, told to them by Caracalla, were still deeply engraved in the memories of the troops. Although neither the name Alexander nor Magnus were part of Caracalla's official name, the name and title would be sure to remind them of their "colleague in arms", Caracalla 8 •

For our purposes, the last two buildings mentioned in the HA are of the greatest interest - the Coliseum and Carcalla's baths, though again it must be noted that the reconstruction of these two buildings was not, in fact, completed until the reign of Severus Alexander, as reported by the author of the HA 10• During the Middle Ages the name Coliseum was given to the amphitheater in Rome, built by Vespasian, consecrated by his son Titus in the year 80. It was damaged a number of times by earthquakes or fire in ancient times, each time to be rebuilt or renovated, the first time by Nerva, then later by Trajan and Antoninus Pius [HA, Pius, 8]. Renovation or reconstruction was commemorated by inscriptions [CIL, VI, 32254, 32255].

The following points should be borne in mind in any discussion of the adoption: 1. Without going into great detail, Dio [79(78).31.2] mentions that "by some other oracle he (the sun-god Elagabalus) undertook to overthrow Macrinus, and to set up Avitus, Maesa's grandson, as emperor in his stead". Elsewhere [79(78).25.1-5], Dio describes how the Coliseum was struck by thunderbolts and burnt on 23 August 217, how the Tiber burst its banks, flooding the streets around the Forum Boarium~ and how the strong current swept people away; he refers to these events as a message from the gods, a prophecy that "Macrinus was not destined to live long, as had indeed been foretold to him" (Joe. cit.).

The Coliseum was significant both for the Romans and for the Emperor for two reasons. It was one of the largest and most central buildings in Rome, with room for most of the city's inhabitants and more. There were seats for nearly 50,000 spectators, with special enclosures for the Emperor and state officials, in addition to separate rows for members of the equites ordo. The building was intended primarily for public performances and shows for the entertainment of the populace, and to divert their minds from political matters; hence, the importance of the structure as a whole. The Coliseum remains a symbol of Rome.

2. According to Dio [80(79).17.2-3], Elagabalus had decided to adopt his cousin, bestow upon him the title Caesar, declare him his official heir and change his name to Alexander because he believed that "all this came about, in truth, by some divine arrangement", though the god was one such as Elagabalus himself, and not part of the official Roman pantheon.

Elagabalus' lineage is traced as far back as the divine Nerva, in certain dedications, while some inscriptions commemorate the reconstruction of the building during the reigns ofNerva, Trajan and Antoninus Pius; thus renovation of the Coliseum during Elagabalus' rule is associated with the dynastic aspect of his reign.

3. Several public projects were undertaken in Elagabalus'

name. The author of the HA [Elag., 17.9] reports that "not one of the public buildings erected during Elagabalus' rule survived, with the exception of the temple of the god Elagabalus (called Sol by some, and Jupiter by others), the amphitheater (the Coliseum), destroyed by fire, and the public baths in Vicus Sulpicius, begun by Antoninus (Caracalla), the son of Severus. Although the baths were

The author of the HA writes [Ant. Carac., 9.4-6, 8-9] of Caracalla's baths (Thermae Antoninianae), the impressive ruins of which remain today in the Via Appia, just within the modem Porta san Sebastiano in Rome. The baths built by Caracalla and named in his honour, and intended for the use 55

and enjoyment of the general public, along with a portico named after his father, Septimius Severus, were intended to serve as a record of his achievements - his wars and his triumphs.

that on coins from the reigns of Antoninus Pius, Septimius Severus and Caracalla; it continues to appear on Severus Alexander's coins [for example, Sol: BMC, VI, 807, 950; Severus Alexander in the quadriga: ibid., 575].

The author of the HA [Ant. Care., 9.6] does not specify whether this record was preserved by means of inscriptions or reliefs; it is apparently an addendum referred to by the author in Elag., 17.8.

The only innovation introduced by Elagabalus was the addition of the conical stone, a cult object of the sun-god of Emesa, Elagabalus, to the traditional depiction of Sol, though this did not appear on many coins 13•

This would imply that Elagabalus continued Caracalla's activities for the benefit of the people of Rome. Moreover, the names Antoninus and Septimius Severus, with all their associative elements, both highly emotive and commemorative, would be constantly viewed by the large numbers of bathers. Here, too, as in the case of the Coliseum, was an associative message, linked to the dynastic aspect of Elagabalus' rule.

It seems that the depiction of the sun-god on Elagabalus' coins was yet another attempt to establish a link between himself and his predecessors on the throne, primarily Caracalla and Septimius Severus, as well as between himself and the Aurelian and Antonine dynasties. Despite all the steps taken to ensure the continuation of Elagabalus' rule, the question was not whether his reign would end, but when.

4. From the end of the period of the Republic, especially

during the period of the Empire (specifically from the second century), there was, to some extent, a mutual relationship between the emperor and the sun-god Sol. This became one of the divine characteristics of the emperor, usually portrayed in the visual media by the head of the emperor in profile wearing the radiate crown (the spiked crown being symbolic of Sol and sovereignty). This presentation was most common on the dupondius and antoninianus coins 11 .

Elagabalus had overstepped the mark in his unconventional conduct, unacceptable to the people of Rome, and especially to the troops. Furthermore, when Elagabalus realized that his adopted cousin, Severus Alexander, was more popular among the soldiers than himself, his jealousy grew. At first he regretted the adoption and granting the title Caesar to Severus Alexander, and tried to reverse these acts. When he found he was unable to do so, he tried to harm his cousin in every possible way, and in so doing, turned the troops against himself. In March, 222, Elagabalus and his mother were both murdered by the Praetorian Guard, who declared Severus Alexander emperor.

No less common in the visual media was the picture of the emperor entering or driving his four-horse chariot, the quadriga, one of the features of the sun-god, his right hand held up, and his left holding the globe or whip, symbols of sovereignty. This depiction of the emperor in the quadriga was most common on the aureus and denarius coins, as well as on medallions.

Dio, Herodian and the author of the HA, make it clear that real power lay in the hands of the Severan women who operated through Elagabalus; obviously they would not want to lose this power. If they could not continue to manipulate Elagabalus, then they would find another candidate to play the role of puppet, through whom they would continue to manage affairs of state. In effect, Elagabalus had turned his grandmother Julia Maesa against himself. He refused to heed her advice, began to act with growing independence in imperial matters, and tried to free himself from dependence on her. Dio and Herodian infer that the Praetorian Guard was bribed to murder both Elagabalus and his mother. [Dio, 80(79).19.1-4, 20.1-2, 21.1-3; Herod., 5.7.5-7, 8.1-10; HA, Elag., 5.1, 10.1, 13.1-14, 14.2-8, 15.5-7, 16.5, 17.1-7; regarding the murder of Elagabalus by the Praetorian Guard compare with: Eutr., 23.5ff.).

The emperor is portrayed riding in his quadriga as early as the bronze medallion of Antoninus Pius; in the Ephesos relief, during the period of Marcus Aurelius, the figure driving the quadriga is identified as Emperor Marcus Aurelius (see also above Chap. 2(A), p. 26). On a medallion of Commodus, the rider in the quadriga is identified as Commodus himself; Septimius Severus is the rider on the aureus coin [e.g., [BMC, V, 57, no. 226]. Septimius Severus and Julia Domna are depicted on Severus' coins with the attributes of Sol and Luna [e.g., Kent, Overbeck, Stylow (1973), Taf. 93, no. 338; also BMC, V, cxxxix]; while Caracalla is shown wearing the radiate crown on his coins [Caracalla: BMC, V, 316, 317*]. Similarly, Caracalla is portrayed as Sol in the quadriga [BMC, V, 249].

The literary sources clearly show that the steps taken to justify both Elagabalus' occupancy of the throne, as well as establish a legal basis for his rule, were concentrated primarily on the dynastic aspect of his reign.

Moreover, the usual term for titles associated with an emperor was comes, whereas the addition of invictus to the imperial titulature was first used by Commodus 12 .

The numismatic and epigraphic sources do more than merely reflect this finding; they provide clear evidence of the tendency to issue formal publications regarding the dynastic aspect of Elagabalus' reign.

Clearly, the subject of the sun-god, reflected primarily on coins, was not new to the Roman Empire; the god's depiction on coins minted during Elagabalus' reign closely resembles 56

Let us examine the portraits of Elagabalus with a view to seeing whether they confirm reports by Dio and Herodian of the similarities between himself and Caracalla, and if so, to what extent.

the chin is still smooth, but a faint moustache can be seen [see BMC, V, 90.6, 93.5, 97,4.9). Gradually a short beard becomes visible as well [see BMC, V, 89.12-13); finally there is a full beard and moustache [see BMC, V, pis. 90.2.13.15.19.20, 93.6).

Elagabalus was only 14 years old when soldiers of the legio III Gallica encamped near Emesa declared him emperor under the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. These soldiers, convinced by the similarities between Caracalla and Elagabalus, believed that Caracalla was Elagabalus' real father; thus he was entitled, by right of heredity, to occupy the throne.

Elagabalus' last type of portrait also shows (Fig. 99) two deep wrinkles along the forehead; the protuberance of the muscles of the forehead are the results of a bulging eyebrow; the full lower lip is enlarged and the square jaw gives the profile a rectangular shape. The rest of the features resemble those of the first two portraits.

Did Elagabalus' coin portraits and sculpted portraits really reflect the literary sources which report on his similarity to Caracalla?

If we compare these three types of portrait with those of

Caracalla at similar ages (Figs. 73, 94, 96), we find that in addition to similarities in hairstyle, the two youths are also alike in physiognomy.

In order to answer this question we must compare Elagabalus' portraits with those of Caracalla as a child and youth, a comparison made in the legion's camp to convince the troops that such similarities did exist.

Indeed, Mattingly [BMC, V, ccxxix] draws attention to the similarities between the profiles of Elagabalus in each of his coin portrait types, and those of young Caracalla. Carson (1990, 70) claims that when Elagabalus was declared emperor in the year 218 in Rome, the engravers had no available imago ofElagabalus; thus the initial coin portrait of Elagabalus of that year is little more than a younger version of Caracalla as a child. Only after Elagabalus' arrival in Rome in the year 219 did his portraits more closely reflect his own individual features.

Three types of portrait appear on coins of Elagabalus. The first dates from the years 218 to 220 (Fig. 97) 14• Its characteristic feature, usual in a portrait of a 14 to 16 yearold youth, is his smooth face (i.e., a beardless face; not even a hint of moustache). The second type dates from the years 220 to 221 (Fig. 98) 15, still without beard and moustache, but with certain signs of maturity given greater emphasis.

A comparison of the three types of coin portrait of Elagabalus with those of Commodus and Marcus Aurelius as children (Figs. 78, 79) also reveals that the wavy, flowing curls in Elagabalus' hairstyle are fashioned according to the portraits of children in the Antonine family some I 00 years earlier, especially Commodus and Marcus Aurelius as youths. The size of the eye, and its shape, are also the same as in portraits of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus as children and youths.

The third type dates from the last year of Elagabalus' rule, 221-222 (Fig. 99) 16; it differs from the others in that it shows Elagabalus with moustache and beard. In terms of characteristic detail, the first type of portrait (Fig. 97) shows a rounded contour of profile; the rich texture of the hair rests gently on the scalp, styled in long, wavy curls flowing from the top of the head down to the nape of the neck and towards the face, covering the temples and most of the forehead; the forehead is rounded slightly at the top and joins the bridge of the nose; the nose is short and fattish; the eye is large and wide open, with an arched eyebrow above it; the narrow lips are closed tightly, pulled down with the angle of the mouth; the chin is round and slightly receding; the cheeks are round and fat.

Before examining Elagabalus' sculpted portraits, we must note the problem encountered by modem research in all aspects of identifying sculpted portraits attributed to Elagabalus: he was condemned by the senate to a damnatio memoriae after his death. As a result, his name was erased from all official documents, and all his existing portraits were destroyed. Yet, in Elagabalus' case, the damnatio memoriae was apparently incomplete. His name is found in many dedications, even after his death; the name Antoninus was not removed in at least 52 dedications dating from Severus Alexander's reign [e.g., CIL, VI, 570, 1454, 3015; also: Butler, 1908, 96, 146-1470). Likewise, sculpted portraits identified as Elagabalus have been discovered.

The second type of portrait of Elagabalus (Fig. 98) differs only slightly from the first, the differences primarily being in the contour of the profile of the head, which is oval, giving the face a longer appearance; the forehead is straight, and the lower lip protrudes. Apart from these changes, indicating maturation, the other facial features are the same as those in the first type of portrait.

Furthermore, when considering the sculpted portraits of Elagabalus, we must bear in mind the general difficulty in identifying child portraits 17, as well as other problems specific to this period, such as the similarity between the portraits ofElagabalus and his successor, Severus Alexander,

The third type of portrait (Fig. 99) characterizes mainly the emperor's greater maturity and the transition from youth to manhood: at first he is shown with only short side whiskers [see BMC, V, pl. 90.11-12). Later, these extend to the jaw; 57

* Caracalla's facial structure changes with age. When he was a child this structure was characterized by the roundness typical of children's faces. As he matured, it became more oval in his youth, then became a square profile. Elagabalus' face, even at the age ascribed to him in the Capitolino Museum portrait, remains full and round, similar to his first coin portrait, depicting him as about 14 years old.

who was the same age as Elagabalus when he succeeded him 18 and the similarity to child emperors who succeeded Severus Alexander, e.g., Phillip I and Gordianus III 19• Nevertheless, it is generally agreed that one of the sculpted portraits discovered to date can in fact be identified as Elagabalus: the head, currently located in the Capitolino Museum in Rome, was first identified as a portrait of Elagabalus by Bernoulli (1894, 11,3, 88, taf. 25)20. Another marble head, currently in the Oslo Museum, was identified by L'Orange as a copy of the Capitoline Museum head; there are, however, doubts as to its authenticity 21 •

* The slightly arched eyebrow in the child portraits of Caracalla, another feature typical of children, changes into a narrow straight eyebrow as he grows older. Elagabalus' eyebrow remains arched.

* The shape of Caracalla's mouth and lips also change with age, from slightly round, childish lips to a straight, narrow and tightly closed mouth as he matures. This latter type is typical of Caracalla's portraits as a youth. Elagabalus, however, is shown with large, thick, fleshy lips, even at the age of 19. None of his predecessors are portrayed with such lips.

There is disagreement among scholars as to whether a bust of a youth, now on display in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek in Copenhagen, is ofGeta or Elagabalus 22 • This study refers to the portrait in the Capitolino Museum (Figs. 100a, 100b) alone, as it is the only one which scholars agree is definitely Elagabalus' portrait 23 .

* One of the characteristic features of Caracalla's later portrait type is his narrow, straight eyes. The eyes in his child portraits are large and wide open, typical of child portraits, especially those of Commodus and Marcus Aurelius.

Referring to the portrait in Rome (Fig. 100b), one can classify it as the third type of coin portrait of Elagabalus, i.e., it shows a young man about 19 years old. The main feature of this portrait is the rich, soft texture of the wild hair, styled into long, wavy, flowing curls. This hairstyle is reminiscent of Caracalla's portraits as a child and youth (Figs. 74, 80). The same can be said about the similarity between Elagabalus' hairstyle and that of young Marcus Aurelius, Commodus as a child, and Annius Verus, in their portraits (Figs. 82, 83).

The emphasis on the large eyes and their large curve, almost exaggerated in their size, are the outstanding features m Elagabalus' facial contours, even in his later portraits. Certain details, therefore, of facial contours which change with time, indicating the transition from childhood to youth, from youth to mature adult - details closely reflected in the different portraits of Caracalla - do not alter in Elagabalus' portraits.

The only difference in the style of curls in these portraits is merely a technical one, i.e., in the actual chiselling. The deep drilling of the hair texture, typical of the Antonine and Severan courts, is absent in Elagabalus' curls. Apart from this technical difference, the plastic form of the curls, and the manner in which they rest on the head, are the same in Caracalla's and Elagabalus' portraits, the difference between them being stylistic, arising from differences in eras, or from the work of the artists (Wood, 1986, ibid.).

* Another difference is in the countenance. One of the prominent features depicted in Caracalla's last portrait is his angry expression (see below Epp. I, p 71 ff.), which first appeared in his third portrait24 • In Elagabalus' portraits, the soft finish of the skin on the outer edge of his face, and the general styling of his features give his face a quiet expression, a certain sadness, reminiscent, according to Nodelman (1965, 390), of the faces in the frieze of the Parthenon in the Acropolis, Athens, and tombstone portraits from the fifth century BCE.

In Elagabalus' portrait the edges of the curls across his forehead, as if wind-blown, are reminiscent of a similar feature in portraits of Caracalla, Commodus and Marcus Aurelius. The low hairline on Elagabalus' portrait is also characteristic of Caracalla's.

* Another artistic expression differentiating the portraits of Elagabalus and Caracalla is the frontal view of their faces. The Greek-Hellenistic artistic tradition in Roman portraits is recognized in the way the frontal view is broken by inclining the head sideways and slightly downward 25 .

The shape of the head, the slightly fattish, round face, the emphasized furrows on the forehead, the bulging eyebrow, the wide, fattish nose, each of these is found in Elagabalus' portrait and in those of Caracalla as a child and youth. So is the fashion of side whiskers, continuing the flow of the hair on the head in Elagabalus' sculpted portraits, reminiscent of those of Caracalla in his youth.

This tradition, fundamental to the art of Roman portraiture, is emphasized, and even exaggerated, in portraits of Caracalla. Elagabalus' portraits are usually turned toward the spectator in frontal views.

There are, however, certain physognomic differences in the portraits of Elagabalus in his nineteenth year, and those of Caracalla at a similar age: 58

Although there are some differences between the portraits of Elagabalus and Caracalla, the iconographic similarity between them is obvious. In fact, most modem researchers dealing with sculpted portraits of Elagabalus stress the similarity between his and Caracalla's portraits. Bernoulli (1894, 87ff.) even claims that the similarity between the two is so striking that it could be described as a brotherly likeness. Nodelman (1965, 390) points out that in each of the sculpted portraits attributed to Elagabalus, especially that in the Capitolini Museum in Rome, the influence of an anonymous artist, whom he calls the "Caracalla Master" - in his opinion a member of Septimius Severus' court - is felt.

portrait type in the Torlonia collection, apparently indicate similarities to western Asia Minor sculpture, and that these portraits are apparently the work of an artist of eastern origins. Nevertheless, Nodelman does not explain what these stylistic characteristics are. An investigation is thus necessary to determine whether the front view and details of the face, the round, full facial structure, the large eye, the arched eyebrow and the large mouth, are recognizable features of Elagabalus' individual physiognomy, or whether they are typical of the artistic style of the eastern school of sculpture.

Moreover, the texture of the hair in Elagabalus' portrait follows the fashion of children's styles typical of the Antonine and Severan courts, as well the Antoninic style, who's main feature was the prominent contrast between the smooth face and the hair.

The common denominator in the artistic styles of lands and peoples under Roman rule in the east, from Armenia in the north, the Commagene in east Asia Minor, to Palmyma (or Tadmor) and Arabia, the land of the Nabataeans in the south, as well as among Jews and Egyptians, was the merging of eastern and western influences.

Indeed, most modem studies of Elagabalus' sculpted portraits, including those in which identification is not conclusive, claim that similarities in the children's hairstyle of Marcus Aurelius' and Septimius Severus' courts can be . d26 recogmze .

The manner in which these influences merged depended largely on the location; Graeco-Roman tradition held sway in the coastal towns, whereas inland, local influence was the stronger the closer the towns were to the east. Artists of this school achieved a balance of Graeco-Roman and eastern styles and fashions during the Roman Empire.

However, when noting the similarities, especially physiognomic, in portraits of Elagabalus and Caracalla, we must also mention two important points: The first, the familial tie between the two. and the second, the difficulty in moulding child portraits, specifically the significance of the hairstyle as a criterion for their membership in a particular dynasty 27 •

The eastern school of sculpture, and especially portrait sculpture in the major cities of the eastern Mediterranean Basin during the Roman Empire, can be described as Hellenistic-Roman art, the details of which incorporated certain eastern characteristics and elements. This was particularly noticeable in Syria, Asia Minor and Egypt.

Elagabalus was the grandson of Caracalla's aunt; when observing a physiognomic resemblance between them, it is reasonable to assume that such similarities of features exists between relatives. Nevertheless, such a family relationship would rule out a brotherly likeness.

The sculpting of the head, for example, was based on the principles of Roman realism, but the front view of the head, as well as certain details of the facial features (the fullness of face, large eyes gazing upwards, large, full lips, and stylization by means of lineation of the hair of the head and beard), make up some of the artistic principles of eastern portraiture.

Even brothers (except identical twins) have certain individual features which distinguish one from the other. Furthermore, we must bear in mind that Elagabalus was not of Severan origin, but a member of Julia Domna's extended family, i.e., of Syrian extraction. Julia Maesa, Julia Domna's sister, had two grandsons from each of her sons. The oldest grandson, Varius Avitus, known as Elagabalus, was the son of Julia Soaemias and her Syrian husband, Varius Marcellus, who was appointed senator after an impressive equestrian career [Dessau, 478]28 • Thus, when examining Elagabalus' portraits, we should also consider the styles which characterized sculpted portraits of the eastern school, to determine which of Elagabalus' contours followed the Roman rules of portraiture, and which were borrowed from the artistic traditions of the east.

The same art1st1c derivation is evident in the sculpted portraits of Roman emperors produced in the eastern parts of the Empire (e.g., Fig. 101)3°,as well as coin portraits of local rulers (Figs. 102a, 102b, 102c). The combination of Roman iconography with local tradition is especially prominent in the Egyptian tradition of depicting the deceased on the wooden panels of covers of coffins which contained mummies during the Roman imperial era (e.g., Fig. 103). These paintings emphasize the external appearance of the subject according to the artistic principles of Roman realism, the so-called "veristic style", in which the eastern elements are reflected in the full face, fleshy lips, big eyes, the stylization of the hair, primarily by means of lineation and the frontal view, all constituting what Parlasca (1983, 51-54) calls "oriental facial features".

No reference to Elagabalus' Syrian origin has been made in the debate of his sculpted portraits among modem scholars thus far29 . The only possible exception is Nodelman (1965, 390ff.) who claims that the workmanship in some details of the face in the Capitolini portrait, as well as in another third 59

These paintings, some in wax and some in tempera (a technique of drawing based on pigments which are blended together in a mixture of egg yolk and water), were discovered for the most part in Fayoum, and are known in modem research as the "Fayoum portraits". Dating these portraits is the subject of debate; most scholars apparently agree on the period in which they were made, i.e., about 392. However, some maintain that they first appeared during the first half of the first century, while some say during the second century 31 •

The question then arises whether the difference in style between Elagabalus' coin portraits and sculpted portraits can be explained, and if so, how? To answer this question we must first stress the problem regarding the uncertainty surrounding the production and distribution of portraits (as in all visual media in the Roman Empire), as well as government intervention in this matter. Because of this uncertainty, the following explanation is hypothetical, but based on facts taken from literary sources and archaeological finds 34 . We must also stress that we are dealing with two different types of media, and that these media had very different processes of production and distribution.

The family picture of Septimius Severus with his wife and children, known as the "Berlin tondo" (Fig. 41)32 , the painted panel of the horseman attributed to Caracalla 33, and the two busts of these emperors depicting them as Pharaoh, are examples of a combination of Roman and local traditions at the beginning of the third century (Kiss, 1975, 293-302; 1982, 225-226).

Let us return to the political circumstances of that period. Macrinus was still officially emperor when Elagabalus' grandmother Julia Maesa began spreading the rumour, primarily among the troops, that Elagabalus was Caracalla's son. But she did not stop at this. During her long association with the imperial court she had gained sufficient experience in politics to realize that rumour would not be enough, first, because there was only a minor difference in age between Caracalla the 'father' and Elagabalus the 'son'; second, because it was almost certain that the troops knew Caracalla well. Together with her grandson, whom she dressed in clothes Caracalla had worn as a child, and armed with a picture of Caracalla the child, she crept into the army camp near Emesa, where many of the soldiers were among her close circle. As dawn was breaking and the soldiers awoke, she presented the youth to them and convinced them of the similarity between Elagabalus and Caracalla. She also hinted broadly that she would distribute much of her family fortune among the troops if they would declare her grandson emperor. The soldiers, naturally still somewhat sleepy in the pale light of dawn, were convinced and immediately proclaimed Elagabalus emperor, calling him by his 'father', Caracalla's name, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. (Although there was some resemblance between Elagabalus and Caracalla, there is no knowing which had greater influence, the money or the family resemblance.)

As noted above, the facial differences between sculpted portraits of Elagabalus and Caracalla lie in frontal view of the head, the facial structure, the shape of the eye and eyebrow, and the mouth. These features are the same traditional elements found in eastern portraiture as were preserved in this style of portraits during the Roman Empire. Thus, certain details of facial traits in sculpted portraits of Elagabalus, highlighting his characteristic features, were produced according to the eastern model. Other features of the sculpture indicate principles of Roman portraiture. We must nevertheless bear in mind that Elagabalus owed his imperial title to Caracalla's memory; in other words, his family relationship to Caracalla was the main justification of his claim to the throne from the outset. As mentioned earlier, the rich, soft texture of the full and wild hair indicate an extremely close link with the portraits of Caracalla, Commodus and Marcus Aurelius. The forehead, enlarged by the prominent eyebrow, the furrows along the forehead (in spite of Elagabalus' youth) and the large contour of the top of the head, especially its rear angle, also appear in Carcalla's portraits.

The first coin portraits of Elagabalus began to appear in 218, although Elagabalus, on his way to Rome, remained in Nicomedia for a while, and did not arrive in Rome until 219. His first coin portraits were thus perhaps minted and distributed after his final defeat of Macrinus, but before his arrival in Rome. It is quite possible that his portraits reached Rome before Elagabalus himself did. It should be recalled that, whether on his own or his grandmother's initiative, a picture portrait was sent to Rome, along with a letter to the Senate announcing that he was emperor, with instructions to produce many copies of it for distribution throughout the Empire. Dio adds that a golden statue of Elagabalus, prominent because of its size and many embellishments, was erected.

Thus, Elagabalus' portrait as described above was designed according to the principles of Roman portraiture in addition to traditional eastern values, specifically using the same formula as was used in Caracalla's portrait with hairstyle common to children in the Antonine court. The artist, while working on the facial features in the sculpted portrait of Elagabalus, was guided by eastern artistic tradition, while in general execution of the portrait, the dynastic message intended to be reflected in Elagabalus' facial appearance, i.e., his family resemblance to Caracalla, followed the rules of Roman portraiture. Because Elagabalus' coin portrait 1s based primarily on portraits of Caracalla as a child or youth, we can say that their emphasis is primarily on the family resemblance to Caracalla.

However, no archaeological finds have been discovered verifying the claims of Dio and Herodian. Neither the painted picture of Elagabalus sent to Rome, the picture 60

which according to Herodian,, was sent to the army camps and distributed throughout the Empire, nor the golden statue erected in Rome according to Dio, have been unearthed. We therefore cannot establish how Elagabalus appeared in these media.

time as those of Caracalla, not only to indicate the similarity between them, but to emphasize the family connection. The prominent features of Caracalla's portraits, both coin and sculpted, produced during his reign, were his angry expression and heavy, hard, and square features (see App. I below). In portraits on his divus coin, his face appears calmer, with rounder, softer features, more like the divus coin portraits of Septimius Severus, in which the long narrow face is emphasized, the long curly beard with separate curls highlighting the similarity to portraits of Marcus Aurelius.

Nonetheless, painting was one of the art forms in ancient times, including the period of Roman Empire. One of the reasons these pictures have not survived is the perishable material of which they were made. Natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods are also factors contributing to the loss of samples of this art form. Although Herodian is the only source to report the existence of Elagabalus' picture, there is no reason to doubt him (Bowerstock, 1975, 229236). The very dry climate in Egypt enabled such paintings and other works of art to survive 35 • Allusions to pictures of the Roman period were also preserved on coins (mainly McKay, 1984, 241-260, esp. 246ft).

Did the artists receive instructions regarding the design of Elagabalus' portraits? And why is the family resemblance to Caracalla stressed more specifically in Elagabalus' coin portraits than in his sculpted portraits? Again, the political circumstances must be considered.

We have no information, apart from that provided by Dio, regarding the golden statue of Elagabalus. However, as gold is a precious metal, it is reasonable to assume that it would have been reused, and as Dio is considered a reliable contemporary source, there is no reason to doubt him.

Elagabalus thoughtlessly squandered the great credit his pretended imperial power had given him. His profligacy, effeminacy and general depravity particularly alienated the troops. They despised his feminine conduct and his homosexual tendencies. His introduction of a foreign god, against the accepted traditions and procedures of the interpretatio Romana was unacceptable as was his attempt to place a foreign god above Jupiter, (not as the Africans Hercules and Bacchus (Liber), the patron gods of Septimius Severus' birthplace Lepcis-Magna 38 ); certainly the appointment of slaves and freed slaves as rulers of provinces, and the appointment of a dancer to the praetorian perfect, not only aroused the ire of the senators, but humiliated them as well.

However, the first coin portraits of Elagabalus from the year 218 still exist. Because kinship was such an important factor in a claim to the throne, it is reasonable to assume that an attempt was made to stress the family resemblance between Elagabalus and Caracalla by means of Elagablaus' coins, while supporting the rumours regarding Caracalla's fatherhood.

It is feasible that the coin maker, in minting the first coin portrait of Elagabalus, made use of the same die as was used for the portrait of Caracalla as a child. As noted previously, such re-use of a portrait type for a first portrait of a new emperor was common in Roman coinage. In Elagabalus' case it was also vital to issue the coins quickly, so as to create the myth of dynastic continuity 36 •

The fact that Elagabalus was destroying the very basis of his power could not have escaped his sagacious grandmother, Julia Maesa. Unwilling to lose her own imperial power, she was prepared to use any means to improve Elagabalus' imperial position.

As mentioned previously, physiognomic and iconographic similarities between Elagabalus' and Caracalla's coin portraits were not confined to the first portrait type of Elagabalus, but continued to appear in the next two portrait types, the second from the year 220, and the third from the year 221.

Julia Maesa's practical experience of politics had had ample opportunity to mature during her long association with the imperial court during the reigns of Septimius Severus and Caracalla. She knew how dependent an emperor was on his troops, and how important the dynastic principle was, especially to them.

Furthermore, although the sculpted portrait of Elagabalus in the Capitolini Museum shows certain physiognomic differences from that of Caracalla, the hairstyle in the Capitolini sculpture not only continues the Antonine and Severan tradition, but is also reminiscent of Caracalla's portrait in several of its facial features.

One need not be an expert in the history of the Roman Empire to know that Commodus' and Caracalla's membership of the legal imperial dynasty was enough to enable them to maintain control of the throne, in spite of their actions, despicable to the Senate and the people of Rome.

In addition, the sculpted portraits of Caracalla as a child and youth, as well as his adult portrait type, were still produced long after his death 37 . There is good reason to assume that the portraits of Elagabalus would be circulated at the same

Julia Maesa hastened to marry Elagabalus to Annia Aurelia Faustina, whose genealogy proved her to be part of Marcus Aurelius' family, strengthening the link with Marcus Aurelius. 61

Julia Maesa also realized that visual proof was stronger than audible, and that the visual aspect was a more effective persuasion than official procedure. Thus, because Elagabalus now belonged to the Antonine and Severan dynasties, particularly as Caracalla's son, this kinship would be identified by his portraits exactly as had Septimius Severus 25 years earlier, as Macrinus during his short rule, and as she herself had realized in the camp near Emesa.

Elagabalus, neglecting the management of governmental administration. This subject received much attention and was widely discussed in these sources. They apparently derived great pleasure from spreading malicious gossip about Elagabalus' deeds and foibles. There is, however, an inconsistency between the emphasis placed on his religious policy in the literary sources, and the expression given to it in numismatic and epigraphic sources. With the exception of a conical stone, a cult object of the god Elagabalus depicted on a number of coins, other subjects on his coins are the normal ones, familiar, similar to those on coins from previous reigns 39 • Religion, however, is almost completely absent in the surviving visual sources. So far, no conical stones corresponding to those depicted on coins have been discovered. The sole relevant discovery to date consists of pieces of an inscription from the Forum Romanum depicting the conical stone between Minerva and Urania (Butler, I 908, 8 I). This is not the first occasion in which we have come across an inconsistency between a description in the literary sources and archaeological finds. In the case of Elagabalus' religious policy, similar to Caracalla's imitation of Alexander the Great (see App. I), the suspicion arises that the written sources are distorted, even if only because of the writers' antagonism to Elagabalus. Furthermore, because the religious customs and rites of the sun-god of Emesa were strange to the Roman spirit, and certainly not to the liking of contemporary writers, conservative in their outlook, we may assume that their discussion of the emperor, based on their resentment of him, was exaggerated, distorted, or false4°.

The process of minting coins in the Roman Empire was relatively simple. It was generally possible to issue another series of coins if necessary, which could easily be distributed widely. On the other hand, it took longer to produce sculpted portraits, and the method of distributing them was also more complicated than that of circulating coins. Nodelman (1965, 1-60) and Albertson (1980, 6-55) are of the opinion that a work-model, or master-image, was sent from Rome to the various workshops around the Empire, and that all the local artist had to do was to copy the model before him. Still, the process of producing copies and distributing them was slower than issuing and distributing a new series of coins. Coins were in plentiful supply, possessed by almost every citizen and resident of the Roman Empire; most importantly, they also reached the target audience of the propaganda: the troops. Even an inscription was sufficient to spark the appropriate association with a name, carrying an emotive message. Though the likeness on the coin was small, those elements similar to the name were stressed. In the final analysis, the target audience consisted of men with common sense; the most important thing to them was that Elagabalus was Caracalla's son.

Similarly, writing about an emperor posthumously, or the suppression of an emperor's name by his successor, especially when sentenced to damnatio memoriae, has a long history in Roman literature, as well as in evidence from coins (Ramage, 1983, 201-213).

This proves that there was no medium better than a coin for efficient dissemination of any propaganda message, verbal or visual; a coin was less impressive than a statue, but constant and permanent.

Thus, the gap between literary and archaeological sources indicates that there was a factor restraining all aspects of Elagabalus' policy. Indeed, the literary sources tell us about the extent to which Julia Maesa was involved in intrigues of the imperial court, the efforts she devoted to restraining her grandson, and how, when unsuccessful, she was even prepared to sacrifice her own daughter and grandson to ensure the continuation of the Severan dynasty on the throne, just as she sacrificed her daughter Soaemias' honour by openly declaring Elagabalus to be the son of Soaemias and Caracalla, i.e., to ensure her continued ability to direct imperial matters as she deemed fit. Thus, the differences in literary and archaeological sources regarding Elagabalus' religious policy is an expression of Julia Maesa's restraining influence.

We may assume that supervising the design of coin portraits, whether Roman coins or others, was simpler than supervising of sculpted portraits in workshops throughout the Empire. One die was sufficient to produce a coin, whereas sculptures required many artists working in different workshops. Even if the sculptors were restricted to a particular master image, they nevertheless enjoyed a certain degree of artistic freedom. Indeed, Nodelman (ibid.) and Albertson (ibid.) indicate that although the many copies distributed throughout the Roman Empire were produced from the same master image, the artist's personal touch, or local techniques, are discernible. Nevertheless, these scholars stress that none of the influences mentioned above disturbed the uniformity of portrait design in even the smallest detail.

