Download Tracing the Antinous Cult - UvA-DARE

Tracing the Antinous Cult
Explaining the Success and Spread of the Cult of Hadrian’s Favorite
Carl Verbruggen | 5954614 | Master’s Thesis | Ancient History | University of Amsterdam
Supervisor Prof. Dr. Emily Hemelrijk | Second Assessor Dr. Lucinda Dirven
20/06/2014
Contents
Introduction [1-2]
1 | Unto the Nile – a God is Born. Tracing the Antinous Cult [3-17]
The Story [3-7]
The Sources [7-13]
The Sites [13-17]
2 | Sexuality and Culture in the Greek East and the Latin West [18-33]
Cultural Interactions between East and West [18-21]
Proto-racism and the Roman Distinction between Old and New [21-23]
Hadrianus 'Graeculus', the Traveler in the East [23-27]
Zeus and Ganymede, or the Greek Tradition of Boy-Love [28-33]
3 | A Star Rose up to the Sky. Antinous and the Flexibility of his
Religious Image [34-45]
Osirantinous [34-39]
The Imperial Cult [39-42]
The Divine Ephebe [42-45]
Conclusion [46-47]
Bibliography [48-52]
List of illustrations [53]
Table II: List of Images [54-59]
Acknowledgments [60]
Introduction
The face of Antinous is still as recognizable today as it was in the second century CE, when
his fame was spread throughout the Roman Empire. The eromenos of the emperor Hadrian,
who died in the Nile in 130 CE, became a deity, an event of epic proportions unprecedented
in Roman history for persons outside of the imperial family. From Antinoopolis in Egypt, a
new city founded in his honor, his cult spread quickly throughout the eastern part of the
empire, with especially strong presences in Bithynion, the Pontic hometown of Antinous, and
Mantineia, its mother city in Greece. As a credit to his popularity, his likeness is only the
third most commonly encountered among ancient statues in our own age (with the emperors
Augustus and Hadrian filling the respective first and second places).1 Besides statues and
busts, his likeness can be encountered on coins, cameos, amulets and even his name became a
popular choice to give to children, by parents who were apparently inspired by the young
Bithynian. Furthermore, games and mysteries were devoted to Antinous in several places,
such as in Athens and Argos. Perhaps the most striking evidence for the popularity of
Antinous’ cult is its longevity: whereas most of the cults connected with the imperial house
disappeared after the death of its recipient, the cult of the young ephebe very likely outlived
that of Hadrian himself, ending only in the fourth century CE as one of paganism's last great
symbols in the struggle with Christianity.2
In the West, however, a very different picture emerges. With the exception of Rome,
there are hardly any remains to be found of cults dedicated to Antinous. This fact often
surfaces in the secondary literature regarding the history of Hadrian and Antinous, yet it is
never fully explained. Often, the focus is on a single peculiarity of one of these two ancient
celebrities, such as the disputed nature Hadrian’s pro-Hellenic policies, his harsh treatment of
the Jews, Antinous as the champion of paganism in Late Antiquity and, of special interest, the
exceptional relationship between Hadrian and Antinous, and its status within Roman culture.3
Yet though often mentioned, a thorough explanation for the unequal spread of the Antinous
cult is never fully explained. The main goal of this investigation will thus be to analyze the
extent of the Antinous cult in the Roman Empire, comparing its presence in the two halves of
the empire, in order to answer the question why his cult appears to have been much more
widespread in the eastern than in the western part.
Furthermore, special attention will be given to explaining the success of Antinous’
cult. Taking as its god a hitherto unknown boy from a rural backwater in the Roman Empire,
the Antinous cult at first sight does not appear to fit within the parameters of a standard
1
C. Vout, Power and Eroticism in Imperial Rome (Cambridge 2007) 53.
2 R. Lambert, Beloved and God (London 1984) 220-221.
3 Pro-hellenic policies: M. Boatwright, Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire (Princeton 2000);
Jews: A. Birley, Hadrian. The Restless Emperor (London 1997); Antinous as champion and lover: Lambert
(1997).
1
religious cult in Antiquity. As we will see, the success of his image cannot be explained
merely by his link with the emperor or his remarkable beauty, but instead originated from a
multitude of elements, all of which contributed to the success of his cult.
For this purpose, this thesis will tackle the main premise in three broad parts: first of
all the lives of Hadrian and Antinous will be reconstructed with the purpose of ascertaining
the nature of their relationship as precisely as possible. Furthermore, the first chapter will also
provide an overview of all the sites where the worship of Antinous can be identified, linking
many of them with the physical presence of Hadrian, who had a special relationship with the
Hellenistic East. The second chapter will delve deeper into the sexual and cultural norms of
both halves of the empire in order to find out whether possible differences in culture and
sexuality between the Latin West and the Greek East influenced the distribution of the
Antinous cult in these respective spheres of the Roman Empire. Lastly, the third chapter will
analyze the religious nature of Antinous’ images, revealing the pluralistic message his image
conveyed to the Roman believers, in some cases revealing a link with Hadrian’s emperor cult.
Each section will make use of primary and secondary literature, supplemented by images of
Antinous
2
1 | Unto the Nile – a God is Born. Tracing the Antinous Cult
The Story
The story of Hadrian and Antinous is clad in mystery. None of the sources mention Antinous
before his death in October 130, nor can any of his images be dated from before this event.
This mysterious anonymity was completely shattered, however, upon the young ephebe’s
demise. As the cult spread throughout the empire and statues were produced at a high rate,
while numerous authors commented on Hadrian’s grief and relayed the beauty of Antinous.
Also, they engaged in gossip and speculation: doubt was expressed whether the emperor’s
favorite really was killed in an accident, as stated by the authorities, or that perhaps the
beautiful Bithynian had been offered up as a human sacrifice in some dark ritual, either out of
his own accord or against his will. These wagging tongues, however, did not impede the
massive production of Antinous’ imagery, as statues, coins, cameos and busts found their
way to all corners of the empire, to public temples and altars, as well as private homes and
collegia. Yet despite this remarkably high number of objects produced in Antinous’ honor
and the lavish attention given to his person in ancient sources, the interpretation of the extant
sources that have survived up until now is highly problematic.
First of all, the written sources that talk about Antinous are relatively few in number,
as much has become lost during the ages, such as the autobiography of the emperor Hadrian
himself. Also, the sources that did survive are from a later period and are far from objective,
as many were written by Christian Romans inherently hostile to the deification of the male
lover of a pagan emperor. Another problem is that, even in the twenty-first century, some
conservative historians avoid the topic of Antinous in their studies of Hadrian, thus censoring
the historical truth.4 Furthermore, the material sources pertaining to Antinous and his cult are
far less in number than they were in the second century AD, when, according to estimates by
historians, more than 2000 sculptures of Antinous were produced.5 Much has been lost
through destruction in war and ignorance, either purposefully by invaders and iconoclast
Christians or, rather more mundane, purely out of practical reasons, as the great city of
Antinoopolis, for example, completely disappeared during the nineteenth century as, little by
little, Egyptian peasants burned up the marble city and its objects in their lime kilns.
Moreover, those object lucky enough to have been preserved often pose a challenge to
interpret, as it is not always clear whether they had a religious function or rather a purely
decorous one.
Faced with this relative poverty of sources and their dubious nature, the goal of this
chapter will thus be to reconstruct the story of Hadrian and Antinous as accurately as
possible, using all the available sources, literary as well as material, in an as thorough and
4
See: J. Blázquez, Adriano (Barcelona 2008); In his biography of Hadrian, the now 88-year-old Spanish
historian José María Blázquez barely devotes any attention on Antinous, limiting himself to two pages, mostly
on his sculptures, during which he throws in three words saying Antinous probably was Hadrian’s lover.
5
Lambert (1984) 3; A. Everitt, Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome (New York 2009) 293.
3
structured manner as possible. An overview of all the objects and sites that could have had a
religious function will be presented; coupled with their place of discovery, the pattern of their
distribution will provide this investigation with a framework upon which the further
arguments of the second and third chapter can be built. But before engaging in this
reconstructive enterprise, we must begin with the personal histories of Hadrian and Antinous
themselves, as the very reason for the existence of the cult lies within the intimate
relationship between these two protagonists.
They probably met each other in either 123 or 124, when Hadrian’s frequent
travelling brought him to the territory of Bithynia, which at the time formed part of the
Roman province of Bithynia-Pontus. These forested mountains were home to Antinous, who,
according to our sources was born in Bithynion-Claudiopolis6, and at the time must have
been a young boy. Although no source mentions Antinous’ date of birth, historians have
made an attempt to assess his age by analyzing his non-idealized imagery. For example, the
tondi on the arch of Constantine in Rome depicting hunting scenes with Hadrian are thought
by some to depict him as a young man of about twenty years old (Images 1-3).7 Counting
back from his time of death, one might thus conjecture that the boy had been with Hadrian for
seven years, making him around thirteen years old at the time of Hadrian’s visit to Bithynia.8
How exactly they met is unknown, though there is a good chance the young boy could have
joined the vast crowd of Hadrian’s imperial entourage, which included huntsmen, or the
emperor might have had the chance to lay his eyes upon him during some kind of public
event, such as an athletics competition. Regardless of the exact circumstances, it is highly
plausible that this is where the emperor and his favorite first met, since the sources do not
mention Hadrian visiting this region a second time.
As a native from Bithynia, Antinous would have been considered Greek by Roman
standards. Before Nikomedes IV of Bithynia left his realm to the Roman Republic in 74
BCE, Bithynia had existed as an Hellenistic kingdom, its lands mainly populated by settlers
from Greece’s mainland and Thrace’s shores. Though Bithynia lay outside of the Greek
heartland and its cultural realm also comprised eastern cultural elements, in Hadrian’s age it
was recognized as belonging to the Greek cultural sphere. In fact, Antinous’ native city of
Bithynion claimed descent from the Arcadian city of Mantinea, hereby actively constructing
a Greek identity for itself.9 Also, men of great learning such as Dio of Prusa, Arrian, Quirinus
and Cassius Dio of Nicaea, famous exponents of Greek language and thought, were notable
compatriots of Antinous, sharing the same cultural heritage.10
In regard to his legal status, it can be safely assumed Antinous was not a Roman
citizen. Although Bithynia belonged to the Roman Empire, the vast majority of its inhabitants
6
Dio LXIX.11.
Lambert (1984) 118; Although almost all historians agree that Antinous is shown on several of the tondi, such
as the one depicting the boar hunt, there is debate concerning his presence on the lion hunt tondus; as such, the
identification of an adult Antinous is uncertain; for the debate see: Turcan R., ‘Les Tondi d’Hadrien sur l'Arc de
Constantin’, Comptes Rendus des Séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Issue 1 (1991) 56-7.
8
Lambert (1984) 19; Birley (1997) 158.
9
Everitt (2009) 238.
10
Lambert (1984) 15.
7
4
were not Roman citizens, as only in 212, during the reign of the emperor Caracalla, Roman
citizenship would be conferred on all freemen of the empire. Furthermore, to be admitted as a
Roman citizen was an honor usually granted only to certain members of the provincial local
elite.11
There have even been voices claiming Antinous was a slave, a tradition which became
commonplace during the Renaissance and which was based on only one single ancient
reference designating Antinous as such.12 This source from 310, from the hands of the church
historian Eusebius, mockingly refers to “Antinous the slave () of Hadrian Caesar”.13
Rather than based upon facts, as there is no evidence to support this claim, the assumption
that Antinous must have been a slave originated from the rise of Christianity in the Roman
Empire, where by the fourth century Hadrian and his homosexual practices were considered
anathema to Christian norms and values. Furthermore, none of the other Christian authors
mention Antinous’ status as a slave, neither would this have been likely, since the
divinization of a slave would have been completely reprehensible in a society were slaves
were generally regarded as sub-human, personal possessions.14 As such, the most logical
conclusion would be to treat Antinous as a free non-Roman citizen of Bithynion, a legal
status which will play an important role further down this investigation.15
Another historiographical tradition that until the twentieth century had been copied
persistently was that of Antinous as Hadrian’s illegitimate son. Stemming from the same
prejudice towards homosexuality in puritan Christian morality, which dominated western
culture at the time and thus also the historical discipline, these scholars did their best to avoid
the topic of Hadrian’s sexuality: “Whether the relations between the emperor Hadrian and his
beautiful young favorite were carnal or not, we cannot be sure. But what we can be certain of
is this: […] that many people did suppose that their association was based on a physical
relationship, and that they did not reprobate it in the least, particularly in the Hellenic world
in which Hadrian was most at home. However much we may deplore this fact, it simply is not
possible to equate ancient and modern canons of morality.”16 When even that was no longer
possible, they downplayed and rejected all ancient sources referring to Antinous as Hadrian’s
lover.17 A convenient alternative for an “improper” love affair, the illegitimate son theory
tried its best to present the relationship between Antinous and Hadrian as acceptable to the
11
Everitt (2009) 239.
The most recent repetition of the claim that Antinous was a slave (“l’esclave bithynien”) was made by M.
Malaise in: Les conditions de penetration et de diffusion des cultes égyptiens en Italie (Leiden 1972) 422-3.
13
Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. IV.8.2.
14
Lambert (1984) 21.
15
It is completely unknown to which social class Antinous belonged. Lambert suggests he “came from lower
down the social scale of Claudiopolis – perhaps peasant farmers or small business men, free and respectable
enough, owning slaves of their own perhaps, but socially undistinguished”. Though plausible, as Lambert bases
his argument on the fact that if Antinous were from a prominent family, hostile sources surely would have
mentioned it, this assumption is purely based on conjecture and will thus be left open; see: Lambert (1984) 22.
16
S. Perowne, Hadrian (London 1960) 100; See also: R. Syme, Tacitus (Oxford 1958) 249; Regarding the topic
of Hadrian’s sexuality this scholar restricts himself to the mysterious remark: “some of his habits are known”.
17
See: Perowne (1960) 157; Perowne tries his best to revision Antinous as Hadrian’s beloved adoptive son,
since “there were some things that neither Greece nor Rome would tolerate […] Hadrian, whatever may have
been his private tastes, would be the last to flaunt a connection of this sort, nor would Rome have tolerated him
had he done so”.
12
5
social values of the time but was not based on any evidence and was rather constructed
wholly on conjecture and speculation.
As a matter of fact, all the evidence in the ancient sources points to a homosexual love
affair between the emperor and the young ephebe. Pagan and Christian sources alike mention
the exceptional beauty of the Bithynian and the attraction it held for Hadrian.18 Furthermore,
Hadrian was said to hold a reputation for promiscuity with boys: according to some sources,
Hadrian was “lascivious”19 and “sensual”.20 His predilection for youths was not exceptional,
as his predecessor and great-uncle, the emperor Trajan, himself had been notorious for his
fornications with young males. In his fourth-century biography of the previous emperors, the
pagan emperor Julian even noted, imagining the deified Trajan’s ascent to Olympus, that
“From now on Zeus, our master, had better look out if he wants to keep Ganymede for
himself”.21
Finally, the absence of any sexual relationships between Hadrian and a woman in the
ancient sources points to a lack of interest of the emperor towards the female sex. Although
Hadrian was married to Sabina, the grand-niece of Trajan, their marriage did not produce any
children and appears to have been a ‘marriage blanc’, an unconsummated union.22 Moreover,
their mutual dislike for each other surfaces in two important sources, the HA and the Epitome
de Caesaribus, both fourth-century sources which were based on the lost Vita Hadriani by
Marius Maximus, who wrote at the beginning of the third century. In these works the cold
and distant relationship between both individuals forms a recurrent theme. 23 Though the
validity of these claims cannot be proven by any other sources, the lack of children,
Hadrian’s reputation for loving boys and his subsequent deification of Antinous all point
towards Hadrian being predominantly, if not exclusively, homosexual and thus supporting the
claim that Antinous can only have been Hadrian’s lover and nothing else.
After their encounter in Bithynia, Antinous might have joined Hadrian’s entourage
and accompanied the emperor on his extensive travels throughout the empire. However, he
might also have been sent to Rome to attend the imperial paedagogium, where he would be
trained as a court page, receiving a thorough education in preparation for a career in the civil
service.24 Continuing his travels, Hadrian participated in the festival of the Eleusian
Mysteries as an initiate in 124. Since the emperor was reputed to have had an inclination
towards magic, divination and astrology, a visit to the mystery cult of Eleusis fitted well with
his personality and, furthermore, followed the lead of famous persons such as the legendary
Hercules and, more within the realm of reality, the emperor Augustus.25 In September 128,
18
Pausanias, 8.9.7-8; Clem. Alex. Protrep. IV.111.
Victor, Caes. 14.5-7.
20
HA Had. XIV.2-7.
21
Julian, Caesars 35.406-7.
22
Everitt (2009) 102.
23
HA Had. XI.3-4; “And, as he was himself wont to say, he would have sent away his wife too, on the ground
of ill-temper and irritability, had he been merely a private citizen”.
24
Lambert (1984) 61-2; Lambert argues in favor of Antinous’ sojourn in Rome, as “it is unlikely that the
untrained and provincial boy would have been added to the deliberately lightweight entourage which travelled
over Asia Minor”.
25
J. Blázquez, Adriano (Barcelona 2008) 35-36.
19
6
five years after his first initiation, Hadrian again partook in the Mysteries of Eleusis, perhaps
together with Antinous26 – who either had remained part of the imperial retinue or might have
rejoined Hadrian in 125 or 128 during one of the emperor’s visits to Rome – and was the first
emperor to obtain the status of epoptes, or complete initiate.27 This symbolic event was
memorized by the issuing of a coin depicting Hadrian with a corn-sheaf in his hand,
representing his rebirth through the power of Demeter, the goddess upon whom the Mysteries
were centered.28 Again, no direct reference is made of Antinous, yet his participation can be
suspected, since evidence for his cult would also surface later on at Eleusis, where he was
perhaps syncretized with Iakchos, a deity of that played an important role in the mysteries
there.29
After seven years of travelling incessantly to all the corners of his empire, Hadrian
decided to visit Egypt; he would sail the Nile with the royal flotilla, allegedly intent on
founding another new city named after himself.30 Yet something happened which altered
these plans and would have a lasting impact on the course of history. Little is known of what
actually occurred but what is certain is that Antinous died. More precisely, he drowned in the
Nile in the month of October in the year 130. Countless of theories regarding the exact
circumstances of the young Bithynian’s demise were, and still are, offered, of which only
three are to be considered as possible explanations. For the investigation these three will be
detailed and analyzed in order to see whether one of them can be singled out as the most
likely possibility, not so much out of a need to fully reconstruct the true story of Hadrian and
Antinous itself, as this would be an impossible task, but rather because the nature of the
young Bithynian’s death might explain the success of the cult itself.31 Also, the three main
literary sources will provide clues to the reception of Antinous’ cult in the empire, as they
contain valuable information of vital importance for the continuation of this investigation.
