« PreviousContinue »
dies natalis were equally negligible. If the restorer had elected to add an inscription of his own to the founder's titulus, alteration in the Fasti would no more have been an inevitable concomitant than if he had passed his work in silence. In neither case was the original dedication obscured. Whenever the Fasti register a shifting of the dies natalis or the addition of a subsidiary festival in consequence of the restoration of a temple, it is possible in nearly every case to show that the shrine in question passed through a reconstruction a solo. In this event a new dedication was, of course, the rule and the inscription of the founder was never retained. The views of scholars differ as to the significance of the festivals referred to the Temple of the Dioscuri ? and the Temple of Minerva on the Aventine. One of the two celebrations in honor of Quirinus undoubtedly commemorates a restoration. The only question is, which is the date of foundation, February 17 or June 29?4 The Forum Temple of Concord, the Shrine of Janus near the Theatre of Marcellus, the Temple of the Lares on the Sacred Way, also acquired new dates of celebration. In all these cases, irrespective of any perplexities attached to them, we can prove that a rebuilding occurred together with a new dedication and a new inscription. Thus, the temples of Quirinus, of Minerva, and of the Lares are classified in the Monumentum Ancyranum 5 as new buildings. I have shown that Augustus kept the name of the founder on none of these. The temples of the Dioscuri, of Concord, and of Janus 7 were restored and dedicated by Tiberius. Dio Cassius expressly informs us that the edifices first named were dedicated under entirely new
Except in cases of abnormal behavior such as that of Hadrian; cf. AJA, vol. IX (1905), p. 448.
2 Cf. Aust, op. cit. p. 43 ; Wissowa, Religion und K’ullus, p. 217; Mommsen, C.I.L. I 2, p. 308 ; Richter, Top. p. 86.
8 Cf. Aust, op. cit. p. 42; Wissowa, op. cit. p. 203 ; Mommsen, op. cit. p. 312; Richter, op. cit. p. 208.
4 Aust, op. cit. p. 41 ; Wissowa, op. cit. p. 140; Mommsen, op. cit. p. 310; Richter, op. cit. p. 286. 54, 1-8.
Op. cit. p. 431. 7 This building was begun by Augustus and finished by his successor ; cf. Tac. Ann. 2, 49.
inscriptions; cf. Hist. Rom. 55, 27, 4; 56, 25, I. On the Temple of Janus Tiberius probably wrote the name of Augustus in consonance with his usual policy; cf. Dio Cassius, 57, ΙΟ, Ι.
At any rate the name of C. Duilius, the founder, was not repeated. I need not linger over certain doubtful cases cited by Aust, such as the Temple of Flora and the Temple of Consus, where the literature and the Fasti do not meet on common ground. Certainly available data allow us to lay down the law that a change in the dies natalis was accompanied by reconstruction of the building and obliteration of the name of the founder.
It is possible to go a step farther in criticising Marquardt's suggestion. As a matter of fact the status of the dies natalis need not have been conditioned on the preservation of the inscription of the dedicator. There was another means by which the stability of the festival could be secured even if the restorer desired to stand as sole sponsor for the temple. The ceremonies attendant on the new dedication had only to be celebrated on the annual festival. Thus the date of the new foundation would coincide with the old, no matter whose name was to be read on the architrave. This device was actually resorted to. Yet the procedure of the emperors is scarcely so rigid as to indicate that they were affected by overweening concern to avoid tampering with the Fasti. their attitude had been quite uncompromising, the arrangement desired could have been secured always by a postponement of the new dedication or by rushing the work on the building. It was simply a matter of adjustment. But the Fasti themselves, as we have just seen, prove that the imperial restorer frequently did not deem the game worth the candle.