Iconographic evidence shows that the general design of Elagabalus' sculpted portraits followed the formula of Roman realistic portraiture, realism being one of the guiding principles of this art. The physiognomic differences between Caracalla's and Elagabalus' portraits, Elagabalus' individual facial features (according to the eastern artistic style of that era, and his Syrian origin) prove that the artists paid heed to

Literary sources reveal how deeply the emperor Elagabalus was devoted to his religious policy, and that he dedicated most of his energy and time to worship of the god 62

this principle when sculpting the Syrian emperor, Elagabalus. At the same time, the consistency of hairstyle and certain other details enumerated above regarding the facial features of the sculpted portrait, as well as the great similarity between the coin portraits of Elagabalus and Caracalla, strongly suggest that certain demands were made concerning design, and implying government involvement in the production of Elagabalus' portraits.

direct: the direct approach made to the troops near Emesa; Elagabalus' appearance in the Senate, with his picture already hanging there; official letters and rumours originating from unofficial sources. The link with the rest of the Empire was through official letters, wide-spread rumours, and pictures sent to army camps and distributed throughout the Empire. Numismatic and epigraphic sources reflected this message, while iconographic sources clearly show that the visual message was dynastic in nature.

An examination of Elagabalus' coin portraits reveals definite iconographic and stylistic similarities to those of Caracalla, Septimius Severus, Commodus, and Marcus Aurelius, as well as a physiognomic likeness to the portrait of Caracalla.

All the elements fundamental to the process of directed propaganda - the initiator, the addressee, the medium, signs or words, the message and the objective - are present in Elagabalus' imperial campaign regarding the dynastic aspect of his rule.

Moreover, it is important to note that Julia Maesa's coin portrait resembles that of Julia Domna both in content and iconography (Carson, 1990, p. 71-72). Based on the evidence presented above, it is clear that there was a guiding hand behind this medium, whether the supervision of coins and workshops was directly in the hands of Julia Maesa, or whether it was in the hands of her assistants 41 •

Literary sources leave almost no doubt that the administration of the Empire during his reign lay in the hands of Elagabalus' grandmother, Julia Maesa. These sources are explicit regarding efforts made by Julia Maesa so that her grandson could become emperor, they are also explicit about the steps she took to ensure his continued hold on the throne. The measures she adopted clearly illustrate her understanding of the two significant components related to the legality of an emperor's rule: the dynastic aspect and the support of the army. Put differently, Julia Maesa realized that as long as the troops were satisfied, Elagabalus would be remain on the throne; by paying them large sums of money, and by stressing the dynastic aspect of Elagabalus' status, she kept the army happy.

The continuity of the traditional Antonine design style, as well as the iconographic and physiognomic similarity, were conscious attempts to present Elagabalus not only as Caracalla's legal heir, by virtue of his "parenthood" and similar appearance, but as the heir to the Aurelian imperial dynasty. Thus the role played by the visual message, reflected in these portraits, emphasizing Elagabalus' claim to the throne by virtue of his parentage, was of the greatest importance.

Numismatic and iconographic evidence confirms the monetary grants made to the soldiers, which supports the assumption regarding the dynastic message, reflected not only in Elagabalus' name, but also in the long list of ancestors included in his titles.

Conclusions Elagabalus, a boy of about 14, intended to serve as high priest to the sun-god of Emesa, was proclaimed emperor by troops encamped near Emesa while Macrinus was still officially the emperor, on the basis that he (Elagabalus) was a direct descendent of the Severan dynasty.

Iconographic evidence clearly indicates the similarity between Elagabalus' portrait and those of his predecessors, particularly that of Caracalla, and also supports the significance of the visual message, the emphasis placed on the family link between Elagabalus and the Severans. The assumption naturally follows that if Julia Maesa was behind the measures taken to ensure Elagabalus' reign, she was also the one behind the instructions regarding the style of his portraits, both on coins and in sculptures.

In examining the sources available to us, we have tried to determine whether the actions leading to the troops' proclamation, as well as the measures taken to ensure Elagabalus' continued occupation of the throne, can be considered a political propaganda campaign whose objective was to justify his claim to the throne and to secure his hold on it. The literary sources clearly hint at a theme prominent in his propaganda even before he was declared emperor, repeated endlessly throughout his reign, a theme focusing on the dynastic aspect of his rule. These sources also provide us with valuable information on two important elements connected with the mechanism of imperial propaganda: the target, and methods of dissemination. The target population consisted of the troops, the Senate, the people of Rome, and the inhabitants of the entire Empire. Communication with the troops, the Senate, and the people of Rome was generally

63

Keeping the above in mind, let us examine the measures Severus Alexander adopted to ensure his hold on the throne, some of which are featured in the discussion of Elagabalus' rule:

Chapter 5: Epilogue Severus Alexander and the Gens Aurelia

Gessius Bassianus Alexianus, known as Marcus Aurelius Severus Alexander, or Severus Alexander for short, was proclaimed emperor of the Roman Empire by the Praetoria_n Guard on 13 March, 222, immediately after the murder ofh1s cousin Elagabalus. He was the twelfth (or thirteenth) son of Julia Mamaea and her Syrian husband Gessius Marcianus, the youngest grandson of Julia Maesa [Dio, 79(78).30.3] 1 • Apparently the Senate immediately confirmed the troops' . 2 proc Iamat1on .

* As early as Elagabalus' reign, Severus Alexander was pronounced the illegitimate son of Caracalla, as Elagabalus had been. * Upon Severus Alexander's adoption by his ~ousin Elagabalus, his name was changed to Marcus Aurelius. It was later changed to Alexander, and his grandmother, Julia Maesa, constantly repeated the rumour that Severus Alexander was also an illegitimate son of Caracalla. It should be noted that the name Antoninus does not appear

in Severus Alexander's list of names; apparently a deliberate omission. Although Antoninus was part of Caracalla's official name, it was unfortunately associated with Elagabalus in the fresh memory of the troops in particular, and also possibly in the mind of the senators and the people of Rome.

Like Elagabalus before him, Severus Alexander owed his rule to the memory of Caracalla, to the influence of his grandmother Julia Maesa, and, after her death, to the efforts of his mother, Julia Mamaea. The purpose of this discussion is to study the steps taken by Severus Alexander to preserve his hold on the throne, by examining the available sources, and to determine wh~~her these measures indicate a continuation of the poht1cal propaganda programme associated with the dynastic aspect of his rule adopted by Elagabalus during his reign.

It seems that Elagabalus' exaggerated behaviour, unacceptable to the troops and the Roman people, and the matter of the damnatio memoriae (see pp. 56-57, 61 above), made this name more of an impediment than an advantage. As noted above, the name Alexander was apparently directed primarily at the soldiers, who believed the dynastic aspect of the legality of an emperor's rule to be of great significance. It seems that the name Alexander was enough to link Severus Alexander with the memory of Caracalla.

The relevant contemporary and later literary sources are the same as those referred to above, but they are far more problematic regarding Severus Alexander than any of the other emperors discussed in this study. Dio's account of Severus Alexander's rule appears in volume 80, and has survived only in the form of Xiphilinus' epitome. This should be a reliable source for a description of events, but the report is short and incomplete. In the surviving foi:111, Dio does not refer in detail to Severus Alexander's accession to the throne, and states explicitly [80(80).1.2-3, 2. 1] that he is unable to give details, as he was not in Rome at that time. It is known that Dio was not in Rome then, with the exception of two occasions when he was there for short periods only: once between his governorships in Africa and Delmatia, and the other, after being appointed Consul in the year 229, the last event about which he writes [79(80).5.1-3] (see also Cleve, 1982, 200-210; and notes 1-2 above). Herodian's is the only detailed account of the period, but, as mentioned earlier, its contribution is a limited one, specifically regarding the period of Severus Alexander's reign (see also Townsend (1955), 49-105, esp. 54ft). Most researchers agree that the biography of Severus Alexander in the HA is one of the least reliable in the HA group, although it is the longest. The later sources are too general, and give only the main points 3 •

* Caracalla's deification is dated to the period of Severus Alexander's rule by most researchers . * The restoration of two public buildings, the Coliseum and Caracalla's baths, both laden with dynastic associations, was completed during the reign of Severus Alexander. * On coins minted in year 221, Severus Alexander is referred to as Marcus Aurelius Alexander. * The medallions from Tarsus and Abu-Kir, one of which features the head of Caracalla, are also dated at the earliest to Severus Alexander's reign. * The anthropomorphic image of the city of Alexandria, with the attributes associated with the city's founder, appears, albeit only once, on an Alexandrian coin, following a long absence. However, there was one ruler on the coin minted during Severus Alexander's reign [see BMCG, Alexandria and the Nomes, lxxxiii, 215, no. 1687]. This coin confirms the commonly held view that the Abu-Kir medallions were minted,, during the reign of Severus Alexander. * In a dedicatory caption from the period of Elagabalus' reign, Severus Alexander appears not only as the son of divine Antoninus and the grandson of divine Severus, but also as the son of divine Antoninus the Great.

64

* As stated above, the title Magnus, like the name Alexander, was not among Caracalla's official names; nonetheless, this title seems to have reminded the soldiers of Caracalla.

It should be noted that two such dedications discovered in

Italy have been dated shortly before the death of Julia Maesa (CIL, VI, 2832, 32544).

* There are three public buildings other than those mentioned above, erected by Severus Alexander's predecessors, and restored during his reign:

Archaeological finds are the main source of additional details regarding measures taken by Severus Alexander to maintain his hold on the throne.

I. The author of the HA [Sev. Alex. 25.3] reports that "Severus Alexander restored Nero's baths and the aqueduct, and renamed them after himself; they are currently known as Thermae Alexandrianae".

*

Apparently, the name Severus was added to his list of names as soon as he was proclaimed emperor following the murder of Elagabalus, and from the year 222 until the end of his reign, the most common caption on coins and in dedications was Marcus Aurelius Severus Alexander. (Regarding coins see, e.g., RIC, V,2, 71, 87, 88; also BMC, VI. Regarding dedicatory captions, see e.g., CIL, III, 166, 226, 311, 316, 709, 3 710.) It is quite certain that the addition of the name Severus was intended to strengthen his ties to the Severan family4.

Confirmation regarding the restoration of these two buildings is found in ancient literary sources and in numismatic evidence as well (cf. Eutropius, 7.15.2; and RIC, V,2, 58, 59, 449-451; BMC, VI, 63f., 146)7. The restoration of these buildings, and the change in their names from that of an emperor loathed by the Roman people to that of Severus Alexander, speak for themselves.

* The titles Pius and Felix were added to Severus Alxander's titulature. Although they only appear on coins minted in Rome from the year 231 onwards, they appear on coins from Alexandria from the beginning of Severus Alexander's reign. [Regarding coins, see RIC, V, 2 and BMC, VI in the places quoted above. Regarding dedications, see CIL, III in the place mentioned above.] The significance of these titles has been discussed above 5 •

2. The author of the HA [Sev. Alex., 26.11] further reports that "Severus Alexander restored the bridges built by Trajan". Some of this section is confirmed by a dedicatory caption [re Trajan's bridge see CIL, X, 6890; re the restoration of the bridge by Severus Alexander see CIL, X, 6893]. The significance of the mention of emperors considered "good emperors" even by the ancient writers has been discussed above (pp. 54-55) 8 •

* The list of ancestors as far back as divine Nerva appears in dedicatory captions of Severus Alexander [see, for example, CIL, XVI, 140-145; CIL, III, D .LXXXVI, 166, 226, 311, 316, 709, 3121, 3710]. The significance of the emphasis on ancestors has been noted above 6.

* Note also that the author of the HA [Sev. Alex., 25.9; 64.3] writes that Severus Alexander ordered that he should be depicted on coins dressed like Alexander the Great, as he aspired to be considered Alexander the Second, and adds that although some coins were silver, the majority were gold.

* The two forms which appear in Severus Alexander's titulature, "son of divine Antoninus and grandson of divine Severus," and "son of divine Antoninus the Great and grandson of divine Severus," also appear in dedications during the period in which Severus Alexander was sole ruler.(see for example ILS, 479,480,483; and also CIL, III, D.LXXXVII, D.LXXXIV, D.LXXXVI, 166,226, 3121).

Although this claim is unsupported by numismatic evidence, later Macedonian coins depict the head of Alexander the Great. These coins are generally considered to date from Severus Alexander's rule at the earliest 9 •

* As early as the first year of his rule, 222, Severus Alexander issued an edict throughout the Empire proclaiming, as had his predecessors, that his policy was based on the political lines of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius (Hunt, Edgar, (eds.), 1956, 95-99, no. 216).

* Further, the author of the HA [Sev. Alex., 28.6-7, 29.2] also writes that Severus Alexander ordered colossal statues of the divine emperors to be erected with all their titulature, and displayed in the Forum of Nerva the Divine, as he disliked being referred to as Syrian, and wanted to be viewed as their offspring.

* On the reverse of a coin issued to commemorate Severus Alexander's marriage to Orbiana, the young couple are depicted facing each other; just as on the coins and gems of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, and those of Septimius Severus and Caracalla (see for example BMC, VI, 144, 308).

This claim is not supported by archaeological finds; and Barnes (1970, 35-36; Benario, 1961, 285-287), refers to these sections as complete fiction and does not include them as authentic scientific items. According to him, sentence 28.6 is a fictional development of sentence 26.4, which refers not to emperors, but to prominent personalities whose statues were transferred from various locations.

* Furthermore, in many dedications discovered throughout the Empire, Severus Alexander's mother, Julia Mamaea, has the title Mater Castrorum, exactly the same terminology used for Julia Domna and Faustina the Younger (see for example CIL, III, 3427 VII, 2564, VIII, 10990, XIII, 4679). 65

However, it seems that like Macrinus' letter quoted in Herodian 10 (a letter which, according to modem research, is the product of Herodian's imagination), and like Diadumenianus' speech quoted by the author of the HA 11, the author of the HA appears to express an expectation of similar acts by Emperor Severus Alexander.

As noted above (pp. 58-59.) stylizing the hair primarily by means of lineation is one of the characteristic identifying features of the eastern school of art; it must be borne in mind that Severus Alexander, like his cousin Elagabalus, was of Syrian origin. On the other hand, many researchers 15 claim that in general, Severus Alexander's sculpted portraits bear similarities to those of Elagabalus; not merely a family resemblance (they were cousins), but similarities in the fashioning of hair in the artistic style of the eastern school, as well as similarities to the child portraits common since the days of Marcus Aurelius, but mainly those of Septimius Severus [e.g., figure 107, and cf. Figs. 82 (Commodus); 83 (Annius Verus); 80, (Caracalla)].

In a survey of portraits of Severus Alexander there is general agreement among researchers about his coin portraits, though opinion is divided regarding his sculpted portraits. They agree that three main types of portrait are depicted on his coins, with the third type subdivided into two, depending on the appearance of a beard and moustache (Figures 104-106) 12• Furthermore, it is generally agreed that the three portrait types on coins minted in Rome as well as those minted in the east, bear similarities to portraits of Elagabalus, and hence to Caracalla as a child and youth, Commodus as a child and youth, and Marcus Aurelius as a youth (figures 104-106, cf. figures of: Elagabalus, 97-99; Caracalla, 73, 75, 94, 96; Commodus, 78; Marcus Aurelius, 79) 13•

Note, too, that the fashioning of the curls in Severus Alexander's sculpted portraits, as represented in the threedimensional statue currently in the National Archaeological Museum in Naples (Fig. 107)16, is reminiscent of, and in fact similar to, Caracalla's curls in his sculpted portraits, primarily in those called the late, or fourth, type ( cf. Fig. 25b).

[See also: first type, Rome: BMC, VI, pis. I-7, pl. 8.207216; in the east: BMC, VI, pl. 32.1006-1039; second type, Rome; BMC, VI, pis. 8.226-240, 9.262-266, 10.282; in the east: BMC, VI, pl. 13.371; third type, with beard, no moustache: BMC, VI, pis. 14.431, 15,462; with beard and moustache: BMC, VI, pl. 16.473; with full beard: BMC, VI, pis. 17.517, 28.843, 30,939.]

Thus, a careful analysis of ancient literary sources reveals that one of the most prominent messages in Severus Alexander's imperial propaganda was the dynastic aspect of his rule. A similar analysis of numismatic and epigraphic sources shows this aspect clearly reflected in them as well. A detailed examination of artistic sources indicates that the dynastic aspect is also reflected in the plastic media, Severus Alexander's portraits.

Mattingley [ibid., p, 40] claims that Severus Alexander's facial features and structure are identical in all the coin portraits appearing between 222 and 228. The only change is the appearance of long side bums and a nascent moustache in 225, and between 226 to 228, during which the side bums grew and became a full beard, sometimes merging with the moustache, and sometimes not.

Severus Alexander was approximately thirteen years old when proclaimed emperor by the troops. There was most likely a guiding hand behind this policy of emphasizing the dynastic aspect of Severus Alexander's rule, as was the case with Elagabalus.

The most prominent change, according to Mattingley, is the more mature facial features portrayed; apparently an attempt was made in 231 to create a mature portrait by portraying the subject with wide, heavy features.

According to the literary sources mentioned above, Julia Maesa was involved in all aspects of Elagabalus' policies, and was even ready to sacrifice both her daughter and grandson Elagabalus to enable her second grandson, Severus Alexander, to accede to the throne, allowing her to continue controlling the affairs of the Empire 17•

Nevertheless, Mattingley claims, the similarities between the different coin portrait types of Severus Alexander throughout his reign are so marked that it is almost impossible to detect significant differences between them. He goes on to state that if we examine the coin portraits minted in the east, it seems that there were no further changes in Severus Alexander's features from 223.

It may be assumed that Julia Maesa, and, later, her daughter Julia Mamaea, were behind the measures adopted to secure Severus Alexander's rule 18•

As regards his sculpted portraits, some say 14 that as the last of the Severans, he is depicted in a completely different tradition. Instead of the 'live' hair of the preceding period, in which the artists tried to contrast the roughness of the hair with the smoothness of the facial skin, Severus Alexander's hair lies flat on his head, characterized by a row of close, thin lines. 66

CONCLUSIONS

mention is made of the visual media - sculptures, pictures, portraits -

Severus Alexander was murdered by his soldiers on 21 March, 235. His death brought about an end to the 42-year rule of the Severan dynasty.

proves the significance they attributed to these media in emphasizing propaganda messages, specifically the dynastic aspect of the Severans' propaganda. The central theme throughout this study has been the importance of the dynastic principle in Severan imperial propaganda, its reflection in the various sources available on this dynastic period, and its circulation in every possible medium, especially the imperial portrait.

* Archaeological finds, numismatic, epigraphic and papyrological evidence, which clearly reflect this propaganda message, also prove the tendency of each of the emperors discussed in this study to publicize the dynastic aspect of his reign officially.

This dynastic aspect was of particular significance for Septimius Severus, the foremost contender to the throne following the murder of Commodus, who took the throne by force. As a usurper, he was forced to justify his reign, and his sons' right to succeed him.

* Archaeological finds also provide information on the various methods used to spread propaganda during the Severan period.

The dynastic character of imperial propaganda was of no less importance to other rivals to the throne after the murders of Caracalla, Septimius Severus' son, Macrinus, Elagabalus, and Severus Alexander.

* Iconographic sources, i.e., imperial portraits, indicate that the dynastic aspect of the political propaganda policy pursued by the Severan dynasty is clearly represented in the portraits of Septimius Severus and members of his family, Macrinus and his son, Elagabalus, and Severus Alexander, in all the visual media.

In the light of the evidence presented, several conclusions can be drawn regarding the nature of Severan propaganda and the way it was spread during the 42 years of Severan rule.

* An examination of iconographic sources also adds a further dimension in understanding the mechanism of propaganda during the Severan dynasty.

* A careful analysis of ancient literary sources proves that one of the most prominent propaganda messages of the Severan emperors was related to the dynastic aspect of their rule.

The declared affiliation of each of these emperors to the Antonine dynasty in justifying his right to the throne was reflected in the continuation of traditional Antoninic styles and in the iconographic similarities between the portraits of each of these emperors and those of the dynasty to which he aspired to belong.

* These literary sources also provide information on two important components of Severan imperial propaganda - the target and the means.

Thus the role of the imperial portrait, as a means of persuasion employed by each of these emperors in claiming membership in the Antonine dynasty, was very prominent

* A close examination of factual descriptions of political events by ancient historians confirms the importance of iconographic sources as well, i.e., the imperial portrait, one of the means by which propaganda was disseminated during the Severan dynasty. Although archaeological finds discovered so far do not substantiate the ancient texts of either contemporary or later writers, the very fact that

* As noted above,

the propaganda channels chosen by Septimius Severus, as well as his use of visual means, exhibited wise and sophisticated use of the mass media

67

common in the Roman Empire, in order to reach the target population.

* It would seem that the measures adopted by each of Septimius Severus' successors to the throne testify to the fact that they learned from him, and imitated his successful propaganda methods, whose effectiveness in persuading, and consolidating a loyal, faithful group of supporters had already been established.

* The surviving literary and archaeological sources on the Severan dynasty serve to indicate both a major subject of this dynasty's propaganda, and the methods used for its dissemination.

* The sources also indicate that the process took place over a relatively long period of time; the intensity with which the message was imparted through every possible medium was intended to maintain its freshness, and was one of the main factors in the success of the long-reigning Severan dynasty.

* It may also be assumed that the system of propaganda dissemination was not set up overnight following the proclamation of Septimius Severus as emperor in 193, but had already existed for decades.

* Understanding the mechanism and the nature of Severan imperial propaganda is not only part of an attempted reconstruction of a subject not easily identified in available sources, but is also of help in understanding the mechanism of propaganda throughout the history of the Roman Empire.

68

However, concrete evidence of his imitation of Alexander became apparent only during Caracalla's youth. Herodian writes that the citizens of Alexandria mocked Caracalla for his imitation of Alexander even during Geta's lifetime, i.e., before 211 [4.9.1-3]. The author of the HA also mentions this matter in his description of Caracalla's youth [Ant. Care. 2.1-

APPENDIX I:

Caracalla and Alexander the Great: A Reappraisal*

2]2. It is generally acknowledged in research dealing with the portraits of Caracalla that the surviving coin portraits and sculpted portraits both give visual expression to Caracalla's imitation of Alexander the Great. This is agreed to be especially true in the case of the type commonly called "the fourth (IV) portrait type," or "the late portrait type," dating from 212-217 when he was sole sovereign. These modem scholars also regard the portraits in which Caracalla imitates Alexander the Great distributed throughout the Empire, as ' I one of the subjects of Caracalla's propaganda .

Both Dio and Herodian admit, however, that Caracalla's imitation emerged and took a definite shape, during his journey to the East, especially when he crossed Asia Minor, but later as well. Dio says that Caracalla began the enlistment of his Macedonian phalanx during his stay at Nicomedia (in the winter of 214) [78(77).18.1], while Herodian states that Caracalla (213/4) "suddenly became Alexander" on reaching Macedonia [4.8.1]. It is true that Caracalla's journey to the East and his crossing of Asia Minor expressed his wish to follow in the footsteps of Alexander the Great. He chose not to follow the usual short route, Byzantium-Chalcedon, but to cross the Hellespont, apparently because this had been Alexander's route. This longer route almost caused his death; his ship was wrecked and he was saved by his praefectus classis [Dio, 78(77).16.7; Herod., 4.8.4-5; HA, Ant. Care. 5.8; on Alexander's journey to Asia Minor: Plutarch, Alexander 15; and also CIL, Vl, 2103] 3 .

The purpose of this discussion is to examine these accepted opinions and to reassess them. In examining any concept which seems to be the subject of propaganda in ancient times one must fi~st ask: on what ?~sis does one determine that a specific not10n bears a political propaganda message; what was its purpose; at who~ was_it directed; and what methods used by the Roman tmpenal court could serve Caracalla in disseminating such a message.

When Caracalla safely reached the shore, he visited Illium, as did Alexander before him, in order to make an offering to commemorate the Trojan War. There, as well as making an offering to Achilles and visiting the city's ruins, he wished to reintroduce the burial ceremonies which Achilles had held for his friend Patrochlus. The inexplicable death of one of his freedmen enabled him to fulfill his desire, and to organize these ceremonies [Dio, lac. cit.; Herod., lac. cit.; on Alexander's visit to Troy and to Achilles' grave, Plutarch, Alexander, 15; Arrian, 1.12.1; VII.28.1].

With the help of literary, numismatic, epigraphic and iconographic sources, we will attempt to answer the following questions: a. Was the claim regarding Caracalla's eagerness to imitate Alexander the Great justified?

b. Was Caracalla's imitation of Alexander the Great really one of his propaganda themes?

c. At whom was this political message directed, and what was its purpose?

Caracalla spent the winter in Nicomedia [Dio, 78(77).18.1]. When Alexander arrived at Gordion, the ancient capital of Phrygia, in the winter of 334 BCE, he had sent some of his recently married soldiers on furlough to Macedonia, while he himself spent the winter in Gordion [Arrian, 1.20.1-2].

d. What methods did Caracalla use to spread this message?

We will first look at contemporary literary sources and then at later sources, in attempt to learn whether Caracalla tried to imitate Alexander the Great.

From there Caracalla visited the temple of Asclepius in Pergamon, probably towards the end of 214 or the beginning of 215 [Dio, 78(77).15.6]. The appearance of Asclepius on Caracalla's coins from the year 215 indicates the time of the visit [BMC, V, 485-486, nos. 278-280; 488, no. 291; 489490, nos. 292-297]. Dio, however, links Caracalla's visit to the temple of Asclepius in Pergamon with his search for a cure for his mental illness. Arrian (11.5.7) testifies that Alexander the Great paid his respects to the god of medicine, Asclepius.

Caracalla was apparently acquainted with the myth of Alexander the Great from an early age. Dio stresses the excellent education given him by his father, Septimius Severus, and admits that Caracalla not only continued his studies in philosophy while he sovereign [78(77).11.2-3], but also knew verses written by Euripides [79(78).8.4], and by the lyrical poet Mesomedes [78(77).13.7]. It is also known that Caracalla was familiar with the conflict between Alexander the Great and Aristotle [Dio, 78(77).7.3]. These facts indicate the nature of Caracalla's education.

From Pergamon, Caracalla turned to Alexandria to see the city founded in honour of Alexander, and to pay his respects to his hero's memory. On entering the city Caracalla immediately visited Alexander's grave and offered up all the 69

valuables he had with him [Dio, 78(77).23.1-3; Herod., 4.8.6-7,9; HA, Ant. Care. 6.2-3; Epit., 21.4]. Following this visit, Caracalla ordered that he be called "Alexander the Great" [Epit., 21.4]4.

Dionysus, thugh in this case the information does not change the picture, as the legendary Alexander is also connected to Dionysos. Caracalla's enthusiasm and his devotion to Alexander's cause was so great that he ordered portraits to be painted and numerous sculptures of Alexander to be placed in every possible location, both in army bases and in Rome itself. In Rome, the Capitol and other temples were filled with sculptures ordered by Caracalla to stress his resemblance to Alexander [Dio, 78(77).7.1; Herod., 4.8.1]. The expression on the sculptures, as it is described in Xiphilinus' summary, is EtKovac; autou. It is not clear whther this expression refers to portraits of Caracalla himself or to Alexander. Herodian adds that some of the sculptures were ridiculous, since their heads had two faces, one of Alexander and the other of Caracalla (foe. cit.). Caracalla even went so far as to send a letter to the Senate, proclaiming that Alexander had come to life again, as his life had been too short, and that he had chosen to take the form of Caracalla [Dio, 78(77).7.2]. According to the text which survived at Xiphilinus, it is unclear exactly when Caracalla's letter to the Senate was sent, but its authenticity is beyond doubt. Whether Dio was present at the Senate meeting when Caracalla's letter was read or not, he certainly had access to the archives of official documents.

Dio, Herodian and the author of the HA each gives a different version of the reasons for the slaughter of Alexandria's residents. Dio's explanation of revenge, however, seems the most plausible of the three. The idea that the slaughter, ordered by Caracalla, was a repetition of the slaughter of Thebes' inhabitants in 335 BCE ordered by Alexander the Great is extremely attractive. There is, however, no way of proving it, though Caracalla spent the night of the slaughter in the temple of Serapis (Dio, foe. cit.), like Alexander the Great, who during his visit to Egypt, spent an entire night in the temple of Ammon (Plutarch, Alexander, 26-27). Following the slaughter in Alexandria, Caracalla left for Parthia and requested the hand of the Parthian king's daughter in marriage, just as Alexander had married Darius' daughter [Arrian, 2.25]. The Parthian king, however, was apparently unwilling to play the part of Darius, and rejected the Emperor's offer. This rejection prevented Caracalla's reenacting Alexander's marriage; it also provided a good excuse for declaring war on the Parthians, giving him an opportunity to expand his empire [ Dio, 79(78).1.1; Herod., 4.10.1-11.4].

Both Dio and Herodian had additional detailed information on Caracalla's conduct and actions which implied his link with the myth of Alexander. For instance, Caracalla emulated Alexander, described as "disbursor of gifts to his soldiers," by making generous monetary grants to his troops. Caracalla's conduct towards his troops, and his relationship with them, earned him their esteem and made him very popular with them much like Alexander and his soldiers [Dio, 78(77).9.1; Herod., 4.4.7, 5.1, 7.4; compare with Alexander: Plutarch, ibid. 4-9, 11, 22-23, 40-41, 58, 75; Arrian, 3.18, 4.7, 7.1-4, 28, 30].

Caracalla did not stop acting the part of Alexander at this point, but he kept Alexander's memory alive in every possible manner: He ordered the establishment of a special army unit, which he called the "phalanx of Alexander" or "the Macedonian phalanx" [Dio, 78(77). 7 .1, 18.1; Herod., 4.8.2]. Sixteen thousand of Macedonia's strongest young men were chosen to serve in this unit, and were supplied with clothing, headgear and weapons which Caracalla believed had previously belonged to Alexander [Dio, foe. cit.; Herod., foe. cit.]. Herodian adds that Caracalla himself wore Macedonian attire and even gives details about the clothes: a Kaucna (a kind of turban) and a KET]1tt8ac; (a type of boot) [Herod., foe. cit.]. However, there is reason to doubt Herodian on the subject of Caracalla's clothing. (At the end of his report on the period of Caracalla's rule, Dio [79(78).9.3] explains the nickname Caracallusis derived from the name of the classic topcoat always worn by the Emperor.) The commanders of the special unit were also ordered to adopt the names of Alexander's commanders. Dio tells us of one Macedonian tribune who's name happened to be Antigonus (Antigonus was Alexander's satrap in Phrygia) and whose father's name happened to be Philip. This tribune was promoted with lightning speed; he entered the Senate and even became a consul [Dio, 78(77).8.1-2; Herod., foe. cit.; and also, IGRR, I, 407].

It is also possible that the "Antonine Constitution" (Constitutio Antoniniana) which gave Roman citizenship to

all free inhabitants of the Empire was inspired by Alexander the Great's plan of universal harmony [Dio, 78(77).9.5; compare: Arrian, 14.2; Diodorus, 18.4; compare also, Alexander's financial difficulties and his attempt to solve 5 them, Plutarch, Alexander 15] . Furthermore, it is possible that Caracalla's antagonism toward those philosophers known as Aristotelians was based on the supposition that "Aristotle was supposed to have been involved in the death of Alexander" [Dio, 78(77).7.2-3; compare: Plutarch, Alexander 77; Arrian, II.27.1] Hercules, linked to the myth of Alexander, was also an object of Caracalla's worship. This fact was not overlooked by the ancient authors [Dio, 78(77).5.1; HA, Ant. Care., 5.5, 5.9]. But we must not forget that Hercules, as well as being one of the patron gods of Lepcis-Magna, birthplace of Caracalla's father Septimius Severus, also appears on

Furthermore, in order to strengthen the parallels between Alexander and himself, Caracalla collected a vast herd of elephants [Dio, 78(77).7.4.]. Dio adds that Caracalla's reason for collecting elephants may have been to imitate 70

Septimius Severus' coms as the deity which protected Caracalla6.

However, not only was Dio aware that a historian of his rank could be influenced by official propaganda, personal feelings and rumours - he states this several times - but he does not even pretend to write without prejudice. Moreover, there is no doubt that Dio's attitude towards Caracalla was hostile 8 •

According to the author of the HA, "When [Caracalla] passsed beyond the age of a boy ...because he thought that he must imitate Alexander of Macedonia, he became more reserved and stem and even somewhat savage in expression ... so much so, ...that many were unable to believe that he was the same person whom they had known as a boy" [Ant. Care. 2.1].

He makes no attempt to conceal his lack of support for the emperor; take for example, his blatant hostility when he writes about the winter he spent with Caracalla in Nicomedia, or the Senators' anger at Caracalla's total dependence on his troops; his cynicism and scorn as regards Caracalla's "Alexander mania" is only too obvious. Dio's prejudice is also apparent when he describes Caracalla's character. He writes that Caracalla was not only stubborn, self-willed and ignorant [78(77).11.2- 7], but also that he "belonged to three races; [he] possessed none of their virtues at all, but combined in himself all their vices; the fickleness, cowardice, and recklessnes of Gaul were his, the harshness and cruelty of Africa, and the craftiness of Syria" [see also: 78(77).10.2].

Ancient authors, when wntmg on Alexander, point to changes which took place in Alexander's character and behaviour during his journey to the East. They state that he became suspicious, quick to anger, distant from his friends, authoritarian, and arrogant [Plutarch, lac. cit.; Arrian, lac. cit.]. The author of the HA adds that Caracalla loved to recount stories of Alexander's feats and conquests [Ant. Care., 2.1-2]. The author of the Epitome [21.4.] claims that not only was Caracalla's cruel facial expression an imitation of the expression he saw on Alexander's corpse when he visited his grave, but even the way he held his head, its sideways twist, was in imitation of the way he saw Alexander tum his neck towards his shoulder.

According to Dio [79(78).9.3], Caracalla was nicknamed Tarautas, after a very small, ugly, brutal and bloodthirsty gladiator of that name. Even when Dio describes the positive aspects of Caracalla's military conduct, he ends with the cynical remark, "Even if Caracalla could be considered a good soldier, he was always a hopeless commander" [78(77).13 .1-2].

There are further examples of Caracalla's imitation of Alexander the Great: his conduct as a military man, his insistence on sharing the same conditions as his soldiers, his frugal habits, his strength, daring and temerity. All these are described at length in the literary sources [Dio, 78(77).13 .13; Herod., 4.7.7, 12.2, 13.7, 14.4-5]. These characteristics are similar to the image of Alexander as depicted by Arrian and Plutarch [Plutarch, lac. cit. 4- 9, 11, 22-23, 40-41, 58, 75; Arrian, 3.18, 4.7, 7.1-4, 28, 30].

Thus, when a source Dio's stature is so biased, particularly because he wrote about Caracalla some two years after the emperor's death, his evidence, which must be taken seriously, must also be viewed critically. Herodian, as far as we know, wrote his "History" no earlier than 238. Although some of his comments on Caracalla are favourable, especially on all matters relating to his excellent relationship with the troops and his attitude towards them, he does not fall behind Dio in his hostility towards him 9•

We could also ascribe Caracalla's character, brutality, superstitions, his love of books and learning, as well as his attendance at local shrines during his journey to the East, to his obsessive imitation of Alexander in every possible way. (On Alexander's visits to various shrines, see Plutarch, lac. cit., 14.)

It seems that the picture of Caracalla and his reign as described by Dio and Herodian, must be considered an exaggeration and even distortion, a result of prejudice, rumours and hostile propaganda during Caracalla's reign, and libel after his death. As there is no doubt that the intention of contemporary literary sources was to blacken Caracalla's name, it is preferable in this case to tum to later literary sources, despite the risk of misunderstandings arising due to the passage of time as well as the problem of sources of information for later writers.