The Sources
1. Cassius Dio
“He fell into the Nile”. With these words Hadrian is said to have announced his beloved’s
death, at least according to Cassius Dio, whose portrait of Hadrian in his Roman History is
thought to have used the lost autobiography of the emperor himself as a source, only fifty-
Several scholars have speculated about the presence of the emperor’s favorite during the Eleusian mysteries.
Although there is no proof, Antinous’ initiation also cannot be refuted and perhaps should not surprise, since
Antinous was part of the inner circle of the imperial court; see: D. Geagan, ‘Hadrian and the Athenian Dionysiac
Technitai’, TransActAmPhilAss Vol. 103 (1972) 149.
27
Geagan (1972) 149.
28
Birley (1997) 215.
29
Other possible syncretisms are with Dionysus-Zagreus or Asclepius. For the debate, see: H. Meyer, Antinoos.
Die Archäologischen Denkmäler unter Einbeziehung des Numismatischen und Epigrafischen Materials sowie
der literarischen Nachrichten (München 1991) 39-42.
30
Everitt (2009) 284; Hadrian had during his travels already founded several “Hadrianopoleis” as new centers of
Roman civic life.
31
This will be further discussed in the third chapter.
26
7
five years after the events.32 Hadrian’s claim of an accidental death, however, seems to have
been widely disbelieved, as none of the primary sources endorsed Hadrian’s proclamation.
Modern historians also have regarded Hadrian’s declaration with suspicion: how could the
imperial favorite, holding a central and guarded position within the imperial retinue, just slip
and fall unnoticed from one of the boats of Hadrian’s flotilla?33 Although the possibility of an
accidental death cannot be ruled out, as inexplicable mishaps do occur, it would have been a
prosaic death for one whose image became so incredibly popular in the empire and “whose
cult would not have spread so far and lasted so long if it had not been rooted in some belief
about Antinous himself”.34
Dio certainly did not believe Hadrian and states that:
“Hadrian was always very curious and employed divinations and incantations of all kinds.
Accordingly, he honored Antinous, either because of his love for him or because the youth
had voluntarily undertaken to die – it being necessary that a life should be surrendered freely
for the accomplishment of the ends Hadrian had in view – by building a city on the spot
where he had suffered this fate and naming it after him; and he also set up statues
(), or rather sacred images (ἀ) of him, practically all over the world.
Finally, he declared that he had seen a star which he took to be that of Antinous, and gladly
lent an ear to the effect that the star had really come into being from the spirit of Antinous
and had then appeared for the first time. On this account, then, he became the object of some
ridicule, and also because at the death of his sister Paulina he had not immediately paid her
any honor”.35
From this passage we learn many things. First of all, he believes that Antinous’ death was
given in by voluntary sacrifice during some magical ritual designed to restore Hadrian’s
apparent failing health. In fact, it appears Hadrian had been suffering since 127 from a
mysterious and grave illness36, and which with hindsight appears to have been tuberculosis.37
If we are to believe the sources regarding Hadrian’s leanings toward superstition, it seems at
least an option that Antinous participated in some sort of rejuvenation ritual. Although this
does sound implausible to modern ears, in Hadrian’s age the ancient belief that life could be
transferred to another person was generally accepted.38 Precedents from myth as well as
32
Birley (1997) 248.
Lambert (1984) 132.
34
Lambert (1984) 139.
35
Dio LXIX.11.3; Dio here implies that the ailing Hadrian found a volunteer in Antinous to restore him to
health.
36
Lambert (1984) 71; Victor Caes. 14.9; “Overcome by a subcutaneous disease which he had long endured
placidly, burning and impatient with pain, he destroyed many from the Senate”.
37
Everitt (2009) 312.
38
Lambert (1984) 134.
33
8
actual history were known to Hadrian and Antinous and could have served as a template for
Antinous’ altruistic self-sacrifice.39
Furthermore, the text offers two explanations for the rise and spread of the Antinous
cult. On the one hand, the relationship between Hadrian and his favorite appears to have been
one of love, superseding a relationship fueled by lust. On the other hand, the possibility that
Antinous willingly gave up his life for his older lover could have kindled Hadrian’s patronage
of the ephebe’s cult, either out of guilt or gratitude. Either way, both possible motives point
to an active role taken by the emperor in the diffusion of the cult, leaving us with the
impression that the Antinous cult was imposed on the empire by Hadrian himself. In a final
remark, Dio further fuels the theory that the cult was imposed top-down on the empire, by
stating that the emperor was faced by ridicule because of his actions. Although Dio does not
say by whom Hadrian was mocked, apparently at least some people did not take Antinous’
rise to godhood very seriously. However, a clue to the origin of this derision can be found in
Dio’s own background: as a proud member of the senatorial class40, Dio would have been
naturally hostile towards Hadrian, as the Senate and the wayward emperor had a long history
of mutual enmity.41 Therefore, we might deduce that the scorn mentioned by Dio came from
the senatorial order and, rather than opposed to the deification of an imperial favorite, was
directed against the agency of Hadrian himself.
2. The Historia Augusta
The Historia Augusta is a collection of imperial biographies, now believed to have been
written at the end of the fourth century by a single author, although the text itself claims
multiple authors writing at the time of Diocletian and Constantine.42 Although the Historia
Augusta ,due to its unknown provenance, imperfect transmission, and unclear dating, should
be considered a problematic source43, it is one of the few sources that recounts in great detail
the time of Trajan and Hadrian, thus making it one of our preciously few sources of
information. Despite the many doubts surrounding this literary work and its far removal in
time from the events of Hadrian’s age, it is suspected that the HA is based upon several other,
now unfortunately lost, second-century sources, such as Hadrian’s autobiography and Marius
A. Van Hooff, ‘Paetus, It Does Not Hurt: Altruistic Suicide in the Graeco-Roman World’, Archives of Suicide
Research, Vol. 8, Issue 1 (2004) 52-54.
40
Dio was born around 155 in Nicaea, where he belonged to one of the few Greek families who had acquired
both Roman citizenship and inclusion in the senatorial order, a position of which he was very proud.
41
Birley (1997) 95; During his reign Hadrian had four members of the Senate executed after swearing never to
condemn a senator to death at his accession as emperor. Combined with the general favor shown throughout his
reign towards the order of the equites to the detriment of the senatorial one, Hadrian’s relationship with the
Senate was likely problematic.
42
H. Benario, A Commentary on the Vita Hadriani in the Historia Augusta (Michigan 1980) 1-2; Although the
debate is still ongoing and there is thus no certainty regarding the provenance of the source, this investigation
will follow the mainstream opinion as advanced by H. Benario.
43
Birley (1997) 4.
39
9
Maximus’ biography of the emperor.44 Therefore, the information provided by the HA cannot
be justifiably ignored and must be taken into account in this investigation.
Though far removed in time from Dio’s account, the HA largely corroborates his version of
the events and also advances a noble self-sacrifice as a possible cause of death:
“During a journey on the Nile he lost Antinous, his favorite, and for this youth he wept like a
woman.45 Concerning this incident there are varying rumors; for some claim that he had
devoted himself to death for Hadrian, and others – what both his beauty and Hadrian’s
sensuality suggest. But however this may be, the Greeks deified him at Hadrian’s request,
and declared that oracles were given through his agency, but these, it is commonly asserted,
were composed by Hadrian himself."46
Though the HA expresses doubt concerning the exact nature of Antinous’ death, two theories
are given: one that agrees with Dio, claiming self-sacrifice, and another that points to suicide,
driven by desperation. As for the possibility of suicide, historians have forwarded the
arguments that Antinous was becoming too old for the relationship to continue, as he would
have been around the age of twenty at the time of his death; a watershed marking the
difference between a youth and an adult male. As such, the continuation of this relationship
would have been degrading for Antinous, a situation from which suicide might have offered
an escape.
Besides pointing to two possible scenarios, the HA reveals some interesting clues. The
first, striking reference is to Hadrian’s reaction to Antinous’ death: the fact that he “wept like
a woman” is highly significant, because it infers that the emperor truly cared for his favorite
and, because of the author’s choice of words, it also means that Hadrian’s show of grief was
considered improper for a man of his station, a breach of cultural values on which the second
chapter will further elaborate.
Furthermore, the source specifically tells us that it were the Greeks who deified
Antinous at the emperor’s request, and not the Romans. Apparently, the cult was only
received by the Greek-speaking part of the empire and, moreover, this was not done out of
their own initiative, but was ordered by Hadrian himself. Going even further, the HA claims
that Hadrian himself devised the oracles connected to the cult, although unfortunately we
cannot tell whether this was an opinion professed by Hadrian’s contemporaries or that it was
only later asserted by the author(s), who wrote in an age when the empire was heavily
influenced by Christianity and thus becoming less tolerant of any expression of pagan
44
Benario (1980) 4.
The exact wording is “quem muliebriter flevit”; a thoroughly negative association, as in Roman culture
female traits were associated with molitia: softness, or an “inability to act in a forceful ‘manly’ way”; see: C.
Edwards, The Politics of Immorality (Cambridge 1993) 64.
46
HA Had. XIV.2-7; The phrase “what […] suggest” refers to the sexual aspect of their relationship and the
shame it would have brought on Antinous, as he was by then no longer an ephebe, but an adult male,
transforming their liaison into an unacceptable union by Graeco-Roman standards, as will be discussed further
in the second chapter.
45
10
religion. Regardless of these doubts, it is significant that the HA confirms that oracles were
part of the Antinous cult. This is proof, therefore, for Antinous’ divine function as an
intermediary deity47, a building block in explaining the success of the cult, which the third
chapter will further develop.
3. Aurelius Victor
Aurelius Victor, a pagan Roman historian and politician of the fourth century, supposedly
also based his imperial history on the same, now lost, second-century sources as the HA. His
very brief account of Hadrian’s rule relays us that:
“As a result of Hadrian’s devotion to luxury and lasciviousness, hostile rumors arose
about his debauching of adult males and his burning passion for his notorious attendant
Antinous; and that it was for no other reason that a city was founded named after Antinous, or
that Hadrian set up statues (statua)48 of the ephebe. Some indeed maintain that this was done
because of piety or religion: the reason being, they say, that Hadrian wanted to extend his
own lifespan, and when the magicians demanded a volunteer to substitute for him, everybody
declined, but Antinous, it is said, offered himself up, hence the aforementioned honors done
to him. We will leave the matter undecided although, in the case of an indulgent personality,
we regard the association between persons of disparate age as suspicious.”49
Again, the text confirms the existence of rumors concerning Antinous’ cause of death: a
voluntary sacrifice, with the aim of extending Hadrian’s life. In addition, the initiative for the
distribution of images of the young ephebe once again comes from Hadrian, out of his
“burning passion” for his Bithynian lover. This induced the emperor to set up a city and
statues for his favorite, which the other sources state were religious in nature, placing the
agency for the rise of the cult firmly in the emperor’s hands. In fact, Aurelius Victor argues
that the institution of honors for Antinous was motivated directly by the young ephebe’s selfsacrifice; in other words, his deification was to be seen as the reward for his noble death.
Finally, the author reveals a negative attitude towards relationships between men of different
ages, an opinion unsurprising for a fourth-century Roman, even a pagan one, as norms and
values were by then different from those in Hadrian’s age.50
As we have seen, the sources provide us with three possible causes of death: accident,
suicide and self-sacrifice. Although the possibilities of suicide and accident cannot be ruled
out, due to a general lack of sources, the third, and much more tantalizing explanation is
47
A deity who served as a channel between the supplicant and greater powers.
The term statua is a general term for statues and does not automatically imply a connection to religion.
Nevertheless, due to the fact that the other sources do mention the spread of religious statues, it is a possibility
that Victor here also is referring to religious statuary, yet in an unspecified manner.
49
Victor, Caes. 14.5-7.
50
And even then, not every Roman in Hadrian’s age accepted this kind of relationship. This will be further
unfolded in the second chapter.
48
11
offered not only by Cassius Dio, but by both of the other primary sources that talk about the
young ephebe’s death: Dio, the HA and Victor all suggest that Antinous’ life may have been
taken during a magical ritual, which was designed to revitalize Hadrian.51 Regardless of the
true nature of the Bithynian’s demise, it is at least a genuine possibility that the rumors
concerning Antinous’ death by themselves played their part in the success of the cult. Since
Dio wrote in the same century and the other authors are thought to have based their works on
earlier sources closer to the events, we can safely assume that Antinous’ death was talked
about in public circles and elicited great interest. As a god who dies and is resurrected,
beautiful Antinous became a celebrity in the empire, and, from the banks of the river Nile, his
cult quickly spread.
4. The Christians
The success of the cult itself can be derived from the fact that, even more than two centuries
after the young ephebe’s demise in the Nile, Christian writers still devoted their attention to
the subject of Hadrian’s lover. In their invectives, they attacked the cult of Antinous and
evaluate it from their religiously exclusive, Christian perspective. The first literary assault on
Antinous came from Justin Martyr (c. 100 – 165), an early Christian apologist from Judaea,
who, discussing the sin of promiscuousness, thought it expedient to mention Antinous, “who
was alive until recently, and whom everyone reverently began to worship as a god, even
though they all knew who he was and whence he came”.52 Apparently Antinous did not need
an introduction, as Justin assumed his readers would be familiar with the background story of
the young emperor’s favorite. Some years later, Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215), a
theologian, provided a detailed account of the Antinous cult:
“Another fresh divinity was created in Egypt – and very nearly among Greeks too, – when the Roman
king [Hadrian] solemnly elevated to the rank of god his favorite whose beauty was unequalled. He
consecrated Antinous in the same way that Zeus consecrated Ganymedes. For lust is not easily
restrained, when it has no fear; and today men observe the sacred nights of Antinous, which were
really shameful, as the lover who kept them with him well knew […] But now we have a tomb of the
boy who was loved, a temple and city of Antinous”.53
Through his references to the connection between sexual activities and the Antinous cult and
the parallel between Hadrian – Antinous and Zeus – Ganymede, Clement unveiled the
continued existence of the Antinous cult through rites and festivals, centered upon the city of
Antinoopolis.54
A conclusion, moreover, which most historians who examined Antinous’ death tend to follow: Birley, Everitt,
Lambert, Perowne and Vout all regard the scenario of a ritual self-sacrifice as the most plausible one.
52
Justin Martyr, Apol. I.29.
53
Clem. Alex. Protrep. IV.111.
54
Clement’s remark that Antinous was made a god “very nearly among Greeks too” does not fit with other
sources and the archaeological evidence that the cult most certainly was also adhered to in Greece. As such, it is
unknown what he means by this.
51
12
In the course of time, the tone against Antinous hardened: Tertullian of Carthage and Origen
of Alexandria both revisited the topic of Hadrian’s beloved, comparing him with a public
harlot, a corrupted Ganymede and in general ridiculing the Bithynian’s cult.55 Thereafter, this
hostile tone became a common trait of Christian sources concerning the young god and even
more than a century after Tertullian and Origen’s death, several Christian writers still
concerned themselves with the second-century deity. In fact, the Christian saint and historian
Jerome, writing around 380, mentioned that until recently one of the cities in Egypt was
“called Antinous after Hadrian's favourite”.56 The last Christian writer from Antiquity to
mention Antinous was Prudentius (348 – c. 413), a poet from Hispania who later joined the
court of Theodosius I. In the following poem he looked back on the divine ephebe, who, after
centuries of worship, had almost completely disappeared from Rome’s religious domain:
There is Antinous too, set in a heavenly home, he
who was the darling of an emperor now deified
and in the imperial embrace was robbed of his manhood,
the god Hadrian's Ganymede, not handing cups to the gods,
but reclining with Jupiter on the middle couch
and quaffing the sacred liquor of ambrosial nectar,
and listening to prayers in the temples with his husband!57
The Sites
Without a doubt, the image of Antinous was one of the most successful in Antiquity.58
Numerous statues, busts, altars, coins, medallions, cameos, temples and images associated
with his person have been found throughout the ancient Roman world. What follows is a list
of the most important sites and material objects that are very likely to have had a religious
role. Though this list is unavoidably incomprehensive, as sometimes it is impossible to
ascertain whether an object was religious or merely aesthetic in nature, this list nevertheless
aims to create a framework for the further analysis of the spread of the cult. By the ordering
of all religious sites and objects, a pattern of geographical distribution will emerge that will
help in answering the main premise for this investigation, namely the question why the cult of
Antinous did not spread equally throughout the empire.
55
Tertullian, Apol. 13.1f; Ad Nat. 11.10.1f; Adv. Marc. 1.18; Origen, Contra Celsum 3.36-8.
Jerome, Adv. Iov. II.7.
57
Prudentius, Contra Symm. I.273-277.
58
Lambert (1984) 189; To be more precise, Antinous’ image takes third place, behind that of Augustus and
Hadrian, as the most numerous extant image from pagan Antiquity, an impressive feat for one so young and
low-born.
56
13
Table I: Antinoan Cult Locations59
Location60
Type61
Private or Public62
Alexandria
Priest
Centre of cult, two
temples, priests,
festival, games,
mysteries, oracle,
district names64, coins,
statues, grave or
cenotaph65
Bust (AntinousBelenos), terracotta
plaques
Games
Two chapels, festival,
games, district names
(demos Antinoeis),
statue, collegium
(Dionysiac technitai)66
Altar, priest, games,
mysteries, coins
Statue
Temple (AntinousHermes), priest
Temple67
Statue (Heros
Propylaios)
Statue (AntinousAsclepius68), festival
Public
High likelihood of
Hadrian’s presence63
Y
Public
Y
Private
N
Public
Y
Public
Y
Public
Y
Unknown
N
Y
N
Private
Y
Y
Y
Private
Y
Antinoopolis
Aquileia
Argos
Athens
Bithynion
Caesarea Palaestina
Corinth
Dardania
Delphi
Eleusis
59
Only those locations have been included in this table that are certain to have held religious activities dedicated
to Antinous, omitting those whose nature is uncertain, as sometimes the distinction between aesthetic devotion
and religious meaning is unclear.
60
Major centers are shown in bold writing.
