Page images

but added to it mention of his restoration. A variation of this method is presented by inscriptions of the form of C.I.L. III 709, VI 1718, XIII 1642, XIV 2216, where the restorer has inserted a reference to the work of the founder in his own inscription. (3) A restorer omitted all allusion to the building of a predecessor and wrote his own name alone in one of the typical formulae. Examples are to be found passim in the Corpus.

Now the second method, which provided for the retention of the name of the founder but did not deny to the restorer the right to commemorate his repairs, must have been considered a justifiable proceeding. The original builder was robbed of none of the prestige which the dedication had brought. On the other hand, it was only fair that the man who had saved the structure from total collapse should be granted whatever compensation a record of his services would offer. Reasons founded on a priori considerations, however, need not constitute the only data. Inscriptions of the type in question are numerous, as even a cursory search will show. We find them referring to the restoration of altars, temples, secular buildings, and statues.1 Original dedicators and restorers from all ranks in life recorded their names and their operations. It is not uncommon to read that a restorer has reclaimed the monument of a kinsman and has duly set down the facts on the stone. It would be absurd to entertain any suspicion of trespass in these cases. Evidently custom sanctioned the act of the ordinary restorer who subjoined his inscription in the fashion described.

There are also instances in plenty where an imperial restorer has not hesitated to commemorate a restoration on the work of a predecessor below the founder's inscription. Thus on the bridge over the Marrechia, near Rimini, Tiberius added his own inscription to that of Augustus. It is instructive to recall the fact that Tiberius was one of the emperors

1 A few examples are : III 1803, 2809, 2907; VI 103, 619, 940; VIII 15562; IX 3146.

2 XI 3572.

8 XI 367. Tiberius completed the work begun by Augustus.


who took pains to show great deference to the original builder; cf. Dio Cassius, 57, 10, 1-2: Tòv Aŭyovotov ñyallev ... ότι τα τε οικοδομήματα και προκατεβάλετο μεν ουκ εξετέλεσε δε, εκποιών το όνομα αυτού επέγραψέ σφισι. τούτο δε το κατά τας επιγραφές ουκ επ' εκείνοις μόνους τους του Αύγουστου έργοις άλλ' επί πάσιν ομοίως. ... έποιησε κ.τ.λ. Bridges partook, even though somewhat remotely, of the character of a personal memorial, as is well attested by the fact that Alexander Severus, according to his biographer (26, 11), kept the name of Trajan upon the bridges which that emperor had built, even when a thorough reconstruction was necessary. The inscriptions furnish no example of this type ; but in restoring the aqueduct at Dyrrachium, Alexander perpetuated the fame of Hadrian, the builder - a fact which may serve as a partial indication of his attitude. One is led to consider whether the biographer may not have bounded the loyalty of Alexander to his predecessors within too narrow confines, although understatement is, to be sure, a temptation to which the Scriptores succumb but seldom in treating topics of this nature.2 In a similar fashion the emperors 3 who restored the aqueducts of the City often appended their names to the builder's inscription. Sometimes with a gratuitous conscientiousness the restorer inserted in his new titulus reference to the predecessor whose work was amply commemorated by the retention of the first inscription.

This form of inscription is typical of the restorations carried out in Rome by Septimius Severus and the members of his house. Compare C.I.L. VI 883, 896, 935, 938, 997. To illustrate still further the currency of the method it will be sufficient to add in outline the following examples : VI 1275, M. CALPURNIUS FACIUNDUM CURAVIT .. TRAIANUS RESTITUIT; XI 2999, CLAUDIUS FECIT. VESPASIANUS RESTITUIT; X 3832, COLONIA ... FECIT. HADRIANUS RESTITUIT ET COLUMNAS ADIECIT ANTONINUS DEDICAVIT.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

1 III 709.

2 Cf. Imperial Methods of Inscription, etc., AJA, vol. IX (1905), p. 445.

8 VI 1244-1246, Augustus, Caracalla, Titus; VI 1256–1258, Claudius, Ves. pasian, Titus.

Thus, by establishing the prevalence of this mode of procedure, the inscriptions themselves go far to justify its propriety. Corroborative testimony is afforded by the literature. According to Dio Cassius, 60, 6, 8–9, Claudius placed on the new scene of the Stone Theatre an inscription which, mutatis mutandis, is reproduced in the last example quoted above. First came the name of the builder – απέδωκε δε και το Πομπηίω την του θεάτρου μνήμην; there followed the name of Tiberius, who had undertaken to restore the stage after its destruction in his reign. Lastly, Claudius, the dedicator, added an inscription of his own. In so doing Claudius disregarded a precedent which had been set by the Princeps and duly followed by Tiberius. Augustus himself tells us that he restored the building sine ulla inscriptione nominis mei. (Mon. Anc. 4, 10.) To this significant phrase I shall presently revert. Tiberius gave public notice of his purpose to preserve the name of the founder of the theatre. Tac. Ann. 3, 72, at Pompei theatrum igne fortuito haustum Caesar exstructurum pollicitus est ... manente tamen nomine Pompei. There is no doubt that the emperor had in view the retention of Pompey's name alone. We know that the words manentibus titulis used by Suetonius, Aug. 31, imply sine inscriptione nominis restitutoris. According to Dio Cassius, 57, 10, 2, the predominant policy of Tiberius was modelled on that of Augustus. In a passage in Velleius, 2, 130, Tiberius is said to have restored the theatre magnifico animi temperamento. These words of the eulogist refer, I believe, directly to the contemplated procedure of Tiberius, and point also to the conclusion that he acted with the most generous restraint.