The literary sources leave no room for doubt as to Caracalla's adulation of Alexander the Great, especially in the light of the lucid, detailed reports written by historiographers of Caracalla's own time. There are no differences of opinion in modem research regarding Caracalla's attempt to imitate Alexander the Great in his behaviour and daily actions. Nevertheless, the descriptions given by contemporaries and later sources raise certain difficulties regarding their reliability. Initially there is no reason to doubt the description of a contemporary historiographer such as Dio, who wrote of Caracalla's reign 7 only after the emperor's death .

In order to assess the reliability of the HA which, in two short sentences, summarizes Dio's and Herodian's lengthy and detailed descriptions of Caracalla's identification with Alexander the Great - it is of prime importance to identify its sources of information.

71

A prelude to the HA 's contents is found in Herodian, who claims that Caracalla ordered his images to be drawn and sculpted in a way which empasized his similarity to Alexander [4.8.1- 2].

his fixation regarding Alexander the Great. Perhaps, Marius Maximus' attitude towards Caracalla was also negative because he was a contemporary of Dio and Herodian, and he therefore described Caracalla's conduct in a hostile manner, as did his contemporaries, with this item appearing in the HA.

Is Herodian the source for the HA? Although some modem researchers claim that Dio was the main source for the HA, as well as for Herodian 10, others doubt whether the author of the HA had any need of Greek sources of information 11•

The writings of Victor Aurelius and Eutropius make no mention of Caracalla's imitation of Alexander the Great; their concise texts, though written long after the death of the last of the Severan emperors, are generally accepted by modem research as accurate in detail 16• The Epitome, however, does mention Caracalla's imitation of Alexander the Great. The author claims that Caracalla discovered a likeness between his features and those of Alexander the Great after viewing Alexander's corpse [21.4]. There is also a similarity between the HA's report and in the Epitome regarding Caracalla's facial expression; the author of the HA claims that "When Caracalla matured, he adopted a more severe and cruel expression, perhaps because he felt a need to imitate Alexander the Great" [Ant. Care., 2.1].

If the latter are correct, could the sources for the HA be Latin, Marius Maximus and Ignotus?

Marius Maximus, though very accurate in matters of detail, especially anything provincial or military, tended to spice his biographies with scandalous anecdotes 12 .

lgnotus, on the other hand, though perhaps not as accurate, apparently wrote from the perspective of a Roman observer, and recounted events as they were told in Rome 13.

Caracalla's obsession with Alexander the Great is not mentioned in Victor and Eutropius' essays, which raises the following question: if the contemporary sources took the trouble to go into such detail on this subject and if this information appears in both the HA and the Epitome, why was this information unavailable to Victor and Eutropius?

Nevertheless, the caution exercised by the author of the HA regarding the cause of Caracalla's changes in character and conduct ("whether this was because of his father's advice, or his own cunning, or whether it was due to the need to imitate Alexander of Macedonia" [Ant. Care. 2.1]), may indicate that he had both Marius Maximus and Ignotus before him while writing Caracalla's biography, though not necessarily simultaneously.

It seems the authors of the HA and the Epitome both based their writing on a common source, almost certainly unavailable to Victor and Eutropius (see mainly Schlumberger, 1974, 78-123). If so, what other source of information was available to the author of the Epitome?

As stated above 14, modem research is divided regarding the prime source of the HA information. Some consider it to be Marius Maximus, and utterly deny the existence of Ignotus. Others, who accept the theory of an anonymous biographer as the main source of a group of biographies up to and including Caracalla, see Ignotus, and not Marius Maximus, as the main source of information for the HA. These scholars maintain that the author of the HA used Marius Maximus as well, for purposes of addenda, having discovered him only after he had completed the initial writing of this group of . h'1es1s. b 10grap

Opinion in modem research agrees on this question, the general view being that the author of the Epitome relied on the KG, either directly or via Eutropius 17• However, the common view in modem research is that the KG also served as the source of information for Victor and Eutropius; nonetheless, opinion is divided as to the KG's main source of information. Some maintain that this source was Marius Maximus, while others believe Ignotus to have been the main source for the KG, with Marius Maximus in a . ro Ie 1s. supportmg

If Ignotus was the prime source for the HA, and Marius Maximus the secondary source, apparently discovered after the initial version had been written, specifically regarding the similarity of Caracalla's portraits to those of Alexander the Great, it (lgnotus) was clearly a good source.

The similarity between the texts of the HA and the Epitome regarding Caracalla and Alexander the Great, and the absence of Alexander the Great in Victor's and Eutropius' essays supports the idea that if Caracalla's imitation of Alexander appears in the Epitome but not in the KG, and if the KG was the source of the Epitome, either directly or via Eutropius, then the author of the Epitome almost certainly gleaned his information on the subject from another source.

Marius Maximus was also considered a good source, particularly on provincial and military matters. As he served as ruler of Asia during Caracalla's march to the East, could Marius Maximus have been blind to Caracalla's obsessive imitation of Alexander the Great? He is described several times by the author of the HA as being "wordy" (see, e.g., Firmus, 1.2]), though this subject warranted such detailed description in Dio's and Herodian's reports. Or could it be that Dio and Herodian, hostile towards Caracalla, exaggerated their descriptions of Caracalla's behaviour and

As mentioned earlier 19• the same concise sources probably summarized the KG to some extent; the fact that a particular topic does not appear in one of these sources, such as 72

Severus' visit to Egypt, does not definitely prove the subject was absent in the KG.

Herodian also declares that Caracalla "admired Sulla the Roman and Hannibal the Lybian more than any other generals, and ordered that statues of their likenesses be sculpted, and their portraits painted" [4.8.5].

If we consider the above, along with the fact that the author of the Epitome was a contemporary of the author of the HA, and if we accept the hypothesis that Marius Maximus was a secondary source, apparently discovered by the latter after the first version of biographies up to Caracalla had already been written, it is reasonable to assume that the source of the additional information available to the author of the Epitome while writing his brief biography of Caracalla was Marius Maximus, a good contemporary source. It must be stressed that this is purely a logical assumption, with no definitive evidence to support it.

This information is also found in the HA. The author of the HA [Ant. Car., 2.2] claims that Caracalla often exalted and praised Sulla and Tiberius in public. Can the case be made that Caracalla wanted to send a message of some sort by means of Sulla's and Hannibal's statues? No modem scholar has hitherto claimed that Sulla was an object of Caracalla's imitation in relation to the concept of propaganda.

Another problem arises regarding the short sentence in the Epitome regarding Caracalla's visit to Alexander's grave in Alexandria [21.4] and the description of Alexander's corpse.

As noted earlier, the authors of the HA and the Epitome probably had access to a reliable contemporary source almost certainly unavailable to Victor and Eutropius.

Literary sources which describe Alexander the Great's deeds and his death say that his embalmed body was transferred to a glass coffin [Diodorus, 28.26-28]. If this was the case, Caracalla could have seen Alexander's face in the coffin in Alexandria. According to the Epitome, however, Alexander's face preserved a cruel expression in death, with his neck turned towards his left shoulder. Upon seeing Alexander, Caracalla believed himself to have a similar expression.

Assuming that the information on Caracalla and Alexander is historically authentic, does it imply that it was part of Caracalla's political propaganda, to be spread throughout the Empire? This may be clarified by means of archaeological, numismatic, epigraphic, and iconographic finds.

The problem is related to the embalming process of ancient times. Not one of the embalmed corpses discovered so far has its face turned to one side, nor do any of the faces reflect a particular expression, except the frozen expression of the deceased. Traditional embalming always prided itself on a frontal presentation of the deceased, i.e., both the face and body faced the viewer2°.

Iconographic evidence can be used to examine statements made by Herodian, the author of the HA and the author of the Epitome, regarding Caracalla's attempts to link himself visually with Alexander the Great. Several portraits of Alexander the Great, both coin portraits and sculptures, may be compared with those of Caracalla (Figs. 22-25).

An inconsistency between contemporary literary sources and the later ones thus exists regarding Caracalla's obsession with Alexander the Great.

According to ancient literary sources, Alexander the Great's image21 was designed by Lysippos during Alexander's lifetime, as Alexander himself had granted Lysippos sole right to portray his image [Plutarch, Alexander, 4]. The problem is that not a single one of Lysippos' works has survived. Hence, the remaining images of Alexander are those reflected in the many Greek and Roman copies in countless statues, reliefs, pictures, mosaics, and coins.

On the one hand we have Dio's evidence, and later Xiphilinus, considered a good source of the period; we have the evidence of Herodian, who, though unreliable as a historian of the period regarding events which he describes, does include information on Caracalla's imitation of Alexander the Great. We also have two later written sources, the HA and the Epitome, both of which indicate good contemporary sources of information; they also include information on Caracalla's imitation of Alexander the Great.

One of the difficulties in identifying Alexander's portraits is that Alexander apparently followed the custom of the classical Greek period: all his coins present his portrait in the likeness of Heracles. After his death his immediate successors minted his image on their own coins. According to Plutarch (lac. cit.) they began producing copies of his statues as early as then.

On the other hand, two later sources, Victor and Eutropius, both considered reliable and accurate, do not mention Caracalla and Alexander the Great.

As mentioned earlier22, sculpted portraits are usually identified by comparing them with coin portraits. But because there are no coin portraits with Alexander's own features minted during his rule, we will use the three following criteria to identify portraits attributed to Alexander:

A further problem arises regarding the literary sources. Dio states that Caracalla admired Sulla [78(77).13.7], adding that he desired to imitate Sulla's cruelty in order to be as successful, or more so.

73

1. The coin portraits minted by his successors (e.g., Fig. 22);

according to the fashion of the era (Hanfmann, 1953, loc. cit.; also: Walker, Brunett, 1981, 6-7).

2. The Azara statue, now in the Louvre, with the inscription at its base identifying the figure as "Alexander, son of Philip of Macedonia" (e.g., Fig. 23);

Ancient literary sources say, for example, that Pompey wanted to resemble Alexander in his external appearance as well. In describing Pompey's appearance, a description apparently based on Pompey's sculpted or coin portraits, Plutarch (Pompey, 2) states clearly that "Because of his hair, which tended to be high, many tried to see in this some similarity to the portrait of Alexander the King ... " Pompey's coin and sculpted portraits (e.g., Figs. 26 and 27) indicate his imitation of Alexander most clearly in the style of the hair over his forehead. The avacr'WATJ typical of Alexander's portraits, which Plutarch thought worth emphasizing, also · p ompey ,s portraits · 26 . appears m

3. Plutarch's description of Alexander in Alexander, 4 and Moralia, 335b. All of these portraits follow a prominent features appear in all of sculpted portraits. Modem research surviving sculptures of Alexander creations 23 •

similar pattern; a few them, both the coin and agrees, therefore, that all are based on Lysippos'

The head is tilted upwards and slightly to the side (usually to the left, i.e., to the right of the viewer). The eyes are large, gazing upward, the mouth is a bit open, and the face smooth or clean-shaven, hinting at Alexander's youthfulness24. His mane of hair is wild and long, with falling waves divided by deep partings (this hairstyle is nicknamed "the lion's mane" in modem research) covering his ears and resting on his shoulders. Two curls protrude from the center of the hair on the forehead, pointing in opposite directions (in ancient literary sources this arrangement of curls is called avacrTOA.TJ (see, for example, Plutarch, Pompey, 2).

Like Hercules' lion-skin or Ammon's horn, the avacr,OATJ, the upward and side tilt of head, the upward gaze and the parted lips are considered specific attributes of Alexander's • 27 portraits . Caracalla's characteristic facial features may be noted on his portraits. In the "late portrait types" on his coins, from 212217 (Fig. 24), (see mainly: Nodelman, 1965, 136-203, esp. 185-203; Hill, 1964a, 8-17; id., 1979, 36-46), Caracalla is shown with a full head of curly, relatively short hair. The curls are twisted, and styled in the Antonine-Aurelian tradition 28 , descending diagonally towards the middle of the forehead. The front and back of the neck are vertical, to give the frontal position of the head; the short, curly beard follows the square jawline and the engraving of the curls of the beard extend the style of the curls of the head. The prominent cheekbones are given emphasis (like those of his father Severus) (cf. Babara!, 1989, n. 30). The eye is narrow, small, and deep set, the depth emphasized by the high cheekbones and horizontal protruding eyebrows, which cast a shadow over the eye. The eyes look forward, in keeping with the head's frontal position; the lips are pursed; two parallel lines mark the wrinkles of the forehead.

On coins where the portrait appears in profile, it is impossible to see the side tilt of the head, but the contrast between the acute angle of the nape of the neck and the very obtuse angle, or steep diagonal line, of the chin and neck, creating the impression that the head is thrown back, and serves to indicate the upward tilt of the head. The upward gaze is created by the high position of the pupil, by sculpting the eyebrow in a curve (to indicate a raised eyebrow) and wrinkles across the forehead, resulting naturally from the raising of the eyebrows. Sometimes, for purposes of emphasis, the eyelid obscures part of the pupil (see, for example, Fig. 22).

A definite sideways movement of the head is very marked in Caracalla's sculpted portraits from type III from the year 205, and especially those of type IV or the "late type" from the years 212-217 (Figs. 25a and 25b ). However, the head is usually tilted downwards slightly. Sometimes the head, turned to the side, is parallel with the shoulders.

The straight line of the lower lid, the prominent curve of the upper lid, the raised, curved eyebrows and the wrinkles on the forehead, all serve to indicate the upward gaze (e.g., Fig. 23). With the introduction (during Hadrian's reign), of a drill to fashion the iris and pupil the same means were employed to depict the upward gaze as in the coin portraits.

The hair descends diagonally across the forehead, forming a curve similar to the style of his father's hairline. The texture of the hair, with its separate curls, is reminiscent of the curls of Caracalla's Antonine predecessors, especially Commodus (Brilliant, 1974, 253-262). The eyebrows are knitted; this impression is created by emphasizing the wide V-shaped muscles of the forehead, with their base at the bridge of the nose, from where the wrinkles originate, formed by lines which rise above the eyebrows. Two horizontal lines indicate the wrinkles of the forehead. The eyes are deep-set with prominent, horizontal eyebrows, which cast a shadow over them. The eyes gaze straight ahead, in line with the position of the head. The lips are straight and pursed. The cheeks,

It was apparently normal to add the details of the features in

three-dimensional sculpture, such as the iris and the pupil, with paint and brush (there are hardly any traces of paint left in most surviving sculptures). These features do not appear in the portraits of any of Alexander's immediate or later successors except Mithradates and Pompey. The hairstyle of Alexander's heirs is usually shorter than Alexander's long curls, and the avacr,OATJ does not appear. The eyes may be looking upwards, but the head is tilted slightly to the side and downwards 25 • The faces are either smooth or bearded, 74

* While Alexander's gaze is upwards Caracalla looks straight at the viewer.

jaw, and upper lip are covered by the beard and moustache, the size of which reflect Caracalla's age, starting with a short beard on the cheeks in 208, followed by a bristly beard and a trace of a moustache in 210, and finally a full beard from the year 212, with the moustache reaching the beard and covering part of the upper lip.

* Alexander's eyes are very large; Caracalla's are small and narrow. * Alexander's hair is long, fashioned in long, wavy curls, whereas Caracalla's is short and tightly curled.

The emotional effect of Caracalla's expression, which modem research describes as having a "stem and cruel look," is created by the shadowed sunken eyes, the horizontal, knitted eyebrows, the straight, pursed lips, the accentuation of the wrinkles on the forehead, and the sharp tum of the head.

* Alexander's hairline has the famous characteristic avacr,OAl], while Caracalla's is set in a curve. * Alexander's cheeks are smooth, as a boy's, while Caracalla is shown with a beard.

These elements in Caracalla's sculpted portraits - the tum of the head and the scowling facial expression - provide archaeological confirmation of the written sources regarding Caracalla's desire to resemble Alexander, even in his external appearance. Herodian [4.8.1] stated that Caracalla ordered his image to be drawn and sculpted according to Alexander's likeness; the author of the Epitome [21.4] claimed that Caracalla imitated the position of the head and the stem facial expression, which he had seen on Alexander's corpse (mainly: L'Orange, 1947, 39, 131,n.3).

* Portraits of Caracalla always show creases on the forehead, as do some of those of Alexander. However, while the lines in Alexander's portraits appear together with raised curved eyebrows, and are meant to represent a contemplative expression, far from worldly turmoil, as it were, Caracalla's facial lines appear with horizontal, protruding eyebrows and a crease on the bridge of his nose, representing his stem, cruel personality. Modem scholars who claim that the position of Caracalla's head and his facial expression are an imitation of Alexander's portraits, base their claims on both Caracalla's portraits and the literary sources; the report in the Epitome that Caracalla believed himself to resemble Alexander the Great (21.4) is the decisive evidence for their belief that the imitation was deliberate.

It is impossible to verify whether in fact Alexander's dead body had these two features. However, Alexander's image as depicted in the many statues discovered throughout the Empire, sculpted between the beginning of the Hellenistic period and the end of the Roman Empire, is entirely different from the description in the Epitome. Caracalla most likely drew his inspiration from the mummy attributed to Alexander the Great, and not from the sculptures.

Although Plutarch apparently based his description of Alexander's physical appearance on contemporary portraits and on the literary sources available to him, the author of the Epitome may have based his conclusion on the available literary sources alone, rather than directly on Caracalla's portraits themselves.

Many of Alexander's sculptures date to the beginning of the third century, evidence that they were made during Caracalla's reign (Fig. 28)29 • Their discovery lends support to both Dio's [78(77). 7 .1] and Herodian's [4.8.1] statements regarding Caracalla's order to place statues of Alexander throughout the Empire.

However, if we compare the portraits of Caracalla (Figs. 24, 25) and Alexander the Great (Figs. 22, 23), especially those dating from the beginning of the third century (Fig. 28), i.e., those made during Caracalla's reign, we find no definite similarity between them. In fact, it is the differences between them that are notable.

Statues attributed to Alexander dating from the beginning of the third century (e.g., Fig. 28) portray Alexander in the normal, conventional style common since he was first sculpted during the Hellenistic period. Those attributes reported to be characteristic of Alexander appear in all their portraits, i.e., Alexander's Hellenistic likeness continued to appear during the Roman era too 30 .

It must be boren in mind that a typical feature of Roman portraits is the realistic representation of the subject. Even as Roman art moved towards classicism, during the reign of Augustus and Hadrian, the individual features of the figure were always preserved. Hence, the relevant factor is not physiognomical similarity but similarity reflected by specific features characteristic of a particular subject, such as hairstyle, arrangement of the beard, facial expression, position of the head, etc. (Baharal, 1989, 1992, 1993).

A comparison of Caracalla's portraits and Alexander's reveals the following differences:

* Although both Alexander's and Caracalla's portraits show the head turned to the side, Alexander's head is tilted upwards (an unusual position in depiction of the head), whereas Caracalla's is turned downwards (the usual position).

In Caracalla's portrait the absence of Alexander's most prominent features is marked. None of Caracalla's portraits discovered to date has any of the personal, identifying features associated with Alexander's portraits. 75

If Caracalla had truly wished to look like Alexander, if he had wanted to publicize his resemblance, not only in conduct and deeds but in appearance as well, it is reasonable to assume that he would have adopted at least one of Alexander's distinguishing features.

If we are dealing with blatant propaganda on the part of Caracalla, whose message, according to literary sources, was the subject of Alexander the Great, the following questions arise:

At whom was this message directed, and what was its aim? One of the outstanding aspects of Roman art is that the portrait of an emperor or other historical figure identifying himself, or wishing to be identified with, a particular deity, or a mythical or actual hero would have at least one of the characteristics of the deity or hero. For example, Plutarch [Pompey, 2] writes that Pompey's image, his hairline shown with Alexander's well-known avacrtOAT], is what caused his contemporaries and succeeding generations to note the similarity between them, despite the fact that their portraits (compare Figs. 23 and 27) show no other similarities. When Commodus identifies himself with Hercules, he appears on coins and in the plastic arts with a lion's head, or with Hercules' staff, or with both (e.g., Fig. 16). Julia Domna is identified with the goddess Isis when shown with polos on her head, a baby in her arms and ship's prow at her feet31•

What methods were used to disseminate this message? Literary sources testify that Caracalla's eagerness to imitate Alexander in every way possible crystallized during his preparations for war against the Parthians, and his journey to the East. This action, by Caracalla, who, like his predecessors, set out to extend the eastern boundaries of the Empire, was clearly a political measure taken to ensure the loyalty of the eastern provinces. Herodian tells us that not only did this step fail to gain him a real hold in Egypt, and especially among the inhabitants of Alexandria, but also made him the subject of scorn and abuse. The inhabitants mocked him, and jeered at "the dwarf who killed his brother and imagines that he can imitate Alexander the Great and Achilles" [Herod., 4.9.1-3]. Their mockery resulted in the brutal slaughter of Alexandria's inhabitants [Dio, 78(77).22.1-14; Herod., ibid., 4-8; HA, Ant. Care., 6.2-3].

Furthermore, portraits of Alexander fashioned during Caracalla's reign - at least some of which must have been commissioned by the emperor - show no attempt to represent Alexander any differently from the traditional manner (compare Figs. 22, 23, and 28).

Caracalla was almost certainly aware of the Alexandrian attitude towards him, even before his arrival; therefore Egypt could not be one of the targets at whom his message was directed. (This assumption is supported by the archaeological and numismatic evidence.)

Hence, in the light of the lack of Alexander's identifying features in Caracalla's portraits (these features were familiar to Rome), and the lack of changes in, or additions to, these elements in Alexander's portraits made during Caracalla's reign, the evidence of contemporary or later historians is insufficient to support the claim that Caracalla tried to reflect this identification with Alexander via the visual medium 32 •

The literary sources are not clear whether Caracalla's imitation of Alexander impressed the inhabitants of Asia and Syria, or whether they only pretended to be impressed. (Here too, as in the case of Egypt, this assumption is supported by the archaeological and numismatic evidence).

Thus, it appears the ancient writers exaggerated Caracalla's attempt to resemble Alexander visually, particularly in his portraits.

It would appear, therefore, that Caracalla's 1m1tation of Alexander the Great did not succeed where we might have expected it to, i.e., the eastern provinces.

A comparison of Caracalla's coin and statue portraits with those of Alexander the Great show no clear resemblance between them, or even a hint of Caracalla's attempt to imitate Alexander in his external appearance.

Members of the Senate could also have been a target for propaganda, aimed at improving Caracalla's relationship with them. His letter to the Senate lends support to this hypothesis; apparently senators did not object to the idea of famous heroes from the past serving as role models, from whom lessons could be learnt and virtues copied. From the outset, however, upon the return of the brothers Caracalla and Geta to Rome following their father's death, it seems the Senate favoured Geta over Caracalla [Dio, 78(77).1.1-6; Herod., 3.15.6- 4.4.2]. After Geta's murder and the mass slaughter of his supporters, the relationship between Caracalla and the Senate deteriorated even further. Dio does not mince words when describing his total lack of support for the emperor while reporting on his stay with Caracalla in Nicomedia. He mentions, for example, Caracalla's disregard for the senatorial amici, and his love of freedmen [78(77).17.3-4; 18.4], as well as the fury of the Senate at Caracalla's total dependence on his troops [78(77).9 .1-4].

We have yet to establish whether the claim in literary sources regarding Caracalla's obsession with Alexander the Great proves that this was a topic of Caracalla's propaganda. It should be born in mind that hero worship and imitation of Alexander the Great were not new in Roman history. Pompey, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Caligula, Nero, Trajan and others linked themselves, in one way or another, to the Macedonian conqueror. The imitation was usually for political reasons - paying lip-service to the eastern provinces. Sometimes, however, the admiration overstepped the limits of logic and became a personal obsession. Nero and Caligula both belong to this last category (Suetonius, Caligular, 52; Nero, 19)33 •

76

Caracalla may indeed have tried to improve his relations with the Senate, but the effort came too late.

the troops, described by Herodian [4.6.6], was a figment of the latter's imagination35 , we may assume that Caracalla had to clear himself of all suspicion as quickly as possible, and to regain the soldiers' loyalty almost from scratch, in order to ensure their continued support. He had particular difficulty with the soldiers of the Legio II Parthiea camped in Alba, as described by the author of the HA [Ant. Care., 2.4-8].

Who else could have been the target of Caracalla's message but his troops? Like his father, Caracalla knew that his hold on the throne depended to a great extent on the support of his troops, and that he must provide a solid basis for their support. To what extent, however, could similarity to Alexander the Great provide support; was this the message which would strengthen their faith in him, especially after the scandalous murder of Geta? The commanders of the various units, if they had received the usual education, would certainly be familiar with Alexander the Great. The simple soldier, however, would probably be completely ignorant on this subject34 • It is more likely that the troops accompanying Caracalla on his journeys learnt of the myth of Alexander the Great through Caracalla. The author of the HA writes that Caracalla delighted in recounting tales of Alexander's conquests [HA, Ant. Care., 2.1-2].

In this situation Alexander would not have provided an effective means of regaining his soldiers' loyalty. He could guarantee success only by reiterating and emphasizing the dynastic aspect of his rule36 • Thus, the three expected targets of Caracalla's propaganda, associating him with Alexander the Great, are all open to doubt. The final aspect of Caracalla's propaganda, if, indeed this is what it was, is the means of its dissemination. Modem research has established that the literary compositions of Roman and Greek writers may have served as a vehicle for spreading propaganda (mainly: Yavetz, 1966, 205-294). Yet it is unknown if Caracalla ever wrote his autobiography, and the history of his reign was written after his death37 • Did Dio or Herodian publish, or read in public, parts of the impressions they had of Caracalla, apart from their written histories? Other than Dio's statement on the publication of Septimius Severus' omina imperii, there is no evidence of this. However, in the light of Dio's and Herodian's hostility towards Caracalla, it is reasonable to assume that their true sentiments were expressed only after the Emperor's death.

It seems, however, that

the name of Alexander and his exploits did not win the hearts of the soldiers; it mattered little to them if the actions of the emperor, and his conduct towards them, were influenced by his admiration and imitation of some mythical hero of whom they knew very little. What did matter to them was what the emperor did for them. Very little is known of the soldiers' opinions, and still less is known as to whether they knew anything about Alexander the Great, as they are not quoted in literary sources. The troops who accompanied Caracalla on his expeditions did not need to be knowledgeable about Alexander; they would have learnt about him slowly, through Caracalla. His very imitation of Alexander, which would have required style, could only have charmed his soldiers. Dynastic considerations, however, were among the most important in determining the legitimacy of a claim to the throne in their eyes (Baharal, 1989, 573-580; 1992, 110-120).

Apparently there was no need to spread rumours among the people. Caracalla did not conceal his enthusiasm for, and dedication to, Alexander the Great; he had clearly proclaimed it in his letter to the Senate. Can Caracalla's letter be regarded as a means for distributing propaganda? He apparently intended to convey a message to the senators, as it was addressed to them; yet this does not necessarily mean it was a propaganda message. Leaking information is not a new political gambit, invented in our time; Caracalla knew his letter to the Senate would not remain a secret. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable that his letter was intended to explain his actions and behaviour, and perhaps to justify the slaughter of the inhabitants of Alexandria rather than disseminate a propaganda message.

Caracalla's situation after the murder, however, was less than satisfactory. It might seem that he had no need to re-establish the dynastic legitimacy of his rule, he the son of an emperor whose right to the throne was acknowledged throughout the Empire, whose sons had the right to succeed him; he the scion of the divine, magnificent Antonine dynasty, He nevertheless denied any involvement in his brother's death, and was indeed acquitted in court [Dio, 78(77).2.1-4, 3 .1; Herod., 4.4ff., 5.4; HA, Ant. Care., 2.4-8; Eutropius, Brev., 8.19.2; Aur. Victor, Caes., 20.32; Epitome, 21.3].

As noted earlier, stories and jokes about the Emperor's strange behaviour may well have been common in the streets of Rome, and throughout the entire Empire, and were probably exaggerated as well. His immunity to these various forms of libel, and his ability to exercise restraint in his reactions, may have been proof of Caracalla's patience, but were these stories told, perhaps, with a specific purpose and on Caracalla's orders? Probably not, though it is impossible to establish whether this assumption is true or not.

The rivalry between the brothers was well known even while their father was alive, and was especially obvious on their journey from Britain to Rome [Dio 78(77).1.4; Herod., 3.15.7]. Rumours of Caracalla's attempted assassination of Geta during the Saturnalia festivities in 211 [Dio 78(77).2.1] did not help Caracalla's cause, particularly in the eyes of the troops, on whom he was so dependent. Even if his speech to 77

Turning to the archeological data, a comparison may be made of coin portraits and statues of Alexander the Great and Caracalla. According to portraits of Alexander made during Caracalla's reign, representing Alexander in the traditional manner, it seems that there is some doubt as to whether the imperial portraits in particular, or portraits in general, actually conveyed a message of identification with Alexander, or any visual similarity to his image, by means of personal characteristics. There remain the symbols on coins, medals and various inscriptions, including those engraved in stone, which could have served as an effective medium for spreading Caracalla's message - his resemblance to Alexander the Great.

image, however, is not necessarily related to the worship of Hercules. It appears frequently in association with public events. Moreover, the appearance of a lion on the reverse of Roman coins was common from the reign of Augustus. The only difference in the lion on Caracalla's coins is the homed crown on its head and the thunderbolt held between its teeth (the homed crown usually symbolizes the sun, and hence also Helios, or Sol, and the thunderbolt is the symbol of Jupiter). Dionysus (or Bacchus) also appears on Caracalla's coins. As with Hercules, although Dionysus is linked to the myth of Alexander, does his appearance on these coins prove a connection between Caracalla and Alexander the Great? Like Hercules, Dionysus was also one of the deities of the official Roman religion, and often appeared on the reverse of Roman coins; moreover, his likeness on Caracalla's coins did not differ from the traditional one. Furthermore, Dionysus (also called Liber) was the second patron god of Lepcis Magna, who often appeared on Septimius Severus' coins, either alone or with Hercules. Thus, it is no surprise that Dionysus appears on Caracalla's coins. [In the year 212, BMC, V, 474, no. 236, pl. 74.15; 475, no. 239, pl. 74.18. In the year 214, BMC, V, 45l(f).]

Let us first examine those coins minted in the western part of the Empire, in Rome, Italy and the surrounding area. Among the most popular deities to appear on the reverse of Caracalla's coins, Hercules, with his characteristic attributes, is depicted most frequently [for example, in the year 212, BMC, V, 436, no. 35; in the year 214, BMC, V, 448, no. 93, pl. 69.19]. Does the depiction of Hercules on these coins necessarily link Caracalla with the myth of Alexander? It must be noted that Hercules was one of the patron deities of Lepcis Magna, the birthplace of Septimius Severus. His appearance on Caracalla's coins therefore, is no different from his father's custom of depicting Hercules on his own coins. Moreover, Dio states that Caracalla strictly forbade anyone to call him Hercules, and rejected any other divine honours [78(77).5.1 ]. It does not seem likely that Hercules' appearance on Caracalla's coins has any relation to Alexander the Great. It should also be remembered that Hercules was one of the deities of the official Roman religion and is a common figure on the reverse of Roman coins. The depiction of a certain god from the official Pantheon of Rome on the reverse of coins is usually related to public events, as in the case of Hercules. Only rarely does the appearance of a deity have a personal connection, such as the appearance of Hercules on Commodus' coins, related to Commodus' identification with Hercules, which is totally unrelated to the image of Alexander.

The elephant, like the lion, was one of the most popular images on the reverse of coins throughout Roman history, its appearance usually connected with public events. Its depiction on Caracalla's coins did not deviate from earlier ones, and despite the elephant-Dionysus-Alexander triangle, this does not establish a definite connection between Caracalla and the myth of Alexander. Thus Caracalla's coins cannot be regarded as conveying through images, symbols, and other signs - an unambiguous, clearly understood message regarding Alexander the Great. Moreover, not a single one of these coin designs has been discovered together with an inscription which would somehow provide, or even imply, a link between the depicted scene and Alexander. Although some claim that though the meaning of these symbols are not clear to us today, they were clear to Romans and the inhabitants of the Empire, the assumption cannot be made that they were clearly understood as being linked to the myth of Alexander.

Throughout the period of the Roman Empire, beginning in the first century and ending at the start of the fourth, Hercules was one of the deities most frequently depicted on the reverse of Roman coins. He is not, then, a new figure making his first appearance during Caracalla's reign, nor does the manner of presentation on Caracalla's coins deviate from the traditional scenes frequently depicted on Roman coins. Hercules' image also appears on many Roman medallions, especially those made following Hadrian's reign. Furthermore, Hercules appears time and again on coins and medals of Septimius Severus, thus his appearance on Caracalla's coins is not surprising.

The usual method of expressing a visual connection between Alexander the Great and Hercules or Dionysus had always been by depicting Alexander draped in a lion's skin (symbolizing Hercules), or an elephant's skin (Dionysus). Caracalla, like his father, does not appear in a lion or elephant skin in any visual representations discovered so far - coins, medallions, reliefs or sculpted portraits 38 . Even if he had appeared thus, this attribute was known to symbolize Hercules, not Alexander.

A lion is depicted on the reverse of a large number of coins, [e.g., in the year 215: BMC, V, 458, no. 149, pl. 71.9; 459, no. 150, pl. 71.10; 488, no. 290, pl. 76.9. In the year 216, BMC, V, 462, no. 177, pl. 72.2; 492, no. 303. In the year 217, BMC, V, 493, nos. 306*, 311, pl. 77.12]. The lion's

Therefore, we cannot assume that most inhabitants of the Empire would have regarded the depiction of Hercules and Dionysus, and particularly of the lion and the elephant 78

appearing separately and without an inscription or identifying symbol, as a reflection of Caracalla's special attitude towards Alexander the Great39 •

officially publicizing his special regard of Alexander, this is how we would expect him to act. This may be the reason that only one coin from Caracalla's period bears the portrait of Alexander the Great.

Among the coins dating from Caracalla's reign, one gold coin was found, which Mattingly classified as a "coin of unknown date" [BMC, V, 466, no. 202, pl. 73.12]. The obverse of the coin shows a head with thick, wavy curls, spread out as if blowing in the wind. On the head is a diadem. There is no inscription on the coin. Mattingly identified the portrait as one of Alexander the Great.

It should also be stressed again that one coin alone -

especially a coin on which opinion is divided, regarding both the date of its minting and its nature - is insufficient basis on which to claim that Alexander was a subject of Caracalla's propaganda. Nor can this one coin prove that Caracalla officially wished to publicize his special attitude towards Alexander.

No one disputes this identification of the portrait, but in the absence of any identifying or other inscription, or even the name of the emperor in whose reign the coin was minted or any other symbol, two questions arise immediately: first, when was the coin minted, and second, what was its purpose? In other words, was the coin intended as a means of payment, or was it a medallion minted at a later date?

It seems that coins of Caracalla's reign (212-217) produced

in great numbers in the mints of the western Empire, in Rome, Italy and the surrounding area, do not provide clear and unequivocal proof of the emperor's tendency to identify himself with Alexander the Great, or of his aim to publicize his enthusiastic admiration for this heroic conqueror.