61
Sources: Lambert (1984); Meyer (1991); Birley (1997); Vout (2007) and R. Turcan, Hadrien. Souverain de la
Romanité (Dijon 2008).
62
Public religion is “performed on behalf of the whole individual city and all its citizens, by city magistrates and
at public expense. Private religion is “performed for one or more individuals by private individuals at their own
expense”. See: I. Gradel, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion (Oxford 2002) 9-11.
63
Source: R. Syme, 'Journeys of Hadrian', Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 73 (1988), 158-170.
64
The deme names of Antinoopolis (Hermes – one of the original gods of Arcadia – , Bithynia, Kleitor and
Parhasos – the latter two mythical brothers of the founder of Mantinea) were carefully selected with the goal of
conveying an ideological and religious message. By connecting Antinoopolis with all these thoroughly Greek
places, Antinous was forged as a deity both Egyptian and Greek; see: Lambert (1984) 152.
65
There is debate whether Antinous was buried in Antinoopolis or in Hadrian’s villa at Tibur, as at both
locations evidence for a burial site of Antinous has been found. Thus, one of the two sites must have been a
cenotaph, but which one contained the real grave is still subject to further investigation; see: Turcan (2008) 169.
66
This Athenian guild of artists connected to the cult of Dionysus was revived through a direct intervention of
Hadrian himself after two hundred years of neglect, “a direct reflection of Hadrian’s philhellenism and his great
benefactions aimed at restoring Greek cultural life”. Out of gratitude, they adopted Antinous as their patron
deity; see: Geagan (1972) 148-149.
67
The silver mines of Dardania in Moesia Superior were imperial property and thus directly under Hadrian’s
command, making it very likely the miners founded their temple to the hero Antinous acting on the emperor’s
orders.
14
Ephesus
Hermopolis Magna
Lanuvium
Leptis Magna
Lugdunum
Mantinea
Neapolis
Olympia
Ostia
Palestrina
Praeneste
Rome
Tarraco
Tarsus
Tibur, Hadrian’s villa
Trapezus
Coins, statue
(Antinous-Androcles69)
Temple
Temple, collegium70
Statue, dedication
Statue71
Temple, chapel, games,
mysteries, coins
Phratria Eurostidae
Antinoitae
Statue (AntinousAlpheios72) , festival,
coins
Statues, head73
Statue (AntinousDionysus74)
Statue (AntinousDionysus75)
Statues, “Sacred
Hadrianic-Antinoan
Synodos”
Head
Temple
Temples
(Antinoeion76), statues
(Osirantinous,
Antinous-Hermes a.o.),
Pincio obelisk77
Temple
Unknown
Y
Y
Private
Public
Private
Y
N
N
N
Public
Y
Private
N
Public
Y
Unknown
N
Unknown
Y
Unknown
Y
Private
Y
Private
Public
N
Y
Private
Y
Public
Y
Antinous’ statue has been found there with an omphalos, an attribute which is usually associated with
Eleusinian Dionysus, but which, according to Clairmont, more likely here indicates the syncretism between
Antinous and Asclepius, one of the most popular divinities in Antiquity. Furthermore, the presence of the
Bithynian god at Eleusis suggests a connection between the Eleusian mysteries and Antinous’ identity as an
intercessor deity, a link which will be further explored in the third chapter; see: C. Clairmont, Die Bildnisse des
Antinous: ein Beitrag zur Porträtplastik unter Kaiser Hadrian (Rome 1966) 14.
69
The legendary founder of Ephesus
70
This collegium, dedicated both to Antinous and Diana, was founded in 133 and is known to have offered wine
and incense to the deified ephebe in their guild temple. In fact, the Antinous temple (tetrastyle) in Lanuvium is
the only known temple devoted to the young Bithynian in the entire western half of the Roman Empire; see: F.
Ausbüttel, Untersuchungen zu den Vereinen im Westen des Römisches Reiches (Frankfurt 1982) 27, 52.
71
There is debate whether this small, bronze statue is an image of Antinous; see: Lambert (1984) note 5, 270.
72
A local river god.
73
A sculpted head of Antinous was found in a sanctuary of the “mother of the sea”, a local goddess, wearing a
crown with very likely the effigies of Hadrian and Zeus, linking the statue to the imperial cult; see: Turcan
(2008) 170; further elaborated in chapter III.
74
The statue was found in a villa known to have been built during Hadrian’s reign (in 134).
75
The statue was found in a villa which very likely belonged to Hadrian himself.
76
Recent excavations at Hadrian’s villa have uncovered the remains of a temple complex devoted to Antinous,
as well as his possible grave site.
77
Now decorating the public space of Rome, the obelisk was long thought to have been brought from Egypt
only in the first half of the third century; see: W. MacDonald and J. Pinto, Hadrian’s Villa and Its Legacy
(London 1995) 149. However, due to new archaeological research, and the fact the inscriptions refers to it
having stood in the “garden of the emperor”, it is now believed to have originally formed part of the Antinoeion
at Hadrian’s villa at Tibur (Image 4); see Turcan (2008) 169-170, Everitt (2009) 292 and C. Jones, New Heroes
in Antiquity. From Achilles to Antinoos (Cambridge 2010) 76.
68
15
From the overview above we can derive a number of conclusions. First of all, it is
immediately obvious that the great majority of sites honoring the Bithynian were located in
the Greek east. Only a few sites for the worship of Antinous could be found in the West, and
then still almost exclusively in Italia, of which Hadrian’s villa at Tibur unsurprisingly
constituted the major center.78 As far as we can tell, all cult locations in the western provinces
belonged to the domain of private religion, as they were run by private groups instead of civic
institutions. In contrast, the majority of sites in the eastern provinces, all of which the
emperor visited during his incessant travels, boast some form public worship, in the form of
temples, mysteries or public events, such as games and festivals. Due to their public nature,
the religious sites of the East were of a much larger scale than the more modest, private sites
of the West and, as such, clearly functioned as the main centers of the Antinous cult.
Moreover, our sources tell us that Hadrian actively ordered the foundation of religious
institutions for his deified favorite, as in Antinoopolis and Athens, for example. As the
establishment of public works depended on the cooperation of the local civic elite, we can
deduce that the Greek nobility reciprocated and probably imitated Hadrian’s initiative,
resulting in a flourishing of the Antinous cult, at least in the East.79 The cities of the western
provinces, however, had been bereft of the emperor’s physical presence since 12380, and thus
had little or no impetus for actively promoting the Bithynian’s cult, partially explaining the
lack of public spaces of worship.81
Moreover, almost all of the cult sites in Italia were connected to maritime trade with
the East, as Ostia, Neapolis and Aquileia were major ports that received many goods from the
eastern Roman Empire. Along with these wares came Greek traders and immigrants, who
formed communities in these cities, introducing their cultural and religious influence to their
environment.82 In fact, the pattern of distribution of Antinous’ worship matched that of an
eastern cult that had penetrated the Italian peninsula earlier on: during the early Principate the
Isis cult, that previously had been adopted by the Greeks in its Hellenized form, first made its
appearance in exactly the same cities.83 As such, it is very likely the existence of the Antinous
cult in these locations was due to the presence of Greek immigrants, who gathered in these
port cities, as these maritime hubs were connected to a network of shipping lanes with the
East, and were therefore directly exposed to Greek cultural and religious influence.
A final point of interest which the sites reveal is the longevity of the Antinous cult.
While the vast majority of Antinous’ images have been dated to the couple of years from his
death in 130 to the passing of Hadrian in 13884, there are many historians who believe the cult
78
Moreover, at least one of the sites in the West, Neapolis, was known for its substantial Greek population, as it
had originally been founded by Greek colonists.
79
Gordon, R., “The Veil of Power, Emperors, Sacrificers and Benefactors.”, in: M. Beard and J. North (ed.),
Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World (New York 1990) 222-223.
80
Syme (1988) 160-163.
81
As traces of private religion are much harder to detect than public religion, it is hard to say how many private
religious institutions dedicated to Antinous existed in the West. Perhaps the cult was more popular there than we
now think, yet without proof this cannot be proven.
82
C. Ando, The Matter of the Gods. Religion and the Roman Empire (London 2008) 102.
83
R. Turcan, The Cults of the Roman Empire (Oxford 1996) 95.
84
Meyer (1991) 15.
16
knew ongoing success.85 The last issue of coins depicting the divine Antinous, for example,
came from Bithynion during the reign of Caracalla (died 217), decades after Hadrian’s death.
Also, it is a fact that many cities continued to uphold the cult of Antinous long after
Hadrian’s demise: in Mantinea and Bithynion it was still famous in the early third century
and at Athens and Eleusis it lasted at least until 266/7, while the one in Argos lasted even
longer, until the reign of the emperor Julian. But the most loyal city was unsurprisingly that
of Antinoopolis, where the cult continued up until the ban on pagan religions in 391/2 by
Theodosius II.86
Finally, a number of fourth-century contorniates87 invoked Antinous as the champion
of paganism (Image 5). Many ancient and modern authors saw these contorniates as proof of
Antinous’ prominence within pagan religion at the time, and even compared his figure with
that of Jesus Christ.88 Yet these claims are highly controversial, as recently modern historians
have begun to rejected the contorniates as pagan propaganda, even stating that the pagan
revival of the fourth century, a movement first described by historians at the beginning of the
twentieth century, never took place.89 Instead, they regard the use of Antinous’ image as a
mere coincidence and claim that, rather than containing a religious message, the figure of
Hadrian’s favorite, along with other pagan themes, now belonged to the Graeco-Roman
classical heritage of the fourth-century Christians.90 Thus, although it is unclear whether the
Antinous contorniates prove the continuity of his cult into the fourth century, they do
represent the solidity and flexibility of the Bithynian’s image, an icon of Graeco-Roman
antiquity that survived even the demise of the pagan religions.
In this chapter it has become clear that Hadrian’s own agency and patronage played a
very important part in the founding and distribution of the Antinous cult. Yet our main
question still has not been fully answered: though it is now clear that without the emperor the
cult of Antinous would have never flourished, the question still stands why the cult’s spread
was so unequal throughout the empire. Also, if Hadrian’s agency had been so important, why
didn’t the cult disappear after the death of its greatest proponent, yet remained visible until
well into the fourth century? In the following chapters, we will first consider the cultural and
sexual spheres of the Greek and Latin halves of the empire in order to see whether these
might have influenced the uneven distribution of the Antinous cult. Finally, the third chapter
will try to explain the apparent longevity of the cult by focusing on the religious impact of the
young ephebe’s divine image on the Roman people.
85
Vout, for example, believes a number of sculptures, such as the Olympian one, were made after 138,
indicating the sustained success of the Antinous cult; see: Vout (2007) 89.
86
Lambert (1984) 195.
87
Contorniates are medallions with deep indentations within the rim.
88
A. Alföldi and E. Alföldi, Die Kontorniat-Medaillons in neuer Bearbeitung (Berlin 1976-1990) 25.
89
Ando, C., The Matter of the Gods. Religion and the Roman Empire (London 2008) 102; A. Cameron, The
Last Pagans of Rome (Oxford 2011) 691; J. O’Donnell, “The Demise of Paganism”, Traditio Vol. 35 (1979) 78;
the debate between some of the proponents (Alföldi and McMullen) and opponents (Ando, Cameron and
O’Donnell) of a pagan revival is now predominantly in favor of the opponents, who, in my opinion, rightly state
that “the most that pagans could hope for by the second half of the fourth century was toleration” (Cameron
(2011) 694).
90
Cameron (2011) 783-801.
17
2 | Sexuality and Culture in the Greek East and the Latin West
Cultural Interactions between East and West
In order to ascertain why the cult was unevenly spread throughout the empire, we
must, first of all, try to better understand the cultural environment of the Roman empire of the
second century. Among a vast range of cults for gods, heroes and deified emperors, Antinous’
worship found itself entering a religious world which was far from empty. By comparing the
cultural spheres of the Latin west and the Greek east, it will become clear that Greek culture,
albeit no longer in control of its own lands, was more compatible with the Antinous cult than
the Latin and Romanized cultures of the West. In the second halve of this chapter we will try
to ascertain whether possible differences between Greek and Roman sexual norms influenced
the spread of the Bithynian’s cult, especially since its patron deity, as beloved of the emperor,
had been a highly visible representative of a same-sex relationship.
As cultural identity is actively constructed, based on subjective criteria, the formation
of this identity entails a process of self-definition in opposition to other cultural identities.91
Nevertheless, identity is never singular, as it is really made up by a collection of multiple
identities, each dependent on such external factors as environment and language.92
Conservative Roman politicians such as Cato the Elder and Romanized Greeks such as
Plutarch are good examples of this pluralistic cultural interaction. With his self-imposed
monolithic identity Cato exemplifies the Roman reactionary living in a time when foreign
influences first touched Rome’s doorstep, as he called all Greeks nequissimum et indocile ,
“utterly vile and unruly”.93 Plutarch’s profile, however, fits rather more within the
multifaceted reality of second-century Graeco-Roman culture. A contemporary of Hadrian,
Plutarch flaunted his adherence to traditional paideia as well as his personal status as a
Roman citizen within the empire’s society.94 As there existed many shades of grey between
figures as Cato and Plutarch, it is, however, a much more challenging engagement to
comprehend how the majority of people from these two cultural spheres negotiated their
identities and interacted with one another; a highly relevant question, as the local elites of the
Roman empire were the guardians of civic religion and it was their decision whether or not
Antinous would receive a place among the official city gods.95
First of all, the question is raised whether we can still talk about Greek cities in the
old Greek heartland after the Roman conquest. A better, more nuanced, approach would be to
91
B. Anderson, Imagined Communities (London 2006) 5-6.
R. Preston, ‘Roman Questions, Greek Answers: Plutarch and the Construction of Identity’, in: Goldhill (ed.),
Being Greek under Rome. Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire (Cambridge
2001) 88.
93
Plutarch, Cato Maior 23.
94
Preston (2001) 117.
95
Vout (2007) 39.
92
18
call them “Graeco-Roman” cities instead.96 This better reflects the altered reality of Greek
cities that, in Hadrian’s age, had been incorporated into the Roman Empire for more than a
century. Through its coins, physical remains and inscriptions an image arises of cities whose
leading families gradually acquired Roman citizenship, whose public space was marked by
the presence of the emperor through the imagery of statues and cult, and whose festivals
reminded these noble Greeks of their duties to Rome, by honorific functions such as
priesthoods.97 There was, however, no suppression of Greek culture in favor of that of Rome;
Greek language, culture and traditions were respected and increasingly adopted by the
Roman elite, evidenced by the emperors of the first century, who often spoke Greek fluently
and, in the case of Nero, even took to the stage as performers of Greek music and poetry.
Rather, instead of a loss of Greek culture after the Roman conquest, it seems Greece
exerted a greater influence on its conqueror than the other way around. The influx of Greek
culture, beautifully rendered in the well-known expression “Graecia capta ferum victorem
cepit et artes intulit agresti Latio”98, penned down by the first-century Roman writer Horace,
brought about a “Graecomania” among many Roman families, resulting in the introduction of
Greek cults, works of art and literature, and even people, as educated Greek slaves were
highly sought after, serving as symbols of status among the Roman elite. Although very
proud about their military prowess and their vaunted religious piety, one could say that
regarding their cultural achievements, however, they suffered from a kind of inferiority
complex, always overshadowed by the earlier works of Greek civilization.99 Even Cicero, one
of Rome’s greatest writers, stated that “we cannot pretend to ourselves, however much we
would like to, that we are superior to the Hispani in number, to the Gauls in strength, to the
Phoenicians in cleverness, to the Greeks in the arts […]; it is by our piety and religion […]
that we have triumphed over all peoples and nations”.100 Though never unopposed, it is
certain that Greek culture settled permanently into the western Latin cultural sphere,
culminating even in the shift of the empire’s capital from Rome to the Greek east, where
Graeco-Roman Constantinople would outlast the Latin west for centuries to come.
This interconnectivity of the Latin and Greek cultural spheres of the Empire would
suggest that Antinous’ cult would have found equally favorable conditions for its success in
both halves of the empire. Yet all of the material evidence proves otherwise. An explanation
for this can be found in the fact that the reception of Greek culture in the Roman west was not
unconditional, but should rather be seen as a selective and partial process, where some
elements were included, whereas others were rejected. One key aspect of the investigation
suggests a very straightforward answer to the question why the cult was less eagerly received
in the Latin west: Hadrian was said to be a lover of all things Greek and was therefore very
popular in the eastern part of his dominion, earning him the pejorative nickname of
'Graeculus', or 'Greekling' by some Romans from the west who disapproved of the emperor’s
96
F. Millar, Rome, the Greek World, and the East. Vol.3: The Greek World, the Jews, and the East (Chapel Hill
2006) 135.
97
Millar (2006) 126-127.
98
Horace, Ep. 2.1.156-7.
99
C. Edwards, The Politics of Immorality in ancient Rome (Cambridge 1993) 95.
100
Cicero, De haruspicum responsis 19.
19
infatuation with Greek culture.101 Apparently, a portion of the Roman elite wanted to limit
Greek influence on Roman culture.
The conservative response of the Roman elite to Hadrian’s involvement with
Hellenism had a history which went back to the first contacts Romans had with their Greek
neighbors in the early days of the Republic and stemmed from fears that contact with Greek
culture would somehow contaminate Roman values and traditions.102 In the works of Lucian
of Samosata, a Hellenized Syrian who was born around 125 CE, we get a taste of cultural
prejudice in Hadrian’s age, something which apparently was common enough to be written
about by this clever writer of satire. From the works Nigrinus and De Mercede Conductis a
reciprocal prejudice surfaces that was present in both cultural spheres of the empire. On the
one hand, they show Greek prejudice towards Rome as a “modern Babylon”, corrupted and
impure, run by a gang of uncultured nouveaux riches.103 On the other hand, and more
important for his investigation, the theme of Greeks as servile and greedy tricksters, as seen
by the Roman characters, can be noted throughout the De Mercede Conductis, where Lucian
makes his Greek protagonist say the following:
“They [the Romans] think this of us all because many Hellenes come to their houses,
with big beards and coarse cloaks, who practice the black arts, promising their patrons
success in love affairs and spells to ruin their enemies. Knowing the servile tricks and greed
of these types, they think we are all the same”.104
Juvenal, a Roman satirist from the second century, states it in a more forward manner: “I
cannot endure a Rome that is full of Greeks” 105. Centuries before the former authors, the
Roman Plautus already reflected Roman attitudes by the use of newly wrought verbs such as
congraecari and pergraecari in his comedies; attributing Greeks with the natural capacity for
debauchery and revelry.106 Although passed on through the medium of satire and comedy,
Not all scholars agree on the nature of Hadrian’s philhellenic identity, however. Caroline Vout, for example,
argues that Hadrian’s supposed philhellenism is often too easily claimed, as she demonstrates that his beard, a
possible marker of Greekness, for instance, did not automatically refer to an identity of a Greek philosopherking, but could just the same have been a claim on divinity or a reference to Hadrian’s military exploits. She
also does not categorize Hadrian’s relationship with Antinous as just another example of philhellenic
propaganda, but instead emphasizes its complexity and the importance of other elements, such as a divine
parallel with Zeus and Ganymede. Although Vout rightfully problematizes the cliché of Hadrian’s
philhellenism (since the sources are never foolproof), she does not deny that Hadrian and Hellenism are too
often found in each other’s company for this to have been a coincidence, as we will see further down this
chapter. In short, we know Hadrian was definitely interested in Hellenism, though it remains unknown what
other elements, such as politics and power, influenced his undertakings in the Greek part of the empire; for
Hadrian’s beard and Hellenism see: C. Vout, ‘What’s in a Beard? Rethinking Hadrian’s Hellenism’, in: S.