Yet, in spite of the fact that Claudius departed from the policy of the first two emperors, we have no reason to suppose that his act betrayed the slightest eccentricity or that he was in any way poaching on Pompey's preserves. Indeed, the tone of Dio's narrative is distinctly laudatory. Claudius

1 I use the word "predominant” advisedly. One must always reckon with the possibility that such references to the policy of the emperors as I have collected in this paper are based upon conspicuous instances only and are not as universally applicable as the words of the historian indicate. Cf. my examination of Vit. Haar. chap. 19 in Imperial Methods of Inscription, p. 441 ff.

gave back the statues of which Caligula had despoiled the cities, restored the Temple of Castor and Pollux to its original form, replaced the name of Pompey on the stage-building of the Stone Theatre, and added his own name “not because he had built the scene, but because he had dedicated it." He was careful to confine his inscription to the only part of the theatre in which he could justly claim an interest

– άλλω δε ουδενί ένεκόλαψεν. The chapter ends in a similar vein with a reference to the modest deportment of the emperor at the dedicatory celebration.

A more explicit recognition of the right of a restorer to affix his inscription to a building in conjunction with the titulus of the founder is furnished by Suetonius, certainly no mean authority on antiquarian matters. In speaking of the buildings which Domitian restored after the fire of Titus, the biographer says : Plurima et amplissima opera incendio absumpta restituit in quis et Capitolium quod rursus arserat; sed omnia sub titulo tantum suo ac sine ulla pristini auctoris memoria (Domit. 5.)2 The animus underlying this comment is unmistakable. Domitian is criticised not because he did not renounce entirely the right of inscription. Suetonius singles out for particular notice the fact that Domitian inscribed his own name only. We must, therefore, surmise that if Domitian had prefixed to his own inscriptions those of the original builders, he would not have overstepped the bounds of a proper policy according to contemporary opinion.

1I follow without hesitation Reiske's reading ουχ ότι κατεσκεύασεν αλλ' ότι καθιέρωσεν. . Boissevain approves this version, although he did not receive it into his text. The vulgate kai ka0lépwrev does violence to all available data. KaTao Kevá felv is Dio's regular word for a solo reficere. There is no ground for assuming a second conflagration in the few years subsequent to the completion of the building by Caligula (Suet. Cal. 21.). Had Dio supposed that Claudius built the stage anew, he must have accounted for the necessity of the act just as he does in referring to the restoration by Tiberius. Possibly oủx őti kai kateo KEVAO EV was the original order — to hazard a conjecture of my own. The transposition was brought about by confusion with the common non modo sed etiam combination.

2 For the bearing which this apparently neglected passage has upon the controversy concerning the date of the inscription of Agrippa on the Pantheon, cf. AJA, IX (1905), p. 449.

By means of this survey of the data I have sought to establish the fact that the method which I have classified as "second" was not employed sporadically in inscribing restored buildings, but was in vogue at all times and on all sorts of structures. To be sure, the inscriptions show no token of its use by the emperors on consecrated edifices until a relatively late period. Yet Augustus by his choice of words in the Monumentum Ancyranum showed plainly that he was conscious of the possibility of appending a notice of his repairs to the inscription of Catulus on the Capitol. I have previously quoted the phrase sine ulla inscriptione nominis, in which the Princeps alluded to his rejection of the right of inscription. If it had been merely a question of keeping the name of the founder instead of substituting his own, some expression like manentibus titulis eorum qui opera fecerant would have been the natural formula to use. Furthermore, the Stone Theatre, by a clever fiction, was dedicated by Pompey as a temple of Venus Victrix, and therefore stood in close relation to the cult and to the natal-day celebration on August 12. Aulus Gellius, 10, 1, 7-9, indicates that the dedicatory inscription on the stage building served for the entire structure. Technically, therefore, the inscriptions placed by Claudius on the scene were located on a consecrated building. Lastly, Suetonius, in the passage just cited, recognizes no restrictions in the application of the method.

If an emperor desired to perpetuate the memory of a former builder, he had, it would seem, at his disposal two modes of procedure, each sanctioned by usage. The bearing of this conclusion upon the question at issue is, I hope, patent. The theory that the emperors looked first to the preservation of the exclusive sanctity of the dies natalis fails to explain a really significant fact of policy, the feature of imperial conduct upon which the historians lay particular stress; namely, why the emperors chose oftentimes to refrain from subjoining to the original inscription a second, thereby rejecting an indubitable prerogative. For, in a choice between the first two methods, considerations attendant on the

1 Tertull. de Spect. 10 ; C.I.L. 12, p. 324.

« PreviousContinue »