According to Mattingly, the coin was minted in Rome. Even if we accept his opinion, it must be borne in mind that Caracalla did not live in the capital during the entire period in which he was sole ruler, but only at the beginning of his reign. He set off on his journey to the East, and did not return. In this case, was Caracalla, or were his followers involved with, or responsible for, the minting of this coin and its iconographic content, and if so, to what extent? At least one incident, occurring during the reign of Septimius Severus, proves that while absent from the capital, the emperor could not really know what was happening in the mints ofRome 40 •

Before examining coins minted in the eastern Empire, the following important point should be made. The cities of the eastern region, except for Antioch, which had the right to mint coins, could select their design independently. Although the obverse of these coins usually bore the portrait of the current emperor, like the coins minted in the west, this was not obligatory. The status of the autonomous cities was expressed in their coins by the absence of the Roman ruler's name or portrait. Each mint could choose its own coin designs. One of the most popular images on the reverse of the coins was that of Tyche, the goddess of the cities. Other gods worshipped in these cities were also depicted, as well as mythical scenes connected with their histories . It is thus reasonable to assume that the different designs on coins from the eastern cities of the Empire, whether on the obverse or reverse, were not made on the emperor's orders 42 .

Even it there had been an identifying inscription on this coin, or it were possible to date it accurately to the time of Caracalla's reign, would one single coin provide sufficient proof that an official subject of propaganda existed? Could this possibly be a case similar to Septimius Severus' refusal to accept the title Parthicus following the first Parthian war? In the light of the fact that only one such coin has been discovered to date, a comparison with late Macedonian coins and gold medallions discovered in Tarsus and Abu-Kir, dating between 231 and 249, leads us to assume that this could be another one of these, produced in similar circumstances 41 •

Images on the reverse of coins dating from Caracalla's reign hardly differ from those on coins minted in the western Empire. Hercules, with his attributes, is prominently featured [BMCG, Lycaonia etc., Cilicia, Tarsus, 195, nos. 183, 184; Troas etc., 22, nos. 101, 104, 105; Caria etc., Alabanda, 9, no.50].

On a purely hypothetical level, hypothetical because of the uncertainty prevailing in modem research as to the operation of the mints, another theory may be proposed. Literary sources show that Caracalla did not attempt to conceal his admiration for Alexander the Great. He may indeed have wanted to publicize his attitude, but before setting out on a major campaign, he wished to ascertain what public opinion would be. He may therefore have transmitted one public message reflecting his esteem for Alexander, and awaited the reaction. If this reaction was positive, he would be able to expand and widen the distribution of the message. If however, the feedback was negative, he would be better off forgetting the matter, in the hope that others would do the same. Were Caracalla to try to test public opinion before

In another example, an (Indian) elephant is depicted on the reverse of a coin [BMCG, Lycaonia etc., Cilicia, Tarsus, 198, no. 196]. Scenes connected with Hector, a hero of Troy, and other scenes related to the Trojan myth, appear on the reverse of some of Caracalla's coins from Ilium [BMCG, Troas etc., Ilius, 69-70, nos. 84-94]. These were apparently minted, however, during Septimius Severus' reign, as Caracalla's portrait on the obverse of these coins is beardless. The reverse of other coins from the cities in the eastern Empire present scenes from Greek mythology. For example, the reverse of a coin from Ephesus depicts a running boar 79

wounded by a spear, reminiscent of the Caledonian boar hunt [BMCG, Ionia, Ephesus, 87, no. 280].

Regarding the copper coins minted in Beroia, the capital of the Macedonian Union, some scholars claim [BMCG, IV] that as some of the coins bear a date between 242 and 249, the entire group of copper coins should belong to that same period, i.e., the reigns of Gordianus III and Philip I. In contrast, Bieber (1964, 77-78; 1945, 249) and Yaouris (1989, 103) claim that the terminus ante quern of the Beroia coins is almost certainly the year 231, because Severus Alexander renewed the former privileges of Macedonia in that year, and it may be assumed the coins were minted to commemorate that event.

The reverse of a coin from Tarsus shows Perseus and Hercules with the lion skin and staff, supporting the emperor's protome between them [BMCG, Lycaonia etc., Cilicia, Tarsus, 195, no. I 83]. The obverse of all the coins described above bear a portrait of Caracalla. Unlike the above, the coins minted in Macedonia and Lycia throughout the imperial era do not usually present the portrait of the emperor on the obverse, nor even mention his name [BMCG, Macedonia etc., liv; Lycia etc., cv]. For this reason scholars can not always agree regarding the dating of these coins.

Like Lycia's coins (if these coins do indeed belong to the time of Caracalla), they do not provide sufficient evidence of an initiative taken by the emperor. It could be expected of Macedonia, birthplace of Alexander the Great, to mint coins in commemoration of its hero; thus Alexander's appearance on Macedonian coins of any period is not surprising. The image of Alexander the Great did, in fact, continue to appear on coins of cities in the eastern Empire until almost the end of the fourth century 43 .

Among the coins of Apollonia Mordiaeum, and of Apollonia and Lycia from the time of the Empire, dating from Caracalla's reign, three have been found depicting the head of Alexander wearing the lion-skin, with local scenes on the reverse [BMCG, Lycia etc., 202, no. I, pl. xxxiii, no. I; 204, nos. 9, 10, pl. xxxiii, no. 5]. The author admits [BMCG, ibid., cv] that he attributed these coins to Caracalla's period because of the link with Alexander the Great, but he claims that it is equally likely that they were minted during the reign of Severus Alexander, who was also connected to Alexander.

Furthermore, it is not certain that the gold, silver and copper coins were minted as means of payment. They may have been phalerae, of the same type as the gold medals discovered at Tarsus and Abu-Kir [BMCG, foe. cit., p. liv].

We do know, however, that Alexander the Great passed through Pisidia in 334 BCE. Thus, because of the autonomy of the cities of the eastern Empire and the non-interference of government in the choice of designs on the coins of these cities, whether minted during Caracalla's reign or Severus Alexander's, it may be assumed that the designs have local relevance, and do not necessarily indicate an imperial initiative.

Three of these gold medals were discovered in Tarsus. The obverse of one has a portrait of Philip II (Fig. 29); the second has a portrait of Alexander on the obverse, wearing the lionskin on his head; the third has Alexander on the obverse, wearing a diadem (Fig. 30). Alexander's portrait on these two is the same as that on the Macedonian coins. Philip II's hair styles and beard on the Tarsus medal are very reminiscent of those of Caracalla in his late-type coin portraits (cf. Fig. 24). If we compare this portrait of Philip II with statues attributed to him, particularly the one recently discovered in the Vergina tombs 44 (Fig. 31), we find that the style of his hair and beard are the same, suggesting that these were true-tolife depiction of his hair and beard styles.

The situation regarding late Macedonian coins is even less clear. A series of gold and silver Macedonian coins, along with a group of copper ones, has very similar designs on the obverse. The head of Alexander the Great appears on all of them, but the attributes vary. In one he is wearing the lionskin; in another the diadem; in a third, he is shown with the horn of Ammon. The special identifying features which characterized Alexander's portraits ever since he was first depicted in the visual media (see above) appear on each of these coins: his forelock is set in an avacrtoAT], his hair is thick with long, wavy curls, fashioned as though they are blowing in the wind. The eye is deep set, and the eyebrow casts a shadow over it. There is a pronounced upward tilt of the head. This image of Alexander is an exact copy of the portrait on Lysimachus' coins in the third century BCE. The scene on the reverse of all the coins is the same: a lion in mid-stride. All the copper coins have the same inscription on the reverse, 'Alexander' [e.g., BMCG, Macedonia etc., 2122, nos. 92-97; 22-27, nos. 98-144]. Only some of the coins indicate their date on the reverse, so that researchers are divided in their opinions as to when they were minted. Some claim that the coins were minted in Caracalla's reign, while others are of the opinion that they were minted during Severus Alexander's reign, possibly even later.

A large series of approximately twenty gold medals was discovered in the vicinity of Abu-Kir, near Alexandria, Egypt. A portrait of Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great, appears on the obverse of one of them; a frontal protome of Alexander, with his head and eyes turned towards heaven, appears on another. He is wearing armour depicted in relief form; on his right shoulder is Nike, and he holds a spear and shield adorned with signs of the Zodiac (Fig. 32). The reverse of the medal depicts Alexander and Nike riding in a chariot with Ares and Roma (or Virtus), with the inscription 'King Alexander' 45 . The obverse of another medal shows an armoured protome, viewed from behind, holding a spear in one hand, and with a shield on the shoulder. The head, turned to the left (to the left of the viewer) and crowned with laurel leaves, is a portrait of Caracalla (Fig. 33). The reverse of the medal depicts Alexander hunting a boar; the inscription reads 'King Alexander'. 80

If we accept the above, i.e., there exists a portrait of Caracalla connected with the granting of the Constitutio Antonininia, and that the latter is related to Caracalla's imitation of Alexander, we .would expect to find some element in the picture linking it with Alexander. However, Thompson himself claims that the horseman depicted is connected with the god Heron, the Thracian horse-riding god as often portrayed in Roman Egyptian art.

The appearance of Caracalla on the obverse of one of the Abu-Kir medals might prove that the medals were minted during his reign. However, as with the gold, silver, and copper Macedonian coins, there is no way to establish and prove when the gold medals from Tarsus and the Abu-Kir medals were minted, as they contain no indication as to their date; thus researchers' opinions on this matter are divided 46 • Yalouris (ibid.) holds that Caracalla's appearance on one of the medals is evidence that the medals were minted after his death, possibly during the reign of Alexander Severus.

Whether or not the above was an offering, either private or official, and whether it is indeed a portrait of Caracalla made in or around 212, it seems that there was a preference for depicting the emperor in a manner acceptable to most inhabitants, not in a way likely to anger them. The inhabitants of Alexandria would certainly not be enamoured of the idea of Caracalla imitating Alexander the Great.

Moreover, there is doubt and disagreement among leading numismatists regarding the authenticity of these medals, particularly those from Abu-Kir, and so far, no solution 47 acceptable to most scholars has been found .

Hence, if this is really a portrait of Caracalla, it contains nothing indicating his tendency to identify with Alexander the Great.

Does other numismatic evidence prove the hypothesis that these medals were minted during Caracalla's rule? First, the absence of Alexander the Great's portrait on coins of Alexandria minted during Caracalla's reign is striking. However, the link between the city's founder and its name may be reflected in other ways, for example, by presenting a personified image of the city.

The above indicates that even if we assume those coins and medals, the subject of disagreement, to have been made during Caracalla's reign, they cannot be considered proof of his identification with Alexander the Great, or his wish to publicize his admiration for his hero.

The first image of this type, regarding both its chronology and its emphasis on the link between the city's name and its founder Alexander, is the depiction of a woman wrapped in, wearing, or holding a lion skin. This personification of Alexandria does not appear at all in coins of Alexandria minted during Caracalla's reign 48 • In other words, during Caracalla's reign, Alexandria's mint opted not only to exclude Alexander's portrait from its coins, but to refrain from any hint which might be interpreted as indicating a link between Caracalla and the city's founder. In the light of the Alexandrians' resentment and hatred of Caracalla, these decisions are understandable, and support the contention that Egypt was almost certainly not one of Caracalla's targets in spreading his Alexander theme 49 •

Finally, the epigraphic evidence requires examining. Not a single one of the many inscriptions discovered throughout the Empire and dating from Caracalla's reign even hints at the subject of Alexander the Great. No mention of Alexander is made in stone-etched letters sent to the inhabitants of towns, nor in private dedicatory inscriptions, made in payment for vows or for any other purpose and in which the emperor's name indicates the date of the inscription. No mention of Alexander is made in collective dedicatory inscriptions of towns or army units, nor on milestones anywhere in the Empire. The lack of this subject on inscriptions discovered along the route of Caracalla's journey to the East is especially noteworthy. If his imitation of Alexander had really surfaced and become public knowledge during this journey, the route of which was "one more link in the chain of Caracalla's Alexander-mania," as Levick (1969, 440) states, it would be reasonable to assume that the places through which he passed would be the ones in which he would announce his admiration publicly. Not a hint of this has been discovered.

It would appears that coins minted in Alexandria during Caracalla's reign cannot provide any evidence that the AbuKirgold medals were minted while Caracalla was emperor. A tempera drawing on a wood panel, discovered at Fayum and depicting an armoured horseman - currently in the Hartford collection - should also be mentioned (Thompson, 1975, 321-325). Although the rider is portrayed with distinctive facial features, the identity of the subject is uncertain. Thompson (foe. cit.) claims that it is a portrait of Caracalla, and that the rider's manner of sitting this horse is reminiscent of statues of Alexander the Great on horseback, as they have survived in Roman copies. In Thompson's view, th is portrait was made around the year 212 to commemorate the granting of the Constitutio Antonininia, and it belongs to the group of private or official offerings, constituting some evidence of Caracalla's imitation of Alexander the Great.

Moreover, not a single inscription dating from Caracalla's reign has been discovered anywhere in the Empire, not even a coin inscription in which he is referred to directly or indirectly as Alexander the Great as, according to the author of the Epitome, he himself had ordered (21.4). Inscriptions have been found, dated to Caracalla's rule, which primarily bring Hercules to mind, sometimes mentioning the emperor's name, and sometimes without. (See, for example, CIL, VI, 305: Dea Herculi comiti et 81

conservatori dominorum nostrorum.) Hercules had many including Conservator, Romanus, Defensor, and Victor. As with coins, however, the mention of Hercules in

signs, the target will not understand them, and thus will not absorb the message the propagandist wishes to convey to him; i.e., there is no communication between them.

titles,

inscriptions was not a new phenomenon in the Empire, and did not originate with Caracalla's accession to the throne (Hercules featured very prominently in inscriptions from Commodus' reign). It must also be borne in mind that Hercules was one of the patron gods of Lepcis Magna, so it is not surprising that he is mentioned both in coin inscriptions and in other dedications. Finally, Hercules' mention in inscriptions, especially when accompanied by one of the above titles, does not necessarily link him with Alexander the Great.

For example, contemporary historians describe certain climatic miracles at length, which were believed to be a message sent from heaven by the gods; they constituted a deliberate verbal sign, understood during that time 50 • A characteristic hairstyle, or attributes of a god accompanying a certain figure, are examples of deliberate signs, the same as · . 51. an zcon un d erstoo db y contemporanes In the case of an emperor identifying himself with a godly or heroic figure, which could be regarded as propaganda regarding the worship of that god, or as a declaration by the emperor of his special attitude to that hero, supporting evidence from the literary sources regarding this identification is still required. Iconographic, numismatic, and epigraphic evidence must be clear enough, both to be accepted as proof of identification, and to be understood and recognized by each and every citizen of the Empire; it must also fill the gaps left by ancient literary sources 52 •

Thus, it seems that the epigraphic evidence offers even less support than does numismatic evidence to the claim that Alexander the Great was the theme of a propaganda campaign.

*

*

*

Conclusion: Our survey of the literary sources has shown that there is no doubt regarding Caracalla's persistence in imitating Alexander the Great at every opportunity. Nonetheless, we find that contemporary historians were probably swayed by their personal feelings towards Caracalla when describing his reign, and made no effort to hide them (most modem scholars agree with this assumption). We may reasonably assume that they exaggerated their descriptions of Caracalla's behaviour, and exploited every detail which could damage his reputation and blacken his name.

We have used the available able sources to study Caracalla's reign, to try to establish whether his imitation of Alexander the Great, described at length in the literary sources, can be considered a political scheme, or propaganda which he wished to disseminate throughout the Empire. The first question to ask when investigating a topic which appears to be a propaganda theme, is: what is the basis for determining whether a certain idea carries a propaganda message?

In the event of such a political scheme, the group most likely to be Caracalla's target was either the inhabitants of the eastern provinces, his troops, or the Senate. The literary, numismatic, epigraphic, and artistic evidence, however, raise uncertainties regarding the target group.

As stated in the introduction, propaganda must be someone's (the propagandist's) intention to transmit a particular message to a particular group (the target), for a particular purpose. The message may be stated explicitly, implied, or conveyed by use of commonly accepted signs which the propagandist assumes are recognized by the target. The message also requires a medium through which it is transmitted. In other words, the six basic elements of propaganda are: a propagandist, a target, a medium, signs or words, a message, and a purpose. These elements are the sine qua non of propaganda, but they are also closely interdependent.

Our study shows that if the aim of the political plan was to pay lip-service to the eastern provinces, Caracalla must have known that Egypt could not be a target for such a message. It is uncertain whether Caracalla's actions actually impressed the other eastern provinces, or whether they merely pretended. In any event, the absence of any dedication or other inscription in those areas which indicate, directly or indirectly, Caracalla's identification with Alexander the Great, throws further doubt on their being the target for such a message.

An icon, picture or facial likeness, is a deliberate sign bearing a similarity to the subject it is meant to indicate. In other words, the icon's form clearly implies a specific message, which must somehow relate to the subject. This relationship and its interpretation are based on concepts or traditional symbols which are intrinsic elements of a particular culture or period.

If the message was directed at the Senate, Caracalla could not have been blind to the members' hostility to him, particularly after Geta's murder and his contemptuous behaviour towards them while in Nicomedia.

If the troops were the target of the message, its purpose being to strengthen their support and trust in the emperor, this could not be achieved by means of association with

In other words, the message, whether verbal or visual, incorporates signs which the propagandist assumes are familiar to the target. If the propagandist uses unfamiliar

82

Alexander the Great. It would thus seem that they were not the target.

Alexander's behaviour in the finest detail. Caracalla's conduct in imitating Alexander is given full and detailed coverage in contemporary historiography, because like Commodus-Hercules, Caligula, and other emperors, he was the central figure of the Empire, the focus of everyone's attention53 •

The coin and dedicatory inscriptions do not convey a clear and unambiguous message regarding Alexander. Not a single inscription explicitly referring to Caracalla as Alexander the Great has yet been discovered. Signs on coins are, at best, ambiguous, and most of the citizens of the Empire and Caracalla's troops probably did not associate such signs with the message aimed at them. There is also doubt and debate about the dates of coins and medallions on which Alexander's portrait appears. Even assuming that these coins date from Caracalla's reign, there is no conclusive evidence that he initiated their minting.

Note that after Geta's murder, Caracalla had to reinforce his claim to the throne at all costs and as quickly as possible. He knew that his survival as emperor depended largely on the support of his troops. He dared not forget that he held power more as the son of a well-known, legitimate emperor, than in his own right. The principle of dynastic succession would probably have gained him more support from his troops than the theme of Alexander the Greeat54 .

Caracalla's portraits give no clear indication of his attitude towards Alexander the Great; in fact, there are no definite similarities between his portraits and those of Alexander. Furthermore, the attributes characteristic of Alexander which may have proved Caracalla's desire to resemble him, are conspicuous by their absence from Caracalla's portraits. Without a target group, a clear message, a clear purpose, or a medium for disseminating the message, there are no grounds to assume the existence of deliberate propaganda. It seems that modem scholars have invested Caracalla's Alexandermania with propagandist significance and political motives, but without definite proof. This discussion was first based on the limitations of written contemporary and later sources regarding the period of Caracalla's reign. Next, archaeological evidence was examined in an attempt to reveal the reality behind the written texts. Apparently, the testimony of a contemporary historian recording current events cannot be taken on trust. Understanding written information requires knowledge of why it was written, and the fact that it exists does not prove its veracity. We have seen how, in the case of Caracalla and Alexander the Great, hatred and hostility towards the emperor caused a contemporary historiographer to exaggerate his account, and even distort the true facts. Our contention is that Caracalla's imitation of Alexander the Great was simply the result of a very personal craze, similar to Trajan, who, according to Dio [68.29.1] also imitated Alexander the Great, even expressing his wish to "surpass the exploits of Hercules son of Philip". Trajan is compared to Hercules by Panegrist Senatorili [Pliny, Paneg., 14.5], and Trajan also appears as Hercules on coins [RIC, II, 293-4; also: Liebeshuetz, 1979, 173f.; Rubin, 1971, 165]. Apparently, Trajan's motives were entirely non political, and it was clearly not his intention to spread official propaganda. Even in childhood, Caracalla was fascinated by Alexander the Great. Hero-worship is not a modem phenomenon, and was common amongst children and youth in antiquity. However, Caracalla's imitation of Alexander went beyond the bounds of the normal as it continued into his adult life, becoming even more extreme as he began copying 83

The second type (Fig. 4) is characterized mainly by a row of separate twisting curls hanging vertically over the forehead, covering it either partially or completely. The rest of the head's curls are arranged the same way as in type I. The style of the_beard is different, sometimes similar to type I, and sometimes with the curls divided into two groups. Another characteristic of type II is the modius, the fertility symbol, worn on the head.

Appendix II: Septimius Severus and the Egyptian God Serapis*

The accepted view among modem researchers in the field of portraits of Lucius Septimius Severus is that one type of these portraits expresses his special relationship with the Egyptian god Serapis. There is a tendency in modem research to regard this type of portrait as a reflection of a policy of religious propaganda, by which Septimius Severus sought to identify himself with the god Serapis 1.

The fact that there are two types of portrait of Serapis in the plastic arts is problematic, making it impossible to know which of them represents his ritualistic image, created at the beginning of the Hellenistic period for the Serapeum in Alexandria by the young sculptor Bryaxis. There is no doubt that Bryaxis made only one portrait of the god, and the other was made at some other time, perhaps later, by another sculptor. The earliest image in the plastic arts of Serapis with curls falling over his forehead appears in the bust of Serapis in Alexandria, dating from the period of Marcus Aurelius, whereas the version without curls on the forehead is found in many copies, no later than the period of Antoninus Pius.

It is the purpose of this discussion to analyze and reconsider this commonly held opinion.

A detailed discussion of the cult of the god Serapis falls outside the scope of the present study, but the matter in hand requires some basic, concise information about Serapis and his portraits in the plastic arts.

It should also be noted that, in general, Serapis is portrayed in a sitting position. This type of image is usually fashioned in the Hellenistic style, outwardly similar in its main characteristics to Zeus and Asclepius. Although Serapis is identified with many other gods, and therefore possesses their attributes in addition to his own, e.g., the staff and serpent of Asclepius, the sceptre of Zeus/Jupiter, the ram's horns of Ammon, etc., the modius appears on Serapis' head as early as the end of the Hellenistic period as a specific attribute of Serapis. Cerberus' appearance, as a specific attribute of Serapis, is more commonly found in his representations during the Roman Empire, especially from the second century; it is particularly prominent as typifying Serapis on imperial coins. The earliest evidence of Cerberus characterizing Serapis dates from Nero's reign (see note 2).

Cumont (1911, 73 et seq., mainly pp. 81-82) claims that very little is known of the early form of worship of Serapis and its characteristics before the Roman Empire. Even in ancient times various writers (e.g., Tacitus, Histories 4, 83-84) attempted to investigate the roots and nature of the rituals related to Serapis; modem researchers2 have undertaken the same task, and there are as many opinions as there are researchers. Modem research agrees that the centre of the Serapis cult was located in Alexandria, and that the date of his entrance into Egyptian theology and his appearance in different parts of the Greek world was no earlier than the third century BCE. Opinions are also united on the syncretic image of Serapis. In Egypt, Serapis was primarily identified with Osiris, Apis the bull, and Ammon; in the Greek world, and thereafter in the Roman world as well, Serapis was identified with Zeus/Jupiter, Asclepius, Dionysus, Helios/Sol, and Pluto.

Contemporary and later literary sources, along with epigraphic proof, can be used to examine whether reasonable or supporting evidence exists showing that Emperor Septimius Severus had a special attitude to the Egyptian god Serapis, while numismatic and iconographic evidence can be used to examine whether any visual expression of such a special relationship exists.

It should be noted that there is no definite evidence that Serapis had a secret ritual; his ritual was almost certainly of a public nature. It would therefore follow that a visit to the Serapeum in Alexandria did not require any special ritual. As many dedications connected with Serapis, both in and out of ~gyp~, genera~ly incorporated requests for help in healing, it 1s qmte certam that anyone could visit the Serapeum in Alexandria to pray or ask for help.

L'Orange was the first scholar to identify a "Severus-Serapis" portrait type in his book Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture in 1947, (pp. 77-86). His view was adopted by many researchers, among them McCann (1968, 48-57, 79-80, 109116) and Soechting (1972), whose studies on Septimius Severus' portraits contain the most comprehensive discussions on this subject published to date.

The images of Serapis in surviving plastic art forms can be divided into two types: the first (Fig. 3) depicts Serapis as having a heavy, full, rich mane of hair consisting of wavy ~urls combed backwards, raised above the forehead leaving it exposed, then falling downwards on both sides of the head covering the temples and ears and reaching the shoulders'. The beard is of medium length, rich in separate spiralling curls.

These scholars base their views primarily on the affinity between Severus' hair style and beard as depicted in his relief portraits and statues, and those of Serapis in his surviving statues, which are, in fact, only Roman copies.

84

Mccann ( 1968, pp. 63-64, 67, 110) also identifies Serapis' curls in Severus' coin portraits. Some researchers, however, claim that it is impossible to identify the formation of the curls on the forehead with any certainty in the small profiles • 3 on coms.

chiton with a cloak thrown over the left shoulder, falling down the back, drawn up on the right, covering the legs. L'Orange [ibid.] goes on to state that there are so many similarities between the two images that it is almost inconceivable that the seated figure in the Lepcis relief was fashioned without reference to the image of Serapis (also: McCann, 1968, 63-64, 67, 110).

Furthermore, no satisfactory proof based on contemporary and later literary sources has as yet been provided in modem research showing that Severus had a special attitude towards Serapis, an Egyptian god, to the extent that he wanted to resemble him, apart from one single sentence in HA, Sev., 17.7, which we will discuss to below.

There are similarities between the image of Septimius Severus and that of Serapis to be discussed below. Nevertheless, a closer comparison of the sculpted portraits of Severus (Figs. 7, 8) with those of Serapis (Figs. 3, 4) reveals that there are also significant differences between them, both in the styling of the hair, and in the way the beard is arranged.

Let us examine the basis of modem research's popular opinion regarding the similarity between Septimius Severus' and those of Serapis' hair style and beard. A comparison of the portraits of Septimius Severus, particularly those in the historical reliefs which definitely represent Severus (Figs. 1.2), with the two most common types of representation of Serapis (Figs. 3,4), reveals the following points regarding the hair and beard styles:

* Severus' beard ends with pointed curls, a feature particularly noticeable in his coin portraits (see Figs. 34-39, for example), while Serapis' beard is usually shown as having rounded ends.

* Both have rising, wavy curls on the head, leaving the forehead almost completely exposed (Figs. 1,3).

* Serapis' hair falls down along the sides of his face, covering the temples and ears, and reaching down to his shoulders, while Severus' locks are combed backwards, exposing the temples and ears, and covering only the nape of his neck.

Regarding the beard, we find the following:

* The locks of Serapis' hair fall over the forehead and cover

* Both have a mane of curly locks, with separate spiral curls falling over the forehead (Figs. 2,4).

it fully in one mass, and not as separate curls, while in Severus' portraits, those in which some of his locks fall onto his forehead, they are clearly separated, designed as a spearpoint, and do not completely cover his forehead.

* Both have rich curly beards, with each curl styled separately (Figs. 1-4).

* In both types, the beard is split in the middle, and the curls are divided into two groups (Figs. 1,2).

In view of these differences, Serapis' most distinctive attributes, the modius or Cerberus, are conspicuous by their absence.

According to L'Orange (ibid. p. 77ff.), decisive evidence of Severus' tendency to resemble Serapis is furnished by the famous relief scenes, known as the "The Capitoline Triad", on the arch erected in Severus' honour at Lepcis Magna, depicting three figures (Fig. 5). The central figure is seated on the throne, an eagle at his feet. This figure is identified as Septimius Severus by the remains of the beard, and by the female figure on his left, bearing Julia Domna's characteristic features, primarily her hair style.

In the light of the above, a few questions immediately arise: Do the superficial similarities described above provide a sufficient basis to claim that Severus pursued a religious policy of identifying himself with Serapis? If such a policy existed, is it possible that no ancient historiographic relics exist?

L'Orange (ibid.) argues that the seated figure in the relief, was inspired by the cult statue of Serapis, showing the god seated on the throne (Fig. 6). This image of Serapis is thought to be a copy of the cult statue which stood in the Serapeum in Alexandria, the original of which was made by the Greek sculptor Bryaxis (3rd century B.C.E.).

Are these similarities exclusive to the portraits of Severus and Serapis? The last question can be answered quite easily. One need simply compare the portraits of Serapis with those of other gods such as Zeus (Fig. 9), Jupiter (Fig. 10), Asclepius (Fig. 11), Ammon (Fig. 12), or Satumus (Fig. 13), to see that there are great similarities between the formation of hairstyle and the beard in portraits of Serapis and those of other gods, to the extent that without each of the latter's distinctive attributes it would be diffficult to identify them positively (see note 2 above, and also Cook, 1914-1940).

In both examples, the enthroned figure sits with the right foot forward, the left foot drawn back. The left hand is raised holding what is assumed to be a sceptre (today missing in both), while the right hand hangs down. In the case of Serapis, the hand is probably resting on Cerberus' head (missing in the extant copy). Both figures are wearing a short

85

Furthermore, just as Serapis' figure was compared to that of Severus, it can also be compared to those of other emperors of the second century, e.g., Marcus Aurelius (Fig. 14), Lucius Verus (Fig. 15), and Commodus (Fig. 16), as well as to those of Severus' rivals: Pescennius Niger (Fig. 17), and Claodius Albinus (Fig. 18). The shaps of the hair and the beard is common, to a certain extent, to all the examples mentioned above4.

there is the famous image of Commodus in the Conservatori Museum in Rome (Fig. 16), and his coin portraits and medallions, primarily from 192, the last year of his reign [see for example: BMC. IV. 755. nos. 355-356, pis. 99.1820, 100.7.8.19, 111.2.4.6; Gnecchi (1912), II, pis. 72(2), 79(8-10, 80(1-7)]. Thus, whereas we find specific attributes of Hercules in portraits of Commodus, we find only certain similarities in the case of Severus-Serapis, perhaps coincidental, in the styling of the hair and beard in portraits of both Serapis and Severus, though we do not find Serapis' characteristic attributes in portraits of Severus.

As for the seated posture of Severus in the Lepcis relief, which according to L'Orange [ibid.] is reminiscent of Serapis' figure in the plastic arts, it should be noted this posture is not exclusive to statues of Severus.

McCann (1968, pp. 54-55) uses the additional archaeological evidence which, in her view, indicates Severus' tendency regarding Serapis, such as the dedications linking Emperor Septimius Severus with Serapis worship, and a temple in honour of Serapis and sculpted heads of the god unearthed in Britain, the style of which dates them to the end of the second, or beginning of the third century.

In both historical reliefs and three-dimensional statues, the emperor is generally depicted seated, with one foot forward and the other drawn back. He is always shown fully dressed, exactly like Severus in the Lepcis relief. A good example of a seated figure is the famous porphyry statue from Caesarea Maritima, attributed to Hadrian (Fig. 19; Vilnai (1979), "Caesaria", p. 6606 et seq.). The same posture can be found in representations of various emperors, especially in scenes on historical reliefs (e.g., Fig. 20)5.

The dedications include one from Egypt, dedicated to the goddess Isis [ILS, II, 1, 4356], a second from Upper Panonia dedicated to the god Serapis [ILS, III, 1, 4560], and another two from Britain [CIL, VI, 298; VII, 240; also: Harris (1965, pp. 75-76). A study of the above reveals that these were private dedications made in return for vows fulfilled in a fitting manner. The appearance of Emperor Septimius Severus's name in two of the dedications, those from Egypt and from Upper Panonia, indicate the date of the inscriptions according to the customary practice.

Morereover, it should be noted that this sitting posture is not peculiar to Serapis. Jupiter, for example, is usually depicted in exactly the same posture (Fig. 21 ), as are other deities. In the light of the above, it seems impossible to indicate unequivocal similarities between images of Severus and Serapis; if such exist, they are merely coincidental and can also be found in statues of various gods, in portraits of other emperors, and in those of Severus' rivals.

As far as the finds from Britain are concerned, the Harrises [ibid. pp. 74-79] claim that there is scant evidence of Serapis and Isis worship in Britain, and what there is, is of doubtful significance. It is almost certain, they continue, that the British archaeological finds indicate that worship of Serapis spread to the western edge of the Roman Empire.

Because portraits of Severus discovered so far lack Serapis' specific identifying symbols (the modius or Cerberus) it seems that any visual expression suggesting that Severus imitated Serapis is not clear or unabiguous enough to be accepted as proof that he did so. If this is the case, the question arises: why do we accept visual representations of Commodus as evidence of his identification with Hercules, but do not accept those of Severus identifying him with Serapis?

Is this sufficient, however, to prove an imperial initiative?

If we compare the two claims, Severus' identification with

It was shown earlier that the existence of eastern cult practises in the Roman army could exist only under a policy of tolerance. In all the above cases these aspects of worship, whether temples, dedicatory gifts or inscriptions, were discovered outside army bases, specifically outside the fortresses of auxiliary forces positioned at the various borders, where the praetorium was the central figure in official worship. This proves that there was a clear policy of removing all cult forms, local or eastern, from the official religion. It seems that dedicatory inscriptions, whether by members of the higher army ranks or by army units, were merely another expression of official tolerance towards these cults. It must be remembered that tolerance towards these cults is very different from including them in the official religion6.

Is it enough to prove that Severus adopted Serapis into the official Roman religion, as Mccann claims?

Serapis and Commodus' identification with Hercules, we find the differences instructive. Commodus' use of Hercules' clearest attributes, the lion-skin or the club, or both together, which accompany Commodus' image in the visual media (e.g., Fig. 16) is not the only evidence of his identification with this deity. Commodus' identitication with Hercules left a wealth of literary sources which attest to his Hercules-mania and to his devoutness in this matter [Dio, 73(72).15.2, 20.2, 22.3; Herod., 1.14.8-9, 1.15.9; HA, Comm., 8.5, 9.2, 9.6, 11.8]. Even without the literary evidence, Commodus' use of specific signs of affinity with Hercules' in his portraits is so apparent that there is no room left for doubt. For instance, 86

In the light of the archaeological discoveries, primarily in Britain, it would seem that Septimius Severus did not bridge the gap between the two aspects of religious tolerance and introduction into the official religion; furtheremore, these discoveries do not provide proof of Severus' attitude towards Serapis.

of the material available to him, though he was generally loyal to Dio's text9 • It requires only a brief look at Xiphilinius' summary to see that other details regarding Serapis and his worship, where described by Dio, were not omitted. Dio (Xiphilinius) mentions Serapis and his worship eight times, four at the end of the period of the Republic: in 52 BCE [40.3-4], in 48 BCE [42.26.2], in 42 B.C.E. [47.15.4], and in 30 BCE [51.16.2-4]; four times during the imperial period, once during Titus's reign in 80 [66(66).24.1-2], and three times during Caracalla's reign in 215 [79(78).7.3-4, 15.5, 23.1-2].

It seems, therefore, that identifying an emperor's appearance with a particular deity, which could be considered a visual expression of the emperor's leanings towards that deity, requires positive support from literary sources in the absence of the deity's customary attributes in the visual representations of the emperor.

Further evidence shows, however, that these are just details of the spread of Serapis and Isis' cult in Rome itself 10, and other details relating to the scandal of Caracalla's visit to Alexandria (on this see above App. I, p. 69 and passim). A careful study of these details reveals that Dio's attitude to the Egyptian cult was not only cynical, but hostile; this is particularly evident in his accounts of the years 52 and 30 BCE It is therefore reasonable to assume that if Severus' visit to the Serapeum had special significance beyond the normal political framework, it is quite certain that it would not be omitted from Xiphilius' summary.