Goldhill and R. Osborne, Rethinking Revolutions through Ancient Greece (Cambridge 2006) 96-123; for
political philhellenism, see: Preston (2001) 85-6; Spawforth (2012) 242 ;for personal philhellenism see: G.
Bowersock, Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford 1969) 15; Meyer (1991) 207; Lambert (1984) 36;
Birley (1997) 187; A. Karivieri, ‘Just One of the Boys. Hadrian in the Company of Zeus, Dionysus and
Theseus’, in: Ostenfeld, E. (ed.), Greek Romans and Roman Greeks (Aarhus 2002) 40; Turcan (2008) 22-3;
102
Isaac (2004) 384.
103
A. Sherwin-White, Racial Prejudice in Imperial Rome (Cambridge 1967) 66-68.
104
Lucian, De Mercede Conductis 40.
105
Juvenal, Sat. III.60-61.
106
Isaac (2004) 384.
101
20
these anti-Greek sentiments reflected the bias that existed in at least some strata of Roman
society and, as such, cannot be ignored.
Another source of Roman discontent concerning their Greek counterparts might have
stemmed from rivalry within the Roman political hierarchy. During the second century the
number of men of eastern Greek origin in the procuratorial service rose steadily. As Greeks
and Romans jostled for appointment in the imperial administration tension and competition
could have grown between these both elites, as they both sought the same, limited number of
official functions available in the Empire.107 Internal quarrels and feuds could result in
measures taken by the emperors, as happened in the second century when philosophers were
banned from the Roman city. 108 As the empire grew and the intricacy if its bureaucracy
increased, Graeco-Roman competition must have followed in its wake, accompanied by
career-related political xenophobia, probably for the greater part from the dominant party, the
western Roman elite.
Proto-racism and the Roman Distinction between Old and New
However, political tensions were probably not the only cause of anti-Greek sentiments
among the Romans. The theory of proto-racism, which goes even further than cultural
prejudice, might provide more clues for explaining the lesser distribution of Antinous’ cult in
the Latin West. Proto-racism sets itself apart from racial prejudice by the fact that it is not
based on conditions that can still be changed, such as language or religion, as does cultural
prejudice, but rather wields hereditary, fixed qualities as the base for its discrimination.109
Intrinsically linked with the environmental theory and the belief in the heredity of acquired
traits, as developed in ancient Greek literature, proto-racism views race as “group of people
who are believed to share imagined common characteristics, physical and mental or moral
which cannot be changed by human will, because they are thought to be determined by
unalterable, stable physical factors: hereditary, or external, such as climate or geography”.110
Within this framework, the Greeks of the Roman empire could be regarded as a separate
people, and thus subject to proto-racism from Roman society.
Sherwin-White (1967) 80-82; Juvenal Sat. 7.13-16, “I cannot swear in court that I have seen what I have not
seen, like a knight of Asia or Bithynia, Cappadocia or Galatia”. Although these lines were penned down by
Juvenal, a well-known Roman satirist, the fact that he utilizes the Greek knight as the prime example of a lack
of integrity, a cliché which he expected his audience must have recognized, they support Sherwin-White’s
theory that Greek newcomers were in competition with the established Roman elite in the political arena,
causing tension between these two groups of nobles.
108
Suet., Domitian 10; The last banishment of philosophers from Rome before Hadrian’s rule occurred under
the emperor Domitian.
109
To illustrate this, a simple example will follow here: If we would state that people from region X are stupid
because they are uneducated, that would constitute cultural prejudice on our part. However, if we would hold
that these same people are stupid because they are all born that way, that would be a racist remark, since the last
statement is based on the premise that these people’s stupidity is unalterable, whereas in the first comment it is
not: when educated, they will no longer be stupid and will become like one of us.
110
Isaac (2004) 34-36.
107
21
Ironically, the base for proto-racism was developed by the Greeks themselves. The
fifth-century treatise “Airs, Waters, Places”, attributed to Hippocrates, was an important
landmark in the rationalization of discriminatory thinking. It introduced the idea of climate
being responsible for the character of the people living in that zone, dividing the known
world into geographical spheres, and ascribing to each of them a set of accompanying
characteristics. This theory was then further developed in the fourth century by Plato and
Aristotle, who introduced the “ideal intermediate climate”, where, of course, the Greeks
themselves lived. 111 Furthermore, their neighbors to the west are described as stupid yet
strong, those to the east as weak yet intelligent, while the Greeks constituted the ideal
combination of both. As the Romans took over from the Greeks as the dominant power in the
Mediterranean, they also usurped Greek proto-racist theories, assimilating them for their own
purpose.112 In the reinvented Roman version of the environmental theory, the “ideal middle”
was relocated to Italia, resulting in a shift eastward of the middle for the Greeks; in turn the
Greeks were now attributed with the negative characteristics applicable to easterners:
effeminacy, weakness and trickery.
Yet Roman civilization had developed in a very different way from that of the insular
Greek poleis: contrary to the Greeks, the Romans were less preoccupied with maintaining
racial purity, as they themselves had developed from a mixing of ethnoi.113 As such, Roman
society had a more differentiated view on racial issues, and, contrary to many of the Greek
poleis of the classical age, increasingly admitted foreigners to its body of citizens during its
long history.114 Yet in a typical tour de force, that demonstrated the subjectivity by which
cultural identities are formed, the Romans clearly separated ‘old’ from ‘new’ Greece: the
Greeks of the second century were seen as a different people and thus were not accorded the
same respect as their ancestors.115 Moreover, Greek culture from the imperial period was seen
as inferior to that of the classical period, just as the Greeks of Hadrian’s age were seen as
second-rate to their famous ancestors of the fifth century BCE. Among countless examples of
seven centuries of Roman prejudice towards Greeks we shall look at some to make absolutely
clear that classical and the contemporary Greece were thoroughly separated in the Roman
mind. Revealingly, Cicero is one of the authors exhibiting this pattern. As seen before, Cicero
greatly admired the contribution of Greek arts to Roman culture and even declared himself a
philhellene at one point.116 He did not, however, share this respect for the Greeks of his time,
who he finds for the most part morally inferior and degenerate117, even warning his brother,
111
Isaac (2004) 69-72.
Ibidem 82-95.
113
Ib. 134; Prime examples of the classical Greek occupation with racial purity are Plato’s Republic,
propagating eugenics, and many other works by Aristotle, Lysias, Isocrates and Demosthenes, all emphasizing
the importance of autochthony.
114
The admission of foreigners to the Roman citizenship reached its peak in 212 when the Constitutio
Antinoniana, issued by the emperor Caracalla, granted Roman citizenship to all free-born men of the Empire,
regardless of their culture and ethnicity.
115
Isaac (2004) 381.
116
Cicero, ad Atticum 1.15.2.
117
Cicero, pro Flacco 9, 16, 57, 61; pro Sest. 141; pro Lig. 11; ad Quintum fratrem 1.2.4; “Greeks, because they
have a genius for deceit”.
112
22
the governor of the province of Asia, against too much interaction with Greeks, except with
the very few, if any, who are worthy of the ancient Greeks”.118
At the beginning of the principate, Tacitus, one of Rome’s greatest historians of the
High Empire, again relays Roman ambivalence towards Greece by making a Roman
dignitary visiting Athens in 18 CE say that “[this city constituted] not the people of Athens,
who indeed had been exterminated by repeated disasters, but a miserable medley of tribes”.119
Although a piece of rhetoric, it nevertheless reflects the self-evidence of this opinion among
Tacitus’ designated reader audience, the Roman elite. Pliny the Younger, a contemporary of
Tacitus and imperial magistrate under the emperor Trajan, displays the same attitude, when he
advises Maximus, who was on his way to Achaea as a corrector120:
“Keep in mind that you have been sent to the province of Achaea, to that true and genuine
Greece, where first humanitas and literature as well as agriculture are believed to have
originated; that you have been sent to organize the constitution of free cities […]. Respect the
founding gods and their names, respect their ancient glory and their very antiquity, qualities
which are in a man venerable, in cities revered […]. To take away the remaining shadow and
what is left of the name of their freedom is hard, cruel and barbarous”.121
All of the above examples support the theory that the Roman criticism directed at Hadrian’s
philhellenism was not so much directed against his flaunting of classical Greek culture, but
rather against his association with contemporary Greeks, of which Antinous was the most
important figure, a fact which might have influenced the reception of his cult in the Latin
west.
Hadrianus 'Graeculus', the Traveler in the East
An avid traveler, Hadrian spent a great part of his reign on the road, visiting almost all
of the empire's provinces, but most of all the ones where Greek culture was dominant. One of
his greatest projects was the founding of the Panhellenion, a union of all the Greek cities into
one, supreme league with the emperor himself at the head.122 During his second provincial
tour in the eastern territories, Hadrian visited the tomb of Alcibiades, the notorious Athenian
statesman and honored him with a marble statue at the Phrygian town of Melissa. Another
Greek figurehead who received honors was Epaminondas, in the form of an epitaph,
118
Cicero, ad Qf 1.1.16.
Tacitus, Ann. 2.55.
120
An official responsible for free cities within a province.
121
Pliny, Ep. 8.24.
122
All modern scholars have underlined the difficulty of defining the exact role of the league on account of the
scarcity of evidence. For an overview of the debate see: D. Kritsotakis, Hadrian and the Greek East: Imperial
Policy and Communication (Princeton 2008) 40-60, who convincingly argues that “the emperor,
during his frequent and long trips in the area, aimed at the support of the locals as he set forth his ambitious
plan: that of the unification of the Empire by bringing together its two most distinct elements, Roman and
Greek”.
119
23
personally composed by the emperor himself.123 Of the more than 130 cities where the
intervention of Hadrian is attested, apart from Italy and North Africa, most of his numerous
benefactions were bestowed upon the Greek cities, especially in Achaea, Asia, BithyniaPontus, Syria and Cyrenaica124, of which the foundation and renewal of religious sites were
foremost.125 In recognition of Hadrian’s special attention towards the Greek east, the
Hellenistic cities vied for the emperor's favors, competing with each other in furnishing
Hadrian with marks of honor, such as games, statues, festival or even changing the city's
name into one referring to the emperor himself.126 Before 128, Hadrian had visited all the
western provinces, however, after Antinous' death he never visited the western part of his
empire again.127 Instead, in 130, he stayed the winter in Egypt, supervising the foundation of
Antinoopolis and setting up his former lover's cult. From there, he traveled to Athens through
Syria, Cilicia, Lycia and Ephesus, all places where cults to the new god were founded. From
there he was forced to return to Judaea, where the Third Jewish Revolt had begun.128 After its
suppression Hadrian returned to Italy and stayed there until his death, where more than likely
he dedicated a temple to Antinous in his villa at Tibur129, with a plethora of statuary and other
imagery. Without a doubt the expectation of the physical presence of the emperor130 greatly
stimulated the impetus for the cities to honor Antinous, thereby at the same time paying
homage to Hadrian himself, to whom Antinous was inherently connected. A fine example for
this can be found in Leptis Magna (Africa), which hurriedly refitted a statue of Apollo with
the head of Antinous when expecting a visit from the emperor which, as it turned out, never
took place.131 Thus, when an aging and sickly Hadrian emperor returned to Italy around 133
CE and set himself up at his villa in Tibur, the possibility of an imperial visit to the western
provinces seemed very unlikely, making the honoring of Antinous much less urgent than it
had been in the east during the emperor’s voyages there.
The success of Antinous’ cult is, however, not simply explained by Hadrian’s personal
tastes and sycophantic Greek cities. Key to the understanding of the success of the cult in the
Greek east is the cultural policy of imperial Rome towards Roman Greece. Initiated by
123
A. Bowman, e.a. (ed.), The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. XI: The High Empire, A.D. 70-192 (Cambridge
1970) 621.
124
Boatwright (2000) 206-7.
125
Hadrian’s greatest building project was the great temple of Zeus Olympios in Athens, which had been started
in 515BCE by the Athenians but had never been finished. Four centuries later the Seleucid king Antiochos IV
Epiphanos tried to complete the enormous project, an attempt which again ended in failure. It was only under
Hadrian’s patronage that the Olympieion was finally completed and dedicated in 130CE, a feat that evoked
admiration from his contemporary Pausanias: “Before the entrance to the sanctuary of Olympian Zeus—Hadrian
the Roman emperor dedicated the temple and the statue, one worth seeing, which in size exceeds all other
statues save the colossi at Rhodes and Rome, and is made of ivory and gold with an artistic skill which is
remarkable when the size is taken into account […] The whole circumference of the precincts is about four
stades, and they are full of statues; for every city has dedicated a likeness of the emperor Hadrian, and the
Athenians have surpassed them in dedicating, behind the temple, the remarkable colossus. (Paus. 1.18.6) For an
overview of Hadrian’s many building projects see: Turcan (2008) 214-137.
126
Boatwright (2000) 5.
127
T. Fraser, Hadrian as Builder and Benefactor in the Western Provinces (Oxford 2006) 41-42.
128
R. Syme, 'Journeys of Hadrian', Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 73 (1988) 164-170.
129
Turcan (2008) 168.
130
See table 1 of the first chapter.
131
Vout (2007) 97.
24
Augustus132, these policies idealized and appropriated the classical Greece and its heroic past,
a selective historical legacy which the Roman elite for the greater part embraced, with the
aim of bolstering their mores and infusing Roman culture with an injection of only those
elements of Greek culture that were seen as positive, the Graecia Vera. 133 As such, the
Roman glorification of Greek culture was highly selective and excluded all things seen as
incompatible with Roman tradition, a crucial element in the understanding of the Antinous
cult and a subject we will return to later in this investigation. It also brought the cultural
capital of the Greek East further within the political control of the Roman state,
acknowledging the high relevance this culture still held for the Roman elite. Through his
philhellenism and guardianship of Greek culture, Hadrian, “the most Hellenic Roman
emperor of them all”134, reinforced Roman political power by appropriating Greece’s culture
as Rome’s symbolic capital.135
In turn, the local Greek elites responded to this Roman attention by promoting the
most prestigious traits of their distant past, of which the cultural refinement, the humanitas of
Athens and the military vigor of Sparta, virtus, took first place.136 These Greek ‘men of high
reputation’, andres endoxoi, formed a pro-Roman faction within each of their respective
cities, tying themselves and their careers to the goodwill of the Roman state, headed by the
emperor.137 Cued by the Roman state, Greek provincials expressed their allegiance to Rome
through competitive cultural works aimed at further emphasizing Greece’s classical legacy.
Specifically, they restored buildings and revived cults as a mechanism to recreate the Greek
golden age, now centuries past, hereby not only exalting an idealized version of themselves,
but at the same corresponding to Roman imperial politics, in search of the emperor’s favor.138
More than a century later, Hadrian reinvigorated these Augustan policies, giving them
a new impetus. He directly linked himself to the founder of this program by styling himself
“Hadrianus Augustus” on a series of new coins in 125 CE.139 Moreover, his sponsorship and
patronage of numerous buildings, festivals and embellishments in ‘traditional’ Greek cities
such as Athens, Sparta and Eleusis follow directly in the footsteps of Augustan cultural
politics.140 In Athens the temple of Olympian Zeus was completed, along with an altar for the
worship of Hadrian himself. At Delphi an altar or statue was set up for him in 125 by the
132
A. Spawforth, Greece and the Augustan Cultural Revolution (Cambridge 2012) 3.
A powerful example of the Roman idealization of Greece is seen in a letter of Pliny the Younger to Valerius
Maximus, a senatorial legate about to leave for Greece: “Remember that you have been sent to the province of
Achaia, to the true and genuine Greece, where civilization, literature, and agriculture too, are believed to have
originated […] Always bear in mind that this is the land which provided us with justice and gave us laws, not
after conquering us but at our request; that it is Athens you go to and Sparta you rule […]”; Pliny, Ep. 8.24.2,4.
134
E. Bowie, ‘Hadrian and Greek Poetry’, in: Ostenfeld, E. (ed.), Greek Romans and Roman Greeks (Aarhus
2002) 172.
135
Preston (2001) 86-87.
136
Spawforth (2012) 231.
137
Ibidem 37.
138
Bowersock (1969) 15-18.
139
Bowman (1970) 143.
140
Spawforth (2012) 59, 70, 243, 272; the strongest evidence for an Augustan building programme in Athens is
the Agrippeum, an odeon in Graeco-Roman style which was built by Augustus’ right-hand man Agrippa around
16BCE and which had the double purpose of integrating Hellenism into Roman society and legitimizing Roman
dominion over the Hellenistic world.
133
25
Plataean cult of Zeus Eleutherius, in gratitude for ‘emperor Hadrian the Saviour, who has
rescued and nurtured his own Hellas’.141 Exceptionally, Hadrian also took on magistracies in
several Greek cities, such as the archonship in Athens in 112 CE, just as the emperor
Domitian before him, and in 127 CE also served as patronomos in Sparta, as the only Roman
emperor to do so in Roman history. Moreover, during his reign he based himself three times
in Athens (124/5, 128/9 and 131/2), an unprecedented number of times for a Roman
emperor.142 Based upon these numerous activities, Hadrian’s predilection for Greek culture
can only be confirmed, stemming as much out of his role as a Roman statesman, as out of his
own personal tastes.