In view of these facts it seems hardly credible that the emperors took serious cognizance of the dies natalis when they chose the method of inscription to pursue on a restored temple. Marquardt's interpretation of the motives of Augustus solely in terms of the dies natalis is inadequate, even if it is not to be dismissed entirely. As an element in forming the decision of the restorer its influence may be disregarded in comparison with another factor which Marquardt's explanation ignores. The prime consideration by which the emperors regulated their conduct in inscribing sacred edifices as well as secular, was what may be termed conveniently the commemorative impulse. The name of the original builder was identified in a memorial sense with his structure, which was thereby endowed with a monumental character. A decent homage to the rights of the founder thus appeared to be an act of homage, a pious obligation. The tribunal of public opinion to which even an emperor was amenable, took this point of view for granted in handing down its verdicts. Thus Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius went down to posterity as restorers who had displayed loyalty to the memory of the founder. Zonaras, II, 17 (Dindorf, vol. III, p. 53), attributes to Vespasian a like policy. Hadrian's biographer tells the same story of him. Even if the traditional estimate of his method must be modified, as I have shown elsewhere is probably the case, he, like the others mentioned, wished to show honor to the great men of former times.
1 Wissowa, op. cit., p. 406.
We have seen in the case of Domitian that an emperor who transgressed the rules of chivalrous behavior did so in the face of public opinion and courted criticism. A passage in Ammianus Marcellinus, 27, 3, 7, depicts the popular view of an emperor who treated lightly the obligations resting upon a restorer. The historian is speaking of Lampadius, a certain prefect, who made the restoration of a building a pretext for placing his own inscription alone on the architrave and thus masquerading as the founder. The same shortcoming is ascribed to Trajan in the following words: quo vitio laborasse Traianus dicitur princeps, unde eum herbam parietinam iocando cognominarunt. The word vitium is considered none too strong to characterize the conduct of
Probably to be taken cum grano salis and not to be accepted as universally true. 2
Space does not permit me to discuss here the correctness of this description of Trajan's policy. There is reason to believe that the criticism is uncalled for. It is merely as an index to the feeling which instigated the criticism that I wish to utilize the passage.
Trajan. In this connection it is not amiss to recall the fact that by the Code of Theodosius a prefect who omitted the inscription of an emperor on a restored building was liable to prosecution. Thus what was a fault when the offender was an emperor became lèse majesté in the case of a presumptuous official. The will of the emperor was supreme and could be controlled neither by legal bar nor constitutional hindrance. Nevertheless, his course could not escape judgment in terms of the unwritten code based upon the universal recognition of the priority of claim which founders had established to their monuments. Consciousness of this fact may well have affected the policies of those emperors who held sincerely the belief with which Velleius credits Tiberius: quidquid enim umquam claritudine eminuit, id veluti cognatum censet tuendum.
The motives which controlled the practice of the emperors were, therefore, human and are intelligible in themselves. Those who followed the first method by preference chose it deliberately because it represented the ultragenerous policy. Although, as we have seen, the second method was approved in practice, it nevertheless fell short in popular estimate of the ideal procedure which involved self-effacement on the part of the restorer in favor of the founder. The emperors whose adherence to this latter policy was marked and constant, received favorable comment from the historians, as our citations have shown. There is a passage in the Life of Septimius Severus, chapter 23, which well illustrates the ordinary view of the two methods of inscription, although as a description of the emperor's policy it does not square with extant inscriptions? and doubtless harks back to a partisan source: magnum vero illud in vita eius quod Romae omnes aedes publicas quae vitio temporum labebantur instauravit, nusquam prope suo nomine adscripto, servatis tamen ubique
1 Liebenam, Städteverwaltung im römischen Kaiserreiche, p. 164.
2 As I have remarked previously (p. 55), the inscriptions from the City show that Severus and the members of his family usually added their names to the founder's inscription. The biographer would have us believe that this was the exception, not the rule.
titulis conditorum. The biographer's eulogy hinges on the fact that it was the well-nigh invariable habit of Severus to let his restorations go unrecorded. This was the height of magnanimity. The occasions on which the emperor did attach his name to the buildings of the City were lapses from a perfection of behavior which were rendered excusable only by the care which he took to preserve everywhere the name of the founder.