A careful study of contemporary literary sources, the same as those which report on Commodus' 'Hercules mania' in detail, reveals on utter silence regarding anything connected with Severus' self-identification with Serapis, or with any special attitude of Severus towards Serapis. One particular contemporary literary work is Dio's "Roman History". Although this has survived only in fragmentary form in Xiphilinius' summary and in pages of the late Byzantine encyclopaedias, it is considered a reliable source regarding the Severan period 7 • It also preserves details regarding Commodus' identification with Hercules, as well as Caracalla's imitation of Alexander the Great (see above App. I et seq.), and details of Elagabalus' fanatical behavior regarding his sun god (see above Chap. 4 et seq.). It contains a detailed description of Severus' visit to Egypt, and the closure of Alexander the Great's sepulchre in Alexandria [76(75).13.1-2], and goes on to describe the sources of the Nile 8.

Moreover, Dio, an amicus of the emperor, appointed to the imperial cons ilium [e.g., 76(75).16.4, 77(76).5.1, 6.1, 11.1, 17.1- 4 11], who wrote about even the most trivial of the emperor's activities [e.g., 77(76).16, 17], would definitely have known if the emperor had a special leaning toward the god Serapis, and would have reported it, especially in light of Dio's conservative attitude towards the official religion, and in light of his reservations, expressed in his own words, regarding the foreign eastern religions which permeated the imperial capital. Dio's "History" cannot, however, serve as a source for studying religious currents, as his descriptions are essentially secular; nevertheless, Dio reveals his opinion on the religion of the state and on the penetration of eastern religons only indirectly. He uses Tucidides' method of speeches, and lets Meacenas speak his words for him [52.240, mainly 52.36.1-3]. Furthermore, the divine omens and prophecies, rife in Dio's "History", are sufficient proof that Dio represents the conservative senatorial tradition regarding anything religious 12 •

Elsewhere [51.17.2-3], Dio (Xiphilinius) also recounts the establishment of a senate in Alexandria during Severus' reign. Although this report is apparently a mere footnote, Dio (Xiphilinius) considered this action too important to be omitted. We would expect to find some information on Severus' special attitude towards Serapis in the description of Severus' visit to Egypt, but there is not even the slightest mention of it. We learn from a later source, moreover, that during his trip to Egypt, Severus visited the Serapeum in Alexandria. In Dio' s description of Severus' Egyptian journey there is no mention of such a visit. Mention is made of Caracalla's stopping in the Serapeum in Egypt [78(77).23 .1-2], as well as Caracalla's visits to other temples [for example, 78(77).15.5-6], as well as visits by other emperors to holy places, such as Augustus, who was "initiated into the secrets of the cult of Demeter-Ceres" [Dio, 51.4.1, 54.9. 10], Vespasian in the Serapeum [Dio, 65(64).8.1-2], Hadrian [Dio 68(68).11.1], and Marcus Aurelius [Dio, 72(71).31.1 ], who was "initiated into the mysterious secrets in Eleusis".

Because Serapis worship was not one of the official cults of official Roman religion during the reign of Septimius Severus 13, it may be assumed that Severus' visit to the Serapeum in Alexandria had no significance beyond the normal in imperial policy; it is almost certain that Septimius Severus had no special attitude towards Serapis. Otherwise, in the light of the above, Dio, and later Xiphilinius, would have taken the trouble to report it. The other contemporary literary source is Herodian's report. Although this is the sole contemporary source to have survived intact, Herodian's lack of credibility as a contemporary historian regarding events he describes permits his work to make only a limited contribution to the reconstruction of historical truth 14• Nonetheless, it seems that

Dio's original text may have contained a reference to the visit, which may have been omitted by Xiphilinius. In fact, modem research holds the view that Xiphilinius' summary is not a reliable synopsis of Dio's writing, but rather a selection 87

Herodian, like Dio, was especially interested in the strange behaviour of emperors, such as Commodus' identification with Hercules, Caracalla's with Alexander the Great, or Elagalabus' religious policy. Unlike Dio, however, Herodian makes no mention at all of Severus' visit to Egypt, although this does not necessarily prove that he did not know of the Emperor's journey.

certainly did not serve his purpose. Hence the om1ss10n, similar to that of the entire story of the first Parthian war, as well as other particulars regarding Severus. Also noteworthy is another significant fact in Herodian's "History": detailed descriptions of religions, faiths, and various cults occupied prominent positions in his text, as do descriptions of the different cult statues. He described, for example, the celebration honouring Kybele in Rome during Commodus' reign [l.l 1.5-1.10.5], and described "the black stone of Emesa" in detail [5.6.10-5.3.3]. However, he only mentions the Egyptian god Serapis in connection with the reason for Caracalla's visit to Alexandria, and even then does not actually state the god's name, but refers to him offhandedly as "the god especially respected by the people there" [4.8.6-9]. Although this god may not have interested him, it seems that in most cases in which Herodian interrupts a continuous recounting of events to discuss a particular cult, the cult is usually connected in one way or another, to the events being described. Thus, in reporting the slaughter carried out in Alexandria on Caracalla's orders, killings which he described in great detail [4.9.1-8], he does not digress, despite Caracalla's scandalous behavior in the temple. Apparently Herodian may not have known enough details about this particular god, and may even not have recognized it at all.

In the introduction to his description of Severus' reign, Herodian states that he will write "all the most important things about Severus' activities, in chronological order" [2.15.7]. However, a quick look at his report reveals that, his declaration notwithstanding, apart from the omission of important facts, his report contains many errors. For example, he combines Severus' two Parthian campaigns, and declares that Severus postponed the seige at Hatra and the invasion of Parthia because he first wanted to ensure his rule of the Empire [3.5.1; 3.9.1 et seq.]; he also dates Severus' Ludi Saeculares before the second Parthian campaign [3.8. IO]. Just as he does not mention Severus' visit to Palestine and Egypt in the years 199-200, he does not mention Severus' trip to North Africa in 203-4 (or 202- 3) 15• Further, in the introduction to his article, Herodian describes the ideal ruler [1.2.1-4]. The period of Marcus Aurelius' reign "in which the Empire was ruled honourably" [2.10.3; 2.14.3] serves as his model of the ideal rule. Although Herodian has some words of praise for the emperor when describing Severus and his actions [e.g. 2.9.2; 2.14.12], he attacks Severus for the reign of terror he imposed [e.g., 3.8.2-3; 3.4.7], for his monetary greed [e.g., 3.8.7], for the cheap manner in which he tried to buy the hearts of his troops and other inhabitants of the Empire [e.g., 2.14.5; 3.8.9-10], and especially for the fact that the prime motive for all Severus' actions was "the desire to win personal praise for himself" [3.9 .1]. Herodian's attitude towards Severus was negative, not just because he did not live up to Herodian's model of the ideal ruler, as Rubin claims (1980, I 06; 1975a, ibid.), but also because the "inhabitants of the eastern part of the Empire, who supported Pescennius Niger, apparently still bore Severus a grudge long after Niger's death".

There are other instances of such digressions in Herodian's text. It would seem, however, that his knowledge of religions and different cults common throughout the Empire was quite shallow. In several instances Herodian compounds various stories, for example, he adds Pessinus' legend of Kybele, along with other stories of Troy, Ganimad, and the discovery of the palladium near Troy to the story of Kybele [1.11.1-3]. This, and other similar instances, prove that despite Herodian's claim that he "made inquiries into these matters" [1.1 l.l], it is clear that his errors arise from insufficient knowledge of these topics 17• In light of the fact that Herodian is capable of describing other emperors' attitudes towards certain gods, or towards certain heroes, such as Commodus' Hercules mania, or Caracalla's attraction to Alexander the Great, and bearing in mind that Herodian occasionally deviates from a continuous account of events in order to provide lengthy descriptions of different cults, it is reasonable to assume that if Serapis really were the object of imitation by Emperor Severus, and if this fact would have served his purpose, i.e., damaging Severus' reputation at any cost, this item would have found its way into his writing in one way or another.

If we accept the fact that Herodian was born and spent most of his life in the eastern part of the Empire, one may assume that his attitude would be affected by his anti-Severan feelings, and that his choice of "the important facts of Severus' activities" was governed by these feelings.

There are other examples in which Herodian utilizes every possible detail to damage Severus' reputation, such as the chain of events in the struggle between Niger and Severus [e.g., 2. 7.8], or the description of the fall of Byzantium [3.6.9]. Indeed, the general view in modem research is that Herodian exhibits a consistent selection of facts, and a 16 tendency to blacken Severus' name .

Although Dio makes no mention of Severus' visit to the Serapeum, and although Herodian does not mention Severus' journey to Egypt, this does not necessarily prove that contemporary historians did not know of the visit or journey. We may assume that Severus' visit to the Serapeum, and his journey to Egypt, were not of sufficient interest to his contemporaries, if only because they held no special significance beyond what was normal in terms of imperial policy during that period.

Even if we assume that Herodian knew about Severus' visit to Egypt, we may suppose that it was not of great interest to him, as he did not find enough details which could provide material to blacken the emperor's name; thus, the visit almost 88

It then follows that the visit to Egypt does not indicate a

are quite small, however, because of the assumed abbreviated nature of this source. Even if we accept the premise that the KG is the source of the information, it is still in itself a later source 24 •

special attitude towards Serapis on Severus' part. The same silence regarding Severus' attraction to Serapis is prevalent in the short historical essays written during a later period, describing Septimius Severus' reign. As mentioned earlier, these sources are general summaries, written towards the end of the fourth century, but containing much accurate information 18 . The HA, as mentioned, also belongs to the same period, the second half of the fourth century 19• An additional source worthy of note, though written after the sixth century, is Malalas' Chronographia.

We are left with other two Latin sources: Marius Maximus and a biographical source, known in modem research as lgnotus whose author is unknown 25 • It should be noted that the situation in current research regarding the Latin sources of information used by the author of the HA, similar to the question of the Latin sources 6 , is in dispute; some regard used by the author of the KG2 Marius Maxim us as the primary source for the author of the HA, totally denying the existence of Jgnotus, while those who accept lgnotus, regard him and not Marius Maximus, as the primary source. According to the latter view, lgnotus is the prime source of the author of the HA, whereas Marius Maximus is a secondary source apparently discovered by the author only after the first version of the collection's biographies, up to Caracalla, had already been written. The prevailing opinion considers Marius Maximus a good source for provincial matters, while lgnotus is considered a reliable source regarding prosopographic and urban matters, as well as events in Rome and the surrounding area27 .

Of all these later sources, only two mention Severus' visit to Egypt: the HA and Johannus Malalas' Chronographia. Of these two, the HA is the only literary source which links the name of Emperor Septimius Severus with the god Serapis. It is also the source, as in the case of Dio and Herodian, which contains great detail on Commodus' identification with 20 Hercules [e.g., Comm., 8.5, 9.2-6, 11.8] . It has been noted above that this source raises numerous problems, especially since Dessau's article was written in 188921 •

This discussion will deal only with those problems associated with the description of Severus' visit to Egypt.

According to the description of events in Severus' biography in the HA, from chapter 16 to chapter 17.4 (the beginning of the section in which clear similarities to Aurelius Victor emerge), there is an apparent merging of facts, some of which are exact, of historical value, confirmed by other sources - including the visit to Egypt - and others which are pure fiction, of no historical value. For example, the author of the HA recounts that after the second Parthian campaign Severus endowed his son Geta with the name Antoninus, "as some people write in their essays" [16.4]. This detail is undoubtedly false, as Severus never gave the name Antoninus to his son Geta, according to all the literary, epigraphic, and numismatic sources currently available to us.

In Vita Severi, 17.4, the author of the HA states that Severus greatly enjoyed his visit to Egypt for several reasons, one of them being the religion of Serapis. We must first examine the nature and identity of the source, or sources, available to the author of the HA while describing the visit, to enable us to assess the reliability of the details in his description. The sentence dealing with the visit appears before the section copied almost word for word from Victor 22 , though Victor himself does not mention the visit23 It seems that Victor, therefore, does not appear to be the source from which the author of the HA drew his information.

Later, Severus' arrival in Antioch is described, as well as his bestowal of the toga virilis on his eldest son, Caracalla, and his appointment of him as joint-consul. The details are accurate, but do not appear in the correct chronological order of Severus' movements in the East. Although Caracalla did receive the toga virilis in Antioch, and was appointed jointconsul together with his father immediately afterwards, this occurred in 202, i.e., only after the journey to Egypt, which took place, as stated above, in 199/20028 •

The lost KG cannot help us in this matter. Modem research agrees that the KG was the joint source for Victor, Eutropius, and the author of the Epitome, as well as numerous other sources such as Festus, Hieronymus' Chronikon, and others. The author of the HA also used it, especially in Nebenviten, and in the sections following Caracalla and Elagabalus.

Although it must be emphasized that the above is merely a logical hypothesis, unsupported by any real proof, it seems that according to the description of events in Severus' biography as presented above, the account of his visit to Egypt is a postscript, added by the author of the HA after he had finished writing; it bears the mark of Marius Maxim us, a source discovered, according to the supporters of the Ignotus theory, only after the original versions of the main biographies, up to Caracalla, had been written.

From all the data gathered hitherto by modem research, it appears that the KG was a group of quite concise biographies, the amount of material in it only slightly more than in its source - the short essays. We may also assume that if the brief sources available to us summarized the KG to any degree, and a certain subject does not appear in one of the above sources, this does not prove that the topic was not included in the KG. as in the case of Severus' visit to Egypt, of which no mention appears in Victor's composition, in Eutropius', or in the Epitome. The chances of this happening 89

The account of Severus' Egyptian visit, even if it was a later addition, was presumably taken from a good source, Marius Maximus, and hence should be treated seriously. According to this hypothesis [17.4], the biography of Severus in the HA contains authentic historical information; assuming Severus did visit the Serapeum in Alexandria, and may even have unburdened his heart at the alter of the god, must this mean that he tried to identify himself with Serapis? Moreover, does every visit by an emperor to the temple of a particular deity somewhere in the Empire imply that he wanted to identify with that particular god?

reliable sources of information, and Malalas had access to them 33 • Moreover, some coins minted in Alexandria in the years 199/200, the year Severus visited Egypt, bear the inscription Kebele on the obverse, while the reverse shows Kebele wearing a crown [BMCG, Alexandria, 184, no. 1465, pl. VII; also Vogt (1924), I, 165, II, 115].

It thus seems reasonable that there is a connection between Kebele's appearance on coins and the erection of a temple, though it is also possible that Severus merely renovated an existing temple, as Vogt claims [(1924), I, p. 165], instead of building a new one. This seems an acceptable premise if we bear in mind Dio's claim [77(76).16.3] that Severus placed inscriptions in many buildings which he renovated, implying that he himself had built them.

There are numerous examples of visits by emperors to the temples of gods throughout the Empire in both historical and other sources, such as the visit by Vespasian to the Serapeum in Alexandria. Tacitus, [Chronicles, 4, 81], Suetonius [Divine Vespasian, 7], and Dio [66(65).8.1.2] describe and emphasize the story of Vespasian and the god Serapis in detail. His attitude towards Serapis emerges clearly from the numismatic evidence. We find Serapis depicted on coins of Alexanderia, from the eighth and ninth years of Vespasian's reign, as Zeus-Serapis (Vogt, 1924, I, 44). There are other examples as well , such as Pompeii's entry into the temple in Jerusalem [Joseph ben Matthias, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 14, 24.76, Wars of the Jews, 1, 7, 152.154; Tacitus, Chronicles, 5, 9]. As stated above, Caracalla's visits to the temples of various gods whom he admired also merited treatment in the literary sources, and are expressed in numismatic form 29 ; the pilgrimages to Athens by various Roman emperors, Severus among them, their initiation into the mysterious secret of Eleusis, as well as Severus' visit to Apollo's temple Belus during his eastern campaign, all received attention in the literary sources 30 .

In view of the above, we are unable to find convincing proof, in either contemporary or later written sources, that Emperor Severus had a special regard for Serapis to the extent that he wished to resemble him. In the absence of this topic from written sources, one might have expected such an important matter, an emperor's personal link with a deity, to have found clearer expression than indicated by L'Orange (1947) and Mccann (1968), such as the building of the Serapeum. Yet it has never been proved that Severus actually built that temple. Another medium which should have provided some evidence of Serapis during Severus' reign, is coins. However, as Mattingly has proved [BMC, V, cli; also Mattingly, 1932, 177-198] neither Serapis' image nor that of Jupiter-Serapis appears on any of Severus' coins. Furthermore, Nock [(1933), p. 129] points out that during Severus' reign there is no sign of an attempt to orientalize the official cults, except for the appearance of African Hercules and Bacchus (Liber), the patron gods of Lepcis-Magna, the city of Severus' birth. These too were first romanized, i.e., they passed through the filter of accepted Roman concepts, so that their depiction on coins matched the Graeco-Roman prototype. Bacchus and Hercules first appeared on Severus' coins as early as the year 194/5 [e.g., RIC, IV, I, 85, nos. 27a, 31, 32, pl. 5.8], and appeared constantly every year thereafter [e.g., the year 196/7: RIC, IV, 1, 100, no. 79; 157, no. 488; the year 197: 102-104, nos. 97, 99, 111, 112a].

Yet in not a single one of these instances is there any expression of an emperor personally identifying with the god whose temple he visited. It seems that in both written and other sources there is a clear distinction between emperors identifying themselves with gods, and their visiting the temples of various deities; thus Severus' visit to the Serapeum in Alexandria does not necessarily indicate a tendency to identify with Serapis. The other literary source mentioned above, which mentions Severus' journey to Egypt, though written about four hundred years after his death, is the Chronographia by Johannus Malalas, a sixth century Greek Byzantine historian who lived in Antioch, and who, in later years, moved to Constantinople upon being appointed Patriarch of the city 31 •

Note that Severus also minted another African coin, Saeculum Frugiferum, the Latin name of the god BaalAmmon, who was revered in many parts of North Africa, but who was essentially the patron god of the city Hadrumetum, the birthplace of Claudius Albinus. Severus never mentioned the African name of this god on his coins [e.g., RIC. IV, 1, 34 65, 93, no. 19, pl. 5.6; 180, no. 665] .

One of the characteristics of Malalas' writing is his interest in imperial visits and imperial building in the different cities of the Roman Empire. As regards Severus' visit to Egypt, Malalas writes that during the visit Severus built a temple to 32 the great mother, (Kebele) [CSHB, Bonn, Malalas, 293] , yet there is no mention of a visit to Serapeum.

Moreover, Vogt [(1924), I, p. 166] draws our attention to the fact that even the portraits of Egyptian gods are missing from the Alexandrian coins of Severus' reign. Neither do they appear on coins minted in honor of the building of a senate

Although Malalas' chronology Severus' Egyptian journey is confused (Hannestad, 1949, 204), there is no clear reason to disparage his information on Kebele's temple. There were 90

in Alexandria (also BMCG, Alexandria and the Nomes, 181184).

attributed to him with certainty, show him in early or later middle-age. Even in his earliest portraits, his receding hairline is apparent, and the forehead is clearly visible in practically all his portraits, the early ones as well as the later. Apparently, Bernoulli continues, the sculpted portrait type showing horizontal curls on the forehead, which is the most prominent and common of those which have survived, may express Severus' desire to appear younger than he really was.

Serapis' image does appear on the coins of some cities in the eastern part of the Empire, even during Severus' rule. However, the situation regarding coins from those cities was different from that in the western Empire, particularly Rome and even Antioch, part of the eastern region of the Empire. In those cities in the east (except for Antioch) which had the right to mint coins in imperial times, the image of the current emperor would appear on the obverse of each coin, while on the reverse there appeared a special characteristic of the city's mint itself, especially in the engraving of decorative patterns. Tyche, the goddess of cities, occupies a particularly prominent position in these patterns; other gods are also depicted, usually indicating the local cults prevalent in those cities, including Serapis. Serapis' appearance on these coins does not necessarily prove an imperial initiative regarding the official conduct of this cult in state religion Thus we find Serapis sitting on the throne, a sceptre in his right hand, Cerebrus at his feet, and the modius on his head, on the reverse of a coin of Caracalla from the city of Marcianopolis in Lower Moesia (BMCG, Thrace, etc., 29, no. 9). On the reverse of a coin of Julia Domna deted 208/9 from the city of Diospolis in Palestine, Serapis appears wearing the modius on his head. We find the same type on the reverse of a coin of Caracalla in the same year (Id. Palestine, 43, nos. I, 5).

If that is the case, the fact that there is no clear similarity between the portraits of Severus and those of Serapis, and the absence of any clear characteristics of Serapis in Severus' portraits, are consistent with the literary silence regarding any suggestion of a special attitude by Severus towards Serapis.

It should be noted that Serapis' portrait does not appear on Severus' coins minted in the eastern part of the Empire.

*

*

*

Conclusion: In summary, the contemporary and later written sources, and archaeological evidence, provide no convincing proof that Severus had a special attitude towards the Egyptian god Serapis to the extent that he wished to resemble him. Assuming an emperor identified himself with a deity it is hard to imagine that there would be no ancient historiographic mention. The total silence of all the literary sources regarding anything related to any attempt by Severus to identify himself with Serapis makes it very doubtful that he actually tried to do so. Moreover, in the absence of literary proof, any topic represented in the visual media must be clear, unequivocal, and unambiguously identifiable in order to be accepted as evidence and fill the gap left by the absence of literary sources. Bernoulli's (1894, 11,3, 30-35, mainly 30-31) hypothesis regarding Severus' hairstyle as depicted in the sculpted portrait type with curls on the forehead is interesting, and, I believe, reasonable. He claims that Severus acceded to the throne at a relatively advanced age (47), and not a single portrait depicts him in his twenties or sixties. The coin portraits, the relief portraits and the sculpted portraits 91

Breckenridge (1968), esp. 3-15; also Hannestad (see note 4 above).

Notes to Chapter l(A): I. See below notes 4,5. Also Havelock, Hershbell (1978), esp. 55-61.

10. For example: Official medals and memorial coins in Israel are issued by the Israel Government Coins and Medals Corporation Ltd. under the rights granted to it by the government. They are intended to mark major historical events in the lives of the people and the State, leading personalities or their achievements in various spheres, and central ceremomies in public, family and private life. The subjects depicted on these medals and coins are chosen by a public committee appointed by the Minister of Finance, or the Governor of the Bank of Israel, who either accepts or rejects the committee's recommendations. see also note 8.

2. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1972, vol. 18, 624-629; The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, 1989, vol. 12, 632; see also The Oxford Universal Dictionary on Historical Principles, 1955, 1599; regarding modem research see: Brown (1963 ); Doob (1949); Ellul (1965); and also Goren (1986), 60-61, 133-144; and note 3 below. 3. See for example: Ajzen, Fishbien (1980), esp. Chap. 2: 1390; Lindzey, Aronson (1968). For a short history on the concept of attitude and traditional approaches to research into persuasion, see: Petty, Ostorm, Brock (1981), 1-29, esp. 5-13; Petty, Cacioppo (1983), 3-23. On "The research into pictures and visual and verbal memory" see Brickman, Redfield, Harrison, Crandal (1972), 31-44; Petty, Cacioppo, Schumann (1981), 135-148, esp. 142-143; Zajonc (1968), part 2: 1-27. See also note 2 above.

11. For instance, the candelabra and olive branches as emblems of the State of Israel; however, this category also includes advertising slogans. 12. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1972, vol. 18, 266-270. Encyclopaedia of World Art, 1968, vol. 9, 469-515. The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, 1989, vol. 12, 158; The Oxford Universal Dictionary on Historical Principles, 1955, vol. 18. 1549. Also: Barasch (1967), esp. 11-18; (1977), esp. 9-18, 93ff., llOff., 120, 172-191; Panofsky (1939), esp. 3-32; (1970), esp. 51-139; (1968); Kroeber (1963); Carpenter, Akerman (1963); Martin (1961), 61-72; Winkes (1973); Wood (1986); Grieco (1982), 101105. See also notes 4, 5 and 9.

4. See: Yavetz (1988), esp. Chap. 18; Blamberg (1970); Carson, Sutherland (1956); Charlesworth (1937); Gabba (1981 ), 50-62; Hannestad (1986); Rubin (1980); Syme (1939), esp l 54ff., 208, 218, 256, 459ff., (1971 a), (1983a), (1983b), esp. 109-155; Wiseman (1981), 375-393. 5. It is impossible to name here everyone who refers directly or indirectly to the subject of archaeological evidence as aids to historical research. We will mention the most notable studies directly connected to the topics discussed in this work: Isaac (1988), 19-25; Cadman, Kindler (1963); Benario (1958); Blamberg (1970); Bonanno (1976), esp. 1-3, 148, 163-176; Brilliant (1963), (1967); Brunett (1987); Carson ( 1956); Grant (1968), (1977); Hamberg (1945); Isaac (1990), 6-7; Jones (1956); Nash (1968); Sutherland (1951 ), esp. Chaps. 2-4, (1956), (1959), (1976); Sydenham (1968); Syme (1939), esp. 155, 160, 469f.; Toynbee (1944), (1956); WardPerkins (1949). On milestones and imperial propaganda see also: Isaac (1988), 19-25; also Isaac (1990), 304-309.

13. See notes 5 and 12, and: Albertson (1980), esp. 1-56; Bergmann (1977a); Bonanno (1976); Breckenridge (1979), esp. 2- 46, 143f., 160f., 186f.; Brilliant (1974), esp. Chap. 4; Heintz (1966/67); MacCann (1968), esp. 1-27; Niemeryer (1968); Nodelman (1965), esp. 1-60; Richter (1951 ), 184208; (1955), 39-46; Saletti (1967); Soechting (1972); Stuart (1939); Swift (1923). 14. The first to use the concept of public opinion was the Renaissance philosopher Machiavelli, who wrote, "A clever man should not ignore public opinion." On this see also Yavetz (1971), 199.

6. In order to evaluate the significance of these numbers as appropriate, please note that in the first years of statehood, the State of Israel issued a total of 21 different types of coin. See: The Israel Government Coins and Medals Corporation Ltd. (1982).

15. See note 16 below. 16. See also notes 12 and 13, and: Breckendridge (1981); Budde (1951); Felletti Maj (1958); Fittschen, Zanker (1985); Hinks (1976); L'Orange ( 1947); MaCann ( 1981); Salzmann (1983); Smith (1985); Vermeule (1980); Wegner (1976); Wiggers, Wegner (1971).

7. These and other topics are still the subjects of debate regarding anything connected to this or other media, written, graphic or visual, as disseminators of propaganda in the Roman Empire. For discussions on this subject see note 4. Also: Millar (1967); Hannestad (1949); Rubin (1976/77), (1971 ).

17. Barbieri (1953); Barnes (1976), (1978), (1984), esp. 240255; Bertrand-Dagenbach (1990); Birley (1967), (1971), (1988); Blazquez (1990); Bowerstock (1975); Butler (1967); Cleve (1982); Espinosa (1990); Hammond (1940); Hannestad (1949); Haseborek (1921 ); Haywood (1940); Hopkins (1985); Levick (1969); Mattingly (1953); Mundie (1961); Neugebauer (1936); Rubin (1971), (1979), (1980); Syme (1968), (1971a), (1972), (1983).

8. See above note 4. 9. From the Greek word "EtKrov", the derivative "iconin" meaning in Rabbinical terminology "facial appearance", and in Christianity "Likeness of the martyrs". See also 92

18. See below Chap. 2(A). Also Babara! (1989), 573-580.

28. This survey was apparently a collection of concise biographies on the Roman emperors from Augustus to Constantine, written shortly after the year 337. See Enmann (1884), 335-501.

19. See note 17 regarding the problems of studying the period of the Severan dynasty from contemporary and later literary sources, and see below for discussion of each of the emperors discussed in this study.

Although some opinions may still be heard denying the existence of the KG, many scholars consider the KG to be a vital hypothesis which explans the many similarities between historians of the second half of the fourth century; and one may accept its existence as a proven fact. Regarding the sources of information of the author of the KG, opinions are divided: some scholars claim that Marius Maximus is his major source, while others maintain that his major source was Ignotus with Marius Maximus (see note 25 above). For discussions of the KG see mainly: Barnes (1978), 91-97, 125; Rubin (1980), 162, 166-168, 174; (1970), l 3ff.; Syme (1971a), 71, 103, 110, 128; (1968), 105. See also below regarding each of the emperors in this study. See below note 41 on the KG as a source for the author of the HA, for Aurelius Victor, for Eutropius, and for the author of the Epitome, and below regarding each of the emperors separately.

20. Boissevain's publication is one of the most important and most valuable on Dio's "History"; it appeared in three volumes in the years 1895 to 190 l. It is based on new collections of manuscripts which had been preserved, and redivides volumes 61 to 80. In this study references to Dio's "History" and the division of the volumes go according to the LCL edition, which is based on Boissevain's. References will be to the book number according to Boissevain, with the number according to the traditional division in parentheses. E.g., 73 according to Boissevain, (72) according to the traditional division. 21. On Dio see mainly: Cary (1927); Barnes (1984); Millar (1964); Rubin (1975a), 419-441; Syme (1971a), esp. 135145. Also Yavetz (1988), 332-333. See below for discussions of each of the emperors in this study.

29. On Marius Maximus see notes 25 and 27 above. 22. On Herodian see mainly: Whittaker (1969). Also Alfody (1971a), (1971b), (1971c); Hohl (1950); Kolb (1972). See below for discussions of each of the emperors in this research.

30. On Aurelius Victor Eutropius see note 31 below. 31. See mainly: Barnes (1980), 17, 36-37, 48, 67-68, 77, 9097, 104, 125; (1976), 258-268; Birley (1988), 44-45, 205, 207; Hohl (1955), 220ff.; Rubin (1980), 64-65, 133, 166176, 206; Schlumberger (1974), 78-123; Starr (1955/56), 574-585; Syme (1971a), 123; (1968), 107, and below regarding each of the emperors separately.

23. See note 17 above, and notes 24-26 below. 24. For the debate on whether the author of the HA needed Greek sources see for example: Alfody (1971a), 201-206, 23 l; (1971b), 431; (1971c), 360-366; Kolb (1972), and others, who claim that Dio was the major source, not only for the author of the HA, but also for Herodian. In contrast, Barnes (1978), 79-89; Rubin (1980), 85, 89-90, 98, 130-131, 163, and others, state that the author of the HA relied on Greek sources. See also note 23 above.

Notes to Chapter l(B): l. The concept of empire is a modem one derived from the Roman word imperium, which indicated the legal authority of the highest office holders in Rome, and the extent of the government of the Roman state. It is not the same as the modem term "Roman Empire". The title Caesar common in modem literature as a term for the Roman ruler is derived from one of the titles which accompanied the name of the ruler, Caesar, after Julius Caesar. This term is deceptive, however, since just as the regime in the Roman Empire was not a regime of Caesars as the German kaiserism, for instance, the Roman ruler was not like the German kaiser. The term for the Roman ruler in the days of the Empire was princeps, and the system of government was a Principate. Each one of these terms will be explained below. I will also sometimes make use of these common terms. For a detailed discussion see R. Koebner, 1962.

25. For the debate on Marius Maximus or Ignotus with Marius Maximus used by the author of the HA see mainly: CAH XII, 599 Barnes (1978), 49-53, 99-108, 125; (1970/72), 53-74; Birley (1971), 308-326; (1967), 96, 129130; Hohl (1924), 3-4, 159, 184; Rubin (1980), 63-65, 76, 138-142, 147-148, 159, 163, 167-171, 185-189, 193; (1974), 231-233; Schlumberger (1974), 78-123; Syme (1968), 30ff., 89, 133ff.; (1971a), 30-53, 113-134, 135-145; (1983c), 3046. See also note 17 above, and below in the separate discussion on each emperor. 26. On the HA in general see notes 23 and 31, and also: Dessau (1889), 337ff., Magies (1921); Momigliano (1976), 153-166; Rubin (1980), 133-195, esp. 171-175; Syme (1989c); (1968); (1971a), esp. 33-34, 71, 123; White (1967), 115-133. Also below in the separate discussion on each emperor.

2. The system of government in Rome was republicanaristocratic. The word 'republic' is a modem expression from the Roman res-publica, which literally means public matters or matters of the public, and refers to the Roman political regime. I use the common modem term' 'epublic'.

27. See notes 17 and 19 above, and notes 28 and 31 below. 93

3. "Dynastic and family politics is just one aspect of the Principate of Emperor Augustus", Prof. Z. Yavetz quotes Sir Ronald Syme in an interview for the "Yediot Aharonot" newspaper of 24.11.1989, on the death of that great historian.

10. On the period of the Flavian dynasty see CAH, XI, Chap. I-IV. On the titulature of the emperors of the Flavian dynasty see Hammond, 1959. 1I. E.g., two of Trajan's military aides were sentenced to death by the Senate while the Emperor was away from Rome. In the year 136 Hadrian's brother-in-law was executed for conspiracy. In 175, Ovedius Cassius, Marcus Aurelius' deputy in the east, proclaimed himself emperor, spreading false rumours of the princeps' death. On this see CAH, X, 1989, Chap. VI.

4. On Augustus and Maecenas see Yavetz, 1990, p. 21ff. For Maecenas' speech in Dio see Millar, 1964, 92-118. On the status, authority, and appointment of an emperor in the Roman Empire, and on the Roman Senate and its role, see: CAH X, 1989, Chap. VI; X, 1996, 324-337; CAH, XII, 352376; Hammond (1959), 244-287, esp. 256-261; (1956), 1-24, 58-127; Weber (1961), 6-15; Birley (1988), ix. Also Yavetz (1988), 42.

12. On the rule of the "Enlightened Emperors" see CAH, XI, Chaps. V-IX. On the titulature of the adopted emperors see Hammond (1959).

5. Yavetz, note 4. Also: D. Earl, 1968. On the last days of the Roman Empire see also L.R. Taylor, 1949; Yavetz, 1983.

13. Cf., the speech to Augustus put into Maecenas' mouth by Dio, 52.31.1.2. 32.1.3. See also note 4 above.

6. On the Roman religion see: Libeschuetz, 1979, with updated bibliography; CAH, X, (1989), 475-481; X (1996), 812-848. Maecenas' words to Augustus as quoted by Dio [52.31.5-6, 36.1.3] can serve as an example of the attitudes of the upper strata and the educated in Rome to any form of soothsaying and divine omens.

14. Commodus' deification was forced on the Senate during the reign of Septimius Severus; See below Chap.2(A) p. 2lff. 15. On this see mainly, Fink, Hoey, Snyder (1940), 1-222; Grant (1977); Isaac (1990), esp. Chap. III.

On the use of such divine confirmation as a basis for the position of a usurper seeking to justify his right to the authority of princeps, see below.

16. On this see: Barnes (1967), 65-79; Brunt ( 1959), 531559); Bowman (1970), 20ff. Also: Grant (1977); Fink, Hoey, Snyder (1940), 1-222; Isaac (1990), esp. Chap. III. Also Isaac (1989), 25-19.

7. In the days of the Republic, it was customary for every Roman to have three names: a first name, praenomen, the name of his father's household, nomen gentilicum, and a family name, cognomen, indicating a branch within his father's family tree. For example: Marcus (first name) Tulius (father's household name) Cicero (family name). Someone who was adopted usually had four names - the third name would be the name of the adoptive father, and the fourth, his former nomen gentilicum.

Notes to Chapter 2(A): * An earlier versions of this chapter was published in Latomus 48, 1989, pp. 566-580, as "Portraits of Emperor L. Septimius Severus as an Expression of his Propaganda"; and in Latomus 51, 1992, pp. 110-120, as "The Portraits of Julia Domna from the years 193-21 I A.D. and the Dynastic Propaganda of L. Septimius Severus".