The emperor’s intense involvement with the Greek world didn’t stop here, as under
Hadrian the elite of old Greece were granted access to positions in the Roman Senate more
frequently than under previous emperors. In 131 CE, Claudius Atticus of Athens was even
chosen to become consul, while his son became quaestor. Furthermore, the Greek elite were
granted important positions in the western provinces of the empire: the proconsulship of
Baetica was granted to Arrianus of Nicomedia, the famous historian.143 In a way, Hadrian
merely continued his predecessor’s policies, as Trajan had been the first emperor to introduce
Greeks from the mainland into the Senate.144 Though it cannot be irrefutably proven that
there was a direct causal relationship between the philhellenism of Hadrian and the
enthusiasm for Antinous’ cult in the Greek east, it is nonetheless revealing that Hadrian and
the Greek elites seemingly got on very well.
Yet Hadrian’s most extensive and crowning achievement in Greece was the
foundation of the Panhellenion in 131/2 CE.145 An institution, accompanied by a festival, it
celebrated the unity of all Greeks, aimed at their integration within the Roman empire as
active participants146, and placed Athens on the forefront as their unifying cultural capital.147
It gathered Greeks from all corners of the world and admitted into its ranks all those cities
that could prove or successfully invent a direct lineage with ancient Greek mother-cities. As
foundation myths played an integral role in the identities of Greeks cities, these kinships
between cities were of great importance for the cultural and religious framework of the Greek
world and were also essential in the setup of the Panhellenion. As seats were divided among
the Greek cities, a hierarchical division surfaces: the from a Roman perspective most classical
cities got the most seats, after which followed the cities that could trace their foundation to
one of the ‘first class’ cities. The least amount of seats was awarded to those cities whose
heritage was either mixed or not classically Greek: Hellenistic cities such as Ptolemais Barca
that did not conform to the Roman image of an antiquarian Greece. Apparently, Hadrian
Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum³ 835A; Αὐτοκράτορι Ἁδριανῷ σωτῆρι,ῥυσαμένῳ καὶ θρέψαντι τὴν ἑαυτοῦ
Ἑλλάδα, οἱ ἰς Πλαταιὰς συνιόντες Ἕλληνες χαριστήριον ἀνέθηκαν.
142
Spawforth, 247.
143
Bowman (1970) 141.
144
Ibidem, 613.
145
There is discussion about whether Hadrian or Athens itself took the initiative in founding the Panhellenion;
in favor of Hadrian’s agency see: Birley (article 1997) 222; Boatwright (2000) 150-4; Kritsotakis (2008) 60;
Spawforth (2012) 243 ; in support of the agency of Athens see: C. Jones, ‘The Panhellenion’, Chiron 26, 29-56.
146
D. Kritsotakis, Hadrian and the Greek East: Imperial Policy and Communication (Princeton 2008) 4.
147
Spawforth (2012) 252.
141
26
himself did not consider all Greeks to be equal, and, as it seems, neither did the Greeks
themselves.148
Evidently, the incorporation of an acceptable Hellenism into Roman society was
partial and selective: only that which was compatible with Roman mores could be accepted,
allowing Romans to embrace Hellenism without losing their Roman identity. The figure of
Antinous, an imperial eromenos in the style of Ganymede of the classical Greece, might have
struck them as a relic from classical Greece, incongruous with Roman cultural norms. As
such, the branding of Hadrian with the mocking nickname of Graeculus should be seen as a
signal that, according to some Romans, the emperor had gone too far in his embrace of Greek
culture. His relationship with Antinous, his greater interest and presence in the Greek
territories, and the emperor’s personal involvement with the cult of his lost eromenos might
have stirred resistance within conservative Roman circles, who were prepared to accept some,
but not all aspects of Greek culture.
A different picture emerges in the east, where the Greek elite found only advantages
in responding favorably to Hadrian’s neo-Augustan policies of strengthening ‘old’ Greek
culture. The promotion of the image of Antinous, the imperial favorite, fitted well with the
archaizing Roman imagining of Athenian cultural traditions and, at the same time, granted
these Greek provincials a tool with which they could ingratiate themselves with the emperor.
Nevertheless, the coherent nature of the iconography of a high number of the Bithynian’s
statuary and the general high quality of the works suggest that Hadrian himself authorized
their manufacture and that they were furthermore all produced in the short span between the
ephebe’s drowning in 130 and Hadrian’s own death in 138.149 As such, the original impetus
for the cult seems to have been given by Hadrian himself. In effect, the success of Antinous’
image in the east seems to have been as much the result of the emperor’s encouragement as of
the agency of the Greek elite150, who transformed the young ephebe into a popular front piece
in the ‘classicizing museum’ which the Greece of the High Empire had become in Roman
eyes. The same separation between old and new Greece, however, also hindered the spread of
Antinous’ cult to the West, where this mental projection was the result of the complex and
ambivalent attitude that Romans throughout the centuries displayed towards Greek culture
and which was further exacerbated by proto-racist attitudes in Roman society.
148
Preston (2001) 86-87.
S. Price, Rituals and Power. The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge 1984) 68.
150
F. Millar, Rome, the Greek World, and the East. Vol. 2: Government, Society and Culture in the Roman
Empire (Chapel Hill 2004) 3-22.
149
27
Zeus and Ganymede, or the Greek Tradition of Boy-love
A twelve-year-old looks fetching in his prime,
Thirteen's an even more beguiling time.
That lusty bloom blows sweeter at fourteen;
Sexier yet a boy just turned fifteen.
The sixteenth year seems perfectly divine,
And seventeen is Jove's tidbit, not mine.
But if you fall for older fellows, that
Suggests child's play no more but tit-for-tat.
- Straton of Sardis (2nd century CE)151
The relationship between Hadrian and Antinous, that of an older adult male, the erastes, with
a younger adolescent, the eromenos, was deeply rooted in ancient Spartan and Athenian
culture, where these relationships existed in elite society. Though mostly connected with
classical Greece, these relationships nevertheless remained part of literary culture in
Hadrian's time, at least in the eastern part152, exemplified by the above cited poem of Straton
of Sardis, a Greek from Asia Minor and a contemporary of Hadrian, who wrote effusively
about boy-love. As there were other voices that contradicted Straton153, it seems that
homosexual relationships were not uncontroversial in Graeco-Roman society. In order to
ascertain whether the dissemination of the Antinous cult was influenced by differing sexual
norms in the Latin West and the Greek East, a thorough analysis of Graeco-Roman values
regarding sexuality will be made, particularly concerning those between men. As the subject
still holds controversy among historians, attention will also be given to the current debate
regarding the nature of Roman homosexuality, comparing and evaluating the latest
developments in social history.
One of the cornerstones in Graeco-Roman sources concerning sexuality is formed by
Plato’s myth about the origin of mankind in his work Symposium, a philosophical treatise
from classical Athenian literature well known to the Roman elite.154 One of the work’s
characters, Aristophanes, relates how human beings were created from spherical creatures
with three sexes, the all-male, the all-female and the androgynous, half-male and half-female.
As the gods felt threatened by these powerful beings, they decided to split them in half. As a
result, these now separated beings had to look for their lost other halve in order to find love:
the ones that had split from the all-male creatures were thus looking for other males.
Aristophanes comments how some people frown upon these males, revealing the presence of
prejudice towards homosexuality in Greek culture, yet rebukes these critics by presenting the
love between males as superior to all others.155 Through this dialogue and in the rest of the
Symposium, Plato elevates love and desire between men above that of between man and
woman, in effect promoting homosexual relationships as superior.
151
D. Hine, Puerilities. Erotic Epigrams of the Greek Anthology (Princeton 2001) 3.
Birley (1997) 2.
153
See: Plutarch, Amat.; Here Plutarch of Chaeronea (c. 46-126), another citizen of the eastern part of the
empire refutes the superiority of male love as professed by authors as Straton, with the argument that the love
for boys is shady and doomed to failure.
154
J. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Gay People in Western Europe from the
Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago 1980) 54.
155
Plato, Symposium 189d5-193e1.
152
28
Yet there is an even older myth from Greek literature that unveils some attitudes
towards homosexual love, in this case, in the form of pederasty. Even more, it is the classic
story of boy love; the ancient tale of the rapture of Ganymede by the king of the gods
himself, Zeus, who in the form of a giant eagle swept the young shepherd away so that he
could serve Zeus as his cupbearer and concubine.156 The story was known by all in antiquity,
as the story featured in the Iliad, the legendary work of Homer, father of Western literature
and was, at some point before the end of the third century BCE, adopted wholesale by the
Romans into their native Italian culture. Eventually, Ganymede turned into a symbol for the
beautiful ephebe that attracted homosexual love and desire, as evidenced by numerous
Roman writers, among whom Martial provides the most forthright example, by dedicating no
less than ten epigrams to the beloved of Zeus.157 Another, even more important, reference to
Zeus and Ganymede was made by the fourth century emperor Julian, who joked that Zeus
should look after Ganymede when Trajan was in the vicinity.158 Both those observations from
within Graeco-Roman culture prove that in myth and reality, boy love formed part of the
empire’s culture, practiced by commoners and emperors alike, and certainly by Hadrian, who,
coupled with his Antinous, formed the perfect reflection of the king of the gods, the Greek
Zeus and the Roman Jupiter.159
Indeed, there are a number of precedents to which the relationship between Hadrian
and Antinous can be compared, and, most importantly, which Hadrian might have used to his
own advantage. As a champion of all things Greek, Hadrian flaunted his relationship with
Antinous in public160, thereby explicitly drawing comparison with a number of famous
relationships from Graeco-Roman history, such as Alexander the Great and Hephaestion,
Achilles and Patrokles, last but not least, the greatest god of them all, Zeus Olympeios and
Ganymede.161 This fits with Hadrian's reputation as champion of Greek culture, which was of
course aimed at the Greek east, and not at the western empire. The highly trumped up Greek
nature of their relationship might explain why Antinous' cult was less widespread in the west,
where the Greek tradition of boy-love was not
indigenous and, furthermore, its Greekness would
have discouraged some more conservative parts of
society.162
But how Greek was homosexual love really
in the Roman imagination? There are some
historians who claim that homosexuality was not a
“Greek invention” but that it was also native to
Latin culture and thus deviate from the traditional
historical view that the practice of it had been
introduced to Rome through contact with Greek
156
Image 6: Ganymede and Zeus by B.
Thorvaldsen, 1817, Thorvaldsen Museum,
Copenhagen.
C. Williams, Roman Homosexuality (Oxford 1999) 56-57.
Williams (1999) 56-59..
158
Julian, Caesars 311; The Trajan mentioned here concerns Hadrian’s predecessor, the emperor Trajan,
himself marked by a notorious reputation for loving boys.
159
Williams (1999) 60.
160
Birley (1997) 215.
161
Vout (2007) 13.
162
Birley (1997) 185; “Attitudes at Rome, even if Greek influences had had their effect, were still very much
more conservative”; on the other hand, some do not exclude the fact that “possibly some fashionable Romans
may have been more inclined to enter into a homosexual relationship with a social equal because such affairs
were associated with Greek sophistication”; see: Edwards (1993) 94.
157
29
culture.163 Regardless of the accuracy of these claims, it is more important to point out that
the Romans themselves agreed with the traditional view; namely that homosexuality was a
Greek heritage. This is proven by the frequent use of “Greek” in Roman texts to describe
certain sexual activities, not referring to homosexuality as a whole but specifically to the
Greek tradition of pederasty: sexual and romantic relations with free-born youths within a
framework of courtship and tradition.164 Cicero’s fifth book of his Tusculan Disputations, for
example, describes Dionysius, ruler of Syracuse, as a man who “had, according to the custom
of Greece, certain young men joined to him in love”.165 In short, it was not homosexuality but
pederasty that from a Roman perspective was peculiarly Greek, which again underlined the
Greekness of Hadrian and Antinous’ relationship and which also lent some degree of
Greekness to Antinous’ cult.
There were, furthermore, some nuances between the Greek and the Roman
perspectives on homosexual relations. Contrary to the ambivalence among Athenians and
Spartans towards same-sex relationships, the Romans completely rejected these kinds of
relations between freeborn citizens, but only accepted those between a Roman and a slave or
foreigner. Furthermore, the Greek norm regarding homosexual relationships was narrowly
defined: that between two types of free-born males: an adult man, called erastes, and a boy
between the age of 13 and 17, the eromenos; the practice of pederasty. As the older, wiser,
and more experienced party, the erastes was expected to take the initiative, courting the
ephebe with gifts and touches, evident from the hundreds of Greek images displaying such
courtship.166 In contrast, the Greek element of courtship was largely absent from Roman
literature and arts regarding this topic, focusing instead more on the sexual pleasure it
provided.167 If we compare this Roman image to the Greek one, we can clearly note the
difference in mentality: whereas on the Greek image the emphasis lies on courtship, the
Roman image blatantly focuses on the sexual act, which in classical Greek art was almost
never shown.168 In Rome, contrary to ancient Greece, the place of the courted, free-born
ephebe was exchanged for the sexual exploitation of the favorite male slave.169
Image 7, to the left: a Greek kylix from the classical period, showing an erastes offering a cockerel, a traditional
courtship gift, to a boy, the eromenos.
Image 8, to the right: the Roman Warren cup, 1th century CE, depicting anal intercourse between a man and a boy.
C. Williams, ‘Greek Love at Rome’, The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 45, Nr. 2 (1995) 517.
Williams (1995) 521.
165
Cicero, Tusc. 5.58.
166
Dover (1978) 4-5.
167
Lambert (1984) 79; Vout (2007) 18.
168
Williams (1999) 93.
169
Ibidem, 517.
163
164
30
In fact, Roman culture condemned sexual relationships between free-born citizens
outside of marriage, regardless of their respective age. The transgression of this cultural norm
was considered an example of stuprum and applied to heterosexual as well as homosexual
relations.170 Numerous examples of stuprum exist in Roman literature, covering all layers of
society. In one such example, Tacitus marks emperor Tiberius’ supposed sexual passions for
free-born children as stuprum, no so much because they were children, but because they were
free-born.171 A watershed in the Roman attitude towards unlicensed sexual relations between
free-born citizens was formed by the promulgation of the lex Scantinia and later that of the
lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis, passed in 18 BCE during Augustus’ reign, which penalized
such relationships with heavy punishments such as banishment and loss of property.172
Though it is doubtful whether these laws were enforced with any efficiency, its existence
nevertheless demonstrates a Roman preoccupation with illicit sexual relations between freeborn citizens, something which in Roman tradition was considered taboo.
Ancient sources, however, make clear that there existed a vast array of sexual
activities enjoyed by some Graeco-Romans, apparently free from taboo and scrutiny and
which often seem alien to contemporary historians deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian culture.
In fact, during the last thirty years, a heated debate has been going on between historians
regarding Roman sexuality, also called the “sexuality wars”.173 First of all, there is the
traditional historical perspective, which states that Roman society was relatively tolerant
towards homosexuality, even to the point where marriages between two men were sanctioned.
The main argument of the traditional view is based on the fact that there existed no term nor
explanation for homosexuality in ancient Rome, so that before the 1980’s “few classicists
have doubted that homosexuality occupied a prominent and respected position in most Greek
and Roman cities at all levels of society and among a substantial portion of the
population”.174 As such, Romans were thought to have engaged in a wide variety of
relationships with non-citizens of either sex without any repercussions, thus including the
amorous, non-sexual aspect of Hadrian’s romance with the young foreigner Antinous within
tolerance of Graeco-Roman cultural values.175
On the other hand, a newer generation of social historians, inspired by the
constructivist theories of the French philosopher Michel Foucault, argued for a new
understanding of homosexuality in antiquity, not by looking at it as a sexual relationship
between two persons of the same sex, as constructed in modern society, but rather by an
emphasis on the dichotomy of the active and the passive role which dominated ancient
thinking about sexual relations. In other words, ancient society did not distinguish between
homosexual and heterosexual practices as such. Instead, their self-perceived identity was a
social construction176 and was based upon their insertive (active, male and dominant) or
Ib., 533; “Stuprum was stuprum, whether commited with male or female partners”.
Tac., Ann. 6.1; “the vices and profligacies into which he (Tiberius) had plunged so unrestrainedly that in the
fashion of a despot he debauched the children of free-born citizens […] Slaves too were set over the work of
seeking out and procuring, with rewards for the willing, and threats to the reluctant, and if there was resistance
from a relative or a parent, they used violence and force, and actually indulged their own passions as if dealing
with captives.”
172
Williams (1999) 120.
173
B. Holmes, Gender: Antiquity and its Legacy (London 2012) 86.
174
Boswell (1980) 58.
175
Ibidem, 27; Here Boswell also states that Hadrian’s fervor for the Antinous cult came forth from his love for
the young Bithynian, thus ignoring other motivations Hadrian might have had.
176
A. Richlin, ‘Not before Homosexuality: The Materiality of the Cinaedus and the Roman Law against Love
between Men’, Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol. 3, Nr. 4, (April 1993) 525.
170
171
31
receptive (passive, female and submissive) role in penetrative acts.177 This paradigmatic shift
in the understanding of ancient sexuality is rooted in the Greek and Roman assumption that
the male, is expected to act as the dominant partner, performing the act of penetration in the
active role. From this perspective, the gender of the passive party doesn’t influence the
masculinity of the penetrator; as long as he played the insertive role, the Roman macho might
do as he pleased:
“I will fuck you and make you suck me, pathicus Aurelius and cinaedus Furius.
Because my poems are soft little things you have thought me not very chaste. Now, while the
dutiful poet ought himself to be pure, there is no need for his poems to be so; they only have
wit and charm if they are soft little things and not very chaste, and if they can arouse what
itches – not among boys, but among those hairy men who are unable to stir up their
toughened groins. So then, because you have read my many thousands of kisses, you think
me hardly a man? I will fuck you and make you suck me.”178
In recent times, a new generation of historians has questioned what they call the
excessive emphasis on the ‘gender system’; the dichotomy of active and passive roles as
leading categories of sexual identity, where “men can have sex with other men without
compromising their masculinity, as long as they occupy the active role.”179 Historians such as
Brooke Holmes and Amy Richlin have argued that homosexual relations were indeed
problematic in both Roman and Greek society, regardless of a man’s active or passive sexual
role. Moreover, they doubt the constructivist’s claim that homosexuality is a modern
construct and considers the kinaedos as the “historical counterpart to the modern-day
homosexual”.180 Most important for this investigation is their claim that the sexual norms of
the Greek and Roman cultures were for the greater part congruous, and were thus more alike
than they were different. In his essay on homosexuality in classical Athens, David Cohen
scrutinizes the traditional theory that homosexual relationships were commonplace between
members of the Athenian elite and instead states that “pederastic courtship did not revolve
solely around sexual gratification […] Rather, it was an elaborate and public game of honor, a
zero-sum game in which the erastes won honor by conquering, the boy by attracting much
attention but not submitting”.181 In short, the idea that Greek culture was more accepting of
homosexual relationships is by now an outdated theory no longer upheld by most modern
historians. As a matter of fact, it now seems likely that the majority of both Roman and Greek
society was quite ambivalent towards homosexuality182, and even hostile towards those who
adopted a passive sexual role, which was associated with femininity and softness, improper
traits for any male in Graeco-Roman society.
