* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Tracing the Antinous Cult - UvA-DARE
Survey
Document related concepts
Food and dining in the Roman Empire wikipedia , lookup
Ancient Roman architecture wikipedia , lookup
Roman historiography wikipedia , lookup
Early Roman army wikipedia , lookup
History of science in classical antiquity wikipedia , lookup
Roman agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Switzerland in the Roman era wikipedia , lookup
Roman temple wikipedia , lookup
Roman funerary practices wikipedia , lookup
Roman economy wikipedia , lookup
Education in ancient Rome wikipedia , lookup
History of the Roman Constitution wikipedia , lookup
Romanization of Hispania wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
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