The cognomen could be bequeathed, and the heir could make it his first name. For example, Julius Caesar bore the name Jmperator as his family name, i.e., Julius Caesar Imperator [ILS, 70]. Octavian changed Caesar's family name, Imperator, into his first name. After the year 27 BCE, Octavian had three first names: Imperator, Caesar, Augustus. The list of names of Titus, Vespasian's son, on coins, was, Imperator, Titus, Caesar, Vespasian, Augustus, High Priest, Tribune, Father of the Homeland, Consul (next to this last title there was generally an indication of how often Titus had been granted the title Consul), i.e., IMP(erator) T(itus) CAES(ar) VESP(asianus) AVG(ustus) P(ontifex) M(aximis) TR(ibunicia) P(otestas) P(ater) P(atriae CO(n)S(ul).

I. Dio, 37-76; Herod., 2-3; HA, Sev.; Birley (1988); R. Duncan-Jones, 1974, 288-319, 333-342.

2. This dating is in dispute because of the combination of the eighth acclamatio imperatoria with the third year of Severus' trib. pots. On this see Murphy, (1945), 4, 101; and also Rubin (1980), 98, 207-208. 3. For a discussion on the climactic miracles which occurred to Marcus Aurelius see Rubin (1979), 357-380. On the concept that the miracles which occurred to Severus were parallel in a number of aspects to those which occurred to Marcus Aurelius see also: Rubin (1980), 66-74; and Birley (1988), 117, n.2.

On Roman names and on the formula of the titulature of the rulers of Rome and its development see Hammond (1959), and below.

4. For a discussion on this see Rubin (1980) 73-74; (1979), 312-341.

8. On the emperors of the Julio-Claudian dynasty see CAH, X, 1996, 70-255. On the list of names of the emperors of the year 68 see Hammond, 1959.

5. On the Mater Castrorum title see also: Murphy (1945), 103;andBirley(1988), 115f., 117,189.

9. On the year 68 see CAH, X, 1996, 256-264. 94

6. Tacitus [Ann. 1.14] for instance, tells that Tiberius refused to be called "the son of Julia".

15. From the beginning of monumental Greek sculpture, a bearded face did not just symbolize the age of the subject, but was a specific attribute of philosophers' faces. As a philosopher reaches the height of his thinking powers only at a mature age, his beard is a symbol not just of his age, but of his wisdom.

On the view that the change of Caracalla's name to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus is a step reminiscent of the changes of the names of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus in the year 161, see: Birley (1971), 301-302; (1988), 117, n.21, 106161, 215, no. 18; also: Id. (1966), 152ff.

16. On the Antonine style see note 17 above. Also Brilliant (1974), 253-262.

7. On the possibility that there is a link between Marcus Aurelius' official extending of the Empire, the auto-adoption of Septimius Severus to the gens Aurelia, the change of Caracalla's name to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and the appearance of the title propagator imperii in Septimius' style of address, see: Birley (1974), 296-299.

17. Gnecchi (1912), II, 73(3); 75(20,21); 77(1); tavv. 92.9, 93.9.10, 95.2; Toynbee (1944), 156,227. 18. Marcus Aurelius: Gnecchi (1912), II, 27(2); 29(19); tavv. 59.5; 60.7. Lucius Verus: Ibid., 37(25); tav. 74.9. Commodus: Ibid., 53(12); 61(88); tavv. 78.8; 84.1.

8. Apparently the adoption was not carried out according to the requirements of the Roman private adoption law, but according to three other principles. On this see: Babara] (1989), 573, n.30. This declaration is referred to by modem scholars as the "fictitious adoption", as Marcus Aurelius, at the time of the declaration on coins, had already been dead for 15 years, and there is no evidence that he adopted Septimius Severus as his son during his (Marcus Aurelius') lifetime.

19. McCann (1968), 62, n. 151; Toynbee(l944), 133,227. 20. Also Gnecchi (1912), II, tavv. 74.1; 75.10. 21. Richter (1971), 91 ff., esp. 94; Neverov (1972), 46-50. 22. Richter (1971), pp. 6-7, 117, n. 576; Neverov (1972), p. 47, Figs. c, d. On additional gems of Septimius Severus showing the same or similar portrait type see Richter (1971), n. 577,578, 579; Neverov (1972). Figs. e, f.

9. On the inscriptions in the Argentarii Arch see: Murphy (1945), 30. On the inscription on the Forum Arch see: Id. (1945), 29. On additional dedications discovered in Rome, among them Severus' titles, including those connected to the gens Aurelius, see: Id. (1945), 29-33. see also: Rubin (1980), 157,n. 118.

23. Richter (1971), n. 575; Neverov (1972), Figs. e, f. 24. Richter (1971), p. 114, n. 557; Neverov (1972), Figs a, b. Portrait pairs, two emperors in profile facing each other are found in additional gems too, see Neverov, ibid.

10. For the identification of sculpted imperial portraits by comparison with coin portraits see mainly: Albertson , 1980, 6-56; Bergmann, 1977, 19-29; Blamberg, 1970, 31-68, esp. 66-68; Bonanno, 1976, 2-3, and passim; Carson and Sutherland, 1956; Flisi, 1989, passim; Grazia, 1973, passim; McCann, 1968, 71- 83; Nodelman, 1965, 1-38; Saletti, 1967, passim; Wood, 1986, 1-27.

25. For a discussion on the subject of the Concordia which occurred frequently on the reverse types of coins of the Antonine dynasty, and which also helped Severus in establishing his claim to be the son of Marcus Aurelius, see Rubin (1976/77), 153-172. 26. On the significance and role of imperial statues placed in public locations see: Niemeyer (1968), esp. lOf.

11. See Chap. l(A), p. 3-5. On the propaganda aspect of Roman sculpture in general see Hannestad (1986).

12. For bibliography on the subject of the two approaches to hairstyles see: Baharal ,1989, 578-579, ns. 61-63. Also: Alfodi, Erim, Inan (1968), esp. 3-5, 10-13.

27. See above p. 24-25. 28. Both L'Orange (194 7), p. 77 and Mccann ( 1968), p. 80, point out the similarities between the portrait of Severus in the Lepcis Arch reliefs and that of Marcus Aurelius.

13. As one can distinguish different versions and slight changes within these three main types, some scholars see them as separate portrait types, or as secondary to the main types. On this see mainly: Nodelman(l 965), 61-109; and Mccann (1968) with a detailed bibliography. On the three main types of portrait of Severus see also: Hill (1979), 3646, and bibliography.

On the significance and role of the reliefs see above: Bonanno (1976), note 19, mainly pp. 148-150 ibid.; also Hannestad (1986), note 32 above. On the Lepcis inscriptions see also Murphy (1945), 33-34.

14. On the Lepcis Magna Arch, on the Argentarii Arch in Rome, and on the tondo in Berlin see McCann (1968), 73, 76-79 and bibliography. On the Argentarii Arch see also: Bonanno (1976), 147-150. On the importance of the relief portrait see Bonanno (1976), 1-3, 143-156, 163-176.

29. See Baratte, 1983, - Commodus: 794-795, Fig. 10; Severus: 800-805, Fig. 19. On other portraits of Severus resembling Commodus see McCann (1968), mainly p. 130 et seq. On one of the portraits which modem scholars agree can be identified as of 95

Commodus, see for example: McCann ibid. Bemoulli(l894), II, 3 p.23, despite his doubts regarding its identity, he included it in his list of Severus portraits.

43. On the diva of Julia Domna see also below Chap. 3, p. 46, with note 18 there. 44. On Crispina, wife of Commodus, see: BMC, IV, pl. 91, nos. 16-20; Kent (1973), Taf. 91, nos. 362,363.

30. On the Ephesus relief see: Bonanno (1976), 114-137; Kantorwicz (1936), 129.

45. See note 41 above. 31. On the aureus of Severus see: BMC, V, 57, no. 226; RIC, IV, 1, 103, no. 102, pl. 6.2; also Kantorwicz (1963), 128.

46. For a discussion on this subject see: Mckay (1984), 241260, esp. 241-243; Strong (1973), 250ff.

32. On the horseman on Septimius' coins see: Bloch (194344), 31-32; Hill (I 978); McKay (I 984), 241-260.

47. See: Baharal (1992), ibid. Also Askew (1931), 442-447; Grazia (1973), esp. 168-176; Toynbee (1959), 39-40.

33. See note 32 above. On the differences between the sculpted portraits of Caracalla and Geta as children see mainly the research of Budde (1951).

34. See note 12 above. 35. For bibliography of the predominant opinion in modem research into the portraits of Julia Domna see: Baharal (1992), 110-120; and recently Lusnia (1995).

On the similarities between the sculpted child portraits of Caracalla and Geta on the one hand and those of Annius Verus on the other, see mainly Budde, 1951, esp. 6. Also Askew, 1931, 445-446; Diepolder, 1939, 273-277, taf. 59, 60; Nodelman, 1965, 151; Seeberg, 1973, 78-82; Toynbee 1959, 40.

Faustina the Younger, on receiving the title Augusta, is shown in the visual media with a different hairstyle from that of Faustina the Elder, who was her mother, as well as the wife of Antoninus Pius. Cf. for example, Faustina the Elder: coins - Kent, Overbeck, Stylow (1973), pl. 81, nos. 328-330, pl. XIII, no, 331. Portraits - Traversari (1968), no. 49, a, b.

48. On the subject of hairstyle as a criterion for dating and identifying portraits see: Baharal (1989), (1992).

Faustina the Younger: coins - Kent, Overbeck, Stylow (1973), pl. 82, no. 335, pl. 83, nos. 349,351, pl. 85, no. 354. Portraits - Figs. 66 and 68 above; also Mansuelli (1958), Figs. 124, 188.

49. See note 48 above. 50. See note 46 above.

Notes to chapter 3:

On the subject of dating portraits by means of changes in the Roman imperial hairstyles, see note 14 above.

* An earlier version of this chapter was published in Classical Studies in Honor of D. Sohlberg, Ed. R. Katzoff, with Y. Petroff & D. Schaps, Bar-Ilan University Press, 1996, pp. 415-432, as "The Emperor M 0. Macrinus and the Gens Aurelia" = Proceeding of Convetion, International Centre for Severan Studies, Albano Laziale, Rome, 1996, as "Emperor Macrinus: Imperial Propaganda and the Gens Aurelia".

36. For further examples of coin portraits of Julia Domna see: Baharal (1992), note 38 below. 3 7. For further examples of sculpted portraits of Julia Domna of the Munich type see: Baharal (1992), note 38 below, ibid. 38. Julia Domna's portraits can be divided into two main types: early - from 193 to 211, and late - from 211 to 217. This division is based on the design of the hairstyle. The first, early type can be further subdivided according to Julia Domna's maturing features. Yet in this group, with the exception of the age factor, as we will see below, there are no real differences in hairstyle, and the first type can thus be viewed as one category. On this see: Baharal (1992), ibid.

I. On the career of Macrinus, on the unfolding of events during his reign and on the validity of the sources which furnish information on these events, see: Barnes (1978), 27, 55-56; Birley (1988), 191-193; Millar (1964), 160-168; Mattingly (1953), 962-969; Syme (1971a), 78-88; Id., (1972), 275-291. 2. For a detail discussion of Elagabalus, see below chapter 4, p. 53 ff.

39. See for example: Julia Domna: Bernoulli (1894), II, 3, 40-42; Fittschen (1977- 78), Fig. 19. Faustina the Younger: Bernoulli (1894), II, 2, 197, pl. LIii.

3. For a detail discussion ofDio see above p. 6f.

40. See for example: Julia Domna: Fittschen(l 977- 78), Fig. 22. Faustina the Younger: Bemoulli(l 894), II, 2, pl. LIV.

4. For a detail discussion of Herodian, see above p.6f. For examination of Herodian's writing on Caracalla's murder, see also: Hohl (1950), 276.

41. On the significance and role of reliefs see note 31 above. Wllmias (1902), 293-303; also Baharal (1992), ibid.

5. For studies on the HA, see above p.6f. For the vita_Macrini in the HA, see also: Barnes (1967), 65-70; Id., (I 970), l 3ff.;

42. See note 26 above. 96

Birley (1988), 205; Syme (1971a), 49-51, 58-59, 81-84; Id., (1972), 275-291.

13. See n.ote 10 above. 14. See especially: Millar (1964), 163; and also above note 4.

6. For the problem regarding the Greek historical sources used by the author of the HA, see above p. 6f., and App. I p. 73f.

15. Diadumenianus' speech to the soldiers as quoted in the HA [Diad., 2.2] is also of interest. Diadumenianus says, inter alia, that he realizes that the name Antoninus which had been bestowed on him obliged him to take Pius, Marcus, and Verus as his role models. There is no doubt in modem research that Diadumenianus' speech is the fruit of the imagination of the author of the HA, as is this biography, with the exception of two facts: Diadumenianus' young age, and the name Antoninus granted him by his father. The speech does repeat Macrinus' letter quoeted in Herodian (5.1.8). Despite the different opinions regarding the need of the author of the HA of Greek sources (see note 6 above), it seems reasonable that he put these words in Diadumenianus' mouth, as in his view they had to be said, or were appropriate, in the circumstances. See also note 1 above.

7. For the linguistic similarities between the author of the HA and the later brief Latin reports, see above p. 6f., and App. II. p. 90 and note 22 there. 8. Concerning Victor, Eutropius, Epitome and the KG, see above p.6f. and App. Ip. 73f. 9. On the minting of coins in the east of the empire see also below App. I p. 81 f. Note that Herodian [4.13.3] and the author of the HA [Ant. Car., 6.6] add the extra detail that Caracalla was making his way to the temple of the god Sin near Carrhae. Did Caracalla really intend to visit the temple? Did he actually visit it, and was the coin mentioned above minted to commemorate that visit? We can only offer hypothetical answers.

16. See above note 1. 17. On Caracalla's divus coins minted by Elagabalus see: BMC, V, 531, nos. 7, 8, pl. 85.4; 589, no. 11. On the hypothesis that these coins were minted by Severus Alexander see: RIC, IV, 2, 128, nos. 717-720. RIC, ibid., p. 128. It is claimed that although it is reasonable to assume that Caracalla's divus coins were minted at the beginning of Elagabalus' reign, the title Magno which appears on the coins together with Caracalla's name, and which hints at Alexander the Great, indicates the period of Severus Alexander rather than that ofElagabalus. And also: Mattingly (1953), 963.

It was an open secret that Caracalla, who was searching for relief from his disease, visited the temples of the gods of healing such as Apollo Graunus, Asclipius, and Serapis (see App. I, passim). The appearance of these gods on Caracalla's coins is consistent with the information regarding his visits to their temples. For example, Apollo appears on coins of the year 214 (the visit to his temple took place in 213): BMC, V, 452, nos. 107-109; BMC, V, 448, no. 91; Asclipius is depicted on coins of the year 215 (Caracalla did not reach Pergammon before the end of214): BMC, V, 485 - 486, nos. 278-280; Serapis is on coins of the years 215-216 (Caracalla visited Egypt in 215): for the year 215 - BMC, V, 445, nos. 126-133; for the year 216, id., 461, nos. 164-168.

18. Julia Domna, like Caracalla, seems to have been deified not before the reign of Elagabalus, see: BMC, V, 531, no. 9, pl. 85.5. But she was probably deified only in the reign of Severus Alexander, see: RIC, IV,2, 127, nos. 715-716.

Although we are not certain of the procedures of minting coins in the Roman empire, it is quite probable that the coins were ordered before the visits took place. Thus the appearance of the god Sin, identified as the god of healing, on one of Caracalla's coins of the year 217, may be seen as indicating that Caracalla visited the temple near Carrhae, or intended to visit it.

19. See also: Clay (1979), 29; Salama (1964), 334-352. 20. Concerning rumours spread in Rome in the reign of Macrinus, see especially: Rubin (1980), 9-13. 21. On the opinion that there were two imperial mints active during Macrinus' reign, see: BMC, V, ccxiii; Bergmann (1977b), 19-22; Wiggers, Wegner (1971), 132-134. On the opinion that there was only one single active mint, that in Rome, see Clay (1979), foe. cit.

10. See especially: Millar (1964), 163; Mattingly (1953), 967; Rubin (1980), 5, 9-12. 11. This is not the first time in the history of the empire that in similar circumstances the senate's decision was not waited for. The senate as a body had already lost its real power in the time of Augustus Caesar, and had become a body which met for ceremonial purposes or for official proclamations rather than one with authority and power to make decisions or to enforce them. See for example Syme ( 1939), esp. 365ff, Chap. 27, 501 ff. There is no need, however, to go back to the distant past. The recent and immediate past, e.g., the events which followed the murder of Commodus, also provides examples, see above p. 16-19.

22. On the chronology of his reign, see especially: Mattingly (1953), ibid.; and also: BMC, V, ccxiii, 494ff.; Clay (1979), foe. cit.

23. See also: BMC, V, ccxiiiff., ccixff., 494-498, nos. 1-28, pl. 78.1-20; 512-513 nos. 97-100, pl. 81.6-10; 514, no. 102, pl. 81.9-10; Kent, Overbeck, Stylow (1973), 43, 130, no. 413, pl. 97; Salzmann (1983), 361-367; Ibid. (1989), 559568; Wiggers, Wegner (1971 ), foe. cit. 24. See also: BMC, V, 499-504, nos. 29-57, pl. 1-20; Ibid. 505-507, nos. 59-81, pl. 80.1-14; 518, no. 117, pl. 82.5; 519,

12. See note 4 above. 97

no. 121, pl. 82.9; 520, no. 122-123, pl. 82.10-11, pl. 83.1-9; Kent, Overbeck, Stylow (1973), 43, 130, no. 414, pl. 97; and also Clay (1979), lac. cit. Salzmann (1983), lac. cit., however, claims that there are four portrait types of Macrinus. In his opinion the second portrait type is a version of the first, and the fourth - of the third one.

36. For the meaning of the name Antoninus, see: Hammond (1959), 58-91, esp. 58-61; Syme (1971a), 78-88. 37. Even during the power struggles at the end of the republican period, loyalty to the leaders of the past was a common means used to win support. See: Yavetz (1992), 154-176, 199-208; Syme (1939). esp. Chaps. 8, I I. Moreover, it is almost certain that the principle of dynastic loyalty was one of the factors in Caligula's and Nero's hold on the throne. See: Yavetz (1992), 154-176, 199-208; Syme (1939), esp. Chaps. 8, 11.

25. See below App. I, p. 76f. Cf.: Nodelman (1965), 136203, esp. 185-203; Hill (1979), 36-46. 26. See also: Bernoulli (1894), Vol. II,3, 74-80; Bergmann (1977a), 19-20; Clay (1979), lac. cit.; Kondic (1973), 47; Salzmann (1983), lac. cit.; Wood (1986), 30-32.

Notes to chapter 4: 27. See also: Albertson (1980), 6-55; Nodelman (1965), 160; Soechting (1972), lac. cit.; Stuart (1939), 601-617; Swift (1923), 286-301.

1. The name Elagabalus refers to the patron deity of Emesa, popularly regarded as a sun-god, and also to the hereditary high priest of this god, who was therefore called by the name of his god. Officially, the Emperor was never called Elagabalus, and there is no evidence that this name applied to him during his lifetime. The author of the HA [Elag., 1.6] and Aurelius Victor [23.1] use this name to refer both to the god and to the Emperor, but not one of the contemporary writers, including Eutropius, uses the name in connection with the Emperor. On coins and in dedicatory inscriptions, the name Elagabalus refers only to the god, as in Dio and Herodian. See: Butler (1908), 119; CAH, XII, 51, n. I. Also: HA, Elag., 1.1, note 1 there. In the current discussion the name Elagabalus is used for the Emperor. Any reference to the god is in the form of 'the god Elagabalus'.

28. For more detailed discussions on Macrinus' portraits, see: Bernoulli (1894), II,3, 74-80; Bergmann (1977a), 19-20; Salzmann (1983), 361-376; Wiggers, Wegner (1971), III,l, 138-139; Wood (1986), 31. 29. Bernoulli (1894), II,3, 75, 79, no. I, fig. 7. For the marble bust from Capilolini Museum in Rome, see also: Bergmann (1977a),19; Salzmann (1983), 361-371, figs. 14, 18, 22; Stuart-Jones (1969) 201, no. 48, fig. 46; Wiggers, Wegner (1971), III,l, 138-139, pl. 33; Wood (supra note 34). For the marble bust of Conservatori Museum in Rome, see also: Bergmann (supra note 35); Salzmann (1983), lac. cit., figs. 12, 16, 20; Wiggers, Wegner (1971), 139, pl. 32; Wood (supra note 34), fig. 36. For the bronze head in Belgrad Museum, see: Kondic (1973), 47-49, pis. 5-7; also: Salzmann (1983), lac. cit., figs. 13, 17, 21; Wood (supra note 34).

2. Regarding the contemporary and later literary sources, and their reliability, it should be noted that Dio's account of the period of Elagabalus' reign, like his account of Macrinus' reign, appear in the book 79(78), parts of which have survived in the original, and not just in Xiphilinus' summary, and also in book 80(79). We should also note that Elagabalus' biography in the HA, which immediately follows Macrinus', is, like the latter, central to the debate on the HA 's sources of information. See Chap. 3 above, p. 43ff.

30. BMC, V, 508-510, nos. 82-93, pl. 80.16-20; nos. 149164, pl. 84.4-11. See also: Bernoulli (1894), II,3, Munstaf. 2.10; Kent, Overbeck, Stylow (1973), 130, no. 415, pl. 97. 31. BMC, V, 511, nos. 95-96, pl. 81.4-5.

3. Cleve (1982), Ch. 2,3. Also Birley (1988), App. 2,D, 221224.

32. For Caracalla, see: BMC, V, 52-55, pl. 10.7-13, 204, pl. 33.8-12.

4. See: CAH, XII, 43; Millar (1964), 150; also Varon (1989), 407- 409.

33. For a detailed discussion on the changing fashion of hair style in the Roman Empire as a criterion for identification and dating of Roman portraits, see Chap. l(A) p. 24. above. For a detailed discussion regarding the problem of child portraits in the Roman Empire, see Chap. l(A), pp. 30-31 above; and also: Baharal (1989), 566ff.; Id. (1992), 11Off.

5. On the significance of the titles Pius and Felix in the imperial formula, see Chap. 3 above p. 45 et seq. 6. Re the diva coin of Julia Domna see Chapter 3 above p. 45 et seq.

34. For a detailed discussion on Diadumenianus' portraits, see: Bernoulli (1894), 11,3, 80-83; Diepolder (1939), 276; Felletti Maj (1958), no. 168, 254; Heintze (1966-67), 175; Mansuelli (1958), II, 124, no. 163; Meischer (1970), 241247; Michaelis (1882), nos. 30, 150.

7. See: Fink, Hoey, Snyder (1940), 1-222. Also Cleve (1982), I 07- 113, 129-134; Butler (1908), 78098; Hopkins (1985), 14-40, esp. 34-36; Frey (1989), 94-100; Slobodan (1964), 487-497. 8. On Caraclla's imitation of Alexander the Great see App. I, p. 71 et seq.

35. For the use of dynastic names by Macrinus, see: Syme (1971a), 70, 79.

98

9. See Benario (1961), 286-287; Barnes (1970-72), 72; Butler (1908), 81, 147; McKay (1984), 252; Nash (1968), I, 537f.

23. See note 20 above. 24. On this see: Nodelman (1965), pp. 165-204. Also: Hill (1979), 41 and Wood, 1986, ibid.

10. The completion of the renovation of the Coliseum is confirmed on coins. See BMC, V, 54, 128f. On the completion of Carcalla's baths see: HA, Alex., 25.6. See also: Barnes (1988), 72; Benario (1961), 286-287; Nash (1968), I, 17f.; Platner-Ashby (1929), I, 6-11, 520ff., 578f.

25. In the full sculpted portraits, such as that of Augustus in Prima-Porto, the breaking of the frontal view according to the Greek-Hellenistic style is noticeable in every part of the statue, particularly in its position and the way it is standing. 26. See note 23 above.

11. According to the accepted hypothesis in modem research, regarding the dupondius and antoninianus coins, the corona laureata, the radiate head of the emperor, distinguishes the aes from the dupondius which as twice its nominal value. Corona laureata on silver coins is intended to distinguish between the denarius and the antoninianus, worth nominally double. On this subject see mainly: BMC, I, xlvii-xlix; BMC, V, xvii-xix; also: Carson (1990), 5ff., 67, 71,229,235; Sear (1981), 11, 13.

27. On the problem of styling child portraits see note 22 above. Regarding hairstyle as a criterion for dating and identifying portraits see Chap. l(A) p. 24. Also Baharal (1989), 578579. 28. For a detailed discussion on the family history see Birley (1988), 221-224; Cleve (1982), 34-85.

12. On Sol in the Roman Empire see mainly: Halsberghe (1972). Also: CAH, XII, 356-359; Cumont (1911), 106ff.; Kantrowicz (1963), 119- 135; Nock (1972), 653-675; Usener (1905), 465-482. On the corona laureata, the radiate head of the emperor, see: BMC, I, lxivf., cxxxiv.

29. For discussions on Elagabalus' portraits see notes 20, 21 and 22 above. 30. The bronze portrait of Augustus, discovered in Meroe in the Sudan, is an outstanding example of the Roman-Eastern portrait style of a ruler with large prominent eyes and an angry expression on his face, features untypical of Augustus' portraits. For a concise summary of the merger between the eastern artistic tradition and the Hellenistic-Roman artistic tradition see the book by Avi-Yona (1969), pp. 257-276. For other research and discussions on this topic see: Covace (1982), 173-175; Downey (1961), 111-122; Ghirshman (1962a), esp. 246ff.; (1962b), esp. lff., 7ff.; Inan, Rosenbaum ( I 966); Parlasca (1980), 141-146; Picard (1969), esp. 176, 217-219, 224; Roll (1985), 262-268; Sarnowski (1982), 273-275; Toynbee (1978), 70-200; Vermeule (1968), 266-309; (1980a), 185-190; (1980b), 63- 69.

13. On the reflection of Elagabalus' religious policy on coins and on dedicatory inscriptions see mainly: Frey (1989), pp. 80-93. 14. See also BMC, V, 530ff., 542ff., pis. 85.1-3, 6-16, 86. 13-20, 87.1; Kent, Overbeck, Stylow (1973), pl. 98, no. 417. 15. See also BMC, V, 556f., 559f., 567ff., pis. 88.16-19, 89.3-20, 90.1-8; Kent, Overbeck, Stylow (1973), pl. 98, no. 418. 16. See also BMC, V, 567ff., pis. 90.8-14, 97.4,9; Kent, Overbeck, Stylow (1973), pl. 99, no. 426.

31. On the Fayoum portraits, see: Cooney (1972), 50-55; Parlasca (1983), 51-54; Peck (1967), 3-5; Schwabe (1985), 190-193; Shore (1972); Thompson (1975), 85-89; (1978-79), 185-192; (1982), esp. 2-48; Winkes (1973), 4-15; (1982), 64-68.

17. On child portraits see the chap. 2(A) p. 30 et seq. Also Babara! ( 1992), 110-120. 18. See Epilogue below p. 63-65. 19. Wood (1986) et seq. See also Chap. 3 above, pp. 47ff.

32. On the "Berlin tondo", see above Chap. 2(A), p. 25. 20. On the portrait in the Capitolini Museum in Rome, and on other portraits attributed to Elagabalus see also: Bergmann (1977a), 22-26, Taf. 1.3.4; Heintze (1966-67), 215-231, Taf. 72.3, 73.4; Nodelman (1965), 377-392, fig. 171; Stuart Jones (1969), 160, no. 55, fig. 39; Wiggers, Wegner (1971), 146ff., 15lf.; Wood (1986), 49-52, pl. XI, fig. 14. Also notes 26 and 27 below.

33. On the painted panel attributed to Caracalla see above App. Ip. 83, et seq. 34. On the conditions of the production of portraits in all media in the Roman Empire see Chap. 2(A) p.26; 2(8) p. 41ff.; also p. 47f. 35. See note 31 above.

21. On the marble head from Oslo see: L'Orange (1940), 152-159. Also Bergmann (1977a), 22, Taf. 1.1.2; Heintze (1966-67), 216; Nodelman (1965), fig. 168, 169; Wiggers, Wegner (1971), 150; Wood (1986), 50.

36. See Chap. 3 above p. 41 et seq., and also p. 47f.. 37. Sculpted portraits made after the subject's death can be identified by certain characteristic criteria of style. Some of Caracalla's portraits are dated to the period of Elagabalus'

22. On the Copenhagen bust see: Budde ( I951), 35ff., pl. 26; Heintze (1966-67), 220; Nodelman (1965), 378-382. 99

rule, and others, to the rule of Severus Alexander. On this see: Wood (1986), ibid.; Bieber (1977), (1964), esp. 242ff. 38. See App. II below, p. 92f..

10. On Macrinus' letter quoted in Herodian see above Chap. 3 p. 42 et seq. 11. On Diadumenianus quoted in the HA, see in the Chap. 3 pp. 42 et seq.

39. On the reflection of Elagabalus' religious policy on coins and in dedicatory inscriptions see p. 57 above, et seq., and note 13 above. 40. On this subject see also above, App. 1,p. 71 et seq. 41. For clues and evidence about Severus' and his predecessors' supervision of artistic creations, see: Chap. 2(A) p. 31-32.

Notes to Chapter 5: 1. On the history of the family see Cleve (1982), Chps. 2-3: also Birley (1988), App. 2,D, 221-224; CAH, XII, 57ff. On Severus Alexander's age see mainly: Syme (1971a), 146f. Also Birley (1971), 277; (1988), 194; Cleve (1982), 175; Millar (1964 ), 170-171. On Severus Alexander's name see above p. 54, and also Barnes (1978), 85. 2. Neither Dio nor Herodian mention the senate's confirmation of the soldiers proclamation, nor does Victor [24.1]. Eutropius [8.20] claims that Severus Alexander was chosen emperor by the soldiers, and Augustus by the Senate. The acta urbis quoted by the author of the HA [Alex. 6.2-7.6] is seen by most experts as an invention of the author. On this see mainly: Barnes (1978), 57-59; (1970), 33-39; Syme (1971a), esp. 146-280. 3. On the Vita Alexandri and the author of the HA see: Blazquez (1990), 25-36, esp. 26f, with its bibliography. Also Barnes (1978), 57-59; Syme (1971), 146-280.

12. On the coin portraits of Severus Alexander see also Bergmann (1977a), 28-29; Bernoulli (1894), II,3, 97-101; Bernoulli (1894), II, 3, 97-107; Hientze (1966-67), 215-224; Pandermalis (1972), 128-145; L'Orange (1940), 152-159; Wood (1986), 49, 5ff., with bibliography. 13. See note 11 above. 14. On the change in the fashioning of the hair in the sculpted portraits see mainly: Henig (ed.) (1983), 90; L'Orange (1965), 106f; Strong (1976), 228. 15. On Severus15. On Severus Alexander's continuation of 15. On Severus Alexander's continuation of the Antonine hairstyle see mainly Bergmann (1971a), 26-29; Bernoulli (1894), 97-101; Frei, Lazarov (1963), 70-71; Glyptothek, Munchen (1986), 91-92; Hientze (1966-67), 215-224; Pandermalis (1972), 128-145; Salletti (1967), 74-78; Wood (1986), esp. 57-60, with bibliography. On the colossal statue in the museum in Naples see mainly Bernoulli (1894), esp. 100; Fellatti Maj (1958), esp. 95; Mingazzini (1928), 146151; Niemayer (1968), esp. 62. The significance of the erection of the three-dimensional statues of Roman emperors has been discussed above; see mainly Chap. 2(A) p. 25 et seq. 16. The portrait of Severus Alexander as fashioned in the statue in the National Archaeological Museum in Naples, is considered by modem researchers as the portrait par excellence of this emperor. On this see note 15 above. 17. See above Chap. 4 esp. p 60.

4. Cf. the addition of the name Septimius to Clodius Albinus' titulature. On this see above Chap. l(A) p. 20. 5. On the significance of the titles Pius and Felix in the imperial list of names see above Chap. 3 p. 43 et seq.; Chap. 4 p.53 6. On the significance of the list of ancestors in the titulature of an emperor see above pp. 54-55. 7. On this see Barnes (1978), 58; Benario (1961), 189. Also notes 6, 7 in the translation of the text of Sev. Alex. 25.3 in LCL, pp. 224-225. 8. See also Benario (1961), 289. On the heritage of good emperors, mainly that of Trianus, see mainly Syme (1971), 89-93, 106, 111, 162,220. On Trianus in vita Alexandri, HA, see Syme (1971), 95-98. 9. On these two sections from the HA see Barnes (1978), 5759; (1970) 33-39. Also Benario (1961 ), esp. 285-289. On the later Macedonian coins see below App. Ip 79 et seq.

18. Cleve (1982), see mainly Chap. 4 pages 128-137, and Chap. 5, page 175 et seq. See also Butler (1908); Hopkins (1907) esp. 14-86.

Notes to Appendix I: * An earlier version of this chapter was published in Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History VII, 1994, pp. 524567, as "Caracalla and Alexander the Great: A Reappraisal". 1. Among the many studies into this topic we will cite just a few: Ancient Portraits (1970), 26, Fig. 21; Bernoulli (1984), II, 3, 48-49; Bieber (1964), 76; Breckenridge (1968), 223; (1979), 503; Espinosa (1990), 37-51; Garcia (1990), 361378; L'Orange (1947), 39, 131,n.3, 138,n.2; Mansuelli (1958), II, 113, no. 140; Milkovich (1961), 7; Saletti (1967), 51-58, esp. 52; Strong (1976), 228; Wood (1986), 30; The Capitolini Museums (I 984), 29. See also note 7 below. 2. Regarding the reliability of information in the later written sources see Chap. J(A) pp. 6 above, and also p. 73 et seq.

3. Millar (1964), p. 215 had already draw attention to this unusual approach, claiming that Caracalla's motive was to imitate Alexander. Levick (1969), pp. 426-446, who studied Caracalla's route, tracing the locations at which he stayed by means of archaeological findings, raises the possibility that he did actually follow in Alexander's footsteps, wherever they led. 4. See also L'Orange (1947), p. 82, who finds a link between Caracalla's stay in the temple at Serapis, and his Alexander mania.

17. Following the scholar Enmann (1884), pp. 335-501, who raised the possibility of the existence of a 'History of the Caesars of Rome' as early as in 1884, it is customarily referred to as the Kaisergeschichte (abbreviated to KG). For discussions on the sources of the KG, and on its being a source for Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, the author of the Epitome and the author of the HA see note 13 above and: Barnes (19878), 91-97, 125; (1970), l3ff.; (1976), 258-168; Syme (1968), 105; (1971), 71, 103, 110, 128; Rubin (1980), 162, 166- 168; Starr (1955-56). 18. See note 11 above.