177
M. Golden and P. Toohey (ed.), Sex and Difference in Ancient Greece and Rome (Edinburg 2003) 2-7;
Williams (1999) 225.
178
Catull. 16.
179
Holmes (2012) 80-1.
180
The Greek kinaedos and the Roman cinaedus were men who were marked by their preference for men and
their excessive sexual appetite, which they primarily exercised in a passive role; see: Cohen (2012) 104 and
Richlin (1993) 530; “A free passive male lived with a social identity and a social burden, much like the one that
Foucault defined for the modern term “homosexual”.
181
D. Cohen, “Law, Society and Homosexuality in Classical Athens”, in: M. Golden and P. Toohey, Sex and
Difference in Ancient Greece and Rome (Edinburgh 2003) 163-5; Cohen sees the courtship of boys for honor
mainly as a substitute for the courtship of women, who in Athens were heavily sheltered by their families and
wed at a very young age, thus making them unavailable.
182
The continued publication of homo-erotic literature during the Empire, such as the epigrams of Straton of
Sardis, points to the existence of a minority among the Roman elite that did accept these same-sex relationships,
perhaps even constituting a homosexual sub-culture.
32
As such, Hadrian’s reaction when learning of Antinous’ death would have been
considered highly improper for a man, let alone for a Roman emperor. The fact that he “wept
as a woman” elicited great criticism from Romans and Greeks alike, as seen in the first
chapter. Moreover, charges of effeminacy were traditionally used as tools for rhetorical
assassination. In this case, the HA emasculated the emperor in a symbolic fashion, as his male
potency formed a crucial aspect of his imperium.183 Yet during Roman history the emperor
appears to have had a larger degree of personal freedom than the average Roman citizen.184
As many emperors before him, Hadrian had an imperial license to transgress on some rules of
conduct, though not to the extent that he could ignore all Roman cultural conventions, as
some of his predecessors had ill-fatedly done. The emperor Nero had went as far even as to
castrate his favorite boy, Sporus, even marrying him185, and, even more boldly, taking “him
around the assemblies and markets of Greece and then in Rome around the Sigillaria, kissing
him passionately repeatedly”.186 In a similar fashion, Domitian had paraded his favorite
Earinus around, a Greek boy who also had been castrated and was well-known as Domitian’s
public lover.187 Both these emperors invoked criticism from Romans authors, not so much
because of the nature of the relationship itself, but because they dared to flaunt their passions
in public. In comparison with these two predecessors, who also had a reputation for
philhellenism and boy love, Hadrian managed to present his relationship with Antinous in a
more subdued manner, avoiding controversial public displays such as those that had marred
Nero’s and Domitian’s rule. Hadrian’s only lapse came when he was overcome with grief for
his dead lover, immediately provoking critical response.
After having taken all the evidence into account, it appears that differences in sexual
values did not play a significant part in the unequal spread of the cult of Antinous in the
Roman Empire. Due to the equal ambivalence towards homosexual relationships in the Latin
west and the Greek east it seems that the origin of Antinous as Hadrian’s lover did not inhibit
the spread of the cult, since the East eagerly embraced the cult. Rather, it is plausible that
Hadrian’s deliberate and archaic association with an idealized version of classical Greek boylove, with Antinous in the guise of his beloved eromenos, would have been better received in
the eastern half of the empire, where this archaizing ideal might have appealed to the Greek
elite, that exalted Greece’s classical past because of the prestige it entailed. Furthermore, the
possibility of proto-racism present in Roman society could have lessened the Latin West’s
enthusiasm for the overt courtship of the philhellenistic Hadrian with the Greek cities,
stemming primarily from the fact that ‘new’ Greeks were not viewed with the same respect as
their famed ancestors. Coupled with Hadrian’s popularity in the Greek provinces and his
active undertakings there, it is therefore very likely that in the Greek east a sense of
Realpolitik and socio-political relations between the cities and the emperor superseded any
trepidation that might have originated from the spheres of culture and sexuality against
Antinous and his cult. As such, the Greek cities of the East stood only to gain by embracing
the cult, whereas the West, deprived of Hadrian’s immediate attention and beneficence,
lacked incentives strong enough to justify the establishment of a cult for their emperor’s male
lover.
183
Vout (2007) 6.
Boswell (1980) 75; Richlin (1993) 532.
185
Williams (1999) 246.
186
Suet., Nero 28.1-2.
187
Vout (2007) 167-204.
184
33
3 | A Star Rose up to the Sky
Antinous and the Flexibility of his Religious Image
Osirantinous
Roman religion was conservative and innovative at the same time.188 While foreign deities
were often adopted and modified within the Roman religious matrix, others were at times
rejected due to their incompatibility with Roman values. This constant process of
negotiation189 also applied to the acceptance of the Antinous cult as it was introduced to the
empire. Was the sacred image Antinous perhaps rejected in the western half of the empire,
thereby explaining its lesser distribution there? A first clue to this fate might be the lack of a
senatusconsultum for his deification, which was the traditional manner in which a foreign god
or the divinization of a deceased member of the imperial family was formally added to the
official pantheon of the Roman state.190 In this manner, Hadrian had the Senate grant divine
status to his beloved ‘mother’ Plotina, the wife of Trajan, upon her death in 121/122. The
Diva Plotina even received a temple for her cult in Nemausus.191 Yet we have no proof
whatsoever that Antinous’ cult was formally introduced in Rome as an official state cult.
Moreover, many of the most popular cults in the history of the empire, such as that of
Mithras, were never added to Rome’s list of official religions and never suffered for it. The
lack of a senatusconsultum for Antinous’ cult is therefore not irregular, since it was simply
not a required step. In the case of Antinous, Hadrian took the initiative in founding the cult by
means of a decree issued in Egypt, in which he wielded his religious authority as pharaoh to
transform Antinous into .192 Therefore, some historians rightly
view the lack of a senatusconsultum not as a weakness, but rather as an advantage, pointing
to the freedom it gave the cult to develop its own language, granting it greater flexibility. 193
In fact, rather than stemming from an official introduction by the religious central
authority of the Senate, the origin of the Antinous cult lay deeply embedded in local
traditions. The first of these customs was connected with Antinous’ death: the tradition in
ancient Egypt that people who drowned in the Nile were automatically deified and associated
with Osiris.194 A direct precedent from imperial times was the founding by the Roman prefect
of Egypt of a temple at Dendur for Petesi and Paher, two brothers from simple origins who
were drowned during Augustus’ reign.195 Following local precedent, Hadrian, immediately
after his favorite’s death, founded a new city, called Antinoopolis, in honor of the young
ephebe. As a matter of fact, there are good reasons to believe Hadrian had already plans to
188
J. North, Roman Religion (Oxford 2000) 56.
V. Warrior, Roman Religion (Cambridge 2006) 88.
190
Gradel (2002) 299.
191
Dio LXIX.10.2; “[…] upon the death of Plotina […] he honored her exceedingly, wearing black for nine
days, erecting a temple to her and composing some hymns in her memory”.
192
Meyer (1991) 189.
193
Vout (2007) 120.
194
Vout (2007) 117; the earliest reference to this tradition is made by Herodotus; see: Hdt. II.90.
195
Lambert (1984) 125; the temple was also devoted to Osiris and Isis.
189
34
found a new city in Egypt, as this would follow the precedent of his numerous foundations on
his previous journeys and fitted well within his program of strengthening and unifying the
Greek east.196 Though lying in the heart of Egypt, it was set up as a Greek city, and attracted
primarily Greek settlers from the other Hellenistic cities in Egypt through a range of benefits,
such as tax reductions, and most importantly, it was granted its own autonomy and territory,
advantages that were almost never granted to an Egyptian city.197 Moreover, Antinoopolis
was granted an alimenta fund198, the only city outside of Italia to be granted such a scheme.199
These investments clearly show the high degree of effort Hadrian was willing to put into the
project of Antinoopolis, which served a dual purpose: one the one hand it inaugurated the
Antinous cult while, at the same time, it also became a new Graeco-Roman stronghold within
Egypt.200
Yet of all the benefactions showered upon Antinous’ city, the most important piece of
evidence that proves Hadrian’s active promotion of the cult comes from the highly
programmatic nature of the nomenclature of the tribes and districts of Antinoopolis, called
phyle and deme respectively. Although not all names of these divisions have been preserved,
most seem connected with the imperial family, while still others are connected with Athens
and Eleusis. Yet the make-up of one of the known phylai, called ‘Osirantinous’, points to a
carefully engineered project of religious and cultural propaganda. This phyle was divided in
five deme, or districts, of which four were called ‘Kleitorios’, ‘Parrhasios’, ‘Bithynieus’ and
‘Hermaieus’.201 Kleitor and Parrhasios were legendary founders of various cities in Arcadia
and were, above all, brothers of Mantineus, the mythical founder of Mantinea. Parrhasios
even lent his name to the greater tribe of Arcadians, who in Greek poetry were regularly
named ‘Parrhasioi’. Bithynos, then, was a son of Zeus and heroic founder of Bithynion.
Finally, the fourth district name refers to Hermes, a major deity of the Graeco-Roman
pantheon, but originally said to have come from Arcadia.202 The theme of the Arcadian
founding heroes, the link with Bithynion, and the connection with Hermes all point to the
construction of, on the one hand, a sacred genealogy of the divine Antinous, and, on the other
hand, a Greek heritage for Antinoopolis.203
Yet in this city, and indeed in the entire province of Egypt204, Antinoos took on a
196
Meyer (1991) 215-6.
Boatwright (2000) 194.
198
A fund instituted by the emperor Nerva at the behest of needy children, which, by the donations of goods
and/or money, was probably aimed at enlarging their chances of becoming productive citizens and at the same
time enlarged the social prestige of the contributing elite; see W. Jongman, ‘Beneficial Symbols. Alimenta and
the Infantilization of the Roman Citizen’ in: W. Jongman & M. Kleijwegt (eds.), After the past. Essays in
ancient history in honour of H.W. Pleket (Leiden 2002) 47-80.
199
Boatwright (2000) 195.
200
It is impossible to ascertain whether one motivation outweighed the other (personal grief vs Realpolitik) Yet
it might be entirely reasonable to assume that both considerations played an equal part in Hadrian’s zeal towards
the project, as both were complimentary to Hadrian’s project: a stronger city would be able to maintain a
stronger cult, while a popular cult would bring prestige to its cultic center.
201
The name of the fifth deme is unknown.
202
Lambert (1984) 148.
203
H. Mosch, “Die Antinoos-Medaillons von Bithynion-Klaudiopolis”, Revue Suisse de numismatique Vol. 80
(2001) 113.
204
Inscriptions on the Pincio obelisk state that Antinous was “honored by the priests and prophets of Upper and
Lower Egypt so many as they are”; furthermore, archaeological finds point to Antinous’ worship in various
cities in Egypt; see: Lambert (1984) 152-3.
197
35
distinctly Egyptian guise: in his apotheosis he had become  “seated beside” the
Egyptian gods, especially Osiris.205 Some modern historians also suspect that Antinous was
mummified and buried either at Antinoopolis or at Hadrian’s villa at Tibur, a procedure which
would emphasize the divinity of the young Bithynian and which also drew on the famous
precedent of Alexander the Great, who was also mummified and buried at Egypt.206 As such,
even without Hadrian's setting up of the empire-wide cult, Antinous would have become a
deity, at least in Egyptian eyes. Furthermore, since Hadrian was also pharaoh of Egypt, the
only province in the empire directly under the emperor’s rule, he had complete freedom in the
further development of Antinous’ worship there. Although the influence of Egypt’s culture
and religion was largely contained within the province’s borders, it is very likely that the
custom of automatic deification of victims of the Nile served as a validating precedent for
Hadrian’s propagation of the cult, in effect legitimizing its further spread in the rest of the
empire.207
Image 9: An Egyptian statue of
Osirantinous, featuring classical
Egyptian imagery such as the Nemes
headdress. Now at the Vatican
Museum, Rome.
A second regional tradition that lay at the base of Antinous’ deification was the Greek
custom of heroization. Throughout Graeco-Roman history, many of its human protagonists
were accorded divine honors, especially in the Hellenistic period, where favorites and sisters
of kings had become heroes.208 Even the usually rational Cicero had endeavored, out of grief,
to raise his deceased daughter Tullia to godhood by building a temple for her.209 This might
seem alien in our modern society, where the realms of gods and men are usually seen as two
separate spheres, in accordance with Christian tradition. Contrary to our modern mental
framework, in Antiquity the human and divine realm were regarded as interconnected210 and
the only divide between men and gods was not so much their dissimilar nature, but their
difference in status.211 As a consequence, certain individuals who had performed impressive
205
Meyer (1991) 172.
Turcan (2008) 169.
207
Take for example the Isis cult, which also broke free from the confines of Egypt, through its extensive
overseas trade network, and went on to become one of the most successful cults of the Roman empire; see
chapter I.
208
Lambert (1984) 146-7; Vout (2007) 117; Vout touches upon the precedents of Patrocles and Hephaestion,
who were both proclaimed heroes by their lovers after their death.
209
Cicero, Ad Atticum XII.12, 18, 20; A project that his friends managed to obstruct, as they believed this would
invite ridicule upon Cicero’s head, something which, revealingly, also befell Hadrian, as seen in the second
chapter.
210
Gradel (2002) 6; D. Fishwick, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies of the Ruler Cult of the Western
Provinces of the Roman Empire. (Leiden 1987) 33, 41; “The boundary between gods and men was narrower in
Graeco-Roman belief tan in ours and more fluid”.
211
Gradel (2002) 22-24.
206
36
feats or, like Antinous, possessed extraordinary beauty and had supposedly died a noble death
could be considered divine, due to their “otherness”.212 This reverence was expressed through
the hero cult, which was originally a Greek custom, but which went on to become a common
feature of Graeco-Roman religion.213 In fact, during the High Empire there was a trend of
public commemoration of young males who had been snatched away by premature death
among the antiquarian Greek aristocracy.214 During Hadrian’s reign, specifically, there was
also a fashion for great devotion to past heroes, in which Hadrian participated himself, as he
personally visited and restored the tombs of Ajax, Alcibiades, Epaminondas and Pompey.215
As such, the cult of Antinous could be seen as an expression of the predominantly Greek hero
cult in line with the spirit of the age.
Moreover, the iconography of Antinous’ images is a testimony to the strong influence
of Graeco-Roman hero worship. On coins and medallions the image of the Bithynian is
regularly accompanied by a star, a symbol for his ascent to the divine realm and a common
accompanying symbol for heroes.216
Image 10: A coin from Tarsus depicting Antinous
as a hero, accompanied by a small star symbol.
Also, the emphasis on his youthful beauty in his statuary was a typical way in which a hero
was depicted.217 It appears the god Antinous possessed great versatility, for beside his
appearances as an independent hero, he was also coupled with an array of heroes and
demigods. At Ephesus, for example, we encounter the hero Antinous merged with Androclus,
the city’s legendary founder.218 Also, at Neapolis, we again encounter Antinous in the
company of another hero, this time the Boeotian hero Eunostus.219 At Olympia, Antinous is
featured on a coin together with Alpheius, the local river god, together forming an allegory
for the games.220 As these are only a couple of excerpts from the dozens of examples where
Antinous features as a hero221, it is clear that the cult of Antinous far exceeded the worship of
other heroes of the imperial period, both in intensity and geographical spread.222
But the line between heroes and gods was thin and vague,223 as Antinous “became
Turcan (2008) 168; “Il s’agit d’un cas de «théomorphisme». La forme humaine est celle que prennent les
dieux”.
213
Vout (2007) 108.
214
Jones, C., New Heroes in Antiquity. From Achilles to Antinoos (Cambridge 2010) 66.
215
Boatwright (2000) 140-142.
216
Alföldi, A. and Alföldi, E., Die Kontorniat-Medaillons in neuer Bearbeitung (Berlin 1976-1990) 25; Mosch
(2001) 112.
217
Jones (2010) 82.
218
Birley (1997) 263.
219
Lambert (1984) 138.
220
Meyer (1991) 149.
221
The total number of identifications of Antinous as a hero hovers around 30, see: Jones (2010) 80.
222
Jones (2010) 81.
223
Fishwick (1987) 4.
212
37
both a Greek and Egyptian god and was shown as such” after his death.224 Of the thirty cities
that minted coins of the Bithynian, twenty-two called him a hero, seven a god.225 This might
seem inconsistent, yet it was perfectly possible for Antinous to exist in different forms at the
same time, as this was common practice in ancient Graeco-Roman religion. Take into
account, for example, the many manifestations of Zeus, who was worshiped as both Zeus
Olympios and Zeus Pantokrator: two distinct deities, yet also seen as one. This inconsistency
was due to the irrationality of the ancient mind226 that gave Greeks and Romans the
“disquieting capacity to validate two (or more) dissonant, if not contradictory, representations
as being complementary rather than mutually exclusive […] in such a smooth and seemingly
unreflected manner that if often shocks the modern mind”.227
Despite his more frequent title of hero, it is in the guise of a god that Antinous came to
dominate, as he was worshiped as such at the most important of his public cult centers at
Antinoopolis, Bithynion and Mantinea.228 At Antinoopolis, the earliest center of his worship,
the divine Antinous was syncretized with Osiris, the Egyptian god of the afterlife and rebirth,
resulting in the fused deity Osirantinous. Obelisks with Egyptian hieroglyphs, such as the one
now standing at the Pincio Hill in Rome, and heavily Egyptianized statues were set up for the
new deity throughout the city, and were also found in Hadrian’s villa complex at Tibur. 229
While heavily influenced by local religion in Egypt, in the rest of the empire the cult
of Antinous was thoroughly Greek.230 In fact, he was most often syncretized with Greek gods
as Pan, Hermes, Apollo and Dionysos, perhaps because of their common spheres of
influence, namely rebirth and fertility, traits that seem to fit well with Antinous’ alleged
sacrificial death.231 One specific series of medallions, issued in Bithynion, probably between
134 and 138, proclaimed Antinous as the new god () of
Image 11: One of the
Bithynia, yet in their iconography Antinous is associated with an
medaillons depicting
established, traditional god. On most of the medallions, images of
Antinous as Hermes
cattle, taken as a pars pro toto for the herd, refer to an association
Kyllenios. Especially
with Hermes Kyllenios, the Arcadian god of pastures and flocks.
note his winged feet.