5. For discussions on the Constitutio Antonininna see: CAH, XII, 45-47; Birley (1988), 190; Hammond (1959), 140-142, 160-166; Millar (1964), 155; (1962), 124ff.; Rubin (1975b), 430-436; ( 1980), 215-234. 6. See Palmer (1978), 1089-1095; Birley, (1971), 176-177, 228. Re Hercules on Caracalla's coins, seep. 75 et seq. 7. Millar (1964), p. 150 et seq. Also Barnes (1984), pp. 240255, who claims that Dio did not start writing his "History" before 220. See also Birley (1988), 303-204. 8. Barnes (1978), 80-89; Birley (1971), 6; (1988), 189f.; Millar (1964), 152-160, 173ff.; Rubin (1980), 41, 53, 84, 165,215; (1975), 419-441. 9. On Herodian's hostility towards Caracalla see above p. 18 et seq., and: Birley (1971 ), 9-10; id (1988), 189f., 205-205, 219; Barnes (1978), 80-89; Whittaker (1969); Rubin (1980), 216-220. 10. See mainly Alfoldy (1971c), 260-366; Kolb (1972), 2-4, 159, 184. 11. On the author of the HA 's need for Greek sources see note 12 above, and: Barnes (1978), 108-109; Birley (1988), 205-206; Rubin (1980), 56,n.80, 163. 12. On Marius Maximus see: Barnes (1978), 49- 53, 99-108, 125; (1970-1972), 53-74; Birley (1971 ), 308-3926; (1988), 295; (1967), 96, 129-130; Rubin (1980), 138-142, 147- 148, 159, 163, 168-169, 185-186, 189; Syme (1968), 89; id (245), 135-145. See also CAH, XII, 599 and passim above. 13. On Jgnotus see Barnes, (1978), esp. 101; Syme (1971 ), esp. 44. Also note 17 below. 14. See note 15 above, and notes 17, 19 and 20 below. 15. On Jgnotus as a source of information for the author of the HA in Caracalla's biography, see note 15 above, and: Barnes (1978), 99-108, 125; Rubin (1980), 64-65, 76, 159, 167-171, 188, 193; (1974), 231-233. Also note 15 above. On Marius Maximus as an additional source for the author of the HA in Caracalla's biography, see note 14 above. 16. Barnes (1978), 17, 36-37, 48, 55, 67-68, 77, 90-97, 104, 125; Birley (1988), 44-45, 205, 207; Rubin (1980), 64-65, 133, 166-176, 206; Syme (1968), 107; (1971), 123; Starr (1955-56), 574-586.

19. See note 17 above. 20. On the Egyptian tradition on this subject, see Chap. 4 p. 58 et seq. 21. The Greek and Hellenistic portrait is generally a lifesized sculpture, in a sitting, standing, or any other posture. The facial features of a figure which enable it to be identified are what make the whole model into a portrait. Unfortunately, only the heads, or heads and busts (protome) of most of the Greek and Hellenistic sculptures discovered have survived. See: Andronicos (1989), esp. 130-131, I 15117, 175; Bieber (1964), 32-35; (1945), 429; Davis, Kraay (1973), esp. 34 and passim; Michel (1967); Smith (1988), 47-61, 111. 22. See above Chap. 2(A) p. 20. 23. See note 21 above. 24. Since the early days of Greek art, the length of or the absence of the beard was one of the symbols used to indicate the age of the subject portrayed. Long beards are also one of the distinguishing characteristics of philosophers. As the latter reach mental maturity only at an advanced age, the beard is also a symbol of ripe age, and perhaps of wisdom too. The beard as a symbol of the subject's age became traditional and common throughout various artistic periods. 25. Since Polykleitos, the mid-5th century BCE sculptor, produced the statue known as the doryphoros (the spearbearer), the downward, slightly sideward tilt of the head became a basic element in depicting the human figure. Many life-sized statues, or portraits sculpted since then, both of men and of women, have the head tilting downwards and sidewards. See mainly Hanfmann (1953), 203-215; (1973), 250-285, esp. 266. 26. On hairstyle as a characteristic indicating belonging to a particular dynasty, or the wish to appear part of it, see also, Babara! (1989), 578-579; (1992), 110-120; (1993). 27. See note 21 above. Several portraits attributed to Alexander have two horizontal lines crossing his forehead, indicating creases. See, for example, Bieber (1964), p. 61ff., and Fig. 71. However, as they do not appear in all the portraits, forehead creases cannot be considered a specific attribute of Alexander. 101

28. Opinion is divided among researchers regarding Caracalla's hair and beard style, as depicted in his portraits. Some are of the opinion that the short curls of Caracalla's hair, and those of his beard as depicted in his portraits, indicate a change in traditional and iconographic style which had started in the Antonine period. These researchers claim that fashioning short curls removed the possibilities inherent in the portraits of Septimius Severus. On the Antonine style see Baharal (1989); Brilliant (1974), esp. 253-263. See note I above for some of the many studies of Caracalla's portraits, and notes 36 and 48 below. mainly: Wood (1986), 28-30, Grazia(1973), 169-176;Henig(1983),esp.169-176. 29. See note 21 above, mainly: Bieber (1964), 76; (1945), 429; L'Orange (1947), 24 and passim. Also: The Search for Alexander, An Exhibition, ( 1980), esp. 98-100, nos. 2, 3; 102-103,nos.8,9; 119,no.40.

most prominent is that not one of the ancient contemporary or later writers refers to him by his real name, but they all use the name his father gave him, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. This name appears on Caracalla's coins and in dedicatory inscriptions from the time of his rule. (On the addition of these titles to Commodus' formula see: BMC, IV, xxv, clii, clix, clxxv.) Furthermore, the titles Pius and Felix appear in Caracalla's formula before the title Augustus, as they do with Commodus. This order appears both on coins and in dedications (e.g., BMC, V, cxxx, clxxi, 329, 345, 351,; ILS, III, I, 288-290). The name Severus is also incorporated into Caracalla's formula, between Aurelius and Antoninus, both on coins and in dedications. See also below, note 48. A list of his forebears as far as the divine Nerva also appears in Caracalla's formula in many dedicatory inscriptions (for example, ILS, III,l, 284,286,289). Among the public works carried out during Caracalla's reign it is worth noting the baths in Via Apia Antica in Rome. See Chap. 4 p. 54 et seq.

30. See note 21 above. 31. On this see note 26 above. 32. Nodelman (1965), p. 356 et seq., compares portraits from the Hellenistic period with those of Caracalla. He brings, for example, the bronze head of a Hellenistic ruler discovered on the island of Delos, today in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens, and claims that the source of the style of the position of Caracalla's head and his facial expression is to be found in the portraits of the Hellenistic rulers. 33. On manifestations of Alexander imitation in Roman history see note 24 above. Also: Anderson (1928), 29-82; Walker, Brunett (1081); Weinstock (1957), 211-246. Also the studies which have appeared recently into the subject of 'Alexander the Great as a Model for Roman Emperors' in Collection Latomus, vol. 209, I 990 (see note I above).

37. See note 7 above. 38. On Septimius and the lion skin on his head on the bronze medallion see: Caputo (1962), 381-385; Gnecchi (1912), vol. III, tav. 152, no. 6; McCann (1968), 87. 39. Although the lion which appears on the reverse of a coin may be connected to the image of Alexander, and may therefore also hint at a link between Alexander and Hercules, this applies only if a portrait of Alexander appears on the obverse. The same applies where an elephant is depicted on the reverse of a coin. Only if an image of Alexander appears on the obverse is a connection between the elephant and Dionysus and between Dionysus and Alexander indicated. 40. The incident is Septimius' refusal to accept the title Parthicus after his victory in the first Parthian war in 195. The title appears in several coins of that year, nonetheless, and disappears from coins only gradually. See Rubin (1980), 14.

34. It seems that the subject of Alexander the Great made no particular impression on the captain of the Praetorians, Macrinus, and the group of officers under his command, who plotted against Caracalla. See also chap. 3 p. 43 et seq. Also Mattingly (1953), 962-969; Syme (1972), 275- 291. On education and learning in general in Roman history see Gwynn (1926); Marrou (1956).

41. On the late Macedonian coins and the gold medallions from Tarsus and Abu-Kir see p. 39 et seq.

35. On Caracalla's speech to the soldiers according to Herodian, see note 9 above.

42. The independent minting of coins in the cities of the eastern Empire continued at least until the middle of the third century. See also Sahara! (1989), 572, n. 28.

36. A careful analysis of contemporary and later literary sources shows that one of the most prominent messages in Caracalla's imperial propaganda was the dynastic aspect of his claim to the throne. Close study of other sources numismatic and epigraphic - indicates that they clearly reflect this topic of propaganda. A detailed examination of the artistic sources shows that the dynastic aspect, i.e., the similarity in the way he styled the curls of his hair, and the fashioning of his beard in the Antonine art style, is clearly presented in his portraits in all the visual media dated from the time when he was sole ruler.

43. See, for example, coins of the years 337-361, 364-378: Bieber (1967), 428-429; (1964), 34-37, 77; L'Orange (1947), 34-37; Yalouris (1980), 116-117. 44. It is almost certain that the portraits discovered at Tomb II at Vergina were made in the third quarter of the fourth century BCE, i.e., between 350 and 325 BCE, and apparently are a true likeness of the subject. On the latest discoveries at the Vergina excavations see Andronicos (1989), 97-146, esp. 129-131. Andronicos ( 1989), 130-131, with almost complete certainty, identifies one of the portraits as that of Philip II, and another as that of Alexander the Great (ibid., 129-130). If the latter is indeed a portrait of Alexander the Great, then

This discussion requires further detailed research, and will be treated separately. Several examples will suffice here. The 102

it is the only sculpted portrait of Alexander discovered to date made during his lifetime.

51. See note 50. 52. See note 50.

45. L'Orange (1947), p. 24, claims that Alexander is depicted on this medallion as a cosmocrator, with all the cosmic symbols decorating his shield.

53. A modem day parallel would be the daily reports in the British press with news of the Royal Family.

46. See note 43 above.

54. See notes 36 and 48 above.

47. See note 46 above. 48. The personified city of Alexandria appears once only on a coin of Alexandria minted during Severus Alexander's reign as single sovereign, see BMCG, Alexandria and the Names, p lxxxiii; p. 215, no. 1687. The image of Alexandria accompanied by attributes linking it to the city's founder on a coin mint during Severus Alexander's reign could therefore indicate that the Abu-Kir medallions were also minted during his reign. Moreover, in forty coins minted in Alexandria, and several dedications discovered in Egypt, all dated to the reign of Caracalla, the cognomen Severus forms part of Caracalla's name. Generally the formula follows the order with Severus appearing between Aurelius and Antoninus (M Aurelius Severus Antoninus). An examination of the coins shows that the addition of Severus to Caracalla's name began immediately after Septimius Severus' death in 211, became more common after the murder of Geta, and except for the year 215, the year of the massacre of the inhabitants of Alexandria, became a part of Caracalla's name mainly during the last two years of his rule (216-217). On the coins see mainly: Vogt (1924), II, 117-119. On the dedications see, for example, 8 November 212: IGRR, 1,1064; 4 April 214: IGRR, I, 1288; 11 March 216: IGRR, I, 1063. It is reasonable to assume that this addition was not carried out by the craftsmen in the Alexandria mint on their own initiative, but on the instruction of a higher authority. It may also be assumed that the factor behind the addition was the dynastic aspect of Caracalla's rule. See also: Boyce (1958), 81-98, who points out that in another 17 coins which were minted during Caracalla's reign, in addition to the Alexandria ones, Severus appears as part of Caracalla's name, and furthermore, in the dedicatory inscriptions dated to Caracalla's reign and discovered in various parts of the Empire such as North Africa, Moesia Inferior, other provinces in Asia Minor, Italy and Rome, the formula of Caracalla's name in which Severus is included between Aurelius and Antoninus appears repeatedly. Two busts discovered in Egypt make a significant contribution to the dynastic aspect of Caracalla's propaganda; one is of Septimius Severus with Pharaoh's attributes, and the second is of Caracalla, like that of his father, also with Pharaoh's attributes. Both are currently in the National Museum in Cairo, Egypt. See also: Kiss (1975), 293-303; (1982), 225-225.

Notes to Appendix II * An earlier version of this chapter was published in Latomus 48, I 989, pp. 566-580, as "Portraits of Emperor L. Septimius Severus as an Expression of his Propaganda". I. We will mention only a few of the many researchers who dealt with this subject: Becatti (I 968), 357; Birley (1988), 138-139; Grieco (1982), 101-105; Hanfmann (1975), 29; Harris (1965), 74ff.; Hill (1974), 36-38; Nodelman (1965), 78-101; Toynbee (1964), 143-145; Id., (1965), 37. Also Baharal (1989), 566-580. 2. On the Serapis cult see mainly the research by Stambaugh (1972). For other research on this topic see: Nock (1933), 35ff., esp. 74f., (1972), 799ff.; Youtie (1948), 9-29. On the modius as an attribute of Serapis on coins see: BMCG, Alexandria, pis. XII, nos. 1078, 1079, pl. XIV, nos. 742-746, pl. XV, nos. 284, 744, I 102, 1362; Id., Lydia, 369, pl. XXXIX, no. 4. On Cerberus' as an attribute of Serapis' on coins see: Id., Alexandria, !xi, pl. XIII, nos. 447, 613, 621, 1749. On the modius and Cerebrus and Serapis special attributes see also: Becatti (1968), 214-216; Bieber (1967), 83; Cook (1967), 175; BMCG, Alexandria, 157, 1298, pl. 13; Pollitt (1972), 169; Toynbee (1964), 143-145. On the Serapis cult in the Roman Empire see also below note 13. 3. See Nodelman (1965) ibid. Also Foucher (1970), 225-227; Hausmann (1972), 251-254; Toynbee (1947), 145f. 4. See above in the Chap. 2(A), p. 23 and Chap. 2(8) p 3538. 5. For example: a marble relief describing the emperor Hadrian in the Forum: Strong (1961), 43, 96, fig. 80. The relief depicting the apotheosis of Sabina: Ibid., 54, 96, fig. 78. The relief depicting Marcus Aurelius distributing bonuses to the Roman people: Ibid., 93, 98, fig. 94. 6. For a brief summary on "What is Roman religion?", see Yavetz (1988), 65-68. On the unofficial status of the eastern cults in the army see Hoey (1939), 456-481, esp. 462ff. On the religious norms in the Feriale Duranum see: Fink, Hoey, Snyder (1940); Helgeland (1978), 1470-1505; Nock (1952), l 87ff. For a discussion of ethnic groups in the Roman Empire see: Krill (1978), 27-44; La Piane (1927), 138ff.; Liebeschuetz (1979); Scott (I 975). On Severus' religious policy see Mundie (1961), 228-237.

49. See also note 48 above.

7. On Dio and Xiphilinus' summary of Dio's "Roman History" see also pp. 6f. above, and passim.

50. On this subject see Chap. 2(A) p. 20 et seq., also Baharal (1989), 574-575. 103

8. This description may prove Dio's wide knowledge; he was not satisfied with just writing history, but was interested in other spheres too. Another example of Dio's geographical knowledge is his description of Severus' journey to Britain [77(76)12.lff.], in which Dio did not participate either, like the journey to Egypt.

23. On Victor's essay see note 18 above. See also Rubin (1980), 168-176.

9. See note 7 above.

25. On Marius Maximus and on Jgnotus see p. 6f above, passim and App. I notes 13-17 above.

24. On the KG, the sources of information available to its author, and its serving as a source for later writers, see note 20 above.

10. See note 13 below. 26. See note 24 above. 11. See Millar, 1964, 8. On the imperial consilium see Hammond, 1959, 370-383, 391-410; also Chap. l(B), p. 14. 12. On this see Millar (1964), p. 73 et seq. Also: Barnes (1984), 240-255, esp. 254; Liebeschuetz (1979), 226-230; Syme (1971), 44, 78, 189. 13. There is evidence that the Egyptian cult figures Isis and Serapis were in Rome as early as the time of Sulla. On four occasions between the years 59 and 48 BCE the senate instructed that the altars of Isis and Serapis should be destroyed and their statues thrown away. In 43 BCE the triumvirate decided to erect a temple to Isis and Serapis using public funds. This act, which could have been taken as official recognition of this cult, was never actually implemented. When the emperor Augustus succeeded to the throne, The Isis and Serapis cult was banned from the holy confines of the pomerium. On this see mainly: Cerny, (11952), 135ff., esp. 139; Cumont (1911), esp. 81-82; Nock (1933), esp. 35ff., 74. 14. On Herodian's composition see also p. 6f. above and passim.

27. See note 25 above. 28. See also: Birley (1971), 206-210; 1988, 129-145; Millar (1964), 143-144; Hannestad (1949), 194-222. 29. On Caracalla's visits to the temples of various gods see App. I above, note 9. Also Baharal (1994). 30. On Severus' visit to the temple of Apollo Belus see Dio 79(78).8.5-6. See also note 7 above. 31. On Malalas see: Downey (1961), 33-37, 56, 239-243; (1937), 141-156; (1938), 1-6, 299-331. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, (1978), 750; OCD, (1978), 641. 32. See also Birley (1971), 209; (1988), 129-145; Hannestad (1949) 194-222, esp. 203,209; Hasebroek (1921), 118, 169. 33. See note 31 above. 34. See also Krill (1978), 27-44. Compare Marcus Aurelius' treatment of Hermes Aeries, who was connected to the rain miracle; on this see Rubin (1979), 357-370.

15. The source of the errors and inaccuracies in Herodian may also be his lack of knowledge. On this and other examples of the inaccuracies in his text, or the omissions of facts connected with the period of Severus' reign see: Whittaker (1969), pp. xii-Ii, and in the translation of the text 3.8.10, note 1. Also: Barnes (1978), 82; Birley (1971), 10; (1988), esp. 204f.; Rubin (1980), 89-103; (1975a), 419-441. 16. For further examples of Herodian's attitude towards Severus see: Rubin (1980), p. 85 et seq. 17. On this see also Whittaker (1969) in his note t of the text in 1.14.4.6. 18. On the later sources see p. 6f. above and passim. 19. On the HA seep. 6f. above and passim. 20. See note 19 above. On the opinion that the author of the HA did not know details about Serapis and may not have known him, see Syme (1971a), 27-29. 21. See note 19 above. 22. One of the clearest sections in which verbal similarities were found between the HA and Victor is HA, Sev., 17.5.19.4 = Victor, De Caes., 20.1.31. 104

ABBREVIATION According to: L'Annee Philologiqu AA AJA AK Anal. Rom. ANRW ANSMN AS BHAC BMC BMCG BZ CAH CIL CPh CQ CRCSHB

cw FMRHSCPh HThR IGRR ILS IRT JDAI JEA JHS JRS LCL MAAR MAB MDAI(K) MDAI(R) MEFRA NC OCD ProcPhilSoc RIC TAPA WissZBerl YCS

Archaologischer Anzeiger American Journal of Archaeology Antike Kunst Analecta Romana Instituti Danici Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt The American Numismatic Society, Museum Notes Ancient Society Bonner Historia Augusta Colloquium Catalogue of Coins in the British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum Byzantinische Zeitschrift The Cambridge Ancient History Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum Classical Philology Classical Quarterly Classical Review Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae Classical Weekly Mensile di Franco Maria Ricci Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Harvard Theological Review Jnscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal of Roman Studies Loeb Classical Library American Academy in Rome Memoris Miscellanea Academica Berolinesia Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts (Kairo) = RM - Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts (Rom Melanges d'Archeologie et d'Histoire de !'Ecole Francaise de Rome Numismatic Chronicle Oxford Classical Dictionary Proceedings of Philological Society Roman Imperial Coinage Transactions and Proceedings of American Philological Association Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt Universitat zu Berlin Yale Classical Studies

105

BIBLIOGRAPHY Baharal, D., 1989, "Portraits of the Emperor L. Septimius Severus as an Expression of his Propaganda", Latomus 48.

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1972. Encyclopedia of World Art, 1968.

Id., 1992, "Portraits of Julia Domna", Latomus 51.

Glyptothek Munchen. Griechische und romische Skulpturen, 1986.

Id.,

The Cambridge Ancient History, X (rep. 1989); X, Second Edition, 1996; XI (rep. 1990); XII, 1971. The Capitolini Museum, 1984 (Federico Garo Ila Editore ). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1978. The Oxford English Dictionary, 1989 Second Edition .. The Oxford Universal Dictionary On Historical Principles, 1955. The Search for Alexander. An Exhibition, 1980 Greek Ministry of Culture and Sciences.

1994, "Caracalla and Alexander the Great: A Reappraisal", Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History VII.

Id., 1996, "The Emperor M 0. Macrinus and the Gens Aurelia" in Classical Studies in Honor of D. Sohlberg, Ed. R. Katzoff, with Y. Petroff & D. Schaps, Bar-Ilan University Press, 1996, "Emperor Macrinus: Imperial Propaganda and the Gens Aurelia", in Proceeding of First International Severan Conference, International Centre for Severan Studies, Albano Laziale, Rome.

Baratte, F., 1983, "Les Portraits Imperiaux de Markouna", MEFRA 95. Barbieri, G., "Aspetti de/la politica di Settimo Severo", Epigraphica 14(1952).

Ajzenn, I., & Fishbien, M., 1980, Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior.

Barnes, T.D., 1978, The Sources of the Historia Augusta. Id., 1967, "Hadrianus and Lucius Verus", JRS 57 .

.Albertson, F.C., 1980, The Sculpture Portraits of Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius (161-180 A.D.).

Id.,

1970, "The Lost Kaisergechichte and the Latin Historical Tradition", BHAC 1968-69.

Alfoldy, G., 1971a "Herodianus Person", Ancient Society, 2. Id., 1970-1972, "Ultimus Antoninorum", BHAC. Id.,

1971b, "Zeitgeschichte und Kaiserempfindung Herodian, Hermes, 99.

bei

Id., 1971c, "Cassius Dia und Herodian Uber Anfage des neupersischen Reiches", RM, N.F.114.

Alfoldi, E., Erim, K., Inan, J., 1968, "Roman and Early Byzantine Portrait Sculpture in Asia Minor", Supplement I, Belleten Turk Tarin Kurumu 32. Ancient Portraits, 1970, Ackland Art Center University of North .Carolina.

Id., 1976a, "The Family and the Career of Septimius Severus" Historia 16.

Id., 1976b, "The Epitome de Caesaribus and its Sources" CPh 71. Id., 1984, "The Composition of Cassius Dio's Roman History", Phoenix 38.

Becatti, G., 1968, The Art of Ancient Greece and Rome. Bellinger, A.R., 1940, "The Syrian Tetradrachms of Caracalla and Macrinus", Numismatic Studies 3.

Anderson, A.R., 1928, "Heracles and His Successors", HSCPh 34.

Benario, W.H., 1958, "Rome of the Severi", Latomus 17. Andronicos, M., 1989, Vergina. The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City.

Id., 1961, "Severan Rome and the Historia Augusta", Latomus20.

Askew, E., 1931, "A Portrait of Caracalla in Corinth", AJA 35.

Bergmann, M., 1977a, Studien zum romischen Portrats des 3 Jahrhunderts N. Chr .. 106

Id., 1977b, "Studien zum romischen Portriits des dritten Jahrhunderts n. Chr.", Antiquitas, Series 3, Vol. 18. Bernoulli, J.J., 1894, Ikonographie die Bildnisse romischen Kaise, Vols. 11,2,11,3.

die

Bertrand-Dagenbach, C., 1990, Alexander Severus l'Histoire Auguste, Collection Latomus.

et

Effects of Mere Exposure", Journal of Experimental Social Psychlogy, 8. Brilliant, R., 1963, Gesture and Rank in Roman Art.

Id., 1967, The Arch of Septimius Severus in the Roman Forum. Id., 1974, Roman Art from the Republic to Constantine.

Bieber, M., 1967, The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age.

Id., 1975, "One Head, Three Problems", MDAl(R) 82. Id., 1977, Ancient Copies. Id., I 964, Alexander the Great in Greek and Roman Art. Id., 1945, "Portrait Head of Alexander in Boston", AJA 49.

Brown, J.A.C., 1963, Techniques of Persuasion Propaganda to Brainwashing.

from

Brunt, P.A., 1959, "The Revolt of Vindex and the Fall of Nero", Latomus 18.

Birley, A., 1966, Marcus Aurelius. Brunett, A., 1987 Coinage in Roman World.

Id., A.R., 1971, Septimius Severus, The African Emperor. Budde, L., 1951, Jligenbildniss des Caracalla und Geta.

Id., 1988, The African Emperor, Septimius Severus. Butler, O.F., 1908, Studies in the Life of Elagabalus.

Id., 1967, "The Augustan History", in Latin Biography, T.A. Durey (ed.). Id., 1974, "Septimius Severus, Propagator Imperii", Actes du IX Congress International D'Etudes sur Jes Frontieres Romaines.

Caputo, G. 1962, "Ritratto lepitano di Settimo SeveroErcolo" Collection Latomus 58, 1. Carpenter, R., , Akerman, J.S., 1963, Art and Archaeology. Carson, R.A.G., 1990, Coins of the Roman Empire.

Blamberg, J.E. 1970, The Public Image Projected by Roman Emperor, 69-117 A.D. Blazquez, J.M., 1990, "Alejandro Magno, Modelo de Alejandro Severo", Collection Latomus 209. Bloch, H., 1943-44, "A Dream Septimius Severus", Classical Weekly 37. Bonanno, A., 1976, Portraits and other Heads on Roman Historical Reliefs. Bowerstock, G.W., 1975, "Herodianus and Elagabalus", YCS 24.

Carson, R.A.G., & Sutherland, C.H.V., (eds.), 1956, Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to H. Mattingly. Cary, E., 1927 (rep. 1969), "Introduction to Dio's Roman History", LCL. Cerny, J., 1952, Ancient Egyptian Religion. Charlesworth, M.C., 1937, "The Virtues of Roman Emperor: Propaganda and the Creation of Belief', Proceeding British Academy, 23. Clay, C.L., 1979, "The Roman Coinage of Macrinus and Diadumenian", Numismatische Zeitschrift 93.

Bowman, A.K., 1970, "A letter of Avidius Cassius", JRS 60. Boyce, A.A., 1958, "Caracalla as Severus", ANSMN 8.

Cleve, R.L., 1982, Severus Alexander and the Severan Women.

Breckenridge, J.D., 1968, Likeness. A Conceptual History of Ancient Portraiture.

Cook, A.B., I 914-1940, Zeus, A Study in Ancient Religion, I- III.

Id.,

1979, "Portraiture: Imperial Portraits, Imperial Medallions", Weitzmann (ed.), Age of Spirituality.

Cook, B.F., I 967, Greek and Roman Art in the British Museum.

Id., 1981, "Roman Imperial Portraiture from Augustus to Gallienus", ANRW,11, 12, 2.

Cooney, J.D., I 972, "Portraits from Roman Egypt", Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art 59.

Brickman, P., Redfield, J., Harrison, A.A., Crandall, R I 972, "Drive and Predisposition in the Attitudinal

Covacef, Z., 1982, "Portrats aus dem 3 Jahrhundert u. Z. in Scythia Minor", WissZBerl 31, Nr. 2-3. 107

Cumont,

F., 1911, The Paganism.

Oriental

Religion

m Roman

Davis, N. & Kraay, C.M., 1973, The Hellenistic Kingdom: Portrait Coins and History. Dessau,

H., 1889, "Uber Zeit und Personlichkeit der Scriptores Historiae Augustae", Hermes 4.

Flisi, E., 1989, Questioni di Ritrattistica Antoniniana. Della Collezione de! Palazzo Ducale di Mantova. Foucher, L., 1970 Review on McCann, Latomus 29. Fraser, P.M., 1960, "Two Studies on the Cult of Sarapis", Opuscula Atheniensa IIl(series in 4, VIII,). Frei, J., 1981, Roman Portraits in the Getty Museum.

Diepolder, H., 1934, "Romische Bildnisse in Milnchen", RM 54.

Frei, J., Lazarov, M., 1963, "Une Statue de Severe Alexandre a Anchialos du Pont-Euxin", Listy Filologike 86.

Doob, L.W., 1949, Public Opinion and Propaganda. Frey, M. 1989, Untersuchungen ztir Religion und ztir Religions- . politic des Kaisers Elagabal, Historia 62.

Downey, G., 1961, A History of Antioch.

Id., 1937, "Mala/as and the History of Antioch under Severus and Caracalla", TAPA 68.

Gabba, E., 1981, "True History and False History in Classical Antiquity", JRS 71.

Id., 1938, "Imperial Building Record in Ma/alas", BZ 38. Ghirshman, R., 1962a , Iran: Parthians and Sassanians. Downey, S.B., 1978/79, "Two Sculptures from the Hauran in the J Paul Getty Museum", Getty Museum Journal 6/7.

Id., 1962b, Persian Art. Gnecchi, F., 1912, I Medaglioni Romani, Vols. I, II, III.

Duncan-Jones, R., 1974, The Economy Empire.

of the Roman Grant, M., 1968, Roman History from Coins.

Id., 1977, Roman Anniversary Issues, 49 B.C.-373 A.D.

Earl, D., 1968, The Age of Augustus. Ellul, J., 1965, Propaganda: Attitudes. Enmann,

The Formation

of Man's

A., 1884, "Eine verlorene Geschichte r6mischen Kaiser" Philology, Supp. 4.

der

Espinosa, U., 1990, "La Alejandrofilia de Caracalla en la Antigua Historiografia", Collection Latomus 209.

Gracia, P., 1990, "La figura de Alejandro en la biografia latina", Collection Latomus, Vol. 209. Grazia, C.E., de, 1973, Exacavations of the American School of Classical Studies at Corinth. The Portrait Sculpture. Grieco, G., 1982, "Historie et Philosophie du Portrait Romain", Scripta Mediterranea III.

Fejfer, J., 1958, "The Portraits of the Severan Empress Julia Domna. New Approach", Anal. Rom. 14.

Gwynn,

Felletti Maj, B.M., 1953, Museo Nazionale Ritratti.

Halsberghe, G.H., 1972, The Cult of Sol Invictus.

A., 1926, Roman Quintilian.

Education

from

Cicero

to

Romana. I

Id., 1958, Iconografia imperiale da Severo Alessandro a Aurelio Carino, 222-285 A.D.

Hamberg, P.G., 1945, Studies in Roman Imperial Art with Special Reference to the State Reliefs of the Second Century.

Fink, R.O., & Hoey, A.S., & Snyder, W.F., 1940, "The Feriale Duranum", YCS 7.

Hammond, M., 1940, "Septimius Bureaucrat", HSCPh 51.

Fittschen, K., 1977-78, "Two Portraits of Septimius Severus and Julia Domna", Indiana University Art Museum Bulletin, vol. I, no. 2.

Severus,

Roman

Id., 1959, The Antonine Monarchy. Id., 1956, "The Transmission of the Powers of the Roman Emperors from the Death of Nero in A. D. 68 to that of Alexander Severus in A.D. 235", MAAR 24.

Fittschen, K , Zanker, P., 1985, Katalog der romischen Portrats in dem Capitolinischen Mtiseen und anderen Kommunalen Sammlungun der Stadt Rom, Vols. I, II, III. 108

Id., 1957, "Imperial Elements in the Formula of the Roman Emperors during the First Two and a Half Centuries of the Empire", MAAR 25.

Hinks, R.P., 1976, Greek and Roman Portraits Sculpture. Hoey, A.S., 1939, "Oriental Cults in Roman Army", TAPA 70.

Hanfmann, G.M.A., 1975, Roman Art. Id., 1953, "Observations on Roman Portraiture", Latomus 11. Id.,

"Personality and Portraiture ProcPhi!Soc 117, no. 4(1973).

in

Ancient

Art",

Hannestad, K., 1949, "Septimius Severus in Egypt. A Contribution to Chronology of the Years 198-202", Classical et Mediaevalia 6.

Hohl, E., 1924, "Bericht uber die Literatur zu den Scrip. his. Aug., (1916-1923)", Bursians Jahresberichte 200. Hohl, E., 1950, "Das Ende Caracalla, Eine quellen-kritische Studie", MAB 2/1 Id., 1955, "Die Historia Augusta und die Caesares des Aurelius Victor", Historia 4. Hopkins, R.V.N., 1985, The life of Alexander Severus.

Hannestad, N., 1986, Roman Art and the Imperial Policy.

Hunt, A.S., Edgar, C.C.,(eds.), 1956, Select Papyri, II, LCL.

Harris, E., J.R., 1965, The Oriental Cults in Roman Britain.

Inan, J., Rosenbaum, E. 1966, Roman and Early Byzantine Portrait Sculpture in Asia Minor.

Hasebroek, J., 1921, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisere Septimius Severus.

Isaac, B., 1990, The Limits of Empire. The Roman Army in the East.

Hausmann, 1972, Review on McCann, Gymnasium 79. 1978,

Jones, A.H.M., 1956, "Numismatics and History", in Carson ed. Essays in Roman Coinage, Presented to H. Mattingly.

Haywood, R.M., 1940, "The African Policy of Septimius Severus", TAPA 71.

Kantorwicz, E.H., 1963, "Oriens Augusti - Lever du Roi", Dumbarton Oak Papers 17.

Heintze, H., Von, 1972, Roman Art.

Kent, J.P.C., Overbeck, B., Stylow, A.U., romische Miinze.

Havelock, E.A., Hershbell, J.P., (eds.), Communication Arts in Ancient World.

1973, Die

Id., 1966-67, "Studien zu dem Portrats des 3 Jahrhunderts n. chr., Caracalla, Geta, Elagabalus und Severus Alexander", RM 73-74.

Kiss, Z., 1975, "Notes zur le Portrait imperial rdmain en Egypte", MDAI(K) 31.

Helgeland, J., 1978, "Roman Army Religion", ANKW, II,16.2.

Id., 1982, "Septime Severe - Pharaon et dieu", WissZBerl 31, nr. 2-3.

Henig, M., (ed.), 1983, A Handbook of Roman Art.

Koebner, R., 1962, Empire.

Hiesinger, U.W., 1969, "Julia Domna: Two Portraits in Bronze", AJA 73.

Kolb, F., 1972, Literarische Beziehungen Zwischen Dio, Herodian und der Historia Augusta.

Hill, P.V., 1964a, The Coinage of Septimius Severus and his Family of the Mint of Rome A.O. 193-217.

Kondic, V., 1973, "Two Recent Acquisitions in Belgrade Museums", JRS 63.

Id., 1964b, "Notes on the Coinage of Septimius Severus and his Family, A.D. 193-217", NC (7th Series, Vol. IV).

Krill, R.M., 1978, "Roman Paganism under the Antonines and Severans", ANKW, II,16.

Kroeber, A., 1963, Style and Civilization. Id., 1979, "The Coin-Portraiture of Severus and his Family from Mint of Rome", NC (7th Series, Vol. XIX). Id., 1978, "The Monuments and Buildings of Rome on the Coins of Early Severans, A.D. 193-217", Scripta Nummaria Romana. Essays. Presented to H. Sutherland.

La Piane, G., 1927, "Foreign Groups in Rome during the First Centuries of the Roman Empire", HThR 20. Levick, 8., 1969, "Caracalla's Path", Latomus 102. Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G., 1979, Continuity and Change in Roman. Religion .. 109

Lindzey, G., Aronson, E.,(eds.), 1968, The Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd ed ..

Id, 1967, "Emperor at Work", JRS 57. Mingazzini, P., 1928, "Sulla statua colossale di Alessandro Severo nel Museo di Napoli", Antike Plastike, Berlino.

L'Orange, H.P., 1947, Apotheosis in the Ancient World.

Id, 1972, Art Forms and Civic Life in the Late Roman A., 1963, "Pagan and Christian Historiography in the 4th Century", A. Momigliano

Empire.

Id,

Momigliano,

1940, "Zilr Ikonographie des Kaisers Elagabal", Symbolae Osloenses 20.

(ed.), Conflicts between Paganism and Christianity in the 4th Century.

Lusnia, S., 1995, "Julia Domna 's Coinage and Severan Dynastic Propaganda", Latomus, 54.1.

Id 1966,, "An Unsolved Problem of History Forgery: The SHA", Studies in Historiography.

Magie, D., 1921, "Introduction to Historia Augusta", LCL.

Mundie, I. 1961,, "Dea Caelestis in der Religiospolitik des Septimius Severus und Julia Domna", Historia 10.

Mansuelli, G.A., 1958, Galleria degli Uffizi, Le Scuplture, I, II.

Murphy, G.J., 1945, The Reign of the Emperor L. Septimius Severus from the Evidence of the Inscriptions.

Marrou, H.I., 1956, A History of Education in Antiquity. Nash, E., 1968, A Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome, 1-11. Martin, F.D. 1961, "On Portraiture, Some Distinction", Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 20.

Neugebauer,

Mattingly, H., 1932, "The Coinage of Septimius Severus and his Times", NCh 12.

Neverov, 0., 1972, "The Semantic and Function of Some

K.A., 1936, "Die Family des Septimius Severus", Die Antike 12.

Large Id, 1953, "The Reign of Macrinus", Studies Presented to

Portrait

Gems of the Late

Soobscenija Gosudarstvennogo Enmitaza 35.

D.M Robinson, II.

Ordena

Empire", Lanina

McCann, A.M., 1968, The Portraits of Septimius Severus (193-211 A.D.).

Niemeryer, H.G., 1968, Stiiudien zilr Derstellung der romischen Kaiser.

Id,

Nock, A.D. 1933, Conversion, The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustin of Hippo.

1981, "Beyond the Classical in the Third Century Portraiture", ANRW, II, 12,2.

Staturischen

Id, 1974, Review on Soechting, AJA 78. Id, McKay, A.G., 1984, "Art and Architecture as Severan Coin Types", in W. Heckel & R. Sullivan (eds.), Ancient Coins of the Graeco-Roman World. The Nickle Numismatic Papers.

Id.,

1952, "The Roman Army and the Roman Religious Year", HThR 45.

"Hellenistic Mysteries and Christian Sacraments", in Essays on Religion and Ancient

1972a,

World. McLuhan, 1971, M., Understanding Media.

Id., 1972b, "The Emperor's Divine Comes", in Essays on 1970 "Der Diadumenianus Munchen'', AA, 85.

Meischner,

J.,

Religion and, Ancient World.

Woburn -

Nodelman, S.A., 1965, Severan Imperial Portraiture 193-217 A.D.

Michaelis. A., 1882, Ancient Marbles in Great Britain. Michel, D., 1967, Alexander als Vorbild fur Pompeius, Collection Latomus, Vol. 94.

Id., 1975, "How to Read Roman Portrait?", Art in America

Milkovich, M., 1961, Roman Museum.

Id., 1982, "A Portrait of the Empress Plautillia", Getty

Portraits.

Worcester

63.

Art

Museum Journal 10. Palmer, R.E.A., 1978, "Severan Ruler-Cult and the Moon in the City of Rome", ANRW, II,16.2.

Millar, F., 1964, A Study of Cassius Dio.

Id, 1962, "The Date of the Constitutio Antoniniana", JEA 48. 110

D., 1976, "Ein Bildnis des Severus Alexander in Thessaloniki", AA.

Roll, I., 1985, "Classicisme et Provincialisme dans L'Orient

Pandermalis,

Mediterraneen a L 'Epoque Hellenistique et Romaine", IIPAKTIKA (AE>HNA, 4-10

Panofsky, E., 1939, (rept. 1972), Studies in Iconology.

LEIITEMBIIIOY.

1983, Toµoc; A').

Id., 1955, (rept. 1970), Meaning in Visual Arts.

Rubin, Z., 1980, Civil War Propaganda and Historiography.

Id., 1968, Idea, A Concept in Art Theory.

Id., 1974, Rev. on Birley, JRS 64.

Parlasca, K., 1980, "Ziir syrischen Plastik der rdmischen Kaiserzeit", Getty Museum Journal 8.

Id., 1975a, "Dia, Herodian and Severus' Second Parthian War", Chiron 5

Id., (May 1983), "Le mummie de/ Fayum", FMR.

Id., 1975b, "Further to the Dating of the Constitutio Antoniniana ", Latomus 34,2.

Peck, W.E., 1967, Mummy Portraits from Roman Egypt.

Id., 1976/77, "The Felicitas and the Concordia of the Severan House", Scripta Classica Israelica, Vol. III.

Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., 1983, "Central and Peripheral

Routes to Persuasion: Application to Advertising", Id., 1979, "Weather Miracles under Marcus Aurelius",

in Advertising and Consumer Psychology.

Athenaeum

57.

Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., Schumann, D., 1981, "Central

and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement", Journal of

Id., 1971, Supernatural

and Religious Sanction of the Emperors' Rule under the Severii 193-217, (Unpub. Diss.).

Consumer Reseach, 10. Petty, R.E., Ostorm, M.T., Brock, T.C., 1981, "Historical

Salama, P., 1964, "L'Empereur Macrin Parthicus Maximus", Revue des Etudes Anciennes 66.

Foundations of Cognitive Response Approach to Attitudes and Persuassion", Cognitive Responses in

Saletti, C., 1967, Ritratti Severiani.

Persuasion. Picard, G., 1969, Ancient Civilization in Rome.

Salzmann, D., 1983,"Die Bildniss des Macrinus", JDAI 98.

Platner,

Id., 1989, "Macrinus mit Caracalla und Julia Domna", AA

S.B., & Ashby, T., 1929, Dictionary of Ancient Rome.

A

Topographical

Heft 4. T., 1982, "Les Effigies imperiales dans /es forteresses militaires romains", WissZBerl 31, Nr.

Pollitt, J.J., 1966, (rept. 1983), The Art of Rome, Sources and Documents in the History of Art Series.

Sarnowski,

2-3.

Id., 1972, (rept 1980), Art and Experience

in Classical

Greece. Ramage,

Schlumberger, J., Munich 1974, Die Epitome de Caesaribus, Vestigia 18.

E.S., 1983, "Denigration of Predecessor under Claudius Galba and Vespasian", Historia 32.

Schwabe, L.C., 1985, "Hawara Portrait Mummy No. 4", JEA 71.

Richter, G .M.A., 1948, Roman Portraits in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Scott, K., 1975, The Imperial Cult under the Flavians.

Id., 1971, Engraved Gems of the Romans.

Sear, D.R., 1981, Roman Coins.

Id., 1951, "Who Made the Roman Portrait Statues?", TAPA

Seeberg, A., 1973, "Caracalla (oder Geta)", AK 16.

95. Shore, A.F., 1972, Portrait Painting from Roman Egypt.

Id., 1955, "The Origin of Verism in Roman Portraits", JRS D., 1964," Severus Alexander as Elagabalus' Associate" Historia 13.

Slobodan,

45. Robertson, A.S., 1977, Roman Imperial Coinage in the Hunter Coin Cabinet, III: Pertinax to Aemilian.

Smith,

A.H., 1904, A Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities.

Quagliozzi, C., 1991, Caio Pescennio Nigro. Smith, R.R.R., 1988, Hellenistic Royal Portraits. 111

Id., 1985, "Roman Portraits, Honours, Empresses and Late Emperors", JRS 75.

Id., 1983c ,"Marius Maximus Once Again", Historia Augusta Papers.

Soechting, D., 1972, Die Portrats des Septimius Severus.

Swift, E.H., 1923, "Imagines in Imperial Portraiture", AJA 27.

Sordi, M., (ed.), 1975-76, "I canali de/la propaganda nel mondo antico", Contributi dell' Istituto di Storia antica, IV, Vitae pessiero, Milan.

Taylor, L.R., 1949, Party Politics in the Age of Caesar.

Stambaugh, J.E., 1972, Sarapis under Early Ptolemies.

Thompson, D.L., 1975a, "The Choniqui d'Egypte 50.

Hartford

Horseman",

Starr, C.G., 1955-56, "Aurelius Victor, Historian of Empire", Amerian Historical Review 61.

Id., 1975b, "Four Fayum Portraits", Getty Museum Journal 2.

Strong, D., 1976 (rept. 1980), Roman Art.

Id., 1978/79, "A Painted Triptych from Roman Egypt", Getty Museum Journal 6/7.

Strong, D.E., Roman Imperial Sculpture, 1961.

Id., 1982, Mummy Portraits in the J. Paul Getty Museum. Id.,

1973, "Roman Museum", in D.E. Archeaology Theory and Practice.

Stuart-Jones, H., 1969, The Capitolino.

Sculpture

Strong

(ed.), Thompson, H.Al958, "Activities in the Athenian Agora, /957" Hesperia 27.

of the Museo Toynbee, J.M.C., 1944, (rept. 1986), Roman Medallions.

Id., 1968, The Sculpture of the Palazzo dei Conservatori. Stuart,

M., 1939, "How were Distributed?", AJA 43.

Imperial

Portraits

Id., 1964, Art in Roman Britain. Id., 1965, The Art of the Romans. Id., 1978, Roman Historical Portraits.

Sutherland, C.H.V., Policy.

1951, Coinage

in Roman Imperial

Id., 1947, "Ruler-Apotheosis in Ancient Rome", NCh Ser.6, 7.

Id., 1956, Art in Coinage. Id., 1959, "The Intelligibility of Roman Imperial Coin Types", JRS 49. Id., 1976, The Emperor and the Coinage, Julio-Claudian Studies. Sydenham, E.A., 1968, Historical References to Coins of the Roman , Empire, from Augustus to Gallienus. Syme, R., Sir, 1939, (rept. 1974), The Roman Revolution.

Id., 1956, "Picture-Language in Roman Art and Coinage", in R.A.G. Carson & C.H.V. Sutherland (eds.), Essays in Roman Coinage. Id., 1959, "A Bust of an Antonine Boy", JRS 49. Townsend, 1955, P.W., "The Revolution of A.D. 238. The Leaders and Their Aims", YCS 14. Traversari, G., Museo Archeologico di Venezia, I Ritratti . 1968. Usener, H., 1905, "Sol Jnvictus", Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie 69.

Id., 1968, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta. Id., 1971a, Emperors and Biography.

Varon, P., 1989, "/us Postlimini and the Soldier", in Roman Frontier Studies.

Id., 1971 b, The Historia Augusta. A Call of Clarity, Antiquitas 4, band 8.

Vermeule, C.C., 1968, Roman Imperial Art in Greece and Asia Minor.

Id., 1972, "The Son of the Emperor Macrinus", Phoenix 26.

Id., 1962, "Egyptian Contribution to Late Roman Imperial Portraiture", Journal of American Reseach Center in Egypt 1.

Id., 1983a ,"Propaganda in the HA", Historia Augusta Papers. Id., 1983b, Historia Augusta Papers.

Id., 1978, Roman Art, Early Republic to Late Empire. 112

Id., 1980a, Iconographic Studies.

Yavetz. Z., 1983, Julius Caesar and his Public Image.

Id., 1980b, "The Late Antonine and Severan Bronze Portraits from Southwest Asia Minor", Eikones (Festschrift H. Jucker).

Id., 1990, "The Personality of Augustus", in Raaflaub ed., Between Republic and Principate.

Vogt, J., 1924, Die Alexanderinischen Miinzen. Walker, S., Burnett, A., 1981, The Image of Augustus, (The British Museum Publication). Ward-Perkins, J.R., 1949, "Severan Art and Architecture at Lepcis-Magna", JRS, 38 Weber, M., 1961, "Three Types of Legitimate Rule", in A.W Etzioni (ed.), Sociological Reader on Complex Organization.

Yegel, F.K., 1981, "Roman Lady from a Southern California Collection", Getty Museum Journal 9. Youtie, H.C., 1948, "The Kline of Sarapis", HThR 41. Zajonc, R.B., 1968, "Attitudinal Effects of mere Exposure", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Monograph Supplement, part 2. Zoridis, P., 1984, "Two New Roman Portraits from Athens", AJA 88.

Wegner, M., 1976, "Bildnissbusten in 3 Jahrhunderts n. Ch", Festschrift fiir G. Kleiner. Weinstock, S., 1957, "Victor and Invictus", HThR 50. Welles, C.B., 1962, "The Discovery of Sarapis and the Foundation of Alexandria", Historia 11. White, P., 1967, "The Authorship of the HA", JRS 57. Whittaker, C.R., 1969, "Introduction to Herodianus", LCL. Wiggers,

H.B., Wegner, M., 1971, Das romische Herrscherbild, Caracalla, Geta, Plautilla, Macrinus bis Balbinus.

Willmias, M.G., 1902, "Studies in the Lives of Roman Empresses, I. Julia Domna", AJA 6. Winkes, R., 1973, "Mummy Portraits", Bulletin of Rhodos Island School of Design 59, no.4.

Id., 1982, Catalogue of the Classical Collection: Roman Paintings and Mosaics. Winkes, R., 1973, "Pysiognomnia: Probleme der r6mischer Portrats", ANRW I,4. Wiseman, T.P., 1981, "Practice and Theory in Roman Historiography", History 66 no. 218. Wood, S., 1986, Roman Portrait-Sculpture, 217-260 A.D.

Id., 1955, "The Origin of Verism in Roman Portraits", JRS 45. Id., 1981, "Subject and Artist: Studies in Roman Portraiture of the 3th Century", AJA 85. Yaouris, N., 1980, "Alexander and His Heritage", m The Search for Alexander. An Exhibition. 113

List of Illustrations and Photographic Credits: 18. Clodius Albinus. Bloomigton Museum of Arts, Indiana 1. Septimius Severus. Detail of a panel from the Arch of

Severus, Lepcis-Magna, ca. 203 A.D. After: Becatti (1968), fig. 347.

University. After: McCann (1968), pl. CII. 19. Porphyry statue from Caesarea Maritima, attributed to

Hadrian. After: "Ariel" Encyclopaedia (1979), 6066. 2. Septimius Severus and Julia Domna. etail of a panel from

the Argetarii Arch, Rome, 204 A.D. After: Strong (1961), fig. 112.

20. Marble relief depicting the Emperor Hadrian. After:

3. Bust ofSerapis, bronze, Roman copy, London, The British

21. Cult-Statue of Jupiter. London, British Museum. Photo

Strong (1961 ), fog. 80.

Museum. After: Cook (1967), fig. 137. 4. Bust of Serapis, marble, Roman copy, Rome, Vatican

British Museum, London, XCVII C15. 22.

Museum. After: Pollitt (1972), fig. 74.

Alexander the Great. tetradrachma, issued by Lysimachus. 315-281 B.C.E. After: Smith (1988), pl. 74.5.

5. "The Capitoline Triad". Detail from the Arch of Septimius

Severus, Lepcis-Magna, ca. 203 A.D. After: L'Orange (194 7), fig. 52.

23. Alexander the Great. "The Azara Portrait". Paris, Louvre

6. Replica of cult-statue attributed to Serapis, Alexanderia,

24. Caracalla, "The late type", aureus, Rome, 217 A.D.

Museum. After: Id., pl. 1.2.

After: Kent, Overbeck, Stylow (1973), pl. 96, no. 412.

Graeco-Roman Museum. After: Id., fig. 53. 7a, b. Septimius Severus. Munich, Glyptothek. After: Glyptothek Mtinchen (1986), pl. 40.

25. Caracalla, "The late type", Florence, Galleria Uffizi.

8. Septimius

Severus. Paris, Louvre Museum. After: Bernoulli (1894), II,3, pl. XIIIa.

26. Pompeius, denarius, 38 B.C.E. After: Smith (1988), pl.

9. Bust of Zeus. Florence, Galleria Uffizi. After: Mansuelli

27. Pompeius, Copenhagen, Carlsberg Glyptothek. After: Toynbee (1978), fig. 18.

(1958), I, fig. 42. 10. Bust of Jupiter. Florence, Galleria Uffizi. After: Id., fig.

After: Mansuelli (1961 ), II, fig. 140a,b.

80.7.

28. Alexander the Great, beginning of the 3th century A.D.

41a,b.

Boston Museum of Arts. After: Bieber (1964 ), pl. LVIII.108.

11. Bust of Asclepius. Florence, Galleria Uffizi. After: Id.,

fig. 133a,b. 12. Bust of Ammon. Florence, Galleria Uffizi. After: Id., fig.

29. Philip II, Medallion from Tarsus. After: Id., pl. I, fig. 1. 30. Alexander the Great, Madallion from Tarsus. After: Id.,

pl. LXI, fig. 115.

153. 13. Bust of Saturnus. Rome, Vatican Museum, no. 307, Inv.

31. Philip II, Thessaloniki, Archaeological Museum. After:

698 (Photo: Drora Baharal) 14. Marcus

Andronicos (1989), 127, fig. 81.

Aurelius. Paris, Louvre Museum. After: Bernoulli (1894), 11,2,pl. LXIX.

32. Alexander the Great, Madallion from Abu-kir. After:

15. Lucius Verus. Paris, Louvre Museum. After: Id., pl.

33. Caracalla, Madallion from Abu-kir. After: The Search for

Bieber (1964), pl. XXVIII, fig. 114.

Alexander (1980), 114, fig. 33.

LVla,b. 16. Commodus. Rome, Conservatori Museum. After: Strong

34. Septimius Severus, aureus, Rome, 193/4 A.D. After:

(197 6), fig. 149. 17. Pescennius Niger. Florence, Galleria Uffizi. After:

Kent, Overbeck, Stylow (1973), pl. 93, no. 381. 35. Septimius Severus, aureus, Rome, 194 A.D. After: Id.,

pl. 93, no. 382.

Mansuelli (1958), II, fig. 196.

114

36. Septimius Severus, aureus, Rome, 202 A.D. After: Id., pl. 93, no. 388.

56. Commodus, bronze medallion. After: Id., tav. 78.8. 57. Septimius Severus, Caracalla and Geta, Gema, 198-209

37. Septimius Severus, aureus, Rome, 202 A.D. After:

A.O. After: Neverov (1972), fig. c.

McCann (1968), pl. XI, no. I. 58. Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, Gema, 161-169 A.D. 38. Septimius Severus, sestertius, Rome, 210 A.D. After:

After: Id., fig. b.

Kent, Overbeck, Stylow (1973), pl. 95, no. 398. 59. Marcus Aurelius, Rome, Capitolini Museum. After: 39. Septimius Severus, aureus, Rome, 209 A.D. After:

Stuart-Jones ( 1969), pl. 72.

McCann (1968), pl. XIII, no. 4. 60. Septimius Severus, Rome, Vatican Museum, Inv. 771.

40. Septimius Severus divus, denarius, Rome, 211 A.D.

Photo: Drora Baharal.

After: Kent, Overbeck, Stylow (1973), pl. 96, no. 404. 61. Septimius Severus from Marakuana, North-Africa, Paris, 41. Septimius Severus, painted tondo from Berlin, ca.

Louvre Museum. Photo Museum, Ma. 1119.9830436 AGR.

199/200 A.D., Berlin, Staatsbibliothek. After: Strong (1976), fig. 184.

62. Commodus from Marakuana,

North-Africa, Paris, Louvre Museum. Photo Museum, Ma. 1163.9830430 AGR.

42a,b. Septimius Severus, Los Angeles, private collection.

After: Mccann (1968), pl. XXVII, cat. 9a,c. 43. Septimius Severus, Rome, National Museum. After:

Felletti Maj (1953), fig. 251. 44. Septimius Severus, Florence, Galleria Uffizi. After:

63. Julia Oomna, sestertius, Rome, 211/217 A.O. After: Kent, Overbeck, Stylow (1973), pl. 95, no. 403. 64. Faustina the Younger, bronze medallion, Rome, 161/176

Mansuelli, (1958), II, fig. 136. 45. Marcus Aurelius, sestertius, Rome, 172/3 A.D. After:

A.D.(After: Id., pl. 83, no. 351). 65. Julia Domna, Munich, Glyptothek. After: Bernoulli

Kent, Overbeck, Stylow (1973), pl. 87, no. 345. 46. Marcus Aurelius, detail from the Arch of Marcus

(189), 11,3,pl. XVIb. 66. Faustina the Younger, Venice, Archaeological Museum.

Aurelius, Rome, Conservatori Museum. After: Hannestad (1988), fig. 141. 47. Lucius Verus, aureus, Rome, 161-169 A.O. After:

After: Traversari (1968), fig. 58b. 67. Julia Oomna, Munich, Glyptothek. After: Glyptothek Munchen (1986), fig. 43.

Bernoulli (1894), II,2, Munztaf. V. 68. Faustina the Younger, Venice, Archaeological Museum 48. Commodus, aureus, Rome, 187/8 A.O. After: Kent

After: Traversari (1968), fig. 58a.

Overbeck, Stylow (1973), pl. 89, no. 364. 69. Julia Domna, Rome, National Museum. After: Felletti 49. Clodius Albinus, bronze medallion, 194/5 A.D. After:

Maj (1953), fig. 257.

McCann (1968), pl. IV, fig. 2. 70. Julia Domna, aureus, Rome, 193/211 A.D. After: Kent,

50. Pescennius Niger, aureus, (Antioch?), 193/4 A.D. After:

Overbeck, Stylow (1973), pl. 94, no. 400.

Id., pl. II, fig. 6. 71. Julia Domna, Ostia, Archaeological Museum, Inv. no.

51. Pertinax, sestertius, Rome, 193 A.D. After: Id., pl. III.

21. Photo Oeutsches Archaeologisches Institut, Rom.

fig. 4. 72. Faustina the Younger, Rome, National Museum. After: 52. Didius Julianus, aureus, Rome, 193 A.O. After: Id., pl.

Felletti Maj (1953), fig. 237.

II, fig. 2. 73. Caracalla as a child, aureus, Rome, 198 A.O. After: 53. Septimius Severus, bronze medallion, 194/5 A.O. After:

MCcCann (1968), pl. XVI, fig. 1.

Gnecchi (1912), II, tav. 93.10. 74a,b. Caracalla, detail from the Arch of Severus, Lepcis 54. Marcus Aurelius, bronze medallion. After: Id., tav. 60.7

Magna, ca. 203 A.O. After: Ward-Perkins (1949), pl. XI, figs. 1,2.

55. Lucius Verus, bronze medallion. After: Id., tav. 74.9.

115

75. Caracalla as a young man, aureus, Rome, 208/210 A.D. After: McCann (1968), pl. XVI, fig. 3.

94. Caracalla, aureus, Rome, 196/197 A.D. After: Id., pl. 93,

76. Geta as a child, aureus, Rome, 198/199 A.D. After: Id., pl. XVII, fig. 1.

95. Diadumenianus, denarius, Rome, 218 A.D. After: Id., pl.

77. Geta as a young man, denarius, Rome, 208 A.D. After: Kent, Overbeck, Stylow (1973), pl. 94, no. 393.

96. Caracalla, aureus, Rome, 202 A.D. After: Id., pl. 94, no.

78. Commodus as a child, Medallion, Rome, 172/173 A.D.

97. Elagabalus, aureus, Rome, 218-220 A.D. After: Id., pl.

no. 386.

98, no. 416.

390.

After: Id., pl. 87, no. 345.

98, no. 417.

79. Marcus Aurelius as a young man, Medallion, Rome, 145/161 A.D. After: Id., pl. 79, no. 327.

98. Elagabalus, aureus, Rome, 220-221 A.D. After:ld., pl.

80. Caracalla as a child, Paris, Louvre Museum. Photo

99. Elagabalus, sestertius, Rome, 221-222 A.D. After: Id., pl,

98, no. 418.

Museum, Ma. 1172.9830440 AGR.

99, no. 426.

81. Geta as a child, Munich, Glyptothek, no. 49. Photo

lOOa,b. Elagabalus, "type III", Rome, Capitolini Museum.

Museum.

Photo Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut, Rom, Inst, Neg. 66.736.

82. Commodus as a child, Rome, Capitolini Museum. Photo

Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut, Rom, Inst, Neg. 1260.

101. Bronze head of Augustus, London, British Museum.

83. Annius Verus, Florence, Galleria Uffizi. After: Mansuelli

102a. Polemo II, silver coin, Pontus, 38 A.D. After: Toynbee

After: Walker, Brunett (1981), fig. 22a.

(1978), fig. 217.

(1961),II,fig.120. 84. Marcus Aurelius as a young man, Florence, Galleria

102b. Vabalathus, antoninianus, Antioch, 267-272 A.D.

Uffizi. After: Id., fig. 129a.

After: Id., fig. 294. 102c. Mithradates I, bronze coin, Parthia, 138-171 B.C.E.

85. Lucius Verus as a young man, Munich, Glyptothek, no.

After: Id., fig. 313.

42. Photo Museum.

103. Painted portrait of a boy from Hawara, Egypt, London,

86. Commodus as a young man, Paris, Louvre Museum.

Photo Museum, Ma. 1123. 9830434 AGR.

British Museum. After: Shore (1972), pl. 20.

87. Caracalla, bronze medallion, 199 A.D. After: Gnecchi

104a. Severus Alexander, aureus, Rome, 222 A.D. After:

(1912), II, tav. 95.2.

Kent, Overbeck, Stylow (1973), pl. 100, no. 428.

88. Macrinus, denarius, Rome, 217 A.D. After: Kent,

104b. Severus Alexander, aureus, Rome, 223 A.D. After:

Overbeck, Stylow (197), pl. 97, no. 413.

Id., pl. 100, no. 429.

89. Macrinus, aureus, Rome, 217/218 A.D. After: Id., pl. 97,

105. Severus Alexander, dupondius, Rome, 228 A.D. After:

no. 414.

Id., pl. 100, no. 433.

90a,b. Macrinus,

Rome, Conservatori Museum. Photo Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut, Rom, Inst, Neg. 69.2168.

106. Severus Alexander, denarius, Rome, 229 A.D. After:

Id., pl. 100, no. 435. 107. Severus Alexander, Naples, National-Archaeological

91a,b. Macrinus, Belgrade, City Museum After: Salzmann

Museum. Photo Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut, Rom, Inst, Neg. 56.1331.

(1973), pis. VI, VII.1. 92a,b. Macrinus, Rome, Capitolini Museum. After: Id., figs.

14, 18. 93. Diadumenianus, aureus, Rome, 2 I 7/2 I 8 A.D. After:

Kent, Overbeck, Stylow (1973), pl. 97, no. 415.

116

PLATES

117

Fig. 1. Septimius Severus. detail of panel, Arch of Severus, Lepcis Magna, ca. 203 A.D.

Fig. 2. Septimius Severus and Julia Domna. detail of panel, Argetarii Arch, Rome, 204 A.D.

II

Fig. 3. Bust of Serapis, bronze, Roman copy, London, The British Museum.

Fig. 4. Bust of Serapis, marble, Roman copy, Rome, Vatican Museum.

111

Fig. 5. "The Capitoline Triad". detail from the Arch of Septimius Severus, Lepcis Magna, ca. 203 A.D.

Fig. 6. Replica of cult-statue attributed to Serapis, Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum.

IV

Fig. 7a. Septimius Severus. Munich, Glyptothek.

V

Fig. 7b. Septimius Severus. Munich, Glyptothek.

VI

Fig. 8. Septimius Severus. Paris, Louvre Museum.

Fig. 9. Bust of Zeus. Florence, Galleria Uffizi.

VII

Fig. 10. Bust of Jupiter. Florence, Galleria Uffizi.

Fig. 11. Bust of Asclepius. Florence, Galleria Uffizi.

Fig. 12. Bust of Ammon. Florence, Galleria Uffizi.

Fig. 13. Bust of Saturn us. Rome, Vatican Museum

VIII

Fig. 14. Marcus Aurelius. Paris, Louvre Museum.

Fig. 15. Lucius Verus. Paris, Louvre Museum.

IX

Fig. 16. Commodus. Rome, Conservatori Museum.

Fig. 17. Pescennius Niger. Florence, Galleria Uffizi.

Fig. 18. Clodius Albinus. Bloomigton Museum of Arts, Indiana University.

X

Fig. 19. Porphyry statue, Caesarea Maritima, attributed to Hadrian.

Fig. 20. Marble relief depicting the Emperor Hadrian.

XI

Fig. 21. Cult-Statue of Jupiter. London, British Museum.

XII

Fig. 22. Alexander the Great, tetradrachma, issued by Lysimachus, 315-281 B.C.E.

Fig. 24. Caracalla, "The late type", aureus, Rome, 217 A.D.

Fig. 23. Alexander the Great. "The Azara Portrait" .Paris, Louvre Museum.

XIII

Fig. 25a. Caracalla, "The late type", Florence, Galleria Uffizi.

Fig. 25b. Caracalla, "The late type", Florence, Galleria Uffizi.

XIV

Fig. 26. Pompeius, denarius, 38 B.C.E.

Fig. 27. Pompeius, Copenhagen, Carlsberg Glyptothek.

Fig. 28. Alexander the Great, beginning of the 3th century A.D. Boston Museum of Arts.

Fig. 29. Philip II, Medallion from Tarsus.

xv Fig. 30. Alexander the Great, Madallion from Tarsus.

Fig. 3 I. Philip II, Thessaloniki, Archaeological Museum.

Fig. 32. Alexander the Great, Madallion from Abu-kir.

Fig. 33. Caracalla, Madallion from Abu-kir.

Fig. 34. septimius Severus, aureus, Rome, \93/4 A..D.

Fig. 35. septimius Severus, aureus, Rome, \94 A..D.

XVII

Fig. 36. Septimius Severus, aureus, Rome, 202 A.D. Ob.

Fig. 37. Septimius Severus, aureua, Rome, 202 A.D.

R.

Fig. 38. Septimius Severus, sestertius, Rome, 210 A.D.

XVIII

Fig. 39. Septimius Severus, aureus, Rome, 209 A.D.

Fig. 40. Septimius Severus divus, denarius, Rome, 211 A.D.

Fig. 41. Septimius Severus, painted tondo from Berlin, ca. 199/200 A.D., Berlin, Staatsbibliothek.

XIX

Fig. 42a. Septimius Severus, Los Angeles, private collection.

Fig. 42b. Septimius Severus, Los Angeles, private collection.

Fig. 43. Septimius Severus, Rome, National Museum.

Fig. 44. Septimius Severus, Florence, Galleria Uffizi.

xx Fig. 45. Marcus Aurelius, sestertius, Rome, 172/3 A.D.

Fig. 47. Lucius Verus, aureus, Rome, 161-169 A.D

Fig. 46. Marcus Aurelius, detail from the Arch of Marcus Aurelius, Rome, Conservatori Museum.

XXI

Fig. 48. Commodus, aureus, Rome, 187/8 A.D.

Fig. 49. Clodius Albinus, bronze medallion, 194/5 A.D.

Fig. 50. Pescennius Niger, aureus, (Antioch?), 193/4 A.D.

Fig. 51. Pertinax, sestertius, Rome, 193 A.D.

Fig. 52. Didius Julianus, aureus, Rome, 193 A.D.

XXII

Fig. 53. Septimius Severus, bronze medallion, 194/5 A.D.

Fig. 54. Marcus Aurelius, bronze medallion.

Fig. 55. Lucius Verus, bronze medallion.

Fig. 56. Commodus, bronze medallion.

XXIII

Fig. 57. Septimius Severus, Caracalla and Geta, Gema, 198-209 A.D.

Fig. 58. Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, Gema, 161-169 A.D.

XX.IV

Fig. 59. Marcus Aurelius, Rome, Capitolini Museum.

Fig. 60. Septimius Severus, Rome, Vatican Museum.

XXV

Fig. 61. Septimius Severus Marakuana, North-Africa, Paris, Louvre Museum.

Fig. 62. Commodus Marakuana, North-Africa, Paris, Louvre Museum.

XXVI

Fig. 63. Julia Domna, sestertius, Rome, 211/217 A.D.

Fig. 64. Faustina the Younger, bronze medallion, Rome, 161/176 A.D.

XXVII

Fig. 65. Julia Domna, Munich, Glyptothek.

Fig. 66. Faustina the Younger, Venice, Archaeological Museum.

XX.VIII

Fig. 67. Julia Domna, Munich, Glyptothek.

Fig. 68. Faustina the Younger Venice, Archaeological Museum

Fig. 69. Julia Domna, Rome, National Museum.

XXIX

70. Julia Domna, aureus, Rome, 193/211 A.D.

Fig. 71. Julia Domna, Ostia, Archaeological Museum.

Fig. 72. Faustina the Younger, Rome, National Museum.

XXX

Fig. 73. Caracalla as a child, aureus, Rome, 198 A.D.

Fig. 74a. Caracalla, detail from the Arch of Severus, Lepcis Magna, ca. 203 A.O.

XXXI

Fig. 74b. Geta, detail, Arch of Severus, Lepcis Magna, ca. 203 A.O.

Fig. 75. Caracalla as a young man, aureus, Rome, 208/210 A.D.

76. Geta as a child, aureus, Rome, 198/199 A.O.

XXXII

Fig. 77. Geta as a young man, denarius, Rome, 208 A.D.

Fig. 78. Commodus as a child, Medallion, Rome, 172/173 A.O.

XXXIII

Fig. 79. Marcus Aurelius as a young man, Medallion, Rome, 145/161 A.D.

Fig. 80. Caracalla as a child, Paris, Louvre Museum.

XX.XIV

Fig. 81. Geta as a child, Munich, Glyptothek,.

Fig. 82. Commodus as a child, Rome, Capitolini Museum.

XXXV

Fig. 83. Annius Verus, Florence, Galleria Uffizi.

Fig. 84. Marcus Aurelius as a young man, Florence, Galleria Uffizi.

XXXVI

Fig. 85. Lucius Verus as a young man, Munich, Glyptothek,.

XXXVII

Fig. 86. Commodus as a young man, Paris, Louvre Museum.

Fig. 87. Caracalla, bronze medallion, 199 A.D.

XXXVIII

Fig. 88. Macrinus, denarius, Rome, 217 A.D.

Fig. 89. Macrinus, aureus, Rome, 217/218 A.D

Fig. 90a. Macrinus, Rome, Conservatori Museum.

Fig. 90b. Macrinus, Rome, Conservatori Museum.

XXXIX

Fig. 91 a. Macrinus, Belgrade, City Museum

Fig. 91 b. Macrinus, Belgrade, City Museum

XL

Fig. 92a. Macrinus, Rome, Capitolini Museum.

Fig. 92b. Macrinus, Rome, Capitolini Museum.

XLI

Fig. 93. Diadumenianus, aureus, Rome, 217/218 A.D.

Fig. 94. Caracalla, aureus, Rome, 196/197 A.D

Fig. 95. Oiadumenianus, denarius, Rome, 218 A.O.

Fig. 96. Caracalla, aureus, Rome, 202 A.O.

XLII

Fig. 97. Elagabalus, aureus, Rome, 218-220 A.D.

Fig. 98. Elagabalus, aureus, Rome, 220-221 A.D.

Fig. 99. Elagabalus, sestertius, Rome, 221-222 A.D.

XLIII

Fig. 100a. Elagabalus, "type III", Rome, Capitolini Museum.

Fig. I 00b. Elagabalus, "type III", Rome, Capitolini Museum.

XLIV

Fig. 101. Bronze head of Augustus, London, British Museum.

Fig. 102b. Vabalathus, antoninianus, Antioch, 267-272 A.O.

Fig. 102a. Polemo II, silver coin, Pontus, 38 A.D.

Fig. 102c. Mithradates I, bronze coin,. Parthia, I 38-171 B.C.E

XLV

Fig. 103. Painted portrait of a boy, Hawara, Egypt, London, British Museum.

XLVI

Fig. I 04a. Severus Alexander, aureus, Rome, 222 A.O.

Fig. I 04b. Severus Alexander, aureus, Rome, 223 A.O.

Fig. I 05. Severus Alexander, dupondius, Rome, 228 A.O.

Fig. I 06. Severus Alexander, denarius, Rome, 229 A.O.

XLVII

Fig. 107. Severus Alexander, Naples, National-Archaeological Museum.