This of course fitted well within the
newly constructed symbolic link
between Bithynion and its Arcadian
mother-city but it also reflected the
reality of Bithynion as a minor city in
the hills of Bithynia, whose economy
was primarily driven by animal
husbandry and the production of
224
Macdonald and Pinto (1995) 149.
Lambert (1984) 178; Turcan (2008) 171; at Bithynion, he was even named a hero and a god respectively on
two different coins.
226
Some historians even view the differences between our modern way of reasoning and the ancient manner of
thinking as unbridgeable, due to their completely different way of perceiving things; see: Vout (2007) 9.
227
Versnel (2011) 10.
228
Turcan (2008) 169.
229
Macdonald and Pinto (1995) 149-150.
230
Boatwright (2000) 193.
231
Lambert (1984) 180-182.
225
38
cheese.232 The association with Hermes again surfaced in Corinth, while in Mantinea
Antinous was associated with Pan.233 At Delphi, a beautiful statue has been preserved of
Hadrian’s favorite in the guise of Apollo, who was the patron of Delphi’s renowned oracular
activities (Image 12). Yet Antinous’ most frequent association is with Dionysus234, his hair
decorated with vines and grapes, surfacing at Eleusis, Praeneste and Palestrina (Images 13
and 14). At Lanuvium, Antinous is found in tandem with Diana, a goddess belonging to the
traditional Roman pantheon. In this instance, he assumes the iconography of Silvanus, a Latin
deity whose portfolio included the sphere of fertility (Image 15). Though Antinous was thus
also compatible with local gods and heroes, as the previous examples show, the majority of
identifications encountered were those with the major Graeco-Egyptian gods; a testimony to
the considerable impact his divine image had on the Graeco-Roman religious world, as
apparently Antinous’ status was sufficiently high to be put together with some of the greatest
gods of the Graeco-Roman pantheon. Finally, the plethora of heroes and gods with whom
these associations took place again illustrate the great versatility of Antinous as a religious
figure.
At first glance, the predominance of Graeco-Egyptian associations could point to a
straightforward answer to the question that was posed at the beginning of this essay: why was
Antinous not as popular in the west as in the east? Well, one might say, because he was, by
origin and nature, a Graeco-Egyptian god and not, for example, a Latin, Iberian or Gallic god,
thus providing a rational explanation for the discrepancy in distribution. However, Roman
history has been filled with examples of deities of eastern origin penetrating traditional
Roman religion: the cult of Magna Mater, which was formally approved by the Roman
Senate around 200 BCE, enjoyed great popularity not only in the east, but also in the west.
Isis, one of the oldest Egyptian gods, spread all over the western Roman Empire, albeit in a
severely Romanized form. As such, it seem very unlikely that Antinous’ Graeco-Egyptian
image would have been a stumbling block for its spread to the Latin west; instead, it rather
seems this versatile image contributed to its success in the east.
The Imperial Cult
A further investigation into the cult’s multi-facetted nature reveals it not only as just a
new and syncretic Graeco-Egyptian cult, but also as an extension, or perhaps a reinvention, of
the imperial cult of Hadrian.235 It was not, however, a conventional one, as “his status as
imperial boyfriend immediately demands a different language”.236 Due to the automatic
association with Antinous as his beloved eromenos, Hadrian emerged as an emperor endowed
with sexual prowess, displaying his male potency for the entire empire to see. As such, the
Antinous cult, as an extension of the ruler cult of the emperor, symbolized the “erotics of
232
Birley (1997) 158.
Turcan (2008) 171.
234
Meyer (1991) 231.
235
For extension, see: Vout (2007) 12-13; For reinvention, see: M. Versluys, 'Making Meaning with Egypt', in:
L. Bricault and M.J. Versluys (eds.), Image and Reality of the Egyptian Gods in the Hellenistic and Roman
Mediterranean: from Global to Local (2012) 6-7.
236
Vout (2007) 116.
233
39
imperium”237, making it a valuable tool for imperial propaganda. Also, the fact that Antinous
was not a member of the family provided his cult with greater independence and permitted
the great number of different identifications and associations, as the divinization of deceased
members of the imperial family was bound to strict rules.238
Long before Roman dominion, the eastern Mediterranean had been familiar with the
phenomenon of ruler cult, as a matter of fact; it was the East that had first influenced the
Roman political sphere through its tradition of the Hellenistic ruler cult.239 As such, despite
its adoption in the West, the practice of ruler cult remained intrinsically connected with
Graeco-Egyptian culture, which remained dominant in the Roman east. Despite its greater
independence, Antinous’ cult remained connected with Hadrian and subsequently also his
ruler cult, certainly as long as the emperor lived, explaining its initial boom in the east.240
Yet there are only a few direct leads that connect the Antinous cult with Hadrian’s
imperial cult as not many archaeological and literary sources link their cults together. There
are, however, two important leads that point to the high importance of Hadrian’s imperial cult
for the spread of that of his favorite. First of all, we will look at the most important
archaeological source that links their cults: a marble head of Antinous, found in Ostia,
wearing a strophion, a crown adorned with the effigies of two figures, one a clothed male
figure, the other a bearded, semi-naked godlike male, thought to represent and Hadrian and
Zeus Olympios.241 This attire was characteristic for priests of
the imperial cult, who wore a diadem with images of the
emperor.242 Although there is no absolute proof that his statue
fragment was linked to the imperial cult, it is nevertheless
quite probable that this was indeed the case, as, beside the
matching iconography, Ostia was home to a temple dedicated
to the imperial cult of Hadrian.243
Image 16: Head of Antinous from Ostia as imperial
priest. Exhibited at the National Museum of Rome.
Vout (2007) 39; “He (Hadrian) hoped that the existence of Antinous as an image (and linked to this, his
decision to wear a beard and thereby cast himself as the erastes) might restrict, or rather help channel, the
possible responses to his own image; that it would allow his subjects access to his private body but
simultaneously compel them to view this body as an active one”.
238
Gradel (2002) 299.
239
A. Chaniotis, 'The Divinity of Hellenistic Rulers', in: A. Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic World
(Oxford 2005) 431-446; there is, however, debate among modern scholars about the origins of Roman ruler cult,
in which some historians claim that local antecedents in Rome helped create the imperial cult, namely the
Roman tradition of genius worship; for the debate see: Gradel (2002) 7, who emphasizes the role of local
Roman customs and Fishwick (1987) 46, who instead underlines the importance of eastern influence. In my
opinion, it is very likely that the tradition of genius worship and the influence of Hellenistic ruler cult both
influenced the development of the imperial cult.
240
Vout (2007) 113.
241
Turcan (2008) 170; Meyer (1991) 74-5; Though their identities cannot be unequivocally proven, Meyer finds
it very plausible that an identification with Hadrian and Zeus is merited, as do several other scholars (cf. note
318, p. 75).
242
Price (1984) 170.
243
Gradel (2002) 82-3; furthermore, the temple was also dedicated to Rome and August.
237
40
Furthermore, a second sculpture of Antinous as a
priest has been found, this one a full-length statue from
Cyrene. The emperor’s favorite is seen wearing a toga, his
head decorated by a wreath of plants, sticking out from
under his veiled head, as he is depicted caput velatum,
apparently in the act of performing a sacrifice.244 Although
this statue, unlike the one from Ostia, lacks any direct
references to the imperial cult, it is quite likely it also
presented Antinous as an imperial priest, dedicated to the
life and protection of Hadrian.245
In fact, Hadrian’s imperial cult was one of the most
extensive of the imperial period: of all the emperors,
Hadrian had the greatest number of small altars dedicated
to his genius.246 The imperial cult was literally to be found
throughout the entire empire247 and was not only a tool for
the stabilization of the religious order of the Roman
world248, but also provided an opportunity for the various
communities and cities of the empire to distinguish
themselves.249 This resulted in competition between cities
for the favor of the emperor, as local elites took the
initiative in honoring the emperor with statue and cult. In
turn, the emperor usually expressed his gratitude by the
granting of public works or benefits to the honoring city.
Image 17: The Cyrene Antinous,
But this also functioned the other way around, as, for
possibly in the guise of an
example, during Augustus’ reign, the local elite of Narbo,
imperial priest. Now at the
Italia, set up a private altar for the worship of Augustus out Louvre, Paris.
of gratitude for the emperor’s intervention and solution for
a local dispute between the decuriones and the plebs.250 The agency of the civic nobility was
thus essential for the spread of the imperial cult and sustained a cycle of reciprocity between
emperor and the local nobility.251
Most notably, some of the devotion offered to Antinous can be indirectly found to
have originated from the local elite’s gratitude toward Hadrian, who, as emperor, carried on a
very liberal policy of benefactions towards the cities.252 The response to Hadrian’s
munificence can be gained from several coin and medaillon issues depicting the divine
Antinous that mentioned the local sponsor of that issue. One such donor was a wealthy
244
K. de Kersauson, Catalogue des Portraits Romains. Tome II (Paris 1996) 170-1.
Kersauson (1996) 170.
246
The emperor only became Divus after his death; during his lifetime he was honored through the worship of
his genius, his ‘living spirit’; see: North (2000) 59-62.
247
Price (1984) 78.
248
Price (1984) 170.
249
Price (1984) 100.
250
Gradel (2002) 239-40.
251
Fishwick (1987) 13.
252
Boatwright (2000) 5; Boatwright estimates that about 130 cities benefited from Hadrian’s largesse.
245
41
sophist from Smyrna by the name of Antonius Polemo, who had been chosen by Hadrian in
130 to deliver the inaugural speech for the Olympieion in Athens.253 Another donor, this time
from Delphi, represented his city in an embassy to Hadrian in 125.254 Moreover, we also
know Hadrian improved several of the cities in the Greek east, such as Bithynion in the 130’s,
adding yet another reason for the success of the cult in these cities.255 Another example of the
importance of the association of Antinous’ divine image with Hadrian’s personal figure can
be found in the epigraphic records: shortly after Antinous’ death in 130 an association of
actors in Rome renamed itself the “Sacred Hadrianic-Antinoan Synodos”.256 In fact, there are
many more pieces of evidence that support the statement that, except for Antinoopolis and
Mantinea, where Hadrian’s own agency can be attested257, the spread of the Antinous cult was
the result of the agency of local groups, who set up various forms of religious devotion to the
royal favorite, which, at the same time, implied devotion to Hadrian.258
Yet Antinous’ cult long outlasted that of Hadrian, which probably didn’t endure long
after the emperor’s death.259 After the arguments made in this essay, one would imagine the
cult disappearing after the emperor’s death, as so many other segments of the imperial cult
had when their patron was gone. With the prospect of imperial favor gone, should it not be
expected that even the Greek cities of the east ceased to invest in the imperial lover’s cult?
The Divine Ephebe
An important trait of Antinous' cult that might explain its continued existence after Hadrian'
death is the fact that Antinous was known as an ephebe of exceptional beauty, yet a mere
mortal, and was thus not granted divine origins. Whereas other eastern cults such as those of
Isis and Magna Mater were centered on ancient deities, Antinous' only heritage was that of
being Hadrian's eromenos. After his death, this personal legacy and his divine iconography
still emphasized his humanity, placing him closer to the average Roman or Greek that
worshiped him.260 In this capacity he could be approached as an “intercessor god”, an
S. Heath, ‘A Box Mirror Made from Two Antinous Medaillons of Smyrna’, AJN Second Series 18 (2006) 6172.
254
Jones (2010) 80.
255
Lambert (1984) 18; Jones (2010) 79.
256
Birley (1997) 253.
257
For Mantinea, see: Pausanias, Atica VIII.9.8; “for this reason the Emperor established his worship in
Mantinea also”; for Antinoopolis
258
Everitt (2009) 292-3; Gradel (2002) 239-40; Jones (2010) 79; Price (1984) 68; Vout (2007) 39; of all these
historians, Price, though not denying the agency of the provincial elite, states that the relative uniformity in the
iconography of Antinous points to a certain degree of central organization. Also, he says that the general high
quality of the works suggests that only the best craftsmen were used, pointing to imperial interference. Jones
sees in the clustering of the cult locations a sign that the cult was often “local and spontaneous”. Although the
precise balance between imperial and local agency cannot be ascertained, the above examples should
nevertheless make clear that the reciprocity between emperor and nobility played a crucial part in the spread of
the Antinous cult.
259
Gradel (2002) 88; Gradel suspects that most of the imperial cults took over the worship of the new emperor
after the previous one’s death, but there is no hard evidence to support this as historical knowledge regarding the
Roman imperial cult is still incomplete.
260
Vout (2007) 71; “[...] it is my contention that the malleability of Antinous as an image and the intensity of
individual feeling he evokes make his image an attractive vehicle [...]”.
253
42
intermediary channel between the human supplicant and the
greater divinities.261
On a par with his status as a “human” god, the
iconography of Antinous, which depicts him as a youth of
exceptional beauty, is another element that argues for his
recognizable humanity and his general popularity. Broadly
speaking, the iconography of his visual representations can
be divided in four categories: his visualization as a divine
ephebe, hero, associated god or as an independent god.262
Represented mainly in the first category, but present in all is
the emphasis on Antinous' youthful beauty. In other words,
aesthetic appreciation formed an important part in these
representations, as it recalled Antinous' physical features that
had enticed Hadrian so much, providing the viewer with a
taste of erotic desire.263 Although this does not explain the
shift between east and west, it does provide us with another
reason for the general popularity of the image of Antinous.
Image 18: Antinous as the
divine ephebe, a paradigm of
idealized classical beauty.
A number of clues suggest that, beside his human identity, Antinous possessed another
trait that could explain the success of his cult on a more personal level: his image as a god of
the afterlife. Whereas his association with the imperial figure of Hadrian and his manifold
syncretisms with gods and heroes of the Graeco-Roman pantheon figured primarily in the
public sphere of Graeco-Roman culture and politics, his image as an ephebe of exceptional
beauty, taken in the prime of his life, could have had a spiritual impact on the private
religious lives of individual Greeks and Romans alike.264 A first source for this image flowed
forth from the manner of his death, of which rumors abounded that Antinous had sacrificed
himself for Hadrian’s sake. After giving his life for another, he became a deity. Seen in this
light, the imperial favorite’s death would have transformed Antinous into a divinity capable
of negotiating the barriers between life and death.
Moreover, the nature of his death by drowning in the Nile provided another source for
his powers of rebirth: he was immediately deified and associated with Osiris. The connection
with Osiris is a logical one, as there are many parallels to be found between them: they both
drowned in the Nile and overcame their deaths by becoming long-lasting divinities. This
makes them inherently “dying and rising gods”.265 Furthermore, the main Greek deities with
whom Antinous was most frequently associated also possessed a link with the afterlife:
Dionysus represented rebirth, while one of Hermes’ aspects pertained to rejuvenation.266
261
Lambert (1984) 177-181.
Lambert (1984) 177.
263
Vout (2007) 105.
264
Jones (2010) 82; “The youth’s beauty and early death […] and the fact that this handsome nobody from a
small town in Bithynia could become the inseparable partner of the ruler of the Roman Empire could well have
added a sense of the miraculous, especially after he had been snatched away under mysterious circumstances
and in the bloom of youth”.
265
Vout (2007) 111.
266
Lambert (1984) 181.
262
43
Lastly, archaeological and epigraphic finds prove the existence of Graeco-Roman
belief in the Antinous as a psychopompus (a conductor of souls into the afterlife): in Aquileia,
several terracotta plaques bearing the image of the new god
have been found that likely decorated a wooden sarcophagus,
suggesting private veneration.267 Furthermore, the imprint of
Antinous’ image on the terracotta material appears to have
come from one of his coins from Bithynion (Image 20). The
fact that one of Antinous’ coins was used in the manufacture of
a religious object of an individual nature proves that his
veneration was not limited to cities eager to please the emperor.
Though the precise function of the plaques is unclear, they
might have had an apotropaic function, hung around the coffin
to protect the deceased.
Another example of private devotion, this one a very
personal inscription on a column base designed to hold a statue,
was found at Mantinea, relating the words of Isochrysos, whom,
Image 19: Antinoan
terracotta
plaque from
after having died, “Antinoos the god himself, loving him, raised
Aquileia.
up to sit with the immortals”.268 Further proof includes the
connection of Antinous with the collegium at Lanuvium, several
Egyptian papyri invoking Antinous as a god of the dead269, a cloak pin bearing his image as
Osirantinous that was found in the coffin of a Graeco-Egyptian270, and the existence of
mysteries at Antinoopolis, Bithynion and Mantinea.271 All in all, though hard evidence is
lacking, this could suggest that Antinous’ cult, whether separate from or complimentary with
its public aspect, also became a mystery cult272, in which the initiate would find hope for the
afterlife through the intercession of its patron, who had died a human and was reborn as a
god.273
The apparent function of Antinous as an intermediary god, complementary with his
public worship, places his cult also in the sphere of private religion, which leaves fewer
traces in history. This might explain the general lack of evidence for the Bithynian’s cult in
the West, which lacked the widespread network of public temples and altars as encountered in
the East. For when seeking the aid of an intercessor deity, one does not need a temple or a
priest, but instead can turn to more private means, such as a supplication in the setting of a
collegium274 or mystery cult, which were often held in rooms of private houses dedicated to
267
Meyer (1991) 248.
IG 5.2.312; Δόξης παῖδα Ἰσόχρυσον, ὃν Ἀντίνοος θεὸς αὐτὸς ἤρατο φιλάμενος σύνθρονον ἀθανάτοις #⁹⁰⁰
εἰκόνι χαλκείῃ τεύξας Ἐπιτύνχανος ἔνθα παῖδα πατὴρ θῆκεν δόγματι τῆς πατρίδος.
269
Lambert (1984) 192; Vout (2007) 89; one papyrus even dates from the end of the third century, indicating a
lasting belief in Antinous, at least in Egypt.
270
Meyer (1991) 246.
271
See table 1 in the first chapter.
272
First attested in the sixth century BCE, mysteries were “initiation rituals of voluntary, personal, and sacred
character that aimed at a change of mind through experience of the sacred”; see: W. Burkert, Ancient Mystery
Cults (Harvard 1987) 11.
273
Turcan (2008) 171-2.
274
Such as the burial collegium of Lanuvium, detailed previously.
268
44
this purpose.275 In this manner, Antinous' cult was, on the one hand, able to outlast its
connection with Hadrian and his imperial cult, which was centered upon the many
foundations of temples and altars mainly in the eastern part of the empire276, where the zeal
for his cult was the greatest.277 There is nothing that denies that the West also had a continued
belief in the divine image of Antinous, but without as many civic cult centers as in the East,
this popularity would have left little trace in history, since private religion is extremely hard
to detect in archaeological remains and is seldom mentioned in literary sources. Yet despite
the vague nature of the literary and archeological sources concerning private religion, the
numismatic evidence leaves no doubt: the coins found depicting the young ephebe were often
pierced, which means that they could have been reworked as amulets, and were thus highly
valued, as they were thought to confer magical protection upon the person that wore it.278
Image 21: A pierced coin depicting Antinous
from Alexandria that might have been used as
an amulet.
Image 22: An Antinous coin from
Smyrna reworked as an amulet.
275
Burkert (1987) 30-35.
Fishwick (1987) 92.
277
Benjamin (1963) 61-86.
278
Lambert (1984) 191; Mosch (2001) 109-110; Turcan (2008) 171; “Une forte proportion denpièces à l’effigie
d’Antinoos retrouvées trouées donne à penser qu’elles ont pu servir d’amulettes, comme les monnaies trouées
dont l’image impériale fonctionnait comme un phylactère”. For a full overview of reused Antinous objects see:
Heath (2006) 65.
276
45
Conclusion
There is no single explanation for the success and spread of the Antinous cult. Though never
as popular as, for example, the cults of Asclepios or Isis, the cult of Hadrian's young lover
spread through the Roman Empire, significantly more in East than in the West, and endured
until well into the third century; perhaps even longer, if we regard the various items made
from spolia, such as old medallions and coins, as objects that carried religious meaning. The
veneration for Antinous took off with enormous success immediately after his death in 130
and most likely knew its apogee in the following eight years of Hadrian’s reign, due to the
close association of Antinous with imperial power and prestige. This short-lived, but
overwhelming popularity, expressed through literally thousands of the imperial favorite’s
sculptures and images probably lasted only until 138, the year of Hadrian’s death.
During this investigation I have made an attempt at explaining the creation, spread
and success of the Antinous cult. Because the large scale of the project and the many
processes that were involved in the making of the cult, I will now reconstruct its development
according to the way I think it most likely proceeded.
The primary force behind the cult’s creation, subsequent spread and success was
Hadrian, whose continued presence and involvement in the Greek East greatly stimulated
enthusiasm for the Bithynian’s public cult and can be attested in Antinoopolis, Bithynion and
Mantinea. First of all, Hadrian apparently cared a great deal for his young lover. But he was
also the ruler of the Roman Empire, whose main responsibility was the welfare of his
domain. As such, Hadrian very likely realized the double opportunity that Antinous’ death
created: on the one hand Hadrian could commemorate the memory of his beloved, while on
the other hand the creation of a new empire-wide cult could further strengthen the internal
cohesion of the empire. The cult expanded quickly through the Greek lands, as its spread
relied on the reciprocate socio-political relationship between the emperor and the local civic
elites, who, in their eagerness to please the emperor, set up altars, statues and temples for the
Bithynian in their respective cities.
Subsequently, the cult probably spread from its Graeco-Egyptian heartlands to the
Latin West by way of the shipping lanes that served as highways of goods, but also of ideas
and people, and which mainly ran in the direction of east to west. Since Greek and Roman
attitudes towards sexuality were similar rather than divergent, it is unlikely that differences in
sexuality influenced the unequal spread of the cult. In the sphere of culture, however, the
possibility remains that ethnic prejudice and even proto-racism played a part in the lesser
reception of the cult in the West. Yet these barriers were evidently not strong enough to
contain Antinous’ cult, as popular devotion to the young deity was also found in the western
half of the Empire, although on a lesser scale.
With Hadrian’s death in 138 the cult lost its momentum as the civic elites were
deprived of their primary motivation for further supporting the cult of the emperor’s favorite.
Yet the cult enjoyed continued success in Antinoopolis, Mantinea and Bithynion, as these
46
cities retained a close, symbolic connection with Antinous, whose image remained connected
to Hadrian. Moreover, these cities had no other significant symbolic capital that could be
wielded in the competition for prestige between the various cities of the Empire and so held
on to Antinous as their champion.
Though in many places the cult faded from the historical record, it is plausible that
Antinous enjoyed ongoing popularity, even in the West. Ancient sources reveal the continued
survival of Antinous’ cult in the form of sacrifice, festivals, games, mysteries, oracles, spells
and amulets. The cult would not have spread so far and lasted so long if it had not been
routed in some belief in Antinous himself. Drawn by the mysterious nature of his reputedly
sacrificial death that forever preserved his divine beauty, private individuals from both the
Greek East and the Latin West were able to interpret his flexible image as they saw fit,
whether as a sexual object, an archaized eromenos, a tragic youth or even as an intermediary
deity.
Though many of the aspects of the Antinous cult are, and probably will remain
unclear, it is a fact that the cult evolved beyond its original purpose as envisioned by the
emperor Hadrian, as it claimed a permanent place in the realm of private religion. Even
today, testimonies to a belief in the divine image of Antinous can be found on the internet,
where the popularity of the young ephebe continues undiminished.279
279
These website are mostly expressions of an eclectic mix of Neopaganism, gay rights and aesthetic adoration.
See: http://www.antinopolis.org, http://aediculaantinoi.wordpress.com and http://antinousstars.blogspot.nl.
47
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus 14.5-7.
Cassius Dio LXIX.10.2; 11.
Catullus 16.
Cicero, De haruspicum responsis 19; ad Atticum I.15.2; 12.12, 18, 20; pro Flacco 9, 16, 57,
61; pro Sesio. 141; pro Ligario 11; ad Quintum fratrem 1.1.16; 1.2.4; Tusculanae 5.58.
Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus IV.111.
Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica IV.8.2.
Historia Augusta, Hadrianus XIV.2-7; XI.3-4.
Horace, Epistulae 2.1.156-7.
Inscriptiones Graecae (IG) 5.2.312.
Jerome, Adversus Iovinianum II.7.
Julian, Caesars 35.406-7; 311.
Justin Martyr, Apologeticus I.29.
Origen, Contra Celsum 3.36-8.
Pausanias 1.18.6; 8.9.7-8.
Plato, Symposium 189d5-193e1.
Pliny the Younger, Epistulae 8.24.
Plutarch, Cato Maior 23.
Prudentius, Contra Symmachum I.273-277.
Suetonius, Domitian 10; Nero 28.1-2.
Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum, third edition (SIG³) 835A.
Tacitus, Annales 2.55; 6.1.
Tertullian, Apologeticus 13.1f; Ad Nationes 11.10.1f; Adversus Marcionem 1.18.
48
Secondary Sources
Alexander, P., ‘Letters and Speeches of the emperor Hadrian’, Harvard Studies in Classical
Philology, Vol. 49 (1938) 141-177.
Alföldi, A. and Alföldi, E., Die Kontorniat-Medaillons in neuer Bearbeitung (Berlin 19761990).
Ando, C., The Matter of the Gods. Religion and the Roman Empire (London 2008).
Ausbüttel, F., Untersuchungen zu den Vereinen im Westen des Römisches Reiches (Frankfurt
1982).
Benario, H., A Commentary on the Vita Hadriani in the Historia Augusta (Michigan 1980).
Benjamin, A., ‘The Altars of Hadrian in Athens and Hadrian’s Panhellenic Program’,
Hesperia 32, 1 (Jan.-Mar. 1963) 57-86.
Birley, A., ‘Hadrian and Greek Senators’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd.
116 (1997) 209-245.
Birley, A., Hadrian. The Restless Emperor (London 1997).
Blázquez, J., Adriano (Barcelona 2008).
Boatwright, M., Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire (Princeton 2000).
Boswell, J., Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Gay People in Western
Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago 1980).
Bowersock, G., Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford 1969).
Bowie, E., ‘Hadrian and Greek Poetry’, in: Ostenfeld, E. (ed.), Greek Romans and Roman
Greeks (Aarhus 2002).
Bowman, A., e.a. (ed.), The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. XI: The High Empire, A.D. 70192 (Cambridge 2000).
Burkert, W., Ancient Mystery Cults (Harvard 1987).
Cameron, A., The Last Pagans of Rome (Oxford 2011).
Chaniotis, A., 'The Divinity of Hellenistic Rulers', in: A. Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the
Hellenistic World (Oxford 2005) 431-446.
Clinton, K., ‘Hadrian’s contribution to the renaissance of Eleusis’, in: Walker&Cameron
(eds.), ‘The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire’, Papers from the Tenth British
Museum Classical Colloquium (London 1989) 56-68.
49
Cohen, D., “Law, Society and Homosexuality in Classical Athens”, in: M. Golden and P.
Toohey, Sex and Difference in Ancient Greece and Rome (Edinburgh 2003).
Edwards, C., The Politics of Immorality (Cambridge 1993).
Everitt, A., Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome (New York 2009).
Fishwick, D., The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies of the Ruler Cult of the Western
Provinces of the Roman Empire. (Leiden 1987).
Fraser, T., Hadrian as Builder and Benefactor in the Western Provinces (Oxford 2006).
Geagan, D., ‘Hadrian and the Athenian Dionysiac Technitai’, TransActAmPhilAss Vol. 103
(1972) 133-160.
Golden, M. and Toohey, P. (ed.), Sex and Difference in Ancient Greece and Rome (Edinburg
2003).
Gordon, R., ‘The Veil of Power, Emperors, Sacrificers and Benefactors’, in: M. Beard and J.
North (ed.), Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World (New York 1990) 201–
231.
Gradel, I., Emperor Worship and Roman Religion (Oxford 2002).
Heath, S., ‘A Box Mirror Made from Two Antinous Medaillons of Smyrna’, AJN Second
Series 18 (2006) 61-72.
Hemelrijk, E., 'Fictive Motherhood and Female Authority in Roman Cities', EuGeStA 2
(2012) 201-222.
Hine, D., Puerilities. Erotic Epigrams of the Greek Anthology (Princeton 2001).
Hoff, M. & Rotroff, S. (eds.), The Romanization of Athens, Proceedings of an International
Conference held at Lincoln, Nebraska (Oxford 1997).
Holmes, B., Gender: Antiquity and its Legacy (London 2012).
Isaac, B., The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity (Princeton 2004).
Jones, C., New Heroes in Antiquity. From Achilles to Antinoos (Cambridge 2010).
Jongman, W., ‘Beneficial Symbols. Alimenta and the Infantilization of the Roman Citizen’
in: W. Jongman & M. Kleijwegt (eds.), After the past. Essays in ancient history in honour of
H.W. Pleket (Leiden 2002) 47-80.
Karivieri, A., ‘Just One of the Boys. Hadrian in the Company of Zeus, Dionysus and
Theseus’, in: Ostenfeld, E. (ed.), Greek Romans and Roman Greeks (Aarhus 2002).
Kersauson de, K., Catalogue des Portraits Romains. Tome II (Paris 1996).
50
Kritsotakis, D., Hadrian and the Greek East: Imperial Policy and Communication (Princeton
2008).
Lambert, R., Beloved and God (London 1984).
Laurence, R., Roman Passions. A History of Pleasure in Imperial Rome (London 2009).
MacDonald, W., and Pinto, J., Hadrian’s Villa and Its Legacy (London 1995).
Malaise, M., Les conditions de penetration et de diffusion des cultes égyptiens en Italie
(Leiden 1972).
Meyer, H., Antinoos. Die Archäologischen Denkmäler unter Einbeziehung des
Numismatischen und Epigrafischen Materials sowie der literarischen Nachrichten (München
1991).
Millar, F., Rome, the Greek World, and the East. Vol. 2: Government, Society and Culture in
the Roman Empire (Chapel Hill 2004).
Millar, F., Rome, the Greek World, and the East. Vol.3: The Greek World, the Jews, and the
East (Chapel Hill 2006).
Mosch, H., ‘Die Antinoos-Medaillons von Bithynion-Klaudiopolis’, Revue Suisse de
numismatique Vol. 80 (2001) 109-127.
North, J., Roman Religion (Oxford 2000).
O’Donnell, J., “The Demise of Paganism”, Traditio Vol. 35 (1979) 45-88.
Perowne, S., Hadrian (London 1960).
Preston, R., ‘Roman Questions, Greek Answers: Plutarch and the Construction of Identity’,
in: Goldhill (ed.), Being Greek under Rome. Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the
Development of Empire (Cambridge 2001).
Price, S., Rituals and Power. The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge 1984).
Richlin, A., ‘Not before Homosexuality: The Materiality of the Cinaedus and the Roman Law
against Love between Men’, Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol. 3, Nr. 4, (April 1993)
523-573.
Sherwin-White, A., Racial Prejudice in Imperial Rome (Cambridge 1967).
Spawforth, A., Greece and the Augustan Revolution (Cambridge 2012).
Syme, R., 'Journeys of Hadrian', Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 73 (1988),
158-170.
Turcan R., ‘Les Tondi d’Hadrien sur l'Arc de Constantin’, Comptes Rendus des Séances de
l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Issue 1 (1991) 53-82.
51
Turcan, R., The Cults of the Roman Empire (Oxford 1996).
Turcan, R., Hadrien. Souverain de la Romanité (Dijon 2008).
Van Hooff, A., ‘Paetus, It Does Not Hurt: Altruistic Suicide in the Graeco-Roman World’,
Archives of Suicide Research, Vol. 8, Issue 1 (2004) 43-56.
Versluys, M., 'Making Meaning with Egypt', in: L. Bricault, M.J. Versluys (eds.), Image and
Reality of the Egyptian Gods in the Hellenistic and Roman Mediterranean: from Global to
Local (2012) 1-13.
Versnel, H., Coping with the Gods. Wayward Readings in Greek Theology (Leiden 2011).
Vout, C., ‘What’s in a Beard? Rethinking Hadrian’s Hellenism’, in: S. Goldhill and R.
Osborne, Rethinking Revolutions through Ancient Greece (Cambridge 2006) 96-123.
Vout, C., Power and Eroticism in Imperial Rome (Cambridge 2007).
Warrior, V., Roman Religion (Cambridge 2006).
Williams, C., ‘Greek Love at Rome’, The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 45, Nr. 2
(1995) 517-539.
Williams, C., Roman Homosexuality (Oxford 2010).
52
List of Illustrations
Frontpage: Photo taken at Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen.
Image 1-3, 9-13, 15-16, 18-20, 22:
http://www.antinopolis.org/gallery/icons/sacredgallery.html.
Image 4: Photo taken from Turcan (2008) 168.
Image 5 and 21: http://www.acsearch.info/search.html?similar=359175.
Image 6: http://www.thorvaldsensmuseum.dk/en/collections/work/A44.
Image 7: http://www.ashmolean.org/collections.
Image 8: http://www.molehole.org/~david/diary/published/201005/R_day1298.shtml.
Image 14: Photo taken at Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen.
Image 17: jeannedepompadour.blogspot.nl/2013/03/ancient-roman-hairstyles-and_5.html.
53
Table II: The Images
Image 1: One of the tondi of the Arch of Constantine in Rome depicting Antinous and
Hadrian (the figure on horseback to the right) on a boar hunt. The head of Hadrian was
later recut the resemble Constantine, the emperor who reused the tondi to decorate his arch
monument.
54
Image 2: Enlarged image of Antinous’
head from the ‘boar hunt’ tondus.
The Bithynian is represented here
with faint sideburns, a mark of
adulthood. Mark the difference in
appearance with image 3.
Image 3: Antinous as a young boy.
Note the plump cheeks and pouting
mouth, traits of a youngster. Origin
unknown. Now part of the collection
of the British Museum in London.
55
Image 4: A reconstruction of the Antinoeion at Hadrian’s Villa used by Robert
Turcan in his book “Hadrian. Souverain de la Romanité”. Note the prominent
position of the Pincio obelisk, which, he argues, was intended for the religious
complex at Tibur and not for Antinoopolis.
Image 5: One of the fourthcentury contorniates featuring
Antinous.
Obverse: ANTIN-O-
Reverse: VICTORIA AUG
56
Image 12: The Antinous-Apollo from Delphi.
Found in the temple of Apollo at Delphi, 1893. It
can be seen at the Archaeological Museum of
Delphi.
Image 13: The colossal ‘Braschi’
Antinous-Dionysus from ‘La Villa’ near
Palestrina. Now part of the collection of
the Vatican Museum.
57
Image 14: The Antinous-Dionysus from
the Villa Casali in Rome. Exhibited at
the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek,
Copenhagen.
Image 15: the Antinous-Silvanus relief from
Lanuvium. He is holding a falx (a curved knife),
which was one of Silvanus’ attributes, and is
accompanied by a hunting dog, two attributes
often encountered in the iconography of
Silvanus, a god whose spheres of influence
included hunting, which might explain its
connection with the collegium’s other patron
deity, Diana, the goddess of hunting. Now at the
Banca Nazionale Romana, Rome.
58
Image 20: The coin bearing Antinous’ image, issued by Bithynion and used as a template
for the terracotta plaques from Lanuvium.
Obverse: Antinous with outline of chlamys, a Greek cloak. The text reads: C
ANTINOON 
Reverse: Antinous in the guise of either Hermes Nomios or Aristaios, a minor Greek god,
hailed as the inventor of cheese making, an association which would fit well with the
economic background of Bithynion. The text reads: BEI
59
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Lucinda Dirven for a wonderful trip to Rome, where she introduced me
to Antinous and inspired me to write this thesis. Furthermore, my appreciation and gratitude
go to Emily Hemelrijk, whose expertise and patience were of great help during the course of
this investigation. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their support and,
in particular, I would like to say that I couldn’t have written this thesis without the help of
Sascha Peter Ripken, who has always been there for me.
60